Hi. What part of the country? I think you're on the right track. Native understory shrubs are just what a forest wants. In my area, that means Holly bushes, ferns, Mulberry trees, Dogwood trees, etc. They love shade. And the best weed suppressor of all is a thick carpet of fallen leaves that stays on the forest floor all year long. It may look untidy to some, but it is the lifeblood of a healthy forest, decomposing into soil, hosting seeds that sprout the next generation, cooling the ground, trapping moisture, reducing erosion, harboring beneficial insects and other wildlife, etc. When in doubt, study nearby wild forests and see what goes on there. Check out the local nature preserve, naturally-wooded park, etc.

Thanks for tips. I live in the South East of England in Hampshire.

Sadly the forest has gone and I'm just left with numerous stumps which make it awkward for motorised equipment but don't produce many leaves!

I'm ideally looking for ground cover that can compete with the weeds as well as make the area more attractive. I understand I can't change nature but just want to nudge it in the right direction.

Someone mentioned heather as an option but this is fairly slow growing I believe?

Can you upload a picture? Are we talking about shade trees remaining? Or no trees at all?

Not a huge amount of trees left...was a pine forest 10 years ago. So loads of stumps.

Some pics below. Aim is to "manage" and enhance a nice woodland area and build a natural path through.

This is exciting! You have a Pine forest in the early stages of "secondary succession" or recovery. There's a whole industry of sorts for reforestation efforts. You're definitely on the right track by removing invasive species. Left on its own, it might take 20 or 30 years to recover a thick layer of trees and shrubs that will shade the ground and any people walking through it. But you can speed that up by suppressing grasses, wildflowers, and herbs in favor of trees and shrubs. Typically you will get help from what are called "pioneer species" or those faster-growing, quicker-spreading trees that tend to initially settle in a barren area.

Here in my area, Winged Elm trees (Ulmus alata) and their cousins the Hackberry trees (Celtis laevigata) are examples. They don't live as long as the slow-growing Oaks that dominate the canopy of our older forests, but these pioneers can grow at 3' or more per year. In just a handful of years, I have some as tall as my house. They have helped turn what was a mostly barren area into a patch of lush woods. Eventually, the Oaks will catch up and overtake them, perhaps decades from now.

Another fast-growing species in my area is the Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda). It has been planted by loggers for hundreds of years and is still the #1 timber tree in my region partly because it is so fast-growing. In many of the wooded areas in now what is suburbia and nature preserves, these Pines make up half the tall trees.

We also seem to have Boxelder trees (Acer negundo) sprouting everywhere.

I've also seen very fast growth rates from Mulberry trees (Morus rubra), which tolerate shade, grow well underneath taller Oaks and Pines, and provide delicious berries.

Some of these species I have planted as seedlings (1' to 2' tall at most). I ordered seedlings shipped in the mail from commercial nurseries. The cost is very cheap, often $1 per seedling, when purchased in batches of 10s, 20s, or even 50s for a large lot like yours. I make sure to plant at the best time of year (which in my area is October or November). It makes a couple long afternoons planting all those little seedlings in random locations. And not all survive. But it's essentially the way most large-scale reforestation efforts are done. It's the fastest and most cost-effective way to reforest. To plant large container specimens would be too slow and expensive.

But most of my trees sprout up naturally as "volunteers" from seeds of nearby mature trees, scattered by wind, gravity, rain water, and wildlife. In a good year, I get way more of these than I could ever have room for. So I pluck out the ones I don't want and keep the ones I do. I try to aim for variety and spacing. I often just watch and see what grows best. When one seems to grow well, I tend to clear any competitors from around it to help it along.

I hope this long ramble helps give you an idea of do-it-yourself reforestation on the cheap. I've read some good books and articles from forestry experts in how to achieve the fastest rates of reforestation, and these have given me good ideas. To me, there is no greater feeling than to walk through a patch of lush woods that stands on what was barren ground only a handful of years before, knowing that I helped pay a small part in letting nature thrive.

Firstly - lucky you!

Do you want this to be a garden or part of the Forest? With all that space, your other commitments and you being a novice having a piece of Forest would seem most practical. (I grew up on the edge of the New Forest so I know what you are talking about.)

Another question is are you sure you have baby Beeches? I can only see Birch saplings in the photos and they are a really good, native pioneer species in rejuvenating woodland. So I'd leave clumps of those. If you really do have Beeches I'd leave some of them too. When you walk or drive through the Forest you will have noticed that under beech trees there is little vegetation and a beautiful carpet of leaves. I would also make sure you recognise tree species as saplings. You will almost certainly get oaks, hollies and some sorts of conifers coming up and you can protect them and allow them to make the foundations of your woodland. ( Are you sure it was a Pine plantation? It seems more likely to have been Sitka Spruce or Douglas Fir. That's what the Forestry Commission was planting in the past). Do you have a heavy duty strimmer or brush cutter? Unwanted tree seedlings will die if strimmed.

The other thing you are lucky to have is an acid soil. Have you been to look at Exbury to see how the Rhododendrons are used? You can also have Camellias and all those other wonderful acid lovers that I can't grow up here on my limestone. And obviously in the Forest you can grow Heathers. If you plant new trees you'll need to protect them from deer and, unless you have good fences, gates and cattle grids, from the ponies. Grey squirrels can also be a menace and will gnaw the growing point out of young trees.

I think I see quite a lot of Rhododenron ponticum there and they should be a priority for eradication. Far worse than your brambles, nettles and bracken, despite being pretty, because they are invasive aliens and are of zero value to native wildlife. If you look around I wouldn't be surprised if you have Cherry Laurel coming up too. That's another one which needs jumping on fast.

Finally, I'd really recommend researching on the Forestry Commission website. They have a huge amount of information on woodland management including help with this....... Dealing with Rhododendron ponticum

Flora, you and I think alike. :-)
Mike

Since I have a very large area and limited time, I just let the natives grow. Prefer to keep layers, low grass or (weed) grass, some shrubs (as long as they not aggressive), small and large trees. Personally I do not want to introduce the outside ornamental plants into my landscape. They belong to my lawn area as specimen plants, but not in my wood area.

Natural look and low maintenance are the priorities.

Just for information, if anyone isn't familiar with where the OP lives it's here: The New Forest Owning several acres in the Forest is not only a privilege, it is a responsibility, not to mention grounds for extreme jealousy ;-)

It is always amazed me that some folks spent that much time and $ to transform the woodland to an extended backyard. Those yards look beautiful.

I'm just busy and cheap. I can just save some wild flower seeds, like Black-eyed Susan, Bidens aristosa and other seeds from my own yard and spread them at the edge of the woods.

I have a 3 acre yard with 2 sides wooded, one side wild grass (trees are coming in). I'm able to take out and control most of the invasive plants, like multiflora rose, honeysuckle, poison ivy. It took me several years of casual attention. I did not plant anything other than wild flowers. Falling leaves help. I let the weeds grow as long as they are grassy, not woody. So I have plenty milkweed, golden rod, etc. They are just part of the woodland.

RedSun, to be clear, I agree with the main points of your post; Just want to say though that as a native plant, poison ivy should not be labeled invasive, at least in my scheme of things. It's actually a native species and does good service to wildlife. Not saying don't kill it. Just realize, you're doing so for your own needs, not those of the landscape itself.

+oM

If you research it, poison ivy is considered invasive by most folks, by runner and seeds(?). It does more bad things than any benefits. The main problem with my land is that, the heavy vines put on weight on trees.

Again, that is a misappropriation of the term invasive. I don't have the time or inclination to argue with you, but simply put, you've got it wrong. Invasive is not a reference to this or that plant's growth habit. It's about a plant which is from somewhere else in the world, existing in a new home where all control factors from its original location are nonexistent, and a key ingredient is that it have the ability to displace not just native plant species, but whole plant communities. It's okay with me if you don't get it, but that's what invasive means in this context. Poison ivy-a native plant species here in eastern N. America-cannot, by definition, be considered invasive.

+oM

I never invited you to come to argue. If that is what you think, then you think your own way. I just state what most think...

I think it is you who do not get it. If you like your yard full of poison ivy, then fine to keep them...

Usually the term is exotic invasive. All plants are invasive to some degree, otherwise, they couldn't survive the battle of survival of their kind.
+om's definition is that of an exotic invasive. Redsun's is using the term that a plant is hard to get rid of for the environment that he or she wishes.
Mike

Everything is relative. The same plant can be weed in one place to one person, but very valuable to the other person in another place. So no need to waste time with all the jargon....

I hope the OP comes back and keeps us updated on his progress :)

Here are the 3 terms that we're probably looking for:

1. Aggressive - spreads rapidly, competes vigorously
2. Alien - not native/indigenous to a geographical location
3. Invasive - both aggressive and alien

And just for fun, let's add:

1. Endemic - native only to a geographical location

Whose definition is it? Yours?

Since when is definitions, 'jargon'.
I guess when definitions are not understood.
Mike

Who made any definition? They are all men made....

Evidently, any one word can have any meaning, different definitions for different people! Who knew? Kinda makes me wonder how we're able to communicate at all.

+oM

I did not choose to communicate with you. But you came to me. Very funny.

Hmmm? I thought I was just participating in an online forum. Who knew we were so deeply connec/ted?

+oM

Sorry, not connected with someone behaves like an idxxx.... lol

passive aggressive use of lol's - a definition of an idiot.

Perhaps true to character for some, poison ivy has taken over this thread. My search for "understory shrubs to shade out weeds" led me here. I am in North Florida, and I like to have safe access to my mature loblolly grove to clear out by hand or weed wrench the returning coral ardesia, nandina, air potato, and broad leaf privet. (In my experience "done once and for all" and "gardening" are mutually exclusive.) But the poison ivy also overgrown there is an obstacle course. Would introducing lots of some native shade loving plants out compete the above listed exotic invasives, so I could let the poison ivy alone? Or would the PI eventually fill up the chain link fence and smother the old camelias there? We are talking fairly deep shade on the ground but dappled sun on the camelia branches. What natives if any?

Woodland gardens are way way way too much work. They are a stupid waste of time. I think all of you are crazy.