UKC

Something that we all probably know, but don't like to think too much about. Now subject of a systematic study which puts figures on the impact we all have, but especially route developers. Not sure how their suggested solutions would work in the UK, apart from some specific crags with protected status and / or private management. So it's more that developers should hold these considerations in mind when deciding whether, where and how to clean routes. 

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.14785

Thanks for the link, yet to read more than the abstract but many papers on the effects of climbing on cliff vegetation have been published by various authors, not sure of the earliest but must be some decades ago & I think a former colleague made some comments in his PhD thesis on the vegetation of cliffs in North Wales in the early 60s .  So even if this study has some new aspects, the damaging impact of climbing (including cleaning) is well known. Although in the UK the impact is intertwinned with cleaner air (so potentially more lichen growth) & some crags possibly getting less traffic than before

It should be noted that there are many cliffs where the lack of climbers gardening - due to a ban, temporary or otherwise - has led to major rockfalls which have caused far more trouble and indeed danger to non-climbers going about their business. Cheddar Gorge comes to mind.

When gardening doesn't take place then certain scarcely endangered species can run riot, and their roots cause major displacements of rock - i.e. ivy.

It's nature. Is run riot the same as run wild? 

Depends on your point of view. 

Having spent not none of my time dealing with Himalayan balsam at crags I think it's fair to say there are two sides to this story.

You seem to be making a slightly odd argument, that we should be cleaning cliffs to make them more stable not because this makes them more enjoyable to climb, but as a matter of public responsibility.

Is the slow work of ivy roots any worse than nuts being yanked in and out of cracks, the expansive forces of a fallen-on cam, the weight of someone laybacking a flake, etc? I think you'd struggle to prove this either way. Major rockfalls happen all the time, with or without climbers having footled nearby.

I think that developers should also be realistic in making a cost-benefit analysis of routes that require extensive cleaning. If it's naturally highly vegetated, it's going to get that way again in a few years, unless it is sufficiently popular. In other words, if it's highly vegetated, obscure and a bit crap, maybe it should just be left alone.

I was bouldering in some local woods last week, seeking out some more obscure problems, all of which were established within the last 10 years - and already they are partly or completely reclaimed by moss. They also didn't look to me remotely worth removing the moss for.

I've probably been guilty of this myself, assuming that what I'm removing is common and besides that I'm only removing it within a tiny area, but really I don't know this, and I doubt many climbers are botanically aware enough to identify everything they're scraping out of a crack.

I've got half an acre of the stuff which I'm struggling to get rid of but I often wonder if my desire to eradicate it is more to do with its reputation as an invasive species and its liability to spread onto my neighbour's property than a response based on any actual damaging effect it might have. As you will know, it uproots very very  easily and  and I wonder how much force it could possibly exert on a rock face if it managed to root itself into a crack. I find it a bit ironic that one of the negative points about the plant is that it provides such a great amount of much needed nectar for our bee population that they tend to ignore some of our native plants when faced with such an easily accessible and plentiful source of food. So the two sides to this story seem to be that Himalayan balsam is great news for bees, less so for other flowering native plants.

Do we know how much rock we have cleaned as a percentage of the area of rock available? When I look at places like Glen Ogle and The Bunker I can’t help but feel that the bits of rock suitable for climbing are only a tiny fraction of what’s actually there suggesting our impact is minimal (over and above all the other stuff humans have done to the landscape).

I'm not making any such argument. I'm simply pointing out that unchecked vegetation can, in some circumstances, be more dangerous to "Joe Public" than maintaining the status quo. The company that owns one side of Cheddar Gorge has had to send in (and pay) rope access people to remove vegetation at the "unclimbed" areas because of the danger that these roots can cause.

The world is not black and white, and one answer is not necessarily correct universally.

The study cited by Dr. Toph only looks at the impact of climbing on a cliff that is climbed on. It doesn't address the question of whether climbing development has a significant impact on the *overall* abundance of vascular plants. Like you, I suspect that the crags suitable for climbing are only a tiny fraction of the crags that provide habitat for rare species.   

Maybe I've missed the point of the whole study.

Q. Does pulling out plants or removing soil reduce the number of plants and diversity in a relatively small area?

A. Yes

Next. 

Q. Has climbing across the uk had any measurable impact on plant species across the uk as a whole, or more intense regions such as Llanberis Pass, Wye Valley?

A. No idea.

The point is that climbable rock is a specific habitat - different vegetation will grow on it compared to the more broken, chossy stuff surrounding it. It's not actually a tiny fraction of what's there, in a fully-developed crag / region all that habitat will have been affected.

I certainly agree with the answer to your question! 

However, in the Q&A form you use, the question asked by the paper is:

Q:  Which affects plants more - developing routes or climbing them? 

A: For vascular plants - route development; for lichens - subsequent ascents (on two crags, over the first 30 ascents of 7 routes).

The paper doesn't address whether the effects of climbing matter in the wider context, but goes on to propose controls anyway.

Cheers

Al

Climbing maintains the initial species loss, depending on traffic? (See the Nab Scar thread)

But then you'll get into a whole world of types of rock, different species and even styles of route. A bolted slab would have all the cracks left alone to grow plants unless they were foot holds, or air plants on cornish granite which are easily brushed off just by climbing past etc.. it's such a wide range, it's easier to generalise and say climbing traffic reduces vegetation. It's not new, several studies on mixed climbing in Scotland have discovered the same nearly 20 year ago. But fair play if you want a masters or phd which gives you an excuse to climb! Arguably the ground damage at many popular places is worse. 

There are no rules as such for development, but arguably manky lines should be just left to be, rather than cleaned purely for the sake of getting your name in the guidebook. 

I thought that was the aim/ purpose of all FAs, whether the line is manky or not.

I have climbed quite a few clean lines not in guidebooks, but on crags busy enough that i can't possibly be the first. So I've not claimed them and hopefully just leave it for others to do the same, discover a line, climb it not really knowing the grade or exact line. Isn't that what it's all really about? 

That could be the title of the longest thread ever

The sea cliffs up here in North Yorks, don't have any ivy.  And rock falls are pretty common.  (and not caused by seawater erosion).

Perhaps understandably, the authors seem to be taking the position that any damage to habitat is unacceptable and any activity which might cause this must be banned. Of course biodiversity is important, but it is not the only consideration. It does not take into account the benefit to humans from climbing, including the economic benefits it brings to climbing areas.

Their position is just as extreme, and should be just as unacceptable, as climbers claiming a right to climb wherever we wish regardless of any damage we may cause. As with everything, there should be a balance. Certainly there are sensitive areas where a seasonal or even total ban on climbing might be appropriate to protect rare plants, and climbers should respect and support that, but in most cases the impact of climbing is probably very localised and does not materially affect biodiversity in the wider area.

In the big scheme of things it is just about the value we place on things, species, climbing, exercise etc.. it's irrelevant if any species dies out or continues on earth. We should arguably try to protect diversity, reduce global warming etc for the benefit of future generations, but it doesn't really matter either way overall. There are enough routes in the uk, you could stop climbing on anything remotely chossy and leave them to nature, the impact on the climbing scene would be negligible. 

Lots of issues and a useful reference list worth delving into, one of which recommends that climbers be ‘directly involved’ in the assessment, monitoring and management of cliff resources in order to ensure that the full range of biophysical conditions of cliff ecosystems are considered. Generally speaking the ecological impact on the rock surface will depend surely on a number of factors: ease of access, steepness, grade, approach time and potential/actual popularity of the route and so on whuch climbers should not ignore. 

Whilst the study is fairly conclusive that vegetation, lichen and other organisms are significantly reduced - something which we should all be concerned about - it was not clear if the study concluded that cleaning the route was the primary factor behind the ‘opening’ route ‘phase’ that caused the most damage, which I suspect. The methodology does not report as to how the climbers were recruited and how the ascents were recorded over time? I was also curious to know if the climber participants were asked to climb the routes for the study in order to reach the 30 ascent target and if not, might there has been less ecological impact on the less appealing routes attracting fewer repeats? I also note that the distinction between Sport Climbing and ‘Trad’ climbing made in figure 4. is not supported with any evidence one way or another and warrants further discussion.

In regard to the UK context, gone are the days where whole cliffs were stripped of vegetation and lichen (e.g. Borrowdale, Lundy, Wye Valley) where many of these climbs have over the last 10-30 years returned their original ‘biotope’ (is that the right term?) - accelerated by climate change - making many of these climbs redundant. The trend has transferred largely to bouldering development and to a lesser extent sport and slate venues. Perhaps the answer is to encourage first ascentionists to include a biotope or biodiversity impact score alongside their proposed grade about which might generate an equal amount of ethical debate that can only be a good thing?

I was at a cliff in the Frankenjura when it received it's annual inspection by the nature conservancy guys checking out the vegetation (they decide where the no-climb zones are on a yearly basis). Great excitement when they detected a rare plant not normally growing on the limestone we have here, the pragmatic leader of the troop somewhat dashed their hopes by pointing out the miserable thing only survived because some climber had spilled their chalk bag against the cliff when they sat down to eat their lunch.

As a photographer, I've looked at the damage that 'popular' photography spots have caused. One particular place in front of the Buachaille is an absolute quagmire now because of photographers. When I proposed a board walk to prevent this damage, National Trust and Black Corries representatives basically said that the damage is minimal compared to the damage mountain biking, kayaking, walkers, etc. do. 

The general conclusion was that to make any significant impact, banning humans would be the choice. 

I'm of the opinion that there are probably small, unique habitats (that single south-facing crag made of limestone that doesn't occur anywhere nearby and hosts a unique plant) that it makes sense to preserve, but those situations are fairly rare. I do like the idea of a biodiversity study on very popular places with a lot of footfall in unique situations (i.e. like the Ben Nevis North Face study).