At face value that source send to suggest that it's a great result, but I'm struggling to get my head around the statistics in the table - the early ones seem r

At face value that source send to suggest that it's a great result, but I'm struggling to get my head around the statistics in the table - the early ones seem really low. The biggest driver of loss of woodland, I assume, has been the same as in the Amazon today - farming and logging. Wikipedia tells me estimates put the 14th century population of England at somewhere between 3.7 and 7 million. The table suggests a downward trend of woodland over time, which I assume would be driven by industry and therefore related to population. Today, urban and industrial land use must be massively higher than it was then, meaning that in relative trends the loss of woodland was even more profound. How could people in medieval times have required the same footprint of de-wooded land as a population 14 times larger today (even accounting for more efficient farms, move to fossil fuels and nuclear, etc)? What would the natural woodland cover be with no human inhabitants - surely at least 50%?