Of course much of the evidence that might be used to justify extensions as increasing the variety of parkland is ambiguous.

One soured by life might observe that the rich owners of great places in the 18th century believed that extent was a good thing in itself and so extended their parkland until they reached an immoveable object, such as a town (Woodstock or Knutsford), a common or a forest. Yet I would prefer to propose that the parks at Blenheim and Tatton were extended to Woodstock and Knutsford respectively to bring the genial influence of their roofs, spires, and smoke, into play, while Dunstall and Defford Commons were deployed as contrast with the parkland at Croome; and that Brown was ever a friend to the fecund forest and if he could would have it in the purlieus of his parkland.

My argument may not be true but it gives a more lively, more vivid, explanation of the boundaries, size and purpose of parkland in the days of Capability Brown, and indeed of his proposed castellation of the park walls around Woodstock, but I would agree that wherever the intervening ground between two components of landscape is too small or awkward to manage as a distinct unit, the parkland will tend to absorb it.