Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download WGCP PIF Plan (2003 Revised Draft)
Document related concepts
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Operation Wallacea wikipedia , lookup
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Habitat destruction wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Partners In Flight West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region Bird Conservation Plan (Draft) May 1, 2003 I. Introduction and Methodology Introduction The West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region (WGCP) covers about 15 million ha (37 million acres) of northwest Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, easternmost Texas, and the southeast corner of Oklahoma (Fig 1). Pines dominate this area, largely shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) in the north, including the Ouachita Mountains, and longleaf pine (P. palustris) in the south. Bottomland hardwood forest occurs along the Arkansas, Ouachita, Sabine, Neches, and Red Rivers as well as in other river flood plains. Partners In Flight (PIF) previously prepared Bird Conservation Plans based on physiographic areas (Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000, Taulman et al. 1999). Two of the PIF physiographic areas were partially combined to form the WGCP Bird Conservation Region. PIF’s Ozark/Ouachita (Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000) and West Gulf Coastal Plain (Taulman et al. 1999) physiographic area Bird Conservation Plans were used as starting points for this plan. Those physiographic area plans focused on land birds. This plan also focuses on land birds, but has been prepared in concert with planning for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds in the WGCP Bird Conservation Region. So this plan covers a different area than PIF’s physiographic area plans and is designed to compliment similar planning for the conservation of other birds. The WGCP in eastern Texas is under 300m (1,000 ft.) in elevation and encompasses the “piney woods”, historically a region dominated by pine, mixed pine/hardwood, and bottomland hardwood forests. Shortleaf , longleaf, and loblolly pine (P. taeda) are common along with oaks, hickories (Carya spp.), elm (Ulmus spp.), gum, and bald-cypress (Taxodium distichum). Softwood timber production is the major industry. Poultry is an important industry in Panola, Shelby, and adjoining counties. The main river drainage are the Sabine, Neches-Angelina, and Trinity. In Arkansas elevations are from 60 - 120m (200 - 400 ft). The Arkansas River valley occupies a transitional zone between the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains. While a large part of the valley is undulating lowlands, flat topped mountains and long, forested ridges are also present. The Ouachita Mountains are a ridge and valley system of east-west trending mountains to the south of the Arkansas River valley. Oak/pine forest historically dominated much of the Arkansas portion of the WGCP.. Vaccinium (Vaccinium spp.), honeysuckle (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are common in the mixed oak/pine understories. Much of the oak/pine forest has been cut and replanted in monoculture loblolly pine plantations. In pine forests, shortleaf is typical of drier areas and loblolly is found in wetter spots. Bottomland hardwood forests occurred along the Red, Little, Ouachita, and Little Missouri Rivers. Much of this forest has been converted to agricultural production. Poultry and timber are important industries. In the WGCP of Louisiana lowlands are only 15m (50 ft.) or less above sea level and the northwest uplands rise to 90m (300 ft.). Bottomland hardwood forests were historically located in the floodplains of the Red, Sabine, and Ouachita Rivers. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is currently the dominant in both the bottomland hardwood and in the oak/hickory forest remaining in the WGCP of Louisiana. Somebody please write a similar paragraph for Oklahoma The Ouachita Mountains extend into Oklahoma. Most of the oak/pine forest in southeast Oklahoma have been converted to short rotation pine plantations. The pine habitat in the WGCP has undergone dramatic changes, even though some type of pine still dominates most of the landscape. The area was originally longleaf in the southern portion, with some loblolly pine in drainages protected from fire. This graded into shortleaf with some intermixed hardwood to the north. All of this was fire maintained. Virtually all of it was cut in the early 1900's, which in itself would not have been a grave problem. However, fire suppression and either intentional or neglectful practices have resulted in replacement of the native species with loblolly or introduced slash pine (P. elliottii). More recently much of the area has been planted in short rotation plantations. This has been particularly harmful to the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), which requires old pine stands, but has also had a negative effect on other pine birds that thrive under pine savannah conditions. Young pine plantations typically do not support many birds. Maintenance and restoration of older, fire maintained pine stands must be a high priority for public and perhaps some private lands in much of the WGCP. Keeping as much of the region in forests as possible, even short rotation loblolly, is better for birds than conversion to pasture or other uses. The large amount of forest in this bird conservation region, especially in the Ouachita Mountains, may be above that required to maintain forest breeding bird populations. As such this region may be a source for birds to colonize other geographic areas where reproductive rates of forest birds are extremely low. Research in the midwest has shown that such “source-sink” dynamics result primarily from the effects of high levels of brood parasitism and nest predation in areas where forest fragments fall below a size of approximately 4,000 ha or where forest coverage across broad landscapes falls below 70 percent. Therefore maintaining the forest landscape needed to support source populations of forest birds should be a high priority for the WGCP. Bottomland hardwood forest has also been greatly reduced and fragmented. This is due not only to conversion to agriculture and other uses, but also because of flooding by numerous reservoirs, especially in east Texas. Bottomland hardwoods are not only important for many high priority, area sensitive breeding birds, but are also valuable to spring migrants. Radar images show huge numbers of migrants descending into bottomland hardwoods relatively close to the coast upon completing their Gulf of Mexico crossing. Maintenance of these forests may have conservation implications that extend well beyond the WGCP. Priority Species and Habitat Suites The highest priority land birds in the WGCP are Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Swainson’s Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), and Swallow-tailed Kite (Elanoides forficatus). Once priority species were identified for the WGCP as a whole, the landbird group then defined several habitat categories broad enough for planning purposes yet specific enough to be ecologically relevant to bird conservation (Table 1). Our planning efforts focused on these habitat categories. Understanding that conservation action would be directed at habitats, not individual species, we organized priority landbirds into species suites representative of each habitat and attempted to identify "umbrella" species that would guide our planning efforts for the whole suite. We assumed that conservation actions directed at the suite of priority species or even a single umbrella species representative of a given habitat, would promote conservation of the entire avifauna in that habitat. In each case this assumption was closely examined. We identified 14 habitat categories of relevance to landbirds: Agricultural – Cropland Agricultural – Pastureland Early Successional – Old Field Early Successional – Clear Cut Upland Hardwood/Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest Bottomland Hardwood Forest Pine Plantation Pine Savannah "Other" Pine Forest Not Plantation Riparian Tall Grasslands Urban Marshland Open Water We chose to pursue development of planning models for seven of these habitats based on the ecological requirements of priority species found in each. We investigated the use of the "umbrella" species concept for each of these where applicable. These seven habitats are: bottomland hardwood forest, pine savannah, "other" pine forest not plantation, upland hardwood/mixed pine-hardwood forest, riparian, early successional-old field, and tall grasslands. Best management practices were developed for five other habitat types: early successional-clear cut, agriculture-cropland, agriculture-pastureland, pine plantation, and urban. Although these habitats are important to several priority species, we do not want to promote expansion of these habitats by developing models and quantitative objectives for them. Rather, we hope to promote actions on these lands appropriate for and compatible with bird conservation. The remaining habitats, open water and marshland, provide important habitat for the fewest priority landbirds. It was assumed that appropriate models for these habitats would be developed by other technical groups focusing on waterfowl and waterbirds, thus the landbird group did not consider them. Our goal is to ensure that the waterfowl and waterbird technical groups give proper consideration to the priority landbird species that co-occupy these habitats when developing their models and objectives. Table 1 Priority Bird Species by Habitat Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Definition of habitat type - Areas dominated by woody broadleaf vegetation (including baldcypress) that is periodically or seasonally flooded (hydric to mesic). IA. Extremely High Overall Concern Swallow-tailed Kite Swainson’s Warbler IB. High Overall Concern American Woodcock Red-headed Woodpecker Eastern Wood-Pewee Acadian Flycatcher White-eyed Vireo Yellow-throated Vireo Wood Thrush Yellow-throated Warbler Cerulean Warbler (does not breed in the southern 2/3 of the BCR) Prothonotary Warbler Kentucky Warbler Hooded Warbler Orchard Oriole IIA. Regional Concern Yellow-billed Cuckoo Ruby-throated Hummingbird Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Pileated Woodpecker Carolina Chickadee Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Eastern Towhee (mostly winter; a few breeding records from western portion of BCR) Black-and-white Warbler Rusty Blackbird IIB. Regional Responsibility Yellow-breasted Chat Summer Tanager IIC. Regional Threats None IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species Bald Eagle IVA State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Red-shouldered Hawk Wild Turkey Pine Forest in two parts Secondary habitat species - White-eyed Vireo, Worm-eating Warbler, Swainson’s Warbler, Hooded Warbler, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Eastern Towhee, Eastern Meadowlark. 2 Pine Savannah Definition of habitat type - A forest that is greater than 80 percent pine and has a very low basal area. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern Red-cockaded Woodpecker - umbrella species1 IB. High Overall Concern American Kestrel (paulus) Red-headed Woodpecker Eastern Wood-Pewee Loggerhead Shrike Brown-headed Nuthatch - umbrella species Prairie Warbler Yellow-throated Warbler Bachman’s Sparrow Henslow’s Sparrow (mostly winter; may be sporadic breeding in Arkansas River valley) Le Conte’s Sparrow IIA. Regional Concern Northern Bobwhite Ruby-throated Hummingbird Eastern Kingbird Carolina Chickadee IIB. Regional Responsibility Pine Warbler - umbrella species Yellow-breasted Chat Summer Tanager IIC. Regional Threats Sedge Wren IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Wild Turkey “Other” Pine Forest Not Plantation Definition of Habitat Type - All forests that are greater that 80 percent pine and neither a savannah nor a plantation. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern Chuck-will’s-widow Brown-headed Nuthatch - umbrella species IIA. Regional Concern Pileated Woodpecker Carolina Chickadee IIB. Regional Responsibility Pine Warbler - umbrella species Yellow-breasted Chat Summer Tanager IIC. Regional Threats None IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Wild Turkey Upland Hardwood/Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest Definition of Habitat Type - All forest that is less than 80 percent pine and usually not flooded. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern American Woodcock Chuck-will’s-widow - umbrella species Red-headed Woodpecker Eastern Wood-Pewee Yellow-throated Vireo - umbrella species Brown-headed Nuthatch Worm-eating Warbler - umbrella species Kentucky Warbler - umbrella species Hooded Warbler IIA. Regional Concern Yellow-billed Cuckoo - umbrella species Ruby-throated Hummingbird Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Pileated Woodpecker Carolina Chickadee Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Black-and-white Warbler IIB. Regional Responsibility Pine Warbler Summer Tanager IIC. Regional Threats None IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Red-shouldered Hawk Wild Turkey - preliminary umbrella species Scarlet Tanager Riparian Definition of Habitat Type - Stream borders less than 100 feet wide (more than 100 feet wide becomes bottomland hardwood forest) where the vegetative composition is influenced by flooding and/or the moisture regime of the stream. Secondary habitat species - Painted Bunting IA. Extremely High Overall Concern Swainson’s Warbler IB. High Overall Concern Acadian Flycatcher Bell’s Vireo White-eyed Vireo Wood Thrush Yellow-throated Warbler Cerulean Warbler (does not breed in the southern 2/3 of the BCR) Prothonotary Warbler Worm-eating Warbler Louisiana Waterthrush - umbrella species Kentucky Warbler Hooded Warbler Orchard Oriole IIA. Regional Concern Yellow-billed Cuckoo Ruby-throated Hummingbird Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Pileated Woodpecker Carolina Chickadee Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Rusty Blackbird IIB. Regional Responsibility Summer Tanager IIC. Regional Threats None IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Red-shouldered Hawk Wild Turkey Early Successional in two parts Secondary habitat species - Kentucky Warbler, Hooded Warbler, Bachman’s Sparrow, Rubythroated Hummingbird, and Dickcissel. Old Field Definition of Habitat Type - Lands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall usually produced by the abandonment of agricultural land. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern American Kestrel (paulus) American Woodcock White-eyed Vireo Bell’s Vireo Bewick’s Wren Brown Thrasher Prairie Warbler Field Sparrow Orchard Oriole IIA. Regional Concern Northern Bobwhite Eastern Kingbird IIB. Regional Responsibility None IIC. Regional Threats Painted Bunting IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Rufous-crowned Sparrow (only in Arkansas River valley) Lark Sparrow Clear Cut Definition of Habitat Type - Early successional (less than 20 feet tall) habitat that is generated by forest management. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern American Kestrel (paulus) American Woodcock White-eyed Vireo Brown Thrasher Prairie Warbler Orchard Oriole IIA. Regional Concern Eastern Towhee IIB. Regional Responsibility Yellow-breasted Chat IIC. Regional Threats None IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest None Tall Grasslands Definition of Habitat Type - Areas clearly dominated by herbaceous vegetation greater than 10 inches tall at the peak of the growing season. Cultivated hay fields and pastures are excluded. Secondary habitat species - American Woodcock IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern American Kestrel (paulus) Short-eared Owl Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Loggerhead Shrike Henslow’s Sparrow Le Conte’s Sparrow IIA. Regional Concern Northern Bobwhite - umbrella species Eastern Kingbird Grasshopper Sparrow Eastern Meadowlark IIB. Regional Responsibility None IIC. Regional Threats Northern Harrier Sedge Wren Dickcissel IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Yellow Rail Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Agricultural in two parts Secondary habitat species - Short-eared Owl, Sedge Wren, Painted Bunting, Le Conte’s Sparrow, and Dickcissel. Cropland Definition of Habitat Type - Land under active cultivation including field borders. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern American Kestrel (paulus) Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Loggerhead Shrike Bewick’s Wren Brown Thrasher Sprague’s Pipit Field Sparrow Harris’s Sparrow IIA. Regional Concern Northern Bobwhite Eastern Kingbird Eastern Meadowlark IIB. Regional Responsibility None IIC. Regional Threats Northern Harrier IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest American Bittern Snow Goose Yellow Rail King Rail Lark Sparrow Pastureland Definition of Habitat Type - Grazed land including field borders. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern American Kestrel (paulus) Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Loggerhead Shrike Bewick’s Wren Brown Thrasher Sprague’s Pipit Field Sparrow Harris’s Sparrow Smith’s Longspur IIA. Regional Concern Eastern Kingbird Grasshopper Sparrow Eastern Meadowlark IIB. Regional Responsibility None IIC. Regional Threats Northern Harrier Sedge Wren IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species None IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Lark Sparrow Urban Definition of Habitat Type - Developed areas. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern Red-headed Woodpecker Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Loggerhead Shrike Bewick’s Wren Brown Thrasher Field Sparrow IIA. Regional Concern Ruby-throated Hummingbird Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Carolina Chickadee Eastern Towhee IIB. Regional Responsibility None IIC. Regional Threats None IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species Peregrine Falcon IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest None Pine Plantation Definition of Habitat Type - Pine forests planted and managed for commercial wood and fiber production. No species were identified for this habitat type. Open Water Definition of Habitat Type - Water greater than six feet deep with no floating or emergent vegetation. This list of priority birds is incomplete, because we made no attempt to address all water bird species. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern None IIA. Regional Concern Horned Grebe Eastern Kingbird IIB. Regional Responsibility None IIC. Regional Threats None IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species Interior Least Tern IIIB. Federally Listed Species Bald Eagle Peregrine Falcon IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest Double-crested Cormorant Marshland Definition of Habitat Type - Lands that are flooded for at least part of the year by water less that six feet deep and predominantly covered with emergent, herbaceous or floating vegetation. This list of priority birds is incomplete, because we made no attempt to address all water bird species. IA. Extremely High Overall Concern None IB. High Overall Concern Short-eared Owl IIA. Regional Concern Eastern Kingbird IIB. Regional Responsibility None IIC. Regional Threats Northern Harrier Sedge Wren IIIA. U.S. Watch List Species None IIIB. Federally Listed Species Bald Eagle Peregrine Falcon IVA. State and Provincial Listed Species None IVB. Local Management Interest American Bittern Yellow Rail King Rail Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow 1 = The habitat needs of the ideal umbrella species would meet or exceed the habitat needs of all species in their habitat type. Umbrella species were identified and investigated to determine their suitability. If the habitat requirements of an the umbrella species did not meet the needs of all species in their habitat type, the habitat needs (both quality and quantity) identified in the conservation plan were expanded to assure that all species will have adequate habitat to maintain long term, source populations. This assumes that habitat is the only limiting factor in maintaining a long term, source population. 2 = “secondary habitat” means that this species’ habitat needs are better met in another habitat type and that this habitat type is not essential for this species. The species uses this habitat type, but does not reach a high population density or only satisfies part of its habitat requirements in this habitat type. Tier I. High Overall Priority - Includes species that are typically of high conservation concern throughout their range. These are species showing high vulnerability in a number of factors scored in the assessment process. Species at the periphery of their distribution or without manageable populations are omitted. Typically divided into Extremely High (IA) and High Priority (IB) tiers based on total assessment score. Tier II. High Regional Priority - Includes species that are of moderate overall priority, but deserve conservation attention within a region because of various combinations of high vulnerability scores. Tier IIA. Regional Concern - Includes species that are experiencing declines in the core of their range and require immediate conservation action to reverse or stabilize trends. These are species with a combination of high relative abundance as compared to other regions and a declining (or unknown) population trend. Tier IIB. Regional Responsibility - Includes additional species for which the region shares in the responsibility for long term conservation, even if they are not currently declining or otherwise threatened. These are species of moderate overall priority with a disproportionately high percentage of their total population occurring in the region. Tier IIC. Regional Threats - Includes additional species of moderate overall priority whose remaining populations are threatened primarily because of extreme threats to sensitive habitats. These species may be relatively uncommon in the region relative to other regions. These are species with high breeding and non-breeding threats scores. Tier III. Additional Stewardship Priorities - Includes species on the PIF US watch list and federal endangered species list that are not captured in any above tiers. Tier IIIA. US Watch List - These species score highly based on their global assessment scores, which measure conservation vulnerability throughout their range as opposed to just within the region. Thus, these species warrant conservation attention wherever they occur. Watch List species that fall out here are usually of moderate overall priority, but may have stable or even increasing populations within the given region. Tier IIIB. Federally Listed Species - Includes species listed under the Endangered Species Act. These species should receive conservation attention wherever they occur. Tier IV. State Listed or Local Management Interest - This tier is extremely flexible and is where a species that is of state or local management concern – for any number of reasons – can be placed for consideration. Tier IVA. State Listed Species - Includes species on state endangered species or natural heritage lists that do not fall out in above tiers. Tier IVB. Local Management Interest - Includes species that do not rank into above tiers but for which there is local concern for and desire to give formal consideration to by placing on the priority list. May include species with positive or negative socio-economic or ecological values. II. Habitat Accounts This section presents the habitat models for 7 habitats and best management practices for 4 habitats. Each habitat model quantifies the bird population numbers and/or the amount of habitat needed to maintain long term, self sustaining populations of all species that use that habitat type. The best management practices do not quantify habitat requirements, but provide guidance on how best to manage that habitat to benefit land birds. Bottomland Hardwood Forest - Randy Wilson and Daniel J. Twedt HABITAT MODEL Pine Savannah - Allan J. Mueller and Jeff Reid HABITAT MODEL Our goal is to establish population and habitat standards that will ensure the long term existence of self sustaining populations of all bird species that rely on the Pine Savannah habitat type in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region. Habitat Description Pine Savannah is defined as “An upland pine forest that is greater than 80 percent pine, has an open character, and abundant herbaceous ground cover.” Currently, in the West Gulf Coastal Plain (WGCP) native, mature stands of pine are not common. The remnant longleaf and shortleaf pine forests are threatened by conversion to plantations of loblolly pine, speculation, development, and conversion to cultivated “tamed” pasture. The suppression of wildfires and the lack of prescribed burning has resulted in significant changes to native pine forest savannas allowing the once open, park like stands (Pine Savannas) to be invaded by hardwood species. With the complete and prolonged absence of fire, a dense hardwood midstory develops beneath the pine overstory, limiting sunlight at the forest floor. With this amount of canopy closure, most herbaceous plants species disappear, and pine regeneration is limited to gaps in the canopy. Restoration of severely degraded systems involves complete or partial removal of the hardwood layer and/or shrub midstory to reestablish light penetration at the forest floor and reestablishing fire to control hardwood sprouting. Longleaf Pine Savannas Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) was the predominant forest type in much of the southeastern United States. It is estimated that it once covered 92 million acres. Over the past two centuries longleaf has declined over 97 percent to about 3 million acres. The longleaf pine-little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius) vegetation series is globally threatened throughout its range, and is extremely rare throughout the West Gulf Coastal Plain. The longleaf pine is a tree species that produces the highest quality timber of all southern pines, and should be a preferred tree for landowners because of its ability to produce fine pole and sawtimber. In addition, this species is more resistant to insect infestation, disease, and wild fires. Most landowners have chosen to plant loblolly pine within the historic range of longleaf pine when reforesting their property because loblolly is easier to establish on some sites, and the perceived return on the investment in reforesting could be seen at an earlier date. However, containerized longleaf pine seedlings if planted properly, allow longleaf to be established almost as quickly as loblolly. Once raised to maturity, a higher percentage of these trees will make poles and sawlogs which pay much greater returns on the landowner’s investment. This could serve as an impetus to bring a significant number of landowners to the decision to regenerate their pine forests and pastures to longleaf pine forests. Shortleaf/Loblolly Pine Forests North of the longleaf pine belt, shortleaf pine (P. echinata) is the dominant overstory species in pine savannahs. Suitable national forest land in Oklahoma and Arkansas is managed for shortleaf pine dominated savannah. Much of the suitable and potential Pine Savannah in Texas is dominated by loblolly pine (P. taeda). The same bird species that benefit from longleaf pine savannah also prosper in the shortleaf and loblolly savannahs. The remaining Pine Savannah in the WGCP is limited mainly to public lands (Map 1, Table 2). Birds of Pine Savannahs in the WGCP Sixteen species are of priority concern in the Pine Savannahs of the WGCP (Table 1). Four species have been designated as “umbrella species”: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus), Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), and Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). The habitat requirements, including patch size, of the umbrella species were investigated in detail to determine if meeting the needs of these species satisfies the needs of all priority Pine Savannah species. Well managed Pine Savannahs where prescribed fire is frequently implemented has the potential to produce and sustain habitat for rare species such as the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW), Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), and Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). In addition to these rare species, well burned Pine Savannah benefits the Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and Northern Bobwhite, which is declining across its range. Significant population declines have been detected at both local and regional levels in many species of grassland birds such as the Bachman’s Sparrow and Henslow’s Sparrow. In most cases, these declines have been linked to the loss of grassland habitats on their breeding and/or wintering grounds. Both Bachman’s Sparrow and Henslow’s Sparrow occur in forest grassland ecosystems in the southeastern United States. Breeding Bachman’s Sparrows nest in frequently burned forest grassland systems (Dunning 1993) while Henslow’s Sparrows winter in this same habitat (Carrie et al. 2002, Chandler and Woodrey 1995, ). Bachman’s Sparrow and Henslow’s Sparrow are dependent on the diverse herbaceous understory of fire climax longleaf pine and shortleaf pine communities and are likely to be eliminated from these areas with shrub and hardwood encroachment. Le Conte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) winters in the longleaf savannas in medium to tall grass habitats and very open pine forests; it is a ground forager on insects and seeds. The Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) is a summer resident typically found in dry, open to medium density forests; foraging occurs from canopy trees in a typical flycatcher manner. Redheaded Woodpeckers (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) are residents and short range migrants that prefer open woods, parklands, and early successional habitats with scattered snags for breeding; mature bottomlands are preferred in the winter. Umbrella Species Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management for the RCW provides strong benefits for the entire Pine Savannah ecosystem. Such benefits are mainly the result of prescribed burning and the retention of older trees in the landscape. In addition, cavities created by RCWs are used by a host of secondary cavity species. Single species management of RCWs merges with ecosystem management for three main reasons: (1) RCWs are true indicator species whose population trends mark the health of southern pine ecosystems; (2) protection of RCWs provides simultaneous protection for many associated species, both during breeding and wintering (Provencher et al. 2002); and (3) RCWs are a keystone species whose presence control the presence and/or abundance of other species (secondary cavity users) in the community (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). In some cases current management of upland pine communities is not consistent with an ecosystem approach because prescribed fire and retention of older trees is focused on RCW clusters and not the landscape. Burning and retaining old trees only in small patches provides only limited benefits to other members of southern pine communities. Moreover, small patch size management has had detrimental effects on RCWs as well, including decreased value of foraging habitat (James et al. 1997, Walters et al. 2000), increased cavity damage by Pileated Woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) (Saenz et al. 1998), and increased mortality of cavity trees due to pests such as southern pine beetles (Conner et al. 1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). The RCW requires mature (usually 80 or more years old), live pine trees to excavate its nesting and roosting cavities. Good quality RCW foraging habitat has some large old pines (18 or more per acre at least 60 years old and 14 inches in diameter), low densities of small and medium pines (basal area of 40 to 60 sq. ft. per acre for longleaf and 40 to 80 sq. ft. per acre for loblolly and shortleaf), sparse or no hardwood midstory and canopy (10 percent of canopy trees in longleaf, 20 percent in loblolly and shortleaf), and bunchgrass and forb groundcover. The groundcover of native bunchgrasses and other native, fire tolerant, fire dependent herbs should total 40 percent or more of ground and midstory plants and be dense enough to carry a growing season fire once every five years. Such habitat should be contiguous to and within 0.5 mile of a cluster and not separated by more than 200 foot of non-forested habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). The draft revised recovery plan for the RCW (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) concludes that to establish a long term, self sustaining population, a minimum effective population of 250 breeding pairs is required to overcome the potential adverse effects of inbreeding, environmental stochasticity, demographic stochasticity, and catastrophes. To offset losses of genetic variation caused by genetic drift, the plan recommends 350 breeding pairs, and recognizes that movements of breeding individuals between populations would be more desirable. These immigrations would increase the effective population size (Simberloff and Cox 1987) to the thousands, which is recommended by several authorities (Lande 1995, Soule 1987, Thomas 1990). Consequently, connectivity between populations is essential. Patch selection by RCWs has been explored in three studies. Bowman et al. (1997) found that RCWs foraged in patches containing fewer but larger trees than patches chosen randomly. Walters et al. (2000) found that RCWs used patches containing larger trees and lower hardwood midstory than unused patches. Doster and James (1998) found that RCWs prefer to forage in patches containing larger pines, a lower overstory pine density, and less hardwood midstory than randomly chosen patches nearby. Studies of home range suggest that RCWs require from 100 to 400 acres per cluster, depending upon the quality of foraging habitat, and that high quality foraging habitat has intermediate pine density and is relatively free of hardwood midstory. The draft revised recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) uses an average figure of 200 ac/cluster. If we use the draft revised recovery plan’s goal of 350 breeding pairs for each primary core population, then 70,000 acres are required. For secondary core populations the plan calls for 250 pairs, which results in a 50,000 acre size requirement. As previously stated, it is desirable for these populations to located close enough and/or with adequate connectivity to allow exchange of breeding individuals. The RCW draft revised recovery plan recommends three primary core areas (70,000 acres each by the calculations used here; the recovery plan does not indicate size.) and three secondary core areas (50,000 acres each) in the WGCP (Table 3). Twelve support populations are also recommended in the WGCP. All of these are on public lands. These 18 populations total 3,828 RCW clusters, which is 765,600 acres of pine savannah habitat. The habitat in each core area does not have to be in a contiguous patch, but within a core area RCW groups should be closely spaced to facilitate genetic exchange and pair formation (Letcher et al. 1998). The national forests in Texas use 10,000 acres as the minimum size for an upland pine and pine-hardwood RCW habitat management area. Conner and Rudolph (1991) concluded that habitat fragmentation between demographically isolated RCW clusters could inhibit expansion of groups and contribute to their extirpation. Additionally, they concluded that the effect of fragmentation decreases as population densities increase. Within the three recognized RCW populations on the national forests in Texas (two primary core populations and one secondary core population), a number of biologically and spatially distinct subpopulations are evident. A subpopulation is considered to be an aggregate of RCW clusters which are separated from other clusters by five miles or more of currently suitable habitat, or three miles or more of currently or permanently unsuitable habitat. Aggressive management of these subpopulations is imperative if the long range goal of merging these subpopulations into the desired core populations is to be attained. At present, the spatial separation between subpopulations across the fragmented landscape of the national forests in Texas is thought to preempt routine demographic interchange, effectively forming nine separate subpopulations. All subpopulations on the national forests in Texas are considered to be at extreme risk (U.S. Forest Service 1996). Connecting such habitat patches will involve the cooperation of large private industrial landowners such as Temple-Inland. Currently, Temple is involved in RCW corridor management on some of their lands within the Angelina/Sabine RCW population in Texas. Approximately 200 foot wide buffer strips have been established along roadways and 100-200 acre adjacent forest patches are managed for RCWs. This involves retaining the older pines, reducing the basal area (thinning) to give these strips an “open character”, introduction of regular controlled burning, and artificial cavity provisioning. These strips currently connect RCWs on private lands to those on federal lands. Pine Warbler The Pine Warbler uses a variety of pine and pine-hardwood forests, but is most common in pure pine (Meyers and Johnson 1978), especially in stands 35-100 years old (Evans 1978). Nesting success may be lower in younger pine forest and plantations. They are generally most abundant where the understory is sparse (Rodewald et al. 1999). In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas densities were higher in stands that had been treated with prescribed fire and thinning of midstory and codominants (Wilson et al. 1995). Management for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers also creates good habitat for Pine Warblers (Rodewald et al. 1999). To calculate the patch size required to support a self sustaining population of Pine Warblers we adopted the technique used by Mueller et al. (2000) in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, except that the patch size was not doubled. Mueller et al. (2000) used 250 breeding pairs as the minimum number required to overcome the factors discussed for the RCW (genetics and stochasticity) They then doubled that number to 500 so as not to manage for the minimum. Using an average breeding density from Hamel (1992), they multiplied that density times 500 to arrive at a patch size. That patch size was then doubled to compensate for the high degree of forest fragmentation in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Because the forest fragmentation is much less in the WGCP, that step is omitted in these calculations. The average density for breeding Pine Warblers is one pair/11.2 acres (Hamel 1992). This translates to a required patch size of 5,600 acres. Northern Bobwhite Northern Bobwhite occur throughout the upland habitats, including longleaf and shortleaf pine communities. Northern Bobwhites prosper in habitat suitable for RCW’s (Engstrom et al. 1996). Southern forests with 60 percent sunlight on the forest floor provide ideal bobwhite habitat (Rosene 1969). Populations in the WGCP have declined substantially in recent decades and harvest has declined by 70 percent (Dimmick et al. 2002). The Northern Bobwhite “recovery plan” (Dimmick et al. 2002) recommends that 4,151,857 acres of forest land in the WGCP be managed for bobwhites. We defined this total forest recommendation to be 50 percent pine-hardwood, 25 percent pine savannah, and 25 percent clear cut on commercial forest land. Consequently, the pine savannah recommendation for Northern Bobwhite in the WGCP is 1,037,964 acres. The minimum patch size, using the same method as for Pine Warbler, is 7,450 acres. Quail managers from the four states in the WGCP recommend a minimum patch size of 10,000 acres. Brown-headed Nuthatch The Brown-headed Nuthatch is a permanent resident that prefers open pine savannas with mature trees in the overstory. Nests are excavated in stumps or snags, generally in mature pine stands (Meyers and Johnson 1978). These birds forage for insects and other arthropods under the bark of trees. Breeding Brown-headed Nuthatches have an average density of one pair/22.2 acres (Hamel 1992). Using the same process as for Pine Warbler, the desired patch size is 11,100 acres. Conclusion and Recommendations Table 4 summarizes the requirements of the four umbrella species. If the 10,000 acres patches managed for RCW’s are adequately connected, the patch size requirements of all priority species will be met. The over one million acres recommended for Northern Bobwhite will provide enough habitat to establish secure populations of all priority species. Our summary recommendation is to establish and manage 1,037,964 acres of Pine Savannah in the WGCP. Minimum patch size should be 10,000 acres. In addition, three blocks of 70,000 acres and three blocks of 50,000 acres should be established where the 10,000 acre patches are adequately connected to allow the easy exchange of breeding birds. Connectivity will enhance the demographic viability of all priority species through facilitation of immigration and emigration across the landscape. Table 2 Existing and Target Pine Savannah Area (acres) in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Location Existing Target* McCurtain County Wilderness Area, OK 13,006 13,006 Private lands in Oklahoma 0 0 Ouachita National Forest, OK 50,000 Ouachita National Forest, AR 40,000 125,010 Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, AR 8,107 Crossett Experimental Forest, AR 1,680 Private lands in Arkansas 17,665 Kisatchie National Forest, LA Kisatchie Ranger District Winn Ranger District Catahoula Ranger District Calcasieu Ranger District Evangeline Unit Calcasieu Unit/Fort Polk Peason Ridge Wildlife Management Area, LA Alexander State Forest, LA 450 820 Black Bayou National Wildlife Refuge, LA D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge, LA Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge, LA (Plum Creek’s Conservation Area 2,163 existing, 6,882 planned) Private lands in Louisiana 8,000** L.D. Fairchild State Forest, TX 1,400 1,400 W.G. Jones State Forest, TX 1,600 1,600 Anglina/Sabine National Forests, TX 11,600** 103,189 Davy Crockett National Forest, TX 11,000** 66,245 Sam Houston National Forest, TX 32,800** 108,412 Private lands in Texas 8,600** * Target areas are based on the management plans at each site. ** Assumes all RCW groups have a minimum of 200 acres of managed pine or pine/hardwood habitat associated with each cluster. This does not include any Pine Savanna habitat not occupied by RCWs. Table 3 Population Goals for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on Public Lands in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) Location Goal* Current Population* Recovery Designation McCurtain County Wilderness Area, OK 45 11 (2001) Significant Support Ouachita National Forest, AR 400 Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, AR 47 28 (2002) 11 (2002) Secondary Core Significant Support 296 26 (2001) Winn Ranger District 263 17 (2002) Catahoula Ranger District 328 25 (2002) Significant Support Significant Support Secondary Core Calcasieu Ranger District Evangeline Unit 231 68 (2002) Calcasieu Unit/Fort Polk Peason Ridge WMA, LA 500 120 170 (2002) 27 (1998) 12 12 (2002) Black Bayou NWR, LA 1 1 (2002) D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge, LA 5 3 (2002) Upper Ouachita NWR, LA 1 1 (2002) L.D. Fairchild State Forest, TX 7 2 (2002) 14 13 (2002) Kisatchie National Forest, LA Kisatchie Ranger District Alexander State Forest, LA W.G. Jones State Forest, TX Significant Support Primary Core Significant Support Important Support Important Support Important Support Important Support Important Support Significant Support Anglina/Sabine National Forests, TX 514 Davy Crockett National Forest, TX 330 Sam Houston National Forest, TX 541 Total 58 (2002) 55 (2002) 164 (2002) 3,835 * = number of active clusters, not number of breeding groups Clusters on private lands LA = 40, TX = 43, AR = ?? Primary Core Secondary Core Primary Core Table 4 Summary of Breeding Bird Pine Savannah Habitat Requirements (acres) Umbrella Species Minimum Patch Size Total Area Requirement Red-cockaded Woodpecker 10,000 765,600, with three 70,000 and three 50,000 blocks Pine Warbler 5,600 Unknown Northern Bobwhite 10,000 1,037,964 Brown-headed Nuthatch 11,100 Unknown “Other” Pine Forest Not Plantation - William Vermillion HABITAT MODEL mailto:[email protected] This habitat is defined as all forests that are greater than 80 percent pine and neither savannah nor a plantation. There is close overlap between this habitat type, pine savannah, and mixed pinehardwood habitat. Pine stocking rates and basal area are greater, and the percentage of hardwoods in the forest is typically higher, in this habitat than in pine savannah. Mixed pinehardwood habitats have a higher hardwood component (>20 percent) than this habitat, often due to reduced fire frequency. In some portions of the WGCP, this habitat historically occupied a dynamic zone between the longleaf pine savannahs and hardwood-dominated mesic sites, with frequency and severity of fire being a major factor in determining hardwood stocking percentages (Conner and Dickson 1997). Shortleaf pine is the dominant tree in this habitat in some of the WGCP, especially Arkansas and Oklahoma. Loblolly may be the dominant pine in this habitat in some areas; however, Smith (1988) stated that many examples of loblolly pine forests in Louisiana did not represent historic vegetation conditions. Slash pine may also be present but its occurrence in the WGCP is wholly unnatural. This is a fire dominated, sub-climax habitat. Landers and Boyer (1999) estimated the natural fire frequency in upland longleaf pine sites as every 2 - 4 years, and described a less frequent regime, i.e., every 3 - 10 years for longleaf areas where some factor or factors, such as available fuel or topography, provided partial fire protection. Masters et al. (1995) studied a 300 hectare (ha) and a 500 ha area of shortleaf pine forest in the McCurtain County Wilderness, Oklahoma, and reported that mean pre-settlement fire frequency for the areas was 3.5 and 5.6 years, respectively, The 3 - 10 year fire cycle appears to be the most likely regime for creation and maintenance of this habitat, as more frequent burns would probably create savannah habitat. Undoubtably, in some areas this habitat is present because of active fire suppression, and pine savannah should be the natural condition. No bird species are restricted to this habitat (Table 1). Its avifauna closely resembles that of pine savannah habitat, except that Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and grassland species such as Bachman’s and Henslow’s Sparrows are absent or rare, and species favoring deciduous trees for nesting and foraging are slightly more common here than in pine savannah. Of the priority birds, Brown-headed Nuthatch and Pine Warbler were designated as umbrella species. Satisfying the habitat requirements for those birds is anticipated to provide suitable conditions for the whole suite of bird species that use this habitat. Optimal Brown-headed Nuthatch habitat is mature, open, pine-dominated forest that is subject to frequent fires (Withgott and Smith 1998). As this is a cavity-nesting species, snags are required as well. In Arkansas, densities and frequency of observation for Brown-headed Nuthatches were highest in the year immediately following a burn; however, data from Florida studies showed a decline after this first-year post-burn peak, and then a higher peak in the fifth year post-burn (Withgott and Smith 1998). Longleaf pine stands less than 35 years old are probably unsuitable for Brown-headed Nuthatches (NatureServe Explorer 2001). Meyers and Johnson (1978) examined bird census data from loblolly-shortleaf pine forests and found that the highest densities for this species occurred in stands that were 45 - 60 years old; however, they analyzed forests that were not subject to frequent fires, and hardwoods became increasingly prevalent as those forests aged beyond 60 years. Hamel (1992) examined Breeding Bird Census information from 1947 - 1979 and calculated average Brown-headed Nuthatch breeding densities as 4.5 pairs per 40 ha. Using Hamel’s breeding bird density data, Mueller et al. (1999) developed management objectives for breeding birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). They assumed that 500 breeding pairs of a given bird species constituted a source population. They then used Hamel’s data to produce estimated forest patch sizes necessary to support source populations for breeding birds in the MAV. Additionally, because of the highly fragmented nature of the MAV’s forests, they added a buffer factor to eliminate potential deleterious edge effects on breeding bird populations within forest patches. This was done by simply doubling the calculated source population patch size. Using their method, the forest patch size required for a source population of brown-headed nuthatches would be 8,900 ha (22,045 acres). However, unlike the MAV, most of the WGCP is still forested. Therefore, the buffer factor used by Mueller et al. for calculating patch sizes in the MAV may not be necessary in the WGCP, provided that the habitat patch under consideration is within a largely forested (approximately 70 percent) landscape. In those instances, a 4,450 ha patch of mature, frequently burned pine-dominated forest should be sufficient to maintain a source population of Brown-headed Nuthatches. The above assumes that there will be sufficient numbers of snags for nesting and roosting because of regular burning and natural disturbances. No data are available for the minimum or optimal number of snags/ha for this species. Mean dbh’s of nest snags used by Brown-headed Nuthatches range from 24.1 - 30.5 cm (Withgott and Smith 1998). Schreiber and DeCalesta (1992) suggested that forest managers provide a minimum of 14 snags between 28 and 128 cm dbh per ha to optimize cavity nesting bird density and species richness. Schroeder (1982) described optimal Downy Woodpecker habitat as containing a minimum of 12.4 snags >15 cm/ha. Snag densities in this range (i.e., 12 - 14/ha), sized between 24 - 30 cm dbh, are assumed to be suitable to optimal for Brown-headed Nuthatches. Brown-headed Nuthatches are not known for long-range flight. Withgott and Smith (1998) noted that apparently suitable habitat on the edge of the species’ range in portions of the southeastern U. S. was not exploited, and pointed out that the species failed to re-colonize previously occupied suitable habitat that was 65 kilometers from its current range. Any forest patches designated as conservation areas for this species must either contain the species, or be connected by a mature pine-dominated forested corridor to an occupied site. In instances where linking patches via corridors is not possible, we tentatively recommend than patches be separated by no more than 40 km of unsuitable habitat. As noted above, this non-savannah pine habitat was historically present within the longleaf pine range as an intermediate or transitional habitat between frequently burned pine savannahs, and mesic forests associated with drains. Restoration efforts that would tie savannah habitat goals and efforts with efforts to conserve or restore non-savannah pine habitat would be beneficial to the priority species previously listed, and would also benefit many priority pine savannah bird species. Similarly, linking restoration and/or conservation efforts for this habitat with those developed for mixed pine-hardwood habitat would provide benefits to the majority of priority bird species identified for both habitat types. While forests having the stand characteristics described above provide suitable to optimal habitat for Chuck-will’s-widow, Hamel’s (1992) breeding pair density data indicates that approximately 7,400 ha of this habitat within a largely forested landscape would be required to support a source population of this species. The Chuck-will’s-widow is designated as an umbrella species for mixed pine-hardwood habitat in the WGCP, so management needs will be focused in that habitat. However, identification and conservation of tracts of pine habitat large enough to support source populations of Chuck-will’s-widow should be a goal, as those tracts would support source populations of nearly all the priority bird species identified for this habitat. Similarly, optimal pine warbler breeding habitat is mature, frequently burned, pine-dominated forest (Rodewald et al. 1999, Schroeder 1982). With the exception of the necessity of snags, optimal Pine Warbler breeding habitat is nearly identical to optimal Brown-headed Nuthatch breeding habitat. Rodewald et al. (1999) state that creation of habitat for Brown-headed Nuthatch, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, and Bachman’s Sparrow should improve conditions for Pine Warbler. Hamel’s (1992) data state that the average density of Pine Warbler breeding pairs is 8.9 pairs/40 ha, which translates to approximately 4.5 ha/pair. Therefore, to support a source population of 500 breeding pairs of pine warblers within the largely forested landscape of the WGCP would require 2,250 ha of appropriate habitat. Forest patches of the size and characteristics described above for Pine Warblers should be sufficient to serve as source population areas for the priority species Carolina Chickadee and Summer Tanager. Patch size falls within the necessary range for Yellow-breasted Chat, but due to the recommended management regime, there would probably not be sufficient shrub-scrub breeding habitat to support a source population of that species. Forest patches of the size and characteristics described above for Brown-headed Nuthatches should be sufficient to serve as source population areas for the priority species Pine Warbler, Carolina Chickadee, and Summer Tanager. As with Pine Warbler, patch size falls within the necessary range for Yellow-breasted Chat, but due to the recommended management regime, there may not be sufficient shrub-scrub breeding habitat to support a source population of that species. The two remaining priority species for this habitat, Pileated Woodpecker and Wild Turkey, require forested areas larger than those above (i.e., 9,500 and 28,500 ha, respectively) to support source populations. Additionally, Pileated Woodpeckers favor snags with larger dbh’s than those typically used as nest sites by Brown-headed Nuthatches (Schroeder 1982). However, both of those species is found in a wider range of habitat types within the WGCP than is the Brownheaded Nuthatch, including bottomland hardwood forests, upland hardwood forest, pine savannah, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and small stream riparian forests (Schroeder 1982, Eaton 1992). While conservation of pine habitat tracts of the size necessary to support source populations of Pileated Woodpeckers and Wild Turkeys should be encouraged, it is assumed that in some areas, combinations of the above habitat types will be large enough to support source populations. Analysis of current vegetative cover in the WGCP shows the majority of the region as forested in pines; however, the overwhelming majority of this is being managed on short-rotations for commercial harvest, and is largely unsuitable for most of the aforementioned priority bird species. On national forest lands in the region, management of pine savannah habitat for Redcockaded Woodpeckers is a priority. As stated previously, most of the priority bird species above will use pine savannah habitat. Conservation resources may be best applied by creating mature, pine-dominated, frequently burned habitat on lands adjacent to national forest lands, thus expanding the available habitat base for those bird species. Through a cursory review of the WGCP map available through the Partners in Flight website (Partners in Flight 2002), 79 potential habitat patches were identified (Figure 1, Table 5). However, the number and location of these sites is not final. While these areas are currently forested, the majority are privately-owned and under short-rotation commercial timber production. A major shift in the timber market from pulp production to saw timber would be required to bring these areas into suitable condition to host source populations of priority bird species. As this is unlikely to occur, patches should be prioritized for conservation actions. Even with prioritization of patches, conservation of non-savannah, non-plantation pine habitats may be largely based upon opportunity. Table 5. Distribution of 79 Non-Savannah, Non-Plantation Pine Forest Bird Conservation Areas in the West Gulf Coastal Plain State 2,000 - 5,000 ha 5,000 - 10,000 ha >10,000 ha Arkansas 8 10 3 Louisiana 3 13 5 Oklahoma 4 Texas 11 20 2 WGCP Total 26 43 10 Upland Hardwood/Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest - Cliff Shackelford HABITAT MODEL Riparian - Jim Neal HABITAT MODEL Riparian habitats are generally characterized as streamside or riverside communities that include lands dominated by hydrophytic vegetation and/or with soil that is saturated by ground water within the rooting zone of native vegetation for a portion of the growing season (Minshall et al. 1989). Within the southeastern U.S., including the WGCP, riparian systems are immediately adjacent to a stream or river, with other wetland types within the broader floodplain. As Odum (1979) emphasizes, riparian habitats are ecotonal in nature, are long and narrow in shape, and have a very high surface (edge)-area ratio. These systems are bordered by the stream or river course downslope and by other wetland or terrestrial systems upslope. Riparian systems in the southeastern U.S. include early successional habitat types existing on mineral soils of point bars and fronts (natural levees) within only a very small portion of the floodplain of larger river systems. These systems are dominated by tree species such as black willow (Salix nigra) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) on the point bars and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and American elm (Ulmus americana) on the natural levee. Riparian systems on moderate sized streams with silty-loam soils include early successional species such as river birch (Betula nigra) along with black willows and sycamores; these riparian systems occupy a larger percentage of the floodplain than in larger river systems, but still some bottomland hardwood forests may occur outside of the riparian zone. In small stream systems, the riparian zone usually includes mesic hardwood species such as southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), white oak (Quercus alba), cherrybark oak (Q. falcata var. pagadifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), water oak (Q. nigra), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Carolina basswood (Tilia caroliniana), sugar maple(Acer saccharum), winged elm (Ulmus alata), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and often grades fairly sharply into upland systems because the floodplain is much narrower. Although all these systems occur adjacent to a stream or river, the vegetation community types are quite diverse depending on the size and slope of the adjacent stream system. This may produce profound differences in the bird fauna found in these systems. Priority Bird Species Using Riparian Systems Twenty-three priority bird species use riparian systems within the WGCP (Table 1). The Louisiana Waterthrush was selected as an umbrella species for riparian systems. Umbrella species are selected based on their fidelity to specific habitat types and their status as priority species. Besides the Louisiana Waterthrush, the Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptilia caerulea), and Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus) seem to prefer bottomland and mesic hardwood forests near water, i.e., riparian systems. The remaining priority species using riparian systems are more indicative of other habitat types. The Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica), Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and Swainson’s Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) are species commonly found more generally as residents or breeding in bottomland forests and swamps; the Rusty Blackbird winters in these habitat types. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea), Worm-eating Warbler (Helmintheros vermivorus), and Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) are common residents or breed in bottomlands (including riparian zones) and mesic hardwood forests. The Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus), Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra), Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris), and Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius) are forest generalists that use riparian zones. Louisiana Waterthrush Habitat Model The Louisiana Waterthrush is a fairly common breeder in the mountains and Piedmont along the Atlantic coast and an uncommon to rare breeding species along the Gulf Coastal Plain. The species favors deciduous or mixed forests with rocky streams, often with rocks projecting from the water; it less commonly occurs along sluggish streams and rivers and in swamps (Hamel 1992). Griscom and Sprunt (1978) note that Louisiana Waterthrushes prefer areas with rapidly running water and woodland swamps with running streams or ditches. Bent (1963) also notes the preference of this species for areas with running water and in the vicinity of “fast flowing trout streams”; bottomlands and the borders of streams and swamps in the same area as Prothonotary Warblers often are used. Mengel (1965) and Graber et al. (1983) list the species as breeding in streams with gravel bottoms in hilly, deciduous forests. Graber et al. (1983) further note that Louisiana Waterthrushes breed in cypress swamps and bottomlands adjacent to mud bottomed streams, but in lower densities than in mesic woodlands. ___ Hamel (1992) states that Louisiana Waterthrushes forage on the ground, always near a stream, where insects are gleaned from rocks, mud, or water. In upland forests, nests are usually placed along stream banks, in small hollows or cavities within the root mass of upturned trees, or under fallen logs (Bent 1963, Eaton 1958, Robinson 1995). The major prey of the Louisiana Waterthrush are aquatic insects and invertebrates and small to medium sized flying insects (Robinson 1995). Louisiana Waterthrushes have linear territories along streams. Robinson (1995) lists linear territories varying from 930 meters to 358 meters long based on studies in the Midwest and Northeast. Eaton (1958) found a breeding season density of 2.5 pairs/kilometer of stream in a New York state upland forest. Robinson (1990) found about 1.0 pair/kilometer of stream in an Illinois upland; Craig (1981) detected 2.8 pairs/kilometer of stream in Connecticut. Graber et al. (1983) list mean and maximum (in parenthesis) breeding densities of Louisiana Waterthrushes for southern Illinois of 0.2 (5.2) in mature bottomland forests and 0.6 (7.5) in mature upland forests (figures listed are birds per 40.5 hectares or per 100 acres). Hamel (1992) lists mean densities of 3 in sawtimber mixed pine-hardwood (upland hardwood type), 4.6 sawtimber oakhickory (upland hardwood type), 10 in sawtimber oak-gum-cypress (bottomland hardwood type), and 25 in sapling/poletimber elm-ash-cottonwood (bottomland hardwood type). It has been reported that about 8,000 hectares or more of contiguous forest is necessary for the long term persistence of the Louisiana Waterthrush, Kentucky Warbler, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Eastern Wood-Pewee, and the Orchard Oriole (Taulman et al. 1999). For long term persistence, Taulman et al. (1999) state that 8,000 hectares are needed to maintain 500 breeding pair with about a one kilometer buffer for the forest. Most authors recommend a minimum riparian zone width of 100 meters (Dickson et al. 1995, Brown and Schaffer 1987). Harris and Scheck (1991) concluded that the corridor width should be measured in 100's of meters (100-1,000 meters); these authors maintain that when planning for entire species assemblages, when the biology of the species are not well known and when a corridor for dispersal is expected to function over decades, then the width of a corridor should be in kilometers, not meters. Management and Conservation Recommendations for Riparian Forests A major problem with developing a riparian habitat model for conservation and management recommendations is the dichotomy between “riparian habitats” within the West Gulf Coastal Plain. As noted earlier, riparian habitats include the habitats adjacent to major streams and rivers within the broad, bottomland hardwood floodplains as well as those forests adjacent to mesic streams, higher altitudinally in the landscape. It is obvious that these habitat types are very different although both habitats are “riparian” and support the selected umbrella species, the Louisiana Waterthrush. To support the continued existence of Louisiana Waterthrushes, contiguous bottomland and upland, mesic hardwood forest of at least 8,000 hectares must be conserved and properly managed. It is not possible to state how much of this 8,000 hectares should be conserved in riparian zones versus mesic hardwood and bottomland forests. Therefore, it is not appropriate to promote a stated goal of contiguous riparian forest detached from the contiguous mesic or bottomland forests; it is more appropriate to incorporate these goals in the bottomland and upland hardwood models. I believe it is appropriate to develop a linear riparian model that will be sufficient to support the continuing existence of the Louisiana Waterthrush in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. If it is assumed that 2.1 pairs per kilometer of stream (an average of existing data based on northeastern and midwestern studies), approximately 238 kilometers of linear stream habitat is needed to support 500 pairs of Louisiana Waterthrushes. Because the highest densities and preferred habitat of this species is in mesic hardwood forests, it is most important that riparian zones be established in mesic upland forests; secondarily bottomland riparian zones should be conserved and restored. In order to determine present population density of the Louisiana Waterthrush, a spatial analysis of the extant mesic riparian and bottomland corridors should be initiated. This could be compared with total miles of streams and rivers in the West Gulf Coastal Plain to determine the potential, historical population density. Then, a realistic assessment of historic habitat that has 2 the potential of being restored can be undertaken. 7 Early Successional - Old Field - Mark Howery HABITAT MODEL The term old field is applied to sites where the vegetative community is dominated by tall, rank grasses and forbs with varying amounts of shrubs, woody vines, and tree seedlings or saplings. Old fields resemble shrub lands in their structure and plant species composition, but unlike shrub lands, these sites are ephemeral and gradually change to second growth forests. Old field habitat occurs following the abandonment of cropland or pastureland, but the plant species composition of each old field site is variable and dependent upon the site’s history. For example, old fields that develop following the abandonment of croplands often have a high percentage of annual forbs and exotic grass and forb species. The establishment of woody plants and perennial forbs is relatively slow because the seed bank within the soil has been reduced through years of cropping. Old fields that develop from the abandonment of improved pastures, such as fescue, also contain a large percentage of exotic vegetation and establishment of native forbs, grasses, and shrubs may take many years. In contrast, woody vegetation becomes established rapidly on old field sites that result from the abandonment of native grass pastures and hay meadows. These areas were historically prairie land or woodlands that had been cleared for pasture. This is due to the presence of a more diverse plant community and the existence of a seed bank. For purposes of this model, we consider old fields to be pastures and prairie which have remained ungrazed, unmowed or unburned for three or more growing seasons, and cropland which has remained fallow for three or more growing seasons. Because old field habitats develop from prairie, pasture, or cropland, they occur in the greatest frequency within non-forested landscapes that have been heavily modified by human agricultural activities. Within the West Gulf Coastal Plain, the majority of old field habitat occurs in the Arkansas River valley, the Red River valley, the open valleys in the western Ouachita Mountains of Oklahoma, and the blackland prairie remnants in northeastern Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, and southwestern Arkansas. Additional old field patches occur within forested landscapes elsewhere in this bird conservation region where pine savannah or mixed pine/hardwood forests have been cleared to create pasture for livestock. No comprehensive assessment has been prepared to evaluate the acreage and dispersion of these temporally transient habitats in the BCR; it is possible that as many old field patches occur in forested landscapes as occur in agricultural ones. The bird species composition of old field habitats is determined by both the size of the habitat patch and by the vegetation communities in the surrounding habitat matrix. In terms of patch size, old fields may be small (<5 ha) as the result of abandonment of field edges, or they may be as large as 70 ha following the abandonment of large crop fields. Rarely does old field habitat develop on sites that measure in the 100 or more contiguous hectares. No studies have been found in which the size distribution of old fields was measured in the WGCP, but anecdotal observations indicate that these habitat patches are small relative to the patch size of forested habitats. There is a need to collect additional quantitative data regarding the relationship between old field patch size and frequency of occurrence of individual breeding bird species. Some species, particularly lower priority species such as the Indigo Bunting and Northern 7 Cardinal, appear to occur in very small old field patches. Other species appear to occur primarily in larger patches or in situations where there are multiple small patches in close proximity (e.g. Prairie Warbler, Northern Bobwhite). The surrounding habitat matrix also affects the bird community composition of old field sites. Old fields which occur in prairie, pasture, or agricultural matrices are much more likely to support breeding pairs of Lark Sparrows, Bell’s Vireos, and Brown Thrashers than old fields in forested landscapes. Old field patches in forested landscapes are more likely to support populations of Prairie Warblers, Yellow-breasted Chats, and White-eyed Vireos. Old field plant communities are often diverse, and the species composition of the dominate plants changes rapidly over time. In general terms, old fields can be grouped into two habitat stages - an early meadow stage and a later shrub stage. In the first few years following abandonment of a site, an old field will be dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Over time, shrub and tree seedlings become established and the old field progresses into the shrub stage. The rate at which an old field site changes from the meadow stage to the shrub stage varies depending upon the past land use of the site, soil conditions and rainfall. While in the early meadow stage, an old field site may support nesting populations of bird species such as Dickcissel, Lark Sparrow, Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Mourning Dove, Eastern Bluebird Eastern Meadowlark and American Goldfinch. With a small increase in woody cover, primarily scattered shrub, species such as Blue Grosbeak, Field Sparrow, Northern Bobwhite and Eastern Kingbird may become established. As succession progresses and the percentage of woody cover increases to moderate amounts, the old field may become more suitable for nesting Indigo Buntings, American Woodcocks, Bell’s Vireos, Brown Thrashers, Northern Mockingbirds, Prairie Warblers, and Bewick’s Wrens. After a few more years, the woody vegetation increases in height and in the percentage of cover. This development may enable the establishment of nesting Ruby-throated Hummingbird, White-eyed Vireo, Carolina Wren, Common Yellowthroat, Yellow-breasted Chat, Northern Cardinal, Painted Bunting, Eastern Towhee and Orchard Oriole. Though data are sparse, the data which do exist, in combination with anecdotal observations, suggest that patch size and the distance to neighboring patches also affect the species composition of an old field site. Relatively small old field patches (< 10 hectares) may be occupied by Indigo Buntings, Field Sparrows, Northern Cardinals, Mourning Doves, Northern Mockingbirds, and Brown Thrashers. These species are generally common and of low conservation concern within the BCR. These species also tend to be resident or short distance migrants and capable of raising multiple broods of chicks in a season. Other species such as the Bell’s Vireo, Orchard Oriole, and Northern Bobwhite require larger patches of old field habitat and/or multiple patches in close proximity. Of the highest priority old field birds (Table 1), Bell’s Vireo, Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Bewick’s Wren, Field Sparrow, Dickcissel, Northern Bobwhite, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Kingbird, and Eastern Meadowlark are more frequently associated with non-forested landscapes. Prairie Warbler, White-eyed Vireo, Orchard Oriole, Painted Bunting, American Woodcock, Rubythroated Hummingbird, and Yellow-breasted Chat are more frequently associated with forested 7 landscapes. Within non-forested landscapes, the priority birds around which this model is designed are the Bell’s Vireo and Northern Bobwhite. The Bewick’s Wren was considered for this model, however the West Gulf Coastal Plain lies on the southeastern edge of the species range and its habitat requirements are not well established in this region. Because of the low certainty surrounding the occurrence of this species, it was omitted from the modeling process. Habitat patches which are sufficiently large to support viable populations of Northern Bobwhite and Bell’s Vireo should support Field Sparrow, Brown Thrasher and other relatively high priority species. to be completed... Within forested landscapes, the priority birds around which the habitat model was designed are the Prairie Warbler, White-eyed Vireo, and Orchard Oriole. Each of these species appears to require relatively large old field patches for nesting. Also, habitat patches must encompass a range of shrub/sapling density to support populations of all three species. Prairie Warblers need fairly large old fields in forested landscapes that have a moderate density of low shrub cover. Conversely, White-eyed Vireos require large patches which contain dense thickets of relatively taller shrubs. To be completed... More research is needed: - to examine the relationship between old field patch size and the likelihood of occurrence of each of our priority bird species. - to examine how the spacial relationship between old field patches affects the likelihood that a high priority bird species will occur in an area. - more field data are needed to identify species suites that are characteristic of old field patches of varying size and degree of woody cover. 7 Tall Grasslands - Dean Demarest HABITAT MODEL 7 Early Successional - Clear Cut - Nancy Higginbothom BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Early successional habitat is necessary for the survival of many bird species in the West Gulf Coastal Plain (WGCP) and clearcuts can be used to fulfill their requirements, if the treatment methods are compatible with the birds' needs. Currently, approximately 2 percent of the WGCP is in early transitional habitat, which computes to around 1,000,000 acres. With the constant timber harvest and subsequent regrowth no minimum and maximum acreage goals are required. Because no bird species survival is dependent on a clearcut habitat it was decided Best Management Practices (BMPs) for timber harvesting would be better than developing a model. These BMPs are focused on the Northern Bobwhite, American Woodcock, and Prairie Warbler, and include recommendations on size, site preparation, and seedling spacing. The juxtaposition of clearcuts in a landscape to prevent increased fragmentation is also important. Desired conditions in a clearcut for the species of interest would require clearcuts of at least 5 ha (Alterman 2002) and no larger than 40 ha (Krementz 2000), with a minimal amount of site preparation. Clearcut sites that are too small (<5ha) will not provide adequate nesting sites for the Prairie Warbler, or feeding sites for the American Woodcock and Northern Bobwhite, and sites that are too large (>40ha) will not benefit any of the species. Mechanical site preparation, such as burning and discing, is preferable to using chemical spraying (Dimmick et al. 2002). Extreme site preparation with chemicals will alter the use of a clearcut for most bird species. Northern Bobwhite, American Woodcock, and Prairie Warbler all require early successional vegetation for food, cover, and nesting. Herbicides that control all vegetation prevent the development of the variety of plant species required to create suitable feeding and nesting habitat conditions. Some herbicides, however, allow the growth of legumes and blackberries while restricting the growth of undesirables. Prescribed burning and mechanical site preparation done in the winter will provide the best food and cover vegetation for the species in concern. Along with the site preparation the spacing of replanted trees is a concern. Seedling spacing determines the numbers of years until canopy closure and therefore the number of years that a clearcut is used by early successional bird species. Wide tree spacing such as 8ft x 12ft (Dimmick et al. 2002 and Krementz 2000) is recommended because it allows for the establishment of grasses, legumes, and other desirable food and cover plants. The location of clearcuts should be looked at in a landscape scale to ensure the cuts are not going to cause increased forest fragmentation. In some cases this may mean placing clearcuts next to each other to avoid multiple forest openings. Although many bird species need early successional vegetation, we are not suggesting using clearcutting to increase the amount of early successional habitat to help achieve population goals of any of these species. These BMPs are provided to maximize the habitat value of existing 7 clearcutting operations. 7 Agricultural - Cropland - ??? BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 7 Agricultural - Pastureland - ??? BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 7 Pine Plantation - ??? BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 7 Urban - ??? BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 7 III. Literature Cited Alterman. 2002. Bent, A.C.1963. Life histories of North American wood warblers, part two. Dover Publishing, Inc., New York, NY. 734pp. Bowman, R., D. L. Leonard, L. M. Richman, and L. K. Backus. 1997. Demography of the Redcockaded Woodpecker at the Avon Park Air Force Range. Report Number F08602-96-D0015. Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, FL. Brown, M.T. and J.M. Schaefer. 1987. An evaluation of the applicability of upland buffers for the wetlands of the Wekiva basin. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. Carrie, N.R., R.O. Wagner, K.R. Moore, J.C. Sparks, E.L. Keith, and C.A. Melder. 2002. Winter abundance and habitat use by Henslow’s Sparrows in Louisiana. Wilson Bulletin 114(2):221-226. Chandler, C.R. and M.S. Woodrey. 1995. Status of Henslow’s Sparrows during winter in coastal Mississippi. Mississippi Kite 25(2):20-24. Conner, R. N. and J. G. Dickson. 1997. Relationships between bird communities and forest age, structure, species composition and fragmentation in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Texas Journal of Science 49(3):123-128. Conner, R. N. and D.C. Rudolph.1991. Forest habitat loss, fragmentation, and Red-cockaded Woodpecker populations. Wilson Bull. 103:446-457. Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, and R.N. Coulson. 1997. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker’s role in the southern pine ecosystem, population trends and relationships with southern pine beetles. TX. Journ. Sci. 49(3):139-154. Craig, R.J. 1981. Comparative ecology of the Louisiana and Northern Waterthrushes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Dickson, J.G., J.H. Williamson, R.H. Conner, and B. Ortego. 1995. Streamside zones and breeding birds in eastern Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:750-755. Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin, and D.F. McKenzie. 2002. The northern bobwhite conservation initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina 96pp. Doster, R.H. and D.A. James. 1998. Home range size and foraging habitat of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Wilson Bulletin 110(1):110-117. 7 Dunning, J. B. 1993. Bachman’s Sparrow. In: Poole, A., P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 38. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Eaton, S.W. 1958. A life history study of the Louisiana Waterthrush. Wilson Bulletin 70:210235. Eaton, S. W. 1992. Wild Turkey. In: Poole, A. and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 22. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28pp. Engstrom, R.T., L.A. Brennan, W.L. Neel, R.M. Farrar, S.T. Lindeman, W.K. Moser, and S.M. Herman. 1996. Silvicultural practices and red-cockaded woodpecker management: a reply to Rudolph and Conner. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2):334-338. Evans, K.E. 1978. Oak-pine and oak-hickory forest bird communities and management options Pages 76-89 In: DeGraaf, R.M. (tech.coord.). Proceedings of the Workshop Management of Southern Forests for Nongame Birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report SE-14. Fitzgerald, J. A. and D. N. Pashley. 2000. Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Ozark/Ouachitas (Physiographic Area 19). www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_19_10.pdf Graber, J.W., R.R. Graber, and E.L. Kirk. 1983. Illinois birds: wood warblers. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 118. Griscom, L. and A. Sprunt. 1978. The warblers of America: a popular account of the wood warblers as they occur in the Western Hemisphere. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY. 302pp. Hamel, P.B. 1992. The land manager’s guide to the birds of the south. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 367pp. Harris, L.D., and J. Scheck. 1991. From implications to applications: the dispersal corridor principal applied to the conservation of biological diversity. Pages 189-220 In: Saunders, D.A. and R.J. Hobbs (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons. James, F.C., C.A. Hess, and D. Kufrin. 1997. Species-centered environmental analysis: indirect effects of fire history on red-cockaded woodpeckers. Ecological Applications 7:118-129. Krementz. 2000. Lande, R. 1995. Mutation and conservation. Conservation Biology 9(4):782-791. Landers, J. L. and W. D. Boyer. 1999. An old-growth definition for upland longleaf and south Florida slash pine forests, woodlands, and savannas. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-29. Asheville, NC: 7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 15pp. Letcher, B. H., J.A. Priddy, J. R. Walters, and L.B. Crowder. 1998. An individual-based, spatially explicit simulation model of the population dynamics of the endangered Redcockaded Woodpecker. Biological Conservation 86:1-14. Masters, R.E., J. E. Skeen, and J. Whitehead. 1993. Preliminary fire history of McCurtain County Wilderness Area and implications for Red-Cockaded Woodpecker management. In: Kulhavy, D.L., R.G. Hooper, and R. Costa (eds.). Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State Univ., Nacogdoches, Texas. Mengel, R.M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. Ornithological Monograph 3. Meyers, J.M. and A.S. Johnson. 1978. Bird communities associated with succession and management of loblolly-shortleaf pine forests. Pages 50-65 In: DeGraaf, R.M. (tech.coord.). Proceedings of the Workshop Management of Southern Forests for Nongame Birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report SE-14. Minshall, G.W., S.E. Jensen, and W.S. Platts. 1989. The ecology of stream and riparian habitats of the Great Basin region: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.24), Washington, D.C. 142pp. Mueller, A.J., D.J. Twedt, and C.R. Loesch. 2000. Development of Management Objectives for Breeding Birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 12-17 In: Bonney, R., D.N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles (eds.). Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners In Flight Planning Process. Proceedings of the 3rd Partners In Flight Workshop. Proceedings RMRS-P16, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 281pp. (http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay/) NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Odum, E.P. 1979. Ecological importance of the riparian zone. Pages 2-4. In: Johnson, R.R. and J.F. McCormick (technical coordinators). Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report WO 12, Washington, D.C. 410pp. Provencher, L., N.M. Gobris, and L.A. Brennan. 2002. Effects of hardwood reduction on winter birds in northwest Florida longleaf pine sandhill forests. Auk 119(1):71-87. Robinson, W.D. 1990. Louisiana Waterthrush foraging behavior and microhabitat selection in southern Illinois. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 7 Robinson, W.D. 1995. Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla). In: Poole, A. and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 151. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Taulman,XXX R. Ford, and W. Vermillion. 1999 XXXXX conservation plan. Physiographic area #42: West Gulf Coastal Plain. Unpublished manuscript Partners in Flight - U.S. 2002. Available at http://www.pif.nbw.gov/pif/ Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. 2002. Partners In Flight database. Available at http://www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html Rodewald, P.G., J.H. Withgott, and K.G. Smith. 1999. Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus). In: Poole, A. and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 438. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Rosene, W. 1969. The bobwhite quail, its life and management. Rutgers Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 418pp. Saenz, D., R.N. Conner, C.E. Shackelford, and D.C. Rudolph. 1998. Pileated woodpecker damage to red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in eastern Texas. Wilson Bulletin 110:362367. Schreiber, B. and D. S. DeCalesta. 1992. The relationship between cavity-nesting birds and snags on clearcuts in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 50(3-4):299-316. Schroeder, R. L. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: downy woodpecker. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.38. 10pp. Schroeder, R. L. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: pileated woodpecker. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.39. 15pp. Schroeder, R. L. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: pine warbler. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.28. 8pp. Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1(1):63-71. Smith, L. M. 1988. The natural communities of Louisiana. Unpublished document. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, LA. 39pp. Thomas, C.D. 1990. What do real population dynamics tell us about minimum viable population sizes? Conservation Biology 4(5):324-327. 7 U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Final revised land and resource management plan, environmental impact statement and record of decision for the national forests and grasslands in Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Technical/agency draft revised recovery plan for the Redcockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 229pp. Walters, J.R., S.J. Daniels, J.H. Carter, III, P.D. Doerr, K. Brust, and J.M. Mitchell. 2000. Foraging habitat resources, preferences and fitness of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the North Carolina sandhills. Fort Bragg Project Final Report. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Withgott, J. H. and K. G. Smith. 1998. Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla). In: Poole, A and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 349. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 24pp. 7
