Download Regional and National Issues for Forest Wildlife Research and

Regional and National Issues for Forest
Wildlife Research and Management
Stephen DeStefano
ABSTRACT. Biologists and managers face a broad range of issues related to research and
management of forest wildlife. To assess current trends in research, I reviewed 12 scientific journals
(1992–2001) that published articles on wildlife, general ecology, and forestry and summarized articles
by location, topic, issue, and species. To assess management concerns and issues, I interviewed
professional biologists from across the United States, asking their opinions on important forest wildlife
topics, approaches to improve research design, how management differs on public versus private
lands, and which species they thought were underrepresented, overrepresented, or of special concern
in their region. Most scientific articles focused on habitat selection, effects of forest alteration, and
demography of birds and mammals. Herpetofauna (i.e., amphibians and reptiles) and invertebrates,
although the subjects of some studies, made up only 10% each of all research papers. Biologists were
most concerned with the alteration of forest vegetative structure due to timber harvest and its effects
on wildlife populations and communities, but also recognized other issues such as changes in natural
disturbance patterns such as fire, effects of road building, and loss of early successional vegetative
communities as well as fragmentation of older forests. Most biologists agreed that long-term, largescale, experimental studies, which document the demographic response of forest wildlife to
alterations in forest cover, are needed. FOR. SCI. 48(2):181–189.
Key Words: Issues, disturbance, forest structure, fragmentation, roads.
I
of forest
wildlife are broad and evolving. For decades, biologists
have been concerned with the alteration, degradation,
and loss of forest cover and the implications for wildlife
populations and communities. At the core of the concern has
been the trade-off between managing a forest for fiber versus
wildlife (Kuusipalo and Kangas 1994). Although many biologists and foresters work to balance these two goals, issues
such as conversion of native forest to homogeneous stands of
younger forest, loss and fragmentation of late seral stage
forest (old-growth), and effects of management activities
(e.g., clearcutting, road construction, erosion, siltation of
streams) on fish and wildlife populations, particularly threatened or endangered species, have been the subject of much
research and debate.
More recently, concern for forest wildlife has broadened in scope and scale. The influence of management
SSUES RELATED TO RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT
activities on ecosystem structure and function, ecological
processes and services such as nutrient cycling, and dynamics of disturbances such as fire have come to the
forefront (Shinneman and Baker 1997, Lorimer 2001). In
addition to traditional concerns over timber harvest, fragmentation of forest cover caused by suburban and recreational development has become a major issue in many
regions of the country (Sampson and DeCoster 2000). In
the face of large-scale changes to forested landscapes,
biologists realized that a species-by-species, stand-by-stand
approach to research and management was not feasible or
even desirable. Ecosystem and landscape-scale approaches,
covering large areas, multiple ownerships, and multiple species, have since emerged as new approaches. Nonetheless,
acquiring reliable information on species’ requirements and
habitat relationships, particularly for threatened and endangered species, remains a high priority.
Stephen DeStefano, U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Holdsworth Natural Resources Center,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003—Phone: (413) 545-4889; Fax: (413) 545-4358; E-mail: [email protected].
Acknowledgments: I thank R. Haight and K. Koenen for support and ideas during the writing of this article. My thanks also to the biologists who
responded to my questions concerning forest wildlife issues, to L. Chase, R. DeGraaf, and W. McComb for input on interview design, and to R. DeGraaf,
R. Haight, and W. McComb for reviewing the manuscript.
Manuscript received January 15, 2002. Accepted January 31, 2002.
Copyright © 2002 by the Society of American Foresters
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
181
Recent alternatives for approaching the way research is
conducted have also been proposed. These include more
emphasis on manipulative experimentation rather than observational or correlative studies (Irwin and Wigley 1993,
Wolff 2000), application of sophisticated modeling techniques that combine analytical theory with biological reality
(Burnham and Anderson 1998), and use of meta-analyses
(Osenberg et al. 1999), and less reliance on tests of null
hypotheses (Johnson 1999), abandonment of the use of
convenience sampling and unproven indices and other data
surrogates (Anderson 2001), and avoidance of analytical
approaches that give rise to spurious results (Anderson et al.
2001).
Given the large number of concerns that biologists, land
managers, policy makers, and the public face over forest
wildlife, I sought to identify those regional and national
issues in the United States that professional wildlife biologists believe are most important. To do this, I examined a
number of scientific journals that publish articles on forest
wildlife to determine what research has been done recently,
and I interviewed professional biologists for their input on
what they think are major issues related to research and
management for forest wildlife. These summaries are intended not only to identify research trends and management
needs for biologists, but also to inform foresters, forest
ecologists, silviculturalists, and land managers as to the
concerns and approaches that their colleagues in wildlife
ecology identify as important.
Methods
I took three approaches to assess current research on forest
wildlife and forest wildlife issues. First, I identified important current topics based on recent publication of special
issues (i.e., compilations of related articles) in some major
journals. This was not an exhaustive review, but one that
involved my encounters with a wide array of literature as this
special issue of Forest Science on wildlife-habitat relationships was prepared. I also used the special issue of Forest
Science as a microcosm of topics and issues currently being
addressed by wildlife biologists and provide a summary of
abstracts we received.
Second, I examined 12 scientific journals that publish
articles on forest wildlife habitat (Table 1). I chose international journals with a focus in North America that represented
major outlets for research on wildlife ecology, general ecology, or forestry, and three journals that focused on specific
taxonomic groups (birds, herpetofauna, mammals). I then
chose one issue at random for each year for the past 10 yr
(1992–2001). For each issue, I counted the total number of
articles and the number (%) that addressed forest wildlife. I
then summarized the contents of the latter by identifying the
general topic (e.g., habitat selection, response to silvicultural
treatment), the obvious or implied issue (e.g., fragmentation,
habitat loss), species involved, and where the research took
place. Topics and issues were either predetermined (e.g.,
forest structure) or added as I examined articles (e.g., ultraviolet radiation) (Table 2). For two journals (Journal of
Wildlife Management and Wildlife Society Bulletin), I also
recorded when possible whether the study took place on
public land, private land, or both.
Finally, I interviewed professional biologists for their
opinions on issues related to forest wildlife research and
management. Instructions and a short set of questions (nine
questions with subparts) were sent to potential respondents
via electronic mail. I asked participants to identify major
forest wildlife issues in their region, whether they thought
issues differed between public and private lands, what approaches were needed for future research, and how often they
collaborated with professional foresters or silviculturalists.
A set of questions focused on species-specific approaches
and issues (e.g., are some species under- or over-represented
in research and management?). These latter questions grew
out of the general criticism that some species (e.g., game) are
often the focus of research and management to the detriment
of other species or broader topics of concern (e.g., nongame,
ecosystem management). Respondents were also asked their
geographic location, employer (state or federal agency, private industry, university, nongovernmental organization
[NGO]), and title or position. A “no opinion” option was
provided on all questions. Questions were asked of authors and
reviewers of this special issue of Forest Science and other
biologists who have worked on forest wildlife issues (n = 86),
and subscribers to The Wildlife Society list server (n > 1,000).
Table 1. Scientific journals examined for articles on forest wildlife topics. One issue (i.e., number) for each volume
(i.e., year) was selected at random for each of 10 yr, 1992–2001. Percent and SE (%) were calculated as the mean
proportion of articles for the 10 issues examined.
Journal
Conservation Biology
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Wildlife Management
Forest Ecology and Management
Journal of Mammalogy
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Condor
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Ecological Applications
Ecology
Forest Science
Journal of Herpetology
182
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
Total articles
Number
325
71
294
139
300
226
287
292
231
271
149
281
84
16
57
25
55
38
45
44
30
31
15
28
Articles on forest wildlife issues
Percent
SE
............................. (%) ..........................
26
3
23
5
21
2
19
4
19
3
18
3
16
2
14
2
14
4
11
3
10
2
10
1
Table 2. Major topics (i.e., subject matter) and issues (i.e., concerns, research problems, management challenges) for research on forest
wildlife reported in major journals on wildlife biology, ecology, and forestry during 1992–2001. (See Table 1 for list of journals.)
Topics
Behavior
Activity
Diet/foraging
Community dynamics
Biodiversity
Interactions
Structure
Demography
Abundance
Mortality/survival
Population dynamics
Reproduction
Habitat
Forest structure
Use (breeding, foraging, roosting, winter)
Vegetation type
Human dimensions
Physiology
Energetics
Nutrition
Spatial relationships
Home range/use
Movements
Scale
Issues
Effect of forestry practices
Insect/disease control
Plantations
Timber harvest (clearcuts)
Timber harvest (other silvicultural treatments)
Roads
Effect of human activities
Development
Economics/commodities and products
Grazing
Hunting
Land ethic
Recreation
Conservation of habitat
Connectivity/edge/fragmentation/patch dynamics
Cavities and woody debris (snags, logs)
Early successional stages
Late successional stages (old-growth)
Reserves
Riparian
Conservation of species
Biodiversity issues
Recovery of threatened or endangered species
Population viability and persistence
Reintroduction or reestablishment of populations
Forest health
Disturbance (fire, gap creation, hurricane/wind)
Environmental (acid rain, chemical treatment, pollution, ultraviolet radiation)
Habitat quality
Interactions (animal communities)
Herbivory
Insect-plant
Nest predation/parasitism
Results
Special Issues
The scientific literature is expanding rapidly, and publication of special sections or groupings of papers on specific
topics has become common. For forest wildlife, most recent
and relevant were special sections on biodiversity in managed forests (Simberloff 1999), ecological effects of roads
(Hourdequin 2000), managing forests and conserving birds
(Sallabanks and Marzluff 2000), conserving woody, early
successional habitats and wildlife (Thompson et al. 2001),
synergistic effects in fragmented landscapes (Laurance and
Cochrane 2001), and fire and ecosystems (Cramer 2001). An
entire issue of the Wildlife Society Bulletin was devoted to
deer overabundance (Warren 1997).
For this special issue on forest wildlife-habitat relationships, we received 65 abstracts for consideration. Of these, 57
(88%) were from the United States, and 8 (12%) were from
other countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Sweden).
Most of the abstracts addressed issues related to wildlife
populations and timber harvest or forest management (28/65,
43%). Others examined habitat relationships (15/65, 23%),
landscape and scale issues (9/65, 14%), and effects of roads
(5/65, 8%). The remaining 8 abstracts (12%) addressed
various topics such as fire, woody debris, and reserve design.
Of the 65 abstracts, 26 (40%) focused on forest songbirds, 9
(14%) on herpetofauna, and 6 (9%) each on small mammals
(rodents), ungulates, and biodiversity (multiple taxa). The
remainder included raptors, cavity nesters, and mediumsized mammals such as squirrels or rabbits.
Journal Review
Of the 12 scientific journals I reviewed, Conservation
Biology, Journal of Forestry, and Journal of Wildlife Management published the highest percentages of articles related
to forest wildlife (Table 1). Ecology, Forest Science, and
Journal of Herpetology published the lowest percentages.
Research was conducted throughout North America and
much of the world. All regions in the United States were
represented, with most papers from the Southeast (22%) and
fewest from Alaska (4%) (Table 3). Globally, 72% of all
articles were from North America (of those 81% from the
United States and 19% from Canada), 8% from Europe, 7%
from South America, 4% from Central America, and 3% each
from Asia, Mexico, and the Caribbean, and Africa.
Topics and Issues.—Journal articles covered a wide
range of topics and issues. Papers that focused on habitat
dominated, representing 42% of all publications (Table 3),
followed by demographic studies (27%). The remaining
topics made up <10% each (range 4–9%, Table 3). Habitat
studies were most prevalent in the southeast, northwest, and
southwest United States (18, 15, and 11%, respectively, of all
habitat studies) and Latin America (11% for Central and
South America combined). Demographic studies were common in Canada (22% of all demographic studies) and were
uniformly distributed throughout the United States and other
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
183
Table 3. Distribution of major issues related to forest wildlife research and management by region of the United States and countries
as reported in 12 major scientific journals during 1992–2001. Numbers represent numbers of papers published in each category. (See
Table 1 for list of journals.)
a
United Statesa
NC
SC
NE
1
0
4
1
0
1
Topic
Behavior
Community
dynamics
Demography
Habitat
Human
dimensions
Physiology
Spatial
relationships
NW
3
2
SW
2
6
12
28
2
9
21
0
9
9
1
8
12
0
2
2
1
5
3
2
Totals
51
44
26
Latin
Europe America
0
1
5
9
SE
4
2
AK
1
2
Canada
3
3
Other
4
4
Totals
23
35
14
16
1
10
34
0
5
0
0
26
17
0
10
14
1
10
20
9
7
13
3
120
184
17
1
1
5
6
1
6
2
0
2
9
3
3
2
4
0
2
22
40
22
47
57
10
60
36
55
33
441
Sections of the United States: NW = OR, WA, ID, MT, WY; SW = CA, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM; NC = ND, SD, NE, MN, IO, WI, IL; SC = KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA; NE = MI,
IN, OH, PA, NJ, MD, DE, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME; SE = KY, TN, WV, VA, NC, SC, MS, AL, GA, FL.
regions. Latin America dominated human dimensions research (53% of all human dimensions studies), with many
articles focused on hunting or harvest. Remaining studies
were much less frequent but were distributed uniformly
across most regions.
Forest Wildlife Species.—Mammals and birds dominated as study species in these research papers, representing
43% and 37% of all papers (Table 4). Herpetofauna and
invertebrates were subjects of 10% each of the remaining
papers. Passerine or neotropical birds made up the largest
single group of papers, with 53% of papers on birds and 20%
of all papers. Papers on large carnivores (24%) and ungulates
(23%) made up major proportions of mammal papers, and
10% each of all papers. Papers on herpetofauna were fairly
evenly distributed among groups of species, except for turtles.
One-third of all papers on invertebrates focused on moths and
butterflies. Some papers on invertebrates were focused on
damage control (16/41, 39%), but most (25/41, 61%) addressed ecological issues not related to damage or control. Of
the 25 papers on invertebrate ecology, 5 (20%) assessed the
impact of timber management on invertebrate populations.
For single species, highest numbers of papers were recorded
for wolves (Canis lupus) (15 papers, 4%), spotted owls (Strix
occidentalis) (14, 3%), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus
ater) (13, 3%), moose (Alces alces) (13, 3%), turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) (9, 2%), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) (9, 2%) (Table 4). In addition to the
papers referenced above, 61 articles addressed either multiple species (biodiversity) or topics that would relate to
multiple species, and thus were not included in Table 4. These
61 papers represented 13% of the total number of papers
examined.
Among species groups, habitat studies were most prevalent
for passerine birds (30% of all habitat studies) and invertebrates
(20%), while demographic studies were most prevalent for
passerines (27%), herpetofauna (18%), and carnivores (16%)
(Table 5). For less prevalent topics, invertebrates and passerines
dominated community studies (41% and 33%, respectively),
ungulates dominated physiological studies (39%), and passerines and medium-sized mammals dominated spatial studies
(26% and 21%, respectively) (Table 5).
184
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
Public vs. Private Lands.—I was able to determine
whether research was conducted on public or private land for
70 studies from North America and published in the Journal
of Wildlife Management or Wildlife Society Bulletin. Of
these, 48 (68%) were conducted on public land, 6 (9%) on
private land, and 16 (23%) on both public and private land.
Overall, studies on private land were more prevalent in
eastern states (70% of studies conducted on private only or
private and public lands), but studies on public land were
equally common in eastern (54%) and western (46%) states.
Interviews of Professional Biologists
I received 52 completed interviews from professional
biologists throughout the United States: 17 (33%) from
universities, 13 (25%) from private industry or organizations, 12 (23%) from federal agencies, and 10 (19%) from
state agencies. Respondents classified themselves as wildlife
biologists (21, 40%), researchers (18, 35%), or university
faculty (13, 25%).
Issues and Approaches.—Biologists listed a wide range
of topics they thought were most important to foster better
management of forest wildlife, but four topics accounted for
>51% of all responses: (1) understanding natural or anthropogenic processes of disturbance, such as fire, tree harvest,
road building (21 responses, 15%); (2) landscape and large
spatial scale issues (19, 13%); (3) effects of various, specific
tree harvest strategies (e.g., shelterwood cuts) on forest
structure, composition, and function (18, 13%); and (4)
issues related to old-growth/mature seral stage forests and
fragmentation (14 responses, 10%). Other areas of concern
(range 5–10% of responses) included conservation of
biodiversity, reserve design, impact of urban/suburban development, forest restoration, and changes in demographic
performance and fitness in response to habitat alteration.
Some other topics mentioned (<5%) included effects of
grazing and herbivory, impact of invasive species, public
relations and education, distribution and abundance of snags
and woody debris, and herbicide use.
Biologists also listed a wide range of approaches to research
they believed should be more prevalent. Among them, largescale studies, both spatially (landscape-level;16 responses, 14%)
and temporally (long-term studies; 12, 10%), along with experi-
Table 4. Research by species and species group as reported in 12 major scientific journals during 1992–
2001. (See Table 1 for list of journals and Table 6 and text for scientific names.)
Species or species group
Birds
Passerines/neotropical migrants
Forest avifauna (70)a
Warblers (10)
Sparrows (1)
Cavity nesters/users
Galliformes
Turkey (9)
Grouse (4)
Raptors
Spotted owl (14)
Northern goshawk (1)
Other eagles, hawks, and owls (4)
Others
Brown-headed cowbird (13)
All others (5)
All birds
Mammals
Rodents (small mammals)
Bats
Medium-sized mammals
Flying squirrels (9)
Other tree squirrels (9)
Woodrats (4)
Rabbits and hares (6)
Furbearers
Mustelids (11)
Beaver (6)
Other (3)
Large carnivores
Lynx (3)
Cougar (3)
Coyote (2)
Wolf (15)
Bears (11)
Others (8)
Ungulates
White-tailed deer (9)
Black-tailed and mule deer (5)
Moose (13)
Elk (6)
Others (6)
Others
Primates (2)
All others (14)
All mammals
Herpetofauna
Salamanders
Frogs
Turtles
Snakes
Lizards
Others
All herpetofauna
Invertebrates
Lepidopterans
Ants and bees
Beetles
Leafminers
Weevils
Others
All invertebrates
All species
a
No. of papers
Percent of taxon
Percent of total
81
53
20
21
13
14
8
5
3
19
13
5
18
12
4
152
100
37
17
11
28
10
6
16
4
3
7
20
12
5
42
24
10
39
23
10
16
9
4
173
100
43
12
8
3
7
7
4
41
29
20
7
17
17
10
100
3
2
<1
2
2
<1
10
13
8
7
2
3
9
42
408
31
19
17
5
7
21
100
3
2
2
<1
<1
2
10
100
Number of articles for specific species or group of species.
mental rather than observational designs (12, 10%), ranked
highest. A second group of approaches (those with 5–10% of the
total responses) included better investigations on the effects of
tree harvest strategies and silvicultural techniques on wildlife
populations, more multispecies/multitrophic level approaches,
more integration of disciplines and landownerships (including
private lands), and more focus on demographic performance and
ecosystem processes (rather than distribution or presence/absence of species, simple correlations, and observed patterns).
Other responses (<5%) included more integration of adaptive
management, policy implications, and extensive inventories in
research.
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
185
Table 5. Distribution of major issues related to forest wildlife research and management by species group as reported in 12 major
scientific journals during 1992–2001. Numbers represent numbers of papers published in each category. (See Table 1 for list of journals.)
Topic
Behavior
Community
dynamics
Demography
Habitat
Human
dimensions
Physiology
Spatial
relationships
Totals
Passerines
4
9
Cavity
nesters
0
0
Raptors
2
0
Galliformes
0
0
Ungulates
4
1
Mid-sized
mammals
5
1
Furbearers
1
1
Herpetofauna
1
4
Invertebrates
0
11
Totals
17
27
33
36
2
3
12
0
6
8
1
7
2
0
15
6
1
20
13
1
10
4
0
4
6
0
22
11
0
3
24
0
123
122
5
1
9
1
0
0
0
2
1
9
3
1
5
4
7
1
4
2
2
2
3
23
34
94
16
17
12
39
40
31
17
42
43
351
Forest Wildlife Species.—Most biologists stated they
focused on one or more species or species groups (44/52,
85%). The majority (94%) also stated that some species were
underrepresented in research and management: invertebrates
(24%), herpetofauna (19%), small mammals (9%), bats (7%),
and early successional forest species, songbirds, and carnivores (all 6%). Fewer biologists (65%) believed that some
species were overrepresented, but of those listed, a third
(33%) thought ungulates were overrepresented, and more
than half of all respondents (56%) believed that game species
in general were overrepresented. Other species included
songbirds (17%), threatened and endangered species (10%),
and carnivores (8%). Finally, biologists listed 65 species or
species groups (e.g., several species of frogs) that they
thought were most likely to be species of major concern for
their region (Table 6). The individual species most cited was
the spotted owl, but with only 4% of the votes. When
grouped, carnivores received 14%, herpetofauna, songbirds,
and ungulates 13% each, and raptors 8%.
Public vs. Private Lands.—Most biologists (45/51, 88%)
believed that issues for forest wildlife differed between
public and private lands. Responses as to why they were
different varied and were thus difficult to categorize, but the
major comments or themes could be summarized as follows:
(1) private land faced a narrower suite of issues and was more
commodity-driven than public land, while public land faced
greater political pressures based on an increasing number of
user groups (34/86 responses, 40%); (2) timber management
was easier to accomplish on private land, but often involved
such practices as high grading or large clearcuts (13/86,
15%); and (3) public land was more concerned with issues of
old-growth and a more balanced distribution of seral stages,
while private land tended to have a higher percentage of early
seral stages (9/86, 10%). In addition, private land was described as involving diverse ownerships of smaller scale but
potentially more productive land, with development as more
of a threat (14/86, 16%), while public land was described as
involving larger spatial scales, with more management options such as reserves and more interest in managing threatened and endangered species and maintaining biodiversity
(16/86, 19%).
Biologist–Forester Cooperation.—Most biologists who
answered the question felt that biologists and foresters or
186
Carnivores
0
0
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
silviculturalists worked together occasionally on research
and management needs (28/39, 72%). Few thought the two
disciplines worked together very closely (8%), and others
rarely (20%). None felt that the two disciplines never worked
together.
Discussion
When identifying major issues for a broad topic such as
forest wildlife research and management, several caveats
need to be made. The methods that were chosen, how participants were identified, and what questions were asked can
influence the outcome. I chose to examine scientific journals
and to interview professionals because the peer-reviewed
literature is the best representation of current, retrievable
information on applied research, and expert opinion from
active professionals represents the latest, best informed views
of current critical issues. Other approaches would be to
identify ongoing projects or amount of funding spent as
indicators of important issues, but these variables are harder
to track and subject to more variability (i.e., public or political
pressures, budget and funding cycles) than publication of
scientific literature or expert opinion. In addition, interpretation of content and identification of major points of both
papers and interviews is a somewhat subjective process.
Although the objectives of most papers in the journals and the
responses to many of the questions in the interviews were
clear on intent and meaning, I was still often required to use
judgment in interpretation and categorization. Nonetheless, I
believe the methods are repeatable, the results consistent
(because I was the only one to interpret the data) and subject
to inference, and the information presented here an accurate
reflection of current trends and critical topics in forest wildlife research and management.
Researchers are publishing on a wide variety of topics, and
managers are addressing a complex array of issues, but I was
able to identify some trends. Not surprisingly, habitat studies
dominated; these were focused on habitat selection by species and population or community responses to forest alteration. Demographic studies were also fairly common. General, broad but consistent themes were population or community responses to changes in forest vegetation (particularly
vegetative structure) and the impact of human activities on
forest ecosystem integrity, including biodiversity. Chief
Table 6. Species and species groups named as potential species of concern, i.e., have received or potentially will receive designation
as state or federal threatened or endangered (e.g., Blanding’s turtle), indicator of a regionally rare cover type (e.g., field sparrow),
potential to alter vegetation (e.g., deer) by forest wildlife biologists in the United States.
Species or species group
Birds
Wood stork (Mycteria americana)
Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus)
Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus)
Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)
Upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)
Woodcock (Scolopax minor)
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata)
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)
Spotted owl (S. occidentalis)
Whippoorwill (Caprimulgus vociferus)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Western wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus)
Brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla)
Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera)
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
Kirtland’s warbler (D. kirtlandii)
Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii)
Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus)
Painted bunting (Passerina ciris)
Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)
Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla)
Red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra)
Mammals
Evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis)
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii)
Eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana)
New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)
Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus)
Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni)
Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus)
Southern flying squirrel (G. volans)
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Mule deer (O. hemionus)
Moose (Alces alces)
Feral pigs (Sus scrofa)
Elk (Cervus elaphus)
Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus)
Beaver (Castor canadensis)
Marten (Martes americana)
Fisher (M. pennanti)
Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
River otter (Lontra canadensis)
Bobcat (Lynx rufus)
Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Wolf (Canis lupus)
Black bear (Ursus americanus)
Brown bear (U. arctos)
Number of responses
State
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LA
KS, MS, SC
IN
AL, NC
MA
MN, VA
WA
AZ
OR
AK, AZ, OR
WA
AZ, WA
MA
TX
OR
OK
GA, MA, NC, WI
NY
MI
OK
PA
NC
MS
MA
VA
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
4
2
3
1
4
1
2
5
2
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
MS
TX
OR
IN
MA, NH, NY
WA
OR
VA, WA
SC
AL, PA, SC, WI
CA, OR
MA, MN, WI
HI
MT, OR, WA
MN
OR, WA
AK, MN, OR, PA, WI
MN, PA
CO
AK, PA
IN
CO, MI, WI
AK, MN
LA
AK
(continued)
among the more commonplace concerns of biologists was the
alteration of forest structure due to timber harvest. This
ranged from removal of large tracts of forest cover through
large-scale clearcutting, to fragmentation of existing forest
cover through smaller scale but pervasive tree harvest, to
specific silvicultural treatments that may alter forest composition in less obvious ways. Other topics focused on changes
in ecological processes that once dominated some landscapes, such as fire, flooding, and windstorms—forces that
likely had profound and large-scale (both spatially and tem-
porally) influence on forests, producing a mosaic of stand
ages across the landscape. Additional concerns focused within
the forest to loss or depletion of canopy cover, multiple
stories, and standing (snags) and down (logs) dead wood.
Many of the above topics were not regionally specific.
However, forest types and conditions obviously vary considerably across such a large country, and some important
regional differences do exist. For example, fire as a natural
factor or management tool plays a bigger role in the large,
public, xeric forests of the West and much less so in the
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
187
Table 6. (continued)
Species or species group
Herpetofauna
Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)
Gopher frog (Rana capito)
Spotted frog (R. pretiosa)
Tailed frog (Ascaphus trueii, A. montanus)
Yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)
Ranid frogs (multiple species)
Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus)
Smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis)
Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingi)
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi)
Invertebrates
Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis)
Representative invertebrates
Other
Tree species (e.g., American chestnut [Castanea dentata], butternut [Juglans
cinerea])
smaller, mixed ownership, mesic forest stands of much of the
East. Continued concern about effects of fragmentation and
loss of mature forest was voiced for all regions, but biologists
in some regions have now turned their attention to the loss of
early successional woody habitat (Thompson et al. 2001).
The politically charged issue of clearcutting in the West has
been imported to the East, and now public opposition to even
very small regeneration cuts severely limits management
options. Our ability to mimic disturbances through timber
harvest to maintain openings or regain patches of young
forest, or even to promote the growth of large trees, is thus
often limited, at times because of political reasons (Askins
2001).
It was not surprising that birds and mammals dominated
the list of species for research. The perception among many
biologists that herpetofauna and invertebrates were
underrepresented in research and management was consistent with the published literature. Despite this concern, species of herpetofauna or invertebrates were not often cited as
potential candidate species of concern (Table 6), indicating
that their underrepresentation in forest research and management will continue.
Wildlife biologists are sometimes criticized for dealing
with game species (e.g., deer, grouse) at the expense of other
species (Edwards 1989). Clearly game management is part of
the history and tradition of wildlife biology (Leopold 1933)
and remains an important aspect of the profession today
(Organ and Fritzell 2000). However, many biologists who
responded to my questions recognized that many traditional
game species have taken on new roles. For example, whitetailed deer are recognized as a major ecological force in
eastern forests, influencing not only plant structure and
composition, but biodiversity as well (Waller and Alverson
1997). Biologists could now be criticized for spending too
much effort on songbirds, and this paper supports the notion
that passerines are among the most studied of animals.
However, songbirds are a large and complex group, and most
studies deal with communities of songbirds rather than single
species. The point may not be that certain groups of animals
receive unwarranted amounts of attention from biologists,
but that society so limits our ability to study ecological
188
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
Number of responses
State
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
FL
LA
OR
OR, WA
CA
AZ
TX
MA
NH
NC
1
1
NH
GA
2
GA, NY
processes and manage ecosystems on a truly meaningful
basis that ecologists and land managers are left to squabble
over inadequate resources. Long-term, large-scale studies,
integrated among disciplines and coupled with adaptive
management, require political will and adequate funding.
The latter items are perhaps what are most underrepresented
in conservation.
It was clear that most biologists recognized the need for
large-scale, long-term studies that are based on manipulative
experimentation rather than simple correlations or observations. Chief among response variables was the recognition
that information on the effect of management strategies on
demographic performance (i.e., reproduction, survival, measures of fitness) was critically needed, as opposed to simple
presence/absence or relative abundance of selected vertebrate species after timber harvest. Most interview respondents also recognized that we could improve the quality of
research. Recent advances, particularly regarding the analysis of data, have been brought to the attention of researchers.
Studies are still being published, including several in this
special issue of Forest Science, that rely on significance tests,
but biologists are climbing the learning curve. I predict that
if another special issue on forest wildlife-habitat relationships was published in 5 yr, the trend toward informationtheoretic methodologies and away from null hypothesis testing would be clear.
The biggest challenges to meaningful research probably
have remained the same over the decades: securing adequate
funding and agency commitments to conduct long-term and
large-scale manipulative experiments, which would include
accurate estimation of meaningful variables, such as survival
and reproduction in a metapopulation framework. Such studies are required to show real advances in what we know about
forest wildlife and how we can manage and conserve forest
ecosystem integrity, including biodiversity.
Many of the major issues and themes presented in this
paper will come as no surprise to most practicing forest
wildlife biologists. We have made progress in our understanding of wildlife-habitat relationships and forest ecology.
However, I think more progress could be made if researchers
could work out of the logistically constraining framework of
short funding cycles and 2 yr graduate research projects.
Long-term, well-designed integrated approaches to research
among biologists, foresters, analysts, and land managers,
conducted under the framework of adaptive research and
management, as well as meta-analysis of existing information, will hopefully be the waves of the future. These projects
will be a challenge to establish and maintain, but perhaps the
idea is best summed up in the comment of one respondent to
the interview: “There is much work, good work, to be done.”
Literature Cited
ANDERSON, D.R. 2001. The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:1294–1297.
ANDERSON, D.R., K.P. BURNHAM, W.R. GOULD, AND S. CHERRY. 2001. Concerns about finding effects that are actually spurious. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
29:311–316.
JOHNSON, D.H. 1999. The insignificance of significance testing. J. Wildl.
Manage. 63:763–772.
LAURANCE, W.F., AND M.A. COCHRANE. 2001. Special section: Synergistic
effects in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 15:1488–1489.
LEOPOLD, A.S. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New
York. 481 p.
LORIMER, C.G. 2001. Historical and ecological roles of disturbance in eastern
North American forests: 9,000 years of change. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:425–
439.
ORGAN, J.F., AND E.K. FRITZELL. 2000. Trends in consumptive recreation and
the wildlife profession. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:780–787.
OSENBERG, C.W., O. SARNELLE, AND D.E. GOLDBERG. 1999. Meta-analysis in
ecology: Concepts, statistics, and applications. Ecology 80:1103–1104.
SALLABANKS, R., AND J.M. MARZLUFF. 2000. Forest management and bird
populations: An introduction. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:1086–1087.
SAMPSON, N., AND L. DECOSTER. 2000. Forest fragmentation, implications for
sustainable private forests. J. For. 98(3):4–8.
ASKINS, R.A. 2001. Sustaining biological diversity in early successional
communities: The challenge of managing unpopular habitats. Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 29:407–412.
SHINNEMAN, D.J., AND W.L. BAKER. 1997. Nonequilibrium dynamics between
catastrophic disturbances and old-growth forests in ponderosa pine landscapes of the Black Hills. Conserv. Biol. 11:1276–1288.
BURNHAM, K.P., AND D.R. ANDERSON. 1998. Model selection and inference: a
practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York.
353 p.
SIMBERLOFF, D. 1999. The role of science in the preservation of forest
biodiversity. For. Ecol. Manage. 115:101–111.
CRAMER, W. 2001. Fire ecology, Mediterranean forests and global change.
For. Ecol. Manage. 147:1–2.
THOMPSON, F.R., III, R.M. DEGRAAF, AND T.M. TRANI (EDS.). 2001. Conservation of woody, early successional habitats and wildlife in the eastern
United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:407–494.
EDWARDS, T.C. 1989. The Wildlife Society and the Society for Conservation
Biology: Strange but unwilling bedfellows. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17:340–
343.
WALLER, D.M., AND W.S. ALVERSON. 1997. The white-tailed deer: A keystone
herbivore. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:217–226.
HOURDEQUIN, M. 2000. Special section: Ecological effects of roads. Conserv.
Biol. 14:16–17.
KUUSIPALO, J., AND J. KANGAS. 1994. Managing biodiversity in a forestry
environment. Conserv. Biol. 8:450–460.
WARREN, R.J. 1997. The challenge of deer overabundance in the 21st century.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:213–214.
WOLFF, J.O. 2000. Reassessing research approaches in the wildlife sciences.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:744–750.
IRWIN, L.L., AND T.B. WIGLEY. 1993. Toward an experimental basis for
protecting forest wildlife. Ecol. Appl. 3:213–217.
Forest Science 48(2) 2002
189