Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Final Proceedings Copy4-4-07 CD
Document related concepts
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Operation Wallacea wikipedia , lookup
Old-growth forest wikipedia , lookup
Fire ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Proceedings of the Sixth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference November 13-16, 2006 Tifton Campus Conference Center University of Georgia Tifton, GA Longleaf Alliance Report No. 10 March 2007 ii Longleaf Pine: Seeing the Forest through the Trees Proceedings of the Sixth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference November 13-16, 2006 Tifton Campus Conference Center University of Georgia Tifton, GA This conference would not be possible without the financial and logistical support of the following organizations: USDA Forest Service Georgia Forestry Commission J. W. Jones Ecological Research Center Simmons Tree Farm International Forest Company Stuewe & Sons Meeks Farm & Nurseries, Inc. Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University The Longleaf Alliance appreciates the generous support of these organizations. Citation: Estes, Becky L. and Kush, John S., comps. 2007. Longleaf Pine: Seeing the Forest through the Trees, Proceedings of the Sixth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference; November 13-16, 2006, Tifton, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 10. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 10 March 2007 iii In changing with the times, The Longleaf Alliance is attempting to do its part to “green” the meeting. We have chosen to distribute the proceedings for this year in a CD format. This will reduce the amount of paper used to print hardcopies and allows each user to print only what is needed. The proceedings are in a PDF format that can be viewed using the Adobe Free Reader, which can be downloaded at the following website: http://www.adobepack.com/. If you have any comments or suggestions, please direct them to us at the address listed below. Thank you. Proceedings Order Form If you would like to have another CD or a hardcopy of the proceedings sent to you, please complete and detach the form below. Name: ____________________________________ Address:___________________________________ City: _____________________________State: _________ Zip: ______________ Please check what format you would like: ____CD _____ Hard Copy Please mail to: The Longleaf Alliance - Proceedings 3301 Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Bldg. Auburn University, AL 36849-5418 phone 334.844.1012 fax 334.844.4873 e-mail [email protected] iv Foreward Dean Gjerstad, The Longleaf Alliance The goal of The Longleaf Alliance is to provide information at our conferences on “all things longleaf”. This conference met the goal. Topics presented in the concurrent sessions included 1) wildlife management: quail, predators, birds, herps 2) Herbicides: site preparation, herbaceous control 3) Understory Restoration: ground cover, restoration, seed collection and handling 4) Fire: reintroduction, old growth stands, frequency and seasonality, tree growth. More topics were discussed in the poster session: herbicides, wiregrass restoration, ecosystem management, climate effects, old growth, cones, seedlings, conservation, growth and yield, fire/fuel ladders, restoration, invasive/exotic species, redcockaded woodpecker, root pathogens, economics, forest structure, fire councils, soils, planting spacing, restoration planning, ecosystem management, and bird conservation. There were 321attendees at the meeting. The invited speakers discussed topics on local longleaf pine management, wildlife issues, herbicide use, understory restoration, prescribed fire, and environmental history. The poster session with 50 presentations expanded on the topics in the sessions and generated fruitful discussion. There was substantial exchange of ideas through the speaker and poster sessions and new and old friends were brought together through education, good food, and entertainment. With the threat of storms looming on the horizon, the field trip began at the Tift/Brumby farm which is co-owned by Mike Brumby, Jerry Tift, and Thomas Tift. A variety of topics were covered on the property from pine straw harvesting, naval stores operations, prescribed burning, wildlife management, natural regeneration, and midstory control. After enjoying a relaxing lunch with a pleasant view of the pond, the field trip continued to the Oakridge Farms owned by E. Cody Laird, Jr. and Nancy Laird Croswell. While here, the participants learned all about the intricacies of wiregrass restoration from seed harvest to planting. Other topics covered were conservation easements, planting of longleaf pine seedlings, groundcover, and non-game management. The field day was followed by a wonderful dinner and picturesque setting complete with a warm fire graciously hosted by Cody Laird. Music was provided by Tanger who entertained us with Irish music, creating a beat for energetic céilí dancing. Not even the threat of tornadoes and rain dampened our enthusiasm for longleaf pine. South Georgia was the setting for the Sixth Regional Longleaf Alliance Conference. The Tifton area was an excellent location for longleaf researchers, managers, land owners, and enthusiasts to congregate as it is surrounded by a significant portion of the remaining longleaf pine forests. The title for the Sixth Regional Longleaf Alliance Conference was Longleaf Pine: Seeing the Forest through the Trees and it highlighted all aspects of the longleaf pine community: trees, herbaceous and shrub layers, soils and wildlife. The general, concurrent and poster sessions, provided landowners, private and federal organizations, and other interested parties the ability to develop partnerships and provided excellent examples of restoration of the understory, non-native invasive control, silvicultural options, social and political challenges, wildlife conservation, and uses of prescribed fire. The regional conference would, of course, not be possible without the dedication and hard work of many individuals who help to develop and organize the meeting venue. To everyone who had a hand in bringing the conference from the beginning to the end many thanks are offered. I would like to thank Karen McBrayer, Senior Event Coordinator at the UGA Tifton Campus Conference Center, for serving as our conference coordinator. We thank all of those who assisted with the field trip during the conference. We extend our appreciation to the Georgia Forestry Commission for undivided help throughout planning and during the field trip. We also thank Ron Halstead for his guidance and help in coordinating the field trip. Much thanks goes to the J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center for providing transportation and drivers at Oakridge Farms. The field trip would of course not be possible without the access to longleaf pine forests. For this, we extend a very special thanks to Mike Brumby and Cody Laird for the use of the Tift/Brumby and Oakridge farms. We also say thank you to Cody Laird for graciously hosting dinner on the property. The fried peanut butter and jelly sanwiches added a nice touch to the conference. And the barbeque and brews were a perfect southern touch to a wonderful day. The conference was held at Tifton Campus Conference Center which is located in the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia, Tifton Campus. The staff and facilities at the conference center proved to be perfect for the meeting, continuing the high meeting standards from the past. Tifton is located in centralsouth Georgia in Tift County and is centered in the belt of quail plantations that stretches from Albany to Thomasville, Georgia and on to Tallahassee, Florida. These areas represent some of the best remaining intact longleaf pine habitats in the southeast. The importance of quail plantations in southern Georgia cannot be understated as they have done enormous good for the conservation of longleaf pine forests and associated wildlife species. There are also important research facilities in the area. The J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center at Ichauway is a 29,000 acre outdoor laboratory once owned by Robert W. Woodruff and now managed by the Woodruff Foundation and was the setting for the post-conference field trip. Located south of Tifton is the Tall Timbers Research Station whose mission is to conserve ecosystems. v vi Table of Contents Schedule of Events ...................................................................................................................................................... xii Speaker Presentations..................................................................................................................................................2 Herbicides in Longleaf Pine: Guidelines for Selection and Use Mark Atwater..................................................................................................................................................................2 Seed Cleaning and Germination Testing Procedures for the Restoration of Ground Layer Plants in a Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Jill Barbour .....................................................................................................................................................................3 Aspects of Predator Ecology and the Predation Process within a Longleaf Pine Forest Mike Conner ...................................................................................................................................................................8 Current Studies on Selected Birds of the Longleaf Forest. Jim Cox...........................................................................................................................................................................9 Grey Moss Plantation Overview Jenny Crisp ...................................................................................................................................................................10 Restoring Longleaf Ground Layer Vegetation on Private Lands E. David Dickens, Bryan C. McElvany and David J. Moorhead .................................................................................12 Opportunites for Restoring Longleaf Ground Layer Vegetation through the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Jeff Glitzenstein, Donna Streng, Jim Bates, Mark Hainds, Jill Barbour, and Joe Cockrell .........................................15 Reptiles and Amphibians of Longleaf Pine Forests: Update on Some Conservation Issues Craig Guyer ..................................................................................................................................................................21 Benefits and Costs of Herbaceous Release Treatments in Longleaf Pine Establishment and Management M.J. Hainds...................................................................................................................................................................23 Frequency and Seasonality of Prescribed Fire Affect Understory Plants James D. Haywood .......................................................................................................................................................25 How Does Longleaf Pine Native Groundcover Fit with Forest Management Goals? Sharon M. Hermann ....................................................................................................................................................28 Fire History of a Georgia Montane Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) Community Nathan Klaus ................................................................................................................................................................32 Fire Effects on Longleaf Pine Growth John S. Kush .................................................................................................................................................................33 New Findings for Site Preparation with Chopper Herbicide. Dwight K. Lauer and Harold E. Quicke .......................................................................................................................37 Reintroduction of Fire to Fire Suppressed Longleaf Pine Stands: An Overview of the Problem John McGuire ...............................................................................................................................................................38 vii Physiological Effects of Organic Soil Consumption on Mature Longleaf Pines (Pinus palustris) Joseph O'Brien, J. Kevin Hiers, Kathryn Mordecai and Doria Gordon .......................................................................39 Pineywood's Cattle Breed: History and New Uses for Small Acreages Chuck Simon ................................................................................................................................................................41 Bobwhite Quail Issues and Research Efforts in the Longleaf Region: An Overview Lee Stribling .................................................................................................................................................................42 The Georgia Coastal Flatwoods Upland Game Project: Launching a War on Wiregrass Chris Trowell................................................................................................................................................................45 Lessons Learned About Ground-layer Restoration: What we think we know and what we don’t Joan Walker and Lin Roth ............................................................................................................................................46 Poster Presentations ...................................................................................................................................................49 Use of Herbicide Site Preparation Treatments to Promote Longleaf Seedling Growth and to Enhance Fuels Structure for Longer Term Fire Management Robert N. Addington, Thomas A. Greene, Catherine E. Prior, Wade C. Harrison ......................................................49 Longleaf Pine Plant Community Restoration at the Savannah River Site: Design and Preliminary Results Todd A. Aschenbach, Bryan L. Foster, and Don W. Imm ...........................................................................................54 Longleaf pine ecosystem management at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida Chadwick Avery ...........................................................................................................................................................58 Establishment and Management of Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) Seed Production Areas Jill Barbour ...................................................................................................................................................................59 The Dendrochronology of Pinus palustris in Virginia Arvind A. R. Bhuta, Lisa M. Kennedy, Carolyn A. Copenheaver and Philip M. Sheridan .........................................60 Old-Growth Longleaf Pine on Horn Mountain, AL (Talladega National Forest) David Borland, Art Henderson, John S. Kush, and John McGuire..............................................................................61 The Longleaf Pine Cone Crop Story Elizabeth Bowersock, William D. Boyer and John S. Kush ........................................................................................63 Restoring and Maintaining Ecological Integrity of Special Communities Embedded within Longleaf Pinelands Joyce Marie Brown and Johnny P. Stowe ....................................................................................................................65 Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration Project: Lessons Learned from LPER Shan Cammack .............................................................................................................................................................68 Longleaf Pine Seedling Survivorship and Growth on Poorly Drained Soils Susan Cohen and Joan Walker......................................................................................................................................71 viii Restoring and Managing Longleaf Pine Ecosystems in the Southern United States: Southern Research Station Research Work Unit 4158 – Auburn, AL: Clemson, SC; Pineville, LA K.F. Connor, D.G. Brockway, J.D. Haywood, J.C.G. Goelz, M.A. Sword-Sayer, S-J.S. Sung, and J.L. Walker ...................................................................................................................................................................72 South Carolina Lowcountry Forest Conservation Project W. Conner, T. Williams, G. Kessler, R. Franklin, P. Layton, G. Wang, T. Straka B. Humphries, C. LeShack, K. McIntyre, R. Mitchell, S. Jack W. Haynie, A. Nygaard, L. Hay D. Beach, J. Lareau , J. Johnson, and M. Robertson, M. Prevost, M. Nespeca ..............................................................................................74 An Investigation of Old-field Longleaf Growth, Yield, Diameter Distributions, Product Class Distributions, Pine Straw Production, and Economics of Management Intensities in Georgia E. David Dickens, Bryan C. McElvany and David J. Moorhead .................................................................................75 Old Resinous Turpentine Stumps as an Indicator of the Range of Longleaf Pine in Southeastern Virginia Thomas L. Eberhardt, Philip M. Sheridan, Jolie M. Mahfouz, and Chi-Leung So ......................................................79 Spatial Patterns of Fuels and Fire Intensity in Longleaf Pine Forests B.L. Estes, D.H. Gjerstad, and D.G. Brockway ...........................................................................................................83 Evaluating Forest Development and Longleaf Pine Regeneration at Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge Bill Garland, John S. Kush, and John C. Gilbert,.........................................................................................................87 Wiregrass – Overrated John C. Gilbert, John S. Kush, and John McGuire.......................................................................................................89 Longleaf Pine Re-Discovered at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park John C. Gilbert, Sharon M. Hermann, John S. Kush, Lisa McInnis and James Cahill ................................................93 A Container-Grown Seedling Quality DVD Mark J. Hainds, Elizabeth Bowersock, and Dean Gjerstad..........................................................................................95 Longleaf Pine Forest Restoration at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park: Evaluation of Residual Stands and Re-Introduction of Fire Sharon M. Hermann, John C. Gilbert, John S. Kush, Caroline Noble and Herbert “Pete” Jerkins .............................97 What Happens to Top-Killed Seedlings? Rhett Johnson and Mark J. Hainds .............................................................................................................................100 Effects of Two Native Invasive Trees on the Breeding Bird Community of Upland Pine Forests Nathan Klaus and Tim Keyes .....................................................................................................................................101 The Regional Longleaf Pine Growth Study – 40 years old John S. Kush and Don Tomczak ................................................................................................................................102 Chopper® Herbicide Site Prep Improves Quality of Weed Control Dwight K. Lauer and Harold E. Quicke .....................................................................................................................104 ix Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery and Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Conservation: Sharing and Selling the Success through the Eyes of the Advocates Jon Marshall, Ralph Costa, John Maxwell and Dave Case ........................................................................................107 Pathogenicity of Leptographium serpens to Longleaf Pine George Matusick, Lori Eckhardt and Scott Enebak ...................................................................................................108 An Economic Model for Multiple-Value Management of Longleaf Pine B.B. McCall, R. K. McIntyre, S. B. Jack, and R. J. Mitchell.....................................................................................109 Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Forest Structure and Understory Species Composition in Longleaf Pine Flatwoods along Florida's Gulf Coast George L. McCaskill and Shibu Jose .........................................................................................................................110 Tale of Two Forests: Light Environments in Slash and Longleaf Pine Forests and Their Impact on Seedling Responses. J.D. McGee,R.J. Mitchell, S.D. Pecot, J.J. O'Brien, L.K. Kirkman, and M.J. Kaeser ...............................................110 Linking State Prescribed Fire Councils as a Coalition: A Proposal to Promote Media and Public Understanding of Rx Fire, and to Nationally Address Key Management, Policy, and Regulatory Issues Mark A. Melvin, Johnny Stowe, Frank Cole, Lane Green, Scott Wallinger, and Lindsay Boring ............................112 Longleaf Pine Genetics Research at the Harrison Experimental Forest C.D. Nelson, L.H. Lott, J.H. Roberds, T. L. Kubisiak and M. Stine..........................................................................114 Long Term Research on the Effects of Fire Regime on Upland Longleaf Pine Forests Thomas E. Ostertag and Kevin M. Robertson............................................................................................................116 Spatial and age structure of old-growth mountain longleaf pine, (Pinus palustris), stands in the Talladega National Forest of northeastern Alabama Brett Rushing, Kevin Jenne, and Robert Carter .........................................................................................................118 Spacing recommendations for longleaf pine David B. South ...........................................................................................................................................................121 Ichauway’s prescribed fire management program 1994-2006: A balanced approach Jonathan M. Stober and Steven B. Jack......................................................................................................................122 Allatoona Lake Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration Project Terrell Stoves..............................................................................................................................................................125 The Role of Ritual and Ceremony in Wildlands Conservation: Reestablishing Primal Connections Johnny Stowe..............................................................................................................................................................126 Private Property Rights vis-à-vis Establishing and Maintaining Invasive Exotic Plant Species: Legal and Ethical Ramifications of the “Right to Plant” versus Other’s “Right to Maintain Landscape Integrity and Property Values” Johnny Stowe..............................................................................................................................................................129 A Framework for Restoration: Increasing the Success of Longleaf Pine Restoration Projects Rob Sutter, Brett Williams, Alison McGee and Michelle Creech..............................................................................133 x Repeated Fire Effects on Soil Physical Properties in Two Young Longleaf Pine Stands on the West Gulf Coastal Plain Mary Anne Sword-Sayer ............................................................................................................................................134 Preliminary Density Management Diagram for Naturally Regenerated Longleaf Pine Curtis L. VanderSchaaf, Ralph S. Meldahl, and John S. Kush ..................................................................................137 The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture: A Regional, Landscape-Scale Approach to All-Bird Conservation Allison Vogt ...............................................................................................................................................................141 A Continued Pinus palustris Burn Study Comparing Frequency and Season of Fire to Basal Area Growth Loss Ben Whitaker, William D. Boyer, and John S. Kush .................................................................................................142 Landscape Scale Ecosystem Classification in Longleaf Pine Forest of the Talladega Mountains, Alabama Brent Womack and Robert Carter ..............................................................................................................................145 Fuel Loads, Tree Community Structure, and Carbon Storage in Mountain Longleaf Pine Stands Undergoing Restoration Rebecca Worley and Martin Cipollini........................................................................................................................148 xi Sixth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference Schedule of Events UGA-Tifton Campus Conference Center Tifton, GA Longleaf Pine: Seeing the Forest through the Trees Monday, November 13, 2006 5:00 – 8:00 PM Registration Social, poster session, vendors & photographers with featured displays Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:00 – 8:30 AM Registration 8:30 Welcome & Introductions (John Johnson - Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, Farm Service Agency; Rick Hatten - Management Chief, Georgia Forestry Commission; Richard Brinker - Dean, School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University; Bob Izlar - Director for Forest Business, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia) 9:00 Local Efforts with Longleaf Management, Restoration and Research Session Moderator: Peter Stangel, NFWF Peter Stangel - National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Rick Hatten - Georgia Forestry Commission Alison McGee - The Nature Conservancy Robert Brooks - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mark Whitney - Georgia Department of Natural Resources 9:45 BREAK 10:15 Local Efforts with Longleaf Management, Restoration and Research Jim Cox - Tall Timbers Research Station Susan Gibson - U.S. Army Kevin McIntyre - J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Amy Carter - National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory 11:00 Regional Longleaf Recovery Plan – Dave Case, DJ Case & Associates 11:30 The State of the Longleaf Alliance – Rhett Johnson & Dean Gjerstad, Co-Directors 12:00 LUNCH (provided) 1:30 PM Concurrent Session I - Wildlife Issues in the Longleaf Ecosystem Session Moderator: Eric Darracq, Georgia Department of Natural Resources xii 1:30 Bobwhite Quail in the Southeast 1930 - 2006 - A story of increase, decline, research, outreach, and recovery. Lee Stribling, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, AL 1:55 Aspects of predator ecology within the longleaf pine forest. Mike Connor, J.W. Jones Ecologi cal Research Center, Newton, GA 2:20 Current studies on selected birds of the longleaf forest. Jim Cox, Tall Timbers Research Sta tion and Land Conservancy, Thomasville, GA 2:45 Some important amphibians and reptiles of the longleaf pine forests. Craig Guyer, Department of Zoology, Auburn University, AL 1:30 PM Concurrent Session II - Herbicide Use in Longleaf Pine Forests Session Moderator: Mark Hainds, The Longleaf Alliance, Andalusia, AL 1:30 New findings for site preparation with chopper herbicide. Dwight K. Lauer, Silvics Analytic, Ridgeway, VA 1:55 Herbicides in longleaf pine:Guidelines for selection and use. Mark Atwater, Weed Control Unlimited, Inc., Donalsonville, GA 2:20 Post-plant herbaceous weed control timing considerations for longleaf pine. E. David Dick ens, Bryan C. McElvany, and David J. Moorhead, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Re sources, The University of Georgia 2:45 Benefits and costs of herbaceous weed control: Three to five years post-application. Mark Hainds, The Longleaf Alliance, Andalusia, AL 3:00 PM BREAK 3:30 Concurrent Session III - Understory Restoration Session Moderator: Jim Bates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 3:30 Longleaf groundcover: What good is it and what do you need to know to make informed dec sions for forest management? Sharon M. Hermann, Department of Biological Sciences, Au burn University, AL 3:55 Seed cleaning and germination testing procedures for the restoration of ground layer plants in a longleaf pine ecosystem. Jill Barbour, USDA Forest Service, National Seed Laboratory, Dry Branch, GA 4:20 Opportunities for restoring longleaf ground layer vegetation through the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Jeff Glitzenstein, Tall Timbers Research Station, Newton, GA 4:45 Lessons learned about ground-layer restoration: What we think we know and what we don’t. Joan Walker, USDA Forest Service Research Plant Ecologist and Lin Roth, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources and Belle W. Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Research, Clemson University, SC xiii 3:30 PM Concurrent Session IV – Good Fire/Bad Fire Session Moderator: Kevin Hiers, J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, GA 3:30 Reintroduction of fire-to-fire suppressed longleaf pine stands: An overview of the problem. John McGuire, The Longleaf Alliance, Auburn University, AL 3:55 Why mature longleaf pine trees die following organic soil (duff) consumption. Joseph O'Brien, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA 4:20 Frequency and seasonality of prescribed fire effects on understory plant community development. James D. Haywood, USDA Forest Service, Pineville, LA 4:45 Fire effects on longleaf pine growth. John Kush, Longleaf Pine Stand Dynamics Lab, Auburn University, AL 5:05 Adjourn 5:30 – 8:00 PM Social/Poster Session Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:00 AM Depart from UGA-Tifton Campus Conference Center to Field Day Location #1 8:30 Tift/Brumby Farm Mike Brumby, Jerry Tift and Thomas Tift, owners Field Stations Product Utilization - Mike Harrison, Consultant Pine Straw/Fertilization - David Moorhead, University of Georgia “Enviro-grid” Stream Crossing - Chad David and Bert Earley, Georgia Forestry Commission; Cal Callahan Associates Natural Regeneration - John Kush, Auburn University Prescribed Burning - Ron Halstead, Consultant Bobwhite Quail Management - Eric Staller, Tall Timbers Research Station and Jimmy Atkin son, J.W. Jones Ecological Research Station Naval Stores History and Demo - Grady Williams, Local Expert Midstory Control with Herbicides - Dwight Lauer, Silvics Analytic Midstory Control with Mulcher and Demonstration - Jerry Marchant, Vendor Lunch @ Tift Farm 1:00 PM Oakridge Farms E. Cody Laird, Jr. and Nancy Laird Crosswell, owners Focal Area 1 Wiregrass Restoration - Kevin McIntyre, J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Hand-Planted Wiregrass Plugs Small Wiregrass Plugs Planted with Tobacco Planter Wiregrass Seed Planted with Grasslander (equipment demo) Wiregrass Plugs Planted with Whitfield Planter (equipment demo) - Terry Whitfield Focal Area 2 Conservation Easements - Alison McGee, The Nature Conservancy xiv Focal Area 2 Conservation Easements - Alison McGee, The Nature Conservancy Underplanting Longleaf Pine Under Mature Slash Pine - Mark Hainds, The Longleaf Alliance and Bob Franklin, Clemson Extension Old-Field Groundcover versus Intact Groundcover - Kay Kirkman and Melanie Kaeser, J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Nongame Management - Todd Engstrom, Jimmy & Sierra Stiles and Wilson Baker Safe-Harbor Agreement - Ralph Costa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Phil Spivey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wednesday Evening, November 15, 2006 4:30 – 8:30 PM Dinner & Social – Oakridge Farms Entertainment provided by: Tanager (Irish Band) Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:00 AM Longleaf Embryogenesis. John Pait, VP of Business Development CellFor, Inc. 8:30 Environmental History Moderator: John McGuire, Outreach Coordinator, The Longleaf Alliance 8:30 ral Fire history on Pine Mountain, GA. Nathan Klaus, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Nongame NatuHeritage Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources 9:00 Pineywood's cattle breed, history and new uses for small acreages. Chuck Simon, County Ex tension Agent-Coordinator, Covington County, Alabama Cooperative Extension System 9:30 The Georgia Coastal Flatwoods Upland Game Project: Launching a war on wiregrass. Chris Trowell, Emeritus Professor of Social Science, South Georgia College, Douglas 10:00 BREAK 10:30 Landowner Panel: John Norman - Quail Ridge Plantation Bill Moody - South Carolina landowner Jenny Crisp - Grey Moss Plantation Mayo Livingston - Cyrene Turpentine Company 11:30 Wrap-up & Adjourn - Rhett Johnson & Dean Gjerstad, Co-Directors, The Longleaf Alliance Friday, November 17, 2006 TBA Post-conference Tour J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center xv Speaker Presentations 1 Speaker Presentations Herbicides in Longleaf Pine: Guidelines for Selection and Use Mark Atwater1 1 Weed Control Unlimited, Inc., Donalsonville, Georgia, 39845, USA Abstract Timely, effective use of herbicides in longleaf pine systems is dependent on recognizing site specific goals, features and limitations including: reforestation vs. restoration, time, economics, manpower, presence or absence of invasive plant pests, sensitive non-target organisms and others. Effective recognition of these and other criteria combined with a well thought out management plan are essential for success in using herbicides to achieve the site objective. Speaker Presentations 2 Seed Cleaning and Germination Testing Procedures for the Restoration of Ground Layer Plants in a Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Jill Barbour1 1 USDA Forest Service, National Seed Laboratory Dry Branch, Georgia, 31020, USA Introduction Upland habitats in southeastern Coastal Plain, USA, were dominated historically by open woodlands of longleaf pine with a very rich herbaceous ground layer (Peet and Allard, 1993). Presently intact stands of this vegetation type are very much reduced, probably to less than 2% of the original extent (Frost 1993). Restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem is currently an important priority of several federal and state agencies (Brockway et al., 2005). In addition, programs are in place to aid private landowners who wish to accomplish such restorations (http://ecos.fws.gov/partners/). Reinstating the rich herbaceous ground layer is a critical step in overall ecosystem restoration. Large-scale restoration of longleaf ground layer vegetation depends ultimately on a ready source of viable seed for many ground layer species. Unfortunately, this resource is not yet available for most of the species. One bottleneck is lack of basic information on seed cleaning, seed germination, long-term seed storage, and efficient procedures for nursery propagation (see Pfaff and Gonter 1996, Glitzenstein et al. 2001, Pfaff et al. 2002, Coffey and Kirkman 2006, for preliminary results). This study was implemented with three main objectives: (1) Develop seed cleaning procedures for longleaf ground layer plants. Cleaned seed should be pure, i.e. free of trash, and with high germination given suitable germination conditions. (2) Determine optimal germination protocols, including the need for moist cold stratification and scarification. (3) Determine if laboratory germination successes can be duplicated in a working nursery environment. Materials and Methods Winter 2005/2006 collections Seeds from 34 species of ground layer plants (9 grass species, 25 forb species) were collected by hand in 2005 and 2006 from 6 sites within Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina (Fort Benning, GA, Aiken Gopher Heritage Preserve, SC, three private landholdings in Russell County, AL, one private landholding in Stewart County, GA). Seeds were allowed to dry naturally in paper bags, than taken to the USDA Forest Service National Seed Laboratory for cleaning in spring 2006. Some collections were too small to clean with equipment, so the seeds were extracted by hand and germinated in laboratory dishes. Seed Conditioning The general process for seed conditioning was as follows: Step 1 Remove seeds from inflorescence with Westrup laboratory brush machine Step 2 Use an aspirator or blower to remove very small trash Step 3 Remove sticks and large trash with hand held screens or Ideal indent cylinder screens Step 4 Remove lighter weight material with blowers (Stultz or General Blower) or Oliver 30 specific gravity table. Step 5 Hand pick out debris for small lots Step 6 Prepare sample for seed testing and storage The Forsberg scarifier was used instead of the brush machine on Baptisia lanceolata, and Tetragonotheca helianthoides. Tephrosia virginiana was cleaned without the sandpaper inside the scarifier. Polygonella americana was cleaned with the brush machine and the Forsberg scarifier. Coreopsis major seeds were run over the Oliver 30 specific gravity table with a linen deck. Seeds fell through 3 chutes at the end of the deck and were labeled upper, middle and lower designating deck position. Seeds from the middle chute were rerun and divided into middle upper and middle lower. X-rays revealed that the upper and middle upper seed portions had full seed, but the middle lower and lower portions contained mostly empty seeds. These portions were combined with the trash. The upper and middle upper still contained a significant amount of debris, so water floatation was tried. Seeds sunk in the water, but debris and seeds floated too, resulting in further cleaning with the General Blower. Water floatation was tried with Lespedeza hirta. The cotyledons on some of the floating seeds swelled open and had to be removed from the lot. Speaker Presentations 3 Table 1. Germination data for the winter 2005/2006 seed collections. Species Nursery Germ % Amsonia ciliata Aristida condensata Lab germ % Comments 12 20 4 Aristida stricta 38, 24 Aster tortifolius 0 Baptisia lanceolata 2 Chamaecrista fasciculata 767,512 27 20 6 11 48 No prechill; 28 day prechill Brown; Green 1 36 40% after cleaning Coreopsis major 9 Desmodium 12 32 upper 33 22 16 4 65% dormant Brown Green No prechill 7 day prechill 4 40% dormant Eriogonum tomentosum 0 Eupatorium hyssopifolium 648,000 61% dormant 73% dormant 93295 762,353 27% after cleaning 528,671 71% dormant 65% dormant 1,109,046 1,537,637 35% after cleaning Galactia macri Lespedeza capitata Lespedeza hirta Liatris elegans 3 Covered seed Brown Green Brown, no float Brown float Green no float Green float 11,554 5 7% after cleaning 177,742 327,272 62 17% after cleaning 30 7% after cleaning Manfreda virginica 3 23 4,086,486 47 22 49 57 39 26 20 33 Liatris tenufolia Paspalum bifidum 927,607 None dormant 16 Eupatorium rotundifolium Mimosa quadrivalvis Sd/lb after cleaning 355 dormant after test Chrysopsis gossypina Liatris secunda Sd/lb before cleaning 0 Aristida purpurascens Eupatorium album Comments 527,442 14 0 35% dormant Pityopsis graminifolia 2 Saccharum alopecuroides 6 53 16 Caryopsis Whole seed Schizachyrium scoparium 5 54 49 2 19 Caryopsis Whole seed No prechill 28 day prechill 4 2 No cleaning After cleaning 24 12 Caryopsis 424,925 305,572 Caryopsis No prechill 7 day prechill After cleaning 905,389 343,896 28 18 0 1 25 0 93% dormant 394,434 3 After cleaning 207,692 Silphium compositum Solidago odora Sorghastrum nutans Sorghastrum secundum Sporobolus juneus Tephrosia virginiana Tetragonotheca helianthoides Vernonia angustifolia 2 855,849 Speaker Presentations 4 180,501 caryopsis 247,463 whole 13,095 11% after cleaning 462,857 978,314 Germination hand and seeds were discarded that had been damaged by insect predation or that had clearly failed to develop (i.e. seed was unfilled). Collection dates for the two species were November 23, 2006 and December 22, 2006, respectively. Ionactis trays were put out in the nursery January 15-January 30, 2007 and Pityopsis was put out February 1015, 2007. Sample sizes were n=945 seeds for Ionactis and n=900 seeds for Pityopsis. Germination results were tallied on February 28, 2007. Standard unstratified germination tests were conducted on seeds from each collection. Small germination dishes were utilized. Kimpak and blue blotters were the media, dampening them with 47.5 ml of water. Germination temperature was 20° C (68° F) for 16 hours of darkness and 30° C (86 ° F) with 8 hours of light. For Schizachryium, Sorghastrum, and Saccharum genera, the caryopsis and whole seeds were germinated separately to determine germination differences. Green and brown seeds were tested separately in the legume genera, Lespedeza, Baptisia, and Desmodium; the green seeds germinated slightly better than the brown seeds. Legume seeds that did not germinate were examined by cutting them open. If the embryos were not dead, they were classified as dormant. Stratified germination tests were performed on seeds of Aster tortifolius, Silphium compositum, Eriogonum tomentosum, Sporobolus junceus, and Vernonia angustifolia. Results 2005/2006 collections The Westrup laboratory brush machine satisfactorily removed seeds from the inflorescence. Usually seeds were expelled from the opening at the chute end and the trash fell through the opening underneath the machine. Small seeds from some forb species came out both openings and got mixed with the trash. The brush machine created a large amount of trash. A variety of methods and a large amount of time was required to separate the debris from the seeds. Nursery propagation Seeds from 15 species were hand planted in August 2130, 2006 in hard plastic propagation trays at the American Tree Seedling Nursery in Bainbridge, Georgia. Germination for all species was checked on October 4, 2006. Nursery and laboratory germination for the winter 2005/2006 collections are listed in table 1 and illustrated in figure 1. Lespedeza was run through the brush machine several times. To keep from injuring the seedcoat, the seeds were screened out of the debris between each run. Three species of Liatris were damaged in the brush machine resulting in higher germination before cleaning than after cleaning. A softer mantle, with less cutting action, in the brush machine may alleviate this problem. The Asteraceae family inflorescences were difficult to clean, because so much debris was created in the brush machine, further requiring the use of additional equipment to remove the debris from the seeds. Seeds of grass species were easily cleaned in the brush machine. The caryopsis separated from the whole seed yielded higher germination in Saccharum, Schizachyrium, and Sorghastrum Table 1. Winter 2006/2007 collections % Ger mi nat i on Considerable additional seed was collected during winter 2006/2007 from the private landholding in Stewart County, GA, and from Francis Marion NF (FMNF) near Charleston, SC. Much of this seed is still in the initial stages of processing and testing but nursery propagation data on seed of two FMNF species of Asteraceae, Ionactis (Aster) linariifolius and Pityopsis graminifolia is already available. These two species were cleaned carefully by 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 62 20 12 32 33 27 0 53 54 23 6 2 9 1 Nu rse ry g e rm 12 17 4 0 3 3 28 24 25 23 14 2 0 L a b g e rm Speaker Presentations 5 6 5 12 Figure 1 4 2 The Forsberg scarifier without sandpaper removed the seeds from the legumes without breaking the seed coats. Tephrosia virginiana seeds were easily cleaned using this method. The laboratory germination was higher than the nursery germination except for Mimosa quadrivalvis, and Sorghastrum nutans Figure 1. The ambient temperature in August was probably too high for germination of most species’ seeds. Tephrosia virginiana nursery germination was 3 percent higher than laboratory germination. 2006/2007 collections Nursery germination data from the two FMNF fallflowering Asteraceae were as follows: (1) Ionactis linariifolius: 450 germinated out of 945 seeds put out, germination rate 47.6%, (2) Pityopsis graminifolia: 574 germinated out of 900 seeds put out, germination rate 63.8%. These numbers are underestimates since germination was still proceeding on the tally date. Discussion In a previous exploratory study Glitzenstein et al. (2001) demonstrated moderate success in germinating seed of many of these same species. Of 42 species, 32 had germination rates in excess of 20% in at least one test. Methods used in that study were to place seed outside in the nursery shortly after collection; thus, seeds were exposed to natural germination cues. Seeds were cleaned by hand and damaged seeds were discarded. Using similar techniques very respectable germination percentages were obtained for two species of Asteraceae collected in fall 2006 from FMNF (2006/2007 collections discussed above). These generally positive results contrast with the very low germination percentages in the present study of nursery propagated Asteraceae put out in August 2006 and to a lesser extent with the laboratory results for this plant family. Two explanations can be suggested for this discrepancy. First, it is likely that high August temperatures are outside the natural range of temperatures under which these species will germinate (Pfaff and Gonter 1996, Pfaff et al. 2001). Most of the Asteraceae examined in both studies fruit in late fall and will germinate in the field during winter and early spring when soil moisture levels tend to peak and temperatures are cool (Glitzenstein et al. 2001, Coffey and Kirkman 2006). When these conditions are replicated in the nursery high germination percentages are obtained. The laboratory tests which simulated late spring conditions may have likewise been suboptimal for some Asteraceae. When damaged seeds were eliminated in the 2006/2007 collections higher germination rates were found. This suggests that insect-damaged or predated seeds were not satisfactorily screened out during the machine cleaning process and that new protocols will need to be developed to achieve that goal. Results for Fabaceae and Poaceae were similar to the earlier (Glitzenstein et al. 2001) study. Satisfactory (> 20%) germination percentages were obtained for most of the major species in these two families. However, cleaning techniques employed in the current study did not appreciably increase the germination percentages in comparison to the uncleaned seed as tested herein or in the earlier study. Further iterations of seed separation equipment (i.e. the aspirator, the blower) may be needed to accomplish the objective. Most of the grass seeds have not been cold stratified, a technique that may appreciably increase germination for some species. Use of the Forsberg scarifier without sandpaper was a convenient method for extracting seeds from legumes while at the same time ensuring sufficient scarification for good germination. An exception was Baptisia which had low germination and high residual dormancy. More intense scarification would appear to be indicated to break dormancy in this genus. Conclusions We are still learning how to handle, clean and germinate understory species’ seeds in the longleaf pine ecosystem. More collection sites need to be added to examine seed characteristics over the species’ range. We need to collect seed over several years to determine the limits of fecundity, seed set, and viability. The conditioning process needs to be fine tuned by collecting more seeds from fewer plants to increase effectiveness of the cleaning equipment. Additional equipment needs to be tried to determine the optimum cleaning process. Different germination temperatures need to be examined to determine optimum germination. Seed pretreatments such as stratification need to be further explored to maximize germination in the laboratory and nursery. Little is known or written about the nursery propagation of these species: sowing dates, nutrient regime, growing habit, and preparation for out-planting. Available information indicates that nursery propagated plugs will survive well in the field over the short term (Glitzenstein et al. 2001), but long-term survival and demography information is not available for most species. Further laboratory experiments are planned to explore the effects of temperature regimes on germination rates for the Asteraceae. A second explanation for low germination rates of the 2005/2006 Asteraceae collections may have been high rates of seed damage due to insect predation. Speaker Presentations 6 Acknowledgements We would like to recognize the staff at the USDA Forest Service National Seed Laboratory for their assistance on the germination and cleaning of the seeds in this project and Chuck Whittaker from American Tree Seedling Nursery for donating the containers and media for growing the plants. Literature Cited Brockway, D.G. , K.W. Outcalt, D.J. Tomczak, and E.E. Johnson. 2005. Restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-83. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 34 pp. Coffey, K.L. and L.K. Kirkman. 2006. Seed germination strategies of species with restoration potential in a fire maintained pine savanna. Natural Areas Journal 26: 289-299. Frost, C.C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Proceedings Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 18: 17-44. Glitzenstein, J.S., D.R. Streng, D.D. Wade and J. Brubaker. 2001. Starting new populations of longleaf pine ground layer plants in the outer Coastal Plain of South Carolina, USA. Natural Areas Journal 21: 89-110. Peet, R.K. and D.J. Allard. 1993. Longleaf pine vegetation of the Southern Atlantic and Eastern Gulf Coast regions: a preliminary classification. Proceedings Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 18: 45-82. Pfaff, S. and M.A. Gonter. 1996. Florida native plant collection, production and direct seeding techniques: interim report. USDA, NRCS, Plant Materials Center, Brooksville, FL, USA, 76 pp. Pfaff, S., M.A. Gonter, and C. Maura. 2002. Florida native seed production manual. USDA, NRCS, Plant Materials Center, Brooksville, FL, USA, 76 pp. Speaker Presentations 7 Aspects of Predator Ecology and the Predation Process within a Longleaf Pine Forest Mike Conner1 1 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia, 39870, USA Abstract Predators are an important natural component of forested ecosystems. However, in the southeastern United States, habitat loss and fragmentation have resulted in the loss of many top carnivores, such as the red wolf and Florida panther. Because large carnivores are largely absent in the southeast, remaining predator communities are dominated by smaller predators. The role of these smaller predators is poorly understood, and their ecology within longleaf pine-dominated systems has received little research attention. Here, the basic ecology of a variety of predator species is discussed. Finally, the concept that habitat serves as a template for the predation process is introduced as a potential tool for better understanding and managing predation. Speaker Presentations 8 Current Studies on Selected Birds of the Longleaf Forest Jim Cox1 1 Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy, Thomasville, Georgia, 31799, USA Abstract The red-cockaded woodpecker is certainly one longleaf specialist that draws a lot of attention because of its rarity, but there are many other declining birds associated with longleaf systems that need attention. For example, both brown-headed nuthatch and Bachman's sparrows disappeared from some longleaf areas before the red-cockaded woodpecker, and both species are considered very rare in parts of their range. Today, Jim Cox will talk about research underway at Tall Timbers Research Station that addresses some of the key management questions associated with all three of these rare and declining pineland birds. Speaker Presentations 9 Grey Moss Plantation Overview Jenny Crisp1 1 Grey Moss Plantation, Lee County, Alabama, 36849, USA My name is Jenny Crisp. The name of our property is Grey Moss Plantation. It is located in North Lee County and has been in our family for three generations. Our property is only 2000 acres, which is small in size as far as plantations are concerned, but our property is diverse. We have three natural water sources and two ponds. Due to the abundance of water, we have natural hardwood areas, cypress bottoms, and pine uplands. This makes our property a haven for upland and lowland wildlife. We have deer, turkey, quail and countless other non-game species including gopher tortoises. We decided years ago to manage not only for timber and wildlife, but also for aesthetic beauty. As you probably realize from the mention of quail, deer and turkey not all of these species have the same requirements for maximizing their abundance. We are instead focused on being the best blend possible for all aspects of our desired goals. This requires knowing your property so you can apply the best silvicultural and wildlife management practices to each different area of your property. As landowners yourselves, you know property taxes are in an upward spiral and there are long dry spells of money flow between timber harvests. Even with the help of CUVA (Conservation Use Value Assessment) property tax season is no Christmas present. As I’m sure you already realize, the best way to bridge the gap between paychecks is with hunting leases. Recreation is big business. Hunting leases can be quite lucrative. So can renting a relaxing get-a-way in the country to city dwellers. You should keep all of these options in mind when designing your property management plan. Only by setting clear goals can you achieve a desirable outcome. Now let’s focus on timber. Although we have loblolly, slash and longleaf pines on our property we are most proud of the longleaf. Our property is in a natural longleaf area so longleaf trees have been on the land for hundreds of years. I can remember in the not so distant past when my father and I were concerned about the survival of the longleaf species and lamented that we felt the timber industry was over-looking the benefits of growing longleaf. Thankfully the government instituted the 15-year CRP contract for longleaf pines. Although the program got off to a shaky start due to human error and the learning curve, we are now on the way to a brighter forestry future. As landowners, foresters, and contractors learned which sites lent them to the longleaf; that containerized seedlings gave better overall survival; and exactly how deep to plant the soil plug; survival of the seedlings increased and cost of planting as well as frustration decreased. These experiences are a milestone in themselves, but we have miles left to travel. I personally would like to see the CRP program modified to allow landowners to plant greater numbers of trees per acre to account for seedling mortality, disease and cankers, genetic inferiority, cotton rat attacks, deer damage, lightening strikes, wind damage, and insect and beetle infestation. Currently the program does not allow enough seedlings to be planted to cover all the potential losses and still produce a productive, genetically superior stand after the initial thinning. Additionally, the sparse spacing creates lower octopus-like branches, which not only make the trees ugly, they make them impossible to mow between. Burning can help make these trees self-prune but you have to have enough fuel to carry a beneficial fire without turning into a killing fire. Remember longleaf are fire resistant, not fireproof and burning during candling is a no-no. In our experience of burning field planted CRP longleaf you get hit and miss results. You only have a short window of opportunity. For us this is after hunting season and before candling. Also our fields have varied types of grasses, shrubs and brush. Some carry fire well, others don’t. Remember not all your pines will candle at the exact same time, so some of the earliest will be killed if care is not taken. Now I would like to address additional concerns associated with the longleaf pine. These are uneven release from the grass stage within even aged stands and genetic inferiority of available seedlings. Due to the fact that landowner interest has only in recent years focused on the longleaf species we are behind in the effort to provide genetically superior seedlings to the market. This is a disadvantage to those persons interested in growing longleaf timber. Speaker Presentations 10 If you personally agree with the above statements please pass these concerns on to your nursery stock providers and governmental agencies. Remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Advances in the industry take time, research and money. We must push for all three to be a viable part of today’s market. Let’s talk about different treatments, which can be applied to old-field CRP to affect natural pruning. First and easiest application; do nothing. Trees will continue to have many octopus-like lower limbs for years. This will lower the timber quality and therefore revenues. Second and slightly more expensive; burn the stand. This method will help to start the natural pruning process by killing the lowest limbs. This will increase timber quality without adding much cost. Third and most costly; trim or de-limb the trees. With this method you send a crew of men through the stand with loppers, pruning saws, and pole saws to reach the higher limbs. They should leave only the upper third of the tree untrimmed. This is expensive and time consuming. We use a combination of burning and trimming. I like this method best because you can burn some of the lowest limbs without having to mechanically trim them. This saves time and money. Since we employ one full time man and one part time man year round we use this work as filler to keep them busy. Finally, I want to address natural regeneration of longleaf stands. In my experience there are two ways to achieve this goal. First, you must cut the timber to a seed tree stand leaving your best trees on an even spacing to disperse a good seed crop and wait for that 1 in 10 years when the seeds are plentiful. Then time the cutting while the seeds are falling. You want to get the seed trees off the property before the seeds start to sprout. The timbering operation will disturb the soil to get a good seed bed for the regeneration. Next pray for enough rain to carry the tender seedlings through the first season. After that you are on your way. Remember you are at Mother Nature’s mercy so some places may have too many seedlings survive and some won’t have enough but, you will have a natural stand with which to work. You can thin an over populated stand and you can hand plant into an under populated stand. One other thing to keep in mind is the seed crop rules the play of the game, not the timber market. So you might sell your seed trees for less than you would like to. You can look at this as an offset to planting costs. The only hitch is if your seedlings fail to survive. where sunlight can hit the ground. Once you get a seedling catch, you withhold fire until the trees are big enough to withstand burning. If the stand is too dense you can burn to kill some of the smaller trees or you can mechanically thin the stand. This method will give you a mixture of different aged trees in the stand hence the name uneven pine stand management. There are times when the circumstances of a naturally regenerated longleaf stand require more relief than fire can supply for overpopulation. This situation can be caused by too little fuel to carry the fire, or spotty areas of regeneration leading to too few trees in an area and too many trees in an adjoining area. This causes hot fires where you have too few trees and lots of grasses and very little fire where you have too many trees and no grasses. Using a Bobcat with a mulching head to cut rows through the stand in thick areas and avoid the thin spots can solve this potential problem. Although this is an expensive process there are government programs to help defray the costs. We thinned an area using this method with the assistance of the Southern Pine Beetle Cost Share program. This is a relativity new process and, although I was dubious about using it, our results have been good so far. To conclude this talk I would like to focus on the good traits of the longleaf pine. They have a high resin content; which makes them more insect resistant, increased tonnage harvested per acre, produces more lightwood stumps for potential profit and allows for turpentine harvesting when feasible. Longleaf is fairly ice tolerant considering their long needles. Their needles also bring a premium as baled pine straw. They are a fire tolerant pine species, which makes them the natural pine species for the wiregrass region. They produce a higher percentage of poles per acre as compared to other pine species. In my opinion, they are the most attractive pine species grown in the Southeast. If pines and wildlife are your interests, you should consider the longleaf pine. If you like the old Deep South plantation look, you should consider the longleaf pine. If you like natural and graceful beauty, you should consider the longleaf pine. The longleaf pine is the complete package. If they were women they would have beauty, brains and big dowries. Certainly the longleaf pine has its place in history. It is now making a comeback. With continued effort it can survive and hopefully thrive into the future. Another method of natural regeneration is a shelter wood stand that allows for holes to be created in the stand Speaker Presentations 11 Post-Plant Herbaceous Weed Control Timing Considerations for Longleaf Pine. E. David Dickens1, Bryan C. McElvany1 and David J. Moorhead1 1 School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Tifton, Georgia, 31793 USA Introduction year survival ranged from 90% with the April 7th Oust+Velpar L treatment to 40-65% with the May 9th herbicide treatments (Figure 1). All dead seedlings were replanted (Dec 2000) in the May 9th treatments. The April Oust+Velpar L treatment had significantly greater percent trees out of the grass stage and significantly greater heights at the end of the third growing season than the 100 90 a 80 70 Survival (%) b b 60 b b 50 b b b b b b 40 30 20 10 C May A4P1.2 May A6P1.2 May A8 May A6 May A4 May A4O2 May OS13 May A4V24 May A4OS6.5 0 April O2V24 Proper timing of herbicide applications is critical to obtain effective herbaceous weed control. Herbaceous weed control (HWC) applications can be made pre-emergent before weeds germinate or are still at the 1-2 leaf stage, or post emergent following weed germination. Annual variations in spring to early summer rainfall patterns influence herbicide efficacy within these application windows. Soil moisture is one of the most critical factors in determining the effectiveness of a weed control treatment as well as seedling survival and early growth. Examination of long-term precipitation records for the Coastal Plain of Georgia can be useful in predicting treatment application windows. Soil drainage class knowledge can be tied in with historic rainfall patterns for a given area to best estimate optimal a HCW treatment window. A study area in Emanuel County, Georgia was installed to discern the effectiveness of various herbicides and timing over newly planted (Dec 1999) old-field longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) on a moderately well to well drained Tifton soil. Treatment Figure 1. First year survival at the Emanuel County Georgia old-field longleaf site (Tifton soil). Study Design The experimental design was randomized complete block with 4 replications of each treatment. There were a total of 11 treatments, but only 7 were followed through six growing seasons: control, a 7 April 2000 Oust @ 2 oz/ac + Velpar L @ 24 oz/ac, then a 9 May 2000 application of Arsenal @ 4 oz/ac, Arsenal @ 6 oz/ac, Arsenal @ 4 oz/ac + Oust @ 2 oz/ac, Arsenal @ 4 oz/ac + Oustar @ 6.5 oz/ ac, and Oustar @ 13 oz/ac. The herbicide applications were over the top banded in a 4 foot swath. Four rows of ten living seedlings were wire flagged and numbered in each plot (initially 1760 seedlings) with approximately 20” of buffer between plots. Each plot was revisited 6-10 weeks, 21-25 weeks and at the end of the first, second and third growing season to determine % survival, % seedlings out of the grass stage, and mean height of those seedlings out of the grass stage. Statistical analyses were run on treatment means using SAS and one way analysis of variance. Least squares means were compared using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (5% alpha level). First Three Year Results The early (April 7, 2000) Oust+Velpar L herbicide treatment gave greater initial survival, % trees out of the grass stage, and height growth compared to nine later herbicide treatments (May 9, 2000) or an untreated control. First control and the May herbicide treatments. We did the same 9 May HWC treatments as described above over newly planted slash pine (mechanical site prep; shear; pile and no bedding; set up for eventual pine straw raking) on a poorly drained Pelham soil 2 mile north of the longleaf site. In that case, the slash survival was acceptable ranging from 80 to 90% at the end of the first growing season. Soil moisture on this poorly drained, non-bedded site did not appear to be as critical into April and May as it was on the better drained Tifton soil. Six-Year Results We returned to the site in March 2006 and re-established the seven aforementioned treatment plots (April 2000 treatment, best 5 May 2000 treatments, and control), retagging only the interior two rows of trees in replications 2, 3, and 4. After six growing seasons, mean diameters, heights (Figure 2), and green weight per acre were significantly greater with the 7 April application than the control and 9 May treatments. Sixth year survival ranged from 78% in the 7 April application to 61% for the May 9th applications to 41% for the control. In the May 9th treatments, originally planted trees had significantly larger Speaker Presentations 12 17 a 16 height (ft) 15 Table 1. A guideline for HWC application timing based on soil drainage class and herbicide type. ab 14 b b b b b 13 Soil Drainage Class 12 11 10 control May A4 May A6 May A4O2 May OS13 May A4OS6 April OV Timing - Treatment Figure 2. Sixth year mean height at the Emanuel County Georgia old-field longleaf site (Tifton soil). heights and diameters than the replanted trees. Original planted trees had an average diameter of 3.4 inches and height of 16 feet. Replanted trees had an average diameter of 1.9 inches and height of 9 feet. No differences exist between the May 9th treatments. During the spring of 2000, rainfall patterns were 25% of normal (1.79 versus 7.06 inches, Figure 3). It appears that the April 7th herbicide treatment allowed for the seedlings to survive this critical dry period. These results indicate that substantial establishment costs can be saved with an earlier herbicide application under severe spring drought conditions. Rainfall at this Site During the First Growing Season and the Local Weather Station Rainfall at the Emanuel County site (old-field, moderately to well drained Tifton soil) during April and May 2000 was well below normal; 1.58 inches in April and 0.21 inches in May 2000 compared to the 50 year running average of 3.30 inches in April and 3.76 inches in May. Over 80% of the first year mortality in the 9 May treated Somewhat to excessively well drained Moderately well to well drained Poorly to somewhat poorly drained Pre- to early post emergence herbicide application timeframe Late Feb to mid-March Early post to post emergence herbicide application timeframe March March Mid-March early April April to early May Mid-April to mid-May longleaf seedling plots was noted 6 weeks after treatment (21 June 2000 first survival count) compared to the 7 April Oust+Velpar L treatment mortality being 10% on 21 June 2000. Historically, April and May have been the two months with the lowest rainfall for the first half of the year for all the interior Georgia Coastal Plain (CP) weather stations. To confound the early growing season soil moisture dilemma, the Plains, Tifton (Figure 4), and Statesboro weather stations have had April and May rainfall amounts less than to much less than the historical averages in 5 to 7 years in the period of 2000 through 2006. March rainfall has historically been variable with record low rainfall amounts in 2004 and 2006 (the 2nd and 3rd worst on record) at some of the Georgia CP stations. For example, the Tifton weather station had the following rainfall amounts during March: 4.72” in 2000, 9.95” in 2001, 5.16” in 2002, 8.22” in 2003, 0.42” in 2004, 6.53” in 2005, and 0.29” in 2006. 7 6 7 2000 5 2001 Rainfall (in) 6 Rainfall (in) 5 4 2002 4 2003 2004 3 2005 2006 50 Yr Avg 2000 3 2 50 Yr Avg 1 2 0 1 April May Month 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Figure 3. Vidalia, Georgia weather station rainfall for the year 2000 and the fifty year average. Figure 4. Tifton, Georgia weather station rainfall during April and May 2000 through 2006 and the 50 year average. Speaker Presentations 13 Timing Considerations for Post-Plant HWC over Longleaf (and other southern pines) for the Georgia Coastal Plain From these findings and recent findings by Yeiser and Ezell (2006 unpublished), HWC treatment timing can be critical in (1) controlling competing vegetation effectively (generally herbaceous plants under stress are harder to control with herbicides then when these competitors have new growth and are vigorously growing), (2) maximizing herbicide efficacy with early post to post emergence herbicides (i.e., they work better on plants in the 1-2 leaf stage; once plants get larger than the 1-2 leaf stage declines), and (3) optimizing survival and early growth of planted pine seedlings. Since April and May have been the two driest months of the first ½ year and that the last 5 to 7 of the seven years have been below the historical average for these two months, early HWC applications would appear to be more effective than later HWC applications. Table 1 may be used as a guideline based on soil drainage class and type of herbicide used and Table 2 lists common Georgia Coastal Plain soils by drainage class. Table 2. A list of common Georgia Coastal Plains Soil Series by drainage class and subsoil type. Drainage Surface Depth Very Poorly 0-10 Poorly to somewhat poorly Somewhat to excessively well drained None Loamy Clayey Rutledge Torhunta Surrency Bayboro Chipley Osier Scranton Rains Lynchburg Bladen Coxville Brady 20-40 Pelham 40-80 Albany Plummer Spodic— Argilic Not Present Murville Wesconnet Rigdon Ridgeland Resota Pactolus Ortega Goldsboro Tifton Dothan Hurricane Pottsburg Faceville Nankin Greenville 10-20 Onslow Seagate 20-40 Lucy Fuquay Stilson 40-80 Bonifay 40-80 Spodic— Argilic Present Mascotte Sapelo 10-20 0-10 Moderately well to well drained Subsoil Type Lakeland Kershaw Troup Speaker Presentations 14 Baymeade Echaw Rimini Kureb Restoring Longleaf Ground Layer Vegetation on Private Lands Jeff Glitzenstein1, Donna Streng1, and Jim Bates2 Mark Hainds3, Jill Barbour4, Joe Cockrell5 1 2 Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida, 32312, USA US Fish and Wildlife Service, West Georgia Ecological Services, Ft. Benning, Georgia, 31995, USA 3 Longleaf Alliance, Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center, Andalusia, Alabama, 36420, USA 4 USDA Forest Service National Seed Laboratory, Dry Branch, Georgia, 31020, USA 5 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina, 29407, USA Introduction Restoration Approach and Philosophy Longleaf ground layer vegetation is among the most floristically rich in North America and is worthy of preservation and restoration in its own right (Peet and Allard 1993). In addition, it provides the trophic base for a rich and unique arthropod community (Hermann et al. 1998). Rare and threatened vertebrate populations including flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), redcockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and many others may depend on the rich ground cover. Popular game species including northern bob-white quail (Colinus virginianus), turkey (Meleagris gallapavo) and white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) also thrive in this cover type (Brockway et al. 2005). For these reasons restoration of diverse ground layer vegetation in longleaf pine stands is an important objective of USFWS, other state and federal agencies, and some private landowners in southeastern USA (Brockway et al., 2005, Roth et al, 2006). The basis of longleaf ecosystem restoration is reestablishment of appropriate open woodland structure accompanied by, or followed by, re-initiation of prescribed fire (Brockway et al. 2005). Mechanical or chemical treatments may often be useful if used cautiously (Brockway et al. 2005). Nursery propagation and out-planting of longleaf pine seedlings is required when this defining canopy tree is not already established on the site (Brockway et al. 2005). These basic steps are well recognized and accepted. Partners funds are available to help landowners with these activities. A few longleaf understory restoration projects have been implemented in recent years, mostly on federal lands or Nature Conservancy Preserves (Roth et al, 2006). Substantial funding and expertise were involved that would not be available to most private landowners. USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife is a program of USDI Fish and Wildlife Service that works with private landowners to enhance native habitats for wildlife generally and rare species in particular (http://ecos.fws.gov/ partners/). An important goal of the program in southeast USA is to make available expertise and funding to allow private landowners to carry out longleaf understory restoration projects. In cases where the project is not funded through Partners we can still provide expertise and contractor contacts should the landowner choose to provide the entirety of the funding. This article summarizes the approach and current status of longleaf ground cover restoration on a number of Partners co-funded projects in AL, GA, and SC and on one privately funded project near Charleston, SC. Less well understood is the need for active restoration of ground layer plant communities (Roth et al, 2006). By active restoration we mean planting plugs or direct seeding to put back species that have been lost from a site. It is often assumed that such efforts will not be needed because the majority of plant species will re-establish from buried seed or disperse into the site from nearby areas (Brockway et al., 2005). Observations of longleaf ground layer plants reappearing after disturbances, e.g. plantation establishment, have been cited in support of this point of view (Walker 1998, Hedman et al. 2000, Brockway et al. 2005). However, such observations are more to likely indicate persistence of surviving plants or re-sprouts from buried rhizomes than recruitment from seed. Recent data by Coffey and Kirkman (2006) tend to contradict the assumed importance of the seed bank in restoration. In this study the investigators buried seeds of characteristic perennial grass and forb species of longleaf groundcover and then followed the fate of the seeds over a four year period. Buried legume (plants in the pea family) seeds did indeed persist in the soil, and legume seedlings emerged from the seed bank during the entire period (Glitzenstein et al. (2001), demonstrated similar, though shorter term, results). In contrast seed of major non-weedy Asteraceae and Poaceae (plants in the sunflower and grass families) did not have a long-lived seed bank. Thus Coffey and Kirkman’s (2006) study strongly indicated the need for active re-establishment of dominant perennial Asteraceae and Poaceae in sites where these species had disappeared due to past disturbances. Speaker Presentations 15 Another point is that the seed bank itself may be disrupted by intense disturbances that disrupt the soil profile. This may explain why even within Fabaceae (i.e. legumes) there may be meaningful variation in re-establishment potential. Certain legumes, e.g. Lespedeza spp and Desmodium spp., do tend to reappear even after severe soil disturbances or long-term fire suppression. Other legumes, e.g. Tephrosia virginiana (Goat’s Rue), have a much lower capacity for spontaneous recovery. Indeed, like wiregrass, a stand of abundant Goat’s Rue is a good indicator for a history of undisturbed soils and relatively pristine stand conditions. Chigger Run Farm, one of our project sites in south GA (Table 2), was a good example. The restoration site was a young loblolly plantation with a history of frequent fire and decent remnant ground layer diversity. Goat’s Rue itself was, however, conspicuously absent from the restoration stand despite its abundance in adjacent undisturbed mature longleaf. The main goal of this project, or at least the Partners contribution, was to propagate and plant Goat’s Rue back into the plantation area. This was accomplished in January 2007 when, following canopy removal and site preparation, we planted out ~ 1700 Tephrosia virginiana plugs. Among other benefits, Tephrosia virginiana is a long-lived and prolific seed producer, and thus an important food of bobwhite quail. As indicated by Coffey and Kirkman (2006) and the Goat’s Rue example, we do believe that there is a need for active ground layer restoration on many fire suppressed or disturbed sites. The Chigger Run example also emphasizes the point that many “good” (i.e. characteristic perennials of non-soil disturbed fire maintained pinelands) species may sometimes survive in soil disturbed or even fire suppressed stands. Thus it is extremely important to do a careful examination of any site before embarking on a restoration. Remnant or residual populations are like money in the bank, and taking care to protect or increase such populations through use of appropriate site preparation (including burn only if that is called for) will greatly simplify the ultimate task of re-establishing diverse high quality understory. The two main approaches to active restoration are: (1) Grow plugs (tubelings, containerized seedlings) in the nursery and plant them out. (2) Direct seed, generally using notill drills adapted to handling fluffy seed. The first approach is more certain but is much more labor intensive. The labor issue is mitigated presently by the ready availability of relatively low-cost planting crews. These crews typically plant containerized pine seedlings but will also plant perennial herbaceous species. We have attempted direct seeding but the results are not yet certain. While this method is often recommended as cheaper and easier to implement, the available evaluations seem based almost entirely on cover of a few dominant grasses (e.g. wiregrass, little bluestem, Indiangrass) with little analysis of community level objectives (Roth et al. 2006). Consequently we have relied mainly on the plug planting approach which is nearly always successful if plugs are outplanted in fall/ early winter when conditions are cool and soil moisture tends to be highest on dry upland sites (Glitzenstein et al. 2001, Roth et al. 2006). The scale, numbers and densities of plugs planted out depends on the project budget and landowner objectives. For low budget (i.e. < $10,000) projects the goal is generally to establish a rather open grid of dominant (“matrix”) grasses with the expectation that the interstices will gradually fill in via rhizome expansion or seedling establishment. The target for forbs is 20-30 species with sufficient numbers to initiate new populations that ought to increase over time given appropriate management. For bigger budget projects higher numbers and densities are possible. The issue of seed to use in restoration is at present somewhat controversial. From the standpoint of local adaptation and protection of local gene pools the safest approach is to use seed locally collected from the nearest available donor site (Hufford and Mazer 2003). In selecting a donor site it is also important to match ecological characteristics as closely as possible. We have tried to adhere to this approach and have thus far collected all of our own seed from nearby sites, although some plugs have been moved up to 120 miles from the seed source. We have thus far not utilized commercial seed and will not do so even if marketed for southeastern USA unless the source of the seed is explicitly identified by the producer and can be determined to be local (i.e. within state and climate zone) and appropriate for the project in question. Our plugs are grown at several nurseries in FL, GA and SC (Table 1). We are cooperating with the nurseries on strategies to improve germination and efficiency of plug production. Research to improve seed cleaning and testing is also being carried out at the USDA Forest Service Seed Laboratory in Macon, GA (Barbour et al. 2007). Table 1. Cooperating nurseries. If your nursery would like to be included please contact Jim Bates, Jeff Glitzenstein or Mark Hainds. Nursery Ownership Location ATS Partners GA Private Bainbridge, Andrews Nursery FL FL Division of Forestry State Chiefland, Blanton Container Nursery Private FL Madison, Deep South Nursery GA Private Douglas, Taylor Nursery SC Forestry Commission State Taylor, SC Speaker Presentations 16 Summary of Available Services In sum, we, or our associated contractors, will provide the following services to facilitate active ground layer restoration: (1) Evaluate potential donor sites and restoration site from the standpoint of existing vegetation structure, composition and diversity. (2) Choose donor site. (3) Recommend site prep decisions to help conserve plant biodiversity and “climax” native grasses. (4) Collect seed, including machine harvesting as appropriate. (5) Direct seed if situation warrants. (6) Grow and outplant plugs. (7) Monitor plug survival. (8) If needed, help with follow-up burns or other control activities. Accomplishments to Date Status and accomplishments for nine projects with meaningful progress are summarized in Table 2. Included are four projects in AL, two in GA and three in SC. Ninety one perennial plant species have thus far been utilized in the projects, either via seed collection, propagation and/or out-planting. Species are listed and utilization thus far summarized in Table 3. Acknowledgements A number of folks were influential in each of the various projects. These individuals and their affiliations are acknowledged in Table 2 in association with the project name. Literature Cited Hedman, C.W., S.L. Grace and S.E. King. 2000. Vegetation composition and structure of southern Coastal Plain pinelands, an ecological comparison. Forest Ecology and Management 134: 233-247. Hermann, S. M., T. Van Hook, R. W. Flowers, L. A. Brennan, J. S. Glitzenstein, D. R. Streng, J. L. Walker, and R. L. Myers. 1998. Fire and biodiversity: studies of vegetation and arthropods. Transactions of the 63rd North American Wildland and Natural Resource Conference:384-401. Hufford, K.M. and S.J. Mazer. 2003. Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3): 147-155. Peet, R.K. and D.J. Allard. 1993. Longleaf pine vegetation of the Southern Atlantic and Eastern Gulf Coast regions: a preliminary classification. Proceedings Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 18: 45-82. Roth, L. (editor), M.E. Barnwell, B. Beck, N.J. Bisset, J.K. Hiers, L.K. Kirkman, C.S. Matson, G. Seamon, J. Walker (major contributing authors). 2006 (final draft, J.L. Walker, personal communication). Restoration of ground layer vegetation in dry site longleaf pine communities: a working guide to practical methods. Walker, J.L. 1998. Ground layer vegetation in longleaf pine forests, an overview of restoration and management. In Kush, J.S., comp. Ecological restoration and regional conservation strategies. Longleaf Alliance Rep. 3. Andalusia, AL: Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center: 2-13. Barbour, J., V. Vankus, J. Glitzenstein, D. Streng, J. Bates. 2007. Seed cleaning and germination testing for the restoration of ground layer plants in a Pinus palustris, Longleaf Pine, ecosystem. In Estes, B.L. and Kush, J.S Proceedings of the Sixth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference; November 13-16, 2006, Tifton, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 10. Brockway, D.G. , K.W. Outcalt, D.J. Tomczak, and E.E. Johnson. 2005. Restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-83. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 34 pp. Coffey K.L. and L.K. Kirkman. 2006. Seed germination strategies of species with restoration potential in a fire-maintained pine savanna. Natural Areas Journal 26:289-299. Glitzenstein, J.S.; D.R. Streng, D.D. Wade and, J. Brubaker. 2001. Starting new populations of longleaf pine ground-layer plants in the outer Coastal Plain of South Carolina, USA. Natural Areas Journal 21: 89-110. Speaker Presentations 17 Table 2. Private lands restorations for longleaf ground cover. All except Yeaman’s Hall project funded by USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Some of the property names are altered to protect landowner identity. Important collaborators in each project are listed parenthetically beneath the property name. SDC = Solon Dixon Center, Andalusia, AL. Landholding Location Acres Status of Project Russell County, AL 20 Kudzu dominated field at start of project. Seeds for restoration collected fall 2005/2006 onsite and in Tuskegee NF. Chemically treated 20 acres in 2005 and again in 2006 for removal of kudzu. Active restoration not yet initiated. Coffee County, AL 20 Clearcut and burned prior to project initiation. Seed collected from Blackwater River State Forest donor site autumn 2002. Plugs planted summer/fall 2003. 20 On-site donor site identified. Planted Saccharum spp (plumegrasses) and Tridens ambiguus in wet disturbed site. Plans are to chemically treat food plots infested with alien Lespedeza bicolor and plant native Lespedeza plugs currently in production at Andrews Nursery. Alabama Creek Stand Plantation (Beau Dudley, Dudley Asset Management) “Elba” Farm Kowikee Creek Plantation (Beau Dudley, Dudley Asset Management) Pinecone Plantation Russell County, AL Intensive mechanical and chemical site preparation and prescribed fire prior to project initiation. Seed collections from Blackwater State Forest, west FL, 2004/2005 and SDC. Longleaf and groundcover plugs planted for upland restoration during spring 2005-winter 2007. Ground cover plugs planted for wet savanna/seep restoration winter 2007. Prescribed burns on sections of restoration areas March 2006 and January 2007. Coffee County, AL Georgia Chigger Run Farm 20 Loblolly plantation with history of soil disturbance but decent burn history. Pines clearcut, site prepared via Gyrotrac treatment fall 2006. Tephrosia virginiana seed collected June 2006, donor site adjacent on same property. Approximately 1700 plugs Tephrosia virginiana planted out January 2007. 20 Seven fields dominated by broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and other native early successionals but with patches of potentially troublesome invasive aliens including Coastal Bermudagrass. Chemically treated with Roundup (glyphosate) during fall 2005 and subsequently burned. Donor sites included good quality mesic pineland on same property and SDC. Seed collected fall 2005/2006. Plugs planted December 2005 through February 2007. Bamberg County, SC 50 Acquired by SCNPS from TNC in 2004. At that time the site consisted of high quality wetland depression with federally endangered Oxypolis canbyi (Canby’s Dropwort) surrounded by fire suppressed loblolly pine plantation. The latter is being restored to longleaf, wiregrass and associates, in part to restore the natural fire regime for the benefit of the dropwort population. Plantation loblolly logged in autumn 2005. Pescribed burns in February and November 2006. Plugs of longleaf pine, ~40,000 wiregrass and ~10,000 other species planted in November 2006. Clarendon County, SC 50 Dr. Porcher is directing his own restoration with Partners funding. Glitzenstein is cooperating in growing and planting out federally endangered Schwalbea americana. Berkeley County, SC 50 Loblolly plantation logged fall 2006, Most of site chemically treated with Chopper (Imazapyr) fall 2006. Prescribed burned December 2006. Seeds collected fall 2006, plug propagation target 50,000 plugs, ~30 ground layer species. Privately funded. Thomas County, GA “Five Chimneys” Plantation (Beau Dudley, Dudley Asset Management) Stewart County, GA (Smoky Bartlett, Land Manager) South Carolina Lisa Mathews Memorial Bay, South Carolina Native Plant Society (John Brubaker, SCNPS; Guy San Fratello, SanBar Forestry and Wildlife Services). Pocotaligo Plantation (Richard Porcher, owner, retired professor of botany, the Citadel) Yeaman’s Hall Club (Lisa Lord, YHC naturalist/ecologist) Speaker Presentations 18 Table 3. Native perennial herbaceous species of longleaf pine ground layer utilized in the various restoration projects. Codes: C = seed collected, T= seed cleaned and germination tested, P = plugs propagated, O = plugs out-planted. (R following species name indicates globally rare and endangered). Nomenclature follows Kartesz (1994). Species with low numbers (<20) of out-plants were, for the most part, collected as part of mixed seed collections. “In propagation” refers to plugs presently in propagation trays maturing or waiting to be out-planted. Species Common Name Activity Plugs planted (regular text) or in propagation (italics) Ageratina aromatica lesser snakeroot CP 450 Agrimonia incisa (R) incised groovebur CP 50 Agrimonia microcarpa smallfruit agrimony C Amsonia ciliata fringed bluestar C Andropogon gerardii big bluestem CPO 8 Andropogon gyrans Elliott’s bluestem CPO 300 Anthaenantia rufa purple silkyscale CPO 3 Aristida beyrichiana wiregrass CTPO 70000 Aristida condensata piedmont threeawn CPO 180 Aristida lanosa woolysheath threeawn CPO 100 Aristida purpurascens arrowleaf threeawn CPO 200 Aster adnatus scaleleaf aster CPO 9 Aster concolor Eastern silver aster CPO 50 1250, 250 Aster tortifolius Southern aster CTPO Baptisia albescens spiked wild indigo C Baptisia lanceolata gopherweed CTPO 80 Baptisia perfoliata catbells CPO 106 Baptisia bracteata creamy wild indigo CPO 10 Brickellia eupatorioides false boneset C Carphephorus bellidifolius bluntleaf deerstongue CPO Carphephorus odoratissimus vanilla leaf CPO 80 Centrosema virginianum spurred butterfly pea CPO 212 Chasmanthium sessiliflorum longleaf dpikegrass CP 1500 Chrysopsis gossypina cottony goldenaster CTPO 30 Chrysopsis mariana Maryland goldenaster CP 1500 600 Coreopsis linifolia Texas tickseed CPO 30 Coreopsis major greater tickseed CTPO 120 Crotolaria rotundifolia rabbitbells CPO 170 Ctenium aromaticum toothache grass CPO 106 300 Dalea pinnata summer farewell CPO Desmodium ciliare hairy small-leaf ticktrefoil CPO 130 Desmodium spp. beggar’s lice CTPO 1700 Elephantopus elatus tall elephant’s foot CPO 50 Eragrostis spectabilis purple lovegrass CPO 20 Eriocaulon decangulare Tenangle pipewort CPO 2 Eriogonum tomentosum dogtongue wild buckwheat C Eryngium yuccifolium rattlesnake master CPO 5 Eupatorium album white thoroughwort C 5 Eupatorium coelestinum mistflower C Eupatorium hyssopifolium hyssop leaf thoroughwort CT Eupatorium pilosum rough boneset CPO Speaker Presentations 19 1 Table 3. (cont.) Eupatorium rotundifolium roundleaf thoroughwort CP Galactia macreei downy milkpea CPO 50 Helianthus atrorubens Appalachian sunflower CP 1350 Helianthus divaricatus spreading sunflower C Helianthus occidentalis (R) naked-stem sunflower CPO 200 Helianthus radula roundleaf sunflower CPO 500 Helianthus resinosus woodland sunflower C Ionactis linariifolius flaxleaf aster COP Lespedeza capitata roundhead lespedeza CTP 3000 Lespedeza hirta hairy lespedeza CTPO 30, 1200 50, 1400 Liatris elegans pinkscale gayfeather C Liatris gracilis slender gayfeather CPO 800 Liatris graminifolia grassleaf gayfeather CP 100 Liatris secunda piedmont gayfeather CT Liatris spicata dense gayfeather CPO 20 Liatris tenuefolia shortleaf gayfeather CPO 1000 Mimosa quadrivalvis var. angustata sensitive brier CTPO 500 Panicum anceps var. rhizomatum beaked panicum CPO 4200 Parnassia caroliniana (R) grass of parnassus CPO 1, 20 Paspalum bifidum pitchfork crowngrass C Paspalum floridanum Florida paspalum C Paspalum setaceum thin paspalum CPO 1 Pityopsis graminifolia grassleaf goldenaster CTPO 2500, 2000 Rhexia alifanus common meadowbeauty CPO 40 Rhynchospora latifolia white-top sedge CPO 60 Saccharum alopecuroides silver plumegrass CPO 3000 600 Saccharum giganteum giant plumegrass CPO Sarracenia leucophylla white-topped pitcher plant CPO 60 Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem CPO 2700 Schwalbea americana (R) American chaffseed CPO 100 Silphium compositum kidneyleaf rosinweed CPO 14 Silphium asteriscus starry rosinweed C Solidago odora anise-scented goldenrod CPO Sorghastrum elliottii slender Indiangrass CPO 3350, 500 4200 Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass CPO 1640 320 Sorghastrum secundum lopsided indian grass CPO Strophostyles umbellata pink fuzzybean C Tephrosia hispidula sprawling hoarypea C Tephrosia spicata spiked hoarypea C Tephrosia virginiana goat’s rue CPO 1800 Tridens ambiguus pinebarren fluffgrass CPO 500 Tridens carolinianus (R) Carolina fluffgrass C C Tridens flavus Purpletop Verbasina aristata coastal plain crownbeard C Vernonia angustifolia tall ironweed CTPO 100 Xyris ambigua coastal yelloweyed grass CPO 25 Xyris scabrifolia (R) Harper’s yelloweyed grass CPO 1 Speaker Presentations 20 Reptiles and Amphibians of Longleaf Pine Forests: Update on Some Conservation Issues Craig Guyer1 1 Department of Zoology, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract Amphibians and reptiles are abundant, diverse, and therefore, important components of longleaf pine forests. In places where maintenance of this diversity is a management objective an examination of recent information suggests key components of the ecosystem that provide specific characteristics necessary to support the herpetofauna. In this paper, I review features of amphibians and reptiles that lead to their diversity in longleaf pine forests and describe the size and qualities of areas needed to maintain this diversity. Introduction The longleaf pine ecosystem harbors a remarkable diversity of amphibians and reptiles. Many of these are restricted in their distributions to this forest type and appear to have evolved in it. One of these, the gopher tortoise, is thought to be a keystone species of longleaf because of the effect that the burrows created by these terrestrial turtles have on maintenance of plant and animal diversity in the forest. Because the region has experienced intense land use activities by humans, the ancestral landscape has changed dramatically for the native amphibians and reptiles, resulting in a growing list of species that receive federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, are candidate species under that legislation, or are listed by state law as being of conservation concern. In this paper, I review selected upland and wetland species of amphibians and reptiles that should be of interest to land owners in the longleaf region and review habitat management methods that can be used to retain these organisms in the landscape. Finally, I review recent developments in conservation of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) and suggest management objectives that might reduce the need to list this species throughout its range. Some portions of the longleaf pine ecosystem are created by deep sand ridges that are characterized by extremely low soil moisture and fertility but in which animals can dig easily. Because amphibians and reptiles have low resting metabolism (because they are ectothermic), they are able to survive and diversify in such habitats in ways that vertebrates with high resting metabolism (endothermic birds and mammals) cannot. For this reason there are six upland reptile species that deserve special consideration by those who list maintenance of the ancestral fauna of the region as a management goal. These species are the gopher tortoise, indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus migitus), Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni), southern hognosed snake (Heterodon simus), and eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus). The first two species receive federal protection, the next three are candidate species for federal protection, and the last species is widely recognized as deserving protection, except for the fact that it is venomous. These species all require a consistent set of landscape features to maintain their populations. Summary of Some Conservation Issues Primary among important features of the landscape is retention of an open canopy, allowing penetration of light to the understory. The ground cover vegetation must be dominated by grasses and forbs to provide a food base for herbivorous species, like the gopher tortoise, and to enhance insect abundance that serves as the prey sources for other vertebrate species that form the primary diet of predators like the five species of snakes. Indigo snakes consume other snakes, the two species of pine snakes and the rattlesnake largely consume rodents, and the hognosed snake principally consumes toads. Maintenance of an open canopy is the single feature that will create the broadest impact on retaining the forage base of these reptiles that are endemic to the xeric ridges of longleaf pine. A second important landscape feature is the presence of abundant stump holes and downed logs. These provide refuges from predators, hibernacula for overwintering, and nest sites for reproduction. Gopher tortoises create their own refuges by digging burrows that can be used by all four species of snakes during their yearly activities. However, stump holes are frequently used by pines snakes and rattlesnakes as refuges and these are at least as important as gopher tortoise burrows in the lives of these snakes. Management strategies that fail to implement thinning and prescribed fire or a surrogate for fire (judicious use of herbicides; mowing of thick shrub) and that disturb the understory vegetation (bedding; creation of wind rows) typically are deleterious to the target reptiles. A second vital feature of the longleaf landscape is fish-free wetlands, principally because these habitats provide reproductive sites for amphibians. The flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa), pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersoni), Speaker Presentations 21 striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus), mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus) are five key taxa associated with these wetland sites and that are of conservation concern. The first two are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act, the third was recently de-listed but is regulated by the states of Alabama and Florida, the fourth is protected by state laws in Georgia and Florida, and the fifth is a rare, recently described species that deserves conservation attention. These species all require wetlands that lack of fish, have undisturbed drainage patterns, and connect to upland habitats of high quality (see above). Sinkhole ponds (dusky gopher frog, striped newt), Carolina bays (striped newt), pitcher plant bogs (pine barrens treefrog), and flatwoods (flatwoods salamander), and other such seasonally-flooded sites are the primary reproductive sites of the four amphibians. The single most important habitat feature for retaining the amphibians is exclusion of fishes from the reproductive sites because fish can consume the entire production of eggs and larvae. These wetlands all dry frequently enough that fish cannot colonize them without the aide of humans who frequently stock fish to expand opportunities for sport fishing. If the reproductive sites can be maintained, then all five species require appropriate habitat structure. In general, this means use of prescribed fire to maintain open habitat in the wetlands as well as the uplands surrounding the wetlands. Stand thinning is an important tool, but this must be done in a fashion that does not alter the drainage patterns that accumulate waters. Mechanical site preparation must be avoided within the wetlands themselves if the habitat is to retain the five target species. These will require as little as 50 ha and as many as 1500 ha, depending on the quality of the forest structure. Within such sites, tortoise introductions must include all age categories to ensure population viability. The spatial distribution of public lands upon which tortoises might be maintained is already sufficient to cover ancestral distribution of gopher tortoises and these lands likely will be the primary focus on tortoise conservation. Regardless of whether tortoise conservation occurs on public or private lands, maintenance of habitat quality through thinning, use of frequent low-intensity fires during the growing season, and constant monitoring of response of the tortoise populations will be required. Gopher tortoises are a crucial feature of longleaf pine forests that are managed for maintenance of the ancestral fauna. The species currently receives federal protection in all areas west of the Mobile-Tombigbee drainage. However, a proposal to list the species throughout its geographic range is receiving serious consideration by Fish and Wildlife Service. This is because of loss of upland habitat, restriction or improper use of fire as a management tool, fragmentation due to urbanization, disease, and human predation. In order to avoid the need for listing, the US Department of Defense recently implemented a memorandum of understanding (MOU) of understanding among important stakeholders within the range of the gopher tortoise. The intent is to begin a process of action that will create areas that will be managed to the benefit of tortoises so that viable populations will be retained across the current geographic range of the species. Associated with this effort is generation of data that will allow establishment of reserve areas where viable populations of gopher tortoises can be established by moving them from places where tortoise densities are too low to indicate population viability. Recent data collected from my lab suggest that such reserves should target 100-150 animals as constituting a minimum viable population. Speaker Presentations 22 Benefits and Costs of Herbaceous Release Treatments in Longleaf Pine Establishment and Management M.J. Hainds1 1 The Longleaf Alliance, Solon Dixon Center, Andalusia, Alabama, 36420, USA Table 3. 2002- Monroe Herbicide Screening Trial Abstract Longleaf survival rates one year post planting were negatively affected by the majority of labeled herbicides applied “over-the-top” of newly planted seedlings. The primary benefit of herbaceous release treatments appears to be increased growth of newly planted seedlings, with the majority of labeled release treatments leading to increased growth of planted longleaf pine seedlings. Survival and growth of rates of longleaf are examined three-to-five years post-application. The Longleaf Alliance has installed numerous herbicide screening trials across the Southeastern, US. In these studies, The Longleaf Alliance has tested virtually every herbicide labeled for herbaceous release over longleaf pine seedlings at different timings and at varied rates. Some examples of herbicide applications and studies are: Table 1. 1997 Herbicide Screening Trial (Bareroot) Product (oz/acre) Date Applied Herbicide Oz. of Prod. Timing Oust XP 3 3/28/2002 Oust Alt Form 3 3/28/2002 Oustar 10 3/28/2002 Oustar 13 3/28/2002 Oust Alt Form/Velpar DF 2.0 & 16.0 3/28/2002 Oust Alt Form/Velpar DF 3.0 & 8.0 3/28/2002 Velpar DF 10.67 3/28/2002 Velpar DF/Oust XP 10.67 & 2.0 3/28/2002 Velpar DF/Oust Alt Form 10.67 & 2.0 3/28/2002 Untreated Check Oust XP/Velpar DF & Arse- 2.0 & 10.67 & 5.0 3/28/02 & 4/23/02 nal Oust XP 2 3/28/2002 Arsenal 4 3/28/2002 Arsenal 6 3/28/2002 Arsenal 8 3/28/2002 Arsenal/Pendulum 4.0 & 3.33 lb 3/28/2002 Arsenal/Pendulum 4.0 & 3.33 lb 3/28/2002 Arsenal/Pendulum 8.0 & 3.33 lb 3/28/2002 Arsenal/Oust 5.0 & 2.0 3/28/2002 Arsenal/Oust 5.0 & 2.0 4/23/2002 #1 Check (No Chemical) #2 Accord 16 oz 20-May-97 #3 Accord 20 oz 20-May-97 #4 16 oz Accord 2 oz Oust 20-May-97 #5 5 oz Arsenal 2 oz Oust 20-May-97 #6 6 oz Arsenal 2 oz Oust 22-Apr-97 #7 2 OZ Oust 22-Apr-97 #8 4 OZ Oust 22-Apr-97 Product oz/acre Timing-Application #9 22-Apr-97 Check N/A 22-Apr-97 Vel. DF 10.7 / Oust 2 4/7/1999 #11 10.72 oz Velpar 1.5 Oust+ 10.72 oz Velpar 2.5 Arsenal 20-May-97 #12 5 oz Arsenal 20-May-97 #13 7.5 oz Arsenal 20-May-97 #14 Escort .5 oz 20-May-97 #15 Escort 2 oz 20-May-97 Oust 2 & Ars. 4 4/7/99 & 5/12/99 #16 Escort 1 oz 20-May-97 Fusilade 24 4/7/99 & 5/12/99 Velpar DF 21.34 5/12/1999 Velpar DF 10.67 4/7/1999 #10 Table 2. 1999 Herbaceous Releases –Old Pecan Orchard (Container) Oust 2 & Ars. 4 4/7/1999 Arsenal 4 / Oust2 4/7/1999 Arsenal 4 / Oust 2 5/12/1999 Atrazine 64 4/7/1999 Atrazine 64 / Oust 2 4/7/1999 Speaker Presentations 23 May 1st. Typically this is applied with 4-5 ounces of Arsenal® and 2 ounces of Oust®. Additional Herbicide Research in 2003 Denton, Georgia (Old Field) Milledgeville, Georgia (Abandoned Ag Site) Lexington, South Carolina (Cutover) Andalusia, Alabama (Cutover) From these studies and trials, The Longleaf Alliance found two treatment regimes that consistently rate among our best herbaceous release treatments on agricultural sites. These two treatments are: #1 The Split Treatment, which is two ounces of Oust® applied between March 15 – April 15, followed by 4-6 oz Arsenal after May 15. For example, the Split Treatment ranked or yielded: Best of 11 treatments in 1999 trial 5-7% mortality on Samson Site #2 Alternatively, the Arsenal® Oust® Tankmix is a good single application which we recommend be applied after Table 4. 2002- Samson Herbicide Screening Trial (Container) Chemical Oz. of Prod. Timing Oust XP 3 3/27/2002 Oust Alt Form 3 3/27/2002 Oustar 10 3/27/2002 Oustar 13 3/27/2002 Oust Alt Form/Velpar DF 2.0 & 16.0 3/27/2002 Oust Alt Form/Velpar DF 3.0 & 8.0 3/27/2002 Velpar DF 10.67 3/27/2002 Velpar DF Oust XP 10.672. & 2.0 3/27/2002 Velpar DF/Oust Alt Form 10.67 & 2.0 3/27/2002 Untreated Check Oust XP/Velpar DF & Arsenal 2.0 & 10.67 & 5.0 3/27/02 & 4/22/02 Oust XP & Envoy 2.0 & 34.0 3/27/02 & 4/22/02 Arsenal 4 3/27/2002 Arsenal 6 3/27/2002 Arsenal 8 3/27/2002 Oust XP & Arsenal 2.0 & 4.0 3/27/02 & 4/22/02 Oust XP & Arsenal 2.0 & 6.0 3/27/02 & 4/22/02 Oust XP & Arsenal 2.0 & 8.0 3/27/02 & 4/22/02 Arsenal/Oust XP 5.0 & 2.0 3/27/2002 Arsenal/Oust XP 5.0 & 2.0 4/22/2002 The Arsenal/Oust Tankmix (Post-emergent) ranked or yielded: 2nd best in 1997 (out of 16 treatments) 3rd best in 1999 (out of 11 treatments) 5% mortality in 2002 on Samson Site Tied for #1 in 2002 on Monroe Site (out of 20 treatments) Not releasing seedlings is always an option one should consider. Not releasing seedlings sometimes yields the best survival at age one. We have found that it is very important to check for root growth before applying soil active herbicides. If little or no new root growth is present, consider postponing or skipping a herbaceous release treatment. In terms of survival at year one, the “Check” or “No Herbaceous Release Treatment” ranked or yielded: Best of 16 treatments in 1997 bareroot study 1999 Site Prep and Herbicide Study Scalping Site Prep =8th out of 11 treatments Chemical Site Prep = Worst out of 11 treatments Check (Rip Only) Site Prep = 4th Worst out of 11 treatments Tied for 1st out of 20 treatments in 2002 Monroeville Study. Tied for 1st out of 20 treatments in 2002 Samson Study Overall, we have found that herbaceous release treatments rarely increase survival. Examining dozens of different treatments, on average, we reduced longleaf survival 3 out of 4 times (74%) by applying a herbaceous release treatment. Even after we removed treatments that were off label (Atrazine/Oust, Escort), we still reduced survival 70% of the time. The main benefit of herbaceous release treatments appears to be increased growth. On average, we increased height growth by applying a herbaceous release treatment with 4 out of 5 treatments (80%). In one of the first herbaceous release studies installed by The Longleaf Alliance, bareroot longleaf pine seedlings were planted on a cutover site and released with a Velpar/ Oust tank mixture in 1995. 4 ½ growing seasons later in the untreated (not released) plots, seedlings averaged 5.4’ in height, 67% survival, and 11% of surviving seedlings were still in the grass stage. Bareroot seedlings that had been released one time in the first growing season with the Velpar/Oust tank mix averaged 9’ height, 63% survival, and only 4% in the grass stage. These results were consistent with many of our other studies, where we fairly consistently increased heights of longleaf seedlings with herbaceous release during the first growing season. However, we rarely increase survival with herbaceous release treatments, and we believe that survival rates can be improved through good site preparation treatments prior to planting. Speaker Presentations 24 Frequency and Seasonality of Prescribed Fire Affect Understory Plants James D. Haywood1 1 USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Pineville, Louisiana, 71360, USA Prescribed fire applied repeatedly over a number of years can profoundly change forest structure and the productivity of the understory. Both the frequency at which fires are applied, whether annually, biennially, or triennially, and the season of burning, whether in March, May, or July, are believed to be important. However, proving these differences requires the installation and monitoring of field studies over many years. Herein, I present the results from four long-term studies that support the belief that the frequency and season of burning affect herbaceous plant productivity and the basal area and richness of woody vegetation. In the first study, prescribed fire was applied over 20 years in a direct seeded stand of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris P. Mill.) (Haywood and Grelen 2000). Evidently, not applying fire or any other vegetation management treatment allowed natural loblolly pine (P. taeda L.) and hardwoods to occupy the unburned plots to the detriment of the longleaf pine regeneration and the understory vegetation (Table 1). Conversely, the understory production on the biennial March-burn plots is the most productive and the overstory basal area is the lowest. The triennially burned plots have less understory productivity and more hardwood basal area than the biennially burned plots regardless of the season of burning. Season of burning also affected productivity; both the biennial and triennial May-burn plots have productive understories despite high overstory basal areas. A sparse hardwood midstory on the four burning treatments was doubtlessly a factor in maintaining productive herbage layers. The second study started in a four-year-old slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.) plantation (Grelen 1983). Although the prescribed fires kept brush suppressed over the next 8 years, on the unburned plots, fire-intolerant species such as eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia L.), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida L.), American holly (Ilex opaca Ait.), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees) flourished. Blackberry (Rubus spp.) grew into impenetrable thickets in places, and natural loblolly pines grew as fast as the planted slash pines. Although the pine basal area on the unburned plots was comparable to most of the burned treatments at stand age 12 years, the brush that developed suppressed herbaceous plant productivity on the unburned plots (Table 2). The annual March-burn treatment had the most herbaceous plant productivity and the lowest pine basal area. As the interval between prescribed Table 1. Stand characteristics after 20 years of prescribed burning; initially, the site was directed seeded in November 1968, prescribe burned 16 months later in 1970, and the overstory trees were felled in early 1973 to form an even-aged stand of longleaf pine regeneration. Treatments Unburned after 1970 Biennial March burns Triennial March burns Basal areas All Un- Longleaf Loblolly Hardderstory pine pine woods vegetation (lb/acre) (ft2/acre) (ft2/acre) (ft2/acre) <1 6 143 13 1,810 40 0 <1 219 78 0 2 Biennial May burns 491 93 8 1 Triennial May burns 303 106 1 3 fires increased, herbaceous productivity decreased. The May-burn plots maintained high herbaceous productivity and high pine basal areas. Longleaf pine trees in the third study originated from natural regeneration. In 1962, all pine and hardwood trees and shrubs above one-ft tall were severed and removed to help create uniform cover conditions over the entire area (Haywood et al. 2001). However, scattered longleaf and loblolly pines outside the study area continued to be seed sources. Prescribed fire ceased on the unburned plots in 1961. The plots were mowed and raked in 1962 and 1963 as part of a simulated grazing study, but no further treatments were applied after 1963. The remaining plots were burned from 1962 through 1998. After 37 years, the herbaceous plant community was nearly eliminated on the unburned plots due in large part to a well-developed hardwood midstory, a large number of hardwood trees and shrubs in the understory, and accumulated litter that smothered the herbage (Table 3). Conversely, the July-burn plots had the highest herbaceous plant productivity, the lowest pine basal area, no hardwood midstory, and a sparse hardwood understory. The March-burn treatments had the lowest Speaker Presentations 25 herbaceous productivity among the three burning treatments, but it also had a high pine basal area and the most understory trees and shrubs of greatest stature among the three burning treatments. The May-burn plots maintained a productive herbaceous community, the highest pine basal area, and a sparse hardwood understory. The lack of a hardwood midstory on the burning treatments was doubtlessly a factor in maintaining productive herbage layers. Table 2. Stand characteristics after 8 years of prescribed burning; initially, the site was a 4-year-old slash pine plantation when prescribed burning began. Herbaceous Pine Treatments vegetation basal area Unburned Annual March burns (lb/acre) 183 1,002 (ft2/acre) 94 75 Biennial March burns 730 84 Triennial March burns 346 87 Annual May burns 581 99 Biennial May burns 513 97 Triennial May burns 413 93 In the third study, the hardwood community in the understory on the March-burn plots was different from the one on the May- and July-burn plots (Haywood et al. 2001). On the March-burn plots, blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), waxmyrtle (Morella cerifera (L.) Small), shining sumac (Rhus copallinum L.), blackberry, and sassafras were common, but were sparse on the other two prescribed burned treatments. Southern red oak (Quercus falcata Michx.) was common on the May-burn plots, but was sparse on the March- and July-burn plots. On-the-otherhand, blackjack oak (Q. marilandica (L.) Muenchh.) was found on all treatments. From the thirteenth through thirty-seventh growing season, American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana L.), flowering dogwood, white oak (Q. alba L.), and New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus L.) were eliminated from all three prescribe burned treatments (Grelen 1975, Haywood et al. 2001). Prescribed fire was clearly having an effect on the understory woody vegetation in terms of number of stems, plant stature, and species richness (Table 3). In the fourth study, prescribed fires were applied biennially in a longleaf pine plantation in March, May, or July beginning in the seventh growing season (Haywood 2002). When the study began, the understory was dominated by grasses with low scattered brush due to weeding treatments applied over the entire area in the fifth and sixth growing seasons. In addition, I installed an untreated control (no more treatments after the fifth growing season) and a biennial chemical weeding treatment. By the fourteenth growing season, the herbaceous plant Table 3. Stand characteristics after 37 years of prescribed burning, prescribed fire ceased on the unburned plots in 1961, but the other plots continued to be burned from 1962 through 1998. Herbaceous vegetation Pine Trees & Hardwoods AverHeig age ht shrubs (lb/acre) (ft2/acre) (ft2/acre) (stems/ (ft.) acre) Unburned after 1961 11 80 36 8,000 Biennial March burns 839 97 … 15,350 2.1 Biennial May burns 907 132 … 2,950 1.1 Biennial July burns 1,232 66 … 4,400 1.2 Treatments 3 community had collapsed on the untreated and chemically weeded plots (Table 4). An accumulation of litter in the absence of burning was the main reason for the collapse in herbaceous cover, although a greater longleaf pine basal area on the untreated and chemically weeded plots than on the three prescribed burned treatments was a contributing factor. In addition, percentage of tree and shrub cover in the midstory and understory of the untreated plots had a further adverse effect on grass productivity. Woody vine cover was greater on the two unburned treatments than on the three burning treatments. Fire intensities in the May burns were lower on average than in the March and July burns; the latter two averaged similar intensities (Table 4). This difference in intensities may help explain treatment differences. However, it should be noted that the fire intensity experienced in the fourth study were four times greater than the threshold of 50 BTU/sec/ft recommended for low intensity fires, and such high intensities do not always result from prescribed burning. July burning was associated with higher grass and forb cover than March or May burning. Once again, May burning was associated with a higher pine basal area than either March or July burning but cover of grasses and forbs was still high on the May-burn plots. March-burn plots had the lowest basal area of the three burning treatments but the cover of grasses and forbs was no better than for the May-burn treatment. Speaker Presentations 26 In conclusion, it is difficult to prove treatment differences in herbaceous productivity and percentage of cover in prescribed fire studies. However, across a series of studies, I was able to demonstrate that basal area of the overstory and understory woody vegetation is influenced by the fire regime, and basal area in turn influences herbaceous plant productivity and cover, especially if a hardwood midstory develops. Frequency of burning is inversely related to herbaceous productivity. Burning in May rather than March or July resulted in better longleaf pine growth while maintaining a productive herbaceous community. March burning was associated with more woody understory plants and greater richness than May or July burning, which is counter productive if herbaceous vegetation is the primary concern. Therefore, spring would be a better time to prescribe burn than late winter or summer in order to have acceptable overstory growth while maintaining herbaceous vegetation. Chemical treatments can control woody vegetation, but without fire, vine cover will increase and herbaceous plant cover will decrease because accumulating litter smothers the herbaceous plants. Still, chemical treatments as a supplement to prescribed burning may allow for a longer frequency between prescribed burns without sacrificing woody plant control. Regardless, prescribed fire is necessary to remove litter and maintain longleaf pine grassland communities. Literature Cited Grelen, Harold E. 1975. Vegetative response to twelve years of seasonal burning on a Louisiana longleaf pine site. Res. Note SO-192. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. Grelen, H.E. 1983. Comparison of seasons and frequencies of burning in a young slash pine plantation. Res. Pap. SO-185. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 5 p. Haywood, J.D. 2002. Delayed prescribed burning in a seedling and sapling longleaf pine plantation in Louisiana. P. 103-108 in Outcalt, Kenneth W., ed. Proceedings of the eleventh biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-48. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 622 p. Haywood, J.D., and H.E. Grelen. 2000. Twenty years of prescribed burning influence the development of direct-seeded longleaf pine on a wet pine site in Louisiana. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 24 (2):86-92. Haywood, J. D., F.L. Harris, H.E. Grelen, and H.A. Pearson. 2001. Vegetative response to 37 years of seasonal burning on a Louisiana longleaf pine site. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 25(3):122-130. Table 4. Stand characteristics after four biennial prescribed fires or biennially applied chemical weeding treatments in a longleaf pine plantation; treatments began in the sixth growing season and ended in the twelfth growing season. Treatments Average fire intensity Longleaf pine basal area Percent cover Grasses Forbs Woody vines Trees & shrubs (BTU/sec/ft) (ft2/acre) (%) (%) (%) (%) Untreated … 105 2 1 13 53 Biennial weeding … 95 4 1 11 5 214 48 35 3 2 17 185 63 32 3 1 10 209 58 44 9 1 8 Biennial March burns Biennial May burns Biennial July burns Speaker Presentations 27 How Does Longleaf Pine Native Groundcover Fit with Forest Management Goals? Sharon M. Hermann1 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract When the ecology and biodiversity of longleaf pine forests are discussed, the large number of plant species in the ground layer is always mentioned. How groundcover interacts with various forest management goals of a landowner is less frequently considered. Maintaining and/or restoring components of groundcover are not always among the primary objectives for a stand. However, management of this vegetation layer often enhance primary objectives in cost-effective ways. In this paper I review the interrelationship between groundcover and traditional forest management interests, including timber, hunting, application of prescribed fire, and pine straw raking. In addition, I outline questions to ask in order to determine when and how a landowner might benefit from managing existing groundcover or undertaking some level of restoration of this vegetation layer. Introduction In the last decade there has been increased attention paid to the ground layer of longleaf pine forests. This layer is dominated by grasses and forbs with scattered stems of hardwoods (in some cases also palms) plus longleaf seedlings and juveniles. The native ground layer flourishes under open canopies with frequent fire and grows on a wide-range of soils that have experienced little anthropogenic disturbance, that have had no prolonged period of fire exclusion and that have not been invaded by exotic species. An impressive number of plant species (200300) have been recorded stands, and in some mesic areas with high site index there may be 30-40 species in a square yard. A high percentage of species in the ground layer are grasses, legumes (peas and beans), and composites (asters and daisies). There is no region-wide estimate of the acreage of longleaf pine that supports this component of the forest. However estimates of remaining longleaf lack information on the ground layer, and so area supporting groundcover must be well less than the approximately three million acres that currently supports the trees. There are two general categories of groundcover, distinguished by types of wiregrass (Aristida stricta and A. beyrichiana) or bluestem grasses (Andropogon spp.). These two categories of groundcover once occupied approximately equal acreage of the longleaf range (Frost 1993). Wiregrass is common in Florida and the lower Coastal Plain from east Alabama east though Georgia and in North Carolina. Bluestem is found from central Alabama to Texas and dominates the understory of much of South Carolina north of the lower Coastal Plain. Although prior to European settlement bluestem species might have been the most prevalent grasses at some sites in the range of wiregrass, information is lacking and this issue is often discussed if ground layer restoration is planned. Value of Groundcover in Fire Management and Natural Regeneration Although there is high biodiversity in the native ground layer of longleaf pine forests, for some landowners this may not be a sufficient reason to maintain it. However, in addition to ecological value, there is a practical advantage to retaining native groundcover; it has value for attaining some types of management goals, especially those related to application of fire and/or facilitating natural regeneration of longleaf pine. High-quality groundcover is a useful commodity because it may enhance effectiveness of prescribed burning. The likelihood that fire will carry through a stand and top-kill hardwood stems is, in part, related to the availability of fine fuel. The components of fine fuel are pine needles, grasses, forbs, and litter (dead vegetation). Grasses and forbs enhance the effectiveness of prescribed burns and are especially important in areas that lack pine needles and, therefore, may develop into hardwood thickets or bramble patches. The useful fine fuel associated with native groundcover reduces competitors of regenerating longleaf trees and decreases the incidence of the fungal needle pathogen, brownspot. In addition, fire effects created by native groundcover and pine needles results in exposure of mineral soil, thus improving the seed bed conditions required for longleaf seedling establishment. The presence of native groundcover may also expand the window of opportunity for the application of fire. Widespread fine fuel permits application of fire over a broader range of seasons, especially spring and summer burns, and allows more frequent use of fire. Both season and frequency of burns are important components of fire regimes. Frequent fire has been demonstrated to be especially important in maintaining an open forest structure in ground layers dominated by wiregrass (Glitzenstein et al. 2003) or by bluestem (Glizenstein et al. 2003, Hermann 1995). Speaker Presentations 28 Groundcover Value to Animals In addition to its importance as a component of fine fuel, groundcover has value for animals in longleaf pine forests. The native ground layer is the natural equivalent of early successional habitat and so is important to bobwhite quail and other bird species. A ground layer of grasses and forbs is an important component of quail management because it provides protective cover and nest sites for the birds. The interaction of native groundcover and fire helps maintain the necessary open vegetation structure and important food plants of quail, including many native species of lespedeza and other legumes that are useful alternatives to exotic food plants that may invade longleaf stands and alter fire patterns. Van Lear et al. (2005) reviewed the habitat needs of a suite of vertebrate species associated with longleaf pine. These animals are of conservation concern and Van Lear et al. (2005) determined that open forest structure was an important habitat feature to them. Because fine fuel may be important in facilitating frequent fire, the animals of conservation concern may indirectly benefit from the presence of native groundcover. This may be especially true for red-cockaded woodpeckers (Cox this publication) and gopher tortoises (Guyer this publication). There are some studies that suggest that populations of some bird species (Bachman’s sparrow, Pine warbler and Eastern wood-pewee) may display a positive response to the effect that growing season burns have on vegetation. There is increasing evidence that growing-season fires do not negatively affect ground-nesting birds (cf. Tucker et al 2004). In addition, the forb component of the ground layer has value to many invertebrate species, especially butterflies and bees (Hermann et al. 1998). Increasingly native pollinators are of concern to conservation. Requirements of Native Groundcover To maintain native groundcover it is important to understand the basic requirements of the grasses and forbs and their tolerances to disturbance. Many groundcover species (especially grasses) do not tolerate heavy soil disturbance, especially over large areas. Once soil is tilled it is difficult for native bunchgrasses to recover however light roller chopping is not likely to result in long-term damage. In addition, many ground layer species, especially grasses, lack a soil seed bank and dispersal distance is short (just a few feet from the parent plant) so re-colonization is impossible for some plants. However, there are some species that do persist as seeds in the soil (Cohen et al 2004) These species may be useful in groundcover restoration efforts for (see below). The high biodiversity of the ground layer might appear to require many species-specific management approaches. However, in general this is not the case because most understory plant species share common growth requirements with seedling and grass stage longleaf. These requirements include: • High sunlight (little/no tolerance of shading) • Fire to remove litter & hardwood encroachment • High burn frequency • Periodic growing-season fire is useful but probably not mandatory for many species. • Little mechanical disturbance once established Land Management Goals and Native Groundcover When land management goals include promotion of natural regeneration of longleaf pine, opportunities emerge to enhance native groundcover with little compromise to the primary management interests. This is because when natural regeneration is employed, goals include: • Maintaining an open canopy • Minimizing mechanical activity • Applying frequent fire. • Under these activities, a landowner can engage in tree production, especially for saw-timber, and/or quailhunting opportunities. Other land management goals may create challenges for maintaining native groundcover. If a landowner is interested in planting a longleaf pine plantation, site preparation and subsequent closed canopy may eliminate many important species in the ground layer. However at some sites, a proportion of the native ground cover may remain and/or re-colonize when the canopy of the plantation becomes more open (Smith et al. 2002). Some points to consider include: • Some types of site preparation are likely to depress existing groundcover species but usually do not eliminate them • Densely planted plantations go through a closedcanopy phase that creates low light • Retaining and enhancing remnants of groundcover that exist at the time of planting require low planting density; studies are currently under way by Dr. Joan Walker and others. Some workers have suggested that tree density may need to be 500/ac or less; this is an area that needs additional research. • To maintain existing groundcover species, site preparation for tree planting should be relatively light, for example fire, hardwood-specific herbicide, and/or a single pass with a roller chopper. • Coupling longleaf plantations and managing for groundcover is most appropriate when the tree canopy remains sparse and open. • New CRP opportunities are developing that will facilitate sowing seed of native warm-season grasses at the same time longleaf is planted on former agriculture land. Speaker Presentations 29 These considerations can help evaluate site potential and guide future actions. If a landowner is interested in raking pinestraw: • Often tree density is relatively high and there is low light at ground level Fire frequency is usually low Raking almost always is associated with mechanical disturbance Consequently frequent raking is not very compatible with maintaining or restoring components of native groundcover • • • Considerations for Restoration of Native Groundcover Restoration covers a range of activities and goals. It spans a continuum (Walker 1999) from planting trees, to re-creation of open forest structure, to establishment of some species (dominant or those of special interest), to re-creating the entire ecosystem. Each step along the restoration continuum has potential to provide benefits to forest ecology and/ or management. Recent publications, such as Brockway et al. (2005), Walker and Sillette (2006), provide guidance for longleaf groundcover restoration. Restoration of key elements of the ground layer is possible (Barbour and Glitzenstein this publication, Glitzenstein and Streng this publication, Glitzenstein et al. 2001, Walker and Roth this publication), however improved technologies and additional seed sources are needed. Maintenance and enhancement of existing groundcover is important to consider before undertaking a management action that would degrade an example of this natural resource. Before embarking on a project to restore groundcover to a longleaf forest, it is useful to consider issues suggested by Johnson and Gjerstad (2006) for restoring trees to a site. Similar logic is appropriate for the ground layer and is reviewed at the Longleaf Alliance website (http:// www.auburn.edu/academic/forestry_wildlife/ longleafalliance/). • • • • • • • • • • • Determine landowner goals Understand requirements of species slated for restoration Evaluate current condition and past use of site, including Pasture (grazing) Row Crop (traditional agriculture) Soil compaction, alteration of soil quality Planted Pine Plantation Presence of exotic species Fire Exclusion Other potential incompatible histories (phosphate mining, etc) Possibility of residual native ground layer adults and/ or soil seed bank. Conclusions In addition to its significance to biodiversity, native groundcover has value to management. Longleaf groundcover plants are important as resources for animals and enhancing fire effects and maintaining open forest structure as well as being important for promoting natural regeneration. Maintenance of native groundcover is compatible with saw timber production and uneven-aged management that includes providing quail-hunting opportunities. Basic information required to restore the ground layer exists and new technologies are in development, although currently there is a shortage of local seed sources. One of the most far-reaching choices a landowner can make is to eliminate existing native groundcover. It is more challenging and more costly to restore this resource that it is to maintain it. If current forest condition and future management goals are compatible with promoting a ground layer of native species, landowners are encouraged to consider maintaining this important part of the region’s natural heritage. Literature Cited Brockway, D.G, K.W. Outcalt, D.J. Tomczak, and E. Johnson. 2005. Restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems. General Technical Report SRS-83. Asheville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Cohen, S., R. Braham, and F. Sanchez. 2004. Seed bank viability in disturbed longleaf pine sites. Restoration Ecology 12(4):503-515. Frost, C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Pages 17-43. In (S. Hermann, ed.) The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration, and Management. Proceedings Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 18. Glitzenstein, J.S.; D.R. Streng, D.D. Wade and, J. Brubaker. 2001. Starting new populations of longleaf pine ground-layer plants in the outer Coastal Plain of South Carolina, USA. Natural Areas Journal 21: 89-110. Glizenstein, J.S., D.R. Streng, and D.D. Wade. 2003. Fire frequency effects on longleaf pine (Pinus palustris, P. Miller) vegetation in South Carolina and northeast Florida, USA. Natural Areas Journal 23:22-37. Hermann, S.M. 1995. Stoddard fire plots: lessons for land management thirty-five years later. Pages 13-30. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Game Bird Seminar. Speaker Presentations 30 Hermann, S.M., T. Van Hook, R.W. Flowers, L.A. Brennan, J.S. Glitzenstein, D.R. Streng, J.L. Walker and, R.L. Myers. 1998. Fire and biodiversity: studies of vegetation and arthropods. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:384-401. Johnson, R. and D. Gjerstad. 2006. Restoring the overstory of longleaf pine ecosystems. Pages 271-295. In (S. Jose, E. Jokela, and D. Miller, eds.) The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. Springer Science, New York. Smith, G.P., V.B. Shelburne, and J.L. Walker. 2002. Structure and composition of vegetation of longleaf pine plantations compared to natural stands occurring along an environmental gradient at the Savannah River Site. Pages 481-486. General Technical Report SRS-48. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. Tucker, J.W.; W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2004. Influence of fire on Bachman's sparrow, an endemic North American songbird. Journal of Wildlife Management 68 (4):1114-1123. Van Lear, D.H.; W.D. Carroll, P.R. Kapeluck, and R. Johnson. 2005. History and restoration of the longleaf pinegrassland ecosystem: Implications for species at risk. Forest Ecology and Management 211(1-2):150-165, Sp. Iss. SI Walker, J.L. 1999. Longleaf pine ecosystem restoration on small and mid-sized tracts. Pages 19-22. Walker, J.L. and A. Silletti. 2006. Restoring the ground layer of longleaf pine ecosystems. Pages 297-325. In (S. Jose, E. Jokela, and D. Miller, eds.) The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. Springer Science, New York. Speaker Presentations 31 Fire History of a Georgia Montane Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) Community Nathan Klaus1 1 Georgia Department of Natural Resources Non-game Endangered Wildlife Program, Forsyth, Georgia 31029, USA Abstract The montane longleaf pine forests are endangered firedependent ecosystems of the Piedmont and Ridge and Valley and Cumberland Plateau of Georgia and Alabama. Little is known about the historic fire regimes of mountain longleaf forests or how to apply prescribed fire to achieve restoration and conservation goals. I used two lines of investigation to investigate historic fire regimes: 1) a dendrochronological study of fire scars on Sprewell Bluff Natural Area and 2) calculations of the average fire tolerance of tree species recorded on 1820s land lottery maps and 2005 surveys. Three distinct periods of fire history were revealed: pre1840 with an average fire interval of 2.6 years, 18401915 with an average fire interval of 1.2 years, and 1915-present with an average fire interval of 11.4 years. Season of fire differed between periods with all seasons of fire common prior to 1840, mostly winter fires from 1840-1915 and mostly spring fires from 1915present. Land lottery data indicated that montane longleaf forests of the 1820s were most similar in fire tolerance to areas of longleaf wiregrass compared to several other historic Georgia forest types. Modern forests had much lower scores of fire tolerance. Differences in species composition accounted for these changes in scores, historic mountain longleaf forests had larger components of pine (Pinus spp.), post oak (Quercus stellata), and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) while modern forests have higher densities of chestnut oak (Q. prinus). Our results suggest a fire return interval of two to three years is needed to stop the continued loss of the montane longleaf pine ecosystem. Speaker Presentations 32 Fire Effects on Longleaf Pine Growth John S. Kush1 Abstract Results: Biennial Burns Two long-term, on-going studies located on the Escambia Experimental Forest south of Brewton, AL will be used to discuss the effects of prescribed fire on longleaf pine growth. The first study was established in 1973 to examine understory succession and overstory growth in longleaf pine small pole stands following biennial burns, mechanical, and chemical treatments. In response to this project, a second study was established in 1984 to determine the comparative impact of both winter and spring prescribed fires at intervals of 2, 3, and 5 years on the growth of a longleaf pine overstory and development of hardwood competition. This presentation will follow the growth of longleaf pine (diameter, height, basal area and total volume) over time. The results presented in this paper are from a subset of the data that has been collected. Prior to 1995, this study was re-measured every 3 years. By 1982, 10 years after the initiation of the study, the diameter at breast height (DBH) for trees on the no burn plots was significantly greater than for all of the burn plots. There is no significant difference among the burn treatments. This is a trend which continues up to now (Table 1). If you look at the growth increases from 1989 to the end of the 2004 growing season, there was a significant difference in diameter growth between the summer burn and the other treatments. The summer burn trees grew 1.5” compared with 2.2” for the other 3 treatments. Introduction: Biennial Burns A study was established on the Escambia Experimental Forest (EEF) in 1973 to determine the effects of various understory hardwood control treatments on the growth of the longleaf pine overstory. This study included fire, mechanical and chemical treatments (see Boyer 1983, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995). This paper will focus on the impacts of fire on longleaf pine growth. Methods: Biennial Burns This study is comprised of 3 blocks on the EEF. The predominant soil series on all 3 blocks is a Troup that is a deep loamy sand with an A-horizon down to 51inches. At the time of study establishment, all areas supported well-stocked young longleaf pine stands. These stands were naturally regenerated from the 1958 seed crop. Each treatment plot is 0.4 acres with a square 0.1 acre measurement plot located in the center. All plots were thinned to 500 dominant trees/acre in 1973. Four burn treatments were conducted with prescribed fire at twoyear intervals in winter, spring, summer and an unburned check. The winter burns occur in January or February, spring in April or May and summer in July or August. All plots, but the check plots were burned with a cool winter fire in 1974 to precondition them for future burning by removal of excessive fuel loads as the previous prescribed fire occurred in 1962. And likewise for total height, by 1982, the total height for trees on the no burn plots was significantly greater than for all of the burn plots (Table 2). There is no significant difference among the burn treatments. And this is a trend which continues up to now. Table 1. Average tree DBH (inches) for biennial prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Underlined numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. Treatment 1973 1989 1990 1992 1995 2004 Winter 3.2 5.9 7 7.5 8 9.2 Spring 3.3 5.9 7.1 7.6 8.1 9.3 Summer 3.1 5.9 7.2 7.7 8.2 8.7 No burn 3.2 6.2 7.7 8.2 8.8 10 Table 2. Average total height (ft) for biennial prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Underlined numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. Treatment 1973 1989 1990 1992 1995 2004 Winter 22 54 60 64 68 75 Spring 23 55 60 65 68 75 Summer 22 55 58 65 68 73 No burn 22 59 64 69 73 78 Speaker Presentations 33 And basal area showed the same trend (Table 3). By 1982, the basal area for the no burn plots was significantly greater than for all of the burn plots. There is no significant difference among the burn treatments. In 1989, with the basal area at 110 square feet and the burn plots not having reached 100 square feet, the plots were thinned, mainly from below, to an after-cut basal area of 70 square feet/acre. Since the thinning, there has not been a significant difference among the treatments which is probably due to the fewer trees on the no burn treatment plots than on the burn plots. The same holds true for volume, by 1982, total volume (inside bark) was significantly different (Table 4). The total volume is calculated from local volume equations that were developed from work on the EEF. There was a difference in DBH growth between the no burn and summer burn plots. There were no differences in height and basal area growth but a significant difference in average yearly volume growth, where the no burn grew at 131 ft3/year, the spring and winter treatments at 123 ft3/year and the summer 111 ft3/year. Table 3. Average total basal (feet2/acre) for biennial prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Underlined numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. Treatment 1973 1989 1990 1992 1995 2004 Winter 30 95 70 81 91 116 Spring 30 96 68 78 87 114 Summer 28 89 70 80 89 112 No burn 31 110 71 81 93 119 Table 4. Average total volume (feet3/acre - inside bark) for biennial prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Underlined numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. Treatment 1973 1989 1990 1992 1995 2004 Winter 296 2265 1732 2144 2544 3594 Spring 314 2298 1683 2079 2479 3533 Summer 262 2109 1742 2139 2455 3410 No burn 317 2798 1884 2317 2769 3854 Pine mortality over the first 16 years was 8.8%, or 2.8 trees/acre/year. Mortality was significantly greater with summer burning (14.2%) than with the other treatments, 8.1% for both winter and spring and 4.9% for the unburned treatment. In the following 15 years, mortality averaged 2.2 trees/acre/year. Mortality was highest with summer burning 2.9 trees/acre/year, but it was not significantly different from the other treatments. The majority of mortality was due to lightning strikes and insects which came afterwards in all treatments except for the summer treatment where the majority was related to natural mortality of suppressed trees. Introduction: 2-, 3-, and 5-Year Fire Intervals Boyer (1987) summarized the first 10 years of the biennial burn study. As a result of these findings, a study was initiated in 1984 to determine if prescribed fire at intervals of 3 or 5 years would reduce the impact on pine growth and still be reasonably effective for hardwood control. Methods: 2-, 3-, and 5-Year Fire Intervals The study was established in young longleaf pine stands regenerated by the shelterwood system. Treatments include both winter and spring burns repeated at intervals of 2, 3, or 5 years plus an unburned check. Despite the overwhelming evidence regarding volume losses with biennial burns, 2-year spring and winter burn treatments were installed to compare with data from the first study. The trees originated from the 1973 seed crop and were released from the parent overstory during the 1976 winter. Like the previous study, there are 3 blocks but for this study, the 0.4 acre plots were thinned to leave 400 dominant/co-dominant trees per acre. Spacing between trees was made as uniform as possible. Before initiation of the study, all stands were last burned during the 1979 spring for competition control. The burning treatments were initiated in the winter and spring of 1985. To the extent possible, winter fires are completed in January or February and spring fires in April or May. Fires are prescribed and executed to minimize crown scorch on pines. Normally flank or strip head fires are used. Fires follow soaking rains as soon as conditions of fine fuel moisture of 7-10%, relative humidity of 3555% and reasonably steady winds of 3-10 mph. Results: 2-, 3-, and 5-Year Fire Intervals While there have been no significant differences in DBH and total height (Tables 5 and 6), there has been a significant difference in basal area (Table 7). By 1994, the no Speaker Presentations 34 burn and 5-year spring burn were different from the other burn treatments. By 1999, the 3-year spring burn joined the no burn and 5-year spring burn as being significant from the other treatments. However, by 2004, the 3-year spring burn grew the least of all treatments and was again different from the no burn and 5-year spring burn. Of note was the 2-year spring burn which has been significantly different from the other treatments since 1999. Table 5. Average tree DBH (inches) for different season and frequency of prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Underlined numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. Treatment Winter2 Spring2 Winter3 Spring3 Winter5 Spring5 No burn 1984 1987 1990 1994 1999 2004 2.2 3.3 4.2 5.2 6.4 7.4 2.2 3.2 4.1 5.2 6.4 7.3 2.2 3.4 4.3 5.4 6.4 7.4 2.2 3.4 4.4 5.6 6.6 7.5 2.3 3.3 4.2 5.4 6.4 7.3 2.3 3.4 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.6 2.2 3.5 4.5 5.8 7 7.8 Table 6. Average total tree height (feet) for different season and frequency of prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Bold numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. The response for total volume is similar to that for basal area; only the significant difference did not show up until the 1999 measurement (Table 8). In 1999, the no burn and 5-year spring burn were different from the other burn treatments. This trend continued through the 2004 measurements. Likewise, the 2-year spring burn was significantly different from the other treatments. After 19 years, mortality has been minimal with survival running from 91% on the spring 2 & 3 year burns to 99% on the no burn, winter burns and spring 5-year burn treatment. There has been a 12% reduction on volume between the no burn and the average for the 3- and 5-year burns with very little difference in volume between the no burn and the 5year spring burn. The 2-year winter burns and 3-year spring burns grew, on average, 158 feet3/year. The 5-year spring grew at a rate of 176 and the no burn grew at a rate of 182 feet3/year. For further information on this study, please see the paper by Whitaker et al. (this issue). Conclusions Do you want a forest stand that is thick with competing vegetation because you do not burn or, in other words, what are you management objectives? If it is growing fiber, no matter what the fiber is, then this may be what you want and you do not need to worry about burning. However, if you want a forest stand favorable for wildlife, recreation, hunting, pine straw, wildflowers, or natural regeneration, then fire is going to need to be a part of your management prescription. There is some loss in volume when using prescribed fire, whether to the species you are managing or unwanted/competing species. Prescribed Burning is Defined As Treatment 1984 1987 1990 1994 1999 2004 Winter-2 15 24 32 44 53 63 Spring-2 15 23 32 44 53 62 Winter-3 15 24 34 46 55 65 Spring-3 15 23 33 45 54 64 Winter-5 16 24 34 46 54 64 Spring-5 16 24 34 47 55 64 No burn 15 24 35 48 58 67 Fire applied in a knowledgeable manner to forest fuels on a specific land area under selected weather conditions to accomplish predetermined, well-defined management objectives. What I have reported on here are the results from a coastal plain site in south Alabama on moderately productive sites. What happens to the stands you burn will depend on how you burn. There is a loss due to fire but you have to ask yourself what the cost will be if I don’t burn. Acknowledgements To George Ward, Bill Thompson and Ron Tucker who have collected most of these data and the T.R. Miller Mill Co. for allowing the U.S. Forest Service to conduct all these years of research into longleaf pine management. Speaker Presentations 35 Literature Cited Table 7. Average total basal area (feet2/acre) for different season and frequency of prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Bold numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. Treatment Winter2 Spring2 Winter3 Spring3 Winter5 Spring5 No burn 1984 1987 1990 1994 1999 2004 11 25 39 62 86 111 11 23 38 61 80 104 11 26 41 63 87 112 12 27 44 68 94 114 21 25 40 65 89 116 13 26 42 71 97 127 11 27 45 74 102 127 Table 8. Average total volume (feet3/acre) for different season and frequency of prescribed fire treatments on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Bold numbers are statistically different than the other numbers in the column at the 0.05% level. Treatment Winter2 Spring2 Winter3 Spring3 Winter5 Spring5 No burn 1984 1987 1990 1994 1999 2004 74 256 546 1155 1869 2840 76 236 524 1125 1750 2639 78 275 595 1208 1969 2966 80 268 612 1300 2096 2987 86 262 573 1230 1969 3022 94 284 608 1366 2199 3340 72 274 638 1468 2390 3460 Boyer, W.D. 1983. Growth of young longleaf pine as affected by biennial burns plus chemical or mechanical treatments for competition control. In Proceedings of the second biennial southern silvicultural research conference, 4-5 Nov. 1982, Atlanta, GA. Edited by Earle P. Jones, Jr. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24, pp. 62-65. Boyer, W.D. 1987. Volume growth loss: a hidden cost of periodic burning in longleaf pine? South. J. Appl. For. 11:154-157. Boyer, W.D. 1991. Effects of a single chemical treatment on long-term hardwood development in a young pine stand. In Proceedings of the sixth biennial southern silvicultural research conference, 30 Oct. – 1 Nov. 1990, Memphis, TN. Compiled by Sandra S. Coleman and Daniel G. Neary. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70, pp. 599-606. Boyer, W.D. 1993. Season of burn and hardwood development in young longleaf pine stands. In Proceedings of the seventh biennial southern silvicultural research conference, 17-19 Nov. 1992, Mobile, AL. Edited by John C. Brissette. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-93, pp. 511-515 Boyer, W.D. 1994. Eighteen years of seasonal burning in longleaf pine: effects on overstory growth. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on fire and forest meteorology, 26-28 Oct. 1993, Jekyll Island, GA. Soc. Am. For. Pp. 602-610. Boyer, W.D. 1995. Responses of groundcover under longleaf pine to biennial seasonal burning and hardwood control. In Proceedings of the eighth biennial southern silvicultural research conference, 1-3 Nov. 1994, Auburn, AL. Edited by M. Boyd Edwards. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-1, pp. 512-516. Speaker Presentations 36 New Findings for Site Preparation with Chopper Herbicide Dwight K. Lauer1 and Harold E. Quicke2 1 Silvics Analytic, Ridgeway, Virginia, 24148, USA BASF Corporation, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA 2 Abstract Loblolly pine on cutover sites is often re-established using at least two herbicide treatments. The first is a site preparation treatment designed to provide long-term control of perennials such as trees, shrubs, vines and grasses. The second treatment is called herbaceous weed control (HWC) and is applied after the pines are planted. This treatment targets mainly re-colonizing forbs and grasses. Vegetation control studies often focus on either site preparation or HWC. However, these treatments are not necessarily independent. For example, when a high rate of a soil active herbicide is applied late in the year, herbaceous weed development after planting may be delayed and this may influence the optimal timing for herbaceous weed control. These studies look at integrated systems of bedding, Chopper® herbicide site preparation and Arsenal® AC herbaceous weed control. In the Upper Coastal Plain studies, different rates of Chopper® were applied at two different times of the year. Each Chopper® rate and timing treatment was followed by HWC treatments applied at different times of the year. Results based on three years of pine growth indicated that: 1) Chopper site preparation earlier in the year (July) resulted in better pine growth than site preparation later in the year (October); 2) There was a synergistic response between Chopper site preparation and Arsenal AC + Oust® herbaceous weed control with pine growth from the combined treatments far exceeding the growth from either treatment applied alone; 3) Optimal herbaceous weed control timing on these Upper Coastal Plain sites was not influenced by timing of Chopper site preparation; 4) On sites where planted pines and herbaceous weeds developed quickly in the first year, herbaceous weed control early in the first pine year resulted in the best pine response; 5) On a site with slow initial pine and herbaceous development, herbaceous weed control in June of the first pine year resulted in the best pine response; 6) A second year of herbaceous weed control increased pine growth by up to 23%; 7) Modern silvicultural techniques resulted in pine growth that equaled or exceeded the growth in complete vegetation control studies where pines were kept weed free for up to five years. Mid-season bedding occurred between May and July and late-season bedding between September and November. Results indicate that many of the historical timing limitations placed on Chopper®, applied in an oil emulsion carrier, are not necessary. Treatments can occur as early as February and as late as November, up to the day before bedding and immediately after bedding. Seasonal timing of application was also found to have a major impact on pine growth. For those treatments that provided good vegetation control, earlier season treatments resulted in the best pine growth. Optimal timings for Chopper® applications were identified as: 1) June through September at least 3 weeks after mid-season bedding, 2) February to the day before mid-season bedding, and 3) February through July followed by late-season bedding. An exception is that if deciduous woody species such as hardwood or blackberry are targeted, early season applications (February-April) should not occur until these species have leafed out. The optimal timing windows are wide, allowing forest managers plenty of flexibility in scheduling operations. Use of optimal timing windows has the potential to substantially increase productivity without increasing costs. On Lower Coastal Plain sites, vegetation control following different timings of Chopper® herbicide application relative to bedding was examined. Two bedding regimes, mid-season and late-season, were examined at each location. Speaker Presentations 37 Reintroduction of Fire to Fire Suppressed Longleaf Pine Stands: An Overview of the Problem John McGuire1 1 The Longleaf Alliance, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract The use of fire in the development and maintenance of longleaf pine forests has long been recognized by forest practitioners and scientists. However, the reintroduction of prescribed fire-to-fire suppressed longleaf pine forests has proven to be problematic. Burning prescriptions that are appropriate to maintain longleaf pine stands are often unsuitable for older stands that have a history of firesuppression. Across the range of longleaf pine, the misapplication of fire to restore older stands has resulted in significant mortality to mature longleaf pine trees that should otherwise be retained. The intent of this presentation is to highlight the degree of the problem of fire reintroduction and present some remedies to the problem. Speaker Presentations 38 Physiological Effects of Organic Soil Consumption on Mature Longleaf Pines (Pinus palustris) Joseph O'Brien1, J. Kevin Hiers2, Kathryn Mordecai1 and Doria Gordon3 1 USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA 2 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia, 39870, USA 3 The Nature Conservancy, Gainesville, Florida, 32601, USA Introduction Longleaf pine ecosystems depend on frequent fires to maintain both the overstory pines and a high diversity understory plant community. At one time these forests dominated the coastal plain of the southeastern US, but currently longleaf stands occupy less than 3% of their historical extent, usually as isolated fragments (Gilliam and Platt 2006). One consequence of this fragmentation has been the reduction of fire frequency with some stands remaining unburned for decades. A major effect of this reduction in fire frequency is the development of an organic soil horizon. In frequently burned stands, fire consumes litter and the mineral soil surface remains mostly exposed. In unburned stands, low litter decomposition rates, especially in xeric sites, result in the formation of a deep forest floor (Hendricks et al. 2002). Mature trees colonize a well developed O-horizon with numerous fine roots. These roots are lost after the organic soil is consumed by fire. Root consumption could cause both acute and chronic stress to a tree. Loss of fine roots could immediately lower nutrient and water uptake rates, reduce carbohydrate pools, and require resources to be allocated for root replacement and repair, perhaps at the expense of some other process. The impact of stored carbon losses and inhibited mineral nutrient uptake would also likely cause chronic effects such as reduced leaf area, changes in leaf nitrogen balance, lowered tissue repair rates, and inhibition of chemical defenses. As a first step to understanding the physiological consequences of fine root loss, we measured whole tree transpiration and chlorophyll concentrations in mature longleaf pines growing in an area with a well developed O-horizon exposed to varying degrees of duff consumption and crown scorch. treatments. No direct observations were made of the wildfire, but post fire measurements indicated that both forest floor consumption and crown scorch were highly variable and extensive. Two study trees escaped the fire, and the remaining 18 received varying degrees of scorch and root consumption. An additional three unburned trees were added to the study after the fire. Following the fire, we measured the amount of duff consumed in a 4 m diameter circle centered on the tree bole. Consumption was estimated using both duff pins that were in place prior to the fire and by visual estimates. A linear correlation between visual estimates of consumption and the duff pins measurements showed the effectiveness of the visual estimates (R2=0.92, p<0.0001). Percent crown scorch was estimated visually in 10% increments. One month prior to the fire, sap flow sensors were inserted into each tree. The wildfire destroyed the originals and replacements were deployed approximately one month following the fire. The first post-fire sap flux measurements occurred in mid-August 2005 after damaged crowns had reflushed new leaves. The outputs from the probes were averaged and transformed into sap flux estimates after Granier (1987). Chlorophyll content was measured in foliage samples collected immediately prior to the fire, then at 3 months following the fire. Post-fire chlorophyll content was standardized and presented as an index by subtracting the post-fire content from pre-fire content, then dividing by the pre-fire content. Consumption effects on sap flux were analyzed using random effects ANOVA and the chlorophyll content was analyzed using linear regression. Results and Discussion Methods We conducted experimental burns in a stand of long unburned longleaf pine forest at Fort Gordon Military Base, Augusta, GA, USA. The site had not been burned in at least 50 years and had a well developed O-horizon, with an average depth of 16.1 cm (± 3.1 S.D.). Tree sampling was stratified by soil type (Arenic Frangiudults) and topography (ridge tops). Within the site, 20 trees with a DBH of approximately 35 cm and similar stature were chosen. The 20 selected trees had a mean DBH of 37.1 cm (± 2.7 S.D.) and a height of 19.6 m (± 2.4 S.D.). Initially, the plan was to experimentally manipulate fire damage, but on June 25, 2005 a wildfire passed through the study area three days after the first root consumption All fire damaged study trees had at least 20% O-horizon consumption (mean = 50.2, ± 35.6 S.D.). Scorch rates averaged 10% (±19.2 S.D.), though 11 of the 18 trees with Ohorizon consumption had undamaged crowns. Mean sap flux rates did not vary among the study trees prior to the fire (F1, 19=0.653, p=0.861). Sap flux rates were estimated simultaneously in all 20 trees for a total of nine days postfire. The mean daily sap flux over the nine day period was 0.488 kg dm-1 hr-1 (± 0.35 S.D.). The results of the random effects ANOVA indicated that only O-horizon consumption had a significant impact on mean post-fire sap flux rates and there was no interaction (Table 1). Speaker Presentations 39 Table 1. Results of the random effects ANOVA. The multiple R2 for the model was 0.44 (p=0.001). Intercept SS 3.77 D.F. 1 MS 3.767 F 47.67 Scorch 0.01 1 0.007 0.09 Consumption 1.08 1 1.078 13.65 Scorch* Consumption 0.05 Error 1.50 p >0.00 01 0.77 0.001 1 0.050 0.63 0.436 19 0.079 Sap flux was negatively correlated with consumption as indicated by the beta coefficient of -0.70 (t=-3.69, p=0.002). Figure 1 displays the results of a linear regression showing the negative relationship between amount of crown scorch and standardized chlorophyll content (beta= -0.81, R2 =0.60, p=0.009). Summary and Conclusions Post-duff fire damage in longleaf pines seems to cause a cascade of chronic stressors with mortality often occurring several months after the fire. However, the loss of fine Chlorophyll content index -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 roots after O-horizon consumption can also create acute stress due to the reduction in water uptake and transpiration rates. Recent research suggests that longleaf pines maintain a constant allocation ratio between roots and aboveground tissue (Hendricks et al. 2006). Observations of study trees post-fire suggest that leaf area did decrease following O-horizon consumption. This decrease in photosynthetic capacity coupled with the loss of stored carbohydrates appears to be catastrophic to the trees; three of the 16 study trees with root consumption died within one year of the study and two more appeared near death with sparse crowns. The immediate loss in the ability to supply leaves with water could lead to chronic carbon limitations through a compensatory reduction in leaf area. Crown scorch is an additional acute stressor that may or may not occur simultaneously with root consumption. Since mineral nutrients are required to replace scorched leaves, root loss has the potential to further limit photosynthetic capacity. The loss of stored carbon and diminished photosynthetic capacity could lead to a cascade of indirect effects such as inhibited chemical defenses and reduced overall vigor. It appears that the inhibition of herbivore defenses might be critical as all three dead study trees succumbed to insect attack. These results suggest that the lowering of water and nutrient uptake rates might be the ultimate cause of mortality after duff fire. Literature Cited Gilliam, F.S. and W.J. Platt. 2006. Conservation and restoration of the Pinus palustris ecosystem. Journal of Applied Vegetation Science 9:7-10. Granier A. 1987. Evaluation of transpiration in a Douglas fir stand by means of sap flow measurements. Tree Physiology 3, 309–320 Hendricks, J.J., R.L. Hendrick, C.A. Wilson, R.J. Mitchell, S.D. Pecot and D. Guo 2006. Assessing the patterns and controls of fine root dynamics: an empirical test and methodological review. Journal of Ecology 94:40-57. Hendricks, J. J., C. A. Wilson, and L. R. Boring. 2002. Foliar litter position and decomposition in a firemaintained longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:928-941. 45 Percent scorch Figure 1. Linear regression of chlorophyll content and crown scorch. All trees had at least 20% duff consumption. It appears that resource limitation may have lead to a reduction in the ability to adequately provision new leaves with chlorophyll. Speaker Presentations 40 Pineywood's Cattle Breed: History and New Uses for Small Acreages Chuck Simon1 1 County Extension Agent-Coordinator, Covington County, Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Andalusia, Alabama, 36420, USA Abstract The intent of this discussion is to introduce the audience to a new concept of using an antique (or minor) breed of livestock to help control vegetation on small land holdings. We will review what pineywood cattle are, the breed history and historical use and end with their uses today. Likewise, the discussion will focus on how to save this breed from extinction. Mr. Simon has raised pineywood cattle since 1995. Speaker Presentations 41 Bobwhite Quail Issues and Research Efforts in the Longleaf Region: An Overview Lee Stribling1 1 School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract Bobwhite quail have existed in what is today the southeastern United States for thousands of years. Bobwhite populations flourished in an ideal habitat created by European settlers to the region. They opened the vast unbroken oldgrowth forests to build homes, farms, and towns separated by patches of cut-over and frequently burned forest land. Further increase of quail numbers was caused by the hunting practices of that era which reduced quail predator populations. Quail populations grew and remained high until the 1960's. For a relatively short time in the history of the Southeast a set of circumstances had produced a landscape and environment conducive to high quail populations. In response to socioeconomic changes across most of the rural south, a slow decline of quail numbers began. This decline continued and accelerated through the rest of the 20th century. A growing human population, new farming practices, exclusion of woodland fires, improved pasture, intensive pine plantations, and high predator populations all contributed to the drop in quail numbers. It is ironic that the same forces of human settlement, responsible for the explosion of quail that began 200 years ago, are now the same socioeconomic agents that have driven them to desperately low levels in modern times. It seems that most things have to get really bad before they attract enough attention to get better. This was the case for bobwhite quail and all other species associated with the early successional, forest-savannah-type ecosystem of the Southeast. Starting in the early 1990's a renewed interest and emphasis on quail biology and management began. Research, management, and outreach programs by southern Land Grant Universities, Wildlife Agencies, and Research Organizations all combined to restore bobwhite quail to areas where they once were abundant. While some portions of the bobwhite’s traditional range are still at the “work in progress” stage, other areas have maximized conditions for quail and are producing record breaking populations. contributions were made toward recovery of this historically, economically, and ecologically important species. The Albany Quail Project The tried and true extension approach of identifying and working with a key landowner who is watched and respected by others in the area has been very successful getting new programs started. If new approaches and techniques are used by that key individual and prove to be successful other landowners quickly adopt the practice as well. The landowner was the R.K. Mellon Family and their 20,000 acre property, Pineland Plantation, located just south of Albany, GA had been intensively managed for bobwhite quail since the early part of the 20th century. Even though they were using the most intense quail management techniques available, they were experiencing significant declines in their quail populations. The Mellon Family agreed to provide funding to determine the cause of the quail decline and develop measures to halt and reverse it (research). Additionally, they indicated that all information from the study would be made immediately available not only to them, but to anyone else who may be interested. This resulted in project personnel spending a great amount of time and funds on visits to other properties and tours of the study area (extension/ outreach). In this way everyone could decide how best to use information from the work and positive results might be produced more quickly. This program became known as the Albany Area Quail Project. Even though it was named after the area of Georgia where it was started, it was destined to have far reaching impacts on bobwhite quail populations and quail management across their entire geographical range. Research Directed Management Introduction During the late 1980's bobwhite quail populations were experiencing an alarming decline across their geographic range. Quail biologists were aware of the problem but had no solution. Some were even predicting possible threatened or endangered status for the species if the situation was not soon reversed. However, with the right approach and a combined research and extension program, significant In 1992, we began trapping wild quail and tagging them with very small radio-transmitters which allowed our research associates, students, and technicians to locate the birds at any time. The locations told us what habitat components were needed or not needed for survival and reproduction. Knowing what was required versus its availability showed what types of habitat needed to be added and where. By providing this information and working with the property land manager, techniques were tested to create and structure missing habitat components. Speaker Presentations 42 After only 2 years, the research had provided sufficient information to change management protocols and the population of quail on the property began to rapidly respond. By 1994, quail populations had improved 40% compared to when the study began. As predicted the neighboring quail plantations became very interested in this success and wanted to modify quail management techniques on their land. A group of 9 owners and managers met with us and indicated that they were using the new information had other quail management and hunting problems that they needed help solving. They were willing to fund additional studies like the one which was proving to be so successful on their neighbor’s property. The project began to expand in scope, study sites, personnel, and success. In 2003 quail populations have tripled (300% increase) on the original study site. Hunting success and quail abundance is almost twice as high as anytime listed in the nearly 100 years of hunt records on Pineland Plantation. A great many other quail properties following the “Albany Program” are having similar successes. Over the last 14 years we have conducted quail studies on 10 different study sites (7 in Georgia & 3 in Alabama). We are engaged in cooperative work with Tall Timbers Research Station in Florida, the University of Georgia, and Mississippi State. Information from our work is made available through newsletters, magazine articles, other multi-media outlets, field days, seminars, group presentations, and individual landowner to project personnel interactions. Publication in peer-reviewed and other professional outlets were slower to production than the outreach types chiefly due to the manner in which the project was structured because the priority given to the land owners and managers. During the last few years the number of scientific publications has greatly increased and will continue to do so in the future. One of the most important values of this project comes from its length and large sample size. The project has existed for 14 years and is showing no signs of slowing down. We have attached over 8,000 radio-transmitters to quail during that time and have learned a great deal more about quail than I ever expected. A project of this scope provides a perspective on how an organism fits into the human altered landscape. Quail declined because the entire landscape of its range changed and the techniques developed by Stoddard in the 1930's were still in use. These techniques, although good for 30-40 years after they were developed, were designed for a world that does not exist anymore for the bobwhite. Agriculture and forestry management has changed greatly as well as rural socio-economic patterns. Quail had not changed their requirements since Herbert Stoddard’s work. What changed is the manner in which we had to go about providing them. Impact Program The success of this quail project caused a ripple effect across quail country in the Southeast and Midwest. There was now hope that bobwhite quail were not going to be a fond memory of the past as some biologist had predicted. Using the new management methods quail populations improved on intensively managed quail plantations across Georgia and the region. In 1999 the success of these research projects and resulting management techniques prompted a group of Georgia Biologists and State Legislators to visit the Albany Quail Project. Following this visit the State of Georgia developed the Bobwhite Quail Initiative One. Millions of dollars were provided for education, landowner assistance, and cost-share programs to increase quail populations and quail hunting in areas of the state where it once had been commonplace. In 2002 a similar plan was developed by the Southeastern Quail Study Group to address the same issue across the entire southeastern US. The plan was called the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative Two. In August 2004, President Bush announced a new part of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) called the Northern Bobwhite Quail Habitat Initiative Three . The goal of this $125 million (3 year) program is to promote establishment of 250,000 acres of early successional buffers along agricultural field borders, a practice developed, recommended, and proven by the Albany Quail Project. This increase in nesting and brood-rearing cover is hoped to increase bobwhite quail numbers by 750,000 birds annually in the Southeast and Midwest. Over the past decade the Albany Quail Project has been directly involved with improving quail populations on over 500,000 acres, in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. Not only have more quail resulted from the habitat modifications and management approaches we recommended, but many other species dependant on this type of early successional habitat also have benefited. In addition, land values of good quail hunting properties are much higher than those where populations are low. A recent survey of realtors who broker quail management properties indicated that the properties which are managed using our program usually have very good quail populations are in high demand and sell for about $1,000 more per acre than similar non-managed hunting properties. This gives a total added value to properties under the Albany Quail Project management scheme of over $500 million. Speaker Presentations 43 The Albany Quail Project began in 1993 with a single gift of $80,000 from the R.K. Mellon Family Foundation to fund the first year of the first project. In addition to continuing The Albany Quail Project’s work, we began another quail research/ extension project in 2001, this time located on Alabama. We employed the same model as used to start the Albany Project, a single landowner funding a single project, then getting others involved based on his successes. This project is called the Alabama Quail Project and finetunes quail management to soil and other differences found on quail lands in Alabama. All of the approximately $400,000 to $500,000 per year in total operating funds for both projects come from unsolicited, private donations. Web Links: 1 Bobwhite Quail Initiative http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/ displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=108 2 Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative http://www.qu.org/seqsg/nbci/nbci.cfm 3 Northern Bobwhite Quail Habitat Initiative http://www.alfafarmers.org/headlines/headline.phtml? id=4467 Speaker Presentations 44 The Georgia Coastal Flatwoods Upland Game Project: Launching a War on Wiregrass Chris Trowell1 1 Emeritus Professor of Social Science, South Georgia College, Douglas, Georgia, 31533, USA Abstract The piney woods of south Georgia have long been perceived as an impoverished region. These lands were viewed by many during the 18th and 19th centuries as land useful only as livestock range and even the pasturage was believed to be impoverished, especially the wiregrass on which the open-range wiregrass cattle foraged. As the land was penetrated by railroads between 1860 and 1920 the unbroken longleaf pine-wiregrass range was transformed into a forest of stumps. The lands in and around the Okefenokee Swamp were burned over by wildfires during the droughts of 1931-1932. Much of the land and many of the people were hopeless and abandoned in a post-logging environment. Local communities sought hope and relief through collective projects. The Waycross Lions Club initiated several projects to improve the cattle by improving pasturage. Cattle was believed to be the core of the local economy, especially since timber was no longer the economic base of the area. Federal title to the property was transferred to the State of Georgia in 1955. The area was renamed the Waycross State Forest. Part of the 30,000 acre tract was developed as Laura S. Walker State Park and a small tract on Cowhouse Island was leased to become Okefenokee Swamp Park. Over the years most of the wiregrass was removed in the process of site preparation for slash pine plantations. Wiregrass was completely removed or covered with imported sand in the fairways and greens of “The Lakes” golf course. The Waycross State Forest was renamed the Dixon Memorial State Forest in 1974. The district offices of the Georgia Forestry Commission are located on the site of the old Georgia Coastal Flatwoods Uplands Game Project headquarters. Many of the federal New Deal programs during Great Depression of the 1930s focused on the alleviation of poverty and on relief of the desperate conditions of the demoralized people and the denuded land. Congressman Braswell Deen of the Eighth District of Georgia promoted a federal scheme to improve scrub cattle by replacing wiregrass with carpet grass. By the time the Georgia Coastal Flatwoods Upland Game Project was launched in 1935, the plan encompassed a 30,000 acre comprehensive multiuse land use area near Waycross as well as an employment program. Between 1935 and 1938, the U.S. Department of Agriculture funded reforestation, wildlife and range improvement, and recreation and tourism projects. The proposal to replace the wiregrass range with carpet grass did not receive a high priority. The Works Progress Administration employed about 500 unemployed workers. In 1938 management of the projects was leased to the State of Georgia. Some of the projects were continued until 1944, but the establishment of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in 1937 and the Second World War restricted their priorities and funding. Two decades of neglect and fire suppression resulted in a buildup of fuel in the replanted forest. In 1955, most of the pines were killed by a wildfire that swept across much of south Georgia. Speaker Presentations 45 Lessons Learned About Ground-Layer Restoration Joan Walker1 and Lin Roth2 1 2 Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Clemson University, South Carolina, 29634, USA Belle W. Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Research, Clemson University, South Carolina, 29634, USA Introduction Methods Ground layer restoration in longleaf pine communities is an area of active investigation, through adaptive management projects and formal research. While there is no comprehensive “Restoration Manual” for the longleaf pine community, restoration practitioners develop their action plans based on an ecological reference model and project goals, and achieve their objectives using conventional natural resources management and horticultural methods. We recognized the growing base of practice-based knowledge, and in 2003 proposed to capture that knowledge by visiting restoration projects, interviewing those who developed and managed the projects, and organizing that information into “A Practical Guide to Restoring the Ground Layer of Upland Longleaf Pine Communities.” This project was initially funded by the natural resources program at Fort Gordon. This Department of Defense installation is located on the fall-line in Georgia and has an abundance of upland, sandy soils where restoring the ground layer was planned. For this reason, the project focuses on upland, dry to intermediate moisture sites. In this paper, we summarize general lessons learned from restoration practitioners. The Guide has been drafted, but a date for its publication is not determined; we will communicate that information through the Longleaf Alliance when it is available. Additional information on longleaf pine ground layer restoration is given in Walker and Silletti (2006). In 2003, we searched for “study sites” and contacted possible contributors. During 2003 and 2004 sites were visited, initial interviews about projects were conducted, and results were assembled. As the format for the guide solidified, we communicated with contributors to fill in missing data. For well-developed projects we prepared detailed Case Studies that described aspects of restoration in detail, including the reference model, starting conditions, prior land use, goals, methods, costs, results. For smaller projects we prepared less complete descriptions, but highlighted some special features or learning opportunities. Our preliminary review of restoration projects showed that they are being conducted on a relatively narrow subset of possible longleaf pine habitats. Significant projects we knew of when we began were concentrated in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains; mesic savannas and flatwoods, loamy upland sites, and xeric to sub-xeric sites in the fallline sandhills were and are represented. We note the absence of projects in the middle Atlantic Coastal Plain where few examples of remnant vegetation remain, in the mountain longleaf pine communities of the Blue Ridge and Cumberland Plateau, and in the longleaf pine-bluestem communities. Information presented in this brief overview draws on projects conducted by researchers and restoration practitioners in Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia. Results The individual projects varied widely in starting site conditions, restoration objectives, approaches, methods, and resources available for work. The project yielded much valuable specific information about how to do restoration, and we attempted to organize the details so that some wanting to do a restoration project could learn from these case studies. Here we present general lessons that were learned by examining a variety of restorations. We discuss eight general lessons learned from reviewing restoration projects and developing Case Studies (Table 1). Table 1. Eight lessons learned from restoration case studies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Restoration is site specific; know the site conditions. Historical land use contributed to current conditions that drive restoration protocols. Protocols generally included control of undesirable species, adding desirable species, and burning. “Undesirable species” are not created equal. · Exotic pasture grasses are not off-site pines—that is, you may choose to keep some of them for awhile. Many different native species can be established from seed. · Start with good seed. · Control competition. · Don’t bother with irrigation or fertilization. A range of seed collection and sowing methods are used successfully. Plan for drought and deluge; weather happens. Restoration is a long-term commitment. Speaker Presentations 46 1. Restoration is site specific; it is critical to know and understand the current and previous site conditions. The physical conditions, such as soil type or slope, at a restoration site influence which species can grow there and how effective management actions will be. Further, the longleaf ecosystem wide area, but most of the species in the system have much smaller ranges. It is important to understand the historical ranges of species in order to make good choices about what species to reintroduce. In the studies we reviewed, practitioners used reference information to help identify ecological goals for restoration projects. Intact remnant patches of the target ecosystem, such as nearby “natural areas”, were sometimes identified as reference sites. Generally, reference sites are selected to match the restoration project site with respect to geography and physical environment and are believed to represent the historic or contemporary potential conditions. Besides reference sites, other kinds of reference information include a current site assessment of the project area along with accurate historical information about the same site. Desirable historical information includes historical photographs, written descriptions, plant and animal species lists, how often the area burned and under what conditions, and/or reports of significant disturbances or past land uses. Practitioners sometimes used historical or contemporary information from other sites, or from less specific geographic areas. Though such information may be useful, it is important to remember that information about places is generally place- and time- specific. The more distant or more general the information source, the less likely it will accurately represent a specific project site and the less useful it will be for setting feasible objectives. 2. Historical land use contributed to current conditions that drive restoration protocols. Altered fire regimes, forest management, and agriculture (animal husbandry and row crops) plantation establishment, and conversion of forest lands to agriculture have resulted in loss of the ground cover diversity throughout the longleaf pine. Mining was a more localized use, but one that produced profound changes. Ongoing and completed restoration projects that we reviewed all fall into one of these recent land use history classes. The recent land use strongly determined the protocols for restoration. For example, sites changed primarily by an altered fire regime often retained valuable trees, but had accumulated dense litter and duff layers and lost much of the herb layer. In contrast, pastures had no trees and were dominated by exotic perennial grasses, very difficult to eliminate and control. Pine plantations were highly variable with conditions affected by intensity of site preparation, fire management, intervening treatments, and even the age of the stand. They generally had high pine densities compared to reference sites and low herbaceous cover; the pine species may be longleaf or another species; hardwoods may be increased or decreased. 3. Protocols generally included (1) control of undesirable species, (2) adding desirable species, and (3) burning. As suggested in the previous section, the current conditions created by land recent uses determined the relative need for any of these 3 activities; however nearly all sites required some sort of site preparation to control competition. Mechanical treatments, chemical treatments (herbicides), and prescribed burning were applied in the projects were reviewed. In the case of pasture grasses, multiple chemical treatments through 1 or 2 growing seasons were applied prior to planting desired native grasses and forbs. Prescribed fire was always recommended for maintaining restoration sites. 4. “Undesirable species” are not created equal. Species that may be considered “undesirable” include native weedy species that are better competitors than desired reintroductions, exotic species (aggressive or not), and pines other than longleaf pine. Immediate elimination is not necessarily the only choice in a restoration. Although it was always considered necessary to eliminate perennial pasture grasses, in some cases it was helpful to retain a canopy of off-site pines to provide habitat value for wildlife or to prove fine fuels as the ground layer developed. Off site pines may be restored gradually to longleaf. 5. Many different native species can be established from seed or grown into plugs and out-planted. Start with good seed. Control competition. Don’t irrigate or fertilize. More information about seeds, seed cleaning, and viability are provided by Glitzenstein, et al. in this Proceedings. Many seeds do not need special treatments to stimulate germination, though cold stratification may benefit composites and heat treatments or scarification may facilitate germination for legume species. Factors that can affects successful establishment include suitable temperatures, adequate moisture during early seedling development, presence of surface litter, and abundance of competitors. As noted above, site preparation to control competition is usually beneficial, but cover or nurse crops, fertilization, and mulch are not beneficial. Assuring good seed to soil contact is beneficial and can be achieved by rolling the surface after planting. Viable seed can be sown directly into prepared sites, or grown into nursery stock for Speaker Presentations 47 out-planting. Both approaches have advantages (Table 2). 8. Restoration is a long-term commitment. 6. A range of technologies are available to accomplish tasks associated with species additions. The final strong lesson is that restoration is a multi-year process. Even after all the undesirable species are removed and the desired species added, it is necessary to continue some treatments, e.g. prescribed burning, and to monitor (observed systematically to detect changes as they occur) to make sure the restored site continues to develop as expected. Seed collection can be done by hand or with a variety of machines including handheld models based on “weedeaters” and large (12 foot wide) tractor mounted rotating brushes. The costs of mechanical seed harvesters may be prohibitive for individuals, but they are becoming more common in the region, and arrangements for sharing may be possible. Collecting seed at the time when it would naturally ripen is recommended. Like collection, seeding may be accomplished by hand (inexpensive and a good opportunity to involve community volunteers) or mechanically with hay blowers (widely available, but not efficient, or specialized seed drills. Plugs are readily planted manually, and have been successfully planted with a tree planted. Planting just ahead of the rainy season is advised. In projects we reviewed, post-planting management varied from handweeding to herbicide application, and prescribed burning. 7. Plan for drought and deluge. Nearly every project manager interviewed reported stories of “setbacks” associated with extreme weather events, from drought to heavy rains. Weather happens. These restoration practitioners learned to plan for it, thereby minimizing despair when the inevitable occurred. Status of the Practical Guide project A complete draft of the Guide has been completed, but we do not know when it will be published and ready for circulation. We will share this information through the Longleaf Alliance as soon as it is available. Literature Cited Walker, J.L. and A.M. Silletti. 2006. Restoring the ground layer of longleaf pine communities. In: S. Jose, Jokela, and Miller, eds. Longleaf pine Ecosystems: Ecology, Management, and Restoration. Springer-Verlag. Acknowledgments Thanks to Fort Gordon for funding this project and for opportunities to learn about gound layer restoration in practice. A special thanks to all those who welcomed Lin to their field sites, shared their knowledge, and responded to our relentless requests for more information. Table 2. Comparison of direct seeding and out-planting to reintroduce species into restoration sites. DIRECT SEEDING OUT-PLANTING PLUGS Advantages Advantages Can choose individual target species Economical ($ 3K/acre) Simultaneously introduce many species No need to disrupt existing conditions Can create custom seed mixes by varying No special planting tools Can be done on slopes where seeding equiptiming and methods of collection Can be done with site preparation ment cannot be used safely Can be done in winter when competition for Conducive to volunteer assistants Good success for many species labor is lower Can treat large areas Reduced early drought susceptibility Genetically diverse seeds can be used so Appropriate for rare species Few seeds are needed that site conditions “select” most suitStock can be propagated any time able individuals Shorter period of competition control Disadvantages Disadvantages Expensive (up to $ 10K /acre) Large seed supplies are required Not as useful for rare species Introduce only one species at a time Special care needed to create seed mixes Available stock may be limited by seed Seeding rates difficult to determine to enavailability, nursery size Germination and establishment in greensure outcome Competition control essential house conditions may favor genotypes less suitable for field conditions Speaker Presentations 48 Poster Presentations 49 Poster Presentations Use of Herbicide Site Preparation Treatments to Promote Longleaf Seedling Growth and to Enhance Fuels Structure for Longer Term Fire Management Robert N. Addington1, Thomas A. Greene2, Catherine E. Prior1, Wade C. Harrison1 1 The Nature Conservancy, Fort Benning Field Office, Georgia, 31905, USA 2 The Nature Conservancy, Fort Hood Field Office, Texas, 76545, USA Abstract Introduction The positive influence of site preparation treatments on planted longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) seedling growth has been documented by numerous studies. Yet, in addition to growing trees faster, site preparation treatments may also be aimed at enhancing fuel cover and composition so that longer term management and ecosystem restoration goals can be achieved with fire alone. We describe results from a field study on Fort Benning, GA, whereby herbicide site preparation treatments were applied with the goal of reducing woody plant competition without negatively impacting native warm-season perennial grass fuels. Two herbicide treatments commonly used on Fort Benning were compared to one another, and to an untreated control. Herbicide treatments included (1) imazapyr/glyphosate and (2) hexazinone. Two years after planting, treatment effects on longleaf seedling growth were obvious – root collar diameter was an average 40% higher on treated plots compared to control plots while height growth was two-fold greater. Effects of herbicides on woody stem density were variable, but by 2006 hexazinone treated plots had significantly fewer woody stems compared to imazapyr/glyphosate and control plots, and both herbicide treatments significantly reduced the density of hardwood tree species, such as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). No significant impact on warm-season perennial grasses was detected for either herbicide. All sites were burned two years after planting. Fire effects measurements indicated more desirable fire intensity on treated plots, hexazinone plots in particular. Overall, hexazinone plots appeared better poised for longer term fire management compared to imazapyr/ glyphosate plots. Release of woody shrubs and vines was lower on hexazinone plots and bluestem grasses also responded exceptionally well. Our results suggest that herbicide site preparation treatments are important not only in promoting seedling growth, but are also effective in enhancing fuels structure and may be an important early step in establishing a desirable longleaf pine restoration trajectory. Fort Benning has pursued an aggressive longleaf pine restoration strategy for its uplands for the past decade, primarily for the purpose of restoring habitat for the federally endangered red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (USAIC 2001). In total, Fort Benning’s restoration project covers some 90,000 acres, most of which is believed to have been occupied by longleaf pine but is presently dominated by mixed pine-hardwood communities. A variety of techniques are typically employed by Fort Benning land managers to promote longleaf pine, including selective harvesting of non-longleaf timber and prescribed fire. Additionally, roughly 1000-1500 acres of upland forest, typically plantation loblolly, are clearcut each year and replanted to longleaf pine. These areas are site-prepared, planted, and then included in the installation's prescribed fire program, which has a 2-3 year fire return interval. Site preparation methods that minimize soil surface disturbance are generally favored. For this reason, herbicide treatments followed by burning are often the chosen method of site preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two herbicides commonly used on Fort Benning in reducing woody plant competition and promoting longleaf pine seedling growth. Additionally, we were interested in evaluating the impact of herbicides on herbaceous fuels – warmseason perennial grasses in particular – as continued management of young longleaf plantations on Fort Benning will rely primarily on prescribed fire alone. Methods Fort Benning is an 182,000 acre U.S. Army training installation located in west-central Georgia and eastern Alabama (32.4°N latitude, 84.8°W longitude). The area selected for study was a patchwork of upland loblolly pine plantations located at the southern tip of the installation that were clearcut harvested in 2002. Study sites were established in May-June 2003 using a randomized complete block design with six replications (sites) and three treatments (imazapyr/glyphosate, hexazinone, and untreated control) for a total of Poster Presentations 50 18 plots. Sites were located across a range of soils, from loamy sands to sandy loams, representative of upland soils found on Fort Benning. Each plot was 2 ´ 3 chains (20 ´ 40 m) in dimension. Herbicide treatments were applied at recommended rates during August 2003 as follows: (1) imazapyr/glyphosate: 16 oz. imazapyr (Arsenal®) product/acre (0.28 kg/ha active ingredient) per 4 quarts glyphosate (Accord®) product/ acre (4.5 kg/ha active ingredient) plus 0.5% nonionic surfactant (2) hexazinone: 4 lb. (Velpar® ULW) product/ acre (3.36 kg/ha active ingredient) Imazapyr/glyphosate was applied in liquid form using a backpack sprayer and hexazinone was in granular form applied by an operational contractor using a skidder mounted applicator. All sites were burned following initial brownout. Nursery-grown, containerized longleaf pine seedlings were then planted during November 2003 at a spacing of 6 ´ 12 ft to achieve a density of 605 seedlings per acre. Seedlings came from a regional supplier (International Forest Company; Moultrie, GA) and were 8-9 months old at the time of planting. No further herbicide treatments were applied. Field measurements were conducted on all plots at the time of plot establishment in May-June 2003, prior to the herbicide treatments, and again in June 2005, the second growing season after planting. All sites were burned again in January 2006 and post-burn data were collected within six weeks of burning. Plots were then inventoried again in June 2006. All measurements were made along diagonal transects bisecting each plot using a 1-m2 PVC frame (subplot). A total of ten 1-m2 subplots were measured per plot. Within each subplot, percent cover of perennial grasses was estimated visually to the nearest percent. Perennial grasses included: Andropogon virginicus, Andropogon/Schizachyrium spp., Aristida purpurascens, Chasmanthium sessiliflorum, Dichanthelium spp., Panicum spp., Paspalum spp., Paspalum urvillei, Saccharum spp., Setaria spp. Several of these genera also contain annual species, but effort was made to restrict measurements to perennial species only. Emphasis was placed on perennial grasses over other herbaceous groups (like forbs) because perennial grasses tend to be the most important herbaceous group for carrying fire during the dormant season. All woody trees, shrubs and vines rooted within each subplot were tallied by species to yield woody plant density (#/m2). Planted longleaf pine seedlings were tallied within a 4 m wide belt transect within each plot following their second growing season. Root collar diameter and terminal bud height were also measured on each seedling. Post-burn assessments were made within each 1-m2 subplot using a qualitative scoring system described by the National Park System (USDI NPS 2003). Scores ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 being heavily burned and 5 being unburned. Treatment effects were evaluated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with multiple comparison procedures in SAS (SAS v. 9.1.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Where multiple years of data were present, repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with pretreatment (2003) data used as a covariate. Slope homogeneity tests and treatment ´ year interactions were evaluated to determine how plots changed relative to one another over time. Data were transformed as necessary to meet assumptions for parametric tests. Both arcsine (for percentage data) and log transformations were used where needed. Statistical significance was interpreted using α = 0.05. Preliminary Results and Discussion Longleaf seedling root collar diameter was significantly greater for both imazapyr/glyphosate and hexazinone Figure 1. Longleaf seedling (A) root collar diameter and (B) height measured at the beginning of their third growing season (2006); averaged by treatment (n = 6 reps per treatment; means ±1 SE). Means with different letters are significantly different at α = 0.05. Poster Presentations 51 Figure 2. (A) Woody stem density averaged by treatment for each of the measurement years (n = 6 reps per treatment, except 2005 n = 5 for control plots due to missing data; means ±1 SE). Significant differences among means at α = 0.05 are denoted by different letters. (B) Mean change in woody stem density from 2003 to 2006 for trees, shrubs and vines. treated plots relative to control plots (Figure 1A). For both treatments, seedlings were typically at or above the 25 mm approximate diameter threshold at which height growth generally initiates (Boyer 1990). Seedlings were significantly taller on hexazinone plots compared to imazapyr/ glyphosate and control plots (Figure 1B). There was no difference in seedling density among treatments (data not shown), indicating similar seedling survival. Effects of herbicide treatments on total woody stem density were variable, but by 2006 hexazinone treated plots had significantly fewer woody stems present compared to imazapyr/ glyphosate and control plots (Figure 2A). The density of hardwood trees species such as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and water oak (Quercus nigra) was significantly lower for both imazapyr/ glyphosate and hexazinone plots compared to control plots (Figure 2B). This was the one trend observed to date that could potentially explain the increase in seedling growth on treated plots. Total woody stem density on imazapyr/ glyphosate plots was no different from control plots in 2006 because of the prodigious release of shrubs such as sand blackberry (Rubus cuneifolius) that occurred on these plots (Figure 2A, B).There was no adverse effect of either herbicide treatment on warm-season perennial grass cover (Figure 3). In fact, the percent increase in cover from 2003 to 2005 and from 2003 to 2006 was slightly though not significantly greater on both imazapyr/glyphosate and hexazinone treated plots compared to control plots. Bluestem grasses (Andropogon spp. and Schizachyrium scoparium) responded particularly well to hexazinone (data not shown). Percent cover of these species in 2006 after the prescribed burn was sixteen times greater than that measured in 2003 on hexazinone plots. Percent cover of these same species over this time period was seven times greater on control plots and only about two times greater on imazapyr/ glyphosate plots. An increase in graminoid cover following hexazinone treatments in particular has been documented by other studies as well (Brockway and Outcalt 2000, HaySmith and Tanner 2002). Post-burn measurements also showed more favorable fire intensity on treated plots compared to control plots (Table 1). Again, statistically significant differences were observed only for hexazinone plots. Within-plot variation in burn severity scores was also evaluated to assess burn patchiness or continuity. No significant differences emerged from this analysis, however, indicating similar burn continuity among treated and control plots. Figure 3. Percent cover of warm season perennial grasses averaged by treatment (n = 6 reps per treatment, except 2005 n = 5 for control plots due to missing data; means ±1 SE). No significant differences between treatments were found and there was no interaction between treatment and year. Poster Presentations 52 Table 1. Mean burn severity code as defined by the National Park Service (USDI NPS 2003) averaged by treatment (n = 6 reps per treatment; means ±1 SE). Measurements were made following a prescribed fire in 2006. Codes are from 1 to 5, with 5 = unburned and 1 = heavily burned. Means with different letters are significantly different from one another at α = 0.05. Acknowledgements We thank Fort Benning’s Environmental Management Division (EMD), specifically John Brent, Bob Larimore, and Pete Swiderek, for supporting this project. We also thank Mark Byrd for help with site selection and herbicide application, Ricky Caldwell and Brant Slay for help with fieldwork, and Matt Nespeca and Don Imm for reviewing earlier versions of this report. Funding for this project was provided by the Department of Defense. Treatment Mean Burn Severity Code Standard Error Statistical Significance (α = 0.05) Imaz/Glyph 3.72 0.301 ab Literature Cited Hexazinone 3.59 0.225 b Control 4.30 0.092 a Boyer, W.D. 1990. Pinus palustris., Mill. Longleaf Pine. In: Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala (Eds.), Silvics of North America, Vol. 1, Conifers. USDA Forest Service Handbook 654. pp. 405-412. Brockway, D.G. and K.W. Outcalt. 2000. Restoring longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystems: Hexazinone application enhances effects of prescribed fire. For. Ecol. Manage. 137:121-138. Hay-Smith, L. and G.W. Tanner. 2002. Restoring longleaf pine sandhill communities with an herbicide. University of Florida Extension, WEC131. 6 p. USAIC (U.S. Army Infantry Center). 2001. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Fort Benning Army Installation 2001-2005. USDI NPS (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service). 2003. Fire Monitoring Handbook. Boise (ID): Fire Management Program Center, National Interagency Fire Center. 274p. Conclusions Both herbicide treatments had favorable effects on longleaf seedling growth and fuels structure compared to control plots, though of the two herbicides, hexazinone treated plots appeared better poised for longer term management with fire alone compared to imazapyr/glyphosate plots. Woody plant density was significantly lower on these plots, bluestem species responded exceptionally well, and burn severity measures indicated more favorable fire intensity likely necessary for continued control of woody competition. We emphasize herbicide site preparation for creating or enhancing desirable fuels structure, under the assumption that other desirable ecosystem attributes such as groundcover species richness and diversity will come with time following repeated fire application. Future work, however, should evaluate the impact of herbicide treatments and any associated legacy effect on other ecosystem attributes. Results from this study, though, suggest that herbicide site preparation treatments, hexazinone treatment in particular, are effective in promoting longleaf seedling growth and are likely an important early step in establishing a desirable longleaf pine ecosystem restoration trajectory by enhancing fuels structure. Poster Presentations 53 Longleaf Pine Plant Community Restoration at the Savannah River Site: Design and Preliminary Results Todd A. Aschenbach1, Bryan L. Foster1, and Don W. Imm2,3 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045, USA 2 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Ft. Benning, Georgia, 31995, USA 3 Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Aiken, South Carolina 29803, USA Introduction Losses of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystems in the southeastern United States have reduced the original extent of longleaf pine ecosystems by 97% (Frost 1993, Outcalt and Sheffield 1996). As a result, there is considerable interest in attempting to restore elements of the historic longleaf pine ecosystem. Here we introduce a long-term experimental study established at the Department of Energy Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina to evaluate the potential for restoring long-leaf savannah at local and landscapescales. Restoration efforts at the landscape scale are need in order for restoration to be an effective tool for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (Bell et al. 1997, Radeloff et al. 2000). However, before developing landscape-level restoration strategies, one must understand the constraints to reestablishment, persistence and dispersal of species within a landscape. Constraints can be viewed from regional to local levels of organization (Figure 1). Regional species pools can place strong constraints/filters on plant colonization, species composition and diversity at the local scale. The diversity and composition of regional species pools may vary depending on large-scale patterns of migration and speciation, and the cumulative effect of anthropogenic disturbance and subsequent loss of regional species pools (Zobel 1997, Foster 2001). Seed addition studies have shown that species diversity can be limited by dispersal (Tilman 1997, Foster and Tilman 2003, Foster et al. 2004). Therefore, dispersal constraints from the regional species pool can be circumvented by the addition propagules. Local abiotic and biotic conditions act as filters to invasibility, population persistence and thus community assembly (Zobel 1997, Rejmánek 1996). Abiotic resistance to establishment comprises the impacts of local edaphic conditions, microclimatic conditions, etc., and determines which subset of species from the regional pool is able to survive under the local abiotic conditions. Biotic resistance comprises the influence of species interactions on establishment and persistence of available, abiotically-suitable species. The disturbance regime also acts as a major selective factor in local community assembly through its mediation of both abiotic and biotic conditions. In the context of restoration, the re-establishment of fire alters both Figure 1. Conceptual model showing the multi-scaled constraints on community assembly at the local scale. Native Species Pool Dispersal Filter Intervention:addition of seeds, transplants. Intervention:re-establish fire, species-site matching. Local Abiotic Filter Intervention:re-establish fire, stand thinning, weed control. Local Biotic Filter Local Extant Community Poster Presentations 54 abiotic and biotic conditions and aid in the reestablishment of conditions suitable for the persistence of native species. At the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS), a long-term and landscape-level approach to longleaf pine savannah restoration was initiated in 2001 in order to investigate the relative importance of dispersal limitation, abiotic and biotic resistance in constraining colonization and community assembly. Reduced regional species pools and local degradation of existing savannah vegetation (Duncan et al. 1996) necessitates intense restoration efforts including the addition of native plant propagules. Intensely restored native plant communities located throughout the landscape will serve as local propagule pools for the remaining landscape, including degraded longleaf pine forests located outside the SRS boundaries. Figure 2. Illustration of the 2 x 2 factorial experimental design used at each of six separate study sites to examine interactions between wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana) and other non-matrix species. +/- ARI = presence or absence of A. beyrichiana; +/- NM = presence or absence of nonmatrix species. In this experiment, biotic resistance is investigated through the interactions between wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana) and other planted species. Wiregrass helps to regulate the floristic composition of longleaf pine ecosystems primarily due to its ability to act as an important fuel source for prescribed and natural fires and is therefore considered a keystone component of the longleaf pine ecosystem (Clewell 1989, Noss 1989, Platt et al. 1989). This facilitation of fire helps to reduce the extent of invasive species that are poorly adapted to fire (Ahlgren 1979, Provencher et al. 2001, Reinhart and Menges 2004). Although wiregrass can help facilitate the establishment of other fire-adapted herbaceous species, it may also act as a strong competitor with other herbaceous species. As a result, we have incorporated the planting of wiregrass to investigate the potential impacts of this grass component on the performance of the other transplanted species. Methods The objectives of this project are to a) reestablish native understory savannah vegetation, b) examine the interplay between local abiotic and biotic factors in constraining species establishment, persistence, and coexistence, and c) explore the potential of intensively restored founder populations to disperse to areas throughout the adjoining landscape. Here we describe how the experimental design of the project and present preliminary data on survivorship of the restoration plantings in light of differing site conditions and biotic interactions among wiregrass and other planted species. This study was conducted at six separate sites within the 80,125 ha (310 mi2) U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site (SRS) in Barnwell and Aiken Counties, South Carolina. All study sites were in agricultural production prior to the establishment of SRS in 1950. Within 25 years after the establishment of SRS, all study sites were planted to longleaf pine plantations. Table 1. A biotic characteristics of restoration sites at SRS including total soil nitrogen (TN), total soil carbon (TC), total phosphorus (TP), and total organic matter (TOM). Year of most recent burn and mapped soil type area also given. Values within each measurement category are significantly different (P<0.050) between sites that exhibit the same letters with different subscripts. TN (%) TC (%) TP (%) TOM (%) Recent burn Soil Type Site 1 0.024 a0 0.86 10.6 a0b0 1.4 1997 FuB Fuquay Sand (FuB) Site 2 0.037 1.30 5.1 a0b1 2.2 2001 Troup Sand (TrB) Site 3 0.029 0.88 9.6 a0b0 1.6 1993 Troup Sand (TrB) Site 4 0.029 a0 1.06 12.3 a0b0 2.0 2005 Fuquay Sand (FuA) Site 5 0.024 a0 0.90 10.6 a0b0 1.6 2000 Dothan Sand (DoB) Site 6 0.045 a1 1.46 3.6 a1b0 2.3 2005 FuB Fuquay Sand (FuB) Poster Presentations 55 Figure 4. Overall species survivorship (+ SE) among restoration sites. Overall survivorship is significantly different (P<0.050) between sites that exhibit the same letters with different subscripts. Figure 5. Comparison of non-matrix species survival (+ SE) with and without wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana) among restoration sites. An asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference at P<0.050 in non-matrix species survival. Site preparation prior to restoration plantings consisted of thinning the 30-50 year old longleaf pine stands to densities of 20-59 trees/ha in March 2001 followed by an herbicide application in June 2002. Container-grown transplants of wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana), an important matrix grass of the longleaf pine savannah understory, and 29 other herbaceous “non-matrix” species native to longleaf pine savannahs were planted in July 2002 and June 2003 at a rate of 1-12 individuals per plot. Plantings were irrigated for one month after planting with approximately 8.4-12.6 L water/m2 only if a precipitation event of 1.27 cm (0.5 in) did not occur within one week. Plantings were not fertilized at any time during the study.A 2 X 2 factorial design was used to elucidate biotic interactions between Aristida beyrichiana and other nonmatrix species. Treatments were replicated 25 times and randomly assigned to study plots at each site. Each plot was 3 x 3 m in size resulting in a total study area of 900 m2 at each site (Figure 2). Average total soil nitrogen, carbon, phosphorous, and organic matter were determined from 12 42.75 cm3 soil samples collected from the top 15 cm at each site in September 2005. Site characteristics, including recent prescribed burn history, are given in Table 1. All plots were surveyed in June 2004 for vegetative cover and individual number of all planted species. Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and slender little bluestem (S. tenerum) are combined for data analyses. Scheirer-RayHare, Kruskal-Wallace and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses. Poster Presentations 56 Results and Discussion Overall species survival was greatest at site 4 at 52% which was significantly greater (P<0.050) than species survival at sites 2 and 5. Species survival at site 6 was significantly lower than at all other restoration sites (Figure 4). Site 6 exhibits the greatest soil nutrient levels compared to all other sites (Table 1). Therefore, the lower survival of planted species at site 6 may be due to competitive exclusion by non-planted species. Non-matrix species survival is positively affected by the presence of wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana), but this relationship depends on site conditions. At sites 4 and 6, nonmatrix species survival was significantly greater (P<0.050) in plots with wiregrass than in plots without wiregrass (Figure 5). However, this increase in survival for non-matrix species cannot be the result of facilitation of fire by wiregrass since no sites had been burned between the time of planting and the collection of these data (2004). This increase in survival of non-matrix species may still reflect a type of abiotic facilitation by wiregrass, however, the specific mechanism for this facilitation has yet to be determined. The pine savannah restoration project at SRS provides for the opportunity to examine how abiotic and biotic factors affect species establishment and coexistence at the local level. Specifically, the planting design employed allows for the examination of the biotic interactions between wiregrass and other planted species. Continuing research will examine these interactions as a function of differing site conditions. In addition to elucidating the biotic interactions between wiregrass and other species, this experiment will also help to determine the limits to establishment of other understory species. Furthermore, this landscape-level project provides for the opportunity to gauge the potential of intensively restored founder populations to disperse to areas throughout the adjoining landscape. Tracking the dispersal and colonization of planted species over time will help to elucidate the advantages and shortfalls of this approach to landscape restoration. Literature Cited Ahlgren, C.E. 1979. Emergent seedlings on soil from burned and unburned red pine forest. Minnesota Forest Research Notes 273. 4 pp. Bell, S.S., M. S. Fonseca, and L.B. Motten. 1993. Linking restoration and landscape ecology. Restoration Ecology 5:318-325. Clewell, A.F. 1989. Natural history of wiregrass (Aristida stricta Michx., Gramineae). Natural Areas Journal 9:223-233. Duncan, R. P., and R. K. Peet. 1996. A template for reconstructing the natural, fire-dependent vegetation of the fall-line sandhills, south-eastern United States. (Report 96-23-R). Foster, B.L. 2001. Constraints on colonization and species richness along a grassland productivity gradient: the role of propagule availability. Ecology Letters 4: 530535. Foster, B.L. and Tilman, D. 2003. Seed limitation and the regulation of community structure in oak savannah grassland. Journal of Ecology 91: 999-1007. Foster, B.L., T.L. Dickson, C.A. Murphy, I.S. Karel, and V.H. Smith. 2004. Propagule pools mediate community assembly and diversity-ecosystem regulation along a grassland productivity gradient. Journal of Ecology 92: 435-449. Frost, C.C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape pattern in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Pages 17-43 inS.M. Hermann, ed., Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, The longleaf pine ecosystem: Ecology, restoration and management. Tall Timbers Research, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. Noss, R.F. 1989. Longleaf pine and wiregrass: Keystone components of an endangered ecosystem. Natural Areas Journal 9:211-213. Outcalt, K.W. and R.M. Sheffield. 1996. The longleaf pine forest: Trends and current conditions. Resource Bulletin SRS-9. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 23 p. Platt, W.J., J.S. Glitzenstein, and D.R. Streng. 1989. Evaluating pyrogenicity and its effects on vegetation in longleaf pine savannahs. Pages 143-163 in S.M. Hermann, ed., Proceedings of the 17th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, High intensity fire in wildlands: Management challenges and options. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Provencher, L., B.J. Herring, D.R. Gordon, H. L. Rodgers, K.E.M Galley, G.W. Tanner, J.L. Hardesty, and L.A. Brennan. 2001. Effects of hardwood reduction techniques on longleaf pine sandhill vegetation in northwest Florida. Restoration Ecology 9:13-27. Radeloff, V.C., D.J. Mladenoff, and M.S. Boyce. 2000. A historical perspective and future outlook on landscape scale restoration in the northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens. Restoration Ecology 8:119-124. Reinhart, K.O. and E.S. Menges. 2004. Effects of reintroducing fire to a central Florida sandhill community.Applied Vegetation Science 7:141-150. Tilman, D. 1997. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78: 81-92. Zobel, M. 1997. The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 266-269. Poster Presentations 57 Longleaf pine ecosystem management at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida Chadwick Avery1 1 Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, 32542, USA Abstract Eglin AFB, totaling approximately 464,000 acres (724 square miles), is the largest Air Force base in the U.S. Located in the panhandle of northwest Florida, over 362,000 acres of this area consist of the fire-dependent longleaf pine ecosystem in the form of longleaf pine sandhills, flatwoods, and uplands. Eglin's longleaf pine forest is of great conservation significance as it is the largest contiguous tract of the world's remaining old growth longleaf pine and is home to 77 state and federally listed species, including gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snakes, and the 4th largest population of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Eglin's forest is managed by the Natural Resource Section within the Environmental Management Division's Stewardship Branch. The Natural Resource Section is comprised of the Forestry, Wildland Fire, and Wildlife Elements, each of which is responsible for multiple programs that support Eglin's test and training mission and Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP). The mission of Eglin's Natural Resources Section is to support the Air Force through responsible stewardship of the installation's natural resources. This is accomplished by integrating natural resource management and using an adaptive ecosystem management approach, which maintains ecosystem viability and conserves biodiversity while providing compatible multiple uses. Overall, ecosystem management and the military mission have been compatible and highly successful at Eglin. Poster Presentations 58 Establishment and Management of Longleaf Pine ( Pinus palustris Mill.) Seed Production Areas Jill Barbour1 1 USDA Forest Service, National Seed Laboratory Dry Branch, Georgia, 31020, USA Abstract Interest in planting longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) in the southeastern United States is growing. Seedling demand is fueling the demand for longleaf pine seed, but due to the species’ periodic nature in cone production, seed shortages can occur; thereby, limiting the number of seedlings that can be produced. Therefore, more longleaf pine seed production areas are needed to meet the demand for seed. The reproductive biology of longleaf pine is more unpredictable than other southern pines. More care is needed in the handling of its reproductive structures, making the species difficult to propagate. Longleaf pine’s vegetative grass stage creates conditions that favor managing natural stands for seed production rather than creating grafted seed orchards. Provenance and progeny tests, which select for early emergence from the grass stage, can be converted to seedling seed orchards an and managed for cone production too. Much of what is known about longleaf pine cone production was published over 30 years ago, and the practical experience by foresters has been lost. Not much information has been published on managing longleaf pine seed production areas; therefore, inferences are made from the management of other southern pines species’ seed production areas. This poster is a compilation of knowledge and practical experience on how to establish and manage mature longleaf pine areas for cone production. Poster Presentations 59 The Dendrochronology of Pinus palustris in Virginia Arvind A. R. Bhuta1, Lisa M. Kennedy1, Carolyn A. Copenheaver1 and Philip M. Sheridan2 1 Department of Geography, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, 24060, USA Meadowview Biological Research Station, Woodford, Virginia, 22580, USA 2 Abstract Dendrochronological research of Pinus palustris has been limited to its central and southern range. For this study, we investigated how climate and disturbance affects ring width growth at two sites that support naturally regenerated Pinus palustris at its northernmost range in Virginia. For both sites, we measured height and diameter of all Pinus palustris and cored a total of 71 trees (Seacock Swamp, n = 32; Everwoods, n = 39) greater than 10 cm in diameter at breast height. All cores were cross-dated and measured and cross-dating was verified using COFECHA. Our initial within site correlations were r2 = 0.373 for Seacock Swamp and r2 = 0.377 for Everwoods. The low correlations indicate a strong competition signal within the tree-ring record and are probably due to the high density of Pinus taeda in both the understory and overstory within these stands. We calculated release and suppression events based on boundary-line radial growth patterns and found long periods of suppression punctuated by release events experienced at the tree level rather than the stand level. To account for the effects of climate on annual ring width growth, we adjusted our within site correlations so both sites would better correlate with climate records. This yielded within site correlations of r2 = 0.509 for Seacock Swamp and r2 = 0.494 for Everwoods. We are presently examining the effects of monthly and seasonal precipitation, temperature, PDSI, and PHDI on annual ring growth of Pinus palustris from both sites. Poster Presentations 60 Old-Growth Longleaf Pine on Horn Mountain, AL (Talladega National Forest) David Borland1, Art Henderson2, John S. Kush3, and John McGuire3 1 2 The Nature Conservancy Birmingham, Alabama, 35210, USA USDA Forest Service, Talladega National Forest, Talladega District, Talladega, Alabama, 35160, USA 3 Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract Objectives A truly unique opportunity exists to increase the knowledge base about the dynamics of longleaf pine in the montane region. Horn Mountain is located on the Talladega Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest. It is located about 5 miles southeast of Talladega, AL at an elevation of 1,500 feet. As a result of an Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences senior project, several observations were made that make this area truly unique. It may be the largest intact oldgrowth longleaf stand and may have the highest density and basal area of any old-growth stand in the montane region. This study will 1) describe the age and stand structure, 2) evaluate the size, age, and variability, and 3) shed light on past disturbance and replacement patterns of old-growth mountain longleaf pine stands. The US Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy and the Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences are collaborating to document conditions and to develop a restoration strategy for this and other montane old-growth longleaf pine stands. Introduction Approach We have measured and stem-mapped all living longleaf pines > 1.0 inch DBH (100% sample) for DBH (to nearest 0.1 inch), and sub-sampled all living hardwoods and other pines > 4.0 DBH, and distance and direction from permanent plot centers. All snags will be measured for DBH, total height, and distance and direction from permanent plot centers. Notes will be made of trees and snags that have fire scars and those trees and snags that had been turpentined. All living pines > 4 inches DBH will be cored at 4 feet above the root collar. The Talladega Ranger District has indicated they will be able to cut samples from firescarred trees which will be used to determine what some of the fire history may have been for the montane region. Although vestiges of the pre-European forest occur in pockets of the present day Ridge and Valley landscape of northern Alabama, the structure of the forest today bears little resemblance to that which was there prior to significant Euro-American disturbances. A few remaining untrammeled ridges in northern Alabama counties with intact forests provide insight into the structure (species composition) and function of the native ecotypes in the region. Preliminary Findings Longleaf pine is typically thought of as a coastal plain species. Many are surprised to learn that Alabama is unique from the other states where longleaf pine is found in that forests once stretched into the mountains of northern Alabama. Within the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley physiographic landscape, longleaf pine was the dominant forest cover on south and southwest facing slopes up to about 2,000 feet in elevation. Although still a common tree, longleaf pine (and its associated pyrogenic ground cover) often faded out in damp bottomland valleys and north facing slopes where fire frequency and intensity was greatly reduced and allowed for the establishment of non-fire tolerant related species. However, countless microsite differences in elevation, slope, fuels, etc. allowed fire to either move into or Several field surveys conducted by David Borland have found the following number of species: Forbs – 37, Shrubs/ small trees – 22, Trees – 17, Grasses and sedges – 11, Vines – 9, and Ferns – 4. The figure above is an aerial photograph of the old-growth longleaf pine stand being studied on Horn Mountain. The green points indicate the location of all longleaf pine > 4.0 inches DBH (diameter at breast height). Figures 1-3 preset the preliminary data collected on Horn Mountain. Work on this project will continue in early 2007. Poster Presentations 61 60 Tre e s /acre 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 35 DBH(inches) Figure 1. Diameter distribution for longleaf on Horn Mountain. This figure indicates that fire has been lacking because of the low numbers of small diameter longleaf pine. 9 Num ber of Trees 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 95 10 5 11 5 12 5 13 5 14 5 15 5 16 5 17 5 18 5 19 5 20 5 21 5 22 5 23 5 24 5 25 5 85 75 65 55 45 35 15 25 0 Age Class (yrs.) 80 70 60 50 hi te oa k oa k w bl ac k ch er ry m on bl ac k oa k pe rs im re d oa k re d no rt h. hi ck or y so ut h. ap le re d m oa k ac k oo d bl ac kj so ur w bl ac k ch es nu t gu m 40 30 20 10 0 oa k Trees/acre Figure 2. Age class distribution for longleaf pine on Horn Mountain. The figure indicates that longleaf pine has had frequent cone crops for regeneration. Hardwood species Figure 3. Species density for hardwoods on Horn Mountain. Most the species listed would be expected in fire-maintained longleaf pine ecosystems in the montane region of its range except for red maple and black cherry. These species provide an indication that fire has been infrequent in the stand. Poster Presentations 62 The Longleaf Pine Cone Crop Story Elizabeth Bowersock1, William D. Boyer2 and John S. Kush1 1 Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA 2 USDA Forest Service, Auburn Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract For successful natural regeneration, the minimum size of a cone crop is considered to be 750 cones/acre or roughly 30 cones per tree. In the past 30 years, 5 of the 8 cone crops considered adequate for natural regeneration have occurred since 1990. The 1996 seed crop occurred throughout the longleaf pine range. In any given locality, longleaf pine bears irregular cone crops. Adequate cone crops for natural regeneration of longleaf pine typically occur every 5-7 years, much to the frustration of forest managers. The three-year duration over which the seeds develop may be the cause of infrequent production. A time-line will be displayed that illustrates this three-year process. Stand characteristics which may optimize the amount of seed available for natural regeneration will be presented. Reason for the Problem The visual development of longleaf pine seed extends into 3 calendar years. The following is an abbreviated guideline for the longleaf pine seed development process. Longleaf pine cone crops have been monitored at several locations, at various times, across the Southeast. The longest sequence from the Escambia Experimental Forest in south Alabama will be shown, along with one for southwest Georgia and an overall average for 5-9 sites located across the Southeast from Louisiana to North Carolina. Forecasts will be presented for 2006 and 2007 longleaf pine cone crops across the Southeast. Months prior to seedfall and what happens: 27 months 22 months - Problem 19 months One of the major concerns in longleaf pine restoration, regeneration, and management is its relatively sporadic seed production. Compared to the other southern pines, longleaf is a sporadic seed producer where good seed crops may occur every 5 to 7 years. Whether the interest is natural or artificial regeneration, it is important to know when to expect a bountiful seed crop. 5 months - Differentiation between male and female flowers occur; usually July, 2-years prior to seedfall. Male flowers appear, usually December, 2-years prior to seedfall. Female flowers appear and pollination oc curs, usually February to April, 1-year prior to seedfall. Fertilization occurs, usually May to June of seedfall year. Seed ripen and fall between late September and early November. 140 C ones/Tree 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 Year Figure 1. Average of 5 – 9 locations across the Southeast. The bold line at 30 cones per tree represents the desired number that may be required for successful regeneration. Poster Presentations 63 6 2006 and 2007 Cone Crop Data Female Conelet Male Catkin Initiation Male Catkins Appear Cone Opens Male Catkin Female Conelet Buds Appear Cone Ripens Pollination Rapid Cone Growth Conelet - Early Fertilization Conelet - Late Figure 2. Development cycle of longleaf pine seed (adapted from Croker and Boyer 1975; Boyer 1990). Long-term records of longleaf pine cone production were obtained from natural regeneration trials conducted at the EEF with binocular counts using the method described by Croker (1971). Notes 1. The 2006 cone crop estimate is above the longterm average, with bumper (100 or more cones/ tree) at one site, good at three sites, fair at two, poor at three and failure at one (Table 1). 2. Regional outlook for 2007 longleaf cone crop, based on flower counts, is at the failure level overall. Failures are indicated at seven sites, poor crops at the remaining three sites. While cone crop estimates from flower counts are unreliable due to highly variable flower losses during first year, the lack of flowers is a reliable indication of failure. 3. The 40-year regional cone production average = 28 cones/tree. The heavy 1996 cone crop averaged 125 cones/tree; the 1987 cone crop (2nd best) averaged 65 cones/tree. 4. The normal minimum needed for successful natural regeneration is 750 cones/acre (30 cones/tree with 25 seed trees/ acre). Literature Cited Table 1. Longleaf pine cone crop prospects – 2006/2007, from springtime binocular counts (spring 2006 survey). Counts made on selected mature trees (average 15 – 17” dbh) within low-density (shelterwood) stands. LOCATION ESTIMATED CONES/TREE Escambia, AL Santa Rosa, FL Okaloosa, FL Leon, FL Baker, GA Chesterfield, SC Bladen, NC Grant, LA from conelets 2006 22 30 14 15 109 93 63 45 from flowers 2007 13 0 6 4 5 21 19 6 Lee, AL 5 5 Thomas, GA REGIONAL AVERAGE 57 16 45.3 9.5 Boyer, W. D. 1998. Long-term changes in flowering and one production by longleaf pine. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, T.A. Waldrop (ed.), USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. 20, pages 92-98. Croker, T.C., Jr. 1971. Binocular counts of longleaf pine strobili. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Research Note SO-127. 3 p. Croker, T.C., Jr. and W.D. Boyer. 1975. Regenerating longleaf pine naturally. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper SO-105. Maki, T.E. 1952. Local longleaf seed years. Journal of Forestry. 50(4):321-322. Wahlenberg, W.G. 1946. Longleaf pine: Its use, ecology, regeneration, protection, growth, and management. Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foundation in USDA Forest Service. 429 pp. Poster Presentations 64 Restoring and Maintaining Ecological Integrity of Special Communities Embedded within Longleaf Pinelands Joyce Marie Brown1 and Johnny P. Stowe2 1 2 University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816, USA South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina 29202, USA At the Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference in Alexandria, LA in 2000, eminent longleaf pine researcher Dr. Bill Boyer of the USFS encouraged the group to not -- in its zeal to restore the longleaf pine ecosystem (the trees, and famed groundcover and fauna) -- neglect to pay similar attention to and concomitantly restore, the Special Communities Embedded Within the Longleaf Pine Landscape (SCELPL). As a land manager interested in restoring native ecosystems, I (co-author Stowe) heard this and never forgot it, recognizing it as a path suggested by a wise man. Since then I pay special attention to this subject. I peruse the popular and scientific literature for developments, and make special note of SCELPLs as I manage longleaf pinelands. Especially salient and fascinating to me are Atlantic whitecedar wetlands and canebrakes. I seek to follow Dr. Boyer's advice by bringing attention to them. As a scientist interested in restoration and management, I (co-author Brown) recognize the importance of a hierarchical approach to biodiversity conservation. Although restoration of longleaf habitat has been successful, I fear that SCELPLs are often neglected by a singlelevel focus on landscape or species. Because SCELPLs interact with longleaf pine habitats through fire dynamics, hydrology, energy cycling and nutrient cycling, and contribute to the natural heritage value of the forest, we must preserve, maintain and restore them to protect the ecological integrity -- i.e. the composition, structure and function -- of longleaf pine ecosystems. The core of my research is the study and restoration of seasonally ponded, isolated wetlands embedded in the longleaf pine landscape. Seasonally Ponded Isolated Wetlands Characteristics: • • • • • • • • • Dry completely periodically No regular surface flow in or out Habitat patches for metapopulations May interact with groundwater Form in shallow topographic depressions Affect and are affected by fire dynamics Exchange energy and nutrients with uplands Overstory of cypress, gum or pond pine Understory structure dependent on fire and hydrologic regime • High diversity and productivity, especially am-phibian Threats: • • • • • • ATVs and other ORVs Exotic/invasive species Fertilizers, pesticides (e.g. herbicides, insecticides) Fire suppression and firebreaks in/around wetlands Fish reduce amphibian diversity and abundance Disturbance associated with agriculture, silvicul t u r e and ‘development’ (e.g. ditching, draining, filling) Management Recommendations: • • • • • • • • Restrict ORVs to designated trails Do not alter natural hydrology Restore hydrology if possible (e.g. plug ditches) Minimize soil disturbance in/around wetlands Do not allow fishes in fishless isolated wetlands Remove exotics/invasives Use only wetland-approved chemicals Prescribed fire Canebrakes Characteristics: • Arundinaria is the only bamboo native to US • Historically were vast, dense stands of cane (Arundinaria) • Largest stands are/were found in alluvial floodplains • Possible artifact of abandoned American Indian a g r i cultural lands • Cane is an understory plant in other habitats • Cane tolerates inundation but not prolonged sub m e r gence • Disturbance dependent/ sensitive • Burns readily, culms killed by fire but resprout quickly • Too frequent fire favors fire-resistant trees and shrubs • Fire exclusion also leads to woody plant dominance Threats: • Overgrazing/browsing (palatable and high quality livestock forage) • Low survival of transplants used in restoration ef forts • Land clearing for agriculture silviculture dev. Poster Presentations 65 encroachment, ATV use, hydrologic alterations, flood control and pollution. The unique wetlands embedded in longleaf pinelands were once extensive throughout the Southeastern US, but because so many has been lost, they now require protection, maintenance and restoration. • Altered flood regime • Altered fire regime Management Recommendations: • • • • • • • Restore flood regime/hydrology Restore natural fire regime Remove overstory Exclude or limit grazing/browsing Fertilize transplants Mulch around transplants Transplant culms to restoration sites using hand tools • Excavate, transport and plant cane clumps with roots and soil intact • Use only native Arundinaria for restoration Atlantic White-Cedar Wetlands Characteristics: • Peat accumulation is often significant • Often has a well developed shrub layer • Dominant or co-dominant tree is Atlantic WhiteCedar (AWC) • Communities often include gums, bays, red maples, cypress, oaks and pines • Variety of wetland types distributed over AWC range, from ME to FL and MS • Organic acids, high cation concentration, low nutrient availability, low pH, low DO Threats: • • • • • Harvest/silviculture Urbanization Deer browsing Altered fire and hydrologic regime Clearing for agriculture/silviculture/development Management Recommendations: • • • • • • • Restore hydrology Remove slash after timber harvest Harvest by clearcutting in strips Control competing hardwoods Use prescribed fire precisely Plant seedlings to re-establish AWC stands Shade and use peat to bolster seedling growth Wetlands are among the most threatened SCELPLs. Between the 1780’s and 1980’s 53% of wetlands in the conterminous US were lost, and 47k ha of wetlands per year continue to be lost. These figures do not take into account conversion from one wetland type to another, or degradation due to introduction of exotic/invasive species, ditching, draining, fire suppression, urban It is not safe to assume that successful management of longleaf pine uplands will automatically benefit SCELPLs. These examples demonstrate that SCELPLs require special attention, especially to hydrologic and fire regimes. In some cases planting native vegetation or removal of invasive species may be necessary to restore the composition, structure and function of special communities. Due to special soil and disturbance sensitivities of SCELPLs, harvesting and other silviculture practices may need to be modified to avoid negatively impacting special communities. Management plans should take SCELPLs into consideration. A hierarchical approach will ensure that ecological integrity is conserved at every level, the landscape, the communities, the populations of species and the gene pool. Because composition, structure and function at these multiple levels are intimately connected, only in this way can we assure the long-term persistence of longleaf pinelands. Bibliography and Suggested Reading Bailey, M.A., J.N. Holmes, K.A. Buhlmann, and J. C. Mitchell. 2006. Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles of the southeastern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication HMG-2. Brantley, C.G. and S.G. Platt. 2001. Canebrake conservation in the southeastern United States.Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29:4. Dattilo, A.J. and C.C. Rhoades. 2005. Establishment of the woody grass Arundinaria gigantean for riparian restoration. Restoration Ecology. 13:4. De Steven, D. and M.M. Toner. 2004. Vegetation of upper coastal plain depression wetlands:environmental templates and wetland dynamics within a landscape framework. Wetlands. 24:1. Eason, G.W. and J.E. Fauth. 2001. Ecological correlates of anuran species richness intemporary pools: a field study in South Carolina, USA.. Israel Journal of Zoology. 47:347-365. Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1995. Microtopography and vegetation in Atlantic white cedar swamps: the effects of natural disturbances. Canadian Journal of Botany. 73:474-848. Ehrenfeld, J.G. and J.P. Schneider. 1991. Chamaecyparis thyoides wetlands and suburbanization:effects on hydrology, water quality and plant community composition. The Journal of Applied Ecology. 28:2. Poster Presentations 66 Frost, C.C., J. Walker and R.K. Peet. 1986. Fire dependent savannas and prairies of theSoutheast: Original extent, preservation status and management problems. Pages 348–357 in Wilderness and Natural Areas in the Eastern United States: A Management Challenge. (D. L. Kulhavy and R. N. Conner, Eds.). Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Steven F. Austin State University, Nocogdoches, Texas. Gibbons, J.W., C.T. Winne, D.E. Scot, J.D. Willson, X. Glaudas, K.M. Andrews, B.D. Todd, L.A. Fedewa, L. Wilkinson, R.N. Tsallagos, S.J. Harper, J.L. Green, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. Metts, M.E. Dorcas, J.P. Nestor, C.A. Young, T. akre, R.N. Reed, K.A. Buhlmann, J. Norman, D.A. Croshaw, C. Hagen, and B.B. Rothermel. 2006. Remarkable amphibian biomass and abundance in an isolated wetland: implications for wetland conservation. Conservation Biology. 20:5. Hughes, R.H. 1951. Observations of cane (Arundinaria) flowers, seed, and seedlings in the North Carolina coastal plain. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 78:2. Kirkman, L.K. 1994. Vegetation disturbance and maintenance of diversity in intermittently flooded Carolina bays in South Carolina. Ecological Applications. 4:1. Kirkman, L.K. 1995. Impacts of fire and hydrological regimes on vegetation in depression wetlands of southeastern USA.. Pages 10-20 in Susan I. Cerulean and R. Todd Engstrom, eds. Fire in wetlands: a management perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Kirkman, L.K. 1999. Biodiversity in southeastern, seasonally ponded, isolated wetlands:management and policy perspectives for research and conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 18:4. Kirkman, L.K., M.B. Drew, L.T. West, and E.R. Blood. 1998. Ecotone characterization between upland longleaf pine/wiregrass stands and seasonally-ponded isolated wetlands. Wetlands. 18:3. Kirkman, L.K., P. C. Goebel, L. West, M.B. Drew, and B.J. Palik. 2000. Depressional Wetland vegetation types: a question of plant community development. Wetlands. 20:2. Laderman, AD. 1989. The ecology of Atlantic white cedar wetlands: a community profile.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 85:7.21. McKinley, C.E. and Frank P. Day, Jr. 1979. Herbaceous production in cut-burned, uncut-burned, and control areas of a Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) BSP (Cupressaceae) stand in the Great Dismal Swamp. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 106:1. Mylecraine, K.A. and G.L. Zimmerman. 2000. Atlantic white-cedar ecology and best management practices manual. Department of Environmental Protection, Divisioin of Parks and Forestry. New Jersey Forest Service. Noss, R.F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. Bioscience. 33:700-706. Noss, R.F. 1990a. Can we maintain biological and ecological integrity? Conservation Biology. 4:3. Noss, R.F. 1990b. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology. 4:4. Noss, R.F. 1999. A citizen’s guide to ecosystem management. Boulder, CO: Biodiversity Legal Foundation. Noss, R.F. 2002. Context matters: considerations for large scale conservation. Conservation in Practice. 3:3. Pechmann, J.H. K., D.E. Scott, J.W. Gibbons, and R.D. Semlitsch. 1989. Influence of wetland hydroperiod on diversity and abundance of metamorphosing juvenile amphibians. Wetlands Ecology and Mangement. 1:1. Platt, S.G. and C.G. Brantley. 1997. Canebrakes: an ecological and historical perspective. Castanea. 62:1. Schurbon, J.M. and J.E. Fauth. 2003. Effects of prescribed burning on amphibian diversity in a southeastern U.S. national forest. Conservation Biology. 17:5. Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology. 12:5. Wicker, M. and E. Hinesley. 1998. Restoring an Atlantic white cedar bog. USFWS EndangeredSpecies Bulletin. 23:5. Poster Presentations 67 Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration Project: Lessons Learned from LPER Shan Cammack1 1 The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Division, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Wildlife & Natural Heritage Program, Forsyth, Georgia 31029, USA Project Overview Doerun Pitcher Plant Bog Natural Area The main objective of LPER is to restore the off-site pine plantations to a healthy longleaf pine ecosystem. Goals of this project included: 1) gradually converting the canopy from planted pine to longleaf pine through thinning and the creation of small gaps, 2) reducing hardwood competition and exotic species with fire and chemical treatments, 2) utilizing frequent prescribed fire to restore native groundcover species, and 3) acquiring wiregrass seed from private lands through private landowner incentive payments to be planted on state lands. Monitoring is underway to determine the effectiveness of these different management techniques. This 650 acre natural area in Colquitt County boasts a healthy longleaf pine/wiregrass community with an imbedded pitcher plant bog matrix. About 100 acres are pine plantation enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. No timber thinning was allowed in that contract. Emphasis here was on prescribed burning, underplanting of wiregrass seed and plugs, and restoration of a 20 acre agricultural field. Management accomplishments include impacting about 1,100 acres on state lands with timber management, burning, and hardwood control. An estimated 54,500 longleaf pine seedlings, 70,000 wiregrass plugs, and abundant wiregrass seed have already been planted in small or medium-sized gaps or underplanted in thinned stands. Specialized equipment, including the Woodward flail vac, Grasslander, and Whitfield tree planter have been purchased and are being utilized across the state. Equally important, the lessons learned are helping drive adaptive management and will be used to influence management on other state and private lands. Fire was applied several years in a row. Growing season burns in natural stands have increased species diversity and to helped develop our own wiregrass seed source. The fire brought bog species back to areas that did not even appear bog-like. Pitcher plants have been observed sprouting in a drain where privet has recently been mechanically removed. With monitoring help from the Jones Center, wiregrass seeds and plugs were underplanted in the CRP pines. Methodology included no pre-treatment, mowing, and disking, as well as seed versus mechanically planted plugs. In hopes to make groundcover restoration affordable to private landowners, techniques were developed to use a tree planter to plant plugs. Our manual planter was able to plant about 2,500 plugs per acre. Growing season burns have helped reduce hardwood competition and are crucial in preparing areas for future wiregrass harvest. Different growers produced very different plugs. Some were predominantly wiregrass. Seed must be carefully cleaned to achieve this. Unclean seed produces more diversity of species but also more competition for the wiregrass. While applying Chopper to Bermuda grass reduced its extent and vigor, it did not control it enough to reseed the field with wiregrass Harvesting on private lands produces high quality wiregrass seed that can be used to promote ground-cover on depauperate state lands. We’ve learned lessons on harvesting (decrease flail speed and increase ground speed), storing (can store up to a year in humidity-controlled room without loss of viability), and growing plugs (cleaning seed is the key). An 8 month old plug mechanically planted. The small mound made from the planter falls out it time and does not appear to be a problem. Poster Presentations 68 The field restoration proved to be the most challenging. Bermuda grass has slowly encroached since retirement of the field from peanuts. Wiregrass plots that were installed inside the field were completely taken over by the aggressive exotic species. Three years of heavy hitting with herbicide (Chopper) proved only mildly successful. To prevent loss of precious wiregrass seed, we ended up planting the whole field with a mixture of slash and longleaf pine in hopes of shading out the bermuda grass. The slash will be thinned out in time, leaving a longleaf forest. More planting of longleaf will result in an uneven-aged stand. Wiregrass planting will be held off until the bermuda grass is “under control.” Part of this project has focused on the economics of using seed versus plugs. Plugs are a lot more expensive, with growing costs of at least 10 cents and hand-planting costs of at least 10 cents. Finding management techniques that are affordable to private landowners is key to the success of this project. Using a tree planter has proven to be an important part of finding cost-effective techniques. Moody Forest Natural Area This 4,300 acre Natural Area in Appling County lies along the Altamaha River. Habitats range from bottomland floodplain communities, longleaf pine/wiregrass, pine-oak woodlands, loblolly flats, and pine plantation. Redcockcaded woodpeckers inhabit the mature longleaf pine. Due to weather, timber harvesting in the plantations was delayed. Focus has been on carefully bringing fire back to this fire-suppressed site. The prescribed burning has been successful, with almost 1,300 acres burned last year. Careful prescriptions in the mature stands with duff issues and diligent work in the turpentined areas have proven effective. We have found that if you let the turpentine trees burn for several minutes then extinguish them with a backpack pump, the wounds tend to heal over. Future burning does not ignite the trees as violently or at all. Little mortality has been documented in areas using this technique. Little mortality has been observed in the old growth areas where fire is carefully applied after rains with high soil moisture and high winds. Big Dukes Pond Natural Area This 1,692 acre Natural Area in Jenkins County Big Dukes Pond hosts a large Carolina bay which supports significant natural communities and rare species populations. In the uplands, there is a 155 acre loblolly pine plantation interlaced with isolated wetlands. Restoration began in 2003 to slowly convert this to a longleaf pine ecosystem. Timber thinning occurred between April 2003 and February 2004. The whole stand was thinned to 60 basal area using fourth row operator select and 23 quarter acre gaps were randomly placed in the stand. An important lesson learned is that onsite supervision of the harvesting crew is important in proper gap creation. In August 2004, the entire stand was sprayed with Chopper to kill competing hardwood vegetation. Prescribed burning was conducted on this stand in December 2004. Fire effects were moderate. Fuels in several of the gaps and logging decks were sparse, resulting in a patchy burn. Observations on the herbicide treatment looked favorable. The gaps were planted with longleaf pine seedlings in January 2005 at a density of 400 per acre or 100 per gap. The goal of designing the monitoring was to create a protocol that would capture a snapshot of long leaf survival, hardwood control, and the plant community in a way that could be performed in one day of sampling. Data was collected in a random subset of gaps in August 2005 and 2006. This included longleaf survival (within two meters of the center transect), hardwood growth (hardwood cover and species were quantified using the line-intercept method), and species richness (in two circular one meter plots, all plants below one meter that were rooted within or hanging in each plot were identified to species). Longleaf survival looks good on the ground, with the trees looking robust and some even beginning to bolt. Data, however, show a survival rate of only 66%. Hardwood control appears to be successful. Data show that hardwood cover did not increase overall, and only infrequent seedlings Foraging habitat has been improved for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Artificial cavities have been installed in areas previously occupied by the birds. Fire has been key in the restoration of natural habitats. A one to two-year return interval appears to be optimal. Although it’s a hot job, tending to each turpentine tree during the first couple of burns is proving to be successful in getting fire back into these stands. Poster Presentations 69 of hardwood trees were found on the sampling transects. Seedlings observed this year were winged elm and persimmon. The occasional survivors of the Chopper application were water oak and darlington oak. From 2005 to 2006, species richness tended to increase in our plots, with an average percent increase of 55% (n=16). Only one species is known to be exotic (Florida pusley), and no invasive exotics were found. Most species are early successional, such as dogfennel, fireweed, and 3-seeded mercury. In 2006 there were more grasses, more Rubus species, and less fireweed. The higher cover of Rubus could interfere with prescribed fire, and emphasizes the importance of implementing regular prescribed fire in these gaps. Some common legumes have become established, such as creeping lespedeza and ticktrefoil. Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area This 4,700 acre Wildlife Management Area in Miller County hosts a mosaic of natural pine, pine plantation, and Species Found in Gaps* Acalypha gracilens Ambrosia artemesiifolia Andropogon sp. Aralia spinosa Bignonia capreolata Campsis radicans Chamaecrista fasiculata Cirsium sp. Conyza canadensis Croton glandulosus var. septentrionalis Dichanthelium aciculare Dichanthelium acuminatum Dichanthelium laxiflorum Dichanthelium oligosanthes Dichanthelium scoparium Erechtites hieraciifolia Eupatorium capillifolium Helianthemum rosmarinifolium Hypericum gentianoides Hypericum hypericoides Juncus marginatus Lechea mucronata Lespedeza repens Paspalum sp. Phytolacca americana Pinus palustris Pinus taeda Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium Richardia sp. Rubus sp. Vitis rotundifolia 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 5 3 2 1 2 3 *Numbers indicate *quality* on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 is best flatwoods. LPER work was carried out on two tracts, Oldhouse and Firetower. Timber thinning and prescribed burning have occurred over the past four years. A monitoring scheme was set up in two stands with longleaf gaps planted with different wiregrass treatments. The maps below show the distribution of the gaps and the treatments ranging from no wiregrass, seed, and densities of 1,000, 3,000, and 5,000 per acre. This study will help managers determine the most cost-effective density in which to plant wiregrass. Data collected inside a three meter radius of the center of the gap includes: number of wiregrass plugs, hardwood count, and number of live longleaf. Also recorded were height of five closest longleaf pine, percent canopy cover, and density of understory (using a density board). All species were recorded in three randomly placed one meter circular plots in each of the gaps. Two consecutive years of data have been collected, but analysis has not yet been conducted. The vegetation community tends to be diverse and seems to be correlated with hydrology. Gaps near roads seem to have a higher number of early successional species. Differences in wiregrass plugs from the two growers were remarkable. Some plugs were large and robust and brought a diversity of species to the gaps, particularly later successional composites, such as grass-leafed golden aster and blazing star. Other plugs were 100% wiregrass. Using a mixture of each would give you the wiregrass fuels needed for fire along with the diversity. It remains to be seen whether competition in the plugs will be detrimental to the wiregrass. Acknowledgements Funding for the project was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Southern Company’s Longleaf Legacy. We also thank our Partners: Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center and The Nature Conservancy. Americorps volunteers hand plant wiregrass to specified densities for the monitoring program. We found it much easier to work with volunteers than with contracted crews when precise and varied planting densities were required. Years of prescribed burning have helped keep the groundcover in some of these stands healthy. Growing season fires will be used to further enhance the diversity. This stand has incredible groundcover. No wiregrass planting was necessary here. We are experimenting with underplanting longleaf in areas where the canopy is more sparse. Poster Presentations 70 Longleaf Pine Seedling Survivorship and Growth on Poorly Drained Soils Susan Cohen1 and Joan Walker2 1 USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709, USA 2 Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University, South Carolina, 29634, USA Abstract Artificial regeneration is required to restore longleaf pine where the natural seed source has been lost and site preparation is often employed to establish seedlings. This study evaluates the site preparation methods used in restoring longleaf pine to poorly drained sites. The study is a randomized block design with eight silvicultural treatments applied to ameliorate conditions commonly thought to impede longleaf survival and growth, such as poor drainage and vegetative competition. The treatments included an herbicide application or a singlepass chop prior to burning, followed by flat planting, mounding and planting or bedding and planting. Site preparation treatments did not have a significant effect on seedling survivorship after two growing seasons. While causes of mortality were not determined, field observations suggest incorrect planting depth and planting into piled organic matter contributed heavily. Height and root collar diameter, however, were significantly higher on the bedding, mounding and herbicide treatments. Bedding in combination with the chop plus herbicide application had the greatest growth among all treatments. When combined with herbicides, seedling growth in the bedded and mounded treatments out performed seedlings the chop-bed and the chop-mound treatments, respectively. Seedling biomass, when compared between flat planting and bedding, was greater on bedded sites. In general, the more intensive treatments had greater seedling growth responses and an earlier emergence from the grass stage. Poster Presentations 71 Restoring and Managing Longleaf Pine Ecosystems in the Southern United States: Southern Research Station Research Work Unit 4158 – Auburn, AL: Clemson, SC; Pineville, LA K.F. Connor1, D.G. Brockway1, J.D. Haywood2, J.C.G. Goelz2, M.A. Sword-Sayer2, S-J.S. Sung2, and J.L. Walker3 1 U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Auburn, AL 36849 U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Pineville, LA 71360 3 U.S. Forest Service, Department of Forest Resources, Clemson, SC 29634 2 Background Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris P. Mill.) forest ecosystems once encompassed 37 million hectares in the southeastern United States. These vast forests extended from Virginia southward to central Florida and westward to eastern Texas. Today, longleaf pine has all but disappeared as a dominant species. Longleaf forests occupy fewer than 1 million fragmented hectares, less than 3% of its original range, and are one of the most threatened ecosystems in the U.S. From 1870 to the early 1930s, the southern forest was cut. Some inroads had been made prior to this but the advent of railroads through the South opened the area to extensive logging (Jose et al., 2006). This was followed by regeneration failure of the longleaf pine overstory. Seeds of longleaf pine are irregularly produced and have many predators. In addition, naturally occurring longleaf pine seedlings may stay in the grass stage for several years. When the longleaf forests were harvested, many of the seedlings that did bolt from the grass stage were a favorite food source of the exploding feral hog population (Jose et al., 2006). Wild hogs were at one time so prevalent they supported a meat-packing industry in the South. When fire suppression became common practice, longleaf pine stand regeneration was doomed. By this time, longleaf pine was considered by many landowners to be inferior; it was perceived as difficult to regenerate, slow growing, unproductive, and chancy. When an economic return on timber investment was the desired end product, why plant longleaf pine when loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), fast growing and easy to regenerate, was there to fill the gap? Current Status The existing southern landscape is under ever-increasing pressures, with social values, economic demands, and natural events resulting in forest fragmentation, urban sprawl, insect and disease outbreaks, and proliferation of invasive species. In recent years, catastrophic hurricanes have inflicted billions of dollars in damage on southern states; and wildfire represents a constant threat to southern forest resources. Forest managers in the South often face conflicting objectives. Once asked how to best prepare a site, which genetically superior lines to plant, when to thin, when to cut, and how to maximize forest value for landowners, they are now asked how to best defend against invasive species, what can be done to prevent major insect infestations, and when should forests be cut and wood salvaged? How can timber resources be protected from damage or loss when major disturbances, such as wildfires and hurricanes, occur? In some cases, the only answer might be that, if the forest is planted with species vulnerable to insect attack or high winds, damage will occur. The Case for Longleaf Pine When deciding what to replant on forested areas, landowners must now consider many risk factors that often favor longleaf pine and its associated communities. Longleaf pine evolved in the southern hurricane zone; its seedlings are uniquely adapted to take advantage of gaps created in the overstory. Longleaf pine trees stand up well to hurricane-force winds, and longleaf pine ecosystems are fire-adapted. Longleaf pine is now recognized as a species with great natural resilience. Longleaf pine ecosystems are among the most diverse in the continental U.S., often with 40 or more species of higher plants per square meter (Walker and Peet 1984). These ecosystems provide excellent habitat for many game species and are home to numerous threatened and endangered species of animals, including red cockaded woodpeckers, pine snakes, and gopher tortoises. An important attribute of longleaf pine ecosystems is their unique ability to resist and recover from what for other southern pines would be catastrophic events. Adapted to fire, responsive to gaps in the overstory, able to bolt from the grass stage – their unique physiology prepares them for rapid recovery after hurricanes and lightning-caused fires. It was only exploitation and neglect that reduced longleaf pine ecosystems from a dominant to marginal existence. Now, only our intervention can bring these valuable ecosystems back from obscurity. In the 1930s, it was thought that excluding fire from longleaf pine stands would enable them to recover. Now it is recognized that it is fire that Poster Presentations 72 species and promoting longleaf pine growth and dominance of the landscape. In the 1930s, longleaf pine was considered too slow to grow, too uneconomical to manage and not productive. So loblolly and slash pine plantations proliferated throughout the South. Now it is known that these species, especially loblolly pine, are more susceptible to wind damage and breakage in hurricane-force winds and are highly vulnerable to insects, disease, and fire. The resilience of longleaf pine ecosystems is what makes them so attractive to landowners facing recovery from devastating timber losses after Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita. In addition to timber products, the landowner can harvest intermediate products, such as pine straw, and draw additional benefits from the wildlife that inhabit these unique forest ecosystems. Further, not only does longleaf pine have a high resistance to the southern pine bark beetle but growth and yield models also show that productivity of planted longleaf pine eventually catches and surpasses that of loblolly pine. Lastly, through intensive research programs, we have overcome many of the difficulties surrounding regeneration of longleaf pine. In response to the rapidly growing demand for information about longleaf pine ecosystems, the U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, has established a new research work unit, Restoring and Managing Longleaf Pine Ecosystems (SRS-4158). The unit has seven scientists with expertise in plant physiology, ecology, silviculture, and biometrics. Two experimental forests, the Palustris and the Escambia, provide a land base for practical experiments in and demonstrations of longleaf pine establishment, development, and management. Headquartered in Auburn, AL, scientists in the unit are also stationed at Clemson, SC and Pineville, LA, providing broader customer access and research opportunities in a variety of longleaf pine ecosystems. For more information, contact Kristina Connor, Project Leader SRS-4158. Phone (334) 826-8700; fax (334) 821-0037; email [email protected] References Jose S., Jokela E.J., Miller D.L. (eds). The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 438 p. Walker J., Peet R.K. 1984. Composition and species diversity of pine-wiregrass savannas of the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Vegetatio 55: 163-179. Poster Presentations 73 South Carolina Lowcountry Forest Conservation Project W. Conner1, T. Williams1, G. Kessler1, R. Franklin1, P. Layton1, G. Wang1, T. Straka1 B. Humphries , C. LeShack2, K. McIntyre3, R. Mitchell3, S. Jack3 W. Haynie4, A. Nygaard4, L. Hay4 D. Beach5, J. Lareau 5, J. Johnson6, and M. Robertson7, M. Prevost7, M. Nespeca7 2 1 Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 29634, USA 2 Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee, 38120, USA 3 Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, , Newton, Georgia, 39870, USA 4 Lowcountry Open Land Trust, Charleston, South Carolina 29403, USA 5 South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Charleston, South Carolina, 29402, USA 6 The Conservation Fund, South Carolina Office, Columbia, South Carolina, 29201, USA 7 The Nature Conservancy, Columbia, South Carolina, 29250, USA Introduction The Lowcountry Forest Conservation Partnership has a goal of protecting South Carolina Coastal Plain forest ecosystems and their levels of biological diversity, rare and special plants and animals. These forests represent important ecosystems found in most Southern states. The area’s forests are globally significant because they contain remnant longleaf pine forests that support one of the richest plant communities known in the world. There are also undisturbed wetland forests and isolated wetlands such as Carolina Bays which are essential habitat for many birds and water-loving animals. These systems exist because of a historic interaction of two ecological processes, fire and water. The project area is at risk from a combination of threats such as, urban development, incompatible forestry practices, the loss of fire, alteration of stream flow on major rivers and climate change. This landscape can only be sustained through conservation and restoration. The Lowcountry Forest Conservation Partnership was made possible as the result of a generous grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. • • • • Restoring and restructuring degraded bottomland hardwood forests into productive forests; Using uneven-aged forest management in bottomland hardwoods stand; Using fire and other methods to preserve and develop herbaceous vegetation communities in longleaf pine stands; Use of fire as a tool in the ecotone between pine uplands and bottomland forests; Change even-age loblolly and longleaf stands to uneven-age stands; Transition loblolly stands to longleaf stands. 287 Natural Resource Professionals who manage more than 4,238,800 acres have been trained in Conservation Forestry Practices in twelve programs. 363 landowners who own more than 226,970 acres have attended thirteen workshops on Conservation Forestry. 79 landowners have developed and are implementing conservation forestry plans on 134,300 acres. Conservation Forestry cost-share program in partnership with AFF & USF&WS. Accomplishments • • • 100,000 acres of land protected from development through purchase and conservation easements which allow the land to continue to be managed for ecologicallysustainable forestry and wildlife management. The South Carolina Prescribed Fire Council has been established to promote and protect the use of prescribed fire in the state. Three annual meetings have been held. Seven demonstration areas with a total of 9,000 acres have been established to show conservation forestry concepts which include: Poster Presentations 74 An Investigation of Old-field Longleaf Growth, Yield, Diameter Distributions, Product Class Distributions, Pine Straw Production, and Economics of Management Intensities in Georgia E. David Dickens1, Bryan C. McElvany1 and David J. Moorhead1 1 Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia Tifton, Georgia, 31793, USA Introduction Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris, Mill.) once occupied an estimated 60 to 90 million acres in the SE US (Croker 1990, Engstrom et al. 2001). Today, longleaf pine covers an estimated 3.5 million acres in the SE US (Kelley and Bechtold 1990). Much of these acres are on military bases and State or National Forests. Over 116,000 acres of longleaf were planted on former row crop fields (oldfields), pastures, and hay fields in the late 1990's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in Georgia. Alabama, Florida, North and South Carolina have also had large acreage plantings of longleaf during this period. Little is known of the growth rate and wood yields of longleaf pine on these sites with typically good fertility, no woody competition, and good soil tilth. Work done in Georgia on CRP old-field planted slash and loblolly (Dangerfield and Moorhead 1998) found that these two species grew at a much faster rate and yielded more wood than many researchers had anticipated using cut-over SI curves. Goelz and Leduc (2001 a;b) studied longleaf in Texas and Louisiana (Gulf Coastal Plain) on land that was formerly in pasture for a relatively short period of time. They found culmination of mean annual increment (MAI) ranging from 0.70 (@ age 60-years SI<50' base age 25-years), 1.6 (@ age 35-years, SI=50-60'), and 2.0 (@ age 30-years, SI>60') cords/ac/yr. Mean annual increment (MAI) through age 15-years from Goelz and Leduc study ranges from 0.30 to 1.75 cords/ac/yr. Modeled oldfield longleaf MAI using WINYIELD v. 1.1 at age 15years produces less than one cord/ac/yr for SI levels of 63, 68, and 71 (the highest value WINYIELD will allow for longleaf) feet. Plots installed in an old-field longleaf stand in Screven County, Georgia in 2001 (Dickens and Moorhead, unpublished data) had an MAI of 2.0 to 2.36 cords/ac/yr (1/10th acre plots) where TPA was 370 to 560. The soils, Bonneau (loamy sand with argillic @ 34-39") and Blanton (loamy sand with argillic @ 41-50") on this site are considered to have average to low native (no inputs) productivity. This old-field longleaf site in Georgia through age 15-years has from 20 to 160 TPA in the chip-n-saw size class. The stand has been raked three times. In May 2002 the longleaf stand produced 290 to 360 bales/acre where basal area ranged from 130 to 150 square feet/acre (without fertilization). Pine straw collected in December 2004 ranged from 280 to 295 bales per acre. Using current per bale prices for raked straw this would be $144 to $180/acre at $0.50/bale or $290 to $360/acre at $1.00/bale for the May 2002 rake and $140 to $147.50/acre at $0.50/bale or $280 to $295/ acre at $1.00/bale for the December 2004 rake. There is potentially a great incentive (economic, aesthetic, and environmental) for NIPF landowners to grow longleaf on old-field, pasture, and hayfield sites. Early in the stand’s life (age 10 to 25-years) income can be generated annually or periodically from pine straw raking (Dickens 2000, Dickens 2001). Wiregrass (Aristrida stricta, Michaux) may be established in stand gaps during this period. Once a stand is thinned, pine straw raking can continue (Dickens 2001) with some clean-up or management can shift towards establishing wiregrass and growing quality timber. Economics of growing longleaf is attractive using conservative WINYELD v. 1.1 growth rates (Dangerfield et. al. 2002). Dangerfield et al. (2002) found rates of return ranging from 12 to 15.4 percent under various levels of management and rotation ages for longleaf plantations. We know little of the upper end of longleaf’s growth rate, wood and pine straw yields, and profitability on these oldfield sites. We have installed two study areas in planted (December 1986) old-field longleaf stands in Georgia (Screven and Tift Counties). Soil series have been delineated by an NRCS soil mapper as Bonneau and Blanton at the Screven County site and Albany and Leefield at the Tift County site. Gross treated (1/4 acre) plots were installed with a 1/10th acre internal permanent measurement plots (IPMP). There are 40 feet of untreated buffer between each plot. Each living tree in the IPMP was aluminum tree tagged, numbered, and measured for dbh, total height, height to base of live crown, and fork or broken top, and tree form, defects noted (Dec 2003 for the Screven County site and Feb 2004 for the Tift County site). There are 3 (Tift county) or 4 (Screven County site) replications of each treatment per study area. Treatments include: control (no fertilization), full dose of NPK (DAP+urea+muriate of potash; 150 N, 50 elemental-P and 50 elemental-K lbs/ac), and a half dose of NPK (DAP+urea+muriate of potash) applied in mid-February 2004. The second 2 dose of the half dose treatment will be applied in February 2007. Herbicides (glyphosate) were used one-time (mid-summer 2004) in all study area plots to keep the stand clean for straw production. Poster Presentations 75 Baseline soil (0-6") and foliage samples have been collected (December 2003 at the Screven county site and February 2004 at the Tift county site). Post fertilizer application foliage and soil samples have been collected every winter. Leaf area has been estimated every summer along with digital photos of crowns from each plot for eventual longleaf fertilization recommendations. Planted longleaf volume equations from Baldwin and Saucier (1983) have been used to estimate volume/acre and product class distribution on these old-field stands until we get a volume equation that is more appropriate for old-field longleaf stands. The economic profitability of growing longleaf on old-field sites will be estimated from this study. Baseline Growth, Yield, Pine Straw Production, Diameter Distributions and Volume Diameter Classes are presented in tables 1, 2, and 3 and figures 1 through 4. Mean trees per acre (TPA) were similar at each site by the beginning of the 18th growing season ranging from 303 to 347 (Tables 1 and 2). Diameters (@ 4.5 ft above groundline) ranged from 7.96 to 8.26 inches. Basal area ranged from 113 to 128 ft2/acre. Total heights ranged from 49.3 to52.4 feet. Mean live crown ratios ranged from 43 to 50 percent. Total volume ranged from 2548 to 2945 ft3/acre. Pulpwood volume (trees with a 5 to 9 inch dbh) ranged from 997 to1446 ft3/acre. Chip-n-saw volume (trees with a dbh $9 inches) ranged from 979 to1341 ft3/acre (Tables 1 and 2). Mean pine straw production estimates prior to fertilizer treatments ranged from 143 to 175 bales/acre (Table 3). Diameter distributions and volume by diameter class for the Screven and Tift County sites are found in Figures 1 through 4. Two-year post application data will be presented as a poster at the Longleaf Alliance Regional Annual meeting in Tifton, Georgia on 13-16 November 2006. Figure 1. Old-field (planted December 1986) longleaf diameter distributions Screven County site prior to at the fertilizer treatments. Figure 2. Old-field (planted December 1986) longleaf volume by diameter class at the Screven County site prior to fertilizer treatments (at age 18-years-old). Figure 3. Old-field (planted December 1986) longleaf diameter distributions at the Tift County site prior to fertilizer treatments. Table 1. Old-field planted (December 1986) longleaf pre-treatment growth and yield parameters at the Screven County, Georgia site at the end of the 18th growing season. Treatment TP A dbh (in) BA/ac (ft2) total height (ft) live crown ratio (%) Total volume (ft3) pulpwood volume (ft3) chipnsaw (ft3) Control 325 8.37 121 50.4 43 2713 997 1341 2 NPK 303 8.47 114 50.1 45 2548 1035 1193 Full NPK 328 8.32 120 49.3 44 2625 1341 986 Poster Presentations 76 Table 2. Old-field planted (December 1986) longleaf pre-treatment growth and yield parameters at the Tift County, Georgia site at the end of the 18th growing season. Treatment TPA dbh (in) BA/ ac (ft2) total height (ft) live crow n ratio (%) Total volume (ft3) pulpwood volume (ft3) chip-nsaw (ft3) Control 320 7.97 114 52.1 48 2641 1110 1193 2 NPK 347 7.96 113 51.6 50 2556 1280 979 Full NPK 317 8.26 128 52.4 49 2945 1466 1156 Literature Cited Figure 4. Old-field (planted December 1986) longleaf volume by diameter class at the Tift County site prior to fertilizer treatments (at age 18-years-old). Table 3.Pre-(January 2004) and post-treatment old-field planted (December 1986) longleaf pine straw production estimates at the Screven and Tift County, Georgia sites. -------------Site (mo/yr) ---------------Treatment Screven (1/04) , (12/04), (1/06) Tift (1/04), (1/19/06) Control 148, 282, 277 175, 328 2 NPK 160, 294, 355 166, 402 Full NPK 143, 289, 367 163, 367 Baldwin, V.C. and J.R. Saucier. 1983. Aboveground weight and volume of unthinned, planted longleaf on W. Gulf forest sites. USDA Forest Service Res. Paper SO-191. New Orleans, LA Southern Exp. Stn. 25 p. Croker, T.C. 1990. Longleaf pine myths and facts. In: Farrar, R.M. ed. Proceedings of the symposium on the management of longleaf pine; Long Beach MS. USDA Forest Service GTR SO-75. New Orleans, LA Southern Forest Exp. Stn: 2-10. Dangerfield, C.W., Jr. and D.J. Moorhead. 1998. Intensive forest management: Shifting row crop and pasture to tree crops in Georgia - woodflow and financial returns for old-field timber crops examined. www.bugwood.org. 7 p. Dangerfield, C.W., Jr., E.D. Dickens, and D.J. Moorhead. 2002. Changing cords to thousand board feet and higher financial returns with management and time for old-field longleaf pine timber crops. In: In: S. Graddo ed. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual So. Forest Econ. Workshop. Virginia Beach, VA. pp. 78-83. Dickens, E.D. 2000. Effect of inorganic and organic fertilization in longleaf pine stands on deep sands on pine straw and wood volume production. In: Proceedings of the 10th Biennial So. Silvi. Res. Conf., Shreveport, LA. Dickens, E.D, C.W. Dangerfield, Jr., and D.J. Moorhead. 2001. Short-rotation management options for slash and loblolly pine in southeast Georgia. In: Zhang, D. and S.R. Mehmood eds. Proceedings of the 31st Annual So. Forest Econ. Workshop. Atlanta, GA. pp. 61-65. Dickens, E.D. 2001. Fertilization options for longleaf pine stands on marginal soils with economic implications. In: Zhang, D. and S.R. Mehmood eds. Proceedings of the 31st Annual So. Forest Econ. Workshop. Atlanta, GA. pp. 67-72. Poster Presentations 77 Engstrom, R.T; L.K. Kirkman, and R.J. Mitchell. 2001. Natural history: Longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem. Georgia Wildlife. Vol. 8, No. 2.Decatur, GA. pp. 5-18. Goelz, J.C.G. and D.J. Leduc. 2000a. A model describing growth and development of longleaf pine plantations: consequences of observed stand structures on structure of the model. In: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial So. Silvi. Res. Conf. Shreveport, LA. Goelz, J.C.G. and D.J. Leduc. 2000b. Long-tern studies on development of longleaf pine plantations. In: Kush, J.C. complier. Forest for your future- Restoration and management of longleaf pine ecosystems. Proceedings of the 3rd Longleaf Alliance Regional Conf. Alexandria, LA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 5 Kelley, J.F; W.A. Bethtold. 1990. The longleaf pine resource. In: Farrar, R.M. ed. Proceedings of the symposium on the management of longleaf pine; Long Beach MS. GTR SO-75. New Orleans, LA: USDA FS, Southern Forest Exp. Stn: 11-22. Poster Presentations 78 Old Resinous Turpentine Stumps as an Indicator of the Range of Longleaf Pine in Southeastern Virginia Thomas L. Eberhardt1, Philip M. Sheridan2, Jolie M. Mahfouz1, and Chi-Leung So1,3 1 Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Pineville, Louisiana;71360, USA 2 Meadowview Biological Research Station, Woodford, Virginia, 22580, USA; 3 School of Renewable Resources, LSU Ag Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70803, USA Abstract Wood anatomy cannot be used to differentiate between the southern yellow pine species. Wood samples collected from old resinous turpentine stumps in coastal Virginia were subjected to chemical and spectroscopic analyses in an effort to determine if they could be identified as longleaf pine. The age and resinous nature of the samples were manifested in high specific gravities, the presence of oxidized monoterpenes, and the ability to be grouped separately from wood from recently harvested trees by NIR spectroscopy. Since there are no standards for old resinous pine stumps, studies are continuing to determine changes that occur in longleaf pine stumps aged under field conditions. Introduction Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) is the third most abundant pine species in the southeastern United States (Koch 1972). Straight growth, coupled with wood that is strong and hard, made this pine species highly desirable for poles, construction lumber, and flooring. Longleaf pine also has a well established history in naval stores production, from early turpentining operations to the subsequent processing of residual stumps, especially those from trees harvested in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Gardner 1989). The range for longleaf pine spans from southeastern Virginia to eastern Texas (Koch 1972). In Virginia, harvesting practices and changes in land use since colonial settlement has dramatically reduced the presence of longleaf pine. Of the original 1.5 million acres of longleaf forest estimated to exist prior to colonial settlement, only 800 acres remain (Sheridan et al. 1999). Longleaf pine restoration efforts have initiated studies to verify its range by determining the species of very old turpentine stumps. Our efforts were directed towards determining if chemical and physical characterizations of wood taken from selected stumps could provide information indicating the likely pine species. Materials and Methods Highly weathered wood specimens were collected from stumps located in Caroline, Prince George, Southampton, and Sussex counties in Virginia. Wood shavings were analyzed by near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy with multivariate analysis, as described in Eberhardt and So (2005). Samples of longleaf and loblolly pine, obtained from recently harvested trees, were added to the NIR analysis to provide a reference point for these unknown stump samples. For the GC-MS analyses, wood shavings (1 g) from the specimens were steeped in methylene chloride (5 ml). GC-MS analyses of the resultant extracts were carried out on a Hewlett Packard 6890 gas chromatograph equipped with a Hewlett Packard 5973 mass selective detector and a HP-INNOWax column (0.25 mm ID × 60 m length × 25 µm film thickness). The temperature regimen of the column was programmed to hold for 1 min at 40 ºC, increase to 80 ºC at a rate of 16 ºC min-1, and then to 240 ºC at a rate of 7 ºC min-1, with the final temperature being held for 10 minutes. The temperatures for the injector inlet and mass detector were maintained at 200 ºC and 225 ºC, respectively. Peaks were identified by spectral match with NIST 98 (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) and in-house chemical libraries. Small wood blocks (ca. 1 cm3) were also cut from the samples using a band saw. Specific gravity measurements were determined on weighed wood blocks by mercury displacement and also by careful measurement of block dimensions with a caliper. Extractives contents were determined by extracting wood blocks with methylene chloride for 3 days in a Soxhlet apparatus. Results and Discussion Taking into consideration signs of stump scarification and/ or the occurrence of longleaf pine at the site (Southampton specimen, only), along with the reported ranges for each of the southern yellow pines, it appeared likely that the Southampton and Sussex county specimens were from longleaf pine trees. On the other hand, the Caroline (Scholl) specimen had a greater probability of being loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) because the collection site was outside the known range of longleaf pine and in a mixed hardwood/loblolly pine stand. Since wood structure cannot be used to differentiate between the southern yellow pines (Panshin and de Zeeuw 1980), our objective was to assess whether reported chemical and physical differences could be used for species identification. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to the NIR spectra to observe any clustering and/or differences Poster Presentations 79 Figure 1. Principal component analysis results from stump wood samples and longleaf and loblolly pine wood samples from recently harvested trees. between the wood samples from the stumps and recently harvested trees. PCA was hindered by a lack of control samples, nevertheless, it was plausible that data gathered might be either indicative of longleaf pine or allow the elimination of other pine species. Several discrete groupings can be observed in the analysis of the PCA scores (Figure 1). The highly weathered stump samples clearly separate out from the recently harvested longleaf and loblolly pine samples. The samples from recently harvested trees further separate into loblolly and longleaf pines. As one would expect, the stump samples are closer to the longleaf heartwood sample than to the sapwood sample. Tentative groupings can be formed for the Sussex and Southampton samples. The Caroline (Scholl) sample appears closer to the recently harvested trees than the stumps, and if all the stump samples are assumed to be longleaf pine, the Caroline (Scholl) sample could possibly be another species such as loblolly pine. Given their fragrant nature, the stump wood samples were also subjected to analysis by GC-MS to determine if significant amounts of monoterpenes remained despite many years of weathering. The ability to obtain seemingly representative monoterpene compositions suggested an opportunity to develop a chemotaxonomic approach to determine the stump taxa. Reported analyses of fresh oleoresin from most southern yellow pines (e.g., P. palustris, P. taeda, P. echinata, P. elliottii) have shown α-pinene to comprise 50-80% of the monoterpenes detected (Hodges et al. 1979, Strom et al. 2002). The second most abundant monoterpene, βpinene, ranges from 20-40%. Along with the pinenes, much smaller amounts of camphene, myrcene, and limonene are also typically reported. Pond pine (Pinus serotina Michx.) is the exception among the southern yellow pines with limonene comprising as much as 90% of the detected monoterpenes (Mirov 1961). We hypothesized that comparisons of the monoterpene compositions with those from other stumps, in conjunction with available data for the oleoresin from recently harvested trees, might allow the stump species identification. We found α-pinene to be the most abundant monoterpene in 4 of the 6 samples, comprising 40-50% of the volatiles detected (Table 1). In contrast to that for fresh oleoresin, the amounts of β-pinene in the stump wood samples were greatly diminished. Since β-pinene has a higher boiling point than α-pinene, the higher rate of loss of β-pinene was attributed to its lower stability rather than higher volatility. The second most abundant compound detected for these samples was the oxidized monoterpene, αterpineol; significant amounts of other oxidized monoterpenes (e.g., camphor, fenchyl alcohol, borneol) were also observed. This result was not surprising since wood naval stores (i.e., that from old pine stumps) have been reported to contain high amounts (50-60%) of α-terpineol (Buchanan 1963). Given the similarity in the monoterpene compositions between samples taken from sites within (Southampton and Sussex counties) and outside (Caroline) the known range for longleaf pine, the similarity of the monoterpene compositions between the longleaf pine and loblolly pine oleoresin from live trees, and within-sample variability, it was not possible to identify the stumps as longleaf pine apart from the other southern pines. However, these data do suggest that none of the original trees were pond pine for which limonene is the predominant monoterpene. Limonene is a thermal isomerization product of α-pinene (Derfer and Traynor 1989, Drew et al. 1971) and thus it is unlikely that the high relative amounts of α-pinene detected could be derived Poster Presentations 80 Table 1. Percentage compositions of monoterpenes and methylchavicol detected in stump wood samples. Stump Wood Samples Prince SouthGeorge ampton Caroline (Scholl) Caroline (Pines) 47.37a 48.59 18.06 α-fenchene 0.80 0.42 camphene 3.59 0.24 β-pinene 1.55 myrcene 1.29 Monoterpene α-pinene Sussex (John Hancock) Sussex (Joseph Pines) 58.22 12.07 45.30 3.14 0.58 5.60 0.74 5.46 3.10 7.58 2.99 2.40 nd 1.25 nd 2.75 1.88 nd 0.03 nd 0.19 nd α-phellendrene nd b 3.23 0.41 nd nd α -terpinene nd 1.26 1.33 nd nd nd 10.96 8.80 1.63 9.29 0.43 4.61 limonene ß-phellendrene nd 6.58 nd nd nd 0.31 p-cymene 0.74 0.11 47.97 0.28 19.14 1.40 terpinolene 1.26 2.23 1.89 1.68 nd 1.11 fenchone 0.36 nd 2.88 0.26 13.89 2.32 camphor 1.10 nd 6.58 0.82 19.95 4.36 fenchyl alcohol 2.83 2.78 1.69 1.92 0.15 0.89 terpinen-4-ol 1.62 0.56 1.97 0.93 11.22 3.64 methylchavicol 0.20 0.63 nd 2.55 0.52 6.89 α-terpineol 23.55 17.03 4.72 16.18 7.27 21.58 borneol 2.78 3.26 2.27 2.91 2.18 0.92 a percent peak area for identified compounds nd (not detected) b from a monoterpene composition predominated by limonene. In addition to the monoterpenes, methylchavicol (pallylanisole) was detected in all but the Prince George sample. Its presence affords few clues to a specific pine species. Analyses of the Prince George and Sussex (John Hancock) samples were particularly interesting since they showed an even greater degree of monoterpene oxidation. In these samples, the amounts of α-pinene and α-terpineol were significantly lower while higher amounts of p-cymene, fenchone, camphor, and terpinen-4-ol were present. At this juncture, it should be recognized again that very little data is available relating monoterpene compositions to age and species for very old southern yellow pine stumps. In one case, it has been suggested that the inherent acidity of wood promotes the conversion of α-pinene to cymene (Drew et al. 1971). Elevated temperatures have been shown to promote monoterpene oxidation (McGraw et al. 1999). Accordingly, it is speculated that these two trees (Prince George and Sussex (John Hancock)) were harvested much earlier than the others and/or were exposed to high temperatures during forest fires. In fact, burn scars on the Sussex (John Hancock) sample indicate the exposure to fires that one would expect in a longleaf pine ecosystem. Reported specific gravity values for the wood from the southern yellow pines show a lower value for loblolly pine as compared to Table 2. Specific gravity and non-volatile extractives contents of stump wood samples. Stump Wood Sample Southampton Caroline (Scholl) Sussex (John Hancock) Poster Presentations 81 Specific Gravity (gcm-3) Before Extraction After Extraction 0.94 ± 0.08 0.56 ± 0.03 NonVolatile Extractives (%) 42.98 0.70 ± 0.03 0.57 ± 0.02 10.44 0.76 ± 0.04 0.49 ± 0.03 35.29 longleaf pine (Wood Handbook 1974). Specific gravity values determined for the stump wood samples by the two different methods gave essentially the same result. All specific gravity values were significantly higher than those reported in the literature and reflect the very resinous nature of the samples (Table 2). These data illustrate that measurement of specific gravity, which can easily be carried out in the field, could be an alternative to extractions requiring solvents and laboratory facilities. Given the small difference in specific gravity for longleaf and loblolly pine woods, it is not surprising that the Southampton and Caroline (Scholl) samples have essentially the same specific gravity values after extraction. Since longleaf, and not loblolly pine, has an established history of use in naval stores production, highly resinous samples would seemingly have a greater likelihood of being longleaf pine. The high percentage of non-volatile extractives in the Southampton and Sussex (John Hancock) samples may reflect their use for naval stores production and provide a tantalizing clue that their identity may be longleaf pine. Conclusions Similarities in the monoterpene compositions for the fresh oleoresin of the southern yellow pines, and a lack of information about the volatilization and degradation of the monoterpenes in the natural environment, greatly limit our ability to assign the monoterpene compositions for our stump wood samples to specific pine species. However, pond pine was excluded since it differs from most of the other southern yellow pines with a monoterpene composition predominated by limonene. High extractive yields from resinous stumps can be readily estimated by specific gravity. A high extractive yield can be used to infer those southern yellow pine species used for naval stores production, specifically, longleaf and slash pines. Gardner, F.H., Jr. 1989. Wood naval stores. In: Naval Stores: Production, Chemistry, Utilization. Eds. Zinkel, D.F., Russell, J. Pulp Chemicals Association, New York. pp. 143-157 Hodges, J.D., Elam, W.W., Watson, W.F., Nebeker, T.E. 1979. Oleoresin characteristics and susceptibility of four southern pines to southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) attacks. Can. Ent. 111:889896 Koch, P. 1972. Utilization of the Southern Pines, Agriculture Handbook No. 420, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. McGraw, G.W., Hemingway, R.W., Ingram, L.L., Jr., Canady, C.S., McGraw, W.B. 1999. Thermal degradation of terpenes: ∆3-carene, limonene, and α– terpinene. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33:4029-4033 Mirov, N.T. 1961. Composition of Gum Turpentines of Pines, Technical Bulletin No. 1239, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Panshin, A.J., de Zeeuw, C. 1980. Textbook of Wood Technology, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York Sheridan, P., Scrivani, J., Penick, N., Simpson, A. 1999. A census of longleaf pine in Virginia. In: Longleaf Pine: A Forward Look. Proceedings of the Second Longleaf Alliance Conference. Ed. Kush, J.S. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 4. Auburn, Alabama. pp. 154-162 Strom, B.L., Goyer, R.A., Ingram, L.L., Jr., Boyd, G.D.L., Lott, L.H. 2002. Oleoresin characteristics of progeny of loblolly pines that escaped attack by the southern pine beetle. For. Ecol. Manage. 158:169-178 Wood Handbook. 1974. Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. Agriculture Handbook No. 72, Forest Products Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D. Literature Cited Buchanan, M.A. 1963. Extraneous components of wood. In: The Chemistry of Wood. Ed. Browning, B.L. Interscience Publishers, New York. pp. 313-367 Derfer, J.M., Traynor, S.G. 1989. Chemistry of turpentine. In: Naval Stores: Production, Chemistry, Utilization. Eds. Zinkel, D.F., Russell, J. Pulp Chemicals Association, New York. pp. 225-260 Drew, J., Russell, J., Bajak, H.W. 1971. Sulfate Turpentine Recovery, Pulp Chemicals Association, New York Eberhardt, T.L., So, C. 2005. Variability in Southern Yellow Pine Bark from Industrial Sources. Proceedings of the 59th Appita Conference Pre-Syposium, Rotorua, New Zealand, May 12-13. pp. 109-112 Poster Presentations 82 Spatial Patterns of Fuels and Fire Intensity in Longleaf Pine Forests B.L. Estes1, D.H. Gjerstad1, and D.G. Brockway2 1 School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849, USA 2 Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA Introduction Fire and hurricanes are two of the natural disturbances that create variation at different temporal and spatial scales (Turner et al. 1989, Whelan 1995). Frequent low intensity burns, occurring every 1-3 years, are important in maintaining variable horizontal structure in fire dependent communities such as longleaf pine forests (Landers et al. 1995, Palik and Pederson 1996, Carter and Foster 2004). Fire intensity is influenced by a number of characteristics such as fuel load, type, arrangement, and moisture, climate, and topography that vary on either large or fine spatial scales (Hobbs and Atkins 1988, Whelan 1995, Archibold et al. 1998). Natural and imposed disturbance regimes impact the accumulation and arrangement of fuel across landscapes producing variable fire intensity. Hurricanes cause both immediate and delayed mortality in the overstory contributing to heavy fuel loads, affecting fire intensity and residence time (Myers and van Lear 1998, Platt et al. 2002). Disturbance regimes play an important role in determining ecological patterns due to differential survival of plant species (Platt and Connell 2003). Fire and hurricane intensity can influence postdisturbance recovery of plant species patterns independently, but these disturbances can also have a distinct interactive effect (Passmore 2005). Characterizing the spatial patterns of fire intensity has only been partially explored but could be a useful tool in understanding patterns of plant recovery. The objectives of this research were to 1) Identify the presence of spatial patterns in maximum fire temperature and 2) describe the functional relationship between pre-fire fuel loads and subsequent maximum fire temperatures. Eight 200-m Transects (T), each surrounded by 9-ha compartments of high quality longleaf pine forest, were considered in the fire intensity analysis (Figure 1). The area surrounding each transect consisted of compartments utilized by the CART study and represented five forest management treatments (no harvest, single tree selection, group tree selection, uniform shelterwood, and irregular shelterwood). One month following the completion of logging, Hurricane Ivan (Category 3) struck the Gulf Coast on September 16, 2004. The EEF had substantial overstory mortality that occurred in patches across the landscape. Forest management compartments harvested to a shelterwood were highly vulnerable to windthrow and breakage, while the selectiontreated compartments sustained minor damage. Hurricane impact resulted in reduced basal area across the forest management compartments compared to the projected treatment residual BA including the “no harvest” plots. The remaining trees that were damaged during the storm were salvaged. The order of events (harvest, hurricane, and salvage) substantially increased fuel loads and created a more discontinuous forest floor. Only eight transects were considered due to logistical constraints following Hurricane Ivan and subsequent salvage operations that left compartments with high amounts of coarse woody debris and bare soil, along with low residual basal area. Figure 1. Plot layout and regeneration methods at the Escambia Experimental Forest. Study Site and Methods The Escambia Experimental Forest (EEF) (31° 01’ N, 87° 04’ W) is located ten kilometers south of Brewton, Alabama and consists of 1,214 hectares of second-growth longleaf pine (Figure 1). The dominant tree species at the EEF is second-growth longleaf pine (80%) that was naturally established from the 1958 seed crop (Boyer and Miller 1994). In the longleaf pine stands, all stages of growth are represented from seedlings to saplings to mature trees ranging from 9 to 88 years of age. The midstory is occupied by a variety of scrub oaks and the understory consists of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and vines. T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T8 T4 Poster Presentations 83 T5 Regeneration Methods No harvest Single-tree Group Selection Shelterwood Fuel components were sampled along the 200 m transects and an overview of the data collected can be found in Table 1. Fire intensity was estimated by using pyrometers measuring the maximum temperature that occurred during the prescribed fires (Table 1, Figure 2) (Wally et al. 2006). All of the blocked variance analyses were performed using Table 1. Data collected along 200-m transects Variable Data Collected Sampling Interval Fuels (1,10,100 hr) Count of all fuels Continuously along 200 m Coarse Woody Debris Distance along transect, length, species, diameter, decay class Continuously along 200 m Litter Depth Fuelbed Depth Bare Soil (%) Shrub Cover (%) Maximum Fire Temperature (°C) Depth in cm of identifiable needle and leaf litter Depth to tallest vegetation 1m Results 1m Measure of disturbed soil Continuously along 200 m Measure of shrub cover Pyrometers with heat sensitive paints (30 cm height) Continuously along 200 m PASSAGE: Pattern Analysis, Spatial Statistics And Geographic Exegesis (Rosenberg 2001). In order to identify the mean size of the patches and gaps, ThreeTerm Local Quadrat Variance (3TTLQV) was employed (Hill 1973, Dale 1999). The 3TTLQV anlayzes the difference between overlapping blocks and identifies the pattern, avoiding the peak shift often seen in Two-Term Local Quadrat Variance (TTLQV) (Guo and Kelly 2004). The 3TTLQV analysis yields a distinct variance peak that estimates the mean patch/gap size exhibited in the data or the mean distance between the center of a patch and gap (Guo and Kelly 2004). In order to determine the relationship between the fuel component predictors and the fire temperature, linear stepwise regressions were performed for all seven transects and forest management treatments using SAS 9.1. All models were selected based on an entry and exit alpha levels of 0.05. All of the management compartments were burned in the winter of 2005 with the exception of the compartment with T6 that was burned in the spring after completion of salvage operations following Hurricane Ivan. The winter burns had a mean air temperature range from 2 – 12°C while the spring burn (T6) was 15°C and mean relative humidity ranged from 63 – 82% during both the winter 1m Table 2. Mean and standard error of maximum temperature and fuel variables in plots at the Escambia Experimental Forest. Transect T4 T7 T3 T6 T8 T5 T2 Median and Average Range of Maximum T (°C) 121 (121148) 204 (204231) 232 (232259) 260 (260287) 232 (232259) 121 (121148) 288 (288315) Fine Woody Biomass (g) Coarse Woody Debris (cm3) Bare Soil (%) Litter (cm) Fuelbed Depth (cm) Shrub Cover (%) Residual Basal Area (m2/ha) 1-hr 10-hr 100-hr 9.3 ± 1.3 90.1 ± 6.6 64.0 ± 9.3 2340 ± 1050 14 ± 2 2.9 ± 0.3 22.7 ± 2.6 14 ± 1 1.4 7.1 ± 1.0 120.7 ± 8.1 124.2 ± 12.6 4453 ± 979 7±1 3.0 ± 0.1 26.0 ± 2.1 25 ± 2 2.4 9.7 ± 1.0 46.8 ± 4.1 23.4 ± 4.8 247 ± 138 11 ± 2 2.1 ± 0.1 14.8 ± 1.8 6±1 7.2 7.7 ± 1.0 67.3 ± 5.5 40.8 ± 7.0 3291 ± 1600 10 ± 2 3.2 ± 0.2 28.9 ± 2.4 23 ± 2 11.5 5.5 ± 1.1 53.9 ± 4.7 25.5 ± 5.6 1558 ± 1078 16 ± 3 2.4 ± 0.5 17.1 ± 1.6 11 ± 2 14.3 8.1 ± 1.0 66.5 ± 3.9 27.6 ± 4.6 2049 ± 1445 9±1 2.5 ± 0.1 11.7 ± 1.4 16 ± 2 19.3 12.8 ± 1.2 70.6 ± 4.5 16.8 ± 3.9 254 ± 170 1± 1 3.7 ± 0.1 19.6 ± 2.4 6± 1 20.9 Poster Presentations 84 Figure 2. Pyrometers used to estimate fire intensity during prescribed burns at the EEF and spring burns. Flame height and rate of spread ranged from 0.5 – 1.0m/min and 0.5 – 1.3 m/min, respectively in burn compartments with T5 and T4, while burn compartments with T6 and T3 had flame heights of 0.5 – 2 m and flame spread of 1 -2 m/min. Compartments surrounding T7 and T8 had maximum flame heights of 2m and a rate of spread of up to 4 m/min. The fuel components sampled along the transects varied along a disturbance gradient with low disturbance in the no harvest compartments and high disturbance in the compartments where forest management objectives required overstory removal. The disturbance gradient was reflected in the residual basal area left within each compartment, following the multiple disturbances with T2 and T5 having 19-20 m2/ha, the selection compartments (T3, T6, and T8) retained 7-14 m2/ha, and the shelterwood plots had a low residual basal area ranging from 1.4-2.4 m2/ha (Table 2). The 1-hr fuels were high along T5 (8.1 g) and T2 (12.8 g) when compared to harvested plots (T4, T7, T3, T6, and T8) (Table 2). The opposite was true of 100hr fuels as increased biomass was noted in the compartments that had some form of overstory removal (Table 2). Litter depth was fairly consistent along the transects and ranged from 2.1-3.7 cm (Table 2). Table 3. Results from Three-Term Local Quadrat Variance (3TTLQV) with main peak and secondary peaks in parentheses Transects Temp 1-hr 10-hr 100hr Litter Fuelbed Shrub T2 33 45 65 - 33 55 49 T3 49 (30) 25 - 62 (14) 46 (13) 10 45 (27) T4 34 (18) 22 12 (23) 24 35 - 39 T5 34 (6,17) 46 (12,5 0) 9 - 31 26 17 - 37 23 15 44 (10) 49 (19) 58 (4) 62 (6,34) 29 (9) 29 (10) - 37 38 36 28 42 (12) 17 (8) 57 (20) T6 T7 T8 44 (14) 55 (11,33) 12 Maximum fire temperatures varied along the 200-m transects resulting in gaps of low temperatures and patches of high temperatures. The highest fire temperature range occurred in T2 (288-315°C) while the lowest fire temperature range occurred in T5 (121-148°C) (Figure 3). Burn compartments that were harvested to a shelterwood had two varying ranges of maximum temperatures with T4 showing a range of 149-176°C and T7 having a high temperature range of 232-259°C (Figure 3). Burn and selection harvest compartments had similar ranges of maximum temperatures with T3 and T6 both harvested in groups of trees having ranges of 204-231°C and 232-259°C and T8, in a single tree harvest compartment, had a temperature range of 232259°C (Figure 3). Peak variance according to Three Term Local Quadrat Variance (3TTLQV) occurred at block size of 33-34 in the no harvest plots with T5 having several peaks indicating variable spatial influence (Table 3). Peak block size in the harvesting plots ranged from 34-55 indicating that fire temperature was operating at larger scales (Table 3). Figure 3. Frequency of maximum fire temperature throughout prescribed burns The results of stepwise regression indicate different fuel predictors explain the variability in fire intensity pattern that was observed along the transects in the 3TTLQV analysis. The model explaining fire intensity variability along the transects sampled in the “no harvest” plots explained only a small amount of variability (20%), with litter depth, bare soil and shrub cover entering the model. When considering T5 and T2 individually, neither model explained a substantial amount of variability, but litter depth and 1-hr fuel biomass were consistently important predictors. The models explaining fire intensity along the transects in the selection and shelterwood treatments explained 28-33% of the variation. The important factors in these models were 10-hr fuel biomass, litter and fuelbed depth, as well as shrub cover while the model explaining the variability in the fire temperature in the shelterwood treatment added 100-hr fuel Poster Presentations 85 biomass. Bare soil (%) was a significant predictor in all models, but explained more variability in the shelterwood and selection plots. The fuel complex was extremely sensitive to harvesting and wind disturbance as was evident on the Escambia following Hurricane Ivan and subsequent salvaging operations. Conclusions Hurricane disturbance: Hurricanes had two major impacts on the forested ecosystem: 1) reduction of overstory canopy cover and 2) the addition of substantial fuel loads in the form of pine straw and hardwood litter, downed woody fuel, and coarse woody debris (Lugo 2000, Beckage et al. 2006). Fire-temperature variability: There was considerable variation in temperatures recorded by the pyrometers at adjacent locations. The selection and shelterwood plots had a larger scale of pattern while the no harvest plots or low fire intensity plots varied on moderate scales (Franklin et al. 1997, Rocca 2004, Kennard and Outcalt 2006). Fuel variability: Bare soil and litter depth were important predictors in all regression models. Bare soil was mainly attributed to skid trails and logging decks as well as ground disturbance from tip up mounds that occurred during Hurricane Ivan (Robichaud and Miller 1999). The plots that only had minimal disturbance (BA) had flame temperature explained by litter depth, the selection plots or those with moderate BA were influenced by 1, 10-hr fuels as well as litter and shrub while those that were below 5 m2/ha basal area were influenced by all fuel variables (Grace and Platt 1995). Summary: Determining the spatial pattern and the predictors of fire intensity may be important in evaluating the impacts of overstory removal, wind damage from hurricanes, and salvage operations on planning prescribed burns and predicting post-fire effects. Literature Cited Archibold, O. W., L. J. Nelson, E. A. Ripley, and L. Delanoy. 1998. Fire temperatures in plant communities of the northern mixed prairie. Can Field-Nat 112:234-240. Beckage, B., L. J. Gross, and W. J. Platt. 2006. Modelling responses of pine savannas to climate change and large-scale disturbance. Appl Veg Sci 9:75-82. Boyer, W. D., and J. H. Miller. 1994. Effect of burning and brush treatments on nutrient and soil physical properties in young longleaf pine stands. For Ecol Manag 70:311-318. Carter, M. C., and C. D. Foster. 2004. Prescribed burning and productivity in southern pine forests: a review. For Ecol Manag 191:93-109. Dale, M. R. T. 1999. Spatial pattern plant analysis in plant ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Franklin, S. B., P. A. Robertson, and J. S. Fralish. 1997. Smallscale fire temperature patterns in upland Quercus communities. J Appl Ecol 34:613-630. Grace, S. L., and W. J. Platt. 1995. Effects of adult tree density and fire on the demography of pregrass stage juvenile longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.). J Ecol 83:75-86. Guo, Q., and M. Kelly. 2004. Interpretation of scale in paired quadrat variance methods. J Veg Sci 15:763-770. Hill, M. O. 1973. The intensity of spatial patterns in plant communities. J Ecol 61:225-235. Hobbs, R. J., and L. Atkins. 1988. Spatial variability of experimental fires in south-west Western Australia. Aust J Ecol 13:295-299. Kennard, D. K., and K. W. Outcalt. 2006. Modeling spatial patterns of fuels and fire behavior in a longleaf pine forest in the southeastern USA. Fire Ecology 2:31-52. Landers, J. L., D. H. Van Lear, and W. D. Boyer. 1995. The longleaf pine forests of the Southeast: requiem or renaissance? J of For 93:39-44. Lugo, A. E. 2000. Effects and outcomes of Caribbean hurricanes in a climate change scenario. Sci Total Environ 262:243251. Myers, R. K., and D. H. van Lear. 1998. Hurricane-fire interactions in coastal forests of the south: a review and hypothesis. For Ecol Manag 103:265. Palik, B. J., and N. Pederson. 1996. Overstory mortality and canopy disturbances in longleaf pine ecosystems. Can J For Res 26:2035-2047. Passmore, H. A. 2005. Effects of hurricanes and fires on southeastern savanna-forest landscapes. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Platt, W. J., B. Beckage, R. F. Doren, and H. H. Slater. 2002. Interactions of large-scale disturbances: prior fire regimes and hurricane mortality of savanna pines. Ecology 83:15661572. Platt, W. J., and J. H. Connell. 2003. Natural Disturbances and directional replacement of species. Ecol Monogr 73:507522. Robichaud, P. R., and S. M. Miller. 1999. Spatial interpolation and simulation of post-burn duff thickness after prescribed fire. Int J Wildland Fire 9:137-143. Rocca, M. E. 2004. Spatial considerations in fire management: the importance of heterogeneity for maintaining diversity in a mixed-conifer forest. Dissertation. Duke University. Rosenberg, M. S. 2001. PASSAGE. Pattern analysis, spatial statistics and geographic exegesis. in. Arizona State University, Tempe. Turner, M. G., V. H. Dale, and R. H. Gardner. 1989. Predicting across scales: Theory development and testing. Landsc Ecol 3:245-252. Wally, A. L., E. S. Menges, and C. W. Weekley. 2006. Comparison of three devices for estimating fire temperatures in ecological studies. Appl Veg Sci 9:97-108. Whelan, R. J. 1995. The Ecology of Fire. Cambridge University Press, New York. Poster Presentations 86 Evaluating Forest Development and Longleaf Pine Regeneration at Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge Bill Garland1, John S. Kush2, and John C. Gilbert2, 1 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain Longleaf NWR, Fort McClellan, AL, USA School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA Abstract The Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (MLNWR), formerly part of the Fort McClellan military training installation, is located in northeast Alabama. Mountain longleaf pine forests are a critically endangered component of the once vast longleaf pine forests in the Southeast. Unlike the Coastal Plain where small pockets of the forest still remain, the MLNWR stands alone in the mountain region. Previous research efforts have identified 9 old-growth tracts, lush herbaceous communities, and several management regimes on the refuge. However, many of the stands of longleaf pine on MLNWR have undergone various lengths of fires suppression and degradation. This has led to hardwood encroachment and longleaf pine regeneration failure. To evaluate the current condition of the forest, two old-growth stands were resurveyed and assessed longleaf regeneration. As part of an effort to determine the possible presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO), the Army has randomly sampled ¼ acre plots across the Refuge. Plots were cleared of vegetation 4-inches DBH (diameter at breast height; 4.5 feet) and smaller to aid equipment mobility. A subset of these plots was examined to determine the effects of these disturbances on forest composition, density, and regeneration. study involves establishing a monitoring program in various stand situations, measuring existing impacts from time of clearance (December 2002) and providing recommendations to biologists and managers on projected future impacts in various forest types. Using a study established in 1999 in two old-growth stands and a subset of cleared UXO plots, forest development and longleaf pine regeneration at the MLNWR will be addressed. Study Area and Methodology UXO Plots The Army primary cleared all vegetation 4-inches DBH and smaller from 1/4-acre randomly placed plots. A subset of plots on slopes with southerly aspects with an emphasis on areas predominated by longleaf pine were surveyed for their condition. The primary characteristics of interest in this survey were composition, density, and longleaf pine regeneration. Species Composition All stems on 1/10-acre plots located in the middle of the 1/4-acre cleared plots were stem mapped from plot center, stems called and DBH measured. Introduction Since 1994, field reconnaissance on Fort McClellan Army Base, now Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge (MLNWR), by Auburn University’s School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences identified a number of oldgrowth longleaf pine stands. Many of these stands have undergone various lengths of fire suppression and degradation. MLNWR’s longleaf pine forests provide the “missing link” to scientists, land managers, and conservationists in the mountain region, providing the only information on 1) age and stand structure and dynamics of frequently burned old-growth forests, 2) composition of pristine plant communities, and 3) landscape extent of mountain longleaf pine forests. The U.S. Army is currently characterizing these lands to determine the possible presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO). This same sampling methodology represents one option level for final remediation of the entire area. This Longleaf Pine Regeneration Within each 1/4-acre plot, four milacre quadrats were placed in cardinal directions. Within each quadrat, all longleaf pine seedlings were counted and mapped for future reference. Old-growth stands Two old-growth stands were re-surveyed. Originally, these stands were selected because they had frequent burning histories (1 to 3 year return interval) and good accessibility. The two stands, hereafter referred to as Caffey Hill and Red-tail Ridge, were located at ca. 1475 and 1150 feet above mean sea level. Caffey Hill is an upper slope stand covering 3.7 acres and Red-tail Ridge spans a mid- to upper slope position covering 4.5 acres. Slopes of the two sites ranged from 40 to 60% at Caffey Hill and 30 to 45% at Red-tail Ridge. Caffey Hill had a Poster Presentations 87 SSE aspect, while Red-tail Ridge’s was WSW. Within each stand, we re-measured all living longleaf pines > 1.0 inch DBH (100% sample) for DBH (to nearest 0.1-inch). To examine longleaf pine regeneration, transects which were 100 feet long by 3.0 feet wide were established at each setup point in each stand. These transects were run in the cardinal directions from each point. In addition, the 20 9foot X 9-foot quadrats were re-surveyed for longleaf pine seedlings. Results and Discussion UXO Plots Old-growth stands Table 2 presents the stand data for Caffey Hill and Red-tail Ridge with comparisons to the data collected in 1999. Stand density has decreased in both stands but basal area increased at Red-tail Ridge while declining at Caffey Hill. No longleaf pine regeneration was found in the plots established in 1999 at either Caffey Hill or Red-tail Ridge. No longleaf pine seedlings were observed in these transects on Caffey Hill, nor were any observed near the vicinity of the stand. The conditions at Red-tail Ridge were similar, though 4 seedlings were found in the 16 transects, or the equivalent of 36 seedlings/acre. Of the 26 UXO plots examined on southerly aspects, only 8 plots were dominated by longleaf pine based on basal area. Table 2. Current stand characteristics for Caffey Hill Table 1 presents the species present on each plot and its and Red-tail Ridge, two old-growth longleaf pine basal area and density. Across all plots, longleaf pine basal stands, at Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge area averaged 31.46 square feet/acre. This is the minimum compared to the data collected in 1999 (Varner 2003a, basal area required for adequate natural regeneration of 2003b). longleaf pine. Only 12 of the 26 plots would have enough Caffey Hill longleaf pine basal area to obtain natural regeneration. Character Current 1999 Longleaf pine accounted for 35% of the basal area but only 15% of the total number of stems. Except for black cherry, Stem density (trees/acre) 94.4 120.6 red maple, sweetgum, and yellow-poplar, the other species would be expected in a montane longleaf pine-dominated Basal area (square feet/acre) 32.63 34.84 ecosystem. Longleaf pine regeneration was absent from all 6.71 5.69 but 8 plots. Of these, only 3 plots had more than a few Arithmetic Mean DBH (inches) seedlings and would be considered adequately stocked with Maximum DBH (inches) 20.8 21.6 regeneration. Table 1. Tree density (stems/acre) and basal area (square feet/acre) for species located on 26 UXO plots on the Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge. Species Black cherry Blackgum Density Basal area 7.7 2.79 14.6 2.35 Chestnut oak 25.4 10.95 Dogwood 1.9 0.31 Hickory spp. 23.1 6.65 Loblolly pine 6.2 3.65 Longleaf pine 33.1 31.46 Oak spp. 44.6 12.26 Post oak 3.1 2.08 Red maple 12.4 1.48 Shortleaf pine 12.4 6.61 Sourwood 13.1 3.21 Southern red oak 2.3 0.07 Sweetgum 1.9 0.35 White oak 1.5 0.41 Yellow-poplar 1.5 1.36 Red-tail Ridge Character Current 1999 Stem density (trees/acre) 105.2 114.5 Basal area (square feet/acre) 59.26 56.03 Arithmetic Mean DBH (inches) 8.87 8.03 Maximum DBH (inches) 27.4 27.9 Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the U.S. Geological Survey Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Literature Cited Varner, J.M., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2003a. Vegetation of frequently burned old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savannas on Choccolocco Mountain, Alabama, USA. Natural Areas Journal. 23 (1):43-52. Varner, J.M., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2003b. Structural characteristics of frequently-burned old-growth longleaf pine stands in the mountains of Alabama. Castanea. 68(3):211-221. Poster Presentations 88 Wiregrass – Overrated John C. Gilbert1, John S. Kush1, and John McGuire1 1 School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract Ranges of Bluestem and Wiregrass Aristida beyrichiana and Aristida stricta, commonly referred to as wiregrass, are both conditional understory species in the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) ecosystem. A common but misleading association exists between longleaf pine and wiregrass. The longleaf pine/ wiregrass ecosystem is often used synonymously with the entire longleaf pine ecosystem. Another common misconception is that the presence of wiregrass is necessary to maintain the longleaf pine ecosystem. In fact, the understory of the longleaf pine ecosystem is composed of an extensive variety of species which is not consistently dominated by a single species. Pineland threeawn (Aristida beyrichiana Trin. & Rupr.) is commonly referred to as wiregrass. This type of wiregrass has a range from Mississippi to Florida and north into North and South Carolina. Another similar species of wiregrass that exists in North and South Carolina is Aristida stricta Michx. Both species are part of the longleaf pine-wiregrass range, but they have been classified as two different species (Miller and Miller 1999; Peet 1993). However, Kesler et al. 2003 argued that on the species level the two were not distinctly different. Wiregrass is one of the more famous of the understory species, but an often forgotten but prominent understory component of the longleaf pine ecosystem is bluestem (Andropogon spp.). Bluestem is also referred to as broomsedge, broomstraw, beardgrass, and a variety of other common names. At least nine species of bluestem have been identified in the longleaf pine ecosystem. The range of bluestem stretches from Texas to Florida, north to Maine, and west to North Dakota, which blankets the range of the longleaf pine ecosystem. The presence of bluestem provides many aesthetic, commercial, and ecological values to the understory of longleaf pine stands. With extensive restoration efforts of the longleaf pine ecosystem underway, bluestem is a valuable understory component across the longleaf pine ecosystem. Introduction A common misconception about the longleaf pine ecosystem is that wiregrass is a necessary component of the understory vegetation. Wiregrass is an integral understory component in the longleaf pine ecosystem, but it is not present throughout the range of longleaf pine. Even in the major range of wiregrass, it can be found as a co-dominant with a variety of other understory species (Outcalt 2000). In fact, the understory of the longleaf pine ecosystem is not dominated by any single species (Outcalt 2000). Another prominent understory component of the longleaf pine ecosystem is bluestem. The importance of bluestem in the understory of longleaf pine forests is often overlooked. Bluestem is also referred to as broomstraw, beardgrass, and a variety of other common names. The range of bluestem stretches from Texas to Florida, north to Maine, and west to North Dakota, which blankets the range of the longleaf pine ecosystem (Miller and Miller 1999). Bluestem has several species present in its range. Table 1 displays the nine separate species of bluestem that exist in the longleaf pinebluestem range (Grelen and Duvall 1966). Both wiregrass and bluestem have extensive ranges in the southeastern United States. Range maps vary from different sources because natural and mechanical disturbances continually affect the composition of stands. There is also a great deal of overlap between the extensive ranges of the species of interest. Endozoochory with white-tailed deer as the vector is a possible explanation for the colonization of many forest species across landscapes (Myers et al. 2004). Seed dispersal through endozoochory as well as ectozoochory with a variety of vectors has the potential to explain the spread of wiregrass and bluestem across this vast ecosystem. This concept also gives rise to the threat of exotic encroachment on native understory species. Table 1. Common Species of Bluestem in the Longleaf Pine-Bluestem Range (adapted from Grelen and Duvall 1966). big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitm.) pinehill bluestem (Andropogon divergens (Hack.)) little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius Michx.) slender bluestem (Andropogon tener (Nees) Kunth) broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon virginicus L.) bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus (Walt) BSP.) Elliott bluestem (Andropogon elliotii Chapm.) fineleaf bluestem (Andropogon subtenuis Nash) paintbrush bluestem (Andropogon ternarius Michx.) Poster Presentations 89 Range Types of the South Figure 1 shows the range types of the south. Included in these range types are the longleaf pine-bluestem and longleaf-slash pine-wiregrass ranges. The longleaf pinebluestem range is largely located in southern Louisiana and Texas, in southeastern Mississippi, and in southwestern and central Alabama. Small portions of this range are also located in central Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (Williams et al. 1955). The longleaf-slash pinewiregrass range covers almost the entire state of Florida, the southern portion of Alabama, and almost the southern half of Georgia. Small portions of this range are also located in the southwestern corner of South Carolina (Williams and others 1955). This map also shows the location of the shortleaf-loblolly pine-bluestem range. This range stretches from eastern Texas to Virginia covering a vast amount of the southeastern United States (Williams et al. 1955). This range covers the of the longleaf pine ecosystem, which makes bluestem a very integral understory component. Figure 2. Map by Erin Hart. Longleaf Pine - Bluestem Range Figure 3 shows an estimation of the longleaf pinebluestem range in its virgin state. This range extends from western Florida and southern Alabama west into Texas. This range has been altered due to the clear cutting of old-growth pines and alterations of the natural burn cycles. The natural stand composition that existed in pre-settlement times exists in few places. There has been a conversion of the overstory to loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) due to extensive planting and a failure to regenerate longleaf pine forests. Even though there have been extensive disruptions to the stand composition, bluestem grasses have continued to be persistent across this landscape. They still represent one of the most important forage species in this range (Grelen and Duvall 1966). Figure 1. (Williams et al. 1955) Bluestem and Wiregrass Ranges within the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Figure 2 shows a current estimation of the range of bluestem and wiregrass species within the longleaf pine ecosystem. It includes more area dominated by blue stem in central and north portions of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia than the other maps. This map shows the prominence of bluestem as a dominant understory species in the longleaf pine ecosystem. The map also provides a good representation of the overlap between the ranges of wiregrass and bluestem. Poster Presentations 90 Figure 3. Grelen and Duvall 1966 WHY BLUESTEM SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED very important to landowners that are trying to restore native understory species in longleaf pine forests. 1.) Loss of pristine old-growth forests 4.) Adaptations to prescribed fire Bluestem is an integral understory component that should not be overlooked. Ground cover degradation, increasing urban interface, and the invasion of exotic species are all threats to the existence of pristine old growth longleaf pine stands (Varner and Kush 2004). States like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas contain little or no old growth longleaf stands, which is the heart of the longleaf pinebluestem ecosystem (Varner and Kush 2004). Wiregrass and bluestem are both well adapted to fire, which is important to the survival of the longleaf pine ecosystem. One advantage bluestem has is that it disperses its seeds by the wind unlike the fire dependent wiregrass (Miller and Miller 1999). On the other hand, wiregrass seed production requires fire to enter the stand in the late spring and early summer (Miller and Miller 1999). Without frequent summer burns, the existence and forage value of wiregrass can suffer while bluestem continues to flourish. Kush et al. (2000) found a higher species diversity for biennial winter burning than spring and summer burns in bluestem dominated understories. An advantage for bluestem is that it is not reliant on summer burns for survival, which allows more flexibility in scheduling burns. External limitations on prescribed burning continue to increase mainly as a result of conflicts with an increasing urban interface and number of smoke sensitive areas. Prescribed burn practioners do not need to place further internal restrictions on themselves and narrow the window of opportunity to burn a particular location only in the summer. As it becomes more and more difficult to burn, some fire is better than no fire. 2.) Species diversity The (Peet and Allard 1993) characterized the longleaf pine ecosystem into 5 xeric, 6 subxeric, 4 mesic, and 8 seasonly wet communities. The mesic longleaf pine woodlands which have a mixture of bluestem and wiregrass in the understory contained between 100 and 140 vascular plants per 1000m2 which identifies it a one of the most species rich communities in temperate North America (Peet and Allard 1993; Peet et al. 1990). In old growth mountain longleaf pine stands located at Fort McClellan in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of Alabama, Varner et al. 2003 identified 72 native understory species. Paintbrush bluestem (Andropogon ternarius Michx.) was identified as one of the dominating understory species. (Kush et al. 2000) found slender bluestem (Schizachyrium tenerum) to be the most frequent occurring species across all treatments assoicated with the study on the Escambia Expeimental Forest in Brewton, AL. Brockway and Lewis (2003) documented 148 vascular plant species in the longleaf pine-bluestem ecosystem in the Conecuh National Forest in Covington County, AL. 3.) Persistence Even in the longleaf pine wiregrass range, bluestem can still dominate the understory. Wiregrass does not reestablish itself once it has been removed (Grelen 1978). An area where wiregrass has died out or been mechanically removed can be occupied by bluestem. Bluestem can also become a dominant component in the understory depending on management strategies. An old growth longleaf pine stand in Flomaton, AL had not been burned for 45 years. After a prescribed burn regiment was implemented, Andropogon virginicus seeded in naturally (Varner et al. 2000). To reestablish wiregrass after it has died out or been removed, extensive planted operations need to be executed. Bissett 1998 estimated it would cost $3,365/ha to reestablish wiregrass with a direct seeding method. Pittman and Karrfalt (2000) gave a production cost of $170/1000 for wiregrass seedlings. These costs are 5.) Wildlife and production agriculture benefits Wiregrass and bluestem are also sources of forage for cattle and wildlife. After a burn, wiregrass and bluestem are both preferred forage. However, wiregrass is not preferred 3-4 months after a burn, while bluestem is still preferred (White and Terry 1979). Along with the food and fuel sources bluestem provides, it is also very useful as cover to wildlife. Even through the lack of fire and extensive changes in overstory composition, bluestem has been persistent in the longleaf pine-bluestem ecosystem (Grelen and Duvall 1966). Literature Cited Bissett, N.J. 1998. Direct seeding wiregrass, Aristida beyrichiana, and associated species. Pages 59-60 In: Kush, J.S., compiler. Longleaf Alliance Report No.3. Proceedings of the longleaf pine ecosystem restoration symposium presented at the society for ecological restoration 9th annual international conference; 1997, November 12-15; Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Brockway, D.G. and C.E. Lewis. 2003. Influence of deer, cattle grazing, and timber harvest on plant species diversity in a longleaf pine bluestem ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Management 175:49-69. Grelen, H.E. 1978. Forest grazing in the south. Journal of Range Management. 31(4):244-250. Poster Presentations 91 Grelen, H.E. and V.L. Duvall. 1966. Common plants of longleaf pine- bluestem range. Southern Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, Louisiana. 96 pp., illus. (U.S. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. SO-23). Hart, E. from Managing the forest and the trees a private landowner’s guide to conservation management of longleaf pine. Theo Davis Sons, Inc., Zebulon, NC. 37p. Kesler, T.R., L.C. Anderson, S.M. Hermann. 2003. A taxonomic reevaluation of Aristida stricta (Poaceae) using anatomy and morphology. Southeastern Naturalist. 2(1):1-10. Kush, J.S. R.S. Meldahl, and W.D. Boyer. 2000. Understory plant community response to season of burn in natural longleaf pine forests. Pages 32-39 in W. Keith Moser and Cynthia F. Moser (eds.). Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 21. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallassee, FL. Miller, J.H. and K.V. Miller. 1999. Forest plants of the southeast and their wildlife uses. Southern Weed Science Society. Craftmasters Printers, Incorporated Auburn, AL. 454p. Myers, J.A., M. Vellend, S. Gardescu, and P.L. Marks. 2004. Seed dispersal by white-tailed deer: implications for long-distance dispersal invasion, and migration of plants in eastern North America. Oecologia 139: 35-44. Outcalt, K.W. 2000. The longleaf pine ecosystem of the south. Native Plants Journal 1:43- 44,47-53. Peet, R.K. 1993. A taxonomic study of Aristida stricta and A. beyrichiana. Rhodoara 95(881):25-37. Peet, R.K. and D.J. Allard. 1993. Longleaf pine vegetation of the southern atlantic and eastern gulf coast regions: a preliminary classification. Pages 45-81 in Sharon M. Hermann (ed). The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration, and management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 18. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallassee, FL. Peet, R.K., E. van der Maarel, E. Rosen, J. Willems, C. Norquist, and J. Walker. 1990. Mechanisms of coexistence in species-rich grassland. Bulletin, Ecological Society of America: 71:283. Pittman, T. and R.P. Karrfalt. 2000. Wiregrass propagation at the Andrews Nursery in Florida. Native Plants Journal 1:45-47. Varner, J.M. III and J.S. Kush. 2004. Remnant old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savannas and forests of the southeastern USA: status and threats. Natural Areas Journal 24:141-149. Varner, J.M. III, J.S. Kush, R.S. Meldahl. 2000. Ecological restoration of an old-growth longleaf pine stand utilizing prescribed fire. Pages 216-219 in W. Keith Moser and Cynthia F. Moser (eds.). Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 21. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallassee, FL. Varner, J.M. III, J.S. Kush, R.S. Meldahl. 2003. Vegetation of frequently burned old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savannas on Choccolocco Mountain, Alabama, USA. Natural Areas Journal 23:43-52. White, L.D. and W.S. Terry. 1979. Creeping bluestem response to prescribed burning and grazing in south Florida. Journal of Range Management. 32(5): 369371. Williams, R.E., J.T. Cassady, L.K. Halls, and E.J. Woolfolk. 1955. Range resources of the south. Southern Section American Society of Range Management in cooperation with Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations, University of Georgia College of Agriculture. Bulletin N.S. 9. 31p. Poster Presentations 92 Longleaf Pine Re-Discovered at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park John C. Gilbert1, Sharon M. Hermann2, John S. Kush1, Lisa McInnis3 and James Cahill3 1 Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA 2 Auburn University Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA 3 US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Daviston, Alabama, 36256 USA Abstract Site Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE) in Tallapoosa County, near Daviston, AL, was the site of the final battle of the Creek War in 1814. At that time there had been little farming or logging on the 2,040 acre site. In 1814, a letter from General Coffee to General Jackson described the forest around the battlefield as an “open hilly woodland”. During the next 140 years, HOBE experienced moderate grazing with patches in agriculture. In 1905, timber survey records from nearby property documented longleaf pine as the dominant tree, but over the next quarter century, much of the uplands were logged. In 1959, the National Park Service (NPS) acquired HOBE. For the last 50 years, there has been no wild or prescribed fire, and land management activity has been limited to mowing of the battlefield and visitor areas. Past logging coupled with prolonged fire suppression dramatically altered the site, and it was thought that most of the longleaf pine had been extirpated from HOBE. However, a recent search of uplands uncovered three stands of suppressed longleaf pine plus an additional 280+ individuals of adult trees scattered over the landscape. There is interest in restoring the forest to its 1800’s condition, and the NPS has begun re-introduction of fire in an effort to enhance the remnants of the longleaf pine forest. Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE) was the site of the final battle of the Creek War in 1814. At that time there was little farming or logging on the 825 ha site. For next 140 years, HOBE experienced moderate grazing with patches in agriculture. Over most of the region, much of the uplands were logged in first quarter of 20th century. In 1959, the NPS acquired HOBE. For the last 50 years, there has been no wild or prescribed fire, and land management activity has been limited to mowing of battle field and visitor areas. Introduction Throughout much of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries many sites in the northern (montane or Piedmont) range of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) suffered extensive cutting and prolonged periods of fire suppression that resulted in alteration of habitat structure and species composition. One example of this alteration is found in Tallapoosa County Alabama at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE), where it was thought that longleaf pine had been extirpated from the area in the early 20th century. In 2004, the National Park Service (NPS) became interested in re-introducing fire to the fire suppressed stands on HOBE in an effort to reduce hazardous fuels. As part of the preliminary work for this effort, stands were examined for their condition and the search uncovered several stands supporting previously undocumented fire-suppressed longleaf pine. Longleaf Forest 100-200 Years Ago Old-growth longleaf stands are rare and none remain in this portion of range; however, early accounts of this region and HOBE provide insight into forest structure and composition. • In 1775, Bartram described a “vast open forest” with longleaf, loblolly (Pinus taeda), and chestnut on hills ~ 60 km south of HOBE. • In 1814, General John Coffee wrote a letter to General Andrew Jackson and noted that he had established a battle line “in an open hilly woodland” associated with the site that is now HOBE. • Detailed information was reported by Reed in 1905 for Coosa Co, Alabama, ~80 km northwest of HOBE (see Hermann and Kush 2006); although Reed describes forests almost a century after the battle, large-scale logging and fire suppression had yet to reach region. • Early accounts plus data and photos from Reed (1905) depict native upland open-canopied forests dominated by longleaf. The detailed forest inventory data provided by Reed depicts most stands as supporting multiple or all age-class trees. Stand-Level Assessment: Methods and Results (20052006) • Following compass bearings, uplands of HOBE were systematically searched for areas supporting dense stands of residual longleaf pine. • 3 stands (2-5 ha in area) were located; all longleaf > 2.5 cm (1 in) diameter at breast height (DBH) plus all other medium and large trees (> 15 cm DBH) were stem-mapped. Poster Presentations 93 • • Stems/ha for medium and large trees, > 15 cm (6 in) DBH, of all tree species on each stand was estimated and compared to data describing nearby stands in the 1905 upland landscape (Reed 1905). Size-classes of longleaf > 2.5 cm DBH in stands were compared to data from 1905. Landscape Level Assessment Compared to Stands: Methods and Results (2006) • Large longleaf at landscape-level • • • • Longleaf trees > 38 cm (15 in) DBH are large enough to produce cones (Boyer 1990). To estimate the number of residual large longleaf over the entire site, the uplands of HOBE were systematically searched, following compass bearings. GPS locations and DBH measurements were recorded for of all large longleaf, > 38 cm DBH. A few smaller longleaf trees were noted during the landscape-level search but were not recorded. We estimate that fewer than a dozen grass-stage longleaf persist at HOBE Relict Oak Trees • Although historical descriptions and timber assessments indicate that uplands near HOBE were dominated by longleaf pine, Reed (1905) also indicated that scattered hardwood trees were a natural part of this forest. • Some of the largest hardwoods in the three stemmapped stands were cored at breast height, and growth rings were counted. • Twelve individuals had rings > 75, suggesting that these trees were present on-site when longleaf pine was cut in the 1920’s. • 9 post oaks (Quercus stellata) had ring counts that ranged from 95-162. • 2 southern red oaks (Q. falcata) had ring counts of 86 and 133. • 1 white oak (Q. alba) had a ring count of 103. • Ages of these oaks suggest that these species were likely part of the forest at the time of the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and warrant inclusion in the upland forest restoration plan. Conclusions • Longleaf persists at HOBE clustered in 3 stands plus 280+ large trees scattered over the landscape. • When compared to density of medium and larger trees reported by Reed 100 years earlier, 3 existing stands support • • similar numbers of longleaf, but loblolly and and shortleaf pines are over-represented; there has been invasion of numerous off-site hardwoods. • Stands lack smallest and largest longleaf but support intermediate-sized (35-45 cm DBH) trees. Residual mature longleaf have the potential to serve as a seed source and promote forest restoration. Relict oak trees should be included in the longleaf forest restoration plan for HOBE, however the density of hardwoods must be greatly decreased to recreate an open-canopied forest. Re-introduction of fire is necessary to promote longleaf regeneration and eventually reduce hardwood stems. The first burns in over 50 years were applied in spring 2006; more work is required to ensure fuel reduction, adequate longleaf regeneration, and decreases in hardwoods (Hermann et al. 2007). Acknowledgements National Park Service staffers are vital partners in the project & we thank R. Howard, M. Lewis, & C. Noble. Many people aided with field work. We appreciate efforts of Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences senior projects (2005: J. Angel, J. McBrayer, R. Musik, & P. Turner; 2006: C. Brannon, J. Davison, & S. Partain). Additional assistance was provided by B. Estes, V. Johnson, C. Newton, G. Sorrell, & J. Waites. Literature Cited Boyer, W.D. 1990. Longleaf pine. pp.405-412, In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H. (tech. coord.), Silvics of North America, Volume I Conifers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654. Hermann, S.M. & J.S. Kush, 2006. Assessment of restoration potential of residual stands of mountain (piedmont) longleaf pine at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. Pgs 39-42 in (M.L. Cipollini, comp.) Proceedings of Second Montane Longleaf Pine Conference Workshop; Longleaf Alliance Report No. 9 Hermann, S.M., J.C. Gilbert, J.S. Kush, C. Noble, and H. Jerkins. 2007. Longleaf Pine Forest Restoration at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park: Evaluation of Residual Stands and Re-Introduction of Fire. In Estes, B.L. and Kush, J.S Proceedings of the Sixth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference; November 13-16, 2006, Tifton, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 10. Reed, F.W. 1905. A working plan for forest lands in central Alabama. USDA Forest Service Bulletin No. 68. Poster Presentations 94 A Container-Grown Seedling Quality DVD Mark J. Hainds1, Elizabeth Bowersock2, and Dean Gjerstad2 1 2 The Longleaf Alliance, Solon Dixon Center, Andalusia, AL 36420, USA School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA Abstract The Longleaf Alliance has produced a 44 minute DVD on container-grown seedling quality. Numerous classes or grades of seedlings were outplanted across the Southeastern US (VA, SC, AL, & GA) and tracked over time. Information on grading and identification of various seedling types (hybrids, doubles, willows, spiraled roots, etc.) and effects on growth and survival is included in this DVD. This DVD is the first issued from a four-part series of DVDs with subsequent issues to cover site preparation, planting, and herbaceous release. This DVD is the first of its kind. After viewing this product, the audience should be able to easily identify various defects and characteristics of good and poor quality containergrown longleaf pine seedlings. Besides helping the audience to identify seedling classes, grades, or defect, this DVD provides: • Helpful remedies for doubles (Figure1, 3, 4) and wil lows (Figure 2) Information on seedling care and stor age. A typical shipment of container-grown longleaf seedlings will contain many different grades and/or types of seedlings (Table 1). Having the ability to identify the various grades and defects of your container-grown longleaf is a critical to assessing the over-all quality of your purchase. • Seedling growth and survival over time across many study sites in the Southeast (Table 1) (Figure 5) • The cost and benefits of planting or culling various seedling grades, classes, or defects (Figure 6,7,8). Figure 1. Two live seedlings in 1 plug (doubles) Figure 2. When are willows not problematical? Figure 3. How should doubles be treated? Poster Presentations 95 Figure 4. How does dividing compare to clipping? Table 1: Typical examples of seedling grades from three different shipments. 100 80 60 Singles 40 Doubles 20 0 Samson D. Ridge Milledgev ille Figure 5. % Survival Good vs. Doubles on 3 Sites (age 3 Samson & D. Ridge, age 2 Milledgeville) Nursery & Good/ Double Floppy Willow Hybrid Other # Graded Target (in plug) (X2 & 1 cut off) Nursery 3,282 45 64 101 13 19 A-2006 (93.1%) (1.3%) (1.7%) (3.1%) (0.4%) (0.6%) (3,524) Nursery B 3,209 257 184 20 0 -2005 (87.4%) (7.0%) (5.0%) (0.5%) (0%) (3,670) 0 (0%) 91 149 4 6 7 Nursery B 3231 (92.6%) (2.6%) (4.3%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.2%) -2002 (3,488) Figure 6. Are there any hybrid seedlings in this photo? Subsequent DVDs to be issued by The Longleaf Alliance will include: • Planting • Site Preparation • Herbaceous Release. Figure 7. What are the characteristics of a good plug and root system? Figure 8. What are the two most dangerous defects in a container-grown seedling? Poster Presentations 96 Longleaf Pine Forest Restoration at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park: Evaluation of Residual Stands and Re-Introduction of Fire Sharon M. Hermann1, John C. Gilbert2, John S. Kush2, Caroline Noble3 and Herbert “Pete” Jerkins4 1 Auburn University Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA 3 US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida, 32312, USA 4 U.S. National Park Service, Cumberland Gap National Historic Park, Middlesboro, Kentucky, 40965, USA 2 Abstract Forest restoration often encompasses two major activities: planting of dominant tree species and reintroduction of ecological processes. Appropriate areas for planting as well as position of residual trees must be factored into the plan. Re-introduction of fire following fire suppression is also often a necessary part of restoration for longleaf pine forests. Application of this ecological process is relatively well-understood when forests have been frequently burned. However, reintroduction of burning in fire-suppressed stands requires special attention. Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE) is in initial stages of longleaf restoration. Silvicultural information on longleaf regeneration, density, and location of existing trees will be used to determine the areas that have a reasonable likelihood of recovery via natural regeneration and to identify sites where hand planting may be required. In 2006, the National Park Service initiated prescribed burning as the first step in reduction of fine fuel. A major challenge is how to remove excessive litter and duff and, at the same time, not destroy mature longleaf with high value as future sources of seed. Initial burns appear to be successful and removed much of the litter. An immediate challenge will be to check excessive sprouting observed on top-killed hardwood stems. Future fire management must target careful removal of duff. Current thought is that duff at the base of many trees may remain for the near future and that areas away from adult trees most suitable for natural regeneration may be the most important sites to target for duff removal. general types ofactivities are being pursued: 1) evaluation of residual longleaf to determine if supplemental planting is necessary and 2) re-introduction of fire to remove litter/duff and reduce stems of encroaching hardwood species. Important goals are reduction of the current off-site hardwood species and enhancement longleaf pine. This open forest was described in 1814, during the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, and persisted near HOBE until the early 1900s (Reed 1905). Ultimately, the hope is that prescribed fire will be the primary land management tool in the uplands. Assessment of Residual Longleaf (Hermann and Kush 2006, Gilbert et al. 2007) • • • Initial survey work documented ~ 800 longleaf, including 280 large trees > 15 inches (38 cm) dbh. Residual longleaf stands currently lack regeneration but the 280 larger trees are potential seed sources. To determine areas appropriate for future regeneration, soil type must be considered. Soil Series Supporting Longleaf at HOBE • • All large longleaf were mapped (sub-meter GPS) and locations superimposed on HOBE soils map (NRCS 2006). Larger longleaf currently are found on 7 soils series; these soils provide an estimate of appropriate areas to focus longleaf restoration efforts. Seed Dispersal Distance Introduction Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE), located in Tallapoosa County Alabama, was once dominated by longleaf pine forest, but currently supports only residual trees of this once common upland tree (see paper by Gilbert et al. in this publication). Presence of adult longleaf indicates that 75-100 years ago fire was frequent. However the National Park Service (NPS) has no records of wide-spread fire in more than 50 years. The agency is in the preliminary stages of planning and implementing ecosystem restoration at HOBE. Two • • Dispersal distance determines the amount of appropriate area that has potential to be colonized by natural regeneration. Boyer (1963) documented that ~ 75% of all seed falls within 20 m of second-growth trees and little or no seed is found > 60 m. Grace et al. (2004) suggested maximum dispersal distances in oldgrowth stands may exceed this but such distance is unlikely for the shorter stature, second-growth longleaf at HOBE. Poster Presentations 97 • We predict that central regions of gaps with radius > 40 m will be devoid of longleaf for many decades in the future, even after appropriate exposed soil conditions are created to promote natural regeneration. • Post-burn evaluation is on-going but to date few hardwoods appear top-killed. However many new basal sprouts were observed over the summer; 3-8 times the number present prior to fire. Conclusions Restoration Potential Based on Dispersal Distance of Residual Trees • • • Relying on residual trees for regeneration is desirable. Planting in rocky soil will be difficult, even if hand-dibbled, containerized seedlings are used. In addition, seed from residual trees does not introduce off-site genetic material. To determine if reliance on natural regeneration is feasible over large areas at HOBE, dispersal distance of 95% of seed for each large tree was plotted on soil series currently supporting longleaf. Although successful forest restoration does not require fully stocked stands, a large area devoid of longleaf is not desirable. In addition, fire management is likely to be difficult in large areas with no longleaf. • • • • Current Forest Composition and Fine Fuel • • Following 50+ years of no burning, recent assessment of vegetation revealed many off-site hardwood stems (Hermann and Kush 2006, Gilbert et al. 2007)are excessive. Fine fuel at the base of residual large longleaf is in the range of 12 cm (4 in) deep and is of special concern. • • Recent Fire at HOBE • • 1st prescribed fire occurred 3 April 2006. This is later than recommended for burns in excessive fuels; preferred dates = Dec 15 – Feb 15. However careful application resulted in good initial results. • Burn weather = Temp ~ 270C (800F), RH ~ 30 %, light wind • NPS burn crew used hose lay to apply ~ 200L (50 gal) water at base of many large trees prior to fire. • Fast-moving flanking strip fires minimized residence time near large trees. Rapid and thorough mop-up targeted large longleaf trees.In one burn unit, much of surface litter was removed but little was burned near large trees. • When large trees charred, effective mopup minimized duff consumption. • No needle scorch was observed post-burn; light wind during fire may have minimized this result. • • Natural regeneration from existing trees has potential to enhance restoration efforts if the excessive litter and duff eliminated. However, natural regeneration will not be sufficient for recovery of longleaf over the landscape of HOBE; many areas on appropriate soil fall outside the seed dispersal range of existing adult trees. Initial burns appear to produce desired results but multiple fires are necessary to eliminate fuel. Time-consuming application of water appears to have minimized damage to residual trees but this treatment was deemed too expensive for continued use. Alternative treatments and/or burn prescriptions that remove litter but not duff will be explored. Ultimate fire effects of the first burns currently are unknown; Kush et al. (2004) reported mortality of larger trees occurring 2-4 years after reintroduction of fire into long-unburned longleaf stands. A pragmatic approach may be to permit some duff to remain at base of large trees and focus fire efforts on duff removal in areas away from trees, in potential regeneration gaps. Additional burns and related monitoring are needed to determine if fire will decrease hardwoods and non-long pines (Hermann and Kush 2006, Gilbert et al. 2007). However, some scattered hardwoods, especially post oak (Quercus stellata) and southern red oak (Q. falcata), should be retained. Short-term mechanical and/or chemical treatments may be required to restore forest composition. At HOBE, decline of the longleaf forest occurred over many decades. Residual, mature trees have the potential to shorten the restoration period but success will require time and persistence. Poster Presentations 98 Acknowledgements NPS staffers are vital partners in the project and we thank J. Cahill, R. Howard, M. Lewis, and L. McInnis. Many people contributed to the field work. We appreciate efforts of Auburn University School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences senior projects (2005: J. Angel, J. McBrayer, R. Musik, and P. Turner; 2006: C. Brannon, J. Davison, and S. Partain). Additional field assistance was provided by G. Sorrell, B. Estes, V. Johnson, C. Newton, D. Tenaglia, and J. Waites. Literature Cited Boyer, W.D. 1963. Longleaf pine seed dispersal. US Forest Service Research Note SO-3. USDA, New Orleans, LA. Gilbert, J.C., S.M. Hermann, J.S. Kush, L. McInnis, and J. Cahill. 2007. Longleaf Pine Re-Discovered at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. In Estes, B.L. and Kush, J.S Proceedings of the Sixth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference; November 13-16, 2006, Tifton, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 10. Grace, S.L., J.L. Hamrick, and W.J. Platt. 2004. Estimation of seed dispersal distance in an old-growth population of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) using maternity exclusion analysis. Castanea 69(3):207-215. Hermann, S.M. and J.S. Kush, 2006. Assessment of restoration potential of residual stands of mountain (piedmont) longleaf pine at Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. Pgs 39-42 in (M.L. Cipollini, comp.) Proceedings of Second Montane Longleaf Pine Conference Workshop; Longleaf Alliance Report No. 9. Kush, J.S., R.S. Meldahl, and C. Avery. 2004. A restoration success: longleaf pine seedlings established in a fire-suppressed, old-growth stand. Ecological Restoration 22:6-10. NRCS. 2006. Soil Survey Tallapoosa County, Alabama. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Reed, F.W. 1905. A working plan for forest lands in central Alabama. USDA Forest Service Bulletin No. 68. Poster Presentations 99 What Happens to Top-Killed Seedlings? Rhett Johnson1 and Mark J. Hainds1 1 The Longleaf Alliance, Solon Dixon Center, Andalusia, Alabama, 36240, USA Abstract In the initial study, two-year old longleaf seedlings were prescribed burned in an operational fire in February of 2004. Top-killed seedlings which exhibited re-sprouting from the root collar 4 months following the fire were flagged and re-examined 18 months post fire. All of the top-killed seedlings were alive18 months after the fire with 80% in single stem height growth ranging from 0.4 to 2.7 feet tall with a mean of 1.06 feet. The remaining 20 % of the top-killed trees were alive, but had two live stems and averaged only 0.3 feet in height. Additionally, seedlings from three different studies: a planting depth study, a herbaceous release study, and summer planting study, were assessed for height, brown spot, and survival immediately before a prescribed fire, approximately ½ year post-burn, and 1.5 years post burn. Poster Presentations 100 Effects of Two Native Invasive Trees on the Breeding Bird Community of Upland Pine Forests Nathan Klaus1 and Tim Keyes1 1 Georgia Non-game Endangered Wildlife Program, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Forsyth, Georgia, 31029, USA Abstract Land lottery surveys conducted prior to European settlement (circa 1820) reveal an upland pine forest unlike contemporary forests in the Georgia Coastal Plain and Piedmont. Specifically two species of tree, water oak (Quercus nigra) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are entirely absent from all upland sites. We conducted point counts in paired sites with similar pine stocking and size classes to investigate the effects of this invasion on breeding bird communities. Bird species richness was 72% (p<0.001) higher and bird abundance was 68% higher (p<0.001) in pine stands that had not been invaded by sweetgum or water oak. Eleven pine specialists and early succession species were significantly more common in pine stands that had not been invaded, and no species had a positive relationship with sweetgum/water oak invasion, though many generalist species used this habitat. Partners in Flight (PIF) scores were summed across all points and an average ‘conservation value’ calculated by habitat type. Stands without sweetgum or water oak scored a 76% higher conservation value than invaded stands. The sweetgum/water oak/loblolly forest appears to be a recently emerged unnatural forest type and lacks a distinct bird community. Invasion of pine forests by these tree species substantially lowers the conservation value of a site. Poster Presentations 101 The Regional Longleaf Pine Growth Study – 40 years old John S. Kush1 and Don Tomczak2 1 Auburn University School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA 2 USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia, 30309, USA Abstract From 1964 to 1967 the USDA Forest Service established the Regional Longleaf Pine Growth Study (RLGS) in the Gulf States. The original objective of the study was to obtain a database for the development of growth and yield predictions for naturally regenerated, even-aged longleaf pine stands. Plots were installed to cover a range of ages, densities, and site qualities. The plots are inventoried on a 5-year cycle and are thinned at each inventory, as needed, to maintain the assigned density level. The study accounts for growth change over time by adding a new set of plots in the youngest age class every 10 years. The project completed its seventh measurement period (35year measurement) in 2002 and started on the eighth measurement (40-year measurement) in 2004. While the resource base and public concerns have changed over the last 40 years, so has the RLGS. In response to changing questions, the objectives of the RLGS have been broadened. The major focus of the study is the longleaf pine overstory, but details have been added to enhance our understanding of stand dynamics. Among the significant additions and related efforts to the RLGS have been: data quantifying utility pole production, estimates of litter production, standing biomass, net-primary productivity and leaf area index have been developed, models developed from the RLGS have been implemented in the Forest Service’s Forest Vegetation Simulator program and the RLGS plots are going to be used to determine the relationships between root biomass/carbon sequestration and the density, site quality, and age of the longleaf pine overstory. Introduction project has begun its eighth measurement period (40-year measurement). Methods The study currently consists of 292 1/5-acre and 13 1/10acre permanent measurement plots located in central and southern Alabama, southern Mississippi, southwest Georgia, northern Florida, and the sandhills of North Carolina. At the time of establishment, plots are assigned a target basal area class of 30, 60, 90, 120, or 150 square feet/acre. They are left un-thinned to grow into that class if they are initially below the target basal area. Plot selection was based upon a rectangular distribution of cells formed by: 6 age classes from 20 to 120 years, 5 site quality classes ranging from 50 to 90 feet at 50 years, and 6 density classes ranging from 30 to 150 square feet/acre and plots left un-thinned to see how they grow. In subsequent re-measurements, the plot is thinned back to the previously assigned target if the plot basal area has grown 7.5 square feet/acre beyond the target basal area. The thinnings are generally of low intensity and are done from below. Net measurement plots are surrounded by a similar and like-treated half-chain wide isolation strip. Plots are inventoried, and treated as needed, every 5 years. The measurements are made during the dormant season and it takes 3 year to complete a full measurement of all plots. Results In 1964, the USDA Forest Service established the Regional Longleaf Pine Growth Study (RLGS) in the Gulf States. The original objective of the study was to obtain a database for the development of growth and yield predictions for naturally regenerated, even-aged longleaf pine stands. Plots were installed to cover a range of ages, densities, and site qualities. The study accounts for change in growth by adding a new set of plots in the youngest age class every 10 years. In 1984, Auburn University, in a cooperative agreement with the USDA Forest Service, re-measured the RLGS plots for its fourth measurement period (20-year measurement). The cooperation continues today and the Through the 30-year re-measurement, there are 32 publications and numerous presentations that are a direct result of the RLGS. Another 18 related publications used information from the RLGS. Two computer software programs are available based on RLGS data. The RLGS represents a stable, long-term database and an active “field laboratory” for natural, even-aged longleaf pine stands. The value of this project increases as more and more ownership's in the South consider longleaf pine management alternatives. The plots are available for cooperative studies that do not harm the plots or interfere with future activities. Poster Presentations 102 Utility Pole Production Conclusion Utility pole information is being used to develop relationships between stand characteristics, thinning activities, and pole production. Across the study nearly 78% of pole-size trees could be classed as poles. The RLGS has adapted to changes in the resource base and shifting public concerns over the last 40 years. The initial installation in the mid-60’s resulted in 185 sample plots. This number increased to 267 in 1987 and is now at 325. As the number of plots have grown, and in response to changing questions, the objectives of the RLGS have been expanded. It is no longer meaningful to have growth projection models estimate only to stand-level merchantable basal area and total volumes in pulp and sawtimber. Users are demanding more information on multiple products, and want trees/acre and merchantable volume by DBH classes to answer their current questions. The RLGS is keeping pace with ever-changing demands and is proving once again that well designed, long-term studies are wise research investments. Global Climate Change Within this distribution are five time replications of the youngest age class. All five replications are located on the Escambia Experimental Forest in Brewton, AL. The figure below indicates that there has been an increase in growth among the time series plots located on the Escambia Experimental Forest. Figure 1. Basal area increment/year (Square feet/acre) 10 Cooperators in the Regional Longleaf Pine Growth Study 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 Tim e Se rie s 3 4 Carbon Sequestration Longleaf pine is the most suited among the southern pine species for carbon sequestration. It has a long life span, up to 500 years. It grows on most sites in the South and is relatively risk free. It has a high specific gravity making it suited to long term storage in products. Research has shown it does well in an elevated CO2 environment. RLGS plots will be used to determine the relationships between root biomass/carbon sequestration and the density, site quality, and age of the longleaf pine overstory. Region 8 of the USDA Forest Service Apalachicola National Forest - Wakulla District Talladega National Forest - Talladega District Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District Homochitto National Forest - Homochitto District DeSoto National Forest - Black Creek District Conecuh National Forest - Conecuh District Escambia Experimental Forest (Brewton, AL) T.R. Miller Mill Company (Brewton, AL) Florida Forest Service - Blackwater River State Forest (Munson, FL) Cyrene Turpentine Company (Bainbridge, GA) Eglin Air Force Base (Niceville, FL) Southlands Experimental Forest- International Paper Company (Bainbridge, GA) Gulf States Paper Corporation (Columbiana, AL) Wefel Family Trust (Atmore, AL) North Carolina Division of Forestry - Bladen Lake State Forest (Elizabethtown, NC) Kimberly-Clark Corporation (Weogufka, AL) Management Perspective on the Regional Longleaf Pine Growth Study Managers have been hampered by a dearth of good scientific research to support growth estimates for longleaf pine. In contrast to loblolly pine, on which ample research is in place to accurately predict growth, longleaf pine growth has been speculative. The long-term Regional Longleaf Pine Growth Study (RLGS) results have application in management decisions with both timber and wildlife objectives. Because RLGS researchers have adapted to the changing needs of managers, study results now go well beyond plantation management and extend to longer rotations, where endangered species management may be a primary objective. Poster Presentations 103 Chopper® Herbicide Site Prep Improves Quality of Weed Control Dwight K. Lauer1 and Harold E. Quicke2 1 2 Silvics Analytic, Ridgeway, Virginia, 24148, USA BASF Corporation, Research and Development Center Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709, USA Abstract Two studies were installed to examine weed control and growth of loblolly pine following different combinations of site preparation and post-plant herbaceous weed control (HWC) on cutover sites. Treatments included bedding only, bedding + HWC, bedding + Chopper site preparation and bedding + Chopper site preparation + HWC. These experiments showed that site preparation with Chopper® herbicide improved control of woody and herbaceous weeds compared to bedding alone. Third year pine growth following bedding + Chopper herbicide was greater than for bedding + HWC. A synergistic response was observed with the combination of Chopper® herbicide site prep and HWC in that pine growth response to the combination was greater than the sum of responses to individual treatments. This improved quality of weed control has the potential to improve survival, shorten the grass stage period, and decrease the woody fuel load at time of the first prescribed burn in longleaf pine plantations Introduction The quality of vegetation control during the regeneration phase of longleaf pine on cutover sites is important. Competing vegetation can lower survival and delay emergence from the grass stage. Woody vegetation will decrease longterm growth and may make prescribed burning in established stands more hazardous due to increased fuel levels. Vegetation control with chemical site prep is an attractive option to control competing woody vegetation and improve the quality of herbaceous weed control. Initial control of herbaceous vegetation afforded by site prep is especially important with longleaf pine because post-plant herbicide options are more limited than with loblolly pine. Further, a high quality site prep treatment may improve the quality of post-plant herbaceous weed control. A common management regime for loblolly pine is to use chemical site prep to provide control of woody and herbaceous vegetation and then use post-plant herbaceous weed control to extend the duration of herbaceous weed control. A series of studies was initiated by BASF in 2001 and 2002 to examine the use of Arsenal® AC + Oust® post-plant herbaceous weed control following Chopper® herbicide site prep to establish loblolly pine stands. Two locations included a site prep treatment without chemical site prep. These two locations provide a comparison of herbaceous weed control quality with and without Chopper® herbicide site prep. Although these experiments were with loblolly pine, the findings concerning the quality of weed control achieved by these different treatments can be adapted for the establishment of planted longleaf pine as well. Methods Integrated systems of site prep and first-year herbaceous weed control for loblolly pine plantations were examined at two locations using a randomized complete block design with three replications. The Kings Ferry, FL location was a lower coastal plain site with a poorly drained clay soil. The Barnett Crossroads, AL location was an upper coastal plain site with a moderately well drained clay soil. The site prep herbicide treatment at both locations was a tank mix of Chopper® herbicide with 1 or 2 pints Garlon® 4. The March applied first year herbaceous weed control (HWC) treatment was 4 oz/ac Arsenal® AC + 2 oz/ac Oust®. Integrated treatments differed by location. Treatments at Kings Ferry were 1) double bed, 2) double bed + March HWC, 3) single bed + Chopper® herbicide site prep, and 4) single bed + Chopper® herbicide site prep + March HWC. Treatments at Barnett Crossroads were 1) single pass rip and bed, 2) single pass rip and bed + March HWC, 3) single pass rip and bed + Chopper® herbicide site prep, and 4) single pass rip and bed + Chopper® herbicide site prep + March HWC. Vegetation cover was assessed by vegetation type and taxa in June, August, and October during the first year after planting. Loblolly pine groundline diameter (gld) and height were measured at the end of the third growing season. Loblolly pine growth was compared using year 3 volume index computed as the volume of a cone using gld and total height. Vegetation Control Chopper® herbicide site prep improved both woody and herbaceous weed control in the first year and improved the performance of the HWC treatment. At Barnett Crossroads (Figure 1), total June cover was less than 25% following Chopper® herbicide with or without HWC. Total cover increased to only 14% by October for Chopper® herbicide + HWC. HWC without Chopper® herbicide had total cover of 63% by August and almost all of Poster Presentations 104 this was woody vegetation such as gallberry. At Kings Ferry (Figure 2), total cover in June for Chopper® herbicide, with or without HWC, and double bed + HWC did not exceed 26%. By October, total cover was 72% for double bed + HWC compared to 42% for Chopper® without HWC. The difference was due to woody cover. Total cover was lowest for Chopper® herbicide + HWC throughout the year with only 2% cover in woody vegetation in October. Loblolly Pine Response At Barnett Crossroads (Figure 3), Chopper® herbicide performed better than HWC. HWC + Chopper® herbicide increased volume index by 250. This was greater than the sum of the response from these treatments used individually (53 + 113 = 166). At Kings Ferry (Figure 4), Chopper® herbicide performed better than HWC. HWC + Chopper® herbicide increased volume index by 322. This was greater than the sum of the response from these treatments used individually (99 + 177 = 276). At both locations, response to Chopper® herbicide without HWC was greater than the response to HWC. Third year loblolly pine volume index was greatest for the Chopper® herbicide + HWC combination at both locations. 100 C o ver ( % ) 80 None 60 HW C 40 Chopper 20 Chopper+HW C 0 June August October Figure 1. Percent total vegetation cover during the first growing season at Barnett Crossroads, AL. All site prep treatments included a single pass rip and bed. Treatments are designated as None for no further treatment, Chopper for Chopper® herbicide site prep, HWC for first year March herbaceous weed control. The woody cover component of total cover in October was 47%, 60%, 4%, and 6% for the treatments None, HWC, Chopper, and Chopper + HWC, respectively. 100 C o v e r (% ) 80 Double Bed 60 Double Bed+HWC 40 Chopper Chopper+HWC 20 0 June August October Figure 2. Percent total vegetation cover during the first growing season at Kings Ferry, FL. Chopper® herbicide site prep treatments were combined with single bedding. Treatments are designated as Double Bed for double bedding, Chopper for Chopper® herbicide site prep, HWC for first year March herbaceous weed control. The woody cover component of total cover in October was 8%, 35%, 2%, and 2% for the treatments Double Bed, Double Bed + HWC, Chopper, and Chopper + HWC, respectively. Poster Presentations 105 Stem Volume Index 350 300 + 250 250 200 150 100 50 + 113 + 53 0 No TRT MAR HWC Chopper Chopper + MAR HWC Stem Volume Index Figure 3. Year 3 stem volume index for different combinations of site prep and herbaceous weed control at Barnett Crossroads, AL. 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 + 322 + 99 Double Bed + 172 Double Single Bed + Bed + MAR HWC Chopper Single Bed + Chopper + MAR HWC Figure 4. Year 3 stem volume index for different combinations of site prep and herbaceous weed control at Kings The quality of first year herbaceous weed control is compromised without proper site preparation. In these studies, Chopper® herbicide site prep outperformed HWC in terms of vegetation control and pine growth. HWC with only mechanical site prep released competing woody vegetation. The best performance was from the combination of Chopper® herbicide site prep + HWC. These results are consistent with longer-term studies (Miller et al. 2003) that demonstrate the importance of woody vegetation control at site prep and the limited response to herbaceous weed control if woody vegetation is not controlled. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. for providing study sites. Herbicide Notes Chopper® and Arsenal® are registered trademarks of BASF Corporation. Oust® is a registered trademark of Dupont. Garlon® is a registered trademark of Dow Agrosciences, LLC. Literature Cited Miller, J.H., B.R. Zutter, S.M. Zedaker, M.B. Edwards, R.A. Newbold 2003. Growth and yield relative to competition for loblolly pine plantations to midrotation – A Southeastern United States regional study. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27(4): 237-251. Poster Presentations 106 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery and Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Conservation: Sharing and Selling the Success through the Eyes of the Advocates Jon Marshall1, Ralph Costa2, John Maxwell1 and Dave Case1 1 2 DJ Case & Associates, Mishawaka, Indiana, 46545, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 29634, USA Abstract During the past 15 years, significant progress has been made on recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and restoration and conservation of longleaf pine forests. This progress can be measured in numbers of new RCW groups, new acres planted in longleaf pine and acres of existing longleaf pine improved, and importantly, number of new partnerships focused on these efforts. Although the success of RCW population and longleaf pine restoration has been relatively recent, the foundation for today’s success began many decades ago. Numerous foresters, biologists, researchers, and administrators in the private, state and federal sectors have made significant contributions over those decades toward RCW and longleaf pine conservation. Their contributions have provided ecological understanding, management direction, policy solutions, economic incentives, cultural and social acceptance, and critically, a vision for the mission. We have conducted 30-60 minute video interviews of approximately 40 of these key players. We have also filmed about 30-40 hours of longleaf forest habitats (including associated flora and fauna) and management practices (e.g., logging, prescribed fire) throughout the southeast and RCW conservation activities (e.g., capturing, banding, and translocating birds). Additionally, we took over 500 production quality digital photographs of longleaf habitats and management activities and RCW conservation practices. The purpose of our project is to produce communications and outreach tools and materials using the interviews, longleaf/RCW video and photographs. The raw video and photographs will be used in a variety of ways. First, DJ Case & Associates, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and attendees of the Longleaf Legacy Forum, will produce several finished products, e.g., different length videos, to be used to inform and educate specific target audiences about the value and importance of longleaf pine ecosystems and RCWs. Second, still photographs and video footage will be made available for use by conservation partners to produce customized videos, power point presentations, and other educational materials, e.g., brochures, for selected constituencies. These constituents could include, but will not be limited to, schools, trade organizations, congressional staff, media outlets, civic groups, conservation organizations, and private landowners. Through these focused efforts and venues it is our objective to educate, enlighten, engage and empower more people to become concerned about and interested in the restoration and conservation of longleaf pine forests and their fauna and flora. Poster Presentations 107 Pathogenicity of Leptographium serpens to Longleaf Pine George Matusick1, Lori Eckhardt1 and Scott Enebak1 1 School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract Decline and mortality syndromes of southern pine species have attracted an increasing amount of attention from land managers over the past decade. The southern pine decline disease syndrome is characterized by complex interactions between several biotic and abiotic factors including root inhabiting fungi from the genera Leptographium, Grosmannia and Ophiostoma. Leptographium serpens is known to be associated with mortality of southern pines as part of the decline syndrome. The importance of longleaf pine to the southern pine ecosystem has been realized by many as its native range has decreased over the past century. Longleaf pine with roots colonized by either L. serpens or G. serpens have shown wilting symptoms preceding the death of the healthy foliage. Below-ground symptoms are more apparent and often include resinous lesions precluding dead roots, a distinct streaking through the root flair, and a deterioration of fine root mass. A more direct measure of pathogenicity of this pathogen on longleaf pine will establish the exact relationship between pathogen and host. The objectives of the project include the measurement of pathogenicity of L. serpens in relation to longleaf pine seedlings and mature roots. Poster Presentations 108 An Economic Model for Multiple-Value Management of Longleaf Pine B.B. McCall1, R. K. McIntyre2, S. B. Jack2, and R. J. Mitchell2 1 2 Larson & McGowin, Inc., Mobile, Alabama, 36603, USA Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia, 39870, USA Abstract There is growing interest in multiple-value forest management, particularly among private landowners. In addition to timber, many of these landowners may place equal or greater value on wildlife habitat, recreational use, aesthetics, and long-term asset appreciation. To balance multiple objectives, a low intensity silvicultural system featuring selection harvest and natural regeneration may be most appropriate. However, little information exists about the economic aspects of these integrated management goals. An interactive Excel spreadsheet model was developed with initial data based on a standard 10% timber inventory of a moderately stocked 941 acre tract at the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center. Growth rates were estimated from site-specific studies and applied to the stand table to move trees through diameter classes over time. Alternating halves of the tract were harvested using single-tree selection every five years for 50 years. Three harvest intensity scenarios were modeled to estimate timber revenues and a hunting lease value was factored into the revenue stream. Expense assumptions were based on common costs for management practices in the region. The following values are presented from lower to higher levels of harvest intensity, with figures in real values adjusted for inflation. Average present value ranged from $1,428,903 to $1,721,283, with 20 year internal rates of return from 3.58%to 3.86%. Accumulated cash flow ranged from $2,309,050 to $5,499,282, with ending values from $4,907,850 to $3,118,557. Initial stocking was 4,672 mbf, with ending stocking ranging from 6,008 mbf to 2,956 mbf. This model is in the early stages of development and is intended as a heuristic rather than a predictive tool. The assumptions incorporated in the model represent our best current information but can benefit from further refinement and validation. This modeling approach has also pointed out information gaps and areas of needed research, such as growth and yield for multiage natural longleaf pine stands, regeneration dynamics, and ingrowth rates. Further refinement and development of models such as this can help landowners understand trade-offs and make informed decisions when balancing multiple land management objectives. Poster Presentations 109 Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Forest Structure and Understory Species Composition in Longleaf Pine Flatwoods along Florida's Gulf Coast George L. McCaskill1 and Shibu Jose1 1 School of Forest Resources, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA, Abstract Little information exists on spatio-temporal patterns of overstory and understory characteristics in longleaf pine flatwoods communities along the lower coastal plain of the Gulf coast. Three representative sites along a spatial gradient from Pensacola to Tampa Bay (720 km), each containing stands of three distinct successional stages (age groups) were used in this study. The different successional stages represented a chronosequence of 120 years applied across the spatial gradient. Stand structure and plant species composition were measured using four stands within each pre-defined age group at each site. After establishment, understory species richness and diversity declined as stand age increased, but species redundancy and web complexity increased. While pioneer (weedy) species dominated the early successional stages of stand development, the understory species composition resembled that of typical flatwoods communities within thirty years of age. It appears that longleaf pine flatwoods stands reach steady state equilibrium in terms of species richness and diversity at a threshold age of ninety years after establishment. While overstory tree density decreased with stand age, stand basal area increased as expected. The volume of standing dead and downed coarse woody debris also increased with stand age, depending on fire history. Poster Presentations 110 Tale of Two Forests: Light Environments in Slash and Longleaf Pine Forests and Their Impact on Seedling Responses. J.D. McGee1, R.J. Mitchell1, S.D. Pecot1, J.J. O'Brien2, L.K. Kirkman1, and M.J. Kaeser1 1 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, GA, 39870, USA 2 USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA, 30602, USA Abstract There is growing interest in multiple-value forest management, particularly among private landowners. In addition to timber, many of these landowners may place equal or greater value on wildlife habitat, recreational use, aesthetics, and long-term asset appreciation. To balance multiple objectives, a low intensity silvicultural system featuring selection harvest and natural regeneration may be most appropriate. However, little information exists about the economic aspects of these integrated management goals. The following values are presented from lower to higher levels of harvest intensity, with figures in real values adjusted for inflation. Average present value ranged from $1,428,903 to $1,721,283, with 20 year internal rates of return from 3.58%to 3.86%. Accumulated cash flow ranged from $2,309,050 to $5,499,282, with ending values from $4,907,850 to $3,118,557. Initial stocking was 4,672 mbf, with ending stocking ranging from 6,008 mbf to 2,956 mbf. An interactive Excel spreadsheet model was developed with initial data based on a standard 10% timber inventory of a moderately stocked 941 acre tract at the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center. Growth rates were estimated from site-specific studies and applied to the stand table to move trees through diameter classes over time. Alternating halves of the tract were harvested using single-tree selection every five years for 50 years. Three harvest intensity scenarios were modeled to estimate timber revenues and a hunting lease value was factored into the revenue stream. Expense assumptions were based on common costs for management practices in the region. This model is in the early stages of development and is intended as a heuristic rather than a predictive tool. The assumptions incorporated in the model represent our best current information but can benefit from further refinement and validation. This modeling approach has also pointed out information gaps and areas of needed research, such as growth and yield for multiage natural longleaf pine stands, regeneration dynamics, and ingrowth rates. Further refinement and development of models such as this can help landowners understand trade-offs and make informed decisions when balancing multiple land management objectives. Poster Presentations 111 Linking State Prescribed Fire Councils as a Coalition: A Proposal to Promote Media and Public Understanding of Rx Fire, and to Nationally Address Key Management, Policy, and Regulatory Issues Mark A. Melvin1, Johnny Stowe2, Frank Cole3, Lane Green4, Scott Wallinger5, and Lindsay Boring1 1 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia, 39870, USA South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina, USA 3 For Land’s Sake, Thomasville, Georgia, 31799, USA 4 Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy, Tallahassee, Florida, 32312, USA 5 Forest Sustainability, Seabrook Island, South Carolina, 29445, USA 2 Abstract • The rural southern United States is experiencing rapid changes in land use and demographics, with increased challenges for landowners and managers of public and private lands to conduct prescribed burning of pine woodlands and other pyric ecosystems. Across the country there are common issues including public safety, ecological stewardship, liability, public education, and air quality related regulations. Networking the organizations and efforts together within the South, West, and other regions that utilize prescribed fire will increase communication, effectiveness of public education, and especially participation in fire policy decisions and regulatory outcomes. While Florida pioneered the establishment of regional fire councils, active or startup organizations are now emerging in most Southern states and several Midwestern and Western states. A diverse group of private, public and non-governmental leaders has reviewed the opportunities for establishing a coalition of fire councils, as well as for the need to initially examine the science and management context for the new EPA particulate matter emission standards (PM2.5), which may place considerable new constraints upon land managers to achieve their prescribed burning goals. • • • Developing Concerns on 2.5 Micron Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Regulations Intended to Improve Urban Air Quality • • • • Introduction Prescribed fire managers across the nation continue to face new and increasing challenges that limit or threaten the use of prescribed fire. Creating a coalition of prescribed fire councils can prove instrumental in sharing strategies, technology transfer, uniting on initiatives, and public education. Current trends that are cause for concern: • • • Loss of burning as a key element of rural culture More roads and increased traffic in rural areas Landowner constraints based on liability concerns Lack of consulting practitioner’s capacity due in part to liability concerns Extended rural-urban interface zones as urban areas push into the countryside Increasing limitation of “burn days” due to environmental regulation originally intended to clean-up urban air quality General lack of public understanding pertaining to the role of fire in sustaining forest ecosystems – “Smokey Bear” syndrome • • • High sulfate PM2.5 results from burning fossil fuels (e.g. automobiles, diesel engines, and coal burning power plants) Smoke from prescribed burning isn’t a major cause of emissions but its chemistry fits some of the PM2.5 pattern New PM2.5 standards will put more urban areas into “non-attainment” air quality status and apply pressure to reduce emissions from fossil fuel burning Most state air quality regulators will also focus upon at least monitoring prescribed fire and some may attempt to limit prescribed fire activities Dealing with PM2.5 must be state-by-state as it is implemented and there is a need to ensure every state has excellent information and plans All councils should promote a “categorical exclusion” status from PM2.5 rules from the EPA Negative news press based on poor information could shape urban public opinion negatively about prescribed fire. We must promote the positive messages about how it is used to protect human health and safety by reducing harmful wildfires Poster Presentations 112 What Can a Coalition Offer? • • • • • • • Bring active councils together to collaborate and begin to work effectively Seek to strengthen newly developing councils to make them more effective players and allies Promote councils in key states where they don’t exist now Engage other organizations that can play key roles, (e.g. state forestry associations, forest landowner associations, NGO’s, state and federal agencies) Create a “playbook” of exactly how to deal with state environmental agencies related to PM2.5 Ensure national-level coordination with federal agencies Promote public understanding of prescribed fire Where Do We Go From Here? 1) Explore forming a core group of interested parties to create a coalition of councils to effectively deal with issues that impede the use of prescribed fire, which promotes ecological function, public health and safety, biological diversity, and the prevention of catastrophic wildfires. 2) Place a high priority on encouraging and assisting newstates to create councils. 3) Secure funding and support to launch media campaign to educate the public on the use, need, and forest health values of prescribed fire and to differentiate between prescribed fire vs. wildfire. 4) Schedule a conference in 2007 to broaden depth of group to encompass the entire nation and move forward with initiatives at a federal level. Acknowledgements The following organizations are playing a key role in the advocacy of prescribed fire in forests: American Forest Council, Environmental Defense, Georgia Forestry Commission, Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Longleaf Alliance, The Nature Conservancy, Tall Timbers Research Station, US Fish and Wildlife Service, The Wilderness Society, and North Florida, South Carolina and Southwest Georgia Prescribed Fire Councils. Poster Presentations 113 Longleaf Pine Genetics Research at the Harrison Experimental Forest C.D. Nelson1, L.H. Lott1, J.H. Roberds1, T. L. Kubisiak1, and M. Stine2 1 Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Harrison Experimental Forest, Saucier, Mississippi, 39574, USA 2 School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70803, USA Introduction Genetic and pathology studies of brown spot disease resistance and genetic studies of early height growth in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) have been ongoing at the Harrison Experimental Forest (HEF, Saucier, MS) for several decades. Fungicide/clay root-dip treatments were formulated to provide brown spot control for several years following outplanting. Genetic variation in brown spot resistance was also quantified and utilized in advanced generation breeding. Recent analyses have shown that resistance has been doubled in two-generations of selection. A pioneering study into the genetic control of several traits of longleaf pine was established in 1960 by E.B. Snyder. This experiment, monitored for more than 40 years, is providing valuable information on genetic variation in mature tree growth traits and resin properties. The resin data are of particular interest to our collaborative research on mechanisms of resistance to southern pine bark beetle. Finally, we have been hybridizing longleaf to slash pine in an effort to discover specific genes that control the grass-stage trait and to develop a variety of longleaf pine that initiates height growth in the first year. Our extended abstract provides a brief summary of each of these research areas. Control of Brown Spot Needle Blight Genetics of Brown Spot Resistance and Early Height Growth Improved silvicultural practices, including nursery practices, have provided a step-change in our ability to establish productive longleaf pine plantations. However, our long-term interest is and has been in developing disease resistant and fast growing longleaf pine populations through genetic selection and breeding (Snyder & Derr 1972). We have found brown spot resistance and early height growth to be under genetic control and have produced a second generation population of parents that should produce seedlings with twice the resistance as the first generation (Nelson et al. 2006). Genetics of Life History Growth and Resin Yield A pioneering study of genetic variation was established in 1960 by E.B. Snyder. Thirteen trees were randomly selected from natural forests on the HEF and mated to each other in a full-diallel design (i.e., each parent mated in both directions to all other parents plus 13 selfed matings, resulting in 169 full-sib families). Progeny of 143 of these matings were planted in replicated trials located 2 miles apart on the HEF (image below, Fig. 2). Early measurements were used to estimate heritability (i.e., proportion A.G. Kais (Kais 1981; Kais and Griggs 1984) developed root-dip treatments (fungicide & clay slurry) that provide control of brown spot needle blight (caused by (Scirrhia acicola (Dearn.) Siggers)) for several years following outplant- Figure 1. Susceptible and resistant longleaf pine families treated and untreated for ing. The combination of high control of brown spot needle blight. quality nursery stock and excellent weed control allows longleaf pine to consistently emerge from Resistant family the grass stage in the second or third year— greatly improving the opportunity for plantation establishment. The images below (Fig. 1) show treated and untreated plots of the same longUntreated leaf pine families in a field test Treated on the HEF. Some families Susceptible family show genetic resistance and are not appreciably benefited by the Treated Untreated fungicide treatment. Poster Presentations 114 of variation under genetic control) for several growth and morphological traits (Snyder & Namkoong 1978). Recent interest centers on changes in genetic variability for growth as trees age as well as genetic variation in wood properties and in oleoresin yield (i.e., resin flow), a trait believed to be a major component of defense against bark beetle attack. Since longleaf pine is highly resistant to colonization by southern pine beetle and has high resin flow, it is of interest to determine whether it also has low genetic variability for this trait. Preliminary results (Table 1) for growth traits show that heritability in these trials are relatively low, but do vary over ages (Stine et al. 2001). Table 1. Heritability (individual tree, narrow-sense) for growth traits in longleaf pine. Trait Age 7 Age 17 Age 40 Height 0.13 0.06 0.15 DBH 0.07 0.14 0.11 Interspecies Hybrid Breeding and Mapping Genes for Early Height Growth Crosses between longleaf pine and slash pine (P. elliottii var. elliottii) or loblolly pine (P. taeda) produce progeny with intermediate early height growth. Backcrossing these hybrids to both parental parents and analyzing the means and variances of these populations can provide an estimate of the number of genes controlling the trait (Nelson et al. 2003). Our current estimate is relatively small (on the order of less than 10), which suggests that a backcross breeding program with the assistance of DNA markers and accelerated breeding could produce a variety of >98% longleaf that essentially lacks the grass-stage (Fig. 3). This variety could prove very useful for plantation management of longleaf pine. Longleaf diallel, planted in 1960 Figure 2. Longleaf pine diallel planting, established on the Harrison Experimental Forest in 1960. Longleaf X 100:0 Timeline w/ DNA markers & topgrafting Longleaf 100:0 Longleaf 100:0 2005-06 X X Slash 0:100 F1 hybrid 50:50 Backcross 1 progeny (BC1) On average 75:25 Select trees w/ height growth and larger proportion longleaf, based on DNA markers For example 85% longleaf (85:15). 2010-11 Backcross 2 progeny (BC2) On average w/out DNA selection 87.5:12.5 However, w/ DNA selection expect 92.5:7.5 Repeat to produce BC3 w/ >98% longleaf Intercross BC3 to produce new variety 2015-16 Figure 3. Interspecies backcross breeding plan and timeline for incorporating early height growth genes into longleaf pine. Literature Cited Kais, A.G. 1981. Longleaf pine production-- a cooperative adventure. In: Proc. South. Nursery Conf., Sept. 2-4, 1980, USDA Forest Service Tech. Pub. SA-TP-17: 73-85. Kais, A.G. and M. Griggs. 1984. Control of brown spot needle blight on longleaf pine through benomyl treatment and breeding. In: Proc. IUFRO Conf. Conifer Needle Diseases, Oct. 14-18, 1984, Gulfport, MS: 15-19. Nelson, C.D., L.H. Lott, and D.P. Gwaze, 2006. Expected genetic gains and development plans for two longleaf pine third-generation seedling seed orchards. In: Proc. 28th South. Forest Tree Improvement Conf., June 20-23, 2005, Raleigh, NC: 108114. Nelson, C.D., C. Weng, T.L. Kubisiak, M. Stine, and C.L. Brown. 2003. On the number of genes controlling the grass stage in longleaf pine. Journal of Heredity 94(5):392-398. Snyder, E.B. and H.J. Derr. 1972. Breeding longleaf pines for resistance to brown spot needle blight. Phytopathology 62:325-329. Snyder, E.B. and Namkoong, G. 1978. Inheritance in a diallel crossing experiment with longleaf pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-140, 31 p. Stine, M., J.H. Roberds, C.D. Nelson, D.P. Gwaze, T. Shupe, and L. Groom 2001. Quantitative trait inheritance in a forty-year old longleaf pine partial diallel test. In: Proc. 26th South. Forest Tree Improvement Conf., June 26-29, 2001, Athens, GA: 101-103. Poster Presentations 115 Long Term Research on the Effects of Fire Regime on Upland Longleaf Pine Forests Thomas E. Ostertag1 and Kevin M. Robertson1 1 Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy, Tallahassee, Florida 32312, USA The importance of fire in maintaining community structure and species composition in upland longleaf pine forests has long been understood. Less well known is what fire regime is most appropriate for adequately controlling hardwood competition, providing wildlife habitat structure and function, and maintaining the highest species richness of indigenous plants. In particular it is important to know at what point following fire hardwoods may no longer be controlled using fire alone, at which point more expensive management techniques (herbicide, mechanical treatment) must be used to restore the habitat. Determining the effects of fire regime requires long-term research. Such research in the past has not adequately addressed native (never plowed) upland longleaf pine forests burned with growing-season fires, alternating fire intervals, or alternating season of fire. With these points in mind, the Fire Ecology Laboratory at Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy (TTRS) has establish a long-term research project in upland longleaf pine forests, to quantify the effects of time since fire (1-7 years) on variables that define healthy forests and suitable wildlife habitat, including hardwood versus herb dominance, plant biodiversity, tree demographics, and fire behavior and effects. The study will measure the effects of different soil types on these variables, as well as the effects of alternating intervals and season of burn, and at what threshold of post-fire succession hardwoods can not be top-killed using fire alone. These results will provide a "toolbox" for managers and planners to achieve desired forestry and habitat management goals in the most cost-effective manner possible. The study is located on Pebble Hill Plantation, a 1600 ha property managed by TTRS near the Georgia-Florida boundary. The study sites are within natural upland pine forest, dominated by longleaf pine and wiregrass, and never before plowed. The pines have been managed with single-tree selection cuts to maintain an uneven size distribution that is relatively open (7-15 m2/ha basal area) to mimic the natural forest structure. Within these areas, 24 plots each measuring 35 x 35 m (0.12 ha) have been permanently established. Plots were all burned in spring 2005 and subsequently will be treated with late spring or early summer (May-June) fires, unless specified otherwise by the treatment. Each is to be treated with one of the following fire intervals, randomly assigned to plots within the three soil type blocks: 1 yr; 1.5 yr (alternating seasons); 2 yr; 3 yr; 1-3 yr random sequence; 4 yr; 5 year; and 7 year. For the 5 yr and 7 yr treatments, if the first burn after interval does not return the system to measured baseline conditions with regard to hardwood dominance, the plot will be burned annually until conditions are restored, after which the treatment will be repeated. The plots are clustered in three groups of the eight treatments and blocked according to soil type to incorporate the range of sand depth from relatively deep (sandhills; Arenic Paleudults) to shallow (clayhills; Plinthic Kandiudults). Plots not scheduled to burn are isolated by mowed and raked firebreaks. Fuel load (4 x 0.25 m2 plots) and fuel moisture (from destructive samples) are measured before burning and, flame length are recorded. Post-burn residue is collected to estimate fuel consumption, particulate emissions, and fireline intensity. Rate of spread and residence time will be measured using Thermocouples, placed at known distances apart and measuring temperatures every 1 second during the burn. Standard weather variables (temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction) are recorded using a portable weather station. Understory plant composition and hardwood sprouts are monitored in each plot in the spring (prior to that year's burns) and fall to cover any seasonal variation in the presence/absence of particular plant species. Within each plot, two 100 m2 (10 x 10 m) vegetation subplots were permanently established using steel reinforcement bar, within diagonal quarters of the plot. Each vegetation subplot has two 1 m2 and 10 m2 nested subplots, to monitor vegetation at different scales (modified Whittaker Plots). And to sample vegetation near the plot corner as well as near the plot center, to test for edge effects. Presence of each plant species and approximate cover is recorded using a modified Daubenmire cover class method. From a marker at the center of each vegetation subplot, all hardwood genetic individuals and sprouts are censused and measured for diameter 3 cm above base within a 2 m radius of the marker (28 m2). Hardwood sprouts are re-censused about one month post-burn to measure percentage of hardwood stem topkill. At the beginning of the study and at 3 year intervals, all trees ≥4 cm at 1.5 m height within the plots will be identified, mapped, and tagged to monitor longterm forest dynamics. Canopy cover is measured during each census using a sighting tube, and tree mortality will be noted following each burn. Poster Presentations 116 Data will be analyzed using ANOVAs with fire regime as the factor, plots as replicates, and soil type as a blocking variable (or additional factor) to test the effects of fire regime on the various habitat characteristics measured. Also, analyses of changes in species composition will be conducted using a DCCA analysis in CANOCO. However, the most significant analysis will simply be a) whether or not post-fire succession resulted in a change in habitat conditions and b) whether or not prescribed fire returns the habitat to suitable conditions under a given fire regime. Poster Presentations 117 Spatial and Age Structure of Old-Growth Mountain Longleaf Pine, (Pinus palustris), Stands in the Talladega National Forest of Northeastern Alabama Brett Rushing1, Kevin Jenne2, and Robert Carter1 1 Department of Biology, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama, 36265, USA 2 Anniston Museum Of Natural History, Anniston, Alabama, 36201, USA Introduction The spatial distribution of trees and seedlings within forested stands can indicate past stand history and provide guidance for making management decisions. Previous research in Coastal Plain longleaf pine ecosystems has found a negative relationship between mature tree and seedling location (Palik et al. 1997, Brockway and Outcalt 1998, Grace and Platt 1995). Compared to Coastal Plain longleaf, the spatial and temporal structure of montane longleaf pine ecosystems are poorly understood (Varner et al. 2003). This research addresses this deficiency in montane longleaf pine stands. Materials and Methods The Talladega National Forest is located in the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge Provinces of northeastern Alabama. This forest has several stands containing relic (>100yr.) longleaf pine trees mixed with younger trees. In the winter of 2004, data were collected for all living members of the Pinus genus >11.4 cm DBH within four stands containing relic longleaf pine trees. Within the stands, a central tree was located as plot center from which the distance and azimuth to trees within 40 m of the plot center were measured. All trees were measured at DBH (to nearest cm). All trees were cored at breast height using an increment borer. Cores were stored, dried, and the annual ring increments measured to the nearest 0.01 mm using photo-lab equipment and ImagePro Plus 4.0 software. Mean growth for each specimen was then calculated, and a master chronology was created for each stand by averaging mean growth for each year. During the winter of 2006, the stands were revisited and the distance and azimuth to seedlings and saplings under 5 m in height were measured from plot center. The seedling/sapling plots had a radius of 20 m with the exception of stand 62-29 which was limited to a 10 m radius due the large number of seedlings. The spatial relationship between mature trees was analyzed with Ripley’s univariate K(l) with 95% confidence envelopes using 99 Monte Carlo Permutations with the program Programita (Wiegand and Moloney 2004). Cluster analysis of mature trees using x and y coordinates and tree age was performed using Systat (2004). In addition, dispersion indices were calculated including Index of Dispersion (ID), Index of Cluster Size (ICS), and Green’s Index using the Program PASSAGE (Rosenberg 2001). Ripley’s bivariate K(l) was calculated to determine the relationship between mature trees and seedling locations using the program Programita (Wiegand and Moloney 2004) Results The results varied with each stand reflecting the unique stand histories and disturbance patterns. Dispersion indices indicated overall clumped distribution when all trees were included (Table 1). Stands 64-1 and 31-9 have lower clumping values due to the smaller number of trees in the plot. When only trees greater than 90 years old were analyzed, a similar pattern was found except all clumping values were lower due to the lower number of trees in the plot. The GI for trees greater than 90 years old in Stand 31-9 was nearly uniform (Table 1). Ripley’s univariate K(l) indicated clustering (above the confidence envelope) of mature trees with the exception of Stand 31-9. Stands 37-23 and 62-29 are consistently clustered above a spatial scale of 9 to 10 m. Stand 64-1 was clustered at some points but not at others. It was the only stand with mature hardwoods within the stand. Stand 31-9 was consistently random in spatial distribution. This is also reflected in low dispersion indices (Table 1). Table 1. Dispersion indices for all trees and only trees >90 years old. Trees <90 years old All Trees Stand # of Trees 64-1 45 12.36 11.36 0.47 4.36 3.36 0.14 37-23 97 24.25 23.25 0.97 7.21 6.21 0.26 31-9 37 62-29 90 Poster Presentations 118 ID 8.8 ICS 7.8 GI ID ICS GI 0.33 2.67 1.67 0.07 23.24 22.24 0.93 5.72 4.72 0.2 Cluster analysis based on age and location indicated a large number of clusters in Stands 37-23 and 62-29. The clusters in 31-9 and 64-1 were less numerous and more uniform in age. Analysis of the relationship between mature trees and seedlings using Ripley’s Bivariate K(l) also yielded variable results. In Stands 64-1 and 31-09, there was a negative relationship (below confidence envelope) between mature tree and seedling location up to a spatial scale of 15-17 m. Thereafter the relationship is positive. Thus seedlings and saplings are not found in close proximity to trees. For Stands 62-29 and 37-23, there is no negative relationship. However, Stand 31-9 never showed a large negative relationship between trees and seedlings. Discussion Tree Spatial Pattern and Disturbance Previous research has shown that longleaf pine trees and seedlings have negative spatial relationships (Palik 1997, Brockway and Outcalt 1998, Grace and Platt 1995). Avery et al. (2004) found clustering of seedlings but no spatial relationship with mature trees. This research indicates that the spatial distribution of trees and relationship between the trees and seedlings varies depending on stand history. Stands 31-9 and 64-1 had fewer trees and a lower number of clusters. In 31-9, this can be attributed to a lack of anthropogenic disturbances such as timber harvesting. It is located in a remote area with no roads to provide access. Stand 64-1 can be explained by hardwood trees within the stand that likely influenced spatial geometry. This may explain the wider spatial distribution of trees and fewer clusters. The stand is adjacent to a road so past disturbances are expected. Stands 37-23 and 62-29 both had a stronger degree of clustering (Table 1) and number of clusters. These stands showed more numerous periods of growth increase and tree recruitment indicating a history of frequent disturbances (Jenne 2004). Disturbances have been found to increase tree clustering during point pattern simulations in Minnesota (Woodall and Graham 2004). The two periods of drastic increase in mean growth seen in these stands may be attributed to logging, fire suppression, and European settlement patterns. No large scale climatic disturbances have occurred in the study area (Climatology of Alabama) to explain the drastic changes in growth and recruitment. A drastic increase in mean annual growth that occurred in 1833 coincides with Native American removal and European settlement and resource exploitation (Yarnell, 1998). It can be speculated that this period of land resource exploitation could have yielded vast recruitment with less competition and increased growth rates. It can also be speculated that the growth increase starting in 1933 is due to disturbance by the utilization of wood and other resources by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the depression and also during World War II. These growth responses were not found in Stand 31-9. Its growth rate remained relatively uniform from 1825 to the present. Its remote location likely reduced human exploitation (Jenne 2004). Seedling Spatial Pattern The negative relationship between mature trees and seedlings in Stands 31-9 and 64-1 can be explained by the lower number of trees and seedlings (66 seedlings for 319, 146 seedlings for 64-1). The fewer overstory trees and their dispersion throughout the plot reduces that chances of a clustering near trees. The plots had not experienced recent prescribed burns needed for seedling establishment (Wahlenberg 1946). Plot 64-1 also had some hardwood trees within the stand that could reduce seedling survival. Stands 37-23 and 62-29 both contained the largest number of trees and seedlings (1987 for 62-29, 675 for 37-23). The large number of seedlings can be attributed to prescribed fire within the previous 2 years and the large number of mature trees to provide seed. Literature Cited Avery, C.R., S. Cohen, K.C. Parker, and J.S. Kush. 2004. Spatial patterns of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) seedling establishment on the Croatan National Forest, North Carolina. North Carolina Acad. Sci. 120: 131-142. Brockway, D.G. and K.W. Outcalt. 1998. Gap-phase regeneration in longleaf pine wiregrass ecosystems. Forest Ecol. Mgt. 106: 125-139. Climatological Summary , Alabama, Selected Cities, U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. Tuscaloosa Library Bindery, AL. Palik, B.J., R.J. Mitchell, G. Houseal, and N.Pederson. 1997. Effects of canopy structure on resource availability and seedling responses in a longleaf pine ecosystem. Can. J. Forest Res. 27:1458-1464. Grace, S.L. and W.J. Platt. 1995. Effects of adult tree density and fire on demography of pregrass stage juvenile longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.). J. Ecol. 83: 75-86. Rosenberg, M.S. 2001 PASSAGE. Pattern Analysis, Spatial Statistics, and Geographic Exegesis, Ver.1.0. Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. SYSTAT. 2004. SYSTAT 11.0 for Windows. SYSTAT Software, Richmond, CA. Poster Presentations 119 Varner, J.M., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2003. Structural characteristics of frequently burned old-growth longleaf pine stands in the mountains of Alabama. Castanea 68: 211-221. Wahlenberg, 1946. Longleaf pine: its ecology, regeneration, protection, growth, and management. Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foundation, Washington, DC. 429 pp. Wiegand, T. and K. A. Moloney. 2004. Rings, circles, and null-models for point pattern analysis in ecology. Oikos 104: 209-229. Woodall, C.W. and J.M. Graham. 2004. A technique for conducting point pattern analysis of cluster stem-maps. For. Ecol.. Mgt. 198: 31-37. Yarnell S.L. 1998. The Southern Appalachians: A History of the Landscape. USDA Forest Service Technical Report. SRS-18. 43pp. Poster Presentations 120 Spacing Recommendations for Longleaf Pine David B. South1 1 School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA My name is David Malone, and I am the Forest Silviculturist with the US Forest Service at Savannah River Site south of Aiken, SC. At our location, we plant nearly 800 acres of bareroot longleaf seedling a year. The survival rate 90% 1st yr, and 85% 3rd yr. Our spacing is 10x6 ft avg over 700 seedling/ac. We are facing a problem with the high survival rates in our plantations. What to do? Pre-commerical or let the stands go until 1st thin? Do you know of any research papers on recommendations of actions for longleaf plantations? Dear Mr. Malone: If you plant too many trees per acre, then it will cost you money to correct the mistake. A pre-commercial thinning (to reduce stocking levels to 250 to 400 trees per acre at age four) might cost $100 or more per acre. Letting the stands go until age 20 or 25 yr (at the first thin), will reduce average stand diameter (Lohery and Bailey 1977) and will reduce the net present value of the stand (Teeter and Somers 2005). If your objective includes improving ecosystem restoration (Stainback and Alavalapati 2004), improving wildlife habitat (Thackston 2002), early production of sawlogs (South 2006), and avoiding an early thinning (Kush et al. 2006), be sure to not plant too many trees per acre. When using good quality seedlings and with machine planting, a 14-foot row spacing with 7 to 8 feet between seedlings (450 to 390 trees per acre) should produce about 300 to 380 live trees per acre at age 3 yr. Table 1 compares three spacing recommendations for either container-grown longleaf pine, or machineLongleaf Pine Seedlings planted per acre Seedling cost/acre Row spacing Expected live seedlings - yr 1 Expected sawtimber trees 30 yr Expected DBH at first thin Expected DBH yr 30 Expected sawtimber yr 30 Rings per inch Basal area yr 30 Pinestraw production yr 30 Poles at age 39 WHIP eligible? (subsidy) Expected forage yr 30 N.P.V @5% (no straw or poles) Favored by Wide spacing 300 to 499 $39-$65 12-16 ft. 210 to 450/ac 90/ac 8 inches 9.1 inches 81 gtons/ac 6.6 116 sq.ft. 115 bales/yr large diameter YES 922 lbs/ac $858/ac Wildlife managers planted large-diameter bareroot stock. As you know, it is very important to define landowner objectives before recommending the desired tree spacing. Literature Cited Kush, J.S., J. C. G Goelz , R.A. Williams, D.R. Carter, and P.E. Linehan. 2006 Longleaf Pine Growth and Yield. In: The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Silviculture and Restoration. S. Jose, E.J. Jokela, and D.L. Miller, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York. Environmental Management Series. pp. 251-267. Lohery, R.E. and R.L. Bailey. 1977. Yield tables and stand structure for unthinned longleaf pine plantations in Louisiana and Texas. USDA For. Ser. Res. Paper SO133. 53 pg. South. For. Exp. Sta., New Orleans, LA. South, D.B. 2006. Planting longleaf pine at wide spacings. Native Plants Journal 7(1): 79-88 Stainback, G.A. and J.R.R. Alavalapati. 2004. Restoring longleaf pine through silvopasture practices: An economic analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 6 (3-4): 371-378. Teeter LD, Somers G. 2005. Longleaf ecosystem restoration: long-rotation economics. In: Kush JS, compiler. Symposium proceedings, fifth Longleaf Alliance regional conference; 2004 Oct 12–15; Hattiesburg, MS. Auburn (AL): Longleaf Alliance. Report No. 8. p 129– 139. Thackston, R. 2002. About the Bobwhite Quail Initiative. Wildlife Resources Division. Middle spacing 500 to 699 $65-91 10-12 ft. 350 to 630/ac 143/ac 6 inches 8.6 inches 55 gtons/ac 7.0 132 sq.ft. 130 bales greatest # of poles NO 820 lbs/ac $802/ac Values are site specific. Do not use above examples to predict future outcomes for all planted stands. Poster Presentations 121 Close spacing 700 to 900 $91-117 8-10 ft. 490 to 810/ac 99/ac 5 inches 8.5 inches 40 gtons/ac 7.0 145 sq.ft. 145 bales few poles NO 650 lbs/ac $777/ac Nursery managers Ichauway’s Prescribed Fire Management Program 1994-2006: A Balanced Approach Jonathan M. Stober1 and Steven B. Jack1 1 Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Ichauway. Newton, Georgia, 39870, USA Abstract Ichauway, an 11,733 ha preserve in southwest Georgia, contains significant remnants of the fire dependent longleaf pine-wiregrass (Pinus palustris-Aristida beyrichiana) community. Prescribed fire is the principal forest management tool utilized at Ichauway for over 75 years. During the past 12 years the fire management program has documented all prescriptions and evaluations for all fire events. Fires are prescribed to meet specific objectives for each burn unit with an overall objective to burn 4,5005,300 ha annually. Keystone objectives for every prescribed fire are safety, fire control, smoke management and resource protection. After each fire event fire extent and degree of crown scorch are mapped and placed in a GIS. Weather conditions, fire objectives, fire origin, containment, and subjective evaluations of fuel consumption, duff consumption, and woody plant top-kill are recorded for each burn. Stated fire objectives are often focused on fuel reduction and hardwood control, but can vary widely from educational demonstrations to wiregrass seed production. Typically 99% of all fire events are prescribed with containment median above 97% for over 1980 recorded fire events in the past 12 years. Two-thirds of the acreage is burned in the dormant season (before April) in a given year, and 87% of all prescribed fires occur with a KBDI value below 400. Overstory crown scorch averages 5% of area burned. Analyses of 11 years’ data found crown scorch to be dependent on understory type, with 65% of all scorch occurring on wiregrass, 26% on oldfield and 5% on shrub-scrub groundcovers. By focusing on burn unit objectives and frequency rather than season of burn the fire management program has, over the past 12 years, consistently met the goal of burning 50% of Ichauway’s landbase each year, including drought years. The current management strategy provides a balanced approach to meet objectives and sustain the ecosystem. Introduction The frequent application of prescribed fire to Ichauway has created a property where high quality examples of native communities endure today. Prescribed fire is the one management tool that is uniformly applied across the entire property. The property contains more than 9,700 ha (24,000ac) of upland pine grassland habitats, with the remainder consisting of agricultural fields, wetlands, and riparian hardwood hammocks. The pine forest at Ichauway was intensively harvested early in the 20th century and currently has basal area ranging from 9-15 m2/ha (40-60 ft2/ac) and higher with pines being widely spaced. Upland pine habitats at Ichauway are dominated by mature 75-95 year old longleaf pine and either a wiregrass or broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus) old field understory. Upland hardwood is generally localized to fire shadows around roads, field edges, fire breaks, wildlife food plots, old house sites and aquatic habitats. The keystone objectives for every prescribed fire are safety, fire control, smoke management and protection of the resource. Each prescribed fire has specific objectives that guide the application and purpose for the fire which may include one or more of the following: fuel reduction and hardwood control, perpetuating fire dependent species and restoration, wildlife habitat management, research, education and demonstration, seedbed or planting preparation, wiregrass seed production, wetland management, boundary security, debris or slash burning, and hay production. The overall management strategy is to burn individual units on a 2-year rotation, but this can range anywhere from 8-months to more than 5-years depending on the location, objectives and conditions of the burn unit. A 2-year rotation helps to maintain fuel loading within a range that minimizes the risk and damaging effects of wildfire. Methods At the beginning of the year a map (Figure 1) is given to the Natural Resource Manager that identifies the annual rough accumulation (fuel accumulation) for each burn unit. The Natural Resource Manager identifies and coordinates all prescribed fires on the property. Prescribed fires are executed with a team of 3-5 people, each having a two-way radio, using All-Terrain Vehicles outfitted with a drip torch and a water tank. Because current, accurate fire weather is so critical to planning and executing a successful prescribed burn, weather data are collected to help predict fire behavior. Each prescription records weather forecast information on the burn plan with information collected from on site weather stations and the Georgia Forestry Commission Fire Weather web site. Before a prescribed fire is ignited minimum weather conditions must be met or exceeded: transport winds >14kph (>9 mph), mixing height >520m (>1700ft) and smoke dispersion index >40. Poster Presentations 122 fires from 1994-1999 were primarily fuel reduction fires to reduce duff accumulations so hotter maintenance fires could be subsequently introduced. Crown scorch of forested areas is divided into 5 categories: none, <1/3, 1/3-2/3, >2/3 but not all, and complete. The later three categories are mapped into a GIS. Crown scorch averages 5-6% of the total burned acreage each year. On average 58% of the crown scorch is in the 1/3-2/3 class, while the >2/3 and complete scorch classes average 38% and 4% respectively. Trends indicate that scorch has increased since 1994 and a greater proportion is scorched during the growing season. Crown scorch is also dependent on understory type with wiregrass more then twice as likely to result in scorched crowns. Figure 1: years or rough map (fuel accumulation) for 2006 with 2 and 3 or more years of rough mapped by burn blocks bounded by roads and firebreaks at Ichauway. Approximately two weeks following the prescribed fire the effects of the fire are evaluated by recording the containment, origin, and assigning subjective classes for duff consumption, woody understory kill and vegetative fuel consumption. The extent of the fire and degree of crown scorch are mapped and entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS). Much debate surrounds the need for exclusive use of growing season prescribed fire in the southeast. Ichauway has been managed for over 75 years with March and April prescribed fires and has maintained and enhanced its fire maintained longleaf pine grasslands. It is the opinion of the Jones Center staff that fire frequency is more important than season of burn. Prescribed fires can occur any month at Ichauway but generally occur during the first seven months of the year, allowing vegetation time to recover before winter. Burn units are targeted by objective rather than season; that is, maintaining manageable fuel loads and desired future conditions for the burn unit drive the decision to burn. Increased frequency presents more opportunities to vary the season, weather and type of fire needed to move the burn unit toward maintenance condition. Table 1: Total acreage burned during the dormant (October-March) and growing season (April-September) by year at Ichauway. Results and Discussion Prescribed fire objectives most often include reducing fuel loads and controlling hardwoods. The principle ignition source for >99% of all fire events are prescribed with the remainder either jumps from adjacent properties or lightning strikes. Containment median is above 97% (ranges 83-99% between years) with almost all spot-overs contained during the fire. Since 2000 containment has improved with the removal of snags along burn unit boundaries. Using a subjective evaluation of fuel removed by the fire, on average 30% of the fires are categorized as “clean” meaning all fuel is removed with the remainder of the fires leaving “patchy” fuel beds with a median of 20% of the fuel remaining. Keeping the woody deciduous understory in shrub form is a primary goal of the prescribed fire program. Over the past six-years 80% of the burn units have achieved over 95% control of the woody understory contrasted with only 55% control from 1994-1999. The major factor controlling this difference is that the prescribed Year 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Averages Poster Presentations 123 Dormant Season Growing Season Total Acres 7765 11332 7054 9822 6830 8734 8796 6294 4943 3153 4994 8199 13473 5868 2726 4175 3886 3196 2623 2740 2936 5449 4813 5706 2377 1850 13632 14058 11229 13708 10026 11356 11535 9230 10393 7966 10700 10576 15323 Percent Growing Season 43 19 37 28 32 23 24 32 52 60 53 22 12 7799 3719 11518 34 Weather patterns in the southeast dictate that the most consistent weather to control and perform prescribed fires occur from December through the end of March (Figure 2). Thus the majority of prescribed fires take advantage of these conditions in order to meet yearly objectives for acreage burned. After the end of March the drought index predictably increases and intensifies depending on spring and summer precipitation amounts. During the growing season as drought index values increase prescribed fires become more difficult to control and execute, especially if drought conditions occur and fuel loads are excessive. If management executed prescribed fires exclusively during the growing season weather conditions would dictate the acreage burned each year. When drought conditions occurred this would push the prescribed fire team further behind goals and result in increased fuel loads during the next growing season. Under the current management strategy at Ichauway an average of 34% of all burning is conducted during the growing season over the past 13 years (Table 1). Once fuel loads were brought under control in 1994 and 1995 more growing season prescribed fire has been utilized. From 1999-2001 growing season burning was reduced due to the drought conditions in the region. The low acreage typically burned during May and June are due to the spring droughts that often suspend all prescribed burning in the region. Summary and Conclusions Prescribed fire is embedded in Ichauway's culture. For over 75 years prescribed fire has actively been used as a land management tool. During each of the past 12 years our objective of placing prescribed fire on approximately 50% of the property has been achieved (Figure 3). The ability to consistently meet objectives is due to manpower and equipment being readily available to exploit weather opportunities when they occur. Despite drought conditions from 1999-2001 the prescribed fire program continued to meet its objectives by taking advantage of weather conditions as they occurred regardless of season. By burning frequently and not constraining management to growing season fires, fuel loads are kept in check, fires are kept under control and smoke is managed when conditions are optimal. This keeps the prescribed fire team setting prescribed fire rather than fighting wildfire. The current management strategy offers a balanced approach to meet objectives, accomplish goals and sustain an ecosystem. For more information visit www.jonesctr.org. Figure 2: Summary of all KBDI values over the past 13 years for a calendar year are illustrated with a normalized trend line and all prescribed fires (red dots) occurring between 1995 and 2006. White dots indicated fires set for fuel reduction and wildlife management, particularly bobwhite quail management. Figure 3: The percentage of prescribed fire acreage burned per year was based on a 5-year cumulative burn extent defined by burn mapping 1994-1998, 1999-2003 and the total cumulative extent thereafter divided by the total acreage burned for each year. Poster Presentations 124 Allatoona Lake Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration Project Terrell Stoves1 1 Allatoona Lake, Cartersville, Georgia, 30120, USA Abstract The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages the 24,000 acres of land around Allatoona Lake, which is 30 miles northwest of Atlanta, Georgia. In 2002, USACE foresters began planning the restoration of a sixty acre forested tract on a remote site in the heart of the Allatoona Wildlife Management Area. USACE foresters chose this site because a small number of longleaf pine trees were still present, showing that the site one time contained a longleaf population. This site also had a sandy clay, acidic soil with which longleaf pine is associated. A continuing challenge for both Allatoona Lake and the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration Project is neighboring development. The continued expansion and development of the metro Atlanta area has put considerable pressure on USACE land and makes conducting prescribed fire operations increasingly difficult. These prescribed fires play an essential role in maintaining the longleaf pine forest and its understory. The US Army Corps of Engineers efforts at Allatoona Lake have started the process of restoring a once dominant ecosystem to the area. This site is located at the northern tip of the central portion of the longleaf pine’s original documented range and few forests in the region still contain longleaf components. At Allatoona Lake, an attempt is being made to turn a forested site that had only a remnant of longleaf pine scattered throughout the landscape into a mature longleaf stand. With continued management, we hope this site will serve as an opportunity to showcase a diverse and important ecosystem in the heart of one of the fastest growing parts of the country. Poster Presentations 125 The Role of Ritual and Ceremony in Wildlands Conservation: Reestablishing Primal Connections Johnny Stowe1 1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina, 29224, USA A society is ultimately measured not by what it develops or consumes, but rather by what it has nurtured and preserved. - Jim Posewitz, Orion: The Hunter’s Institute The worldview of a society is often written more truthfully on the land than in its documents. - Kimmerer and Lake (2001) Natural resource managers tend to be trained in the scientific method and the natural sciences, with objectivity and a “business-like” approach deemed paramount to their professional duties. These qualities are no doubt imperative to conservation, and must always be part of land manager’s training and operations. But despite the salient conservation success stories in North America and other areas, the outright loss of the rural and wild landscape and the impaired state of those lands not lost indicate that other tools are needed if we are to succeed in restoring and maintaining the ecological integrity of the landscape. I call for increased emphasis on the cultural attributes of the landscape as an end in itself, as well as to serve as a means to the end of conserving natural landscape attributes. I discuss the role of ritual and ceremony and their attendant icons and symbols, in land protection and management, and suggest ways to incorporate them into the conservationist’s “tool kit.” Ritual and ceremony, and the icons (symbols) tied to them, are integral but often taken-for-granted parts of human ecology. All cultures consider them vital social mechanisms for recognizing important events in time and space, and in the past these events were often linked to Nature. Today however -- especially in the Western World where we are increasingly disconnected to the natural world -- our rites and icons increasingly tend to be artifacts. Whereas throughout much of human existence phenomena such as births and deaths, adulthood, marriages, first big game killed by a young hunter, first annual hunts for certain species, first and last annual frosts, biannual solstices and equinoxes, moon phases and other phenological events were celebrated in a prescribed fashion aimed at linking, emphasizing, celebrating and memorializing key aspects of ontogeny and tribal events vis-à-vis the observable natural environment, today we tend to ignore or marginalize many of these events, and/or to recognize and symbolize them with human-made products. Salient symbols of contemporary Western Society include cell phones, computers, email, iPods and other electronic gadgets, SUVs, McDonald’s and such. The regular use of, and association with these -- whether formalized and prescribed, or through non-reflective habit -- could be deemed key, albeit arguably unhealthy, rituals of our times. Loeffler (1989) described technofantasy as “a state of mind where human attention is externalized and focused on the process and product of human invention. In Western culture technofantasy has resulted in many ramifications, including rampant extraction of natural resources, widespread pollution of natural environments, and a form of cultural preoccupation with inorganic trivia.” Even “outdoors folks” such as hunters seem these days to be addicted to “technogadgets,” such as ATVs and other “high-technology” in the forms of optics, firearms, walkie-talkies, game cameras and game feeders. Hunters also tend to be more interested in rituals such as planting food plots (often with invasive exotic plant species) or dumping out corn for bait than they are in restoring native ecosystems. These practices can become entrenched inter-generationally in just a few years, and then they are hard to stop. And they seem to often become ends in themselves, rather than means (healthy and effective or not) to an end. My keen interest in the role of ceremony tied to wildlands protection arose in the context of hunting, when in December 1993 I went deer (Cervidea) and boar (Sus scrofa) hunting near the town of Pszczyna in southern Poland. While there, I killed both a young red deer (Cervus elaphus) and a mature fallow deer (Dama dama) stag, and I experienced the ancient European ritual of honoring the slain game and the hunt itself with the “broken branches” ceremony (Stowe 1995). When I returned to the Southeastern U.S., I brought with me a deep appreciation for the hunting ritual I learned in Poland, and have tailored it to my taste and needs and continued it to this day. I conceived these words -- i.e. this prayer -- to memorialize the game I kill and the landscape it lived in, and recite them in the field before I gut the animal, and then again at the table: “In you (the game), I recognize and appreciate the land that supports my existence. I am thankful for your beauty and grace, and for the nourishment you will give me and my family and friends. I hope your meat will give me strength Poster Presentations 126 and inspiration to restore and protect this landscape. And I hope the paths of your kind and mine cross often, as they have in the past, and that we may always be a blessing to one another." Years after bringing the ceremony described above into my life, I discovered fellow Southerner William Faulkner’s works on hunting, and was delighted to read of a similar ritual practiced long ago in the Mississippi riverbottoms. In Go Down Moses, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Faulkner (1990) described how Sam Fathers blooded The Boy’s cheeks as he also honored his first white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) buck: “I slew you; my bearing must not shame your quitting life. My conduct forever must become your death.” Mautz (1995), in “So What’s Wrong with Hugging a Tree?” -- one of the most eloquent and prescient essays I have encountered -- points out how natural resource professionals have marginalized themselves by avoiding at all costs - in curricula, avocationally, and on-the-job - any subject matter approaching a spiritual connection to Nature. We seem to fear that expressing or even recognizing such liberal-arts-type-sensitivity “suggests tree-hugging or bambi-ism.” I think Dr. Mautz is on to something. I believe that too many scientists and other professionals working with natural resources become almost robotic, and deprive themselves of the ceremony and ritual that could enrich their lives, as well as make their work more relevant and effective on-the-ground. I am not a scientist, but the poignant words of one of the best, and a hunter and philosopher as well -- Valerius Geist (1975) -- resonate within me as I ponder how we can garner more support for wildlands protection. Val wrote: “In the past I revolted against ceremony, ridiculing it as senseless, stupid, outmoded; but no more. Ceremonies serve a good purpose. The forms are prescribed, and through their performance give pleasure, security, identity, confidence in social relationships and, as such, an ‘inner strength.’ Many ceremonies permit persons to act out their feelings in a meaningful way. Ceremonies bind together those who participate; they delineate an in-group; a gathering of like minds. Ceremonies often arouse emotions, and ensure that we shall remember the occasion as well as the persons who participated. Trials by crisis in fraternities did not arise by accident; they help strangers become loyal friends. Ceremonies in war and peace, in marriage, birth, and death, unite families, communities, and nations; they help people to live in security and trust. It is not surprising that even ancient philosophers of human nature expounded the need for ritual and order as a prerequisite to civilized life.” I had my way, no student would be allowed to study science and be let loose on laboratories or field, without a degree in liberal arts. And I do not say this in jest!” (Valerius Geist, personal communication 2001). Anyone who wonders about what type of scientist makes such a claim should do a literature review of Val’s voluminous body of work on evolution and other such matters of “hard science.” I particularly recommend his magnum opus, Life Strategies, Human Evolution, Environmental Design: Toward a Biological Theory of Health. Consider this. What single book has had an impact on conservation like Aldo Leopold’s (1949) A Sand County Almanac? This classic is used as a text in classes as sundry as -on the one hand, sociology, literature, visual arts, philosophy, psychology, and recreation -- and on the somewhat diametric other, wildlife ecology and management, forest policy, wilderness management, and restoration ecology. And it is a book fraught with ritual and symbols linked to the natural world and people’s role in that world. Fran Hamerstrom (1989), the first female in the wildlife management profession, described how her and her husband sometimes purposely went afield hungry in order to more fully appreciate the most atavistic role of hunting, that of garnering meat for immediate consumption. She wrote, “A good appetite – indeed sometimes real hunger – is part of a real hunt for us. … those who have never known hunger, and who do not understand the interrelationships between hunting and hunger can barely understand and grasp hunting.” Many of the Nature-based ceremonies that once were part of our lives have been lost or usurped as we moved from one continent to another, changed lifestyles and religions, and otherwise changed our societies. Through interpretation of the archaeological record, and reviewing history, we can revive the ancient rites that once sustained us. And when the past doesn’t suffice to lead us into the future, we can surely develop our own ways to honor and memorialize our activities. Author, filmmaker and wildlands-loving iconoclast Douglas Peacock (Loeffler 1989) described such innovation, “I have my own little private ceremonies. When my culture doesn’t provide ceremonies I just bloody make up my own.” The brilliant human ecologist Paul Shepard (1998), in Coming Home to the Pleistocene, suggests practical ways we can incorporate key elements of our primal past into our contemporary lives. Many of these elements are ritualistic and symbolic by nature. Stowe et al. (2001) described how the death and burial of loved ones could be dealt with in a manner aimed at protecting the landscape as well as healing grieved hearts and memorializing the deceased. Poster Presentations 127 And So: Stephen Pyne (2000), referring to the need to revive prescribed fire, wrote, “Prescribed fire doesn’t need a policy. It needs a poet.” I agree. And we may soon have such a stateswoman or man. Janisse Ray and others have captured the hearts of Southerners with their place-based prose. By linking place and culture and time through ritual and ceremony and icons we can create a setting in which local people can find inspiration, and out of that, we may one day find our poet -- our contemporary Thoreau or Leopold, our Faulkner or Rachel Carson. I have sought to protect my native mountain longleaf pinelands of northwest Georgia and northeast Alabama by linking that unique landscape to the past, and to the cultures of the various people who have lived there over the last dozen or so millennia (Stowe 2004,2006). Rituals associated with hunting -- as well as those I am developing for land management activities such as timber harvesting, firewood cutting, longleaf pine grassland restoration, prescribed burning, and control of invasive exotic species -- are part of my land management approach, and through them I hope to make my hunting and restoration work, and the landscape they center on more meaningful to myself, as well as to my family and friends and generations far into the future, and I hope that my family and friends and others now unknown will continue what I have started. We Southerners tend to be mighty proud of place and identity, yet in land management and protecting our culture we have made monumental mistakes – e.g., we latched onto the once-novel idea of introducing invasive exotic species into our landscape as putative panaceas and promoting them at the expense of natives for “conservation;” we often become so blinded by individual private property rights issues that we cross the line beyond which the landscape as a whole, including those private tracts, becomes threatened; we allowed the ancient multi-cultural tool of woods-burning to be usurped by a cartoon bear and other carpetbaggers (Stowe 2002); and we forgot that our native landscape, described by Leopold (1947) as the native soils, waters, flora and fauna, as well as local people -- is our culture, heritage and character. This upsets me. Part of that may be because my people were farmers once allied with King Cotton, who sent so much of our native topsoil down to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. But those earlier generations did not have the scientific knowledge that we now have and so are not culpable in the moral sense to anywhere near the degree that we are, because we know quite clearly the effects of our actions. I had the honor of corresponding with fellow Southerner E.O. Wilson a few times (personal communication 2000, 2003), and when I bemoaned the lack of a conservation ethic in so many of my fellow Southerners, he gave me hope and inspiration when he responded: “Our fellow Southerners will come around to conservation, and big-time too – when they realize it’s their heritage.” What an amazing difference in my motivation such a few words from a kindred spirit and fellow Son of the Southland had on me. So let’s “come around;” let’s restore our heritage, those primal connections that once bound us to the land in a way that made us who we are, those sacred links that shaped our character and culture. Let’s do it for the good of the land, as well as ourselves. I am deeply obliged to Joyce Marie Brown of the University of Central Florida for handling all aspects of the graphic design and layout of this poster. Literature Cited Faulkner, W. 1990. Go Down Moses. Random House. 365 pp. Geist, V. 1975. Mountain Sheep and Man in the Northern Wilds. Cornell University Press. 248 pp. Hamerstrom, F. 1989. Is She Coming Too? Iowa State University Press. 156 pp. Kimmerer, R.W. and F.K. Lake. 2001. The Role of Indigenous Burning in Land Management. Journal of Forestry. 99:11. 36-41. Leopold, A. 1947. The Ecological Conscience. Bulletin of the Garden Club of America. September. 45-53. Leopold, Aldo. 1968. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press. 226 pp. Loeffler, J. 1989. Interviews with Iconoclasts. Harbinger House. 194 pp. Mautz, W. 1995. So What’s Wrong with Hugging a Tree? Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23:1. 107-108. Pyne, S.J. 2000. Green Skies of Montana. Forest History. Spring. 37-38 Shepard, P. 1998. Coming Home to the Pleistocene. Island Press. 195 pp. Stowe, J. 1995. A Quality Hunt: European Style. 2:2. 11-12. Stowe, J., E.V. Schmidt, D. Green. 2001. Toxic Burials: The Final Insult. Conservation Biology. 15:6. 1817-1819. Stowe, J. 2002. Woods Burning in South Carolina: The Nature and Culture of Wildland Fire and its Impact on Our State’s Character. Unpublished speech presented at the Annual Meeting of the SC Prescribed Fire Council. 10 November 2004 National Wild Turkey Fed. Headquarters: Edgefield, SC Stowe, J. 2004. Wildlife and other Aspects of the Mountain Longleaf Pine Forests and other Ecosystems of Northeast Alabama and Northwest Georgia. Pages 1-27 in John S. Kush. Compiler. Proceedings of the First Montane Longleaf Pine Conference. 15-17 OCT 2003. Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama. Longleaf Alliance Rep No. 7. Stowe, J. 2006. Connecting the Longleaf Pinelands of Northeast Alabama and Northwest Georgia: Our Last Chance for Corridors to Protect the Special Things. Pages 24-28 in Martin L. Cipollini. Compiler. Proceedings of the Second Montane Longleaf Pine Conference Workshop. 18-19 NOV 2005. Berry College. Mt. Berry, GA. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 9. Poster Presentations 128 Private Property Rights vis-à-vis Establishing and Maintaining Invasive Exotic Plant Species: Legal and Ethical Ramifications of the “Right to Plant” versus Other’s “Right to Maintain Landscape Integrity and Property Values” Johnny Stowe1 1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina, 29224 USA Conservation is paved with good intentions which prove to be futile, or even dangerous, because they are devoid of critical understanding either of the land, or of economic land-use. Aldo Leopold (1949) Abstract Here in the Southeastern United States the issue of private property rights (PPRs) is often an emotional and divisive polemic. Many landowners resent perceived intrusion of PPRs by government and other entities, and the notion of “It’s my land and I’ll do what I please on it,” resonates in many land use discussions. In this context, I call attention to the nascent, but rapidlyincreasing and ubiquitous, recognition of the pernicious and insidious threat of invasive exotic species to the natural and cultural heritage, as well as to the economy, of the Southern landscape. Specifically, I review these threats -- along with the four basic tenets comprising the “sticks in the PPR bundle,” as they relate to introducing, harboring, and promoting invasive exotic species -- and call attention to the incongruities, inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in certain PPR advocate’s positions. Introduction In the United States, few things are held as sacrosanct as private property rights (PPR). The National Woodland Owner’s Association (2005) survey of its members and affiliates -- The Top Ten Forestry Issues for 20052006 -- ranked “Private Property Rights” as second only to “Fair Income, Inheritance and Property Taxes.” While I have no data to support my contention, I doubt that PPRs are more highly esteemed and defended anywhere in the nation than in the Southeastern U.S. (SE US). Keville Larson, past president of the Forest Landowner’s Association, which represents landowners -small and large -- who own and manage more than 47 million acres in 17 SE states, told the group’s members that “private property rights [are] the most fundamental element binding us together” (Larson 2003: emphasis in the original). Most landowners know in general what PPRs are, and that level of understanding usually suffices for the situations most of us deal with. But as the landscape becomes increasingly fragmented -- and as we get more-and-more neighbors, and they are often “outside” (not local) folks that we do not know -- the specifics and nuances of landowner rights tend to take on greater importance. In this paper, I will review the four “sticks” that represent the tenets comprising the “bundle” of PPRs, and use them as a lens through which to examine the introduction and promotion of, and failure-to-control, invasive exotic plant species in the SE US. Private Property Rights: The Precious Bundle The principles of PPRs can be described as a bundle of sticks that collectively represent the rights we hold so inviolate as landowners. They are exclusivity, specificity, enforceability, and transferability. Let’s examine them each. Exclusivity refers to the nature of ownership, or more precisely, the level of exclusivity; e.g., single owner, and various partnerships such as joint tenancy and tenancy in common. Easements of ingress-and-egress and conservation easements are examples of limited exclusivity. Specificity refers to the particular rights assigned to the owner. Most private landowners hold fee simple title to their land, which represents absolute ownership, as opposed to leasing, renting, life estates, and mineral, timber and other rights of use. Easements are also defined in these terms. Enforceability refers to the means to enforce one’s landowner rights, i.e., if those rights are impugned, infringed upon or usurped, then our legal system has, or should have, mechanisms to protect the landowner. Transferability refers to the ability to sell, give away, rent, lease or otherwise divest a portion, or all, of the rights held. These four principles overlap and underpin each other to varying degrees depending on the specific issue. Invasive Exotic Plant Species Invasive, or alien, species, are: recognized by the scientific community as harmful to “economic activity, ecosystems, and human welfare” in the U.S. (Ecological Society of America 2006); second only to habitat destruction and Poster Presentations 129 degradation (and part of them) and more harmful than pollution, overexploitation and disease as a threat to imperiled species in the U.S. (Wilcove et al. 1998); “cost[ing] the U.S. $5.5-7.5 billion per year in economic losses” as of 1996 (Baskin 1996) a figure most likely much larger today; a threat to homeland security by the U.S. Army War College (Pratt 2003); and “a significant component of humancaused global change” (Vitousek et al. 1997). These dire appraisals from eminent scientists are only a sampling of many, and include not only plants, but other invasive exotic organisms, such as animals and fungi as well. However, plants comprise a major part of the taxa that constitute these threats. This paper deals only with invasive exotic plant species. U.S. Forest Service Research Ecologist Jim Miller’s (2003) Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control (www.srs.fs.usda.gov/fia/manual/exotic_pest_plants.htm) is one of the most significant conservation developments of the last few decades. In it, Dr. Miller provides scientific, yet practical information on invasive exotic plant species, including identification, ecology, nature of threat, principles of control, and best-of-all, perhaps specific methods to combat them. He also covers rehabilitation of lands where infestations have been successfully diminished or eradicated. Popular now among landowners, land managers, and a wide array of conservationists -- from game and timber managers and others with strong utilitarian interests, to native plant enthusiasts, restoration ecologists, conservation biologists and others whose chief interest is in ecosystem integrity -this book will in posterity be recognized as a paragon and bellwether of conservation, and land restoration and management. Professor of Silviculture Dave Moorhead and his colleagues at the University of Georgia are also on the vanguard of the nascent, but inevitably expanding movement to track, identify the threats and prevent new introductions of, and stymie the spread of invasive exotic plants in the SE US. They too are developing and using science as an underpinning from which to launch pragmatic outreach projects (see, e.g., Evans and Moorhead 2006). Their publication Invasive Plant Responses to Silvicultural Practices in the South (Evans et al. 2006) is a synergistic complement to Miller’s field guide, and ranks alongside it in importance. This body of work is prescient and much-needed. Public awareness of these threats are lacking (Colton and Alpert 1998), although a few land managers have for years tried to publicize the issue in practical, landowner-oriented publications (see, e.g. Stowe 1998). If there has ever been a better use of government tax dollars for conservation, the natural and cultural heritage of our landscape, and our economy than that of Miller, and Moorhead et al. described above, I am not aware of it. If these publications are widely-used with the attention and respect they deserve, then they will result not in our society benefiting from the axiomatic ounce of prevention instead of a belated pound of cure, but rather a wise and timely ounce of prevention instead of certain but untold megatons of cure! A particularly insidious characteristic of invasive plant species is that there may be a considerable time lag, decades even, between introduction and invasion (Baskin 1996, Randall and Marinelli 1996, David Moorhead, personal communication, 2006). The Precautionary Principle, which suggests that we conservatively act in anticipation of harm in order to prevent it, and that shifts the burden of proof to those who would “develop” or alter otherwise a natural ecosystem (Noss 1999) applies especially in light of potential and known time lags. Your Right to Swing Your Fist Stops at My Nose: The Law of Public Nuisance, If a Land Ethic Fails Freyfogle (1998), in an essay titled “Land Ethics and Private Property” published in the Society of American Forester’s Forestry Forum on the Land Ethic: Meeting Human Needs for the Land and Its Resources, discusses how the law of public nuisance decades ago worked “to protect communities from bad land use,” and maintains that the concept could today become a “tool for discouraging environmentally unsound land practices.” Once the legal system becomes involved, of course, the matter lies at least partially outside the realm of ethics, since the fear of legal penalties, rather than any moral obligation, may be the primary impetus for “right” behavior. Ideally, the less legal restraints we have the better, but this works only as long as ethical and other non-coercive societal mechanisms suffice. The very existence of our legal system is evidence that these mechanisms often do not -- whether we are dealing with land, or other issues. Granted, some laws are superfluous, but most are not. J. Owens Smith, Esquire (personal communication, 2004), who taught Natural Resources Law at the University of Georgia, introduced me to the term “Private Property Perverts.” He defined them as landowners who claimed total autonomy as to the use of their land. The example he used was someone who insisted on the unfettered right to, e.g., dump toxins in the creek because it ran through his land (i.e., he owned the land on both banks) -- and maintained that the folks downstream must deal with it as best they can. I am a landowner myself -- owning and managing 104 acres in Northwest Georgia -- and have strong convictions about my private property rights, especially since, to pay the property taxes of >$16 per acre last year, I had to borrow money from the bank! But I cannot fathom someone taking private property rights to the extreme “perverted” end of the continuum. I have never actually met anyone like this -- but I don’t doubt that they exist. Poster Presentations 130 Most of the landowners in the SE US are reasonable folks who, while standing firmly behind their PPRs, don’t irrationally insist that those rights extend to activities that demonstrably and negatively impact their neighbor’s land or public trust resources such as waterways. But the issue is not as straightforward as it might seem: e.g., I maintain I have a right to conduct prescribed fires on my land, but my hypothetical “rurban” neighbor (Matthews 1992) may state that s/he has a right to not be exposed to my smoke. The intricacies of that issue are beyond the scope of this paper, but you can see that this type polemic is often complex. Let’s briefly and generally look at invasive plant species, through the lens of the four tenets of PPRs: Exclusivity: Landowners hold the PPRs, not others. I have the right to manage my land for native species, and to not have destructive invasive exotic species forced upon my land. Specificity: The specific usage rights of a tract, unless legally designated to another party, are the landowner’s. As in exclusivity above, I have the right to manage my land for native species, and to not have destructive invasive exotic species forced upon my land. Enforcability: At present there are few if any nuisance laws to enforce, but if ethical and other societal constraints do not protect landowners from harm from other’s actions, then this principle calls -- no, shouts -- for such laws to be enacted to prevent harm and/or provide redress for harm from invasive exotic species. Transferability: The ability for landowners to transfer their property, and at a fair price (i.e. at least market value), can be infringed upon by other’s via invasive exotics being forced on them. A Pernicious Example – Bicolor Lespedeza Consider this: my neighbor plants an exotic plant species known to be invasive, such as bicolor lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor) (Miller 2003, Evans et al. 2006), and it invades my land. My ability to burn (and thus my native vegetation) is affected, since fire -- the ecological imperative of many SE US ecosystems (Wade et al. 2006) -- causes bicolor to spread even worse (David Moorhead, personal communication, 2006). My soil is contaminated by alleopathic and other chemicals produced by this pernicious invader. My ability to practice forestry is impacted since the invader stymies or prevents regeneration. The aesthetics of my land are ruined since the native flora -- and thus the beauty of seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting them and their animal associates such as butterflies -- are displaced. My hunting and hiking are impacted because wildlife communities are affected, and also because I may be unable to practically traverse my land because of the altered structure of the vegetation. The market value and salability of my land may also be decreased. And less tangible, but of paramount importance to me -- the land’s philosophical and psychological values are damaged -- since to me, the goal of restoring and maintaining a native ecosystem, with its integrity (processes, species composition and structure) intact -- is a primary value. Sadly, since wildlife managers have long touted bicolor as a desirable species for wildlife, many are loath to change their views on the matter, even in the presence of clear and cogent evidence that it does not bolster bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) populations (which it had long-been touted to do). From a moral standpoint, this is land-ethically wrong. John Dewey described the concept of reflective morality, and I (1997) reviewed the concept vis-à-vis hunting and land management practices related to hunting. Dewey’s theory held that we should be wary of becoming ossified in traditional morality (i.e., a practice is right simply because that’s the way it has always been done), and that periodic reflection is vital and may from time-to-time show us that certain values need to change. But alas, people are neo/xenophobic by nature (Geist 1975). When the destructive impacts of species like bicolor were unknown, then ignorance could be claimed for introducing and promoting them, and thus moral culpability lessened. But considering what we know today, the blame is straightforward in my view. If reflection and accepting responsibility voluntarily continues to be an anathema to some managers, then that is when the legal system has its role. What, Then, to Plant and Promote? A Simple Alternative – Go Native! Dr. Chris Moorman (2003) of the NC State University Extension Service had the brilliant idea of appealing to folk’s pride-of-place and heritage to encourage them to plant native species, rather than invasive exotics. His “Think American: Manage Native Plants for Wildlife,” in Forest Landowner magazine is a gem and I have latched onto the concept. Moorman and his colleagues (Moorman et al. 2002) have produced a superb extension booklet, viz. Landscaping for Wildlife with Native Plants that provides detailed, yet user-friendly information on the topic. Conclusion As the landscape and demography of the SE US become more fragmented and “rurban,” previously unconsidered implications of PPRs must be openly discussed, so that the assumed rights of one landowner do not impinge upon the rights of others. The time to do this is now, before the Poster Presentations 131 situation worsens. In light of the extremely destructive nature of recently-introduced species like cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), this is a matter not only of PPRs, but also one germane to the regional economic welfare of the SE US and thus the nation. This issue leads into the related one of urban sprawl, land use planning and the sensitive topic of zoning. Although controversial, dealing with these issues sooner rather than later will benefit us all, and as change is inevitably thrust upon us, some folks may find that they have views divergent, even diametric, to the ones they thought they held. Aldo Leopold (1949) pointed out that his land ethic operates like any other ethic – by “social approbation for right actions: social condemnation for wrong actions.” Making mistakes in land management is blameworthy but can be understandable; denying and continuing these mistakes in the face of the best-available-science compounds the culpability many-fold. We must either develop and implement a true land ethic, a holistic one, as Leopold implored us to do, or we must take the less-effective, less-palatable and more cumbersome path of legal coercion. The choice is ours. Now or later. This poster is dedicated to Dr. Larry Nelson (1950-2006) of Clemson University. Larry was one of the first researchers and extension professionals to recognize and address the threats of invasive exotic plant species to native ecosystems, as well as forest and agricultural lands, and his prescient and pioneering research and outreach work was and is, not only monumentallybeneficial to the SE US landscape and its citizens per se, but also responsible for catalyzing the efforts of others who continue the work today. Larry, you are sorely missed. Literature Cited Baskin, Y. 1996. Curbing Undesirable Invaders. BioScience. 46:10. 732-736. Colton, T.F., and P. Alpert. 1998. Lack of Public Awareness of Biological Invasions by Plants. Natural Areas Journal. 18:3. 262-266. Ecological Society of America. 2006. The Ecological Society of America Calls for Federal Leadership to Control Invasive Species. ESA News: Media Advisory. 3 March 2006. Evans, C.W., and D. J. Moorhead. 2006. Incorporating Invasive Species Management into your Wildlife Management Plan. Wildlife Trends. May 28-33. Evans, C. W., D.J. Moorhead, C.T. Bargeron, and G.K. Douce. 2006. Invasive Plant Responses to Silvicultural Practices in the South. The University of Georgia Bugwood Network. Tifton, GA. BW-2006-03. 52 pp. Freyfogle, E. 1998. Land Ethics and Private Property. Pages 49-70 in The Land Ethic: Meeting Human Needs for the Land and Its Resources. The Society of American Foresters Forestry Forum. Geist, V. 1975. Mountain Sheep and Man in the Northern Wilds. Cornell University Press. 248 pp. Larson, L.K. 2003. President’s Letter. Forest Landowner. 62:3. 4. Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press. Matthews, B.E. 1992. Rurbanites: The Problem of Keeping Two Roosters in the Same Henhouse. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Outdoor Writer’s Association of America. Bismarck, ND. 30 June 1992. Miller, James H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control. USDA Forest Service. GTR SRS-62. 99 pp. Moorman, C., M. Johns, and L.T. Bowen. 2002. Landscaping for Wildlife with Native Plants. NCSU. 11 pp. Moorman, C. 2003. Think American: Manage Native Plants for Wildlife. Forest Landowner. 62:3. 5-9. Pratt. 2003. Invasive Threats to American Homeland. Parameters: U.S. Army War College Quarterly. Spring. 44-61. Noss, R.F. 1999. A Citizen’s Guide to Ecosystem Management. Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Wild Earth Report, Special Paper 3. 33 pp. National Woodland Owner’s Association. 2005. The Top Ten Forestry Issues for 2005-2006. National Woodlands. 28:3. 8-11. Randall, J. M. and J. Marinelli. 1996. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Handbook 149. 111 pp. Stowe, J. 1997. Hunting in the Third Millenium And Beyond? Quality Whitetails. 4:2. 10-14. Stowe, J. 1998. Active Management Required on Heritage Preserves. Carolina For J. SEP. 18:9. 10-11. Wade, D., S. Miller, J. Stowe, and J. Brenner. 2006. Rx Fire Laws: Tools to Protect Fire: The “Ecological Imperative.” Pages 233-262 In M.B. Dickinson, Editor. Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers, Proceedings of a Conference; 2005 November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Dept. of Ag., Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 303 p. Vitousek, P., C. D’Antonio, L. Loope, M. Redjanek, and R. Westbrooks. 1997. Introduced Species: A Significant Component of Human-Caused Global Change. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 21:1. 1-16. Wilcove, D., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. Bioscience. 48:8. 607-615. Poster Presentations 132 A Framework for Restoration: Increasing the Success of Longleaf Pine Restoration Projects Rob Sutter1, Brett Williams2, Alison McGee3 and Michelle Creech4 1 The Nature Conservancy, Durham, North Carolina 27713, USA 2 The Nature Conservancy, Eglin AFB, 32542, Florida, USA 3 The Nature Conservancy, Darien, Georgia, 31305, USA 4 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia, 39870, USA Abstract Longleaf pine restoration projects in the southeastern US have varied in their level of success. Projects can fall short of success due to a lack of adequate planning, improper implementation (often related to the sequencing of management actions) and a failure to detect and react to changing conditions or unexpectedly high costs. A poorly planned restoration project often results in unintended consequences, such as the elimination of desirable species or the spread of invasive species. In response to the growing interest in longleaf pine restoration, we developed a framework for ecological restoration that addresses many of these issues. The key components of a framework for restoration include a thorough site assessment of current conditions, development of desired ecological conditions and a plan to achieve them, implementation of the plan and then adaptation. The framework emphasizes the need to develop realistic desired ecological conditions considering the initial starting point, landscape context, desires of the landowner and what is possible within the timeframe of the project. The framework also addresses the need to understand the relationship between the initial site condition and how to reach the desired ecological condition, stressing the importance of the proper sequencing of management actions. Restoration projects that follow the framework will be: 1) be site-specific; 2) address landscape context; 3) consider time as ecological factor; and 4) be based on realistic expectations. Four restoration case studies (Eglin AFB, FL; Jones Ecological Research Center, GA; St. Marks NWF, FL; and Cabin Bluff, GA) will be highlighted. Poster Presentations 133 Repeated Fire Effects on Soil Physical Properties in Two Young Longleaf Pine Stands on the West Gulf Coastal Plain Mary Anne Sword-Sayer1 1 USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Pineville, Louisiana, 71360, USA Introduction Repeated prescribed fire is a valuable tool for the management of longleaf and loblolly pine. When applied every two to ten years, for example, prescribed fire perpetuates existing longleaf pine ecosystems (Outcalt 1997). Furthermore, the acceptance of fire as a management tool, together with recent improvements in longleaf pine regeneration methods have aided efforts to restore longleaf pine to its natural range (Outcalt 1997, Landers et al. 1995). Low-intensity, prescribed fire every two to five years is also commonly used to manage loblolly pine on public and non-industrial, private land to reduce understory fuel and stimulate the development of wildlife browse. Malbis fine sandy loam complex. The Beauregard soil forms the intermound and wetter portion of the site. The Malbis soil forms slightly elevated pimple mounds. Site 2 has a slope of 1-5% and the soil is Ruston fine sandy loam with some Malbis fine sandy loam and Gore very fine sandy loam. A mixed pine-hardwood forest originally occupied both sites. Site 1 was clearcut harvested, sheared, and windrowed in 1991 and prescribe burned in 1993 and 1996. Understory vegetation at Site 1 is dominated by grasses. Site 2 was clearcut harvested in 1996 and roller-drum chopped and burned in August 1997. Understory vegetation at Site 2 is dominated by woody shrubs and herbaceous plants. The response of understory vegetation to repeated prescribed fire over an extended period of time may affect a suite of soil physical properties that influence both the plant-available water holding capacity (PAWHC) and bulk density (BD) of soil. These changes could negatively affect the sustainability of southern pine on the west Gulf coastal plain for two reasons. First, the amount of plant-available water in the soil during drought is already low and any further limitation would increase the likelihood of reduced carbon fixation. Second, these soils are often characterized by a subsurface BD that approaches the root growth-limiting value of 1.55 g/cm3 (Pritchett 1979). Fire-induced changes in soil porosity that increase BD could restrict root system expansion and therefore, access to water stored deep in the soil profile. In this situation, access to deep water would depend on interped spaces and old root channels in the subsoil (van Lear et al. 2000). Because forest health and sustained production are dependent on the expansion of tree root systems and their acquisition of water and mineral nutrients, continued use of fire as a management tool requires knowledge of its long-term effects on soil physical properties. It is hypothesized that long-term biennial prescribed fire decreases soil porosity which lowers PAWHC and increases BD. The present objective is to summarize the soil physical properties of two young stands of longleaf pine in response to two cycles of biennial prescribed fire. Treatment plots (22 x 22 m; 0.048 ha) were established and blocks were delineated based on soil drainage and topography. Three vegetation management treatments were established: (1) Control (C)-- no management activities after planting, (2) Prescribed burning (B)-- plots were burned using the strip headfire method in late spring every two or three years, and (3) Herbicides (H)-- herbicides were applied after planting for herbaceous and arborescent plant control. Specifically, the H plots at Site 1 were planted in March 1997, and in May 1997 and April 1998, sethoxydim (0.37 kg active ingredient (ai)/ha) and hexazinone (1.12 kg ai/ha) in aqueous solution were applied in 0.9-m bands over the rows of unshielded longleaf pine seedlings. At Site 2, hexazinone (1.12 kg ai/ha) was banded in April 1998 and 1999. At both sites in April 1998 and May 1999, triclopyr (0.0048 kg acid equivalent/ liter) was tank mixed with surfactant and water and applied as a directed foliar spray to competing arborescent vegetation. Materials and Methods Two field sites are located on the Kisatchie National Forest in central LA. Three replications are located at Site 1, and two replications are located at Site 2. Site 1 is gently sloping (1-3%) and the soil is a Beauregard silt loam and Recovering brush was cut by hand in February 2001. The B plots were burned by the strip headfire method in May 1998 at Site 1, and in June 2000, May 2003, and May 2005 at both sites. Container-grown longleaf pine seedlings from a genetically improved, Mississippi seed source (Site 1) and a Louisiana seed source (Site 2), were planted at a spacing of 1.8 x 1.8 m in March 1997 and November 1997, respectively. Treatment plots contained 12 rows of 12 seedlings each. The measurement plots contained the innermost eight rows of eight seedlings in each treatment plot. In fall of 2004 and spring of 2006, one soil core (61 cm) was extracted from a random location 1 m from the base of three saplings per plot using a tractor-mounted Poster Presentations 134 hydraulic probe equipped with an open-sided steel core sampler (1.5 m), 4.1 cm in diameter (72 cores). One additional surface soil core (30.5 cm) was extracted per sapling (72 cores). Soil cores were stored in air-tight, plastic liners and refrigerated until processing. From each 61 cm soil core, three 10 cm depths increments were assessed for physical properties. Depth increments represented the surface soil (A horizon), the upper argillic horizon (Bt1 horizon), and the deeper argillic horizon (Bt2 horizon). The A and Bt2 horizons were evaluated at 2-12 and 50-60 cm depths, respectively. The depth to the interface between the A, AB, E or EB horizon and the Bt1 horizon was visually approximated. The 10 cm depth increment beginning 2 cm beneath this interface was defined as the Bt1 horizon. A second A horizon sample (2-12 cm) from the 30.5 cm soil core was evaluated for soil physical properties. The integrity of the 10 cm soil core increments was retained while two plastic rings, 1 cm in length and 4.1 cm in diameter, were slid over the core increments. A band saw was used to cut the ring-encased, 1 cm wide slices of soil from the soil core increments. The two slices of soil core from each soil core increment were placed on either a –0.1 MPa or a -1.5 MPa equilibrated, ceramic pressure plate. Total porosity fraction (TOP), microporosity fraction (MIP), macroporosity fraction (MAP), and PAWHC were determined with data generated by the water retention method (Klute 1986) which requires determination of soil water content at field capacity, –0.03 MPa (WATFC), and permanent wilting point, –1.5 MPa (WATWP). Values of BD were determined by the core bulk density method (Blake and Hartge 1986). The BD of the A, and B horizons was calculated as the average of four and two values, respectively. The TOP, MIP, MAP, and PAWHC of the A horizon was calculated as the average of two values. Values of BD, WATFC, WATWP, TOP, MIP, MAP, and PAWHC were transformed, as needed, to natural logarithms to establish normality, and evaluated by ANOVA using a split plot in time, randomized complete block design with five blocks. Year was the whole plot effect and vegetation management treatment was the subplot effect. Effects were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 unless otherwise noted. Means were compared by the Tukey test and considered significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. Results and Discussion Year, block, and treatment significantly affected soil physical properties in the A, Bt1, and Bt2 horizons. The extent of these effects was greater in the A horizon than in the Bt1 and Bt2 horizons. Values of BD in the A, Bt1, and Bt2 horizons were 5, 7, and 8% less in 2006 compared to 2004 (A: 1.4 ± 0.03 g/cm3; Bt1: 1.6 ± 0.03 g/ cm3; Bt2: 1.7 ± 0.03 g/cm3). Similar trends were observed with WATFC and WATWP. It is speculated that these effects were caused by soil water content at the time of soil core collection. In 2004, soil cores were collected when the soil was dry and in 2006, soil cores were collected when the soil was wet. The Ultisol soils at the two study sites are characterized by a suite of clay minerals dominated by kaolinite and therefore, exhibit a low shrink-swell potential (Buol et al. 1980, Kerr et al. 1980). However, some soil core expansion was expected after removal from the soil profile due to the influence of organic matter and minor clay minerals on expansion (Buol et al. 1980, Foth 1978). Although small differences in WATFC and WATWP were observed between years, PAWHC within a horizon was similar between years with 19, 10 and 11% of the soil volume potentially accessible as plant-available water in the A, Bt1, and Bt2 horizons, respectively. Values of BD and WATFC in the A horizon were significantly affected by block. Subsequently, estimated values of TOP, MAP, MIP, and PAWHC in the A horizon were significantly affected by block. These effects exhibited distinct site differences. Specifically, the two blocks at Site 2 were characterized by less WATFC in the A horizon compared to the three blocks at Site 1. This led to 23% less PAWHC in the A horizon at Site 2 compared to Site 1. Significant differences among blocks were also observed in the Bt1 horizon. Both WATFC (P = 0.0613) and WATWP were greater in the two blocks at Site 2 compared to the three blocks at Site 1. This resulted in 55% less PAWHC in the Bt1 horizon at Site 2 compared Site 1. It is proposed that these effects were driven by soil texture and organic matter differences between the two sites. Smaller WATFC (24%) and MIP (24%) at Site 2 compared to Site 1 suggests that fractions of silt and sand controlled soil physical properties in the A horizon. Larger WATWP (73%) at Site 2 compared to Site 1 suggests that the clay fraction controlled soil physical properties in the Bt1 horizon. Site differences in understory vegetation may have also affected soil physical properties. With more grass cover at Site 1 compared to Site 2, for example, influences of fine root perturbation on MIP in the A horizon may have been greater at Site 1 compared to Site 2 (Kramer 1983). Vegetation management treatment significantly affected WATFC and WATWP in the A horizon. Values of WATFC were 16% less on the B and H plots compared to the C plots. Values of WATWP on the H plots were 16% less than that on the C plots, while WATWP was similar on the B and C plots. As a result, estimated values of MAP, MIP, and PAWHC in the A horizon were significantly affected by vegetation management treatment. Values of MAP were 25% greater on the B plots compared to the C plots, while MIP was 17% less on the B and H plots compared to the C plots (Figure 1). The effect of vegetation management treatment on WATFC and MIP was apparent in the PAWHC of the A horizon with 18% less PAWHC on the B and H plots compared to the C plots (Figure 2). Poster Presentations 135 Figure 1. Soil macroporosity (MAP) and microporosity (MIP) of the A, Bt1, and Bt2 horizons in two stands of young longleaf pine in response to three vegetation management treatments. Variable means within a horizon associated with different letters are significantly different at P = 0.05 by the Tukey test. One significant effect of vegetation management treatment was observed in the Bt1 horizon, and two significant effects of vegetation management treatment were observed in the Bt2 horizon. In the Bt1 horizon, the WATWP of the H plots was greater (14%) than that of the B plots. In the Bt2 horizon, WATFC and MIP on the B plots were both 7% less compared to the C plots (Figure 1). These effects on subsurface soil physical properties, however, did not significantly influence PAWHC in the Bt1 or Bt2 horizon (Figure 2). These results suggest that frequent prescribed fire may affect Plant-available water holding capacity (% volume) 0.0 Burn 10.0 20.0 40.0 b a Control Herbicide 30.0 A horizon b Burn Control Bt1 horizon Herbicide Burn Control Bt2 horizon Herbicide Figure 2. Plant-available soil water holding capacity (PAWHC) of the A, Bt1, and Bt2 horizons in two stands of young longleaf pine in response to three vegetation management treatments. Variable means within a horizon associated with different letters are significantly different at P = 0.05 by the Tukey test. the physical properties that influence PAWHC in the surface soil on west Gulf coastal plain sites. After two cycles of biennial prescribed fire, there was no evidence that these effects had an impact on BD. The mechanism of B and H reductions in WATFC, MIP, and PAWHC in the A horizon may be linked to altered understory vegetation dynamics. Significant block effects that separated soil physical properties by site support this proposition. It is hypothesized that repeated burning in the B plots and chemical eradication of understory vegetation in the H plots reduced fine root perturbation of the soil compared to the C plots. As the influence of fine root activity on soil porosity decreased, the potential of the soil to store water that could be absorbed by tree roots declined. Under normal environmental conditions, small decreases in PAWHC may not impact forest production and health. However, when water availability is limited by prolonged drought, small decreases in PAWHC could create longer periods of water deficit that start earlier in the growing season. We will continue to monitor the long-term response of soil physical properties to B and H, and the present observations will be combined with measurements of physiological function and biomass production to assess the consequence of B and H on longleaf pine physiological health. Literature Cited Blake, G.R.; K.H. Hartge. 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1 physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd ed. Madion, WI, Soil Science Society of America, Inc: 363-375. Buol, S.W.; F.D. Hole; R.J. McCracken. 1980. Soil Genesis and Classification, 2nd ed. Ames, IA, The Iowa State Univ. Press: 406 p. Foth, H.D. 1978. Fundamentals of Soil Science, 6th ed. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 436 p. Kerr, A Jr; BJ. Griffis; J.W. Powell; J.P. Edwards; R.L. Venson; J.K. Long; W.W. Kilpatrick. 1980. Soil survey of Rapides Parish Louisiana. U.S. Dept. Agric. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in cooperation with Louisiana State University. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station: 86 p. Klute, A. 1986). Water retention: laboratory methods. In: Klute, A (ed) Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1 physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd ed. Madison, WI, Soil Science Society of America, Inc: 635-660. Kramer, P.J. 1983. Water Relations of Plants. New York, Academic Press: 489 p. Landers, J.L.; D.H. Van Lear, and W.D. Boyer WD. 1995. The longleaf pine forests of the southeast: requiem or renaissance? J. For. 93:39-44. Outcalt, K.W. 1997. Status of the longleaf pine forests of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Texas J. Sci. 49 (Supplement):5-12. Pritchett, W.L. 1979. Properties and Management of Forest Soils. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 500 p. Van Lear D.H.; P.R. Kapeluck; W.D. Carroll. 2000. Productivity of loblolly pine as affected by decomposing root systems. For. Ecol. Manage. 138:435-443. Poster Presentations 136 Preliminary Density Management Diagram for Naturally Regenerated Longleaf Pine Curtis L. VanderSchaaf1, Ralph S. Meldahl2, and John S. Kush2 1 Department of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA 2 School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Alabama, 36849 USA Abstract Longleaf pine is one of the most commercially important tree species in the Gulf and Lower Atlantic Coastal Plain regions. Density Management Diagrams are a useful tool providing resource managers guidelines when manipulating stand density to meet a particular objective. This paper presents results of analyses conducted to determine the maximum size-density relationship (MSDR) and the threshold of self-thinning for naturally regenerated longleaf pine stands in the Gulf and Lower Atlantic Coastal Plain regions. Rather than using regression analyses to estimate the slope of the MSDR, an alternative procedure is presented. The alternative methodology MSDR slope estimate of -1.5942 is close to that originally proposed by Reineke while the MSDR boundary line has an SDI of 425. The threshold of self-thinning was determined to have an SDI of 195. Thus, for naturally regenerated longleaf pine stands in this region, density-dependent mortality (self-thinning) is expected to begin at an SDI near 195. Introduction Stand density index (SDI) is a measure of density developed by Reineke (1933). Many Density Management Diagrams (DMD) have been developed based on SDI for southern pine species (Dean and Jokela 1992, Dean and Baldwin 1993, Williams 1994, 1996, Doruska and Nolen 1999, Dean and Chang 2002). However, none have been created for longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.). This is a preliminary study to determine the maximum size-density relationship (MSDR) boundary level and slope coefficient (b), and when the Threshold of self-thinning (Dean and Chang 2002) generally begins for naturally regenerated stands. Reineke (1933) found when plotting the natural logarithm (Ln) of trees per acre (TPA) over the natural logarithm of quadratic mean diameter (QMD), stands selfthinned along a b of -1.6. This relationship can be algebraically manipulated to produce the equation [1]: SDI = TPA*(QMD/10)b [1] The MSDR is assumed to be the maximum number of TPA that can occur for a particular QMD throughout the Lower Atlantic Coastal Plain and Gulf states regions in naturally regenerated longleaf pine stands. Generally, there are three other relative lines to the MSDR found on DMDs which are referred to as management zones; canopy closure, full-site occupancy, and the threshold of self-thinning. The threshold of self-thinning management zone is important to avoid competition-related mortality and to maintain tree vigor (Dean and Jokela 1992). Stands managed beneath the Threshold of self-thinning management zone would not be expected to experience competition-induced mortality, or density-dependent mortality (McCarter and Long 1986). Due to time constraints, the Canopy closure and Full-site occupancy lines are not included in this paper. Methods Data were obtained from naturally regenerated longleaf pine stands in central and southern Alabama, southern Mississippi, southwest Georgia, and northern Florida. For a more detailed description see Kush et al. (1987). Plots were originally established from 1964 to 1967. Additional plots have been established in stands of at least 20 years old. The majority of the plots are 1/5th acre in size but some are 1/10th acre. Only the ages that had no previous thinnings were included in the b coefficient estimation, MSDR, and the Threshold of self-thinning analyses. Average stand characteristics of the plots and observations used in this current study are provided in Table 1. Site index was determined from an equation developed by Rayamajhi et al. (1999) using the measurement age for each individual stand closest to the base age of 50. In order to be consistent with the recommendation of Weller (1987, 1991), visual inspection of all plots was conducted to ensure that only those measurement ages located on the linear MSDR were included in determining the b coefficient (Figure 1). Only those plots that had at least four unthinned consecutive measurement ages were included for these analyses. Size-density trajectories (n = Where: b = MSDR beta coefficient. Poster Presentations 137 Table 1. Average stand-level characteristics of the observations included in the 1.) Threshold of self-thinning analysis (n = 57 individual LnQMD-LnTPA observations from 57 plots) and 2.) b coefficient and the maximum size-density relationship determination (n = 49 individual LnQMD-LnTPA observations from 18 plots). Where: Std dev – standard deviation, SDI – stand density index calculated using b = 1.5942. Variable Age Site index (ft) QMD (in.) TPA BA (sq. ft./acre) SDI Age Site index (ft) QMD (in.) TPA BA (sq. ft./acre) SDI n Mean 27 68 3.9 1462 102 280 57 Std dev 8 12 1.2 823 24 74 Beta coefficient and maximum size-density relationship 46 12 73 9 6.4 1.7 49 695 362 133 17 297 47 2 1.6 Determination of the threshold of self-thinning Only those plots that had size-density trajectories with a definite, constant curvature to the left (n = 57 plots) such as seen in Figure 1 were included in the determination of the Threshold of self-thinning. Table 1 gives a summary of the stand-level characteristics for the initial age when self-thinning began for the n = 57 plots used in determining the Threshold of self-thinning while Figure 2 shows all measurement ages for the n = 57 plots equal to or greater than the initial self-thinning age. The relative Threshold of self-thinning SDI value was determined graphically. A value was picked such that the majority of measurement ages known to be self-thinning were above this line (Figure 2). Max 63 85 10.5 4385 156 485 31 49 3.8 165 99 230 88 85 12.7 2460 192 522 A 1.8 A A 1.4 LnQMD 18 plots) were determined to have reached a MSDR if they had two consecutive points that were self-thinning in a straight line – a size-density trajectory moving in a straight line (maximum size-density line) to the left and not vertically. In the case with only two points comprising the maximum size-density line, only the latest measurement age was included; several stands had many measurement ages that occurred along a MSDR. In these cases, all but the first age were included in the analysis to estimate the b coefficient. Min 18 45 2.5 220 52 138 B 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 LnTPA Figure 1. Demonstration of the LnQMD-LnTPA observations selected for the determination of the b coefficient (A) and the Threshold of self-thinning (B). The line is the maximum size-density relationship for this stand (MSDR dynamic thinning line). The last observation is not included in the determination of the b coefficient because it is falling away from the MSDR dynamic thinning line (Weller 1987). Poster Presentations 138 7.4 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 3 LnQMD LnQMD 3 2.5 2 1.5 2.5 2 1 1.5 0.5 0 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 LnTPA 1 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 LnTPA Figure 2. Threshold of self-thinning (bottom line – SDI value = 195) using a b coefficient of -1.5942 for naturally regenerated longleaf pine. The upper line is the maximum size-density line (SDI value = 425). Only data from plots (n = 57 plots) used in determining the Threshold of self-thinning are included in the figure. Determination of the b coefficient and the maximum size-density relationship Rather than taking all LnQMD-LnTPA observations (n = 49) occurring along an MSDR boundary and conducting regression analyses (whether linear or non-linear) of LnTpa over LnQmd to determine an MSDR boundary slope (Oliver and Powers 1978, Smith and Hann 1984, Dean and Jokela 1992, Dean and Baldwin 1993, Hynynen 1993, Williams 1994, 1996), we actually determined the slope of LnTPA (lnT) over LnQMD (lnD) using equation [2]: lnT 2 − lnT 1 ln D2 − ln D1 [2] Using equation [2] provides a better quantification of the relationship between tree density and mean diameter across time because we do not assume that all specific density-diameter relationships (or particular ages) occurring along a MSDR boundary are independent of one another. Rather, the relationship at Time 2 is dependent on the relationship at Time 1; this is the slope of the change in TPA in relation to a change in QMD – the b of Equation [1]. Reineke (1933) determined the b by visually placing the MSDR boundary line above all data points and calculating the slope of this line. This method of estimating the slope of the MSDR boundary may be biased because all MSDR boundary observations are also treated as independent. The actual slopes of individual stand sizedensity trajectories are ignored. Similarly, when regression analyses are conducted to estimate the slope, the Figure 3. Maximum size-density relationship (SDI = 425) using a b coefficient of -1.5942 for naturally regenerated longleaf pine. Observations are all unthinned and thinned measurement ages from this study. n = 2107. actual individual stand size-density trajectory slopes are ignored. The average slope of values obtained using Equation [2] is –1.5942 (n = 49), which is close to the value proposed by Reineke (1933) and those values found by Zeide (1985) using yield tables (USDA 1976) of naturallyregenerated stands, while the b obtained from Ordinary least squares is -1.8714. Values from equation [2] ranged from -1.0510 to -2.2997 which is a similar range found by Zeide (1985) and Tang et al. (1994). Both of these b estimates (-1.8714 and -1.5942) correspond to the slope of the MSDR species boundary line (Weller 1990). Although statistically speaking the least-squares estimator (b = 1.8714) is unbiased when meeting standard regression assumptions, biologically it appears to be biased. Proc Model of SAS (1988) was used to fit the equation of LnTPA over LnQMD to determine the OLS b coefficient. Results Our average b coefficient value obtained from equation [2] is very close to Reineke’s (Table 2). The MSDR species boundary line was determined to have a SDI of 425 and the Threshold of self-thinning was determined to have a SDI of 195. Figure 3 shows the MSDR in relation to all data (both thinned and unthinned). Table 2. Slope characteristics calculated using Equation [2] for the LnQMD-LnTPA observations occurring along a MSDR dynamic thinning line boundary. Where: Std dev – standard deviation, value in parentheses is the standard error of the mean. n = 49. Min -1.0510 Poster Presentations 139 Mean -1.5942 (0.0480) Max -2.2997 Std dev 0.34 Discussion Reineke’s estimated value of b for naturally regenerated longleaf pine was similar to ours (Table 2). Our MSDR species boundary line was determined to have a SDI of 425 which is slightly greater than Reineke’s (1933) of 400. It should be kept in mind that the MSDR species boundary line is just that. It is assumed to be the maximum TPA that can occur for a particular QMD across all naturally regenerated longleaf stands located in the Lower Atlantic Coastal Plain and Gulf states regions. Due to differences in genetics and environmental conditions (Weller 1990, Hynynen 1993), and initial density (Weller 1990, VanderSchaaf 2003), not all longleaf stands within these regions will selfthin along the MSDR species boundary line. Weller (1990) provides a good discussion on this topic. Most individual stand size-density trajectories will self-thin along a line lower than the species boundary line – what Weller called the MSDR dynamic thinning line. It is assumed that the Threshold of self-thinning holds constant across all individual stands. Our relative value of the Threshold of self-thinning (195 of 425 = 46%) to the MSDR species boundary line is slightly lower than reported for other southern yellow pine species (Dean and Jokela 1992, Williams 1994, Dean and Chang 2002) and other North American conifers (Drew and Flewelling 1979, Long 1985, McCarter and Long 1986, Newton 1997). However, Dean and Baldwin (1993) and Doruska and Nolen (1999) also found a relative value (45%) for loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) very similar to ours. Additional research is needed to determine the relative values of the canopy closure and the full-site occupancy (Dean and Chang 2002) management zones. Literature Cited Dean, T.J., and V.C. Baldwin. 1993. Using a stand densitymanagement diagram to develop thinning schedules for loblolly pine plantations. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-275. 7 p. Dean, T.J., and S.J. Chang. 2002. Using simple marginal analysis and density management diagrams for prescribing density management. South. J. Appl. For. 26: 85-92. Dean, T.J., and E.J. Jokela. 1992. A density-management diagram for slash pine plantations in the lower Coastal Plain. South. J. Appl. For. 16: 178-185. Drew, T.J., and J.W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: An alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. For. Sci. 25: 518-532. Doruska, P.F., and W.R. Nolen, Jr. 1999. Use of stand density index to schedule thinnings in loblolly pine plantations: a spreadsheet approach. South. J. Appl. For. 23: 21-29. Hynynen, J. 1993. Self-thinning models for even-aged stands of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, and Betula penula. Scand. J. For. Res. 8: 326-336. Kush, J.S., R.S. Meldahl, S.P. Dwyer, and R.M. Farrar, Jr. 1987. Naturally regenerated longleaf pine growth and yield research. In: Phillips, Douglas R., comp. Proceedings of the fourth biennial southern Silvicultural research conference; 1986 November 4-6; Atlanta. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-42. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 343-344. Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. For. Chron. 61: 23-27. McCarter, J.B., and J.N. Long. 1986. A lodgepole pine density management diagram. West. J. Appl. For. 1: 6-11. Newton, P.F. 1997. Algorithmic versions of black spruce stand density management diagrams. The Forestry Chronicle 73: 257-265. Oliver, W.W., and R.F. Powers. 1978. Growth models for ponderosa pine: I. Yield of unthinned plantations in northern California. Res. Pap. PSW-133. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21 p. Rayamajhi, J.N., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 1999. An updated site index equation for naturally regenerated longleaf pine stands. In: Haywood, James D., comp. Proceedings of the tenth biennial southern Silvicultural research conference; 1999 November 16-18; Shreveport. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-30. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 542-545. Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for evenage forests. J. of Ag. Res. 46: 627-638. SAS Institute, Inc. 1988. SAS/ETS user’s guide. Version 6. 1st ed. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute. Smith, N.J., and D.W. Hann. 1984. A new analytical model based on the -3/2 power rule of self-thinning. Can. J. For. Res. 14: 605-609. Tang, S., C.H. Meng, F. Meng, and Y.H. Wang. 1994. A growth and self-thinning model for pure even-age stands: theory and applications. For. Ecol. Manage. 70: 67-73. USDA. 1976. Volume, yield, and stand tables for secondgrowth southern pines. USDA Misc. Publ. 50 (revision of 1929 edition). VanderSchaaf, C.L. 2003. Can planting density have an effect on the maximum-size density line of loblolly and slash pine. Proceedings of the Northeastern Mensurationist Organization and Southern Mensurationists 2003 Joint Conference. pgs. 115-126. Weller, D.E. 1987. A reevaluation of the -3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Eco. Mon. 57: 23-43. Weller, D.E. 1990. Will the real self-thinning rule please stand up? – A reply to Osawa and Sugita. Ecology 71: 12041207. Weller, D.E. 1991. The self-thinning rule: Dead or unsupported? – A reply to Lonsdale. Ecology 72: 747-750. Williams, R.A. 1994. Stand density management diagram for loblolly pine plantations in north Louisiana. South. J. Appl. For. 18: 40-45. Williams, R.A. 1996. Stand density index for loblolly pine plantations in north Louisiana. South. J. Appl. For. 20: 110-113. Zeide, B. 1985. Tolerance and self-tolerance of trees. For. Ecol. Manage. 13: 149-166. Poster Presentations 140 The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture: A Regional, Landscape-Scale Approach to All-Bird Conservation Allison Vogt1 1 East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture (EGJV) is a newly formed public/private partnership whose mission is to enable integrated bird conservation at a regional scale. The East Gulf Coastal Plain corresponds to that portion of the Southeastern Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region (BCR 27) west of the Georgia-Alabama state line, and includes the western portion of the Florida panhandle, most of Alabama and Mississippi, portions of west Tennessee and Kentucky, and eastern portions of Louisiana. The EGJV Management Board is composed of representatives from federal and state agencies, conservation non-governmental organizations, and private industry. Planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation activities to conserve all priority birds and habitats throughout the eco-region will begin during the summer of 2006. Priority habitats include coastal longleaf pine savannas, grasslands, and maritime and bottomland forests. The most heavily altered habitat type in this physiographic area is pine forest, where conversion of longleaf to shorter rotation pine species and fire suppression has changed species composition and vegetative structure. Priority species include bobwhite quail, Swainson's warbler, Bachman's sparrow, cerulean warbler, Bewick's wren, black rail, and reddish egret. The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture welcomes collaboration with all members of the bird conservation community. Poster Presentations 141 A Continued Pinus palustris Burn Study Comparing Frequency and Season of Fire to Basal Area Growth Loss Ben Whitaker1, William D. Boyer2, and John S. Kush1 1 2 Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA Abstract Prescribed fire has been greatly suppressed over the past decades. Urbanization, short rotation fiber crops, false propaganda, and mismanagement are factors in this fire suppression. Pinus palustris, a fire dependent species, has been taken out of its natural environment in many places, often replaced with Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii in the sandy coastal plains and nutrient deficient ridge tops and uplands farther inland. A continuing study in Escambia County, Alabama focuses on Pinus palustris with different burning regimens of 2, 3, and 5 year intervals conducted during both the winter and spring, as well as a burn including the mechanical removal of hardwood competition and a control plot where there was no intervention (Boyer 1995). Field data is used to determine total basal area per acre and site index in this continuing study. Three blocks containing 10 plots each with a 0.1 acre central plot (the study area) within a 0.4 acre plot (the buffer zone) were used to gather the data. The trees were established in 1973 from seed, liberated from the parent overstory in 1976, and the plots were established in 1984-1985 and measured in 1987, 1990, 1994, and 2004 (Boyer 1995). Basal area in 2004 for the spring burn was 113.32 ft2 BA/ AC, for the winter burn it was 106.39 ft2 BA/AC, for the mechanical removal it was 116.74 ft2 BA/AC, and for the control plot it was 108.64 ft2 BA/AC. Site index increased from year 1999 to 2004. The winter burn increased from 71 ft to 75 ft, the spring burn increased from 71 ft to 75 ft, the mechanical/burning operation increased from 72 ft to 75 ft, and the control increased from 73 ft to 78 ft, on the average (Boyer 1995). The results show that prescribed fire at various intervals will increase vigor of a Pinus palustris stand by reducing hardwood competition. The spring treatment yielded more basal area per acre than the winter treatment. Overall, the mechanical/chemical treatment yielded the greatest amount of basal area. When the European and British explorers arrived in America, they often took note in their journals of the seemingly continual smoky atmosphere (Bonnicksen 2000). This high frequency, low intensity burning regimen propagated a vast forest consisting of Pinus palustris and a variety of understory herbaceous plants and wildlife. Today, prescribed fire is more scientific, but the same principles are utilized. As a result of fire exclusion, many forests are mismanaged with high fuel loads, low reproduction rates and less diversity. This 1973 study by Boyer focuses on different seasons of burns at varying frequencies, plus mechanical/chemical treatments after burning. The objective is to observe the amount of residual hardwood competition and the effects of fire on Pinus palustis basal area growth loss. Methods The study site was in the Escambia Experimental Forest in Escambia County, Alabama. The trees originated from the 1973 seed crop and were regenerated using a shelterwood system, which was eventually removed in 1976 to release the seedlings. Three blocks containing 10 plots each were established with 4 square chain gross plots (0.4 acre). Within these plots, 1 square chain net plots (0.1 acre) were established and thinned to leave 400 trees/acre, or 40 trees/net plot. The different treatments included seasonal burns during the winter and the spring at 2, 3, and 5 year frequencies plus an unburned control. Mechanical (axe) and chemical (glyphosate) treatments to remove any hardwood over 4 feet in height were added to the winter and spring burns at the 3 year interval, and there was an unburned control, including the mechanical/ chemical treatment. This accounts for the 10 treatments in every block (Boyer 1995). Fire type, flame length, air temperature, relative humidity, fire-line intensity, and crown scorch were measured and recorded to provide data on the prescribed burns due to the variable nature of fire depending on the environmental and weather conditions of a particular day (Boyer 1995). Results Introduction The 1999 treatment resulting in the greatest amount of basal area/acre was the mechanical/chemical treatment without any burning. The lowest amount of basal area was the winter fire with a 3 year interval. The winter fires resulted in 83.14 ft2 BA/AC for the 2 year interval, 80.90 ft2 BA/AC Poster Presentations 142 Prescribed fire is as much a part of the history of the South as Pinus palustris was centuries ago. Indians were known to set fire to the woods to provide expanded and better hunting habitat, increase their own food forage, and to open the understory for ease of travel (Pyne 1982). for the 3 year interval, and 81.53 ft2 BA/AC for the 5 year interval. The spring fires resulted in 82.96 ft2 BA/AC for the 2 year interval, 82.59 ft2 BA/AC for the 3 year interval, and 92.95 ft2 BA/AC for the 5 year interval. The spring fire with a 3 year interval followed with the mechanical/chemical treatment had 94.05 ft2 BA/AC, and the winter fire on the 3 year interval had 83.50 ft2 BA/AC. The lone treatment of mechanical/chemical without fire yielded 103.73 ft2 BA/AC, and the control plot had 86.97 Average site index (SI) increased in the 5 year span between year 1999 and year 2004. The average SI for the 1999 winter burns was 71 ft, and in 2004 it was 75 ft. In the spring burns, the average SI was 87 ft in 1999, and 75 ft in 2004. The burning plus mechanical/chemical treatment had an average SI of 72 ft in 1999, and 75 ft in 2004. The control plot also increased from an SI of 73 ft in 1999 to 78 ft in 2004 (Figure 3). Figure 2. Avergae Basal Area for Average of Treatments Figure 1. Average Basal Area for all treatments in 1999 and 2004 140 120 140 100 120 1999 80 100 80 60 1999 60 2004 40 2004 20 40 l Co nt ro ur n M ec ha ni ca l/B Sp rin g W in te rB M / Co C nt ro l W in te r W 2 in te r W 3 in te r Sp 5 rin g Sp 2 rin g 3 S Sp prin rin g g 5 3 M W /C 3 M /C 0 Bu r ur n n 0 20 Tre atme nt All data gathe re d fro m the Es c ambia Expe rime ntal Fo re s t, Es c ambia Co unty, AL Tre atme nt All data gathe re d fro m the Es c ambia Expe rime ntal Fo re s t, Es c ambia Co unty, AL Figure 3. Average Site Index for Average of Treatments The average of the 1999 treatments is 1.86 ft2 BA/AC for the winter burn, 87.16 ft2 BA/AC for the spring burn, 93.76 ft2 BA/AC for the spring and winter burn including the mechanical/chemical treatments, and the control plot was 86.97 ft2 BA/AC (Figure 2). The average of the 2004 treatments is 106.39 ft2 BA/AC for the winter burn, 113.32 ft2 BA/AC for the spring burn, 116.74 ft2 BA/AC for the spring and winter burn including the mechanical/chemical treatments, and 108.64 ft2 BA/AC for the control plot (Figure 2). 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1999 Co nt ro l ur n M ec ha ni ca l/B Bu rn Sp rin g B ur n 2004 W in te r In the 2004 continuation of the study, the mechanical/ chemical treatment had the greatest amount of basal area/acre. The least amount was seen in the winter burn with the 3 year interval. The winter fires resulted in 108.90 ft2 BA/AC for the 2 year interval, 102.23 ft2 BA/ AC for the 3 year interval, and 108.05 ft2 BA/AC for the 5 year interval. The spring burns resulted in 106.88 ft2 BA/AC for the 2 year interval, 109.31 ft2 BA/AC for the 3 year interval, and 123.77 ft2 BA/AC for the 5 year interval. The treatment including fire on a 3 year interval in the spring followed by a mechanical/chemical treatment yielded 109.54 ft2 BA/AC while the winter burn of the same frequency and follow up treatment yielded 112.55 ft2 BA/AC. The mechanical/chemical treatment without fire yielded 128.14 ft2 BA/AC, and the control plot had 108.54 ft2 BA/AC (Figure 1). Tre atme nt All data gathe re d fro m the Es c ambia Expe rime ntal Fo re s t, Es c ambia Co unty, AL Conclusion The spring burns, or growing season burns, eliminate more hardwood competition than the winter burns, or dormant season burns. This is because the spring fires burn at a higher temperature during warmer weather compared to less intense fires during the colder winter weather. There is also a greater fuel load provided by the herbaceous and woody plants that have broken bud. Because the buds have broken on the herbaceous and woody plants, more of these are eliminated as well. Poster Presentations 143 The mechanical/chemical treatments, both with and without fire, resulted in the best increment growth because there was much less stress to the residual stand of trees. When a stand is burned, the competition is stressed to a point were it cannot compete with the crop trees. However, even though Pinus palustris tolerates fire, this does not mean its growth is not affected. Fire affects all species, but some species are able to resist it more efficiently. Pinus palustris is one of these species. Because a mechanical treatment, chemical treatment, or a combination of the two treatments is far greater in cost to the landowner, fire is a better choice for managing competition. This is true in the short run and in the long run. Argument could be made that the mechanical/ chemical treatment is best early on because no stress is put on the desired crop trees. However, the economics for this are not sound and will not pay off because of the large cost difference between this and fire, with fire being less expensive. For someone who is convinced that the results in the long run will be best if fire is not used, the silvics of Pinus palustris must be examined. The species must have bare mineral soil to naturally regenerate. When fire is excluded, a thick litter layer and duff layer accumulate on the forest floor, making it nearly impossible for regeneration. There is also a richness of understory species in ecosystems allowing fire. A number of grasses, plants and herbaceous materials will only survive in fire maintained landscapes (Kush et al. 1999). Consequently, the plots without burning had the fewest number of species with a higher percent of woody species, and the winter burn had the highest number of species (Kush et al. 2000). Basal area was observed to be less in the 2 year interval burns than in the 3 and 5 year intervals. This is due to the greater frequency of stress placed on the trees, slowing vigor, productivity, and growth. The results show that the best outcome is seen when the stand was treated with prescribed fire at the 5 year interval. The 5 year interval reduced the stress and competition, and increased growth when compared to the 2 and 3 year interval burning periods. Negative effects of fire did not appear to affect the height and diameter growth past the age of 24 years. However, Boyer found negative results with basal area and volume growth up to the age 30 years from prescribed fire (Kush et al. 1999). Different sites provide varying results in growth. Because of this, individual sites must be observed and treated separately. A highly productive site, or one with a high site index, will facilitate more growth to every herbaceous and woody plant. This means that competition will grow more vigorously and has a greater chance to compete with and subdue the crop trees. Conversely, a low productivity site cannot support as many fast growing competitors. Therefore, a high site index should be burned more frequently in the early stages of the stand initiation phase of development. This practice limits competition and provides the stand with the best chance of success. A low site index should be burned less frequently, but regularly enough to eliminate the woody competition. As a stand matures and reaches the stem exclusion phase of development, crown closure of the canopy will provide the shade necessary to exclude many shade intolerant competitors from the stand. As this occurs, fire can be used as a treatment less frequently, which will limit the stress to annual growth. However, it still must be used with enough frequency to keep the litter and duff layers at moderate levels and to protect the residual stand from destructive wild fire. Since any choice can have both beneficial and unwanted, unproductive effects, there are advantages and disadvantages to prescribed fire. The site characteristics, site index, landowner objectives, economics, and risks involved will all affect the usefulness of fire. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank George Ward and Ronald Tucker for their work on the Escambia Experimental Forest, and the cooperation of the T.R. Miller Mill Company. Literature Cited Boyer, WD. 1995. Progress Report: Timing of Prescribed Fire for Optimum Hardwood Control and Minimum Impact on Pine Growth. Escambia Experimental Forest, Principle Silviculturist. U.S. Forest Service (FS-SO-4105-2.25, Problem 2). Bonnicksen, T.M. 2000. America’s Ancient Forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 594 p. Kush, J.S., Meldahl R.S., and Boyer W.D. 1999. Understory Plant Community Response after 23 years of Hardwood Competition Control Treatments in Natural Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) Forests. Can. J. For. Res.29: 1047-1054. Kush, J.S., Meldahl R.S., and Boyer W.D. 2000. Understory Plant Community Response to Season of Burn in Natural Longleaf Pine Forests Pages 3339 in W. K. Moser and C. F. Moser, editors. Proceedings of the 21st Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Fire and Forest Ecology: Innovative Silviculture and Vegetation Management. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America. A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. NJ: Princeton University Press, pp 143-160. Poster Presentations 144 Landscape Scale Ecosystem Classification in Longleaf Pine Forests of the Talladega Mountains, Alabama Brent Womack1 and Robert Carter2 1 2 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Dublin, Georgia, 31040, USA Department of Biology, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama, 36265, USA Introduction Table 1. Mean of diagnostic environmental variables for pine dominated sites in the Horseblock LTA. Montane longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystems are found in portions of northern Georgia and Alabama. They are characterized by a mixture of Appalachian, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain plant species. Vegetation surveys have been conducted in areas such as Forest McClellan, AL (Maceina et al. 2000) and Rome, GA (Lipps and Deselm 1969), but there have been no attempts to study the interrelationship between forest communities, soils, and landform variables. The objective of the study was to identify ecological land units based on the discriminating vegetation, soils, and landform features in the Horseblock Mountain Landtype Association (LTA) on the Talladega National Forest. Methods The study area was Horseblock Mountain Landtype association located within the Shoal Creek Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest. The elevations in the study site ranged from 600 feet above mean sea level (msl) to over 1900 feet above msl. Topography ranges from rolling hills reminiscent of the Piedmont region to ridges with slopes approaching 70 percent. In the summer of 2004, 44 plots were established in suitable forested sites. The sites were free of recent disturbance with the exception of fire. Tree, sapling, seedling, and herbaceous strata were sampled following the Carolina Vegetation Survey protocol (Peet et al. 1998). Soils samples were collected by horizon from four locations within the plot to determine soil horizon depth and chemical and textural properties. Landform variables sampled included slope gradient, aspect, and landform index (LFI). Ecological land units were delineated through ordination and cluster analysis of presence/absence data. The ordination programs employed were de-trended correspondence analysis and non-metric multidimensional scaling (McCune and Grace 2002). Cluster analysis was through TWINSPAN (Hill 1975, McCune and Grace 2002). Environmental variables were related to the ecological units through stepwise discriminant analysis (p=0.10). Longleaf Pine Longleaf pine - Longleaf Pine Dwarf Huckleberry Shortleaf Pine - - Partridge - Elliott’s Bluestem Muscadine Pea - Trefoil Land19.36 form* Index 27.1 Slope A Horizon Depth 4.42 (cm)* B Horizon Depth 13.64 (cm) B Horizon Ca (lbs/ac) 85.38 * *Statistically Significant (p=0.10) 17.49 18.59 25.8 24.13 2.91 2.83 11.45 8.04 40 82.5 Table 2. Mean of diagnostic environmental variables of hardwood dominated sites in the Horseblock Mountain LTA. American Hornbeam Chesnut Oak - Oakleaf Sweetgum - Hayscented Hydrangea - Wild Yam Fern Landform 40.75 34.26 Index Slope* 49.25 7.33 3.69 7.29 14.22 16.83 25 36.67 2.83 1 A Horizon Depth (cm) B Horizon Depth (cm) B Horizon Mg (lbs/ac)* B Horizon P (lb/ac) * *Statistically Significant (p=0.10) Poster Presentations 145 Results Literature Cited Five landscape scale ecosystems were identified with a unique species assemblages. Two were in hardwood dominated sites while three were in pine dominated sites. Each community had diagnostic soil and landform variables as well as diagnostic species (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4). Species abundant in all pine dominated sites included Diospyros virginiana, Solidago odora, Quercus velutina, Andropogon virginicus, Sorghastrum nutans, Pteridium aquilinum, and Vaccinium pallidum. Species abundant in all hardwood dominated sites included Quercus alba, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Chasmanthium sessiliflorum. Hill, M. O. 1979. TWINSPAN: A FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Dept. of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. 90 Lipps, E.L. and H.R. Deselm. 1969. The vascular flora of the Marshall Forest, Rome, Georgia. Castanea 34:414-432. Maceina, E.C., J.S. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2000. Vegetational survey of a montane longleaf pine community at Fort McClellan, Alabama. Castanea 65: 147-154. McCune, B. and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, OR. 300 pp. Peet, R. K., T.R. Wentworth, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63: 262274. SPSS. 1996. SYSTAT 6.0 for Windows. Chicago IL. Conclusions The forest communities of the Talladega Mountain Range represent a unique ecosystem blending of Coastal and Piedmont/Appalachian species. A complex interaction of fire and landform has shaped the forest. The presence of longleaf pine on the upland sites indicates that fire played an historical role in determining plant species distribution. Table 3. Community type, habitat, and diagnostic species (percentage of plots present) for Hardwood Dominated Sites in the Talladega Mountain Region of Northeast Alabama (1, 2, 3, 4, indicate tree, sapling, seedling, and herb, respectively). Community: Chesnut Oak - Oakleaf Hydrangea - Wild Yam American Hornbeam - Sweetgum - Hayscented Fern Habitat: Steep lower slopes near streams Stream borders and small alluvial flats 43 40 14 20 Diagnostic Species: Vitis rotundifolia 3 Chamaecrista nictitans spp. nictitans 4 Quercus prinus 2, 3 100 Antennaria plantaginifolia 4 57 Amphicarpa bracteata 4 71 20 Dioscorea villosa 4 71 20 Liquidambar styraciflua 2 14 100 Chasmanthium laxum 4 14 80 Dennstaedtia punctilobula 4 80 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3 Acer barbatum 3 Carpinus carolina 3 14 43 Poster Presentations 146 100 100 80 Table 4. Community type, habitat, and diagnostic species (percentage of plots present) for Pine Dominated Sites in the Talladega Mountain Region of Northeast Alabama (1, 2, 3, 4, indicate tree, sapling, seedling, and herb, respectively). Longleaf Pine - Dwarf Huckleberry - Longleaf pine - Shortleaf Pine - Longleaf Pine - Partridge Elliott’s Bluestem Muscadine Pea - Trefoil Habitat: Diagnostic Species: Pinus palustris 2 Andropogon gyrans 4 Carex jamesii 4 Pinus echinata 2 Tephrosia virginiana 4 Vitis rotundifolia 3 Gaylussacia dumosa 3 Hypoxis hirsuta 4 Chamaecrista nictitans spp. nictitans 4 Rocky upper slopes, deepest A horizon, low CA Rolling hills, shallow soil, higher CA Mountain tops, shallow soils 100 66 75 58 100 33 83 25 80 10 20 90 40 100 50 10 100 25 25 50 100 25 17 30 100 75 Desmodium marilandicum 4 75 Desmodium obtusum 4 75 Desmodium paniculatum 4 75 Quercus prinus 2, 3 33 60 Liquidambar styraciflua 2 8 10 Acknowledgements This research was supported by Jacksonville State University, US Forest Service, and a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Poster Presentations 147 50 Fuel Loads, Tree Community Structure, and Carbon Storage in Mountain Longleaf Pine Stands Undergoing Restoration Rebecca Worley1 and Martin Cipollini2 1 Warren-Wilson College, Asheville, North Carolina, 28815, USA 2 Berry College, Mount Berry, Georgia, 30149, USA Abstract Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), once dominant in southern forests, has been reduced in range from 37 million ha to less than 1.2 million ha due in large part to fire suppression. Healthy longleaf ecosystems are characterized by an open under-story dominated by fire-resistant grasses. Current longleaf stands are found mostly in the costal plain but a few tracts remain on south-facing slopes in mountainous regions of Alabama and Georgia. Little research exists on montane longleaf and the majority of what is known is based on studies of degraded stands. The Berry College Longleaf Pine Project began in 1999 with the primary goal of restoring relict longleaf stands on Lavender Mountain, Floyd County, Georgia. Since then, restoration burns and hardwood control have been initiated in mature stands, and planting has been initiated in clear- and selective-cut areas. The goals of the current research project were to assess changes in tree community structure and fuel biomass in mature stands in the two years following an April 2004 prescribed burn, and to determine total biomass across all managed areas. A planar transect method was used to quantify downed woody fuels, litter, herbs, duff, shrubs, and small trees. Large tree biomass and community data were obtained using the point-centered quarter method. Since the 2004 burn, longleaf importance and the biomass of several woody fuel categories, litter, and small trees increased, whereas duff biomass decreased. Total biomass integrated across the 309-acre managed area was over 15,000 tons (ca. 50 tons/acre). Poster Presentations 148 Participant List Robert N. Addington P.O. Box 52452 Fort Benning, GA 31995 The Nature Conservancy Phone: 706-544-7515 E-mail: [email protected] Sara B. Aicher US Fish And Wildlife Service Route 2, Box 3330 Folkston, GA 31537 Phone: 912-496-7366 Fax: 912-496-3332 E-mail: [email protected] Julius F. Ariail Julius Ariail, Photographer 5802 Long Pond Road Lake Park, GA 31636-2712 Phone: 229-563-0209 E-mail: [email protected] Todd A. Aschenbach University of Kansas 1200 Sunnyside Avenue Lawrence, KS 66045 Phone: 785-864-5690 E-mail: [email protected] Mark Atwater Weed Control Unlimited, Inc. Donalsonville, GA 39845 Phone: 229-524-6187 E-mail: [email protected] Chadwick R. Avery Eglin AFB 107 Highway 85 North Niceville, FL 32578 Phone: 850-883-1141 E-mail: [email protected] Jason T. Ayers 176 Croghan Spur Rd., Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 Phone: 843-727-4707 Fax: 843-727-4218 E-mail: [email protected] Charles Bailey 3005 Atlanta Highway Gainesville, GA 30507 Phone: 770-531-6043 Kawika Bailey 865 Geddie Road Tallahassee, FL 32304 Phone: 850-926-3073 Jill Barbour USDA Forest Service National Seed Laboratory Dry Branch, GA 31020 Phone: 478-751-3553 E-mail: [email protected] Chris Blackford Roundstone Native Seed, LLC 9764 Raider Hollow Road Upton, KY 42784 Phone: 270-531-2353 E-mail: [email protected] Jason Blanton 1171 NE Daylily Ave. Madison, FL 32340 Phone: 850-973-2967 Jim Bates U.S. Fish and Wildlife West Georgia Ecological Services Ft. Benning, GA 31995 C.J. Blanton Jr. 117 NE Daylily Ave. Madison, FL 32340 Phone: 850-973-2967 C. Victor Beadles Beadles Lumber Company P.O. Box 3457 Moultrie, GA 31776 Phone: 229-985-6996 E-mail: [email protected] Dave G. Borden P.O. Box 59 Pine Level, AL 36065 Phone: 334-224-1454 Fax: 334-420-2779 E-mail: [email protected] Barbara Bell USDA Forest Service Calcasieu Ranger District Boyce, LA 71409 Phone: 318-793-9427 Fax: 318-793-9430 E-mail: [email protected] Lynda P. Borden P.O. Box 59 Pine Level, AL 36065 Phone: 334-322-1486 E-mail: [email protected] Wayne Bell International Forest Co. 1265 GA Hwy 133 N. Moultrie, GA 31768 Phone: 800-633-4506 E-mail: [email protected] Amanda Bessler Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Route 2 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Arvind A. Bhuta Virginia Tech 442 E. Roanoke St. Apt. E Blacksburg, VA 24060 Phone: 334-559-3265 E-mail: [email protected] 149 Larry Boulineau P.O. Box 1033 Louisville, GA. 30434 Ft. Gordon, Georgia Phone: 706-791-9927 E-mail: [email protected] Elizabeth Bowersock Auburn University 602 Duncan Drive Auburn, AL 36849 E:mail: [email protected] Allen Braswell Installation Forester Fort Gordon, GA 30905 Phone: 706-791-9932 E-mail: [email protected] Hal Brockman USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW. Washington DC 20250-1123 Phone: 202-205-1694 Fax: 202-205-1271 E-mail: [email protected] Dale Brockway 520 DeVall Dr. Auburn, AL 36849-8700 Phone: 334-826-8700 E-mail: [email protected] MaryJo Broussard P.O. Box 8382 Mobile, AL 36689 Phone: 251-342-9233 Joyce Marie Brown 4000 Central Florida Blvd. Orlando, FL 32816 Phone: 407-488-5590 Randy Browning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 113 Fairfield Drive Hattiesburg, MS 39402 Phone: 601-606-2622 E-mail: [email protected] Frank Burly 1337 Long Horn Road Middleburg, FL 32068 Phone: 904-291-5531 Shan Cammack 2065 US Hwy 278 SE Social Circle, GA 30025 Phone: 770-918-6411 James Y. Campbell 1 Hawkinshurst Lane Hopkins, SC 29061 Phone: 803-776-3671 E-mail: [email protected] Steve Carpenter 3021 145th Road Live Oak, FL 32060 Phone: 386-208-1460 Robert Carter P.O. Box 122 Jacksonville, AL 36265 Phone: 256-782-5144 Paul Catlett Camp Blanding 5629 SR 16 West Bldg 4540 Starke, FL 32091 Phone: 904-682-3453 E-mail: [email protected] Jack Chappell Meeks Farms & Nursery, Inc. 187 Flanders Rd. Kite, GA 31049 Phone: 478-237-6863 Sabrina Clark US Fish And Wildlife 6578 Dogwood View Pkwy Jackson, MS 39213 Phone: 601-321-1135 E-mail: [email protected] Allison Cochran P.O. Box 278 Double Springs, AL 35553 Phone: 205-489-5111 E-mail: [email protected] Joe Cockrell 176 Croghan Spur Rd., Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 Phone: 843-727-4707 Fax: 843-727-4218 E-mail: [email protected] Frank T. Cole 1670 Meridian Rd. Thomasville ,GA 31792 Phone: 229-377-8050 June Cole 1670 Meridian Rd. Thomasville, GA 31792 Phone: 229-377-8050 Kristina F. Connor USDA Forest Service 520 Devall Dr. Auburn, AL 36849 Phone: 334-826-8700 Fax: 334-821-0037 E-mail: [email protected] Matthew Corby Camp Blanding 5629 SR 16 West Bldg 4540 Starke, FL 32091 Phone: 904-682-3243 Email:[email protected] Ellen C. Corrie 1052 State St. NW Atlanta, GA 30318-5345 Phone: 404-873-4957 E-mail: [email protected] Tom Counts P.O. Box 278 Double Springs, AL 35553 Phone: 205-489-5111 E-mail: [email protected] F.G. Courtney National Wildlife Federation 1330 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 475 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-876-8733 E-mail: [email protected] Jim Cox Tall Timbers 13093 Henry Bendol Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: 850-942-2487 E-mail: [email protected] John M. Cox Lolly Creek, LLC 1684 Wrights Chapel Road Sumner, GA 31789 Phone: 229-776-2300 Fax: 229-776-8901 E-mail: [email protected] Barbara Crane 1720 Peachtree Rd. NW Suite 816N Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-347-4039 Jenny Crisp Grey Moss Plantation Lee County, AL 36849 Mike Connor Scott Crosby J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center 390 Holloway Road Newton, GA 39870 Flornhome, FL 32140 Phone: 386-329-2552 150 Robert Cross Rt. 1 Box 1097 Shellman, GA 39886 Phone: 800-554-6550 Stephen Crown South Carolina Forestry Commission 353 Firetower Rd. Orangeburg, SC 29118 Phone: 803-534-3543 E-mail: [email protected] Lloyd Culp U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 7200 Crane Lane Gautier, MS 39553 Phone: 228-497-6322 Fax: 228-497-5407 E-mail: [email protected] Carol M. Daugherty 5297 Morgan Milton, FL 32570 Phone: 850-777-9382 James Davis Engineering & Environment, Inc. 20 Ces/cev Shaw AFB, SC 29152 Phone: 803-895-9990 Fax: 803-895-5103 E-mail: [email protected] Ted Devos Bech of Devos Forestry & Wildlife 217 S. Count St Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: 334-269-2224 E-mail: [email protected] David Dickens UGA WSFNR P.O. Box 8112 GSU Statesboro, GA 30460 Phone: 912-681-5639 E-mail: [email protected] Dan Dumont Alabama Forest Resources Center 8 St. Joseph St., 2nd Floor Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: 251-433-2372 E-mail: [email protected] David Dyson J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Rt. 2, Box 2324 Newton, GA 39870-9651 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Calvin Ernst Ernst Southern Native Seeds 9006 Mercer Pike Mcadville, PA 16335 Phone: 814-671-4840 E-mail: [email protected] Thomas L. Eberhardt 2500 Shreveport HWY Pineville, LA 71360 Phone: 318-473-7274 E-mail: [email protected] Marcia L. Ernst Ernst Southern Native Seeds 9006 Mercer Pike Live Oak, FL Phone: 814-720-2142 E-mail: [email protected] Lori G Eckhardt Auburn University 3301 School Of Forestry And Wildlife Auburn, AL 36849 Phone: 334-844-2720 Fax: 334-844-1084 E-mail: [email protected] Sharonte Edmond Georgia Forestry Commission 3561 Georgia Highway Camilla, GA 31730 Phone: 229-522-3580 E-mail: [email protected] Neal Edmondson Georgia Forestry Commission P.O. Box 819 Macon, GA 31202 Phone: 478-751-3332 E-mail: [email protected] James D. Elledge 212 Myrick Road Lumberton, MS 39455 Phone: 601-796-5494 Fax: 601-796-5494 E-mail: [email protected] Glenn E. Elms 394 FM 1375 West New Waverly, TX 77358 Phone: 936-344-6205 E-mail: [email protected] Alan Emmons Southern Forestry Consultants, Inc. 305 W. Shotwell Street Bainbridge, GA 39817 Phone: 229-220-1790 E-mail: [email protected] 151 Becky Estes School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849 E-mail: [email protected] Ray Evans Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative 1995 Halifax Holts Summit, MI 65043 Phone: 573-896-4836 E-mail: [email protected] Bo Ewing 884 US HWY 280 E Americus GA 31709 Phone: 229-942-2336 : Greg Findley 3561 Hwy. 112 Camilla, GA 31730 Georgia Forestry Commission Phone: 229-522-3580 Laura Fogo P.O. Box 9 Bisco, NC 27209 Phone: 910-695-3323 Charles W. Fore, Jr. State of Georgia 77 25th Ave. Eastman, GA 31023 Phone: 478-374-6981 E-mail: [email protected] Samuel Fowler Auburn University 109 Duncan Hall Auburn, AL 36849 Phone: 334-844-5546 William Frankenberger Florida Dept. of Military Affairs 236 South Blvd. Avon Pk. Air Force Rng., FL 33825 Phone: 863-452-4236 E-mail: william.frankenberger@avonpa Robert M. Franklin Clemson University Cooperative Extension P.O. Drawer 1086 Walterboro, SC 29488 Phone: 843-549-2595 Fax: 843-549-2597 E-mail: [email protected] Conrad J. Franz 73 Main Blvd. Trenton, NJ 08618 Phone: 690-882-1519 Adam Gabryelski Fort Gordon Forestry 143 Stone Mill Dr. Augusta, GA 30907 Phone: 706-791-9930 E-mail:[email protected] Stephen D. Gantt Jr. USFS 9901 Hwy 5 Brent, AL 35034 Phone: 205-926-9765 E-mail: [email protected] Jeff Gardner 45 HWY 281 Heflin, AL 36264 Phone: 256-463-2273 Bill Garland P.O. Box 5087 Fort McClellan, AL 36205 Phone: 256-848-6833 E-mail: [email protected] Robert P. Gehri P.O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL Phone: 912-579-6518 Traci George AL Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries 64 North Union St. Montgomery, AL 36130 Phone: 334-7-353-0503 E-mail: [email protected] John Gilbert School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849 Dean Gjerstad School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849 Susan Glenn 51 Harbour Passage East Hilton Head, SC 29926 Phone: 843-842-9696 Jeff Glitzenstein Tall Timbers Research Station Tallahassee, FL 32312 Jeffery C. Goelz USDA FS 2500 Shreveport Highway Pineville, LA 71360 Phone: 318-473-7227 Fax: 318-473-7273 E-mail: [email protected] Doria Gordon The Nature Conservancy Gainseville, FL 32601 Chris P. Gowen Toledo Manufacturing Co., Inc. P. O. Box 488 Folkston, GA 31537 Phone: 912-496-7343 Fax: 912-496-4074 E-mail: [email protected] Jennifer Greene 3125 Conner Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: 850-414-8602 Converse Griffith USDA Forest Service Calcasieu Ranger District Boyce, LA 71409 Phone: 318-793-9427 Fax: 318-793-9430 E-mail: [email protected] 152 John C. Griffith Georgia Forestry Commission 3561 Georgia Highway Camilla, GA 31730 Phone: 229-522-3580 E-mail: [email protected] Paige Grooms 305 Black Oak Rd. Bonneau, SC 29431 Phone: 843-825-9987 Craig Guyer Department of Zoology Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849 Phone: 844-9232 E-mail: [email protected] Mark Hainds Auburn University Dixon Center Andalusia, AL Phone: 334-427-1029 E-mail: lla@ alaweb.com Kent Hanby 431 Dogwood Dadeville, AL 36853 Phone: 256-825-8593 Cathy Handrick FL Fish & Wildlife Conservation P.O. Box 177 Olustee, FL 32072 Phone: 386-758-5767 E-mail: [email protected] Jon Handrick Florida Division of Forestry 137 SE Forestry Circle Lake City, FL 32025 Phone: 386-758-5713 E-mail: [email protected] Larry Harris UFL Gainesville, FL E-mail: [email protected] Jennifer Hart 3742 Clint Dr. Hilliard, FL 32046 Phone: 904-845-3597 Roger Hart 221 Airport Rd. Fayetteville, NC 28306 Phone: 910-4372620 Lewis Hay 1706 Oak Grove Farm Wadmalow Island, SC 29487 Phone: 843-559-0860 Lark Hayes Southern Environmental Law Center 200 West Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone: 919-967-1450 Fax: 919-929-9421 E-mail: [email protected] Art W. Henderson 1001 North Street Talladega, AL 35160 Phone: 256-362-2909 E-mail: [email protected] Sandra Henning 1755 Cleveland Highway Gainesville, GA 30501 U.S. Forest Service Phone: 770-297-3064 E-mail: [email protected] Nancy Herbert 200 Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Phone: 828-257-4306 Sharon Hermann Department of Biological Sciences Auburn University, AL 36849 Phone: 334-844-3933 E-mail: [email protected] George Hernandez 1720 Peachtree Rd. NW. Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-347-3554 J. Kevin Hiers JW Jones Ecological Research Center Rt. 2 Box 2324 Newton, GA 39780 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] John T. Hiers Aucilla Pines, LLC 2409 Meadowbrook Drive Valdosta, GA 31602 Phone: 229-244-5942 E-mail: [email protected] Julie Hovis US Air Force 345 Cullen Street Shaw ABF, SC 29152 Phone: 803-895-9993 E-mail: [email protected] Stanley Hinson Southern Seed Company, Inc. P.O. Box 340 Baldwin, GA 30511 Phone: 706-778-4542 E-mail: [email protected] Stephen J. Hudson Ecw Environmental Group, Llc. 534 Godfrey Lane Auburn, AL 36830 Phone: 706-544-6263 E-mail: [email protected] Arthur Hitt 513 Madison Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: 334-240-9323 Malcolm Hodges The Nature Conservancy 1330 West Peach Tree Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-253-7211 E-mail: [email protected] Joel Hodgson Beaver Plastics LTD 12150 160 St Edmonton, AB T5V 1H5 Phone: 604-552-1547 E-mail: [email protected] David Hoge USDA Forest Service Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-347-1649 Mary Ann Hollenbeck Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Route 2 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Gary Holmes Osceola National Forest 24874 U.S. 90 Olustee, FL 32072 Phone: 386-752-2577 E-mail: [email protected] 153 Gwen Iacona J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Rt. 2 Box 2325 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Lamar A. Isler Georgia DNR 4073 East Gate Drive Camilla, GA 31730 Phone: 229-220-2768 E-mail: [email protected] Steven Jack J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Rt. 2, Box 2324 Newton, GA 39870-9651 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Austin Jenkins Clemson University 406 Watts Ave Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: 864-313-4233 E-mail: [email protected] Rhett Johnson Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center Andalusia, AL Jamie Jones South Carolina Forestry Commission 109 Hutson St. Greenwood, SC 29649 Phone: 864-314-2028 E-mail: [email protected] Bob Karrfalt 5675 Riggins Mill Rd. Dry Branch, GA 31020 Phone: 478-751-3551 William Lamp 3561 HWY. 112 Camilla, GA 31730 Phone: 229-522-3580 Susan Kett Osceola National Forest 24874 U.S. Hwy 90 Olustee, FL 32072 Phone: 386-752-2577 E-mail: [email protected] Frank W. Lands U.S. Army 1400 Cedar Hill Rd. Douglasville, GA 30134 Phone: 404-464-1645 E-mail: [email protected] Robert Kindrick P.O. Box 2000 Pine Mountain, GA 31822 Phone: 706-663-3737 Paul J. Langford PJ Langford Timber 9154 Woodrun Road Pensacola, FL 32514 Phone: 850-477-6735 E-mail: [email protected] L. Katherine Kirkman Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Route 2 Albany, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Nathan Klaus Georgia Department of Natural Resouces Non-Game Endangered Wildlife Program Forsyth, GA 31029 John Kush School of Forestry and Wildlife Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849 Phone: 334-844-1065 E-mail: [email protected] Cody Laird Oakridge Farms/lolly Creek LLC 12 Rose Court Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: 404-316-3672 E-mail: [email protected] Dobbs Laird Oakridge Farms 1684 Wrights Chapel Rd. Sumner, GA 31789 John Lambert P.O. Box 3328 Sumrall, MS 39482 Phone: 601-758-4970 Keville Larson 2105 Venetia Rd. Mobile, AL 36605 Phone: 257-476-4229 Weezie Larson 2105 Venetia Rd. Mobile, AL 36605 Phone: 251-476-4229 Dwight K. Lauer Silvics Analytic Ridgeway, VA 24148 Gregory Lee Moody Air Force Base 23 Ces/ceva Moody AFB, GA 31699-1707 Phone: 229-257-5881 E-mail: [email protected] Heather A. Lee US Fish And Wildlife Service Route 2 Box 3330 Folkston, GA 31537 Phone: 912-496-7366 Fax: 9124963332 E-mail: [email protected] Tom Leslie Georgia Engineering Alliance 542 St. Charles Avenue Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: 404-521-2324 154 Donzel Lewis Lewis Forestry 182 Thomason Road Cordele, GA 31015 Phone: 229-276-1541 E-mail: [email protected] Lynn Lewis - Weis P.O. Box 530 Edgefield, SC 29824 Phone: 803-637-3106 Michael Lick P.O. Box 24B Wiggins, MS 39577 Phone: 601-528-6173 Gerald W. Long 1830 Devils Backbone Road Leesville, SC 29070 Phone: 803-532-4788 Joshua Love Georgia Forestry Commission P.O. Box 819 Macon, GA 31202 Phone: 478-751-3482 E-mail: [email protected] Michael Low 107 HWY 85 North Niceville, FL 32578 Phone: 850-883-1127 E-mail: [email protected] Dwain Luce Luce Packing Company P.O. Box 8743 Moss Point, MS 39562 Phone: 251-343-3362 E-mail: [email protected] Greg Luce Luce Packing Company P.O. Box 8743 Moss Point, MS 39562 Phone: 228-474-6383 E-mail: [email protected] Margaret W. Luce Luce Packing Company P.O. Box 8743 Moss Point, MS 39562 Phone: 251-343-3362 E-mail: [email protected] Susan Luce Luce Packing Company P.O. Box 8743 Moss Point, MS 39562 Phone: 228-474-6383 Bryan Maw The University of Georgia P.O. Box 748 Tifton, GA 31793 Phone: 229-386-3377 Steven Maharry 45 HWY 281 Heflin, AL 36264 Phone: 256-463-2273 Kirk McAlpin Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Route 2 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Lawrence W. Mahler Jr. P.O. Box 359 Summerdale, AL 36580 Phone: 281-423-3331 Raymond Majesty 1965 Tangewood Dr. Apt A Glenview, IL 60025 Danny Marshburn Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base Commanding Officer Attn Camp Lejeune, NC 28542 Phone: 910-451-7223 Fax: 910-451-1787 E-mail: [email protected] George L. McCaskill University of Florida 281 Corry Village Gainesville, FL 32603 Phone: 352-846-5950 E-mail: [email protected] Joshua McCormick Tall Timbers Research Station 13093 Henry Beadel Drive Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: 850-893-4153 E-mail: [email protected] James McHugh Alabama Department Of Conservation 64 North Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130 Phone: 334-242-3874 E-mail: [email protected] Don McKenzie 2396 Cocklebur Rd. Ward, AR 72176 Phone: 501-941-7994 Martha McKnight 113 W. Roanoke Dr. Fitzgerald, GA 31750-8460 Phone: 229-423-2104 Thomas Meade Avon Park Air Force Range USAF Avon Park, FL 33825 Phone: 863-385-7139 E-mail: [email protected] Andy Meeks Meeks Farms & Nursery, Inc. 187 Flanders Rd. Kite, GA 31049 Phone: 912-536-3844 Jessica McCorvey The Jones Center Route 2, Box 2324 Newton, GA 39870 Steve Meeks Phone: 229-734-4706 Meeks Farms & Nursery, Inc. E-mail: [email protected] 187 Flanders Rd. Kite, GA 31049 Howard E. McCullough Phone: 877-809-1737 US Fish And Wildlife Service E-mail: [email protected] Katherine Martin Route 2 Box 3330 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Folkston, GA 31537 Mark A. Melvin Rt. 2 Phone: 912-496-7366 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Newton, GA 39870 Fax: 9124963332 Rt. 2, Box 2324 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Newton, GA 39870-9651 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 229-734-4706 Jason McGee E-mail: [email protected] George Matusick Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Auburn University Route 2 Ben Miley 3301 School Of Forestry And Wildlife Newton, GA 39870 45 Highway 281 Auburn, AL 36849 Phone: 229-734-4706 Heflin, AL 36264 Phone: 334-844-1058 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 256-463-2273 Fax: 334-844-1084 E-mail: [email protected] John McGuire Kimberley D. Miller School of Forestry and Wildlife SciUSFS- Calcasieu Ranger District ences 9912 Hwy 28 West Auburn University Boyce, LA 71409 Auburn, AL 36849 Phone: 318-793-9427 Phone: 344-844– 1032 Fax: 318-793-9430 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Joel Martin Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center 12130 Dixon Center Road Andalusia, AL 36420 Phone: 334-222-7779 E-mail: [email protected] 155 Manning Miller St Joe Company P.O. Box 400 Hosford, FL 32334 Phone: 850-379-8668 E-mail: [email protected] Kim Mushrush International Paper P.O. Box 56 Bellville, GA 30414 Phone: 912-739-4721 Fax: 912-739-9409 E-mail: [email protected] Weldon Miller Ag-Renewal, Inc. 1519 E. Main Street Weatherford, OK 73096 Phone: 580-772-7059 Fax: 580-772-6887 E-mail: [email protected] Stefanie Nagid FFWCC/ Restoration Ecologist 9225 CR 49 Live Oak, FL 32060 Phone: 386-362-1001 E-mail: [email protected] Patrick J. Minogue University of Florida 2319 B Via Sardina Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: 530-604-8328 E-mail: [email protected] Gil Nelson Gil Nelson Associates 157 Leonard's Drive Thomasville, GA 31792 Phone: 229-377-1857 E-mail: [email protected] William Moody 125 Rose lake Rd. Lexington, SC 29072 Phone: 803-808-2205 Lauren Newsome Georgia Forestry Commission 1055 E. Whitehall Rd. Athens, GA 30605 Phone: 706-542-9228 E-mail: [email protected] Julie Moore 4401 N.Fairfax Drive, Rm 420 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: 703-358-2096 Kathryn Mordecai USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Athens, GA 30602 Lee A. Mulkey SEMP Director - UGA P.O. Box 480 Demorest, GA 30535 Phone: 706-499-4493 E-mail: [email protected] Keary Mull SC Department Of Natural Resources 420 Dirleton Road Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: 843-546-3226 E-mail: [email protected] Kenwood Nichols 2536 Centenary St. Selma, AL 36701 Phone: 334-874-7167 E-mail: [email protected] Joseph O’Brien USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Athens, GA 30602 Anna Osiecka University of Florida 155 Research Rd. Quincy, FL 32351 Phone: 850-875-7145 Fax: 850-875-7188 E-mail: [email protected] Wimbric J Padgett Jr. Padgett Tree Planting Rt.1 Milan, GA. 31060 Phone:229-833-2088 Fax: 229-833-5573 E-mail: [email protected] 156 Eric Palola 58 State St. Montpelier, VT 05602 Phone: 802-229-0650 Dale Pancake 12130 Dixon Center Rd. Andalusia, AL 36420 Phone: 334-222-7779 James Parker U.S. Army Infantry Center Ft. Benning, GA 31905 Phone: 706-544-7081 Ronald A. Phernetton US Fish And Wildlife Service Route 2 Box 3330 Folkston, GA 31537 Phone: 912-496-7366 Fax: 9124963332 E-mail: [email protected] Brad Phillips P.O. Box 1463 Waynesboro, GA 30830 Phone: 706-554-2310 Bill Pickens 2411 Old US 70 West Clayton, NC 27525 Phone: 919-553-6178 Caroline Polgar Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Route 2 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Dotty S. Porter Sessoms Timber Trust 3704 Dean Still Road Blackshear, GA 31516 Phone: 912-449-8524 E-mail: [email protected] Catherine Prior The Nature Conservancy 113 8th St. Columbus, GA 31901 Phone: 706-587-1395 E-mail: [email protected] Harold E. Quicke BASF Corporation Raleigh, NC Justin Qurey 221 Airport Rd. Fayetteville, NC 28306 Phone: 910-437-2620 Wayne Rast Carolina Heart Pine, Inc. 166 Winding Brook Rd. Cameron, SC 29030 Phone: 803-534-0404 E-mail: [email protected] Mark Register International Paper 719 Southlands Rd Bainbridge, GA 39819 Phone: 229-246-3642 E-mail: [email protected] Roger Reid The University of Alabama P.O. Box 870 340 Tuscaloosa, AL 34487 Phone: 205-480-8443 roger.reid@discoveringalabama Joe Reinman St. Marks National Wildlife St. Marks, FL 32355 Phone: 850-925-6121 Randy Roach 1208 B Main St. Dophne, AL 36526 Phone: 251-441-5872 James Roberts 3125 Conner Blvd. C 25 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: 850-414-9906 Darrell Russell DOW Agrosciences P.O. Box 1938 Roswell, GA 30077 Phone: 770-594-8949 E-mail: [email protected] Buford Sanders Georgia Forestry Commission 1055 E. Whitehall Rd. Athens, GA 30605 Phone: 706-542-9939 E-mail: [email protected] Jim Schlenker 221 Sirport Rd. Fayetteville, NC 28306 Phone: 910-4372620 John Seymour Roundstone Native Seed, LLC 9764 Raider Hollow Road Upton, KY 42784 Phone: 270-531-2353 E-mail: [email protected] Randy Seymour 9764 Raider Hollow Road Upton, KY 42784 Phone: 270-531-2353 E-mail: [email protected] Janet Sheldon Georgia Conservancy 18 N. Main Street Moultrie, GA 31768 Phone: 229-985-8117 E-mail: [email protected] Richard Shelfer 325 John Knox Rd. Suite F 100 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: 850-523-8553 E-mail: [email protected] Geoff Rockwell 1609 Davis Ave. Tifton, GA 31794 Phone: 229-388-9023 Steven J. Shephard Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base Commanding Officer Camp Lejeune, NC 28542 Phone: 910-451-7220 Lin Roth Fax: 910-451-1787 Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest E-mail: [email protected] Research Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634 157 Margie Sheridan 8390 Fredericksbsrg Tppk. Woodford, VA 22580 Phone: 804-633-4336 Phil Sheridan 8390 Fredericksberg Tppk. Woodford, VA 22580 Phone: 804-633-4336 Gary Shurette 25 HWY 281 Heflin, AL 36264 Phone: 256-463-2273 Chuck Simon County Extension Agent Covington County Alabama Cooperative Extension System Andalusia, AL 36420 Terrell Simmons Simmons Tree Farm 545 Snipesville Rd. Denton, GA Phone: 912-375-7520 Jo Ann Smith US Forest Service 2500 Shreveport Hwy Pineville, LA 71360 Phone: 318-473-7191 Fax: 318-473-7117 E-mail: [email protected] Scott Smith Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Route 2 Box 2324 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 Fax: 229-734-4707 E-mail: [email protected] David South Auburn University School of Forestry and Wildlife Auburn, AL 36830 Phone: 334-844-1022 E-mail: [email protected] Eric Spadgenske 2100-1st Ave. North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 250-731-0874 Vaughan Spearman P.O. Box Drawer 1086 Walterboro, SC 29488 Phone: 843-549-2595 Tommy Spencer Osceola National Forest 24874 U.S. Hwy 90 Olustee, FL 32072 Phone: 386-752-2577 E-mail: [email protected] Donna Streng U.S. Fish and Wildlife West Georgia Ecological Services Fort Benning, GA 31995 Lee Stribling School of Forestry and Wildlife Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849 Eric G. Strickland Engineering And Environment Inc. 2320 Apartment C Augusta, GA 30909 Phone: 706-791-9929 E-mail: [email protected] Katharine L. Stuble J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Rt. 2, Box 2325 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-8026 E-mail: [email protected] Eric Stuewe Stuewe and Sons, Inc. 2290 SE Kiger Island Dr. Corvallis, OR 97333 Phone: 541-757-7798 E-mail: [email protected] John Sunday 1465 Tignall Rd. Washington, GA 30673 Phone: 706-678-2015 Shi Jean S. Sung USDA FS 2500 Shreveport Highway Pineville, LA 71360 Phone: 318-473-7233 Fax: 318-473-7273 E-mail: [email protected] Sammy Sweat Simmons Tree Farm 545 Snipesville Rd. Denton, GA Phone: 912-422-3757 Mary Anne Sword-Sayer USDA FS 2500 Shreveport Highway Pineville, LA 71360 Phone: 318-473-7275 Fax: 318-473-7273 E-mail: [email protected] Scotland Talley FL. Fish And Wildlife Conservation 1600 NE 23rd Ave. Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: 352-955-2241 Fax: 352.955.2125 E-mail: [email protected] Daniel Taylor 15019 Board St. Broolsville, FL 34601 Phone: 352-754-6777 Deborah Taylor Memorial Park Conservancy 5030 St. Kitts Calle Dickinson, TX 77539 Phone: 713-863-8403 E-mail: [email protected] Wayne Taylor Avon Park Air Force Range USAF Avon Park, FL 33825 Phone: 863-452-4119 E-mail: [email protected] Donald Temple 1800 Bunnlevel - Erwin Rd. Bunnlevel, NC 28323 Phone: 910-591-9494 Gloria M. Thomasson 3719 Prentice Ave. Columbia, SC 29205 Phone: 803-787-7046 William H. Thomasson 3719 Prentice Ave. Columbia, SC 29205 Phone: 803-787-7046 Cindy Thompson Osceola National Forest 24874 U.S. 90 Olustee, FL 32072 Phone: 386-752-2577 E-mail: [email protected] Micah G. Thorning USDA Forest Service 9901hwy 5 Brent, AL 35034 Phone: 205-926-9765 Fax: 205-926-9712 E-mail: [email protected] Jeff Thurmond NRCS 3381 Skyway Dr. Auburn, AL 36830 Phone: 334-887-4560 Don Tomczak 1720 Peachtree Rd. NW,Room 816 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-347-7475 Chris Trowell Department of Social Science South Georgia College Douglas, Georgia 31533 Sandra Tucker US Fish & Wildlife Service 105 Westpark Dr. Athens, GA 30606 Phone: 706-613-9493 Fax: 706-613-6059 E-mail: [email protected] Lex Tyson J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Rt. 2, Box 2324 Newton, GA 39870-9651 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Joe Vanderwerff 5865 East HWY 98 Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 Phone: 850-231-5800 158 Merrill Varn Varn Co. P.O. Box 40965 Jacksonville, FL 32203 Phone: 904-356-4881 E-mail: [email protected] Bennie F. Vinson Alabama Power Company 600 N. 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291 Phone: 20-257-4622 Fax: 205.257.2764 E-mail: [email protected] Allison Vogt Auburn University 602 Duncan Drive, Room 3236 Auburn University, AL 36849-5418 Phone: 334-844-9219 Fax: 334-844-1084 E-mail: [email protected] Joan Walker Department of Forestry and Natural Resources Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634 Don Wardlaw BASF Corporation 3445 Meadowlane Waycross, GA 31503 Phone: 912-663-8476 E-mail: [email protected] Clay Ware SFIM-AEC-TSR, Bldg.E4430 APG, MD 21010 Phone: 410-436-6463 Sarah L. Watkins Luce Packing Company P.O. Box 8743 Moss Point, MS 39562 Phone: 251-406-0074 E-mail: [email protected] Holly Welch South Carolina Forestry Commission 278 Spring Road Laurens, SC 29360 Phone: 803-940-0980 E-mail: [email protected] Micah White Rt. 1 Box 67 Helene, GA 31037 Phone: 229-868-3385 John Whitesides USAF 4 Winder Cres Newport News, VA 23606 Phone: 757-764-2766 E-mail: [email protected] F. Bennett Whitfield Whitfield Farms & Nursery 2561 Lambs Bridge Road Twin City, GA 30471 Marion S. Wiggers J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center Rural Route 2, Box 2324 Newton, GA 39870 Phone: 229-734-4706 E-mail: [email protected] Harold P. Wilson MFC/Waynesboro Nursery 1063 Buckatunna-Mt. Zion Road Waynesboro, MS 39367 Phone: 601-735-9512 Fax: 601-735-3163 E-mail: [email protected] Beth Wood 1550 Henly St. Orangeburg, SC 29115 Phone: 803-534-6280 Keith Wooster USDA-NRCS 355 East Hancock Avenue Ms. 207 Athens, GA 30601 Phone: 706-546-2114 E-mail: [email protected] Rebecca M. Worley Berry College CPO 7155 P.O. Box 9000 Asheville, NC 28815-9000 Phone: 770-547-3897 E-mail: [email protected] Beth Young Cahaba River Publishing 2805 Shades Crest Road Birmingham, AL 35216 Phone: 205-969-1800 159 James W. Zanzot Auburn University 3301 School Of Forestry & Wildlife Auburn University, AL 36849 Phone: 334-329-4121 E-mail: [email protected] 160
