United States

‘Department of

Agriculture

Southern Forest

Experiment Station

New Orleans,

Louisiana

A Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in

the Conservation of Migratory

Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood

Forests

General Technical Report

so-1 14

November 1994
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following were instrumental in planning and organizing this workshop: S. Ray Aycock, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS); C. Michael Staten, Anderson-Tully Company; David N. Pashley,

Nature Conservancy; Winston Paul Smith, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station; and Karen Yaich, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Appreciation is extended to the staff

of the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge (USDI-FWS), especially the Refuge manager, George Chandler, for

invaluable logistic support, Jeff Goelz, US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station, Southern Hardwoods Laboratory, provided technical assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.

Each contributor submitted camera-ready copy and is responsible for the accuracy and style of his or her paper. The

statements of the contributors do not necessarily reflect the policy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, or the Southern Forest Experiment Station.
A Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation

of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests

compiled and edited by

Winston Paul Smith and David N. Pashley

Winston Paul Smith is a research wildlife biologist at Southern Hardwoods Laboratory, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Stoneville, MS 38776; David N. Pashley is

Director of Science and Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana Field Office, Baton Rouge, LA 7082 1.

i
PREFACE

Today’s land stewards are faced with the challenge of managing natural resources in a social climate with

increasing expectations of accountability for an even broader spectrum of ecological and social values. The “buzz”

words of days past (i.e., biodiversity, wetland values and functions) are becoming the realities of ecosystem

management. Nowhere is this challenge more demanding than in the bottomland forests of the lower Mississippi

Alluvial Valley and Gulf Coastal Plain where more than 75 percent of the resource has been lost to agricultural and

urban development in the brief period following European settlement. Effective management of the remaining

resource is complicated further by a highly diverse ownership with the majority (approximately 60 percent) of the

remaining timberlands belonging to the private, noncommercial sector. If we are to succeed in managing the

remaining forest resources, we must establish a coalition of professionals, a braintrust that draws from the knowledge,

experience, and diverse perspectives of the many scientists and land managers working with industry, universities,

and government agencies.

This proceedings is a collection of papers presented at and related discussions that followed a workshop held at

Tensas National Wildlife Refuge near Tallulah, Louisiana, on August 9-10, 1993. The purpose of the workshop was

to establish a forum for dialogue between scientists and land managers and between foresters and wildlife biologists;

the ultimate goal of this interaction was to identify additional constraints imposed by including the habitat needs of

Neotropical migratory landbirds in managing bottomland forests. Specific objectives of this symposium were to: (1)

provide an overview of the basic ecology of bottomland forests and Neotropical migratory birds, (2) familiarize

wildlife biologists with principIes and techniques of stand management in bottomland hardwood forests, (3)

summarize potential conflicts that exist in managing battomland forests for wiIdlife species with different habitat

needs, and (4) provide participants with a realistic view of the diversity of perspectives and expectations that exists

among bottomland hardwood forest protagonists.

This publication contains numerous references to vascular plant and animal species. Rather than include scientific

names with common names in the text of each paper, lists of mammal and bird species (Appendix A) and tree and

shrub species (Appendix B) are included. Common and scientific names of trees and shrubs followed Little (1978).

Common and scientific names of birds and mammals follow American Ornithologists’ Union (1983) and Hall (198 I),

respectively.

LITERATURE CITED.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds. 6th ed. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc.

877 p.

Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 118 1 p.

+ index. 2 ~01s.

Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1978. Checklist of United States trees. Agric. Handb. 541. Washington DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture. 375 p.
CONTENTS

PREFACE

Winston Paul Smith and David N. Pashley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

AN INTRODUCTION TO NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS AND

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT

Robert J. Cooper and Robert P. Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ECOLOGY OF BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS

John D.Hodges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

STAND DEVELOPMENT AND SILVICULTURE IN BOTTOMLAND

HARDWOODS

J. Steven Meadows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

MANAGING TERRESTRIAL GAME AND NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY

BIRDS

C. Michael Staten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

REGIONAL WATERFOWL HABITAT TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS

FOR NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS

Kenneth J. Reinecke . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

IS REFORESTATION AN ADEQUATE RESTORATION OF BOTTOMLAND

HARDWOOD FUNCTIONS FOR THE NEEDS OF NEOTROPICAL

MIGRATORY BIRDS?

Kenneth F. Ribbeck and William C. Hunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

INVOLVING FOREST INDUSTRY IN NEOTROPICAL MIGRANT

MANAGEMENT

Jimmy Bullock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

CONTEXT AND PRIORITIES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS

David N. Pashley , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

IDENTIFYING MANAGEMENT NEEDS

S. Ray Aycock and William C. Hunter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

APPENDIXES........................................~......................... 33

. . . 1 II

An Introduction to Neotropical Migratory Birds

and Partners in Flight’

Robert J. Cooper and Robert P. Ford’

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS

What Is a Neotropical Migrant?

Neotropical migrants are birds that nest in North America and spend the nonbreeding season in Mexico, Central

or South America, or the Caribbean, These attributes differentiate them from migrants in general, which include birds

that winter in southern North America but breed in northern North America, and Neotropical birds, which include

species that spend their entire lives in Neotropical areas. Although many types of birds are Neotropical migrants,

waterbirds such as waterfowl and shorebirds tend to be excluded from consideration under this program, not because

they are any less deserving, but because they occupy fundamentally different habitats than most terrestrial species.

In addition, there are several conservation programs already underway, such as the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan, whose focus includes those species.

More than 160 species of Neotropical migrant landbirds have been listed (Finch 1991). Major groups of

Neotropical migrants include raptors (hawks, kites, falcons), cuckoos, caprimulgids (goatsuckers), swifts,

hummingbirds, flycatchers, swallows, thrushes, vireos, warblers, tanagers, orioles, buntings, grosbeaks, and some

sparrows. Virtually all of these groups are represented in bottomland hardwood forests, if only along forest edges

or openings. In particular, Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) forests are important habitats for birds; daily checklists

from 10 sites in the MAV included 174 bird species. Of those, 39 were breeding Neotropical migratory species and

41 were transient species (Smith and others, in press). Most were forest birds.

Life Histories

Breeding groan&.--Eastern birds arrive in North America in the spring, often after a transgulf flight. Little is

known about resource use during migration, although use of weather radar is likely to shed new light on this aspect

of migratory bird life histories (Gauthreaux 1992). Males arrive first, establishing territories through vigorous singing

and, occasionally, direct physical contact. Females arrive several days to a week later, choosing a mate among

available males, It is at this time that the birds are most easily surveyed via counts of singing males at designated

points--so-called point counts. Most species are seasonally monogamous; that is, each season a bird chooses one

mate, but that mate is usually replaced from year to year. One or two clutches of young can be raised. Virtually

all species are insectivorous during the breeding season. Caterpillars appear to be particularly important food items

in eastern hardwood forests.

Nest failure is common among Neotropical migrants. The major source of nest failure is probably nest predation

by a variety of predators (mammals, snakes, other birds). Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds also is

important in many areas. Cowbirds will lay an egg in the nest of a host, often removing one of the host’s eggs in

the process. The host’s young are usually much smaller than the cowbird nestling, so the latter is fed more and

grows faster, usually at the expense of the former.

Cowbirds evolved in the Great Plains of North America; some species that evolved with the cowbird often will

remove the cowbird egg or will abandon the nest and build a new one. Forest-dwelling species have evolved no such

defenses, however. In some parts of North America, especially in severely fragmented landscapes that were formerly

wooded, cowbird parasitism may be so severe that host species such as the wood thrush may raise virtually nothing

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August 9-lO;Tallulah, LA.

*Biology Department, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; Tennessee Conservation League, Nashville, TN 37209, respectively.
but young cowbirds (Robinson 1992).

Wintering grounds.--Wintering ranges often differ between eastern and western birds and also between sexes.

For example, Neotropical migrants that breed in eastern North America most commonly winter in the Caribbean,

eastern Central America, and South America, usually necessitating a transgulf migration. Western species winter

primarily in Mexico and western Central America, funneling into an increasingly narrow area as they proceed south.

Those species have a less perilous journey than eastern species but must winter in areas with a greater density of

both migrant and resident birds. Habitat use is often similar among breeding and wintering grounds but not for all

species.

There is very little data available on the survivorship and sources of mortality during winter. The scant data that

do exist, however, seem to indicate that once a bird arrives on the wintering grounds, its probability of surviving

the winter is high because it only has to feed itself and is not concerned with competing activities such as finding

a mate and raising young. Mortality during migration, however, may be significant, especially for juvenile birds.

Storm events can be particularly spectacular and significant to all ages.

Life history parameters.--Although vital rates differ tremendously among all Neotropical migrant species, the

birds that are primarily the concern of this workshop, bottomland hardwood forest birds, are mostly songbirds (Order

Passeriformes) that have generally similar life history parameters, as listed below (Ehrlich and others 1988):

Age of first reproduction--l year

Survivorship (defined as the probability of surviving from one year to the next)--highly variable:

adults, 0.4 to 0.6; hatch-year birds ~0.4

Clutch size: 3 to 6, most often 4

Productivity (defined as the mean number of fledglings produced per adult female per year): 2 to 4

Incubation period: 12 to 18 days

Nestling period: 8 to 20 days

Habitat Requirements

This exhaustive topic is only briefly summarized here. Nearly all habitats will support some type of Neotropical

migrant. For example, even urban areas, which are generally unfavorable habitats for most birds, support populations

of swifts and some swallows. Similarly, in bottomland hardwood forests, each seral stage will support some species

of Neotropical migrants. Early successional stages will support species such as indigo buntings, white-eyed vireos,

and yellow-breasted chats. Mature bottomland hardwood forests support a greater number of Neotropical migrant

bird species. Some species, such as wood thrushes, Kentucky warblers, and Swainson’s warblers, are associated with

forest understories. Others, such as cerulean warblers, northern parulas, and red-eyed vireos, are associated with

forest canopies. Prothonotary warblers require a nest cavity near water. Others may utilize a range of successional

stages or forest layers.

It is important to consider scale when examining habitat requirements of forest birds. For example, mature forests

will provide habitat for some species, and clearcuts will provide habitat for a lesser number with intermediate stages

somewhere in between. But a landscape that features a mosaic of these different successional stages will have more

species than any one habitat alone. Also, a patch of forest must be large if it is to contain so-called area-sensitive

species. These species are of special concern because their habitats are so rare. In general, a large contiguous patch

of mature, multilayered forest will support a maximum diversity of birds because it will provide some of all these

habitats, even early successional stages in areas where mature trees have been removed naturally or harvested.

What Evidence is There That Neotropical Migrants Are Declining?

Data sources that have documented long-term declines in numbers of Neotropical migrants include the North

American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), the breeding bird census, monitoring of birds during migration with radar,

and a series of long-term research projects, each done at one or several locations. Although results vary with region

and bird species studied, the overall conclusion of each of these types of monitoring is that Neotropical migratory

birds are declining as a group.
Why Are They Declining?

Undoubtedly, a number of factors act synergistically to cause population declines, and those factors are different

for different species. It is tempting to attribute population declines to habitat losses on wintering grounds. Loss of

tropical habitats such as rain forests have received much publicity and are well known to the general public. Losses

of North American temperate forests, ironically, are less known, Forest fragmentation, which means that large

expanses of forest are reduced to smaller fragments within an area of disturbed habitat such as croplands, has

numerous effects on forest interior birds. First, many of those species are also area-sensitive species; generally, they

are not found nesting in forest fragments smaller than 100 ha (250 acres). Some species, like the cerulean and

Swainson’s warblers, are rare in bottomland hardwood forests smaller than 10,000 ha. Even for species that will nest

in smaller fragments, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that forest edges are close to any given nest. Most nest

predators find such areas to be favorable habitat. Also, if adjacent habitats are agricultural and support cowbirds,

then most nests will be in easy striking distance.

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT

Purpose and Organization

In response to the problems identified above, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) hosted an

international meeting in late 1990 in Atlanta, Georgia. Representatives from Federal, State, and local governments,

large and small nongovernment organizations, and academia attended. The idea for the program was for these

representatives to join to reach common solutions to major problems involving Neotropical migratory birds. Thus,

“Partners in Flight-Aves de las Americas” (Partners in Flight) was born. The objectives of Partners in Flight are to:

(1) determine the status and specific causes of Neotropical migratory bird declines, (2) maintain stable populations,

and (3) reverse declining population trends through habitat restoration and management.

Nationally, since 1990, approximately 114 projects have been funded with approximately $3 million of NFWF

funds matched by $5.3 million in private funds. Most of these projects were conducted in the United States, but

some work has also been done in wintering grounds. Many Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Tennessee Valley Authority, USDA Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the

Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, signed a memorandum of understanding to manage to conserve Neotropical

migrants. National working groups were formed within Partners in Flight to focus on information and education,

management, research, monitoring, and international issues.

There also are regional (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, West) working groups in Partners in Flight.The Southeast

working group held its first meeting in Atlanta soon after the first national meeting took place. Five objectives

dealing broadly with monitoring, management, communications, education, and research were identified. Four

subsequent meetings were held; the Southeast working group now meets annually. Among the major accomplishments of the Southeast working group is the development of strategies of prioritization of species/habitats by

physiographic province (Hunter and others 1993). This scheme is being adopted nationwide. Also, Hamel (1992)

produced a land manager’s guide to bird habitat evaluation in the Southeast.

A focus of the Southeast working group has been to address issues and ultimately manage Neotropical migrants

at the physiographic province level, which transcends traditional State boundaries. Two such physiographic provinces

pertinent to this workshop are the Gulf Coastal Plain and the MAV. T hese areas are doing well in research

participation relative to other physiographic provinces in the Southeast as evidenced by participation in regional

meetings, cooperative research and monitoring efforts, publications, and this workshop.

LITERATURE CITED

Ehrlich, Paul R.; Dobkin, David S.; Wheye, Darryl. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural

history of North American birds. New York: Simon and Schuster. 785 p,

Finch, Deborah M. 199 1. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of Neotropical migratory

birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Gauthreaux, Sidney A., Jr. 1992. The use of weather radar to monitor long-term patterns of trans-gulf migration

in spring. In: Hagan, John. M., III; Johnston, David. W., eds. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant

landbirds. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press: 96-100.

3
Hamel, Paul B. 1992. Land manager’s guide to the birds of the South. Chapel Hill, NC: The Nature Conservancy,

Southeastern Region. 437 p.

Hunter, William C.; Carter, Michael F.; Pashley, David N.; Barker, Keith. 1993. The Partners in Flight species

prioritization scheme. In: Finch, Deborah M.; Stangel, Peter W., eds. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 109-l 19.

Robinson, Scott K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented Illinois

landscape. In: Hagan, John M., III; Johnston, David W., eds. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant

landbirds. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press: 408-4 18.

Smith, Winston Paul; Hamel, Paul B.; Ford, Robert P. [In press]. Mississippi Alluvial Valley forest conversion:

implications for eastern North American avifauna. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeast Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Hagan, John M., III; Johnston David W., eds. 1992. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 609 p.

Finch, Deborah. M.; Stangel, Peter W., eds. 1993. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds; 1992

September 2 l-25; Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229, Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 422 p.

Terborgh, John. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 207 p.
Ecology of Bottomland Hardwoods’

John D. Hodges’

INTRODUCTION

There are many reasons why an understanding of the ecology of bottomland hardwoods is important. However,

two reasons appear especially important for discussions in this workshop. First, successful management of this

important resource, regardless of the specific objectives, requires a good understanding of site variations and the

related species-site relationships. The second reason directly addresses one of the stated objectives of this meeting;

i.e., resolving of present and potential conflicts over the use of the resource. A knowledge of the ecology of

floodplain sites and associated hardwoods should serve as a common ground or starting point from which these

conflicts can be resolved.

THE BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD RESOURCE

All forested sites in the South can be divided into three physiographic site positions--uplands, terraces, and

floodplains. Uplands by far occupy the greatest land area in the South. Soils on these areas were formed in place

from the parent geologic material or, in some cases, from wind-blown materials. Terraces are old floodplains of

current or ancient stream systems. The soils are alluvial in origin but generally are not as productive for hardwoods

as the current floodplain soils. Because of their older age, nutrients have been leached, and many terrace soils have

fragipans. The term “bottomland hardwoods” generally refers to hardwoods associated with current floodplain sites.

Soils on these sites are from recent alluvium, are relatively young, generally have good water relations, and may

be highly productive for hardwoods.

Floodplain sites in the South are somewhat arbitrarily divided into major and minor bottomlands (bottoms). This

difference may be obvious according to the size of the stream (e.g., major bottomlands are usually associated with

large rivers). However, another very important difference may be in the nature of the deposition that occurs. The

alluvium deposited in major river bottoms may come from hundreds or even thousands of miles away and is

composed of materials of all textural classes and, perhaps, several kinds of minerals. In minor bottoms, the alluvial

deposits are of local origin and may vary less in textural class and mineralogy. For the above reasons, major bottoms

are most often, although not always, more productive than minor bottoms.

Bottomland hardwoods occur primarily in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain divisions of the Coastal Plain

Province. Their occurrence here is determined by the nature of the geologic materials, which are sedimentary in

origin and relatively easily eroded as opposed to the more consolidated geologic material of the mountain and

Piedmont regions. In geologic times when the climate was much warmer and wetter, ancient streams first eroded

vast amounts of material to form stream valleys and then began the process of deposition, which continues with the

current streams.

There are currently about 30 million acres of bottomland hardwoods in the South. This area is less than one-half

the area present at the time of European settlement. Most of the reduction is a result of conversion to agricultural

use, and much of the loss has been in the Mississippi River system.

NATURAL SUCCESSIONAL PATTERNS ON FLOODPLAIN SITES

Over time, all biotic communities undergo change as they develop from a young (pioneer) to a late (climax)

stage. This process is most often referred to as ecological succession, but could be thought of as ecosystem

development because it involves changes in both organisms and the physical environment (Odum 1993). Succession

is classified as either primary or secondary, depending on the initial site conditions. Primary plant succession begins

on sites where plant life did not exist previously, whereas secondary succession occurs on sites formerly occupied

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August P-10; Tallulah, LA.

‘Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762.

5
by plant communities In turn, secondary succession may be recognized as either autogenic or allogenic. Autogenic

succession in plant communities is driven by the plants themselves; i.e., one community of plants creates an

environment more suitable for establishment of other species than for themselves. Allogenic succession occurs in

plant communities following severe disturbances, which interrupt autogenic succession, or when the site is drastically

changed. Succession on floodplain sites can involve all three types discussed above because the site itself changes

over time due to deposition.

Three different patterns of succession can be recognized in major bottoms. One pattern occurs on permanently

flooded sites such as cypress-tupelo swamps. On these sites, succession is “arrested’‘--compositional changes may

not occur for hundreds of years without disturbance. The cypress-tupelo type represents the oldest type (oldest trees)

on the floodplain. Stands can be 200 to 300 years old before breakup occurs.

A second pattern of succession occurs on poorly drained sites at low elevations (fig. la). Deposition on these

sites is generally of fine-textured material and occurs at a slower rate and over a much longer time span than on

better drained, higher elevation sites. The pioneer tree species on these low sites with heavy soils is usually black

willow (willow). On these low sites, succession depends on the rate of sediment deposition and sometimes on the

texture of the sediment, Where little or no deposition occurs, willow may be followed by an association composed

of swamp-privet, water-elm, and buttonbush. This association may be replaced by baldcypress, which may endure

for hundreds of years or, if deposition is sufficient, it may be replaced by the overcup oak-water hickory type.

If deposition in the willow stand occurs more rapidly, but still at a slow rate, the site may eventually be captured

by an association composed primariiy of overcup oak and water hickory. If deposition continues to occur in the

above circumstances, even at a slow rate, it is assumed that these sites will all eventually succeed to the elm-ashsugarberry (hackberry) type. If sedimentation is pronounced and the site gains elevation rapidly, the willow will be

replaced by the elm-ash-sugarberry type. An exception to this pattern can occur when the deposits are of a lighter

texture (sandy or loamy) rather than the normal clays. In that situation, a temporary association composed of

boxelder, silver maple, and hackberry in the North and boxelder-sugarberry in the South may occur. The elm-ashsugarberry association may contain significant numbers of stems of other species such as Nuttall oak in the South

and pin oak and bur oak in the North.

After the site increases in elevation and deposition slows, disturbances, either human-induced or natural, can

result in the elm-ash-sugarberry type being replaced by an association dominated by sweetgum and red oaks (water,

willow, and Nuttall oaks). This association is transitory and without management will revert to the elm-ashsugarberry type. Once deposition essentially ceases and the soil ages, the climax type may start to appear. The first

oaks to appear may be cherrybark, Shumard, and swamp chestnut, but the final climax association will also contain

other white oaks and hickories. Progression to this stage of succession is not well documented, but evidence for it

exists, such as Big Oak State Park in Missouri. Most other sites such as this have been cleared for cultivation,

On these low-elevation sites, the time required for progression from pioneer species to a climax forest could be

extremely variable depending primarily on rate of sedimentation. The breakup of most black willow stands may

begin as early as age 30, and few remnants survive beyond age 60. With slow rates of deposition, the buttonbush

and cypress types could persist for centuries. The overcup oak-water hickory type may occupy the sites for 200 years

or more. Where the sites build fairly rapidly, the time required from the pioneer species sere to the climax sere will

be about 600 years, mainly because the boxelder-sugarberry and the elm-ash-sugarberry types are capable of selfreplacement.

A third pattern of succession occurs on the higher elevation, better drained ridge and front sites (fig, lb).

Cottonwood is the principal pioneer species, although black willow may occur on some sites in the early stages.

Cottonwood quickly dominates the site. Breakup of cottonwood stands may begin as early as age 45, and very few

cottonwood remnants survive to age 80 to 100.

Stand composition following the cottonwood association can be extremely variable and depends primarily on how

the cottonwood stand breaks up and on depositional patterns. Tolerant species, usually well established beneath

cottonwood stands, will capture the site if the stand breaks up gradually. The next stand will then be composed of

boxeider and sugarberry in the South with minor amounts of other species such as elm and ash. Further north,

stands may contain hackberry as well as vast amounts of silver maple. These stands, especially those composed

primarily of boxelder and/or silver maple, will occupy the site for only about 60 years. Most often, they are replaced

by the elm-ash-sugarberry type.

6
A. Boxelder

Sugarberry

(Black Willowa -.

Sweetgum

Red Oak

Oak-Hickory

1Boxelder

IElm

Elm-Ash

’ Sugarberry

(Hackberry)

[Oak-Hickory)

C.

Better Drained

Poorly Drained

Water Hickory

Figure l.--Typical patterns of plant community succession in bottomland hardwood forests: (a) poorly drained sites in major bottoms, (b) higher elevation,

better drained ridges in major bottoms, and (c) better drained or poorly drained sites in minor bottoms. (Species in parentheses replace southern

counterparts at more northern latitudes; e.g., silver maple replaces boxelder.)

7
If the old cottonwood stand breaks up rapidly (e.g., after a natural catastrophe), it may be replaced by

a stand composed of a number of species, some of which are intolerant. The composition may be primarily

sycamore, pecan, and elm (riverfront association), but species such as ash, sweetgum, willow oak, and water oak

are usually present. This association may endure for 75 to 125 years and is usually replaced by the elm-ashsugarberry type. However, if the stand is opened rapidly by a natural catastrophe and sufficient advance

regeneration is present, it my progress to a water oak-sweetgum type, which normally would then be replaced by

the elm-ash-sugarberry type. Some ecologists do not recognize the riverfront association as a separate stage but as

simply a transition between the pioneer (cottonwood) and elm-ash-sugarberry stages. The elm-ash-sugarberry type

is long lived and may replace itself and occupy the site for 200 to 300 years. Natural disasters, such as hurricanes,

may wipe out the old stand and allow it to be replaced by the red oak-sweetgum type, which may persist for 200

years or longer but, without management, will likely revert to the elm-ash-sugarberry type.

When flooding and sedimentation essentially cease and soils start to mature, the climax association will begin

to appear. According to Shelford (1954), this association may begin with oaks such as cherrybark, pin, and swamp

chestnut and take 200 years or more to progress to an oak-hickory climax.

In minor bottoms, river birch is often the pioneer species on new or severely disturbed lands (fig. lc). Soils are

generally too acid for cottonwood, and if black willow occurs, it is in combination with other species. As in major

bottoms, the pattern of succession is related to drainage and changes in the site as a result of deposition. Unlike

major bottoms, the ridges, fronts, and better drained flats will support the regional oak-hickory climax even though

flooding continues to occur.

SPECIES-SITE RELATIONSHIPS FOR BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS

Site variation on floodplains and the relationship to species occurrence and development was discussed by

Hodges and Switzer (1979). Site variation within floodplains is associated primarily with elevational differences.

Differences in elevation of only 2 to 3 feet have a marked effect on site and therefore on species occurrence. These

differences primarily reflect differences in drainage and soil moisture, but minor elevational differences also reflect

differences in soil type, texture, structure, and pH, all of which affect species occurrence. Topographic, and therefore

site, variation within a floodplain is the result of stream movement within the floodplain and subsequent deposition

patterns.

In figure 2a, a cross section of a hypothetical major stream valley of the Coastal Plain is depicted. Each

topographic feature shown may occur several times and not necessarily in the order shown. Bars or point bars are

formed when the concave section of streambanks erodes and the sediment is deposited downstream on an opposite

convex area of the stream channel. With time and increased deposition, the bar may become a mud flat and may

eventually be raised to the level of the current front or natural levee.

Fronts, or natural levees, are formed when streams overflow their banks and rapid deposition occurs, These front

sites are usually the highest, best drained, and most productive areas in the floodplain.

Flats are broad, usually smooth areas between ridges or between ridges and fronts. The soils are predominantly

clays, and the drainage class usually varies from poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained, but standing water is

usually absent most of the growing season. There may be slight elevational and drainage differences on these flats

even though the soils are classified within a series. Flats account for the largest area within the floodplain.

Ridges can vary in elevation from 2 to 15 feet above the flats, but 2 to 3 feet is much more common. Ridges

were formed as banks or fronts of older streams. The soils have a coarser texture than those on flats, and drainage,

both surface and internal, is better than on flats.

Sloughs are shallow depressions arising from old streambeds, which are almost completely filled with sediment.

The soils are usually fine textured, and drainage is poor. The sites typically have standing water well into the

growing season.

Swamps are larger depressions formed when streams change course and form lakes, which then continue to be

filled with fine-textured sediment. Drainage is very poor, and standing water is almost always present except in

extremely dry years.

The relationship between site and species occurrence for a hypothetical major streambottom is depicted in figure

2b. The figure illustrates typical species

associations for each site (topographic position), but recall, variations will occur depending on stage of succession.

On the newest land near the river (bar or mud flat), willow is the major pioneer species; but if the land is high

enough or ifadequate time is avaiIable between high water levels, cottonwood can establish itself. Willow and

cottonwood need mineral soil to become established, but willow is more tolerant of water. Both species can

withstand sediment deposition and, if it continues, front land will be formed, and willow and cottonwood may be

replaced by river-front species.

On front land (natural levees), a typical association following cottonwood is composed of elm, sycamore, sweet

pecan, sugarberry, boxelder, and sweetgum. This river-front association is not climax, and the successional

association will depend on how the stand breaks up. If breakup is rapid (human-induced or natural disaster), a red

oak-sweetgum type may occur if advance regeneration is present. If breakup is slow, the stand will retrogress to a

boxelder-sugarberry or boxelder-hackberry-silver maple association. As the site matures, it may again be occupied

by an association composed primarily of sweetgum and red oaks.

Species composition on the flats is extremely variable. On the lower, wetter flats, overcup oak, water hickory,

and baldcypress often predominate. Almost pure stands of overcup oak are common. On the somewhat higher and

better drained flats, the most common association is composed primarily of elm-ash-sugarberry with other species

such as Nuttall oak, willow oak, and red maple being common in the mixture. Nuttall oak and willow oak will, on

occasion, be major components of the stands.

On the ridge sites, species composition depends largely on past events and past treatments. The elm-ashsugarberry type is the most common association, but if the site is opened rapidly and advance regeneration is

present, it can be replaced by a sweetgum-red oak type composed of water, willow, cherrybark, and Shumard oaks,

and other minor species in addition to sweetgum. Without management, this type will revert back to the elm-ashsugarberry association through natural succession.

If sloughs are near the stream and/or sedimentation occurs rapidly, good stands of black willow often occupy

the site. If sedimentation continues, the willow will be replaced by the elm-ash-sugarberry type. On sites where

sedimentation occurs slowly (e.g., at some distance from the river), overcup oak, water hickory, green ash, and

persimmon are the tree species that most often follow the willow.

The baldcypress-water tupelo type is most common in the swamps of major river bottoms. Depending on depth

and duration of flooding, other tree species, which sometimes occur, include swamp tupelo, water elm, Carolina ash,

water hickory, swamp laurel oak, and overcup oak.

Minor stream bottoms (fig. 2c) are in many ways simply a smaller version of major bottoms--they exhibit the

same topographic features, and most of the same species occur there although not necessarily on the same

topographic position. Species that occur only on ridge positions in major bottoms often occur on flats in the minor

bottoms. River birch is most often the pioneer species on new land such as bars and mud flats. Species composition

is extremely diverse on the fronts or natural levees and may include yellow-poplar, American beech, sycamore,

spruce pine, sweetgum, cherrybark oak, Shumard oak, water oak, swamp chestnut oak, and several species of

hickory. Although flooding still occurs, autogenic forces control natural succession and species occurrence on these

front sites. Typical species occurring on better drained flats and ridges of minor bottoms include sweetgum,

cherrybark oak, water oak, swamp chestnut oak, American elm, and hickories, On less well-drained flats, the major

species include overcup, willow, Nuttall, and swamp laurel oaks, persimmon, green ash, sugarberry, and red maple,

Species composition of sloughs in minor bottoms will vary depending on duration of flooding. Baldcypress, swamp

tupelo, and water-elm ,are common where flooding duration is longest and overcup oak, water hickory, and

persimmon will also occur where flooding is not as severe. Swamps containing baldcypress and water tupelo do

occur on the floodplains of minor bottoms, but the cypress-swamp tupelo type is more common.

IMPLICATIONS FOR USE OR MANAGEMENT

It is obvious that a knowledge of species-site relationships is essential for successful management of bottomland

hardwood stands, whether the objective is timber, wildlife, or a combination of the two resources. For example,

reforestation or restoration projects are likely to be a complete failure if the species are not matched to the site. It

should also be obvious that a knowledge of species-site relationships and ecological succession is important for

decisions concerning the treatment of existing stands to obtain the desired objectives,

Considering the stated objectives of this meeting, the most important point to be made is that bottomland

ecosystems are not static. The biotic and abiotic components will change over time with or without the influence

10
of humans. What is there today will not be there 100 years from now or perhaps even 10 or 20 years from now.

For example, black willow stands simply do not live very long. They will be replaced, and new ones will not be

created except by disturbance, natural or human-induced. Furthermore, the ecological principles discussed previously

have implications for making management decisions that will resolve or reduce conflicts over use of this important

resource. Great diversity is a natural characteristic of bottomland hardwood ecosystems. Thus, over large areas, a

great variety of uses and interests can be accommodated. Active management can be used to maintain or increase

compositional and structural diversity to meet the requirements of these various uses. However, management

designed to accomplish these multiple goals must be approached at the landscape level rather than on an individual

stand basis.

LITERATURE CITED

Hodges, John D.; Switzer, George L. 1979. Some aspects of the ecology of southern bottomland hardwoods. In:

North America’s forests: gateway to opportunity: Proceedings of the 1978 joint convention of the Society

of American Foresters and the Canadian Institute of Forestry; 1978 [month, date, unknown]; St. Louis,

MO. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 360-365.

Odum, Eugene P. 1993, Ecology and our endangered life-support systems, 2d ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. 301 p.

Shelford, V.E. 1954. Some lower Mississippi Valley floodplain biotic communities; their age and elevation. Ecology.

35: 126-142.

1 1
Stand Development and Silviculture in Bottomland Hardwoods’

J. Steven Meadows’

INTRODUCTION

Silviculture for the production of high-quality timber in southern bottomland hardwood forests involves the

application of environmentally sound practices in order to enhance the growth and quality of both individual trees

and stands. To accomplish this purpose, silvicultural practices are typically used to regulate stand density, species

composition, and stem quality to promote the growth and development of high-value stands. To be successful, the

hardwood silviculturist must understand the process of stand development--how even-aged, mixed-species stands

develop and change over time, especially with respect to species composition and stand structure. If silviculturists

know how hardwood stands develop and mature under natural conditions, they are better able to predict the effects

of various silvicultural manipulations in these stands.

Successful management of mixed-species stands, such as most southern bottomland hardwood forests, requires

specific knowledge about each of the species in the stand: (1) biological requirements, not only for regeneration,

but also for future growth and development; (2) pattern of growth over time, such as slow vs. rapid early growth;

and (3) silvical characteristics, especially shade tolerance and flood tolerance. These three critical characteristics of

a species collectively determine the competitive ability of that species. In addition, differences in the competitive

abilities of the various species found in a given stand determine the future development of that stand. The hardwood

silviculturist must recognize and understand these relationships to better understand how different stands develop

under different conditions to produce the structure and species composition that exist in a given stand today.

GENERAL STAGES OF STAND DEVELOPMENT

Oliver (198 1) proposed that the process of stand development in even-aged, mixed-species stands can be divided

into four broad stages: (1) stand initiation, (2) stem exclusion, (3) understory reinitiation, and (4) old growth. Much

of the following discussion, unless otherwise noted, has been adapted from Oliver (198 1).

Development of an even-aged, mixed-species stand begins after some type of major disturbance, either natural

or human-induced. The disturbance must be severe enough to kill or remove most living trees in an area large

enough to promote the development of an even-aged stand. Thus, most of the trees in the new stand will develop

in the absence of competition from surrounding, undisturbed trees.

Stand Initiation Stage

After a major disturbance removes the existing stand, tree species begin to reoccupy the area with stems

originating from one of three sources: (1) existing stumps and roots, (2) seeds, or (3) advance regeneration. These

new individuals grow and develop, gradually utilizing more and more of their available growing space until, at some

point in time, one or more of the environmental factors necessary for growth become limiting (i.e., their available

growing space is completely utilized). In most situations, light is the first environmental factor to limit growth (this

occurs at the time of crown closure). Following a major disturbance, species that exhibit a pattern of rapid early

growth thereby gain at least a temporary competitive advantage over species that exhibit a pattern of slow early

growth.

This period from the initial invasion of the site by new individuals until the site is fully occupied and

environmental factors become limiting is referred to as the stand initiation stage. Duration of this stage varies widely

and depends on a number of factors, but in the Southern United States, a new stand fully occupies the site generally

within about 10 to 15 years following a major disturbance.

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests;

1993 August 9-10; Tallulah, LA.

‘USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Southem Hardwoods Laboratory, Stoneville, MS 38776

12
Stem Exclusion Stage

Once new individuals in the stand fully utilize their available growing space and one or more environmental

factors become limiting to growth, the next stage of stand development begins. This is referred to as the stem

exclusion stage in which new stems cannot become established in the developing stand. Because crown closure has

occurred, environmental conditions on the forest floor are not conducive to the establishment of new individuals.

Because the available growing space in the stand is now fully utilized, intense competition among the existing

stems begins to occur. In mixed-species stands, the competitive abilities of the various species present determine

how the different species respond to this intense competition. Inherent early growth rate and shade tolerance are

the two primary determinants of the competitive ability of an individual species during this stage of stand

development. Because the various species in the developing stand have different early growth rates and different

shade tolerances, there may be large differences in the abilities of the species to respond to this competition. The

end result is a vertical stratification of individual trees and species in which one, or possibly several, species

eventually become dominant and suppress the growth of the other species in the stand. This process of vertical

stratification may be illustrated through the following scenario.

For example, species with rapid early growth rates (pioneer species) typically dominate the stand initially.

Other, more persistent species, although present in the stand, grow slowly during these early stages, and, in fact,

are often overlooked as a component in the developing stand. As this period of intense competition continues and

the stand develops further, the growth rates of the early dominants slow down, mortality increases, and these pioneer

species begin to gradually lose their dominance in the stand. As a result, the more persistent species eventually

overtake the pioneers, become dominant, and suppress the growth of the other species in the stand. At this point

in the development of the stand, these pioneer species, initially dominant, are now overtopped by the eventual

dominant species. If these pioneer species are intolerant of the shaded conditions they now encounter, they will die

and gradually cease to be a component of the stand. On the other hand, if these initially dominant species can

tolerate some shade, they may remain alive for many years, but will grow slowly as long as the overstory remains

intact. Under these conditions, these species will still be present in the stand, but will constitute only a minor

component of the mature stand.

The important point is that the species that will eventually dominate the mature stand generally is not the

species that was largest or most numerous in the early stages of stand development. Other species usually dominate

the stand at first, but are eventually overtaken as the stand continues to develop. In fact, in many cases, the species

that eventually dominates the mature stand may be infrequent in number during the early stages of stand

development and may even be overlooked as a component of the stand, until it finally begins to overtop its

competitors.

Understory Reinitiation Stage

As this stratified stand develops towards maturity, the overstory will gradually begin to break apart as scattered

individuals die. The openings thus created in the overstory allow sunlight to reach the forest floor, creating favorable

conditions for the development of new stems, or advance regeneration, in the understory. Thus begins the

understory reinitiation stage of stand development. Understory reinitiation may begin relatively early or relatively

late in the life of the stand, depending on the shade tolerance of the overstory species and the frequency of minor

disturbances within the stand. Individual stems may remain alive in the understory as advance regeneration for very

long periods of time, possibly as long as 30 to 35 years for some bottomland oaks. However, in most circumstances,

advance regeneration of oaks and other moderately intolerant species can only be expected to live for about 5 to

10 years in a shaded understory.

Old-Growth Stage

Understory reinitiation may occur continuously within a stand over a long period of time, providing a gradual

transition to the old-growth stage. This transition occurs as the mature overstory breaks up slowly through the death

of individual trees, The advance regeneration in the understory immediately adjacent to the dead tree is thus

released, and these younger individuals gradually grow into the canopy. If this process continues throughout the

stand over a long period, the result will be the formation of an uneven-aged, multistrata, old-growth stand composed

of individuals of widely differing ages and sizes. However, very few stands ever reach this last stage of development

because another major disturbance generally occurs first, sending the stand back to the stand initiation stage.

13
Consequently, the old-growth stage is only rarely attained, especially in areas subjected to relatively frequent major

disturbances, and is generally not perpetuated for long periods.

STAND DEVELOPMENT IN RED OAK-SWEETGUM STANDS

Much of the evidence supporting Oliver’s (1981) description of the four general stages of even-aged stand

development comes from his own research in mixed oak-maple-birch stands in central New England (Oliver 1978)

and in mixed conifer stands in western Washington (Stubblefield and Oliver 1978, Wierman and Oliver 1979).

The vertical stratification process that Oliver (1978) found in oak-maple-birch stands in central New England

is of particular interest. During the first 20 years of development in these stands, red maple and black birch (sweet

or cherry birch) were much more numerous and grew faster than northern red oak, even though the oaks would

eventually dominate the stand. Somewhere around age 17 to 20 years, the red oaks caught up to the maples and

birches in total height. From then on, the oaks eventually outgrew the maples and birches and formed a dominant

canopy above them. By the time the stands were 60 years old, northern red oak was clearly the dominant species,

and most of the maples and birches had either died or were relegated to subordinate positions in the stand. Diameter

growth of these species was greatly suppressed by overtopping oaks. These smaller understory trees could easily

be mistaken to be younger, late-invading stems. However, Oliver (1978) showed that these understory trees are, in

most cases, the same age as larger, overstory trees. In fact, many mixed-species stands that appear to be uneven-aged

because of a wide range of tree sizes within the stand may actually be even-aged stands with this multilayered

structure resulting from the vertical stratification process.

Clatterbuck and Hodges (1988) observed a similar pattern of development in cherrybark oak-sweetgum stands

on minor riverbottom sites in central Mississippi. In these stands, sweetgum initially dominated the less numerous

oaks. In fact, the presence of the young oaks was not readily apparent in the developing stand, such that the casual

observer might have predicted that oaks would not constitute a major component of the mature stand. However, in

much the same pattern that Oliver (1978) observed in oak-maple-birch stands in New England, Clatterbuck and

Hodges (1988) noted that the initially shorter cherrybark oaks were able to outgrow and eventually surpass the

sweetgum stems at about age 20 to 25. In fact, by the time the stand was 30 to 32 years old, the oaks were

significantly taller than the sweetgum stems and were able to expand their crowns above the sweetgum stems. By

age 55 to 60, these stands exhibited a two-tiered canopy in which cherrybark oak clearly dominated the upper

canopy and sweetgum occupied the lower canopy.

Both of these studies describing similar patterns of development in mixed-species hardwood stands used a

combination of chronosequence and stem-analysis techniques to evaluate development in those stands (Clatterbuck

and Hodges 1988, Oliver 1978). The chronosequence procedure assumes that measurements performed in many

stands on similar sites, but at different ages, closely approximate the results obtained through successive

measurements of one stand over many years.

Fortunately, Johnson and Krinard (1976, 1983, 1988) followed the development of two similar stands of red

oak-sweetgum on bottomland sites in southeastern Arkansas since their inception in 1956-57. Through long-term

monitoring of permanent plots, they found a pattern of stand development very similar to that reported by Oliver

(1978) and by Clatterbuck and Hodges (1988).

For example, through the first 9 years of development on the Saline River site, sweetgum, river birch, and

American hornbeam dominated the stand, both in number and size of stems. However, between the ages of 9 and

29, river birch experienced very high mortality and essentially dropped out of the stand. American hornbeam

maintained relatively high density but lost its dominance and was relegated to an understory position. Sweetgum,

however, experienced only a relatively slight reduction in density and maintained its dominance within the stand.

Red oaks were far less numerous than these three initially dominant species, almost to the point of being

inconspicuous during the early stages of stand development. However, as river birch mortality increased, American

hornbeam growth rates decreased, and red oak growth rates increased. Consequently, the oaks gradually developed

into a larger component of the stand. By age 29, most of the red oaks seemed to be on the verge of exceeding the

sweetgum stems in total height and, thereby, beginning to dominate the stand. Johnson and Krinard (1988) predicted

that red oak would eventually clearly dominate both stands.

In the study reported by Clatterbuck and Hodges (1988), cherrybark oak began to dominate sweetgum at age

20 to 25, whereas Johnson and Krinard (1988) found that red oak had not quite begun to dominate sweetgum even

after the first 29 years. The reason for the difference in the timing of this critical stage in stand development may

14
be that the cherrybark oak-sweetgum stands in Mississippi developed on oldfield sites, whereas the red oaksweetgum stands in Arkansas developed on cut-over sites. Both woody and herbaceous competition is greater on

the cut-over sites, thereby suppressing the early growth of the red oaks and slowing the progression of stand

development on that site.

SILVICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

Knowledge of the way stands develop and change over time will enable silviculturists to better understand the

specific biological system with which they are dealing. With knowledge of the pattern of natural changes in stand

structure, species composition, and dominance, silviculturists can more effectively manage hardwood stands.

Specifically, for even-aged red oak-sweetgum stands in the South, the silviculturist should know that red oak,

even though it is few in number and relatively inconspicuous in young stands, will eventually outgrow the more

numerous and initially dominant sweetgum and will form the dominant canopy of the mature stand. Concerns

expressed by many foresters about the apparent lack of red oaks in young mixed hardwood stands are, in many

cases, unfounded. Because of this pattern of development in red oak-sweetgum stands, land managers should be

wary of prematurely concluding that their sites are not regenerating to oak. Even as few as 60 free-to-grow oaks

per acre, adequately.distributed, may be enough to ensure the eventual development of an oak-dominated stand

(Clatterbuck and Hodges 1988).

COMMENTS AND AUDIENCE DISCUSSION

A lengthy discussion by the audience centered on the concept of old growth as presented here. In my

presentation, it was stated that the old-growth stage of stand development, as defined by Oliver (198 I), is only rarely

attained and is generally not perpetuated for a long period, depending on the relative frequency of major

disturbances. In fact, the “public” concept of an old-growth structure in a climax association of species probably does

not exist. These contentions sparked a lively and thought-provoking discussion on the concept of old growth,

particularly as it pertains to bottomland hardwood stands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.

The audience presented an alternative concept of old growth; i.e., that as an earlier seral stage is replaced by

a later seral stage and a multilayered structure develops at least temporarily, this situation should be called old

growth for that earlier seral stage. There was some agreement by the audience with this concept, but it was pointed

out that this proposal did not satisfy the public conception of old-growth stands. Someone also stated that changes

in hydrology (either natural or anthropogenic changes) and deviations from normal climate patterns may also

contribute to accelerating the development of a multilayered structure, such that an affected stand could exhibit “oldgrowth” structure without truly being old.

After much discussion, the audience generally agreed that the public concept of old growth as a multilayered

structure in a climax association may be unattainable in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley because of the young

geologic age of most of the sites. In other words, the site itself prevents these stands from ever developing a climax

association.

The audience then suggested abandoning the term “old growth” because the public concept of it is unattainable

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and, therefore, the term does not apply to these bottomland hardwood ecosystems.

Someone suggested that a more appropriate term would be “a multilayered structure with a diverse species

composition.” This phrase embodies the characteristics of “old growth” that are desirable for Neotropical migratory

bird habitat.

This discussion did not resolve the issue of defining the concept of old growth as it pertains to bottomland

hardwood forests in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. That was not the point or even the potential benefit of the

discussion. What the discussion did serve to do was to open up a lively dialogue within an audience composed of

a diverse group of resource managers and researchers--foresters, ecologists, wildlife biologists, and fisheries

biologists--with diverse objectives and opinions on how bottomland hardwood stands should be managed.

LITERATURE CITED

Clatterbuck, Wayne K.; Hodges, John D. 1988. Development of cherrybark oak and sweetgum in mixed, even-aged

bottomland stands in central Mississippi, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 18(l): 12-18.

Johnson, R.L.; Krinard, R.M. 1976. Hardwood regeneration after seed tree cutting. Res. Pap. SO-123. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p.

15
Johnson, R.L.; Krinard, R.M. 1983. Regeneration in small and large sawtimber sweetgum-red oak stands following

selection and seed tree harvest: 23-year results. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 7(4): 176-184.

Johnson, Robert L.; Krinard, Roger M. 1988. Growth and development of two sweetgum-red oak stands from origin

through 29 years. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 12(2): 73-78.

Oliver, Chadwick Dearing. 1978. The development of northern red oak in mixed species stands in central New

England. Bull, 91. New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. 63 p.

Oliver, Chadwick Dearing. 1981. Forest development in North America following major disturbances. Forest

Ecology and Management. 3: 153-168.

Stubblefield, George; Oliver, Chadwick D. 1978. Silvicultural implications of the reconstruction of mixed

alder/conifer stands. In: Briggs, David G.; DeBell, Dean S.; Atkinson, William A., camps. Utilization and

management of alder: Proceedings of a symposium; 1977 April 25-27; Ocean Shores, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-70. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 307-320.

Wierman, C.A.; Oliver, C.D. 1979. Crown stratification by species in even-aged mixed stands of Douglas-fir/western

hemlock. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 9(l): l-9.

16
Managing Terrestrial Game and Neotropical Migratory Birds’

C. Michael Staten’

INTRODUCTION

Management typically is defined as an operation that involves several functions such as planning, coordinating,

directing, controlling, and supervising an activity, with responsibility for results. Being responsible for results is what

distinguishes a manager from being merely a proponent or advocate.

Management options vary along a full spectrum ranging from “passive management” to “mining” the resources.

Hopefully, the options chosen will be in the middle of the spectrum and include a broad approach, giving

consideration to both consumptive and nonconsumptive resources found on an area. Management options should

be tailored to keep as many of these interests as possible at priority levels. In most circumstances, land managers

are called on to produce game and fur-bearing species, provide fishing opportunities, provide diverse habitats

necessary for successful reproduction of songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and plant species,

as well as maintain esthetically pleasing landscapes, User groups are often guilty of considering their own special

interests as the highest or only priority. Complicating the issue of land management is that few of these priorities

can match the economic gains provided by timber resources.

MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

What Can We Do?

Every land manager has an opportunity to do something for birds. Options for incorporating bird management

techniques depend on the management strategy incorporated for the management entity. Even though gravel roads

may provide nesting habitat for killdeer, hopefully, one will not be satisfied with such small endeavors. There should

always be innovation shown in searching for ways to incorporate birds in the management scheme. As an example,

cane thickets are excellent habitat for hooded warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and Kentucky warblers. Baldcypress

trees scattered throughout the forest can be excellent candidates for bear dens as well as the preferred trees for

yellow-throated warblers. Small ponds can be habitat for wood ducks, black-crowned night-herons and yellowcrowned night-herons, as well as prothonotary warblers.

Meeting Habitat Needs

Snags and cavities are required by many species of birds to complete their life cycle. Of course, it is obvious

that they are used for nesting and food sources, but they also provide protected roosts during the winter. Cavities

also satisfy denning needs for squirrels and other small mammals.

Noncommercial, mast-producing vegetation species are also important to terrestrial game species. Most vines

produce seeds that are diet staples for squirrels and turkeys as well as browse for deer. These same soft-mast

species can be important food sources for many songbirds. Other birds may not use the fruit, but “glean” among

the leaves for insects. The vegetation produced by the vines themselves serves as nest structure, escape cover, and

feeding structure for birds. Small, mast-producing trees such as mulberry or dogwood also provide important food

sources. Mulberry may also be a good source of cavities as individual stems become older.

Fragmentation and Edge

Most management for game species includes creating “edge.” Edge is defined as the border between two or

more communities, usually plant communities. Deer and rabbits use edge where they find nutritious browse and

escape cover. Turkeys and quail use edge, especially permanent openings, for nesting and brooding their young in

1

Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August 9-10; Tallulah, LA.

*Anderson-Tully Company, P.O. Box 761, Lake Village, AR 71653.

17
search of protein-rich insects needed by the young for rapid body growth. Bears find edge to be important habitat

for berries and other soft mast. Many bird species, such as white-eyed vireos, yellow-breasted chats, and indigo

buntings, use forested edge for nesting habitat. Many more nest in different habitats, but use edge for feeding. This

complicates management by creating the need for a diversity of habitats. This diversity may be accomplished

through the creation of forest edge. Forest edge is usually the simple “setting back” of succession. These “set-backs”

also help create a diversity of vegetation layers, which is the result of differing amounts of sunlight allowed through

the forest canopy as well as differing vegetation age.

While being very important for a multitude of species, edge may also create problems. The edge becomes a

natural travel lane for predators and parasites. Skunks, raccoons, opossums, coyotes, foxes, bobcats, feral cats,

snakes, crows, and blue jays tend to follow edge in search of prey. The brown-headed cowbird, an avian nest

parasite, also tends to follow edge in search of active bird nests in which to lay their eggs. Forests in close proximity

to agriculture may be parasitized more heavily by cowbirds because agricultural areas are their preferred foraging

habitat.

Managers should give consideration in planning as to how edges or fragments are created to increase wildlife

productivity. For example, a small parcel of habitat in an agricultural field may attract nesting birds, but the small

size of the parcel may allow more complete searching by predators, In this situation, the edge habitat becomes a

liability or trap. The solution may include eliminating the fragment, increasing its size, or connecting the fragment

with adjacent habitat so that the entire habitat would be less easily searched. This illustration is also a lesson in

wildlife population management. The larger habitat would be considered a “source,” where more individuals were

produced than predated. The smaller habitat would be a “sink” where predation exceeds production. Even worse,

in the future, populations produced in the “source” could be attracted to the “sink,” where they might also be

predated.

Because roads and food plots could possibly help fragment smaller habitat blocks, their construction should

be carefully planned. In many forested blocks, a good road is an asset for reaching the resources managed in that

forest. These resources range from harvesting forest products to harvesting a sustainable proportion of the deer herd.

Very few managers with multiple use responsibilities will argue that roads are unnecessary. On the other hand, too

many roads may affect the quality of the recreational experience in the forest due to increased access by those

competing for the same wildlife resource. A primary road system maintained for vehicular traffic with smaller roads

or trails for temporary access may fit the needs of the manager. When not needed, smaller roads could be closed

to vehicular traffic other than light, off-road vehicles or “walk-in” traffic. These smaller roads would most likely

be covered by tree canopy and could be maintained by late summer bushhogging. During the spring nesting season,

the road would be allowed to grow up in vegetation, which could make less of a distinct travel route for predators

and parasites.

If supplemental nutrition is deemed desirable to reach prescribed management goals, rather than scatter small

food plots throughout the forest, the roadsides of the primary road system could be daylighted (i.e., maintained open

canopy to increase incidence of sunlight) and planted. This procedure would allow the roadbed to dry out more

quickly and be more easily maintained. Planting forage species, which may be less attractive to nest predators or

parasites, may have merit. Cowbirds may feed heavily in plots with grass seeds, but cowpeas, corn, or clover would

be less attractive to cowbirds during the nesting season due to increased ground cover and fewer sources of food.

Not being able to find food sources easily in the forest may well force the cowbird to leave the forest to find food

in its normal pasture/agricultural habitat, thus reducing the time available for daily nest searching.

Additional Considerations

Streamside management zones (SMZ’s) have vast potential for incorporating wildlife management with timber

management. Although designed to protect the watershed from excessive siltation, these areas (SMZ’s) are important

for maintaining diversity. Not only do they prov

1 8
By prioritizing goals and objectives, combined with the best available science and human innovation,

sustainable management of natural resources is attainable. Every land manager has an opportunity for incorporating

some sort of bird management into their overall management strategy. The responsibility shown today will help

maintain wildlife habitat for future generations.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Q. How far will cowbirds travel to parasitize nests?

A . Cowbirds can travel long distances to parasitize nests, but usually, heaviest parasitism is found within l/8

to l/4 mile of edge.

Q. At what point is timber management considered fragmentation?

A . That has yet to be determined, but forests bordering agriculture are influenced by edge up to l/4 to 112

mile.

Comment-- More studies are needed on the relationship of nesting and predation in edges.

Q . Are food plots determined to be beneficial in managing game species?

A . Yes, if they are strategically located and properly maintained to reach specific goals and objectives. Food

plots are often established to simply enhance public perception.

Comment--Diet analysis of cowbirds has shown more insects than grass seeds.

Comment--On public lands, food plots should not be located too close to roadsides due to possible poaching

problems.

19
Regional Waterfowl Habitat Trends and Implications

for Neotropical Migratory Birds’

Kenneth J. Reinecke’

INTRODUCTION

The three objectives of this paper are to: (1) review the primary habitat changes resulting from future trends

in waterfowl management; (2) predict whether the effects of these habitat changes will be positive, neutral, or

negative for populations of Neotropical migrants; and (3) identify any significant conflicts between management for

Neotropical migrants and waterfowl.

The following are emphasized here: (1) management activities on three habitats (forested wetlands, moist-soil

areas, and cropland habitats) on public lands; (2) management activities on private croplands; and (3) the resulting

interactions between public and private lands.

To determine effects of waterfowl management strategies on populations of Neotropical migrants, this paper

includes an overview of regional waterfowl management strategies as outlined in the Lower Mississippi Valley

(LMV) Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. According to the Joint Venture Plan,

the goal of waterfowl habitat managers during the period 1986 to 2000 is to:

“Provide an adequate quantity, quality, and distribution of migration and wintering habitat on public and

private lands to ensure that the LMV Joint Venture area can support a wintering population of at least 8.6

million ducks and 1.0 million geese during years of normal precipitation.”

The practical interpretation of this Joint Venture policy is that waterfowl managers will try to ensure that an

adequate quantity of forested wetlands, moist-soil impoundments, and croplands are available to provide foraging

habitat for dabbling ducks on naturally flooded sites and on public and private lands managed purposefully for

waterfowl. The relative emphasis placed on these habitats (forested wetlands vs. moist-soil areas vs. croplands),

habitat sources (public vs. private), and degrees of management control (water control vs. natural flooding) will

determine net effects of waterfowl management on Neotropical migrants.

Because waterfowl managers have protected large acreages of forested wetlands, waterfowl management

historically has had a very positive effect on Neotropical migrants. However, maintaining duck populations at the

levels envisioned in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan will not be possible without managing some

public lands as moist-soil areas and croplands, with their relatively high food production capability.

However, these nonforested habitats will not be optimal for Neotropical migrants, most of which require

forested habitat. Thus, although waterfowl management in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley generally is beneficial

to Neotropical migrants, it is not realistic to expect to optimize conditions for both groups of species simultaneously.

The management strategy of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture can be portrayed as a spreadsheet or

balance sheet of habitat types and land ownership patterns (fig. 1). This model or framework is providing a focus

for managers implementing, and for researchers evaluating, the Joint Venture. It also is a convenient way to

summarize effects of waterfowl management practices on Neotropical migrants.

Within this framework, scenarios could be developed wherein the waterfowl goals of the Joint Venture were

achieved with more or less forested wetlands, and the resulting management would be more or less beneficial for

Neotropical migrants. The primary objective of this paper is to describe the most likely scenario that will occur in

the LMV and its effects on habitats and populations of Neotropical migrants.

Some of the data necessary to determine effects of waterfowl management practices on Neotropical migrants

are being collected as part of an evaluation of the effectiveness of the LMV Joint Venture management strategies.

The plan describing this integrated package of research and management studies currently is in the final stages of

development. It has been designed to determine: (1) how much waterfowl habitat exists in each of the categories

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August 9-10; Tallulah, LA.

‘National Biological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180-2975.

20
in figure 1, (2) if the sum of all habitat in the categories satisfies Joint Venture goals, and (3) if the habitats have

been combined in the most effective way to benefit waterfowl and other wetland wildlife.

As an example, a questionnaire is being used to determine general habitat characteristics of public lands and

the changes that occur as the Joint Venture Plan is implemented. Results from the most recent (1993) of these socalled “Public Lands Questionnaires’ provide a means of relating availability of habitats on State and Federal

wildlife areas to the requirements of migratory forest birds. Currently, about 4.4 million acres (20 percent) of the

original 22.0 million acres of bottomland hardwoods in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley remain. Of the remaining

4.4 million acres, about 625,000 (14 percent) are held in fee title by public agencies and managed to benefit natural

resources. Of the 625,000 acres in public ownership, 81,500 (13 percent) are managed as green-tree reservoirs,

which use systems of levees and water control structures to provide more dependable flooding of forested wetlands

during winter for waterfowl.

EXPECTED TRENDS IN WATERFOWL HABITATS IN THE MISSISSIPPI

ALLUVIAL VALLEY

Forested Wetlands

There definitely is an increasing trend (fig. 2) in the number of acres of forested wetlands on public lands

related to waterfowl management. Land acquisitions will bring additional forested wetlands into public ownership

during the period 1986 to 2000. The area of land involved probably will be on the order of several tens of thousands

of acres, most of which will remain subject to natural hydrology.

Relatively little expansion of green-tree reservoirs (GTR’s) is expected in the future for several reasons. Greentree reservoirs have relatively high development costs, and GTR’s don’t contribute as much to meeting the food

needs of wintering waterfowl as some other management practices do. Development of GTR’s results in loss of

forested habitats from associated rights-of-way, and permits and mitigation may be required for construction of levee

systems. Construction of the existing 8 1,500 acres of GTR’s in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has resulted in loss

of bottomland hardwood forests on 3,000 to 4,000 acres of public land. Also, regular annual flooding of GTR’s can

cause tree mortality or a shift in overstory species composition from red oaks to more water tolerant overcup oak

and green ash.

Another source of increased acres of forested habitat for Neotropical migrants on public lands will be

reforestation of cleared lands that are purchased by public agencies. The number of acres involved cannot be

determined yet because the number of cleared acres to be purchased is unknown, and the needs of waterfowl for

food production from open habitats must be planned in greater detail (fig. 1).

Nonforested Lands

Moist-soil areas.--A significant increase in acreage is expected in this category (fig. 2). Wetland restoration

of natural sloughs in cleared land using low earth levees and small water-control structures has been effective.

When these areas are managed by annual drawdowns in spring or early summer, the resulting grasses, sedges, and

associated plants produce an abundance of seeds as food for waterfowl. Because moist-soil management benefits

more species of wetland wildlife than cropland management, this technique will be the primary method used to

provide food for waterfowl on cleared land. The total acres involved and the increase in acres necessary to meet

the waterfowl goal will be determined through further data analysis and planning by the LMV Joint Venture staff.

Croplands.--The trend in croplands is difficult to quantify (fig. 2)‘but is probably negative. Cleared lands in

public ownership will increase as a result of acquisition; however, reforestation will return many of the acres to

forested wetlands. Some existing cleared lands also will be reforested, whereas others will remain open and managed

as cropland for waterfowl. Croplands that continue to be managed for waterfowl will be those that: (1) provide food

sources that can’t be satisfied with other management methods, and (2) are involved in rotation with moist-soil

management, (3) are needed to support cooperative farming programs providing necessary waterfowl food sources.

21
Important Waterfowl Habitat Categories

in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Actively Managed Naturally

Forested

Wetlands

Moist-soil

Cropland

Public Private Flooded

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total

Figure 1 ,--Conceptualframeworkfor developing regional waterfowl habitat management strategies under the Lower

Mississippi Valley Joint Venture of the North American WaterfowlManagement Plan. The system consists

of three important habitat types and three classes or land ownership or management control.

Waterfowl Habitat Trends in the

Mississ ippi Alluvial Valley

Forested

Wetlands

Moist-soil

Cropland

Actively Managed

Public Private

Naturally

Flooded

I I I

Figure2.--Conceptualframeworkfordevelopingregionalwater~owlhabitatmanagementstrategiesillustratingwhere

predicted changes will occur in the size ofsystem components.

22
Effects of Habitat Changes

on Neotropical Migrants

Actively Managed

Naturally

Public Private Flooded

Forested

Wetlands +

Moist-soil +

Cropland + ?

Figure 3.--Conceptual framework for developing regional waterfowl habitat management strategies illustrating

the predicted effect on Neotropical migratory birds of the habitat changes identified in figure 2.

WILL NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS BENEFIT FROM HABITAT CHANGES

ASSOCIATED WITH WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT?

Direct Benefits From Increased Habitat Acres

Acquisition of additional tracts of bottomland hardwoods will directly benefit Neotropical migrants (fig. 3),

provided that forest stand structure is not so degraded and that fragmentation is not so excessive that the site

functions temporarily as a population sink. Reforestation of acquired cleared lands will provide more habitat for

Neotropical migrants when succession has proceeded to the appropriate state to provide favorable conditions.

Increasing the acres allocated to moist-soil management for producing duck foods may benefit some Neotropical

migrants that use edge habitats (e.g., catbirds, chats, yellowthroats), but the primary beneficiaries will be ducks,

wading birds (e.g., herons and egrets), and marsh birds (e.g., rails and shorebirds).

Increasing winter flooding on more acres of private land will benefit few species other than waterfowl, unless

a means is found of convincing significant numbers of farmers to flood fields shortly after the autumn harvest, in

which case shorebirds will receive substantial benefits.

Benefits Associated with Habitat Management Practices

Forested Wetlands.--Waterfowl managers will encourage foresters to manage for a substantial component (30

to 70 percent) of red oaks (willow, Nuttall, cherrybark, pin, and water) where sites are appropriate. Because acorn

production is greatest among trees with d.b.h.‘s >lO inches and crowns exposed to full sunlight, management for

acorn production should be compatible with management for the relatively mature and multilayered forest that is

thought to be of greatest value to Neotropical migrants.

Moist soil--Increased emphasis on moist-soil management will result in a larger number of refuges managing

multiple impoundments. The larger number of moist-soil impoundments under management will create opportunities

to provide water regimes that favor species other than waterfowl. For example, if adequate impoundments are

available, some can be managed to provide foraging sites for ducks during midwinter, whereas others can be flooded

in spring as migration habitat for shorebirds or as foraging habitat for breeding wading birds. Similarly, availability

23
of multiple impoundments provides opportunities to attract migrating shorebirds in autumn. Although these groups

of water birds are not the focus of efforts to benefit Neotropical migrants, they are considered by the Joint Venture

to be important species of wetland wildlife that can benefit from waterfowl management activities,

Croplands-Recruiting private landowners in the vicinity of refuges to provide foraging sites for waterfowl by

flooding croplands during the dormant season can help refuges achieve waterfowl objectives while devoting fewer

acres to intensive food production. By developing strong “private lands programs,” managers of public lands may

be able to put additional acres into moist-soil or bottomland hardwood habitats and provide greater wildlife and

environmental values by managing more natural habitats.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT FOR WATERFOWL AND MANAGEMENT FOR

NEOTROPICAL MIGRANTS

Three potential conflicts between management for waterfowl and management for Neotropical migrants are: (1)

development of green-tree reservoirs, (2) management of existing forests to maintain or increase the percentage of

red oaks, and (3) decisions made about reforestation of acquired or existing lands that were nonforested.

The principal benefits gained from development of green-tree reservoirs are availability of more predictable

habitat for ducks, such as mallards and wood ducks, and availability of hunting opportunities where few exist. On

the other hand, negative effects of green-tree reservoir development on Neotropical migrants may include: (1) loss

of habitat along rights-of-way, (2) tree mortality resulting from regular winter flooding, (3) changes in overstory tree

species composition, (4) decreased understory vegetation and altered frequencies of breeding bird species associated

with the understory, and (5) possible negative changes in competitors, predators, and parasites resulting from the

creation of edges in the forest interior.

This issue probably is not a major source of conflict between management for waterfowl and Neotropical

migrants because emphasis on green-tree reservoirs as a management practice will decrease in the future for the

reasons already discussed.

The second issue, management of bottomland hardwood forests to maintain red oaks, also should not be a major

source of conflict. On private land, foresters favor red oaks for their desirable commercial properties. On public

land, acorn production that is favored by waterfowl managers is greatest in large trees with well-developed crowns,

the kind of trees likely to be found in relatively mature forests with multiple layers of overstory and understory

vegetation.

However, important questions remain about the role of oaks in the multilayered forests favored by Neotropical

migrants. For example, can red oaks, which are relatively intolerant of shade, be maintained in forests managed for

a multilayered structure? Also, is the structural diversity of trees more important than their species diversity, and

do oaks support as many lepidopteran caterpillars, which may be a “keystone” resource for breeding Neotropical

migrants, as do other species of trees?

The last issue, the extent of reforestation of cleared lands purchased by public agencies, may have the greatest

potential for conflict between those interested in managing for waterfowl and Neotropical migrants. The ideal

management strategy for Neotropical migrants would be to purchase only forested wetlands for public ownership

or to reforest all cleared lands. However, doing so would make it impossible to satisfy the food requirements

associated with current waterfowl population objectives, and it would preclude managing certain habitats (i.e., moistsoil areas) for the benefit of waterfowl as well as wading birds and shorebirds.

Because it is impossible to optimize a system for two species or species groups simultaneously, the best

compromise might be to carefully inventory the system of public lands (fig. 1) and reforest any areas not essential

to meeting habitat objectives for populations of waterfowl or related water birds. Consideration also should be given

to minimizing fragmentation and edge when selecting sites for reforestation or management as open land.

24
Is Reforestation an Adequate Restoration of Bottomland Hardwood

Functions for the Needs of Neotropical Migratory Birds?’

Kenneth F. Ribbeck and William C. Hunter’

INTRODUCTION

The conversion of forested wetlands to agricultural and other uses throughout the lower Mississippi Valley

during most of the 1900’s sparked large-scale attempts to artificially restore forests during the last decade. The major

motivating factor for wildlife agencies to initiate reforestation efforts is the importance of these habitats for reversing

declines among waterfowl species and supporting other game and nongame species. Also, providing habitat for

game species (especially deer and turkey) is frequently the wildlife issue of greatest interest among private

landowners entering into State and Federal partnerships to restore forested wetlands. The relationship between mast

crops and healthy game populations often results in reforestation efforts focused primarily on establishing oaks first

to avoid difficulties associated with establishing oaks intermixed with other tree species. The benefits from

reforestation efforts for game species appear high; benefits for nongame species are often assumed to be high as

well.

Recent concerns over the declines of Neotropical migratory landbirds, the importance of the lower Mississippi

Valley for many of these species, and the dependence of many of the highest priority species on mature forested

wetlands have led to incorporating the needs of these species into public land management practices, including

reforestation efforts. Thus, the main questions to be addressed for this topic are:

are habitat features considered important for waterfowl and other game species, now incorporated into most

reforestation efforts, also important for Neotropical migratory landbirds, and are there other factors that should be

considered?

REFORESTATION IN PRACTICE

Reforestation of cleared and farmed bottomland hardwood sites is an important component in the restoration

of bottomland hardwood systems. The beneficial functions these systems provide can only be realized if the entire

restoration project of the system is completed.

Reforestation is a primary component of the restoration process and, when accomplished correctly biologically,

will account for the most rapid return of system benefits to wildlife and humans. Analysis of historic vegetative

composition of the site along with site alterations incurred due to agricultural practices is necessary to determine

species composition required for restoration. Additionally, long-term (loo-year) and short-term (1- to 1 O-year)

flooding patterns (occurrence, duration, and season) must be evaluated and weighed heavily as determining factors

in species selection for site restoration.

Site quality and geography of associated unaltered forest habitat (forests not cleared for agriculture) play an

equally important role in the species selection process. In general, higher quality sites with immediate adjacent

forest lands and shorter term agricultural history have a stronger propensity to recover to a more complete

bottomland hardwood system.

Reforestation of agricultural sites with emphasis on hard mast producers (oaks and pecans) is necessary to

ensure the most expeditious return to prior converted habitat conditions. This is due to the general inherent

incapability of hard mast species to disperse seeds to any great distance; there are some exceptions as with overcup

oak and bitter pecan. However, the experiences of the senior author and his colleagues reveal a limited capability

of the lighter seeded species (e.g., American elm, ash, sugarberry, maple, etc.) to occupy the large expanses of

agricultural lands in associated lower quality floodplains. Primary reasoned modes of present active dispersal appear

to be wind, water, and animals, with combinations of two or all modes providing the densest stocking. However,

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August 9-10; Tallulah, LA.

‘Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 70898; U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,

GA 30345, respectively.

25
relative distance to existing forest structure appears to be a limiting factor in dispersal success.

Introduction of the lighter seeded species, either during or after the initial reforestation with the heavier mast

species, may be necessary in the lower quality sites to ensure a more diverse woody composition in the future forest.

This would also provide a more balanced vegetative component upon which most historically occurring animal life

could depend for the basic necessities.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro-site selection (choosing the right species for the right micro-site) is extremely important for successful

restoration of these altered systems. A “pine plantation” approach cannot be assumed to be appropriate for

bottomland reforestation, as hardwood species selection can change with only a slight change (e.g., 2 to 6 inches)

in site elevation. A good working knowledge of the affected site and hardwood species requirements is necessary

to match the species to the site and ensure survivability of the plantings. Overall success of the restoration process

will then be weighed by the return of the other variables associated with the system.

The following factors should be considered by managers involved in reforestation of bottomland hardwoods:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Landscape selection criteria; e.g., reforesting numerous small sites (cl00 acres) vs. a few large sites

(>lOOO acres) and reforesting directly adjacent to existing forests vs. sites isolated from existing forests.

“Favored” tree species now emphasized in plantings; e.g., appropriateness of emphasis on red oak (i.e.,

hard mast) species vs. emphasis on a greater diversity of tree species (including hard mast species) in

plantings.

Distance to seed sources for light seeded species and influence on future habitat condition important for

Neotropical migrants.

Soil and hydrologic considerations for determining tree species used in planting; e.g., should sites be

passed over if they are not suitable for priority red oak species but could support other tree species (e.g.,

baldcypress) possibly important for Neotropical migratory landbirds.

Reforestation as a mitigation tool; e.g., appropriateness of mitigating loss of structurally diverse and

species rich forested wetlands with reforestation emphasizing red oak plantings. (Will all functions and

values eventually be mitigated for, and how long should it take?)

Nonecological aesthetic vs. logistic and financial constraints; e.g., straight vs. irregular plantings, “patchy

monocultures” vs. high species diversity per acre.

26
Involving Forest Industry in Neotropical Migrant Management’

Jimmy Bullock*

INTRODUCTION

Because most land in the United States is privately owned, including forest land, it is clear that the private

sector should be a major cooperator in “Partners in Flight” efforts to conserve Neotropical migratory birds. The

“private sector” is more than forest landowners, whether corporate or noncorporate; it includes agricultural

landowners, mining interests, housing and commercial land developers, and others. The private sector also includes

the general public as users of products generated from private lands. Private landowners are extremely diverse and

vary considerably in their land ownership objectives. With that diversity comes a unique opportunity for cooperation

in addressing natural resource issues (Wigley and Sweeney 1992).

In the South, corporate and noncorporate private landowners own approximately 90 percent of all forested lands.

Thus, efforts to enhance forested habitat for Neotropical migrants must involve private landowners. While the

private, noncorporate sector owns forest land for a variety of uses, timber production ranks as the most important.

The forest products industry is a diverse group of small to large companies. Some own their own lands, others

depend on timber from private or public lands. Each company’s products determine how they will manage their

forests. Despite these and other differences, there are similarities among corporate landowners:

(1) they own land and expect to make a return on their investment in this land;

(2) they harvest timber because the public requires and demands forest products, and this demand will

increase with time; and

(3) by and large, corporate landowners are becoming better stewards and more responsible managers of the

total resource.

DEVELOPING PARTNERSHIPS

Dr. Ben Wigley and Dr. James Sweeney, in a paper entitled “Cooperative Partnerships and the Role of Private

Landowners” (1992), supported the concept that cooperative public/private sector partnerships in which all

participants contribute may be the best vehicle to involve forest industry with Neotropical migrant management.

I agree with their conclusions.

The authors used the Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) as a case study of the development of a

successful cooperative partnership and attributed the BBCC’s success to several factors:

(1) all members “leave at the door” any agenda except working for the resource;

(2) mutual respect among members for objectives of each partner;

(3) all members contribute to the effort;

(4) initial positive cooperation on “common ground” issues;

(5) environment in which members can informally socialize and come to know each other as individuals;

and

(6) “best available” scientifically derived information is the final arbiter.

Also, it should be emphasized that too often the public sector falls short in its understanding of private sector

concerns, basic forest/wildlife management concepts, or understanding why the private sector is hesitant to become

involved in partnerships. Even of more concern is that sometimes the public sector may not even care about private

sector concerns.

ANDERSON-TULLY’S MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Finally, I want to briefly discuss one private corporate landowner’s approach to management of Neotropical

migratory birds. Anderson-Tully Company (ATCO) believes a well-designed timber management plan is beneficial

for both game and nongame wildlife species. For optimal wildlife benefit, a managed timber stand should provide

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August 9-10; Tallulah, LA.

‘Anderson-Tully Company, P.O. Box 38, Vicksburg, MS 39181.

27
a diversity of food, cover, and habitat types including an interspersion of tree species, stand densities, and age

classes. Anderson-Tully’s sustainable uneven-aged management philosophy, with its selective harvesting approach

and timber stand improvement and natural regeneration techniques provides that diversity. Wildlife habitat is further

enhanced through the designed placement of wildlife food plots and permanent wildlife openings, roads and

maintained roadside corridors, streamside management zones, and increased den and snag tree availability.

Anderson-Tully’s approach to Neotropical migratory bird management is proactive in nature. A sampling system

will be developed to quantify an array of habitat quality variables within each of the nine timber types found on

company lands. Using this information, company resource managers will have better knowledge of how all pieces

of the ecosystem puzzle fit and a better track on how ATCO’s management system influences habitat quality for both

game and nongame wildlife species. Anderson-Tully cannot manage for all Neotropical birds or all wildlife species

on every acre of company land. Every acre will be managed for what it is best suited; however, this may be timber

species, herbaceous vegetation, game or nongame wildlife species, and Neotropical migrants. Anderson-Tully is

fortunate-- its intensive management system and ecologically rich lands will promote habitat for a diversity of

Neotropical migrants across the landscape, whether the migrants prefer early successional plant communities, mature

hardwood forests, or managed intermediate stands. As a private landowner, ATCO must realize an economic profit

from company lands in order to continue to own them. The challenge as managers of this resource will be to sustain

the management of all natural resources through time in an ecologically responsible fashion. Working together with

all stakeholders in a cooperative manner, economic reality can be balanced with ecological responsibility.

LITERATURE CITED

Wigley, T. Bently; Sweeney, James M. 1992. Cooperative partnerships and the role of private landowners. In:

Finch, Deborah M.; Stangel, Peter W., eds. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds; 1992

September 21-25; Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 39-44.

2 8
Context and Priorities in the

Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds’

David N. Pashley’

INTRODUCTION

Land managers and conservation policymakers are faced with a bewildering array of alternatives. Economic

requirements and public demand often conflict with conservation objectives. While most agree to the desirability

of taking the needs of Neotropical migratory birds into consideration, the means whereby these needs can be

integrated with other objectives are not always clear. The intent of this workshop is to air issues of potential conflict

and move toward resolution of those issues.

There are few cases in which management of forest-dwelling migratory birds will be the sole, or even primary,

objective. The point of this workshop is to begin planning bird management within the context of other priorities.

The most common primary objectives in forested habitat of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley are timber production,

terrestrial game, and waterfowl. There are potential conflicts, but it is also clear that many standard practices are

entirely satisfactory for songbirds and fairly minor modification of other practices can result in heightened habitat

suitability. Many details remain to be worked out, but relative compatibility is well within the realm of possibility.

There are other important values, such as improved black bear habitat and water quality, that can be enhanced

through songbird management.

PRIORITIZING SPECIES AND HABITATS

There is considerable variation among Neotropical migratory birds. Some species have stable populations,

whereas others are in decline; few species show consistent patterns across their entire range. There is a great deal

of variation in habitat requirements, ranging from pastures to disturbed shrub to mature forest. It is impossible to

manage a land unit for Neotropical migrants without learning which species are present, which are of greatest

conservation concern, and what their needs are. Proper management cannot occur, regardless of the presence or

absence of conflict, until priorities are established.

Development of such a prioritization scheme has been an important activity for Partners in Flight, and the process

is nearing completion. A species in an area is evaluated on the basis of seven factors: global abundance, extent of

breeding distribution, threats during breeding season, extent of winter range, threats during winter and migration,

local population trend, and importance of the area to the species. The scheme has been adopted, draft values for

the above parameters are under review, and the Colorado Bird Observatory has been contracted to

complete prioritized species lists for every State and physiographic area in the United States. Thus, the prioritization

scheme should be finished fairly soon, and lists of species will thereafter be readily available. In the current draft,

the top 10 breeding species in order of conservation concern within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley are: Bachman’s

warbler, prothonotary warbler, Mississippi kite, Swainson’s warbler, painted bunting, American swallow-tailed kite,

yellow-billed cuckoo, wood thrush, white-eyed vireo, and hooded warbler.

Issues of Context

These lists, however, are only a starting point. With so many bird species to deal with, management for any

single species (except for those that are truly endangered, none of which exist any longer in bottomland hardwood

systems) is entirely impractical. Those highly prioritized species that cohabit a particular habitat should be managed

in concert through plans that satisfy all of their needs. This is the upcoming phase in Partners in Flight. It will

require cooperation among foresters, wildlife managers, and ornithologists but is not at all an intractable problem.

The emphasis that needs to be placed on any given species within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley depends, to

a large extent, on what is happening within the entire range of that species. This is another issue of context.

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August 9-10; Talhdah, LA.

‘The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana, P.O. Box 4125, Baton Rouge, LA 70821

29
Conservation of wide-ranging, long-distance migrants can only be achieved through a hemispheric perspective. The

responsibility of this part of the world for the long-term perpetuation of a given species has to be evaluated on the

basis of what is happening throughout the range of that species, This sort of determination is an upcoming challenge

within Partners in Flight.

The role of any particular land unit within a physiographic area is another issue of context. This consideration

falls into the discipline of landscape ecology. Take an example in which two general habitat conditions must be

maintained for the sake of species prioritized highly enough to be of concern. If neither habitat type is provided

on private lands (which may be entirely agricultural), then a manager of public lands on which management of

songbirds is a priority ought to provide both habitat types. If, on the other hand, one of those habitat types is amply

provided on private land (i.e., early postdisturbed industrial forest land or tall trees in low-density residential areas),

then the public land manager should concentrate on the type that is absent. Real-world situations are not typically

as easily evaluated, and regional conservation planning should be another goal for Partners in Flight.

As has been amply demonstrated in descriptions of the ecology and silviculture of bottomland hardwood systems,

there is a temporal context that also needs to be considered. As conditions change, an area that currently provides

suitable habitat for a particular bird species will not necessarily continue to always do so. With or without active

management, this is a very dynamic system, and one cannot be so complacent as to assume that conditions that are

currently satisfactory will remain so in the future. This is just one of the reasons why an understanding of ecosystem

dynamics is critical.

The final issue of context is the place of Neotropical migratory bird conservation within the broader issue of

protection of biological diversity in general. First, we have to keep in mind that providing habitat for Neotropical

migrants does not take care of all groups of species, in addition to bird species, that are in peril or undergoing

declines. Wetlands species, such as shorebirds, and freshwater forms, such as mussels, are two obvious examples.

A landscape view of habitat protection must be broad enough to include all elements of diversity. However, within

habitats that could be managed for Neotropical migrants reside a great many other organisms that could benefit from

bird conservation. Land managers should consider all rare organisms in making decisions. If additional lands are

to be brought into public ownership or otherwise managed specifically for birds, areas that also harbor other rare

elements of biological diversity should be given highest priority. Consideration of a broader group of organisms than

migratory birds is particularly important on Neotropical wintering grounds where resident species are usually more

critically imperiled than are migrants. Although Neotropical migrants are the focus of Partners in Flight, it is not

at all disingenuous to hope that a more extensive breadth of biological diversity benefits from the program.

30
Identifying Management Needs’

S. Ray Aycock and William C. Hunter2

INTRODUCTION

The final topic of this proceedings is information needs for implementation of management practices that benefit

Neotropical migrants that are integrated as much as possible with other priority management objectives. Land

managers were shown reasons for widespread concern for the future health of Neotropical migratory landbird

populations, especially those occurring in the bottomland hardwood ecosystems of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.

However, few land management practices for immediate implementation were outlined.

Identifying management practices for Neotropical migrants is a high-priority issue now being addressed by the

Southeast Working Group of Partners in Flight. Many of the information needs identified by managers at the

workshop have led to the formation of subcommittees charged with compiling known information and formulating

broad strategies on how to implement regional management guidelines at local land management units.

INFORMATION NEEDS AND ONGOING OR PLANNED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS NEEDS

1. Survey and inventory needs--which species occur, how they are distributed, and which habitats do they use:

a . Breeding Bird Atlases near completion in Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee; planned in near future for

Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

b . Continuing need for conducting local surveys and involving participants with bird identification skills--

universities and/or local and State bird clubs may be sources for assistance and, if enough interest exists,

bird identification workshops may be planned in the future for land managers.

C. Paul Hamel’s “Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South” can greatly assist land managers once

they know which species are present and which species should receive priority attention (for the fatter

see attached table for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley). Paul Hamel’s work is available from The Nature

Conservancy, Chapel Hill, NC for $20.00 (telephone: 919-967-5493).

2 . Guidelines for integrating habitat management for game species, timber production, and endangered species (e.g.,

red-cockaded woodpecker) with the habitat needs of the full range of high priority Neotropical migrants.

a . Specific issues such as forest-openings management, the edge concept, and area requirements for

balancing the needs of both mature forest and early successional species (game and nongame), consistent

with a variety of timber production objectives, are now being addressed at the regional level.

b . Strategies for allocating habitat resources when endangered species are involved are also under

investigation throughout the Southeast and probably can be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

3. Provide for consistency in survey and monitoring techniques.

a . Winston Paul Smith and colleagues (Smith and others 1993) are working diligently on this need for

information. (One technical bulletin is available through the USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station and a land manager’s guide [i.e., “caokbook”] on how to inventory birds and habitat

is now in development).

4 . Silviculturally define successional stages, stand types (i.e., dominant tree species composition), burning regimes,

timber stand improvement, regeneration regimes, etc Determine best time of year for forestry activities to benefit

or reduce harm to the greatest variety of Neotropical migrants, keeping in mind other constraints such as flooding

periods, etc. Compare the range of silvicultural regeneration alternatives (e.g., even- vs. uneven-aged systems,

patch size, rotation, largely forested or largely fragmented landscape) and assess effects of each on broadly

defined groups of Neotropical migrants.

‘Paper presented at a Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests; 1993

August 9-10; Tallutah, LA.

*U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS 39213; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Atlanta, GA 30345, respectively.

31
a . Each of the above elements is now being addressed at the regional level.

5. Develop a reading list (annotated bibliography) intended for foresters and game managers to gain a better

understanding of the problems Neotropical migrants are confronted with and for nongame managers and

researchers to gain a better understanding of silviculture and game management practices (the reading list should

cover topics that should be of interest to all parties).

a . Development of an annotated bibliography is under discussion at the regional level. In the meantime,

increased communication among all interested parties may allow for more efficient flow of important

information.

LITERATURE CITED

Smith, Winston Paul; Twedt, Daniel J.; Wiedenfeld, David A. [and others]. 1993. Point counts of birds in

bottomland hardwoodforests of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: duration, minimum sample size, and points versus

visits. Res. Pap. SO-274. New Orleans, LA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station. 21 p.

3 2
Appendix A.--Common and scientific names of mammal and bird species referenced in papers included in this

publication

Common name Scientific name

--

Opossum

Gray squirrel

Fox squirrel

Swamp rabbit

White-tailed deer

Spotted skunk

Striped skunk

Raccoon

Coyote

Red fox

Gray fox

Bobcat

Black bear

Mammals

Didelphis virginiana

Sciurus carolinensis

S. niger

Sylvilagus aquaticus

Odocoileus virginianus

Spilogale putorius

Mephitis mephitis

Procyon lotor

Canis latrans

Vulpes vulpes

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Lynx rufus

Ursus americanus

Birds

Black-crowned night-heron

Yellow-crowned night-heron

Kildeer

Wood duck

American swallow-tailed kite

Mississippi kite

Eastern wild turkey

Northern bobwhite

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Blue jay

American crow

Gray catbird

Wood thrush

White-eyed vireo

Red-eyed vireo

Bachman’s warbler

Northern parula

Yellow-throated warbler

Cerulean warbler

Prothonotary warbler

Swainson’s warbler

Kentucky warbler

Common yellowthroat

Hooded warbler

Yellow-breasted chat

Indigo bunting

Painted bunting

Brown-headed cowbird

Nyclicorax nycticorax

N. violaceus

Charadrius vociferus

Aix sponsa

Elanoides forficatus

Ictinia mississippiensis

Meleagris gallopavo

Colinus virginianus

Coccyzus americanus

Cyanocitta cristata

Corvus brachyrhynchos

Dumetella carolinensis

Hylocichla mustelina

Vireo griseus

V. olivaceus

Vermivora bachmanii

Parula americana

Dendroica dominica

D. cerulea

Protonotaria cilrea

Limnothlypis swainsonii

Oporornis formosus

Geothlypis trichas

Wilsonia citrina

Icteria virens

Passerina cyanea

P. ciris

Molothrus ater

3 3
Appendix B.--Common and scientific names of tree and shrub species referenced in papers included in this

publication-Continued

Common name

Spruce pine

Baldcypress

Cottonwood (eastern)

C0tt0nw00d(swamp)

Black willow

Sweet pecan

Water hickory (bitter pecan)

Black birch (sweet birch or cherry birch)

River birch

American hornbeam

Beech

Bur oak

Overcup oak

Swamp chestnut oak

Northern red oak

Shumard oak

Pin oak

Cherrybark oak

Nuttall oak

Water oak

Willow oak

Swamp laurel oak

American elm

Sugarberry (hackberry)

Water-elm

Red mulberry

Sweetgum

American sycamore

Red maple

Silver maple

Boxelder

Blackgum

Water tupelo

Persimmon

Green ash

Carolina ash

Swamp-privet

Buttonbush

Scientific name

---

Pinus glabra Walt.

Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich.

Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.

P. heterophylla L.

Salk nigra Marsh.

Carya illinoensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch

Carya aquatica (Michx. f.) Nutt.

Betula lenta L.

B. nigra L.

Carpinus caroliniana Walt.

Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.

Quercus macrocarpa Michx.

Q. lyrata Walt.

Q. michauxii Nutt.

Q. rubra L.

Q. shumardii Buckl.

Q. palustris Muenchh.

Q. falcata var. pagodifolia Ell.

Q. nuttallii Palmer

Q. nigra L.

Q. phellos L.

Q. laurifolia Michx.

Ulmus americana L.

Celtis laevigata Willd.

Planera aquatica J.F. Gmel.

Morus rubra L.

Liquidambar styracijlua L.

Platanus occidentalis L.

Acer rubrum L.

A. saccharinum L.

Acer negundo L.

Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.

N. aquatica L.

Diospyros virginiana L.

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.

F. caroliniana Mill.

Forestiera acuminata (Michx.) Poir.

Cephalanthus occidentalis L.

34
Appendix C.--Concern scores for Neotropical migrant birds (NTMBk), temperate migrant birak, and resident

landbird species that breed within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Importance of area codes (C =

center of abundance; IP = isolated population; S = signtficant population; P = peripheral in

distribution or abundance; IR = individual reports) and population trends (-- is reasonably definite

decrease; - is possible decrease; 0 is no trend; ? is inadequate data to determine trend; + is possible

increase; ++ is reasonably definite increase) are given in parentheses. Bold lines separate concern

categories (see footnote below)

Concern

score* NTMB’s+

Temperate ,Resident

migrantst species”

35 Bachman’s warblern

30 Swainson’s warbler (C,--)

Ivory-billed woodpecker”

28

27

26

25

24

Prothonotary warbler (C,--)

Mississippi kite (C,--)

Yellow-billed cuckoo (C,--)

Cerulean warbler (C,?)

Orchard oriole (C,--)

American swallow-tailed

kite (S,?)

Wood thrush (S,--)

White-eyed vireo (C,--)

Northern parula (C,--)

Hooded warbler (C,--)

Painted bunting (S,--)

Eastern wood-pewee (S,--) Loggerhead shrike (S,--)

Acadian flycatcher (S,-) Field sparrow (S,--)

Great crested flycatcher (S,-)

Bell’s vireo (P,--)

23

22

21

20

Gray catbird (S,--) Red-headed woodpecker (C,-)

Worm-eating warbler (P,?)

Louisiana waterthrush (P,?)

Yellow-breasted chat (C,--)

Northern Baltimore

oriole (S,--)

Ruby-throated Bald eagle (S,?)

hummingbird (C,--)

Prairie warbler (P,--) Red-shouldered hawk (C,+)

Scarlet tanager (P,?)

Dickcissel (C,+)

Grasshopper sparrow (P,--)

Blue-gray gnatcatcher (S,--) Carolina chickadee (S,--)

Yellow&mated vireo (S,++)

Yellow-throated

warbler (S,+)

Summer tanager ($0)

Broad-winged hawk (S,?) American woodcock (P,?)

Chuck-will’s widow (SO)

Eastern kingbird (S,--)

Northern bobwhite (S,--)

Eastern screech-owl (S,?)

Red-bellied woodpecker (C,O)

35
Appendix C.--Concern scores for Neotropical migrant birds (NTMB’S), temperate migrant birds, and resident

landbird species that breed within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Importance of area codes (C =

center of abundance; IP = isolated population; S = significant population; P = peripheral in 9

distribution or abundance; IR = individual reports) and population trends (-- is reasonably

definite decrease; - is possible decrease; 0 is no trend; ? is inadequate data to determine trend;

+ is possible increase; ++ is reasonably definite increase) are given in parentheses. Bold lines

separate concern categories (see footnote below)-Continued

Concern

score’ NTMB’s+

Temperate Resident

migrants1 species”

20

19

Red-eyed vireo (S,--)

Ovenbird (P,?)

Kentucky warbler (S,++)

Indigo bunting (S,--)

Lark sparrow (P,?)

Whip-poor-will (P,?) Marsh wren (P,?)

Willow flycatcher (P,?) Eastern bluebird (S,-)

Scissor-tailed flycatcher (P,?) Brown thrasher (S,--)

Purple martin (C,++)

Warbling vireo (SO)

Tufted titmouse (S,-)

Carolina wren (C,+)

Boat-tailed grackle (S,-)

18 Chimney swift (SO) Cooper’s hawk (P,?)

Common yellowthroat (C,--) Common grackle (C,--)

Blue grosbeak ($0) Barred owl (CO)

17

16

15

14

13

Common nighthawk (S,-) Eastern phoebe (P,O)

Northern rough-winged

swallow (C,++)

American redstart (S,++)

Osprey P,+) Fish crow (S,+)

Bank swallow (P,?) Northern mockingbird (S,--)

Yellow warbler (P,--) Rufous-sided towhee ($0)

Black-and-white Eastern meadowlark (S,-)

warbler (P,++)

Brown-headed cowbird (C,--)

Cliff swallow (P,?) Mourning dove (C,--)

Chipping sparrow (S,-) Pine warbler (P,++)

American goldfinch (P,--)

Belted kingfisher ($0)

Tree swallow (P,++)

Blue jay (SO)

Bronzed cowbird (IR,++) Turkey vulture (SO)

Killdeer (CO)

Wild turkey (S,+)

Barn owl (S,?)

Pileated woodpecker (S,+)

Northern cardinal ((CO)

White-breasted nuthatch (P,-)

Black vulture (S,--)

Hairy woodpecker (SO)

Downy woodpecker ($0)

Great homed owl (S,-)

12

1 1

American kestrel (SO)

Northern yellow-shafted

flicker (S,-)

Red-winged blackbird (C,++)

Homed lark (SO)

American crow (S,++)

36
Appendix C.--Concern scores for Neotropical migrant birds (NTMB’S), temperate migrant birds, and resident

landbird species that breed within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Importance of area codes (C =

center of abundance; IP = isolated population; S = significant population; P = peripheral in

distribution or abundance; IR = individual reports) and population trends (-- is reasonably definite

decrease; - is possible decrease; 0 is no trend; ? is inadequate data to determine trend; + is possible

increase; ++ is reasonably definite increase) are given in parentheses. Bold lines separate concern

categories (see footnote below)-Continued

Concern

score* NTMB’s+

Temperate Resident

migrar& species”

1 1

10

9

8

Barn swallow (S,++)

House wren (S,++)

Shiny cowbird (IR,++)

Song sparrow (P,+)

Red-tailed hawk (S,++)

American robin (S,++)

‘Concern scores are provided to offer some basis for setting priorities on each species relative to all other species.

These scores combined with scores identifying action needs (survey, management, monitoring, and research) are

intended to help in Appendix C allocating limited resources species by species or ,preferably according to species

assemblages among habitats or ecosystems. Scores are based on seven criteria, with each criterion having a value

from 1 to 5 points in order of concern. These criteria are: (1) global abundance, (2) global breeding distribution,

(3) global wintering distribution, (4) threats during breeding season (local or global), (5) threats during nonbreeding

seasons (migration and winter), ( 6) local population trend, and (7) importance of physiographic area (i.e., local

distribution and abundance relative to remainder of species’ range). Importance of area and population trend is

identified for all species occurring in each physiographic area. Concern scores are subject to revision as new data

become available or as the consensus of local expertise dictates. The following concern categories (i.e., generalized

definitions of scores) are intended to guide, not mandate, decisions for allocating resources: 35 to 30 = extremely

high concern, most vulnerable and likely in need of immediate management or monitoring attention; 29 to 24 = very

high concern, more vulnerable and likely in need of management or monitoring attention; 23 to 19 = high concern,

average vulnerability or relative degree of vulnerability unknown but likely in need of at least monitoring; 18 to 13

= moderate concern, less vulnerable and possibly in need of monitoring; 12 to 7 = low concern, least vulnerable and

not likely to need attention.

+Those species with at least some populations breeding in Temperate Zones and with at least some populations

migrating to and from the New World Tropics during other periods of their annual cycle (i.e., temperate winters).

*Those species with most temperate breeding populations migrating to and from other temperate areas north of the

Mexico-United States border. However, many temperate migrants include some populations that migrate to and from

the Neotropics.

“Those species having populations present at all times of the year throughout their ranges, even though there may

be some movement of individuals or populations within those ranges.

“Believed to be extinct.

*U.S.GPO:1994-665-017/00023

37
I 1

Smith, Winston Paul; Pashley, David N., camp., eds. 1994. A workshop to resolve

conflicts in the conservation of migratory landbirds in bottomland hardwood forest;

1993 August 9-10; Tallulah, LA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO- 114 . New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 37 p.

Proceedings of a workshop to provide an overview of the basic ecology of southern

bottomland forests, summarize potential conflicts that exist in managing wildlife

species with different habitat needs, especially Neotropical migrant landbirds, and

provide participants with a realistic view of the diversity of perspectives and

expectations that exists among bottomland hardwood forest protagonists.

Keywords: Ecological succession, ecology, ecosystem management, forest management, game species, Neotropical migrants, nongame species, silviculture, wildlife

habitat.
The United States Department ofAgriculture(USDA) prohibitsdiscrimination

in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,

disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to a11 programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact the USDA Office of Communicatkms at (202) 720-5881 (voice) or

(202) 720-7808 (TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of

Agricafture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (24X?) 72%7327 (voice) or (202) 720-

1.127 (TDD). USDA is an equal empbyment opportunity employer.