(Migratory from page 1)

migratory species by
providing cover,
food, and water in
many areas of the west
which are surrounded by
habitats deficient in these
critical elements.

Wester riparian areas
contain up to 10 times the number of
migrants per hectare than adjacent
non-riparian habitats. At least twice as
many breeding individuals and species
have been found in riparian zones
versus non-riparian zones. This dispari-
ty has been attributed to three factors:
the presence of water attracts large
numbers of predators and prey alike;
plant growth and vegetative biomass
are very high, which leads to multi-
storied vegetation and greater food
production; and vegetation is deciduous
in these habitats, so plants do not
invest in chemical compounds to
protect leaves from insect herbivores as
do coniferous trees, thereby allowing
abundant insect prey for avian con-
sumption.

Due to the value and productivity
of western riparian areas, human
activities have also been concentrated
in these habitats. As a result, riparian
areas are among the most modified
habitat types in the west. Habitat
alterations include river flow manage-
ment and diversions (dams, reservoirs,
canals, rip-rapping, channelization, and
dredging), agricultural clearing, fire-
wood collecting, sand and gravel
extraction, urbanization and develop-
ment, recreation, grazing, groundwater
pumping, pollution and effluent
discharge, fire, flooding, erosion and
soil deposition, and exotic plant
invasion.

The most threatened forest habitat
of the 106 identified types in North
America is westem cottonwood/willow
riparian. Cottonwood/willow riparian
habitat once existed as extensive
stands throughout the west but now
exist only as cleared agricultural fields,
dry riverine habitat, and urban devel-
opment. For example, California has
lost approximately 98.5 percent of its
historic riparian habitat and Arizona
has lost 90 percent of its historic
gallery cottonwood/willow forests. The
Colorado River from Fort Mohave to
Fort Yuma had 400,000 to 450,000
acres of riparian habitat at the tum of
the century, but as of 1986, only 768
acres of pure cottonwood/willow
riparian habitat remained. In many
westem states figures may not be as
dramatic, but the trend is similar.

Impacts of riparian habitat loss on
riparian obligates, many of which are
neotropical migratory birds, have been
severe. The western race of the
yellow-billed cuckoo was once common
in all riparian systems throughout the
west. It’s population is now estimated
at only 475-675 pairs primarily due to
habitat loss or modification. The
southwest willow flycatcher, Least
Bell’s vireo, and yellow warbler have
experienced population and range
declines in western states as well.

In the arid southwest, of the 166
species of nesting birds, 127 (77
percent) were dependent on water-
associated habitats and 51 percent
were completely dependent upon
riparian habitat. Researchers predict
that if water-dependent habitats were
completely destroyed in the southwest,
47 percent of the lowland nesting
birds would be extirpated. And, with
continued riparian habitat loss, avian
numbers will continue to decline. Once
a species population deteriorates to the
point where it becomes federally listed
as threatened or endangered, a great
deal of effort and money are required
for protection and recovery. In 1989,
the cost for attempted recovery of five
avian species averaged more than
$700,000 each. Preventing population
declines of avian species will save
significant funds which can better be
used for funding recovery programs for
other seriously threatened species or
for implementing habitat conservation
or improvement efforts.

As you can see, western riparian
ecosystems are among the most
productive habitats in North America,
and among the rarest and most
altered. Federal agencies, many non-
federal management agencies, and
private landowners, attempt to balance
consumptive and non-consumptive land
use practices in riparian areas and the
watersheds on which they depend.
This results in sacrificing one resource
for another. To properly administer
riparian ecosystems, managers need to
be aware of interrelationships between
hydrological processes, vegetative
communities, and wildlife populations.
If riparian values are to be conserved
for future generations, managers must
excercise practices considered in terms
of cumulative effects on biological and
physical systems.

Source; adapted from "Effects of Land Use

Practices on Westem Riparian Ecosystems” by

David J. Krueper; from Status and Management
of Neotropical Migratory Birds, USDA-Forest
Service General Technical Report GTR RM-229.

(Wildlife from page 3)

to avian species. Established to
reduce the volume of potentially toxic
runoff from agricultural land, eucalyp-
tus plantations provided an element of
habitat diversity in an otherwise
intensively farmed landscape. The trees
furnished nesting habitat for resident
species as well as shelter and foraging
sites for migratory species. As might
be expected, both the number and
diversity of birds using these planta-
tions increased as the plantations
increased in age.

The spatial configuration of planta-
tions established for biofuel or fiber
production can be modified to enhance
their value as wildlife habitat. Stands
composed of multiple species will be
of greater benefit than monocultures.
Varied spacing of individual trees and
rows, irregularly shaped rows or
stands, planting in bands or strips,
alternating bands of trees with herba-
ceous vegetation, and leaving areas
maintained in herbaceous cover inter-
spersed within or adjacent to
plantations will enhance the vegetation
diversity and habitat quality. Planta-
tions adjacent or near wetlands, draws,
or other sharp breaks in topographic
contour may be of greater wildlife
value than stands more distant from
such features.

Mitigating Negative Effects of
Agroforestry on Wildlife
Diminished availability and quality

of grassland nesting cover, higher
predator-prey ratios, and the tendency
for predators to concentrate foraging
around vegetation edges have contribut-
ed to lower nest success of both game
and non-game birds in agricultural
landscapes. To moderate the negative
effects on grassland avifauna, prefer-
ence should be given to locating
agroforestry plantations adjacent to
existing farmsteads or interspersed with
rowcrops, small grains, and existing
woody vegetation rather than pastures,
old fields, hay fields, or other unculti-
vated cover types. Establishment of
agroforestry plantations within or
adjacent to extensive tracts of existing
grassland should be avoided.

The specific consequences of
incorporating forestry into agricultural
ecosystems will vary based on the
extent of the forestry practice and in
response to local and regional wildlife
issues. Biologists from state fish and
wildlife agencies can provide more
specific, regional guidance on alterna-
tives to optimize integration of Wildlife
and agroforestry objectives.

Inside Agroforestry 5


sht ¢

Spotl

(axe South Dakota

Successful Wildlife Planting is Home for Many Pheasants —_—

Russian olive, green ash, honey locust, caragana, and hackberry, attracts mostly pheasants and

houses about 20-25 deer as well.

In 1982, George Pochop of
Gregory, South Dakota, a man with
a sincere interest in wildlife,
renovated 5.6 acres of an old,
rundown tree belt. This area was
reestablished as a wildlife tree and
shrub planting. The mix of many
species including plum, buffaloberry,
cedar, Russian olive, green ash,
honey locust, caragana, and hack-
berry attracts mostly pheasants —
actually, lots of pheasants — that
Pochop enjoys and his friends love
to hunt.

4

Pictured are George Pochop, Gregory, South
Dakota landowner, and Roy Hasche, District
Manager for the Gregory County Conserva-
tion District in Burke.

4 Inside Agroforestry

When Pochop himself was asked why
he did this, he answered, “Oh, I don’t
know, maybe just for my friends and
others to enjoy and because I enjoy it so
much myself. After all, isn’t that what
it’s all about?”

The wildlife planting was a success
from its beginning in 1982, with only
three rows of jack pine failing. In 1983
the three rows were replanted with cedar,
and since that time there has been no
replanting or thinning. The only mainte-
nance involves cultivating in between
rows, which Pochop himself prefers to
take care of.

According to Roy Hasche, District
Manager for the Gregory County Conser-
vation District in Burke, “George Pochop
is just plain interested in wildlife. He
does a good job keeping the planting up
all himself and after almost ten years, it
still looks super!”

Cropland is on one side of the plant-
ing with a pasture on the other. It’s
visible from the highway so many people
have the opportunity to see it — and the
pheasants that it houses — as well as
20-25 deer who also take advantage of
this prime habitat.

Pochop’s wildlife planting is 14 rows
wide, which provides a good, wide area
of cover and, according to Hasche, is the
secret for attracting pheasants — especial-
ly in the winter. Two rows of plum and
two rows of buffaloberry are on the east
(leeward) side of the planting, while
caragana and one row of cedar is planted

on the west (windward) side, with
three rows of cedar in the middle.

Pochop’s dedication to wildlife is
evident. Sometimes South Dakota gets
hit with a very hard winter and, even
with 5.6 acres of land devoted to
wildlife, little food is available. When
this happens, Pochop can be seen
feeding his pheasants a little extra
cracked corn. For this reason, among
many others, Pochop was presented
with the first place Izaak Walton
League Wildlife Habitat Award for the
state of South Dakota in 1979.

Improving habitat for upland game,
like Pochop has done, is one of the
most gratifying and worthwhile enter-
prises landowners can undertake. Most
upland game species respond quickly
and positively to even the smallest
habitat improvement and are readily
attracted to edges of farmyards where
they are easy to observe.

Not everyone has “extra” acres, or
is willing to make “extra” acres for
wildlife habitat. However, habitat can
be improved in many ways, with litle
effort by the landowner. Some exam-
ples are: 1) leaving fence rows and
ditches unmowed; 2) fencing land
around farm ponds, leaving just a
small area for watering livestock; 3)
leaving grain unharvested near cover;
4) preserving marsh or wetland areas;
and 5) proper harvesting of forests.

Pochop is very proud of his wildlife
planting and quite often takes people
through it. Hasche believes that this
has probably motivated other people to
plant wildlife habitat because Pochop’s
planting looks so good, and is so
successful. He would certainly like to
see more in the future.

It's not too late...

Agroforestry and Sustainable

August 7-10, 1994
Fort Collins, CO
Contact Kim Isaacson,
402-437-5178 ext. 13 for

more information.



Over 150 youth gathered at the new Denver International ‘Airport to plant nearly 3,000 trees and
shrubs, creating a "living snowfence" along Pena Boulevard, the main entrance to the airport,

Youth and "Working Trees" - A Great

Combination -

A new partnership involving young
people and trees will soon be improv-
ing our communities and our
environment. “Working Trees for
Tomorrow’s Communities” (WTTC) is
a new program that the USDA Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Center for Semiarid
Agroforestry announced during wee
planting ceremonies on May 7, 1994,
at the new Denver International
Airport (DIA). The WTTC program
promotes tree and shrub planting to
assist communities in protecting their
natural resources — and our Nation’s
youth are the planters. The Kansas
City, Missouri-based “Plant A Tree -
Help A Kid” Foundation will adminis-
ter the program through a unique
partnership with the USDA Forest
Service, USDA Soil Conservation
Service, USDA Extension Service,
National Association of Conservation
Districts, and Council of Western State
Foresters. The Foundation and partners
will work closely with local youth
groups such as the Big Brothers/Big
Sisters of America and Boys Clubs/

tty Agroforestry

‘Rocky Mountain Research Station, Center for Semlarid Agroforestry

Girls Clubs of America to establish
“working trees” projects nationwide.
Jerry Bratton, Technology Transfer
Program Manager at CSA says, “City-
dwelling Americans have been
concerned about the management of
soil, water, and wildlife in rural
America, while often neglecting their
own natural resources in town. For
decades we have used trees, with the
ability to heal many of the problems
associated with intensive farming and
ranching, to protect soil, water, and
people. If we can use trees to sustain
sence, we should also be able to
(See WITC on page 2)

This ssue

Summer, 1994

Riparian Areas and
Neotropical Migratory
Birds

Of the more than two billion acres
of land in the United States, almost
three-fourths is controlled by private
landowners. Quite literally, the future
of migrant bird populations in the
United States depends on the actions
of private citizens.

Successful migration depends on
whether birds can replenish energy
reserves rapidly; locate suitable stop-
over sites and travel routes; avoid
predation in unfamiliar habitats, and
cross travel barriers quickly and safely.
While few private landowners have
large tracts of undistrubed forest, many
have a riparian zone or at least a
small grove of trees near a water
source on their land. In light of the
scarcity of large forest acts, these
small areas, especially riparian areas,
have become increasingly significant to
migratory bird survival.

It is estimated that wetlands and
Tiparian areas comprise less than one
percent of the total land area in the
western United States, yet they support
a tremendous number and diversity of
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Over
60 percent of the species which
Partners in Flight (an international
effort that addresses the conservation
of neotropical migrants) have identified
as neotropical migratory birds, use
riparian areas in the west as stopover
areas during migration or for breeding
habitat. Riparian zones have been
shown to be extremely important for
(See Migratory on page 5)

& Message from the Manager...page 2

& New Hope for Chestnuts and Elms...page 2

Agroforestry and Wildlife...page 3
Wildlife Habitat Planting in South Dakota...page 4


Message From the Manager

About two years ago the Agroforestry Center invented
the concept of “working trees" to help draw attention to
the many ways that trees in agricultural systems work to
increase productivity, protect soil and water resources,
enhance the environment, and provide tree products and
amenities for people. We developed, in cooperation with
Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private

"We reasoned that communities, especially
communities in regions that generally lack trees and the
community/rural interface, can reap the same benefits
from conservation trees
as agricultural production systems."

Forestry, a traveling display and companion leaflet entitled
“Agroforestry: Working Trees for Agriculture," which has
been in high demand. Now we are seeing the term
“working trees" everywhere, which is very gratifying.
This issue of Inside Agroforestry reports another
success story: "Working Trees for Tomorrow's Communi-
ties." We reasoned that communities, especially
communities in regions that generally lack trees and the
community/rural interface, can reap the same benefits
from conservation trees as in agricultural production
systems. We conducted a pilot project to demonstrate our

A column of important events and programs
as reported by CSA Program Manager Bill Rietveld

Working Trees

ideas and hosted a workshop to evaluate the concept. The
strong support by our cooperators and the evolutionary
process of refining the concept led to the development of
the “Working Trees for Tomorrow's Communities"
(WTTC) national program.

The key elements of the WITC program are: 1)
applying conservation forestry technologies in communities;
2) involving at-risk youth in establishing demonstration
projects; 3) enhancing awareness of job and career
opportunities in natural resources management; and 4)
conservation education for youth.

The program will be implemented by the “Plant A
Tree - Help A Kid" Foundation, who will network with
youth organizations like Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
America and Boys Clubs/Girls Clubs of America, and
raise funds from private sources to support projects. A
conservation partnership consisting of USDA Forest
Service, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Extension
Service, the National Association of Conservation Districts,
and the Council of Western State Foresters has been
created to cooperate with the Foundation and youth
organizations in providing technology transfer and techni-
cal assistance. We are very proud of this emerging new
program, and feel that it will be a win-win situation for
all partners, agroforestry, and the environment.

(WITC from page 1)

use the same adapted technology to
improve our cities and towns.”

To help kick off the WITC Nation-
al Program, over 150 youth from the
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America
and the Boys Clubs/Girls Clubs of
America gathered at DIA to plant over
3,000 trees and shrubs along Pena
Boulevard, the main entrance. In a
few years the trees will be a “living
snowfence,” replacing traditional
wooden snowfences, which will protect
the entrance to the airport and save
thousands of dollars in snow removal
costs while at the same time beautify-
ing the roadway and protecting the
safety of motorists. The Colorado State
Forest Service led the DIA project
effort. They were assisted by many
local organizations and. agencies.

Once the National WITC Program
is in place, the “Plant A Tree - Help
A Kid” Foundation will work with
youth groups to establish WITC
projects nationwide, and locate private
sources of funding for the program.
The Agroforestry Center will provide

2 Inside Agroforestry

technical materials, while other WTTC
partners will provide technical assis-
tance and help with implementation.
By applying what we have known
for decades about the value of conser-
vation trees, and at the same time
educating our Nation’s youth, commu-
nities can reap the benefits of cleaner,

quieter, and healthier surroundings,
while preparing the next generation to
be more user-friendly to our natural
resources,

More information is available by
contacting Carol Green, “Plant A Tree
- Help A Kid” Foundation, 816-753-
1147.

New Hope for Chestnuts and Elms

A breakthrough discovery by scientists at the Roche Institute of
Molecular Biology could result in restoring native chestnuts to the
American landscape. Chestnuts have virtually disappeared since a fungal
disease was accidentally introduced from Asia in 1904. The new discov-
ery uses a genetically engineered virus that alters the genetic makeup of
the chestnut-killing fungus, reducing its virulence. Because of the repro-
ductive abilities of the blight-fighting virus, scientists hope that once
introduced, it will spread naturally, enabling the return of American
chestnuts. The method used for manipulating the genetic machinery of
these microscopic organisms also shows promise for use as a natural
control of Dutch elm disease and various agricultural disease problems.
Permission for greenhouse and field trials has been sought from the
USDA, with three to five years predicted for completion of the tests.

Source: Arbor Day, January/February, 1993



Agroforestry and Wildlife: Caveats and Opportunities

By Arthur W. Allen

Landscape and Habitat Analysis Section, National Biological Center,

National Biological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado

Whether for recreational or
aesthetic reasons, American agricul-
turalists often consider wildlife an
important environmental component.
Consequently, the effects of farm
management for game and nongame
wildlife frequently plays a role, at
least a minor role, for many
producers in land use decisions.
Agroforestry offers opportunities to
enhance vegetative and structural
complexity, while obtaining more
diversified and sustainable produc-
tion from agricultural ecosystems.
The use of shelterbelts and wind-
breaks to address environmental
issues and increase farmland
wildlife habitat is well documented.
Employment of agroforestry practic-
es to provide financial benefits to
farmers through production of wood
fiber products and biofuels is receiving
growing recognition as a potential
future use of agricultural land as
well.

The environmental and wildlife
benefits of agroforestry are often
greatest on sites where soil fertility is
low or the potential for erosion is
high. On such marginal lands,
agroforestry may enhance land produc-
tivity, contribute to greater
sustainability of agricultural ecosystems,
and provide additional benefits to
wildlife inhabiting agricultural land-
scapes.

The quality of wildlife habitat
within agricultural landscapes is
defined by conditions within individual
fields and spatial relations between
required habitat resources. Specific
effects of agroforestry, as well as
agriculture in general, on wildlife
habitat are dependent on interspersion
between resources and management
activities. However, this fundamental
question must be addressed before the
influence of agroforestry on habitat
quality can be defined: What are the
specific wildlife species of concem?
Practices that may be advantageous to
one assortment of wildlife species may
have negative effects on other species,
due to conflicting habitat requirements.
Therefore, the definition of how
agroforestry may influence the quality
and distribution of habitat is dependent
not only on the land use and manage-
ment practice, but on the habitat needs
of the wildlife species.

White-tailed deer potentially do well in agricultural ecosystems
and can be characterized as a habitat generalist.

Wildlife Habitat Requirements

Assuming that basic food and cover
requirements are provided in sufficient
quality and quantity, many species of
wildlife are adapted to the inherent
spatial and temporal patchiness of
highly-developed, intensively-managed
agricultural landscapes. Wildlife species
that potentially do well in agricultural
ecosystems can be characterized as
habitat generalists and are represented
by species such as the ring-necked
pheasant, eastern cottontail rabbit, and
white-tailed deer. These species gener-
ally profit from a high degree of
interspersion between vegetation
associations such as the inclusion of
shelterbelts and other woody vegetation
in intensively farmed regions.

In contrast to those species that
have adapted to agriculture, wildlife
endemic to perennial grassland ecosys-
tems have experienced long-term
declines in numbers and distribution
across much of North America.
Avifauna endemic to grassland ecosys-
tems have suffered more severe and
geographically widespread declines than
any other guild of North American
species, including forest-dependent
neotropical migrant birds. The lark
bunting, grasshopper sparrow, mountain
plover, and dickcissel exemplify such
species. The continued loss and
fragmentation of grassland ecosystems
have contributed to these declines, as
has deliberate and unintentional
introduction of woody vegetation in
ecosystems historically dominated by
grassland.

The establishment of extensive
riparian forests along major rivers
in the Great Plains, due to
changes in hydrologic regimes and
elimination of fire in grassland
ecosystems, has contributed to
westward emigration of wildlife
species more characteristic of
eastem forests. These species have
displaced grassland species and
have contributed to higher rates of
predation and nest parasitism on
species endemic to grassland
habitats. Conservation of grassland
avifauna is contingent on reducing
practices that expand the distribu-
tion of woody vegetation into
remaining tracts of contiguous
grasslands.

Habitat requirements of these
two generalized groups of wildlife
often conflict. For example, establish-
ment of shelterbelts or windbreaks,
practices widely perceived to benefit
most wildlife species affiliated with
agricultural ecosystems, may negatively
impact grassland-dependent species
through habitat fragmentation with
resultant increased rates of predation
and nest parasitism.

Potential Benefits of Agroforestry to
Wildlife Habitat
Agroforestry offers opportunities to

mitigate the effects of fragmentation
and isolation of woodland habitat in
areas of intensive row and grain crop
production. Woody crops could be
sited to buffer existing woodlands or
fill gaps between remaining forest
fragments, increasing the availability of
interior forest habitat. In intensively
farmed regions, generally devoid of
wooded cover, deer are restricted in
winter to small remnant woodlots or
flood-prone bottomland forests. These
sites frequently provide insufficient
winter shelter and support poor
survival rates. Agroforestry plantations
situated in association to small
woodlots could increase the effective
area of these stands, thereby improving
their potential as habitat. Agroforestry
plantations could be situated to provide
corridors for wildlife dispersal between
existing forest stands or other key
habitat elements, such as wetlands.
Recent investigations in California
have documented agroforestry benefits
———_—__———- (See Wildlife on page 5)

Inside Agroforestry 3