Inside Spring 2004

Inside 

3 A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR

SALMON IN THE SHADE

THE BIRDS AND THE BEES

4-5

National

Agroforestry

Center

I

magine trying to communicate without

linking words and sentences together and

applying rules of grammar. Just as the rules

of grammar need to be followed to converse effectively, the components of a landscape need to be linked together. 

Individual words mean very little by

themselves, but when they are organized

into sentences, paragraphs, and chapters

they work together to tell a story. Just like

in a novel, landscapes have individual components, like trees and grasses that are

organized into fields, woodlots, and

meadows, that form larger units like farms,

communities, and forests. This “landscape

novel” needs to be interconnected on

many levels to create healthy and functioning ecosystems.

Punctuation is woven into writing to

add expression and meaning to the words.

Similarly, wildlife adds punctuation to the

landscape. Without the bees and bats to

pollinate plants, birds to watch, fish to

catch, or deer to hunt, our landscape would

be less interesting.

This issue of Inside Agroforestry focuses on

wildlife, the punctuation in your landscape. It

will, hopefully, spark some new ideas on ways

to use agroforestry to incorporate

wildlife benefits into our landscapes.

8 GOBBLE. SILVOPASTURE.

GOBBLE, GOBBLE!

Winter
Does it make economic sense for landowners to install buffers with

conservation cost-share programs? Can landowners earn income

on buffers after these programs expire? Does removing an existing

buffer make economic sense? Answering these questions is now easy

with a new tool called Buffer$, a simple spreadsheet-based application

to assist landowners and planners in analyzing the cost-benefits of conservation buffers.

Developed by the USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC),

Buffer$ can calculate potential income from a buffer using cost-share

programs, growing agroforestry specialty products, and incorporating

other income opportunities. To aid in decision-making, the tool can

compare the potential income generated between a buffer alternative

and a cropping alternative. Using this tool, landowners and natural

resource planners can also evaluate the economic impact of removing

an existing buffer. Buffer$ uses NRCS state average costs for installation and maintenance budgets and county soil rental rates for calculating Continuous Conservation Reserve Program payments. Default

values from Nebraska are used to demonstrate the tool. You can easily

customize the tool for your area by entering into the program NRCS

state average costs and local county soil rental rates. Buffer$ can be

downloaded from the NAC’s website http://www.unl.edu/nac/conservation/ and requires Microsoft Excel to run. A free CD with

Buffer$ can also be requested by contacting Gary Bentrup of

NAC at gbentrup@fs.fed.us or (402) 437-5178 ext. 18.

Wildlife and agroforestry

NAC Director’s Corner

A commentary on the status of agroforestry by NAC Director, Dr. Greg Ruark

2 Inside Agroforestry |Winter / Spring 2004

I

n the U.S. wildlife habitat continues to be displaced by the

consolidation and intensification of agriculture and by the

expansion of town and cities. As more and more of our landscapes are developed and brought under management in an

effort to make life simpler for people, it is ironic that they often

become too complex for most wildlife. Apart from excavating

a den or weaving a nest, most wildlife do not create their own

habitat, rather they make do with what nature provides or,

increasingly, with what humans leave. 

This issue of Inside Agroforestry focuses on examples of how

agroforestry can be used to help alleviate the simplification,

fragmentation, and reduction of wildlife habitat. For example,

there are opportunities in both rural agricultural landscapes and

at the interface where expanding communities meet agricultural

land. Windbreak systems have been shown to provide critical

habitat and protection for bees and other pollinators.

Silvopasture systems are being designed to produce timber

and livestock forage, while providing quality habitat for wild

turkey and other game birds. Research by the Stroud Water

Research Center is highlighted to illustrate the importance of

riparian forest vegetation as a critical link in the aquatic food

chain and in maintaining water quality. Efforts in Guam are

using agroforestry to improve the quality of water that flows

off the land and into coastal marine ecosystems to protect

coral reefs.

Most agroforestry practices can be intentionally designed to

optimize wildlife benefits. However, even when an agroforestry practice is primarily designed for economic purposes,

substantial wildlife benefits can still occur. Fortunately, most

USDA Farm Bill programs can be used to assist

landowners in promoting one or several agroforestry

practices that can provide wildlife benefits.

Buffer$:

A tool that makes sense

NAC’s Buffer$ spreadsheet analyzes 

the cost and benefits of buffers.
Native salmon and steelhead habitat in Washington has

been seriously impacted by the removal or elimination of

native riparian vegetation. These losses have resulted in

increases in water temperature, rates of sedimentation, and

changes in channel morphology. These factors contribute

to the habitat degradation of these coldwater fisheries.

Since approximately 37 percent of Washington’s freshwater

salmon streams on private lands pass through agricultural

lands, farmers and ranchers can play a significant role in

restoring the riparian corridors.

Walla Walla County is leading the way with this restoration

challenge. Their buffer efforts started in 1996 following

floods that devastated most of their stream corridors, adjacent

farmlands and communities. Landowners were looking for

solutions, and the Walla Walla County Conservation District

(WWCCD) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) responded by meeting with landowners in the

affected areas to discuss options for improving stream

channel function and restoring the riparian zones. Using

funds from several sources including the Emergency

Watershed Protection Program, the Bonneville Power

Association grant program, and the Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program, the WWCCD with NRCS support

assisted landowners with stream bank protection. This

included both structural practices (e.g. rock armoring) and

bioengineering techniques. The funding also assisted with the

in Walla Walla, Washington

Larry Hooker

NRCS District Conservationist

Walla Walla, Washington

see WALLA WALLAon page eleven

Riparian forest

buffers keep the

water clear, and

clear the way for

salmon migration.

installation of in-stream practices, such as j-hooks, barbs, rock

toes and weirs, to correct stream bank erosion problems and

improve stream conditions for steelhead and bull trout that

are both listed under the Endangered Species Act. The revegetation of the riparian zones was an integral component of

all these projects.

One successful example comes from the Coppei Creek

Watershed. The mayor of Waitsburg, Washington, which is

in the watershed, invited landowners to a meeting with

WWCCD and NRCS to discuss stream and riparian restoration alternatives. This event coincided with the inception of

Washington’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

(CREP) that focuses on establishing riparian forest buffers.

The WWCCD leveraged grant funds from several sources to

continue in-stream projects with the CREP funds supporting the riparian forest buffer establishment.

In the spring of 2000,the first year of CREP, 3.8 stream

bank miles of riparian forest buffer were installed on Coppei

Creek. Another two-tenths of a mile was installed on the

Walla Walla River. The following year, another 10 stream

bank miles of buffer were installed on the Coppei and 0.7

miles on the Walla Walla.

Interest in the CREP incentives continued to grow so the

WWCCD hired a part time coordinator in 2002 to help with

the increased workload. Mike Pelissier, former WWCCD

coordinator, and Larry Hooker, NRCS District

Conservationist, had previously trained a group of contractors

in the CREP planning process. These contractors, early
4 Inside Agroforestry |Winter / Spring 2004

Kimberly Stuhr

NAC Technology Transfer Specialist

Lincoln, Nebraska

Pollination is one of nature’s services that

we often take for granted. At least one-third

of the world’s agricultural crops depend on

pollination provided by insects and other animals. The assumption that pollination is a

“free ecological service” provided by nature is erroneous. Effective pollination requires natural

vegetation and suitable habitat for pollinators. Agroforestry

plantings can be

adapted to many situations and address

many landowner concerns; among them diversifying income, protecting water quality, and

enhancing wildlife habitat. 

Honeybees often come to mind first when

someone mentions pollinators. Since 1992,

over one million honeybee colonies have

been rented yearly for pollination of agricultural crops in the US. But, make no mistake,

wild pollinators are just as important as honeybees. Native bees (at least 4,000 species are

native to the continental US), butterflies,

moths, bats, and flies are at least equally, and

in some cases even more adept, than honeybees at pollinating the 100-150 major U.S.

crops that require pollinators. 

Researchers with the Forgotten

Pollinators Campaign, based in Tucson,

Arizona, estimate that one in every three

bites of food is made possible by a pollinator.

Pollinators can play a number of roles in

agroforestry systems. In some situations, polA painted lady on 

a butterfly bush.

Photos courtesy 

Kimberly Stuhr

linators are essential to the success of specific

crops that are part of an agroforestry system,

such as blueberries, blackberries, raspberries,

and chestnuts. When this is the case, it is

important to understand what type of pollinators are needed and encourage the appropriate habitat.

In other situations agroforestry practices

can facilitate active pollination of adjacent

crops. For example, bee flight is inhibited at

wind speeds greater than 13 to 20 miles per

hour. Studies have shown that pollination

increases in the area sheltered by a windbreak. This has been attributed to the calmer

and warmer conditions in the protected

zone. Alley cropping and riparian forest

buffer practices could also provide this type

of protection.

Throughout the world, agricultural production and agroecosystem diversity are

threatened by declining populations of pollinators. The major factors contributing to this

are considered to be habitat degradation and

There are nearly 4,000

species of bees native 

to the continental US.

Buchmann and Nabhan, 

“The Forgotten Pollinators”

continued on the next page
nators forage opportunities until the target

crop begins to bloom.

In the article, “Encourage Native Bees;

Increase Your Yields,” Lynn Byczynski gives

another example of how important it is to

understand the needs of pollinators:

Hornfaced bees are excellent pollinators of

apples, but they are active before apple trees

are in bloom. In Maryland, the bees forage

on winter honeysuckle, which finishes

blooming just as apples come into bloom.

After the apples bloom, Tatarian honeysuckle begins to bloom, and the bees then

use this plant for forage.

Agroforestry practices may not only provide alternative forage but may also improve

the nesting habitat for many pollinators. By

applying agroforestry practices, plant diversity increases which will, in turn, increase the

diversity of pollinators. 

In an effort to protect our often forgotten wildlife, foresters, entomologists, and

conservationists assisting farmers and

ranchers need to include pollinators in their

wildlife habitat recommendations. And

farmers, orchard growers, and other land

managers need to consider pollinators as

they make land management decisions. 

Next time you’re talking about agroforestry and including wildlife and wildlife

habitat, remember the pollinators. We

simply cannot afford to forget them.

Winter / Spring 2004 |Inside Agroforestry 5

The management of wildlife-human conflicts has become an essential part ofcontemporary wildlife management and during the past decade there has been

significant research and development in this field. Robert Schmidt, Wildlife

Biologist at Utah State University, says successful wildlife damage management

might best be accomplished by managing the involved wildlife, environment, or

people, or by a combination of all these interrelated factors.

A comprehensive reference, Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, is

available. This handbook, developed by the USDA Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service---Animal Damage Control and The University of Nebraska

Cooperative Extension Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources, and

The Great Plains Agriculture Council, is one of the leading references in the

field of wildlife damage management. It is a condensation of current, researchbased information on all North American wildlife species that cause problems

and the recommended damage control techniques.

The handbook is available as a two volume set in three-ring binder format and

also on CD-ROM. Either format costs $40.00 plus shipping. Send your order to

wildlife Damage Handbook, 202 Natural Resources Hall, University of Nebraska,

PO Box 830819, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0819. You can also order the handbook from http://wildlifedamage.unl.edu.

fragmentation, agricultural and industrial

chemicals, parasites and diseases, and the

introduction of alien species. One way to

combat the decline in pollinators is to provide undisturbed habitat for nesting,

roosting, and foraging. Furthermore, some

pollinators require plants that flower sequentially, so that they have food sources

throughout the season. Agroforestry practices can assist with these efforts.

For example, willow is an excellent source

of nectar and pollen in early spring. By incorporating willows into a windbreak or riparian

forest buffer design could enhance the polliAt least one-third of the

world’s agricultural crops

depends upon pollination 

provided by insects and 

other animals.

Food and Agriculture Organization, 

United Nations

I

n conjunction with the First World Congress on Agroforestry, the University of

Missouri Center for Agroforestry, Iowa State University Department of Natural

Resource Ecology and Management, and NAC are sponsoring a motorcoach tour

of agroforestry. Tour begins in Columbia, MO. June 23 and returns to Columbia on

the 24th. Although participation in the Congress on Agroforestry is not required,

this pre-Congress tour creates a unique opportunity for you to interact with people

interested in agroforestry from around the world.

Registration is $350 single occupancy or $300 double occupancy and includes

motel accommodations, refreshments, meals and a set of Center for Agroforestry

videotapes. Tour registration deadline is June 1. Space is limited to 50 people.

The tour coordinator is Julie Rhoads, Center for Agroforestry, 203 ABNR

Bldg., University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; phone (573) 882-3234; Fax

(573) 882-1977; RhoadsJ@missouri.edu

Unique Agroforestry Tour
6 Inside Agroforestry |Winter / Spring 2004

Riparian forest buffers are an essential 

component of a natural stream habitat. 

“The reason we were interested in doing this experiment,” wrote Jessica Small, a ninth grade science student,

in her final report, “is because before man settled on this

continent, streams flowed mostly through the forest and

leaves were an important food source for the animals

living there. Large quantities of these leaves fell in the

streams. Over the years man has removed most of the

trees from along the streams. If man keeps on removing

the trees, the animals that specialize in eating the streamborne leaves will die because there will not be a sufficient

food source. Man is now also introducing foreign trees

into our environment. We do not know if the stream animals are eating the foreign tree leaves or whether they

can digest them.”

The Stroud Water Research Center in southeastern

Pennsylvania is conducting ongoing research to verify

the observations and answer the questions posed by

Jessica. In fact Jessica’s science class is helping answer

these questions through applying the Leaf Pack

Experiment, an educational outreach program sponsored

by the Stroud Center (see Education). The animals that

Jessica mentions include a large mixture of species

ranging from large fish to small microbes. The fish

receive the greatest attention from the public due to

recreational fishing, but the “overlooked wildlife”

(microbes, macroinvertebrates, etc.) are essential to

maintain continuity in the food chain. Research at the

Stroud Center is telling us that riparian forest vegetation

is a critical link in that food chain.

The river continuum

“It’s time to move beyond the notion that you can

understand how a river works by studying a tiny piece of

it.” Robin Vannote, Stroud Center’s first director, told

the assembled water researchers from across the country

in the early 1970’s. “A stream is fundamentally different

from a lake, and you must consider how the entire

system is functionally linked. Because a river changes

constantly as it moves downstream, it can only truly be

understood as a continuum.”

From those early insights, Vannote, other Stroud

staff, and a few university colleagues developed the River

Continuum Concept, which would come to revolutionize

stream research. Stroud scientists established the importance of studying the entire watershed. A river’s width,

depth, velocity, and temperature fluctuate constantly as

the water flows downstream. Furthermore, a river’s biological and chemical processes correspond to its physical

attributes and the nature of biological communities

changes in a downstream direction. To understand what

is happening at any point along the way, you must understand both the upstream conditions and what is entering

from the watershed.

Watershed tea

In studying the hidden life of streams, Stroud scientists

discovered that rain water picks up an enormous variety

of molecules as it passes through a watershed. When the

water enters a stream, it carries with it a special blend of

dissolved organic matter, which is then dispersed in the

water much like tea from a tea bag. So specific is each

watershed’s “tea,” that migrating salmon use it to find

their way home at spawning time. This tea provides

Stroud Center:

The mission of the Stroud Center is to advance knowledge of

stream and river ecosystems through interdisciplinary research; to

develop and communicate new ecological ideas; to provide 

solutions for water resource problems worldwide; and to promote

public understanding of freshwater ecology through education

programs, conservation leadership, and professional service.
Winter / Spring 2004 |Inside Agroforestry 7

food for the bacteria, and recent studies at the Stroud

Center indicate that each watershed produces a community of bacterial species which are uniquely fitted to the

local food supply.

Millions of microbes

Most of us experience streams through our five senses.

Perhaps most of all, we experience a stream with our

eyes, watching the play of sunlight on its surface or a fish

taking a fly. What we can’t see, at least without the help

of a good microscope, is the teeming world of tiny

organisms, the “overlooked wildlife,” that sustain the

stream’s life and health. Yet as many as a billion bacteria,

plus millions of protozoa and hundreds of thousands of

diatoms, occupy a square centimeter of a healthy

streambed, and the collective efforts of such microorganisms provide or process most of the energy that supports the visible life of the stream. 

Fungi and bacteria decompose the decaying matter,

and in the process they cycle essential nutrients back into

mineral form, where they are consumed again by algae.

The decomposers are, in turn, eaten by larger organisms

in an ongoing process that returns much of the original

energy back to the food chain. The Stroud Center’s goal

is to describe the interconnectedness of microorganisms

with the visible members of the aquatic communities in

our streams and rivers.

Riparian forest buffers

We know that the trees, shrubs, and grasses of riparian

zones filter out various pollutants that would otherwise

enter the stream in groundwater or overland runoff. But, see STROUD CENTER on page nine

Searching streams for “overlooked wildlife”

forest buffers are much more than filters for pollution

—- they are an integral and essential part of the stream

ecosystem.

Stroud Center research has shown that trees are critical to maintaining the natural width, depth, and sediments of a stream. Their research on the White Clay

Creek and other streams in the eastern United States has

found that forested stream channels tend to be wider

than those bordered by grass. These wider streams provide greater surface area for biological activity. This also

creates more habitat and hence more organisms to

process nutrients and other pollutants in the stream.

The composition of the riparian forest vegetation also

impacts the “overlooked wildlife.” Feeding experiments

showed that aquatic insects thrive on leaf material from

native trees but fare poorly on the leaves of non-native

invasive species. For example, Stroud Center research

found that the leaf eating mayfly (Leptophlebia cupida) larvae

survival was significantly lower when non-native tree and

shrub species occupied the riparian area. In fact, when

mayfly larvae were fed leaves from the non-native multiflora rose, they all died. Natural temperatures, which are

maintained by forest shading, were also found to be key

factors in aquatic insects’ life histories and successful

reproduction. 

Macroinvertebrates are often referred to as “canaries

of the stream” because they function as living barometers that indicate changes in water quality. The Stroud

Center research stresses the importance of the “overlooked wildlife” to stream health and overall water

quality. This also reinforces the efforts across the country

to restore stream corridors that were previously forested.

The Stroud

Water Research

Center is a

privately-funded

facility located

on 900 acres of

mixed farm and

forestland in a

rapidly suburbanizing watershed about 40

miles west of

Philadelphia. It

provides an

excellent living

laboratory for

helping us to

understand how

changes to the

landscape affect

stream ecology.
Wild turkeys love a mixture of open agricultural land and saw-timber-sized forest. It just so

happens that an agroforestry silvopasture system

looks very much like this! 

Silvopastures are designed to maximize a

landowner’s options, land, and income. If managed properly, a silvopasture system (the combination of trees with forage and livestock production) can provide multiple benefits to the

landowner. In conifer stands the trees are managed for long-term, high-value sawlogs, while

the understory is managed for forage production

to support livestock grazing. Wild turkeys can

thrive in this environment. 

Today wild turkeys are present in all of the

lower 48 states and Hawaii with Alaska being

the only state not in their range. Wild turkeys are

non-migratory, year-round residents so they

occupy a variety of habitats throughout their

ranges. The home range of a wild turkey flock

can be between 350 acres to over 60,000 acres.

A smaller tract of land, however, that contains a

mixture of the necessary habitat components

may support wild turkeys better than a larger

area that lacks one or more of the needed

Wild turkeys love silvopastures

Foraging for food in a 

silvopasture opening.

Photo courtesy

NEBRASKAland

Magazine/Nebraska

Game and Parks

Commission.

habitat components. Landowners owning as few

as 10 acres can manage for wild turkeys if one or

more of the habitat requirements is present on

the property and adjacent lands provide other

habitat components needed to sustain them. 

The most critical aspect of wild turkey management is creating a good interspersion or mixture of different habitat types. Suitable foraging,

nesting, brood-rearing, roosting cover, and a

water source each located within close proximity

to one another is essential to attract wild turkeys

and maintain existing populations in an area.

With additional effort, a landowner managing a

silvopasture system can also manage a wild

turkey population. Proper management can help

landowners boost local wild turkey populations

as well as populations of other species that rely

on similar habitat. 

Following are critical habitat elements that

wild turkeys need and a brief explanation of how

silvopasture fits the bill. 

Food

Wild turkeys forage throughout the day with

most feeding activity occurring right after they

leave the roost at daybreak and right before

sunset. Their diets are composed mostly of

plants and insects, with insects being of critical

Turkeys like

open areas for

feeding and

mating, and

forested areas

for overnight

roosting and

protection

from 

predators.

Jim Robinson

NAC NRCS Agroforester 

Fort Worth, Texas

see WILD TURKEYS on page ten
Education

Since 1990 when Jessica Small and her classmates

examined the overlooked life among the leaves in White

Clay Creek, many more have followed. Thousands of

unstable banks occurred. The project

created a riparian buffer strip that is

1.8 miles long and 300 feet wide. The

company’s contributions were supplemented by funding through a FiveStar Restoration Grant from the US

Environmental Protection Agency,

facilitated by the Wildife Habitat

Council, and through the USDA

Conservation Reserve Program.

Get businesses in your area to

create wildlife habitat! For more

information, visit the Wildlife

Habitat Council online at:

www.wildlifehc.org

Winter / Spring 2004 |Inside Agroforestry 9

The Wildlife Habitat Council(WHC) is a nonprofit group of

corporations, conservation organizations, and individuals dedicated to protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat.

Created in 1988, WHC helps large

landowners, particularly corporations, manage their unused lands in

an ecologically sensitive manner to

benefit wildlife. WHC also works to

broaden the understanding of wildlife

values. Over 120 companies are

WHC members as are two-dozen

conservation organizations, plus

many individual supporters and contributors. Over two million acres in

48 states, Puerto Rico, and fifteen other

countries are managed for wildlife

through WHC-assisted projects.

Habitat projects are cooperative efforts

between corporate management and

employees, community members, local

conservation groups, and local, state, and

federal agencies. 

For example, the Eli Lilly and

Company, Tippercanoe Laboratories near

Lafayette, Indiana owns and maintains

five miles of property adjacent to the

Wabash River. Property managers and the

wildlife team, along with outside contractors, planned a project to stabilize riverbank areas where erosion and severely

Businesses get publicity, wildlife get habitat

Stroud Center

continued from page seven

students and their teachers have put on rubber boots and

waded into a creek to explore the hidden world of

insects, snails, crayfish, and worms beneath the water’s

surface. 

Placing bags of leaves in streams and retrieving them

over the course of several weeks enables students to

learn about the biodiversity of streams, their food

chains and issues related to streamside forests.

This article was adapted from the publication “Stroud Water Research Center —- A Portrait: 1967-2000.”

For more information about Stroud Center projects, visit their website: www.stroudcenter.org
10 Inside Agroforestry |Winter / Spring 2004

importance to poults (young wild turkeys). Wild

turkeys are opportunistic feeders and their diets

are largely a function of the acceptable food

items available. Managing the silvopasture to

produce quality forage for livestock and quality

trees for timber will provide substantial insect

and forage for wild turkey to utilize. This could

be further enhanced by including clumps of

trees or shrubs that would provide hard mast

(e.g. oaks) or soft mast (e.g. hawthorns or dogwoods). Also consider maintaining some

legumes in the forage component.

Nesting cover

Generally, shallow nest depressions in the soil

surface are either scratched by the female or

formed through egg laying activity at the nest

site. Forest-nesting turkeys commonly nest in

close proximity to openings and edges where

poults have access to insects shortly after

hatching. Managing a silvopasture to increase

nesting cover could include increasing the shrub

component to about 20 to 30 percent. Another

consideration is to include native warm season

grasses in the understory and manage the grass

height to a minimum of eight to 10 inches.

Roosting cover

Wild turkeys roost on the ground and in trees.

Tom and hen turkeys without broods roost

overnight in trees to avoid predators. Timber

stands comprised of mature, open-crowned

trees with branches spaced at least 18 inches

apart that run parallel to the ground provide

ideal roosting. The trees in a mature silvopasture

can meet this need. The trees should have trunk

diameters of 14 inches or greater and be located

within one-half mile of a food source. Hens with

young roost under large trees within forests containing a dense understory of young trees and

shrubs, downed trees, rock outcrops, and brushy

vegetation. For hens with young, the silvopasture may either need a greater shrub component

or one that is managed to a greater height.

Brood-rearing cover

A lack of suitable brood habitat can severely

affect wild turkey population recruitment, as

brood habitat plays a key role in the survival of

poults during the first eight weeks of life. Forest

openings of one-half to three acres in size provide good brood habitat. These habitats best suit

wild turkey when they contain a multitude of

nutritive, herbaceous forage that supports

insects (especially legumes), permits efficient

poult foraging throughout the day, and provides

cover that enables poults and hens to see and

hide from oncoming predators. The forage

component of a silvopasture could help meet

this need.

Forest cover

Wild turkeys use trees and forest habitat to fulfill

various food and cover needs. They prefer hardwood species like oak, hickory, beech, black

cherry, white ash, and American elm. Preferred

conifer species include pinyon pine, Ponderosa

pine, longleaf pine, and junipers. Current silvopasture systems include primarily pine species.

The forest cover needs of wild turkey could be

enhanced by including clumps of hardwoods

like oaks in the silvopasture.

Water

Wild turkeys drink water from spring seeps,

streams, ponds, lakes, and livestock watering

sources. A source of open water is necessary to

support a wild turkey population. All silvopastures will have adequate watering facilities for

livestock which could also benefit turkeys.

Before deciding upon management changes in

a silvopasture system to enhance wild turkeys,

the landowner should consider consulting a

natural resource professional trained in wild

turkey and silvopasture management. This

habitat assessment needs to include not only

the silvopasture but also the entire farm and

adjoining farms. Once a habitat assessment is

completed, a management plan can be

developed.

Managing the

forage height and

the amount of

legumes and

shrubs in a 

silvopasture can

enhance wild

turkey habitat.

Wild turkeys

continued from page eight
Winter / Spring 2004 |Inside Agroforestry 11

belts, where the trees once protected the

watershed. 

These greenbelts of trees can be managed as either an alley cropping or forest

farming agroforestry practice to grow

crops and provide income for the local

community. As the tree roots begin to

take hold, the soil will eventually become

secure, preventing further runoff into the

ocean. If strategically planted, the greenbelt trees can also reduce the amount of

stormwater runoff

entering the community and resort developments.

Through the

Fouha Bay Project a

group of scientists

have taken a multiscience and all-lands approach to the

ongoing problem of reef degradation.

The Project is a partnership between the

Guam Division of Forestry and the

Social Science Research Institute (SSRI).

They are conducting an impact analysis

of the watershed and reef degradation

that considers ecological, socio-economic, and governmental interactions.

The results of this study are expected to

help address coral reef health, monitor

changes, and provide information to guide

development and policies responsibly.

Adapted from NASF Washington

Update article by Dr. Bob Richmond

and Robert McConnell.

Walla Walla

continued from page three

I

n the 1980's, as visitors flocked to

Guam's natural resource areas to hike

inner-island forested trails, lie out on the

beach, and snorkel the coral reefs, fivestar hotels developed on the coastline

along with golf courses and high-rise

buildings. All the while human-caused

fires were burning in the forests of the

interior watersheds. The result was soil

erosion and runoff, the most common

factor in Guam's coral reef degradation.

Coral reefs are

formed by tiny communal animals that

can only live in a delicately balanced

marine environment.

They require lots of

light and oxygen, low

nutrient levels, a steady temperature, and

stable salt content or salinity. They not

only provide important habitat for a

variety of marine creatures, provide

coastal protection and climate protection,

absorb huge quantities of carbon dioxide,

but they yield an average of 15 tons of

seafood per square kilometer each year.

The forest and agricultural lands are

connected to Guam’s coral reefs. Once

the forest is burned, soil erodes easily. If

burning persists, only sword grass will

grow, then nothing at all. All that will

remain is red clay. One option being considered is for communities to work

together to plant strips of trees, greenCaring for coral “technical service providers,” with guidance

by the District CREP Coordinator helped

expedite the implementation of many projects during a short planting period. During

that year, 28 CREP contracts were planned

on over 800 acres and 39 streambank miles.

Project applications were also starting to

spread out to other areas including the

Touchet River, Dry Creek, Mill Creek,

Cottonwood Creek, Mud Creek, Pine Creek,

Cold Creek and others.

By the close of 2003, the popularity of

the program continues to grow, as neighbors join together to create contiguous

miles of riparian habitat. Through CREP,

the buffer must be at least 75 feet in width

and average no more than 180-foot per side

of the stream. To date, Walla Walla County

has 89 CREP contracts that total approximately 109 stream miles, creating about

2175 acres of riparian habitat. Average project size is 1.2 miles of stream length, about

22 acres of area, and a buffer width averaging 159 feet. There is currently a waiting

list of 100 landowners who want to enroll in

the program. 

This CREP targets only the riparian areas

of streams with endangered fish species.

However, to further protect the habitat of

steelhead, bull trout, and other aquatic

species, attention must also be given to the

upland areas adjacent to the streams. The

WWCCD and NRCS have also been promoting the use of upland buffers including

contour buffer strips, filter strips, and grassed

waterways to trap sediment and other pollutants before they reach the riparian area. The

incentives from the Continuous

Conservation Reserve Program have been

used to implement these practices on 66 contracts covering 1589 acres. “Farmers in Walla

Walla County want to be good stewards, and

the CREP and other incentives help them to

accomplish that goal,” said Alison Bower,

WWCCD Riparian Restoration

Project Coordinator.

Increased nutrient runoff 

creates algal blooms that

block needed light from

reaching coral reefs.

Farmers in Walla Walla 

County want to be 

good stewards...

- Alison Bower, WWCCD

”

“
National Agroforestry Center

East Campus-UNL

Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0822

PRSRT STD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

USDA — FS

PERMIT NO G-40

June 15 - 16, 2004

Plains and Prairie Forestry Association 

(PPFA) annual meeting: “The Forest of 

Lewis & Clark.” Bismarck, South Dakota.

www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/trees/

whatnew/PPFA_2004_Conference.htm

June 25 - 26, 2004

Second Northeastern Forestry / 

Agroforestry Conference. Oakland, Maine.

www.kcswcd.org

June 27 - July 02, 2004

First World Congress of Agroforestry: 

“Working Together for Sustainable LandUse Systems.” Orlando, Florida. 

www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/wca/

June 28 - 30, 2004

American Water Resources Association 

Summer Specialty Conference: “Riparian 

Ecosystems and Buffers.” Olympic Valley, 

California. www.awra.org

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Address Correction Requested

Winter / Spring 2004 | Agroforestry Inside

Upcoming Events Editor’s Note

Inside Agroforestry is published quarterly by the 

USDA National Agroforestry Center. 

Phone: 402-437-5178; Fax: 402-437-5712.

Greg Ruark, NAC Director ext. 27

Michele Schoeneberger, FS Research Lead ext. 21

Rich Straight, FS Lead Agroforester ext. 24

Bruce Wight, NRCS Lead Agroforester ext. 36

Kimberly Stuhr, TT Specialist/IA Editor ext. 13

Ryan Dee, TT Assistant ext. 14

Mike Majeski, FS Agroforester

St. Paul, MN phone: 651-649-5240

Jim Robinson, NRCS Agroforester 

Fort Worth, TX phone: 817-509-3215

Gary Kuhn, NRCS Agroforester 

Spokane, WA phone: 509-358-7946

www.unl.edu/nac

The USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC) is a partnership of the Forest Service, Research & Development

(Rocky Mountain Research Station) and State & Private Forestry and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

NAC’s purpose is to accelerate the development and application of agroforestry technologies to attain more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable land-use systems. To accomplish its mission, NAC interacts with

a national network of partners and cooperators to conduct research, develop technologies and tools, establish

demonstrations, and provide useful information to natural resource professionals.

USDA policy prohibits discrimination because of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or handicapping condition. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any USDA-related activity should immediately contact the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

Opinions expressed in Inside Agroforestry are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the policy of the

USDA Forest Service and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Mission Natural Resources 

Conservation Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

FINAL REMINDER!

We’re updating our mailing list!

You recently received a form in the mail

requesting any changes in contact 

information. You must complete this form

and return it to NAC by April 14 (final

deadline) to continue remain on our mailing

list. You may also complete this form 

electronically at www.unl.edu/nac. 

Thanks for helping us save paper!