Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird 

Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5304

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover: 

Drawings by Elva Hamerstrom-Paulson

Clockwise from upper left:

Rufous Hummingbird 

Band-tailed Pigeon 

MacGillivray’s Warbler

Varied Thrush 

Map by Daniel Casey and Susannah Casey

Cover design by Erik Ackerson
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5304

Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide 

to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer 

Forests in the Pacific Northwest

By Bob Altman and Joan Hagar

Prepared in cooperation with American Bird Conservancy 

American Bird Conservancy is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to 

conserve wild birds and their habitats throughout the Americas.
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Meyers, Director

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on American Bird Conservancy:

http://www.abcbirds.org 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement 

by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright 

owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Altman, Bob, and Hagar, Joan, 2007, Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat 

in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 

2006-5304, 60 p.

American Bird Conservancy

George Fenwick, President
iii

Acknowledgments

Initial funding for the development and production of this document was provided through 

a grant from the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act administered by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The grant was managed by Wolftree Inc. as part of the project Rainforest 

to Cloudforest: Conservation of Forest Birds in North and Latin America. Project sponsors also 

included the American Bird Conservancy, the Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research Program, 

the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Pacific Coast Joint Venture, and the U.S. Geological 

Survey Forest and Rangeland Science Center. We thank J. Alexander, P. Boulay, B. Bresson, 

C. Bruce, J. Buchanan, S. Dowlan, J. Germond, M. Green, P. Kennedy, S. Matsouka, D. Pashley, 

S. Pearson, C.J. Ralph, T. Rich, J. Weikel, and an anonymous individual for reviews of earlier 

drafts. R. Jacobs provided invaluable assistance in moving the document through the process of 

editing, design, and production. I. Schoppy prepared the Literature Cited, J. Ame edited the final 

document, and E. Ackerson did the layout and design. G. Radko and G. Shire provided comments 

on the layout and design, and D. Casey and S. Casey prepared Figure 1.

Wolftree Inc. is a non-profit organization serving people, communities, 

and the earth through science education, ecosystem restoration, and 

ecological research in the Pacific Northwest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a federal agency which works with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research (CFER) program works 

closely with resource managers, researchers, and decision-makers 

to develop and convey information needed to successfully implement 

ecosystem-based management at forest stand and watershed scales, 

especially on lands dominated by young forests and fragmented by 

multiple ownerships.

The Pacific Coast Joint Venture works to protect and restore wetland 

ecosystems to benefit birds, fish and other wildlife.

The Oregon Department of Forestry serves the people of Oregon by 

protecting, managing, and promoting stewardship of Oregon’s forests to 

enhance environmental, economic, and community sustainability.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

Purpose of the Guide.....................................................................................................................................1

Scope of the Guide ........................................................................................................................................2

Pacific Northwest ................................................................................................................................2

Young Conifer Forests ..........................................................................................................................2

Breeding Bird Species.........................................................................................................................2

Young Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds................................................................................................3

Why Young Forests? .............................................................................................................................4

Why Breeding Birds? ...........................................................................................................................7

Forest Successional Stages and Breeding Birds............................................................................7

Forest Vegetation Types and Breeding Birds...................................................................................9

Forest Food Resources and Breeding Birds ..................................................................................11

Priority Birds.................................................................................................................................................13

Planning and Designing for Bird Habitat .................................................................................................14

Know What is Ecologically Appropriate .........................................................................................14

Target the Appropriate Bird Species...............................................................................................14

Consider the Landscape Context .....................................................................................................14

Timing of Management Activities.....................................................................................................15

Forest Fragmentation .........................................................................................................................18

Patch Size....................................................................................................................................18

Edge .........................................................................................................................................19

Connectivity ................................................................................................................................19

Deciduous Vegetation........................................................................................................................20

Fire and Bird Habitat...........................................................................................................................20

Strategizing Among Desired Habitat Features and Bird Species...............................................21

Planning Ahead: Development of Old Forest Habitat ...................................................................22

Working on the Ground...............................................................................................................................22

Thinning................................................................................................................................................23

Short and Long-Term Goals and Objectives..........................................................................23

Spacing Considerations............................................................................................................23

Effects of Thinning on Understory Conditions ......................................................................23

Managing for Multiple Tree Species ......................................................................................23

Effect of Thinning on Snags and Logs ...................................................................................25

Achieving Old Forest Structure Through Thinning...............................................................25

Bird Response to Thinning .......................................................................................................26

Retention of Forest Structure ...........................................................................................................26

Factors to Consider ...................................................................................................................27

How Much and Where?............................................................................................................27

Snags and Down Wood ............................................................................................................27

Deciduous Trees and Shrubs...................................................................................................29

Bird Response to Forest Retention .........................................................................................30

Managing Non-Native Vegetation ...................................................................................................31
Working on the Ground—Continued

Tree and Shrub Planting ....................................................................................................................31

Habitat Augmentation ........................................................................................................................32

Brush/Slash Piles.......................................................................................................................32

Snag Creation.............................................................................................................................32

Nest Boxes .................................................................................................................................32

Monitoring your Progress...........................................................................................................................33

Vegetation Monitoring .......................................................................................................................34

Bird Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................34

Adaptive Management .....................................................................................................................34

Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................................34

Appendix A. Scientific names of birds, insects, and plant species mentioned in the 

text, tables, or appendices ...........................................................................................................43

Appendix B. Ecoregion associations of breeding bird species in young conifer forests 

in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region................................................45

Appendix C. Successional stage nesting habitat relationships of breeding bird 

species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird 

Conservation Region......................................................................................................................48

Appendix D. Forest type associations for breeding bird species in young conifer forests

in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region................................................51

Appendix E. Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in

young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region.........55

Figures

Figure 1. Map Showing—The Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region 

(BCR 5) under the North American Bird Conservation Initiative ..........................................3

Tables

Table 1. Declining bird species associated with young conifer forests in the 

Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region based on Breeding 

Bird Survey data ...........................................................................................................................6

Table 2. General description of successional stages of young conifer forests in the 

Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region .........................................................9

Table 3. Preferred plant species selected as a nesting substrate for some young 

conifer forest bird species in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird 

Conservation Region ..................................................................................................................10

Table 4. A summary of state/provincial, regional, and continental Partners in Flight 

priority/focal bird species associated with young conifer forests in the 

Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region .......................................................16

Table 5. Categories of breeding season territory sizes for some bird species 

associated with young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest 

Bird Conservation Region..........................................................................................................19
vi

Tables—Continued

Table 6. Desired habitat features for breeding birds in young conifer forests in the 

Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region, and management 

activities that may be used at various stages of stand development to 

achieve those features ..............................................................................................................24

Table 7. Relationships between cavity-nesting birds and snags in young conifer 

forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region...............................28
Purpose of the Guide

This document (hereafter Guide) has been prepared to 

assist land managers interested in conducting conservation 

and management activities to benefit breeding birds associated 

with young conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. Audiences 

targeted for use of the Guide include land trusts, watershed 

councils, non-commercial private land owners, forest products companies, land-managing conservation organizations, 

government agencies, tribes, and First Nations. We hope the 

Guide will be a useful and valuable tool to support any of the 

variety of reasons to manage for bird habitat in young conifer 

forests (for example, regulatory, biodiversity, bird conservation, and forest certification standards). 

Information provided in the Guide is intended to support 

both the development of conservation or management plans 

and the implementation of on-the-ground management activities that have the potential to benefit breeding bird populations. The degree to which a land manager is willing or able 

to manage for bird habitat is a decision based on many factors 

which are beyond the scope of the Guide. We assume users of 

the Guide already have an interest in managing for bird habitat 

as one of several objectives that land managers must typically 

balance. However, it is not our purpose in the Guide to discuss 

integration of bird habitat management with other management objectives. Our objective is simply to provide those 

interested in bird conservation with information and recommendations on:

the habitat conditions and features needed by breeding 

bird species, and

how breeding bird species respond to particular management activities. 

Much of the information on breeding bird habitat is 

presented in tabular format in the appendices. Because the 

latitudinal and elevational coverage of the Guide is extensive, 

there can be considerable variation in the habitat types and 

conditions with which bird species are associated. Thus, it 

is important to recognize that the habitat relationships of a 

species may vary throughout the Pacific Northwest. Information presented in the appendices that categorizes bird-habitat 

relationships should not be regarded as absolute, but should 

be used as a tool to help prioritize conservation efforts toward 

species that have a significant degree of association with habitat parameters, such as forest type or successional stage.

An underlying premise of the Guide is that forest management has a direct and significant influence on bird populations. Consequently, manipulation of forest conditions as 

part of forest management can be designed and implemented 

to achieve bird conservation objectives (Busing and Garman, 2002; Lehmkuhl and others, 2002). It is not our intent 

to describe all the potential forest management activities that 

could be conducted to achieve the desired habitat conditions 

for birds. Those need to be determined locally by assessing 

the most ecologically appropriate management at each site. 

However, to assist land managers, the Guide offers some basic 

forest management activities that are widely accepted for 

achieving habitat conditions and features which benefit 

breeding birds.

•

•

Rainforest Birds:

A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat 

in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Bob Altman1 and Joan Hagar2

1

American Bird Conservancy, Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR Coordinator, 311 NE Mistletoe, Corvallis, OR 97330

2USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 777 NW 9th St., 

Suite 400, Corvallis, OR 97330
Scope of the Guide

Pacific Northwest 

The geographic scope of the Guide is the temperate rainforest of the Pacific Northwest. For our purposes, this includes 

northwestern California; western Oregon, Washington, and 

British Columbia; and southeast and southcoastal Alaska (Figure 1). This area is referred to as the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5) under the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (Sidebar: North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative). Hereafter in the Guide, we use 

Pacific Northwest, Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region, and BCR 5 interchangeably. 

Young Conifer Forests

Young forests, for the purpose of the Guide, are defined 

as forested lands in the early and mid-successional stages of 

forest development. These forests are typically < 60 years 

old, although they may be older in some relatively drier or 

poorer soil areas. Young forests are represented by the period 

of forest development that begins immediately following a 

stand-replacing disturbance (for example, harvest or fire) and 

continues, in unmanaged forests, into the stage of self-thinning 

or, in most forests managed with even-aged regeneration methods, to the harvest rotation age. The transition between young 

forest and older forest is subtle and variable. It is often marked 

by the formation of canopy gaps caused by the death (unmanaged) or removal (managed) of some overstory trees. These 

gaps allow the reinitiation of understory growth on the forest 

floor. Important features that distinguish old forests include 

the presence of a range of tree sizes and ages, shade tolerant 

tree species, and large (> 50 cm diameter at breast height) 

snags and logs (Franklin and Spies, 1991).

Information and recommendations provided in the Guide 

are applicable to all young conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. However, the emphasis is the vast landscape of coniferous forest outside the lowland and valley ecoregions such as 

Georgia Depression, Puget Trough, and Willamette Valley. 

Patches of young conifer forest in lowlands and valleys also 

provide opportunities for bird habitat management. However, 

these areas have different management and conservation issues 

due to the relatively small size of the forest patches (which 

excludes some larger bird species), the potential impacts of 

adjacent developed areas on bird populations (for example, 

increased predation and disturbance), and the ongoing and 

likely future loss of some of these areas to development.

Riparian habitats are an integral linear feature of the forested landscape in the Pacific Northwest, whether embedded 

within young or old forest. Although riparian habitats influence the composition of bird communities in conifer forests, 

especially at lower elevations and in the more arid environments of southwestern Oregon and northwestern California, 

riparian habitats are not considered independently from young 

conifer forest in the Guide because the bird species composition at mid to high elevations (our emphasis) is generally 

similar to adjacent conifer forest. (Sidebar: Riparian Habitat 

and Birds in a Temperate Rainforest).

The Guide does not include information on the habitat 

or birds that occur in non-forested inclusions within the forest 

landscape, such as grasslands, wetlands, ponds, and lakes. 

Although forest management can affect these habitats and the 

bird species associated with them, the emphasis of the Guide 

is bird species breeding within the young conifer forest itself, 

and the forest management activities that directly affect them.

Breeding Bird Species

We identified 93 bird species (scientific names of birds, 

insects, and plant species mentioned in the text are presented 

in Appendix A) that regularly breed in young conifer forests 

within at least one of the 15 ecoregions dominated by conifer 

forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation 

Region (Appendix B). For some of these species, use of young 

conifer forest is limited relative to their use of other conifer 

forest successional stages or other habitats outside of conifer forest. However, we consider them in the Guide because 

young forest habitat is so pervasive in the Pacific Northwest, 

and management of young conifer forests may measurably 

affect their populations. 

Following the lead of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the development of bird conservation initiatives for landbirds (Partners in Flight), shorebirds (United States Shorebird Conservation Plan), and 

waterbirds (Waterbird Conservation for the Americas) 

throughout the 1990s resulted in a lack of coordination 

in bird conservation efforts. In the late 1990s, the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) (www.

nabci-us.org) was formed as a forum to provide more 

effective communication, coordination, and integration of the many disparate bird conservation efforts. 

Its goal is “to deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally based, biologically driven, 

landscape oriented partnerships.” The ecological 

units designated for the delivery and tracking of bird 

conservation under NABCI are called Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs). There are 67 BCRs within North 

America and Hawaii including the Northern Pacific 

Rainforest (BCR 5) which is the emphasis of this 

document (Figure 1).

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Some examples of species which are more abundant in 

older conifer forests but will breed in the latter stages of young 

forests, especially if some older forest components such as 

large trees or snags have been retained, include Evening 

Grosbeak, Pine Siskin, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Red Crossbill, and Townsend’s Warbler. Other examples of species that 

use young conifer forests to a limited extent, but are more 

abundant in their preferred habitat outside of conifer forests 

include Bushtit, Cedar Waxwing, Warbling Vireo, Western 

Wood-Pewee, and Yellow-breasted Chat. For our purposes in 

the Guide, we recognize the use of young conifer forests by 

all these types of species, but generally do not emphasize their 

conservation or management which would be most effective in 

other successional stages or habitats. 

Young Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds

The most identifiable public image of the Pacific Northwest is a vast expanse of coniferous rainforest. From the fogshrouded giant redwoods of northern California to the moss 

and fern-carpeted, rain-soaked forests of British Columbia and 

southeast Alaska, these forests are known for the size of the 

trees and the extent of the landscape they cover. They also are 

known for their commercial value as one of the largest sources 

of lumber in the world. 

Rainforests of the Pacific Northwest support a diverse 

assemblage of bird species. Some of the most characteristic 

Throughout the arid portions of western North America, 

riparian habitat is recognized as supporting some of the 

highest bird species diversity and abundance (Knopf, 

1985). These habitats are usually complex in terms of 

vegetation structure and distinct from adjacent habitats, 

primarily due to the degree of available water in contrast to 

adjacent drier upland habitats. Because moisture is generally not a limiting factor in a rainforest, the significance of 

riparian habitats to birds in Pacific Northwest rainforests is 

often less than in drier forests (McGarigal and McComb, 

1992; Pearson and Manuwal, 2001). This is particularly 

Cedar Waxwing—photo by Matt Lee

true at mid-to-high elevations where the riparian corridor 

is narrower and dominated by similar tree and shrub species as the adjacent uplands. At lower elevations, where 

the riparian corridor is wider and the soils more alluvial, 

greater distinctions occur in the vegetative community, 

particularly in the cover contributed by deciduous trees and 

shrubs that provide unique and more diverse opportunities for bird species. Where riparian habitats offer unique 

resources relative to upslope habitats, bird assemblages 

are likely to reflect vegetative and structural differences 

between streamside and upland habitats.

Riparian Habitat and Birds in a Temperate Rainforest

Figure 1. The Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR 5) under the North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative.

'ULFOF!LASKA

0ACIFIC/CEAN

!LASKA

9UKON

"RITISH

#OLUMBIA

7ASHINGTON

/REGON

#ALIFORNIA

"#2

Young Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds 
species, such as Chestnut-backed Chickadee, Hermit Warbler, 

and Pacific-slope Flycatcher, breed almost exclusively in 

Pacific Northwest rainforests. Many other species highly 

characteristic of the region, such as Band-tailed Pigeon, 

Steller’s Jay, Black-throated Gray Warbler, and Winter Wren, 

are more abundant in the Pacific Northwest than anywhere 

else in their range.

In recent years, birds in Pacific Northwest forests have 

received extensive international attention associated with 

threatened species, such as Marbled Murrelet and Northern 

Spotted Owl, and regional attention associated with conservation efforts for declining migratory bird species under the Partners in Flight (PIF) Initiative (Sidebar: Neotropical Migrants 

and Partners in Flight).

Why Young Forests?

The focus of forest management and bird conservation in 

the Pacific Northwest in the last couple of decades has been on 

older (that is, late-successional) forests and the birds associated with these forests. Most of this emphasis stems from the 

reduction of late-successional forest across the landscape, and 

regulatory issues related to two threatened species, Marbled 

Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl. However, the corollary 

of a reduction in area occupied by late-successional forest 

has been an increase in area occupied by young forests. Vast 

acreages of young forest are the legacy of decades of clearcut harvesting on public and private lands. For example, in 

western Oregon, forests < 80 years old occupy > 70% of the 

forested landscape (Campbell and others, 2004). Much of 

this landscape continues to be managed on a short-rotation, 

clearcut regeneration system, and therefore is maintained as 

perpetually young forest.

Chestnut-backed Chickadee—photo by Matt Lee

Steller’s Jay—photo by Matt Lee

Band-tailed Pigeon—photo by Matt Lee

Public and private Pacific Northwest forests are often 

“working landscapes” that are managed under a variety 

of objectives including economic, recreational, ecological, restorative, and aesthetic. For many land managers, 

conservation of forest birds is one of their objectives. The 

type and degree of bird conservation that can be achieved 

depends on compatibility with other objectives and the 

land manager’s commitment to integrating management for 

bird habitat. Some of the management activities that can 

be employed within the context of forest management to 

provide habitat for birds include provision or retention of 

snags, deciduous trees and shrubs, and fruit- and nectarproducing plants, along with various types of thinning 

and other density-management prescriptions.

Managed Forests and Bird Conservation

 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Because young forests currently dominate the Pacific 

Northwest, interest in their management for multiple resources 

is high. For our purposes in the Guide, these forests represent 

an opportunity to manage simultaneously for timber production and breeding bird habitat (Sidebar: Managed Forests 

and Bird Conservation). Furthermore, today’s young forests 

embody a broad range of management options for the future, 

one of which is the potential to become tomorrow’s old 

forests. Thus, management of young forests is likely to have 

important implications for bird conservation now and in 

the future. 

Although young conifer forests are a widespread and 

dominant feature of the Pacific Northwest landscape, many 

bird species associated with these forests are experiencing 

serious population declines over recent decades (Sidebar: The 

Breeding Bird Survey: Our Tool for Bird Population Trends). 

Of the 93 species regularly associated with young conifer 

forests in the Pacific Northwest, 32 species are experiencing 

either long-term (1966-2005) or recent (1980-2005) significant (p < 0.10) population declines based on a relatively high 

confidence of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data for at least 

one of the regions in the Pacific Northwest (Sauer and others, 

2006) (Table 1). Another 15 species (American Kestrel, Cedar 

Waxwing, Downy Woodpecker, Dusky Flycatcher, House 

Wren, Lincoln’s Sparrow, Northern Goshawk, Ruby-crowned 

Kinglet, Ruffed Grouse, Steller’s Jay, Townsend’s Warbler, 

Tree Swallow, Vaux’s Swift, Western Bluebird, and Western 

Screech-Owl) also are experiencing significant population 

declines (p < 0.10) but the degree of confidence in the data is 

lower. Additionally, some of the 93 species, especially owls 

and rarer birds, are not well-monitored by the BBS, thus, there 

could be more species with unknown declines. Thus, over half 

of the breeding bird species associated with young conifer forests are experiencing population declines. Conversely, only 20 

species are experiencing significant population increases based 

on a high level of confidence (Sauer and others, 2006).

The term “neotropical migrant” is often used to refer to 

those birds that breed in the United States and Canada 

and winter in the tropics of Mexico or Central/South 

America. Although the term is satisfactory for most 

discussions, technically it is incomplete because it only 

recognizes one endpoint in their migratory cycle, the 

winter in the neotropics. The correct term for species 

that breed in the Pacific Northwest (that is, the Nearctic 

biome) and migrate to winter in Latin America (that 

is, the Neotropical biome) is Nearctic-Neotropical 

migrants (Levey, 1994).

In the early 1990s, recognition that numerous 

long-distance migratory bird species in North America 

were declining (Robbins and others, 1992) lead to the 

formation of Partners in Flight (PIF) (www.partnersinflight.org). This international initiative is based on the 

tenet of voluntary participation to “reverse the trends of 

declining species” and “keep common birds common.” 

The development of PIF coalitions at state, regional, 

continental, and international levels has resulted in 

significant efforts to prioritize species for conservation, 

conduct extensive research and monitoring activities, 

and implement policy and management on the ground 

for these species. These activities are guided by Bird 

Conservation Plans prepared by each state/province PIF 

chapter. In the Pacific Northwest, these plans can be 

accessed at www.absc.usgs.gov/research/bpif/bpif.html 

(Alaska), www.pifbcyukon (British Columbia), 

www.orwapif.org (Oregon-Washington), and 

www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html (California).

Neotropical Migrants and Partners in Flight

Young Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds 

Landscape of young, managed forest—photo by Erik Ackerson

There are many possible reasons for declining populations of so many bird species including factors occurring 

outside the Pacific Northwest for birds that migrate. However, 

one potential factor that is relevant to this region is change 

in young forest habitat resulting from forest management 

practices. A focus on early and rapid establishment of conifer 

trees following harvest on forestlands managed for timber 

production has tended to produce stands that are floristically 

and structurally homogenous (Hansen and others, 1991). 

Many avian species associated with young forests use a variety 

of understory vegetation – herbs, shrubs, and deciduous trees 

– for foraging, hiding cover, and nesting. Thus, a management 

emphasis on conifer trees may contribute to a loss of suitable 

habitat for these species.
The Breeding Bird Survey (www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/

bbs.html), a volunteer-based survey initiated in the late 

1960s, provides the best data on population trends of forest 

bird species. Each June, volunteers conduct roadside counts 

on over 4,000 randomly selected routes across the North 

American continent. Data are stored and managed by the 

administering agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey and 

the Canadian Wildlife Service. 

The Breeding Bird Survey: Our Tool for Bird Population Trends

Table 1. Declining bird species associated with young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation 

Region based on Breeding Bird Survey data. 1 L = significant (p < 0.10) long-term (1966-2005) population decline; R = 

significant (p < 0.10) recent (1980-2005) population decline.

Species

Bird

Conservation 

Region 5 2

Northern Pacific 

Rainforest 

BBS Region 3

Southern Pacific 

Rainforest 

BBS Region 4

Cascade 

Mountains 

BBS Region 5

American Goldfinch L R L R L R

Band-tailed Pigeon L R L R

Bewick’s Wren R

Blue (Sooty) Grouse L R L R

Brown Creeper R L

Bushtit L R

Cassin’s Vireo L R

Chipping Sparrow L R

Chestnut-backed Chickadee L R

Common Nighthawk R

Dark-eyed Junco L R L R

Evening Grosbeak R

Fox Sparrow L R

Golden-crowned Kinglet L R L R

Hermit Thrush R

MacGillivray’s Warbler L R R L R L

Nashville Warbler R

Northern Flicker R L

Olive-sided Flycatcher L R L R L R

Orange-crowned Warbler L R L R L R

Pacific-slope Flycatcher R L R L R

Pine Siskin L R L R L R

Purple Finch L R L L R

Red Crossbill L R

Rufous Hummingbird L R L R L

Song Sparrow L R L R L

Swainson’s Thrush L

Varied Thrush R

White-crowned Sparrow L R

Willow Flycatcher L R L R L L

Wilson’s Warbler L R L R

Wrentit R

1

 Species with significantly declining trends (p < 0.10) and a high degree of confidence (Sauer and others, 2006).

2

 BCR 5 = Bird Conservation Region 5: a NABCI ecological unit which includes northwestern California; western Oregon, Washington, and 

British Columbia; and southeast and southcoastal Alaska.

3

 NPR = Northern Pacific Rainforest: a BBS Physiographic Province which includes western British Columbia and southeast Alaska.

4

 SPR = Southern Pacific Rainforest: a BBS Physiographic Province which includes northwestern California and western Oregon and Washington 

(excludes Cascades Mountains).

5

 CAS = Cascades: a BBS Physiographic Province which includes the Cascade Mountains in northern California, Oregon, and Washington.

 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Why Breeding Birds?

The Guide covers native bird species that regularly breed 

in young conifer forests of the Northern Pacific Rainforest 

Bird Conservation Region. Because breeding bird species 

occur in all the habitats and conditions that support non-breeding birds, an assumption in the Guide is that habitat management for breeding birds likely will support most, if not all, of 

the conservation needs of non-breeding birds.

Viable populations of birds depend on successful reproduction to maintain or increase population levels (Sidebar: 

Reproduction and Population Maintenance). For some of the 

migratory Pacific Northwest breeding bird species, there also 

are known or suspected conservation issues occurring during 

migration or on the wintering grounds that impact the abundance and health of breeding populations. Although the Guide 

does not address these issues, appropriate conservation actions 

on the breeding grounds are a stewardship responsibility of a 

shared natural resource. Consequently, managing for breeding habitat for migratory species is critical to maintain healthy 

populations in other countries and is our only conservation 

opportunity in the Pacific Northwest. Thus, land managers of 

young conifer forests of the Pacific Northwest have a breeding 

season “responsibility” not only for our resident species, but 

also for many migratory species.

Forest Successional Stages and Breeding Birds

Forest succession is the process of change by which 

young forests develop into old forests, but it is considerably 

more complex than the growth of small trees into big trees. 

Succession involves compositional and structural changes in 

the entire forest community, from the trees and understory 

plants to the wildlife and insects. Additionally, composition 

and patterns established in the early successional stages often 

determine the conditions existing in later successional stages.

In order for a bird species to maintain its population level, each adult of reproductive capability must 

replace itself with an individual that reaches reproductive age. That may not seem difficult when you 

consider that many forest birds lay 3-4 eggs in each 

clutch (some even have two clutches per year) over an 

average life span of 2-3 years. However, the likelihood 

of any of those eggs becoming a reproducing adult 

bird is significantly diminished when you consider 

nest failure rates (often > 40%; Martin, 1995) and 

mortality of fledged birds during their first year (often 

> 80%). When these reproductive and fledgling losses 

are added to the habitat loss or degradation that many 

species are experiencing, it becomes apparent why so 

many species have declining population trends.

Nothern Flicker—photo by Matt Lee

Reproduction and Population Maintenance

Young Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds 

Dispersed retention of snags in a harvest unit—photo by Bob Altman

There is a large body of literature on the importance of 

forest structure to birds. Young conifer forest structure is influenced by the elapsed time (that is, successional stage) and the 

intensity of the last disturbance event. Disturbance intensity 

determines how much vegetation from the previous stand survives to colonize the new stand. Some bird species associated 

with older forests are likely to use regenerating stands only 

if residual trees, snags, and shrubs from the pre-disturbance 

stand provide the necessary forest structure. 

Suitable habitat for breeding birds in young conifer 

forests is often a combination of the successional stage of the 

forest at a coarse-scale and the presence of unique structural 

features or elements at a finer scale. For example, Western 

Bluebirds like the open overstory and understory of the first 

few years of succession after a stand-replacing disturbance, 

but will only breed if suitable cavities in snags are available. 

Less specialized species, such as Swainson’s Thrush, can 
breed in any young forest successional stage as long as the 

shrub layer is sufficiently developed.

Young forests that have diverse vegetation composition and complex structure can support a high abundance and 

diversity of breeding birds (Sidebar: Vegetation Diversity 

and Birds). In fact, bird diversity in Pacific Northwest conifer 

forests is usually higher in regenerating stands that have early 

successional vegetation combined with some mature overstory 

trees, than in either intact mature forest or clearcuts without 

residual structure (Hansen and Hounihan, 1996; Chambers and 

others, 1999).

In the Guide we recognize four stages of young managed 

conifer forests: two early-successional and two mid-successional (Table 2). The actual age and characteristics of each 

stage varies depending on many site-specific conditions. 

Changes in vegetation structure and composition that distinguish these stages of forest succession are paralleled by 

changes in the characteristic avian assemblage (Appendix C). 

Because each successive stage of development generally lasts 

for a longer period of time than the one preceding, younger 

forests also can be thought of as more temporary bird habitat 

than older forests.

The earliest stage of forest succession, which is dominated by herbaceous vegetation is the most dynamic and 

short-lived (Kimmins, 1987). Consequently, turnover in bird 

species diversity and composition tends to be rapid. Birds typically associated with the herbaceous stage include granivorous 

(seed-eating) species, such as American Goldfinch, Dark-eyed 

Junco, and White-crowned Sparrow, which take advantage 

of abundant seed production (Gashwiler and Ward, 1968).

Where structure has been retained as a legacy from the older 

forest (for example, live or dead trees), the bird community is 

greatly enhanced. For example, Western Bluebirds and Purple 

Martins use cavities in charred stumps or dead trees in burned 

or clearcut areas for nesting, and Olive-sided Flycatchers use 

large live trees for nesting and large dead and live trees for 

foraging perches. 

Each bird species is associated with different types of 

plants because of the different food, cover, and nesting resources offered. Therefore, conifer forests with a 

large diversity of plant species present also are likely to 

support a diverse bird assemblage. Understory and midstory plants contribute most of the vegetative diversity 

to conifer forests of the Pacific Northwest (Halpern and 

Spies, 1995). When these plants are removed from a 

stand by vegetation management (for example, herbicides or manual removal), or as a result of shading 

from the conifer overstory, fewer niches are available 

and the bird community is reduced in abundance and 

diversity. This is why the goal of some forest managers 

is to create multi-layered forest structure. It is important to realize that having multiple layers of vegetation 

in a forest stand is much more likely to enhance bird 

species diversity if a diversity of plant types contributes 

to the layers (for example, hardwood mid-story beneath 

conifer overstory) than if strata are composed strictly of 

coniferous foliage.

Vegetation Diversity and Birds

Dark-eyed Junco—photo by Matt Lee

The early-successional stage of forest development 

dominated by shrubs and pioneer trees (when conifers provide 

< 30% cover) typically supports higher bird diversity than any 

other stage (Harris, 1984; Hall and others, 1985). In particular, young forest stands that support a high proportion of 

deciduous vegetation also tend to support a high abundance 

and diversity of insectivorous birds (Morrison, 1981). Many 

of migrant species that breed in Pacific Northwest forests are 

associated with deciduous vegetation, such as MacGillivray’s 

Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler (Morrison and Meslow, 

1983a), and flowering vegetation, such as Rufous Hummingbird (Harrington and others, 2002). 

Created snags in regenerating stand used by Purple Martins for 

nesting——photo by Bob Altman

 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Once conifers achieve dominance in managed stands 

(mid-successional pole forest), the shade-intolerant trees and 

shrubs are likely to decline in vigor as canopies close (Bailey 

and others, 1998; Thomas and others, 1999) (Sidebar: Understory Vegetation in Forest Management). Much of the young 

managed forest that currently occupies large areas of the 

landscape was heavily and uniformly stocked with Douglas-fir 

after logging (Curtis and others, 1998). These conditions lead 

to the development of deep shade under closed canopies (typically > 90%), limiting the growth of understory vegetation and 

creating forests that lack structural and compositional diversity 

of vegetation and wildlife. Dense young stands, which are 

essentially just one layer of coniferous canopy, support the 

fewest number of bird species of any stage of forest development (Meslow and Wight, 1975).

Without thinning, competition results in the mortality 

of suppressed trees in a stage of succession known as “stem 

exclusion” or “self-thinning” (Oliver and Larson, 1990). 

As the trees become larger and the canopy more closed and 

conifer-dominant, bird species such as Golden-crowned Kinglet, Hermit Warbler, and Townsend’s Warbler become more 

abundant (Bettinger, 1996). However, young stands that retain 

some structural diversity even after conifers achieve dominance (for example, openings, snags, and shrub cover) may 

support a more diverse bird assemblage (Chambers and others, 

1999).

Forest Vegetation Types and Breeding Birds

Plant community types are a useful way to categorize 

forests as bird habitats. Plant communities are defined by their 

dominant species and how the size, age, and growth habits of 

the component plant species influence community structure. 

Many classification schemes for the scores of plant community types in the Pacific Northwest have been developed 

(for example, Franklin and Dyrness, 1988; Grossman and 

others, 1998). It is beyond the scope of the Guide to include 

1

 The terms used to describe successional stages are from a variety of sources and include terms that emphasize both a silvicultural perspective and terms that 

emphasize an ecological perspective.

2

 Due to natural variability and management, not all stands will have the characteristics associated with each successional stage (for example, use of herbicides 

in early successional stages will result in different characteristics than those listed).

3

 A full list of species associated with each successional stage is provided in Appendix C.

Table 2. General description of successional stages of young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation 

Region.

Successional Stage 1

Years Since 

Disturbance 

(approximate)

General Habitat Characteristics 2

Examples of Closely 

Associated Bird 

Species 3

Early 

Successional

• Stand Initiation

• Herbaceous

• Grass-Forb 0-5

Dominated by rapidly-growing, 

short-lived herbaceous vegetation; 

most trees are small seedlings

American Goldfinch, Spotted 

Towhee, White-crowned 

Sparrow 

• Seedling

• Shrub-Seedling

• Shrub-Sapling

• Pioneer Tree

5-20

High vegetative diversity; dense 

tangle of vegetation; most trees 

are large seedlings or saplings; 

shrubs are well-developed

MacGillivray’s Warbler, Orangecrowned Warbler, Willow 

Flycatcher

Mid 

Successional

• Closed-Canopy Pole

• Sapling-Pole

• Small Tree 15-30

Conifer trees become dominant; 

tree diameters generally less than 

15 cm (6 inches); understory 

vegetation may be reduced

Hutton’s Vireo, Purple Finch, 

Swainson’s Thrush

• Stem Exclusion

• Self-Thinning

• Young Sawtimber

• Medium Tree

25-60

Average tree diameters from 15 to 

51 cm (6 to 20 inches); shaded 

understory has limited growth

Golden-crowned Kinglet, 

Hermit Warbler, Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher

Rufous Hummingbird—photo by Matt Lee

Young Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds 
In forests managed for timber production, conifer 

dominance is achieved early in stand development by 

means of vegetation management and the maintenance 

of a high density of conifer seedlings at stand initiation. 

These practices typically reduce the abundance and distribution of shrubs, and therefore shorten the period of 

shrub dominance (Hansen and others, 1991; Kennedy 

and Spies, 2004). Understory shrubs in conifer forests 

provide unique food resources for birds in the form of 

flowers, fruits, seeds, and abundant and diverse insect 

prey (Willson and Comet, 1996; Hagar, 2004). Many 

bird species also require understory cover for nesting. 

Birds that depend on the resources provided by shrubs, 

including many long-distance migrant species, will be 

absent from forests that do not have adequate understory development to support them.

Understory Vegetation in Forest Management

Table 3. Preferred plant species selected as a nesting substrate for some young conifer forest bird species in the Northern Pacific 

Rainforest Bird Conservation Region.

1

 Selection may be based on degree of use or degree of nest success and may vary regionally.

Species Preferred Nesting Vegetation 1 Source

Band-tailed Pigeon Douglas-fir (OR) Leonard (1998)

Hermit Warbler Douglas-fir (OR and WA) Pearson (1997); Janes (2003) 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Hemlocks and true firs (OR) Altman and Sallabanks (2000)

Pacific-slope Flycatcher Red alder (WA) Leu (2000)

Swainson’s Thrush Salmonberry (OR and WA) B. Altman (unpubl.)

Townsend’s Warbler White spruce (AK) Matsuoka and others (1997)

Willow Flycatcher Bracken fern (OR) Campbell and others (1997); Altman and others (2003)

Wilson’s Warbler Western sword fern (OR and WA) B. Altman and J. Hagar (unpubl.)

the breeding bird assemblages of every plant community type 

within each forest type. Sources for that type of information 

include Campbell and others (1997), Johnson and O’Neil 

(2001), Marshall and others (2003), and Wahl and others 

(2005). However, coarse-level breeding bird associations with 

forest vegetation types of the Pacific Northwest are presented 

in Appendix D to assist land managers interested in bird 

conservation.

Most forest breeding bird species only have a coarsescale association with a particular vegetation growth form (for 

example, shrub or tree) while using a variety of plant species 

within that context based on what is available in the local landscape. Although there are few obligate or near-obligate relationships between plant species and birds, some bird species 

have demonstrated a preference for particular plant species for 

nesting (Table 3).

10 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Willow flycatcher nest in bracken fern in early successional forest—

photo by Bob Altman
Forest Food Resources and Breeding Birds

Food is a critical habitat component that greatly influences the reproductive success and survival of breeding birds 

(Martin, 1987). Seeds, fruits, and flowers provide a direct 

source of food for many bird species, while arthropod prey 

that live on plants indirectly link avian insectivores to vegetation (Sidebar: Intimate Relationships Betweens Birds and Forest Plants). Some species are highly selective in what they eat. 

For example, Red Crossbills are granivores that have beaks 

especially adapted to extract seeds from conifer cones (Adkisson, 1996). Warbling Vireos are insectivores that primarily eat 

caterpillars from deciduous trees (Gardali and Ballard, 2000). 

Fruit becomes an important food resource during the latter part 

of the breeding season for species such as Swainson’s Thrush 

(Hagar 2004).

A forest provides many foraging substrates for breeding 

birds. One of the most significant is the foliage associated with 

the vegetation. Deciduous foliage supports different resources 

than coniferous foliage, and is available at different times 

of the year. In the spring and summer, deciduous trees and 

shrubs support a diverse assemblage of herbivorous insects, 

such as caterpillars (Hammond and Miller, 1998) and aphids 

(Doolittle, 2000), creating an abundant food supply for nesting 

foliage-gleaning birds (Sidebar: The Importance of Insects). 

Caterpillars, in particular, provide a high energy resource for 

breeding forest birds (Sidebar: Caterpillars: A Package of 

Energy for Breeding Birds).

Other significant differences between coniferous and 

deciduous trees for foraging birds include branch structure, 

seed and fruit production, bark characteristics, and associated 

arthropod communities. Hardwoods support a dramatically 

Plants provide food, shelter, and nesting substrates for 

birds; birds influence plant reproduction and distribution 

through the processes of pollination, seed dispersal, and 

seed caching. Plants, such as currant, salmonberry, and 

Pacific madrone, entice Rufous Hummingbirds to transfer 

pollen from one individual to another by offering a nectar 

reward. Flowering trees and shrubs, such as salal, salmonberry, huckleberry, and Oregon-grape, provide fruits for 

American Robin, Cedar Waxwing, and Swainson’s and 

Most songbirds require insect food resources during the 

breeding season for feeding developing nestlings. Some 

species, such as flycatchers, swallows, and swifts, subsist 

entirely on aerial insects, and other insectivores, such as 

warblers, vireos, and wrens, glean insects from vegetation. Even hummingbirds and granivores, such as finches 

and sparrows, feed their nestlings insects for the protein 

necessary for growth (for example, Brice and Grau, 1991; 

Nolan and others, 2002). For these reasons, insects are an 

important consideration for managing forests for breeding 

birds. However, managing directly for insect taxa that are 

Intimate Relationships Betweens Birds and Forest Plants

Varied Thrushes that, in turn, disperse viable seeds. Another 

way in which birds disperse seeds is by caching surplus 

food. Gray Jay, Red-breasted Nuthatch, and Steller’s Jay, 

are renowned for their habit of storing or “caching” seeds 

and nuts in the autumn to be recovered and consumed during the lean winter months (Erlich and others, 1988). Typically, not all of the cached seeds are found again, allowing 

some of them to germinate and grow future food sources for 

the bird species that “planted” them. 

The Importance of Insects

important prey to each bird species would be a daunting 

task for most managers. The most pragmatic approach to 

managing for adequate arthropod prey resources for forest 

birds is to maximize diversity of native vegetation within 

the ecological constraints of the site. Vegetative diversity is 

important because each plant species supports a characteristic assemblage of herbivorous insects, and plant species 

vary in the amount and type of insect prey they support. 

Thus, plant diversity cascades through food chains to affect 

bird diversity.

Patch of red alder along forest road—photo by Bob Altman

Young Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds 11
higher diversity of lichens and other epiphytes than conifers 

because their branch structure and deciduous foliage present 

a favorable growing substrate (Neitlich and McCune, 1997). 

Forest epiphytes are known to support diverse arthropod 

communities (Gerson and Seaward, 1977; Neitlich, 1993), 

and invertebrates inhabiting epiphytic lichens are an important food source for some birds (Pettersson and others, 1995). 

However, the stems and bark of conifer trees also are important foraging substrates for forest birds (Jackson, 1979). Many 

bark foraging species spend most of their time on conifers 

(Weikel and Hayes, 1999). Chickadees, nuthatches, creepers, 

and woodpeckers all glean spiders, grubs, and other arthropods 

from crevices in bark on the boles and branches of trees. The 

deeper the crevices, the more prey they are likely to contain 

For many species of insectivorous birds that breed in 

Pacific Northwest forests, caterpillars (the larval stage 

of butterflies and moths [Lepidoptera]) are the choicest 

of food items. Compared to most arthropods, which are 

mainly wings, legs, or indigestible exoskeleton, caterpillars 

represent a relatively large package of energy and nutrients 

for a foraging bird. Several characteristics of caterpillars 

make them a favorite prey item. First, although caterpillars 

typically are not abundant, they are large relative to other 

insects. Caterpillars typically weigh at least 10 times as 

much as the average insect in a forest understory community (Hagar, 2004), and most of that weight is easily 

digested by avian predators because caterpillars lack tough 

exoskeletons. Secondly, as slow and sedentary creatures, 

caterpillars are easy to capture compared to many more 

agile arthropods. The large size and ease of capture make 

caterpillars an efficient prey item because birds can maxiWilsons Warbler—photo by Barth Schorre

Caterpillars: A Package of Energy for Breeding Birds

mize energy gained while minimizing energy expended on 

feeding. Finally, caterpillars have higher calcium concentrations than most other insects (Schowalter and Crossley, 

1983), providing insectivorous birds with an essential 

resource for egg-laying. The consumption by birds of at 

least two caterpillar pests, western spruce budworm and 

Douglas-fir tussock moth, can be economically important. 

In coniferous forests in western Oregon, more than 

half of all butterfly and moth species, and more than twothirds of their abundance, are associated with deciduous 

trees and shrubs (Hammond and Miller, 1998). MacGillivray’s Warbler and Wilson’s Warbler, both species that 

consume caterpillars and are associated with deciduous 

shrubs, were found to be rare in Oregon Coast Range 

stands that averaged < 35% cover of deciduous shrubs 

(Hagar, 2004). Therefore, enhancing the growth of deciduous shrubs is an excellent means of ensuring the availability of caterpillars as prey for breeding birds.

12  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Oceanspray is a tall, deciduous shrub that supports an abundance 

of caterpillars, and is therefore an important source of prey for 

insectivorous birds—photo by Bob Altman

(Mariani and Manuwal, 1990), so older conifers with deeply 

fissured bark are preferred foraging habitat for species such as 

the Brown Creeper (Weikel and Hayes, 1999). 

Some bird species forage mainly on flying insects 

snatched out of the air while on the wing. These aerial insectivores prey on many kinds of flying insects including flies, 

moths, beetles, and ballooning spiders and caterpillars (Beaver 

and Baldwin, 1975). In forested habitats, flying insects can 

be abundant in canopy gaps (Hagar, 2004), where elevated 

light and temperature may provide the best environment for 

activity (Shure and Philips, 1991). The abundance of aerial 

arthropods in temperate coniferous forests also has been 

positively correlated with understory vegetation, in particular, 

deciduous shrubs (Jokimaki and others, 1998; Humphrey and 
others, 1999). Natural treefall gaps and small openings created 

by partial harvesting may be ideal foraging habitat for aerial 

insectivores, such as Hammond’s and Pacific-slope Flycatcher, 

because they support concentrations of airborne insects near 

perches. 

A final group of insects that are particularly important 

as food for forest birds includes beetles and ants. Swainson’s 

Thrushes frequently forage for ground-dwelling ants and 

beetles in litter on the forest floor (Mack and Yong, 2000). 

Woodpeckers feed extensively on the beetle larvae and ant 

eggs that they find beneath the sloughing bark and within the 

decaying wood of dead trees (Otvos, 1965; Bull and others, 

1986). Many beetle taxa and some species of ants are associated with dead and dying wood (Borror and others, 1989). 

Thus, in addition to providing shelter for cavity-nesting 

species, woody debris should also be recognized for its 

importance in supporting insects that are prey for many 

species of birds. 

Priority Birds

Although the Guide recognizes 93 breeding bird species 

regularly associated with young conifer forests, some species 

have been identified as being of high conservation and management concern (Sidebar: Species Prioritization: Are Some 

Species Really More Important Than Others?). Conservation 

concern may stem from a variety of factors including declining 

or small populations, threats to habitat, degree of ecological 

specialization, degree of association with important habitat 

features or conditions, or a region’s responsibility based on a 

high percent of the species population or range.

Different degrees of emphasis on these and other factors by various agencies and organizations have resulted in 

numerous lists that identify the most important bird species for 

conservation. However, the Guide emphasizes the lists generYoung Conifer Forests and Breeding Birds 13

Profuse shrub development in a 50-year-old thinned stand, Oregon Coast 

Range—photo by Joan Hagar

ated through Partners in Flight (PIF) as being most relevant to 

young conifer forests because of PIF’s emphasis on landbirds, 

the existing prioritization of landbirds in state and provincial 

bird conservation plans (Sidebar: Priority and Focal Species), 

and the widely-used and published process for prioritizing 

landbird species (Beissinger and others, 2000; Carter and 

others, 2000).

Table 4 summarizes the current PIF state, regional, and 

continental priority/focal bird lists for species associated with 

young conifer forests. Some of these species are most closely 

associated with late-successional forests, but all have at least a 

low degree of association with young conifer forests (Appendix C). We recommend that land managers throughout the 

Pacific Northwest consider the 13 species highlighted in Table 

4 as a part of any bird habitat management efforts because 

of regional recognition of these species on most priority lists 

(assuming appropriate habitat, successional stage, distribution, etc. [see Appendices B,C,D]). Additionally, at the more 

local level, we recommend consideration of the 33 additional 

species listed in Table 4 where the geographic emphasis is 

appropriate.

Spotted Towhee—photo by Stephen Dowlan

Song Sparrow—photo by Stephen Dowlan
Planning and Designing for 

Bird Habitat

Before conducting on-the-ground management for birds, 

it is important to consider some practical realities and ecological principles about birds and forest management. In particular, objectives for the desired bird species or habitat conditions 

need to be set within the constraints of factors that affect what 

outcomes are reasonable and ecologically achievable. 

Managing for birds, like managing for timber, is based on 

shaping forest development. Within this context, it is important to recognize that young forests are successional and the 

conditions only remain for a finite period of time. Thus, management decisions should consider not only short-term objectives, but also what opportunities currently exist to put the site 

on a trajectory that will meet future objectives. The sections 

that follow discuss some important considerations for planning 

and designing of bird habitat in young conifer forests.

Know What is Ecologically Appropriate

As part of the planning process, it is essential to understand the ecological capacity or “potential native vegetation” 

of the site to support particular habitat conditions or bird 

species (Sidebar: Avoiding Square Pegs and Round Holes: 

Be Ecologically Appropriate). This is influenced by a variety 

of conditions, such as soils, aspect, slope, elevation, latitude, 

disturbance history, etc. If the potential native vegetation is 

not readily known, the assistance of a professional ecologist 

or forester can be beneficial. Some examples of the importance of knowing what is ecologically appropriate include: a 

relatively dry south-facing slope may provide limited opportunities for understory structural diversity compared to a 

north-facing slope; regeneration of alder patches is less likely 

to occur in mid to high elevations; and wet micro-sites (for 

example, seeps) are most conducive to the establishment of 

big leaf maple trees.

Basic ecology tells us that each species has its role or 

niche in a properly functioning ecosystem. When parts 

of that ecosystem are removed or altered, the entire system is affected. Thus, each species is uniquely important to maintain the balance. However, most young 

conifer forest ecosystems today have been altered by 

human activities and don’t necessarily function as they 

did prior to our actions. This is especially true in young 

conifer forests being managed for timber production. 

When alteration is significant enough, changes occur in 

the composition and abundance of bird species. Some 

species benefit by experiencing increased populations 

or finding new opportunities for suitable habitat. Other 

species are lost from the area or suffer decreased populations. The latter group often consists of species that 

end up on various “lists” as priorities for conservation. 

Prioritization of these species indicates a more urgent 

need for their conservation. 

Species Prioritization: Are Some Species 

Really More Important Than Others?

Target the Appropriate Bird Species

In addition to knowing what is ecologically appropriate 

for a site, it is also important to target the appropriate bird 

species. This information can be gleaned from evaluating 

Appendices B, C, and D. For example, it is not appropriate to 

manage for snag retention or creation for Western Bluebird in 

southeast Alaska (out of their range), or to emphasize deciduous tree management for Pacific-slope Flycatcher at 1,200 

meters (4,000 feet) in the Cascades of Washington (elevation 

too high). Conversely, at the former site, retention or creation 

of large snags for Red-breasted Sapsucker or Vaux’s Swift 

is appropriate; and at the latter site, it may be appropriate to 

promote deciduous tree regeneration (if ecological conditions 

are appropriate) to create habitat for Ruffed Grouse.

Consider the Landscape Context

As discussed earlier, the age and vegetative structure 

within a forest patch are important factors in determining the 

bird species that it will support. A land manager can manage these stand-level characteristics to achieve objectives 

for resource management and bird conservation. However, 

stand-level objectives ideally should be set in the context of 

landscape conditions to be most effective (Beese and Bryant, 

1999).

14  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Hutton’s Vireo—photo by Stephen Dowlan
Partners in Flight (PIF) bird conservation plans use the 

terms priority species and focal species to identify species 

that are considered to be the most important to address in 

conservation and management activities. Priority species 

are typically identified based solely on factors related 

to each species’ vulnerability or at-risk status or dependence on the geographic area being considered. The most 

widely used source for scoring and prioritizing species 

for conservation is the PIF Species Assessment Database 

(www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html). Scores from this database 

are frequently used in the development of other (that is, 

non-PIF) priority bird lists of agencies and organizations. 

In BCR 5, priority species have been used as the conservation focus in PIF Bird Conservation Plans for Alaska and 

British Columbia (Table 4).

Priority and Focal Species

Focal species are designated as being of management 

concern based on their association with particular habitats 

or habitat conditions (Lambeck, 1997). The emphasis is on 

the representativeness of the species relative to a habitat 

or habitat condition. The rationale for emphasizing focal 

species is to draw immediate attention to the habitats and 

habitat conditions most in need of conservation or most 

important to bird conservation in a functioning ecosystem. 

The underlying assumption is that conservation efforts 

directed towards a suite of focal species will capture the 

habitat needs of most other species associated with these 

habitats. In BCR 5, focal species have been used as the 

conservation focus in PIF Bird Conservation Plans for 

California, and Oregon-Washington (Table 4).

The occurrence or abundance of some bird species is 

dependent not only on the habitat conditions of a forest patch 

but also the surrounding landscape (Franklin, 1993; Petit and 

others, 1995). Such landscape-level influences on bird habitat 

might include adjacent land use/habitat type or degree of 

isolation from or connectivity with similar habitats. Therefore, 

it is important to recognize that the potential for meeting bird 

conservation objectives can be influenced by the habitat and 

management on adjacent lands (both forest and non-forest) 

and at scales larger than the forest patch (McAllister and others, 1999). Some examples include species that have relatively 

large area-requirements for a mosaic of habitat types, such as 

Northern Goshawk or Band-tailed Pigeon; species like Great 

Gray Owl and Red-tailed Hawk which require the juxtaposition of two different habitat types, one for nesting (closedcanopy) and one for foraging (open canopy); or species like 

Winter Wren with reduced abundance in fragmented forest 

landscapes (McGarigal and McComb, 1995). Coordination 

and cooperation with adjacent landowners may be necessary to 

optimize conditions for bird species requiring landscape-level 

habitat management.

Timing of Management Activities

An important consideration in planning for bird habitat is 

the timing of management activities. A general rule of thumb 

is that management should be conducted outside the breeding 

season, if at all possible, to minimize impacts on reproduction. 

Any manipulations of habitat that take place during the breeding season will likely result in a loss of bird productivity for 

that year, thereby reducing the number of individuals that can 

potentially be recruited into the breeding population in future 

years.

Habitat management for forest bird conservation often 

involves some manipulation of the environment to create 

conditions suitable for the bird species or habitat conditions you are targeting. However, our ability to create those 

conditions is dependent on a suite of biotic and abiotic factors that we cannot manipulate, such as soil type, aspect, 

Avoiding Square Pegs and Round Holes: Be Ecologically Appropriate

slope, local weather, etc. Thus, knowing what is possible or 

“ecologically appropriate” should guide your management 

activities. Once you know the potential native vegetation for the site, you can evaluate bird species or suites of 

species that have habitat requirements that your site can 

reasonably provide.

Planning and Designing for Bird Habitat 15

Bewick’s Wren—photo by Stephen Dowlan
Table 4. A summary of state/provincial, regional, and continental Partners in Flight priority/focal bird species associated with young 

conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region. 1

Species

State/Provincial Regional Continental

Focal in Bird 

Conservation 

Plan 2

Priority in Bird 

Conservation 

Plan 3

BCR 5

PIF Database 4

North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan 5

Band-tailed Pigeon OW BC RC, RS SCI

Black-headed Grosbeak BC

Black-throated Gray Warbler CA, OW BC RS SCI

Blue (Sooty) Grouse AK, BC RC, RS SCI

Brown Creeper CA, OW BC

Cassin’s Vireo BC RC

Chestnut-backed Chickadee AK, BC RS SCI

Cooper’s Hawk BC RC

Dark-eyed Junco CA

Dusky Flycatcher RC

Fox Sparrow CA SCI

Golden-crowned Kinglet CA BC RC, RS

Gray-cheeked Thrush AK

Hairy Woodpecker BC

Hammond’s Flycatcher OW AK, BC

Hermit Thrush BC

Hermit Warbler 6 OW RS SCI

Hutton’s Vireo OW BC RS

MacGillivray’s Warbler CA AK, BC RS

Mountain Quail SCI

Northern Goshawk BC

Northern Pygmy-owl BC RS

Northern Saw-whet Owl BC RS

Olive-sided Flycatcher CA, OW AK, BC RC, RS SCI

Orange-crowned Warbler OW BC

Pacific-slope Flycatcher OW AK, BC RS SCI

Pileated Woodpecker CA, OW

Purple Finch BC RC

Red-breasted Nuthatch CA

Red-breasted Sapsucker AK, BC RC, RS SCI

Red Crossbill OW BC RC, RS

Ruffed Grouse BC RC

Rufous Hummingbird OW AK, BC RS SCI

Spotted Towhee RS

Steller’s Jay AK, BC RS SCI

Townsend’s Warbler AK, BC RS

Varied Thrush CA, OW AK, BC RS SCI

Vaux’s Swift CA, OW AK, BC RS

16  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
1

 Species in shaded rows are recommended as a high regional priority because they are priority or focal species on at least 4 of the 6 PIF lists (that is, the 

4 state/province bird conservation plans, the BCR 5 priority list from the PIF Species Assessment Database, and the National PIF Species of Continental 

Importance list for the Pacific Avifaunal Biome).

2

 CA = California Coniferous Forest Bird Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight, 2002); OW = Oregon/Washington Westside Coniferous Forest Bird 

Conservation Plan (Altman, 1999).

3

 AK = Alaska Bird Conservation Plan (southeast and southcoastal regions) (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group, 1999); BC = British Columbia 

(www.pifbcyukon.org/3e.html).

4

 RC = Regional Concern; RS = Regional Stewardship (www.rmbo.org/pif/jsp/BCRmap.asp).

5

 SCI = Species of Continental Importance in the Pacific Avifaunal Biome (Rich and others, 2004).

6

 Included as a high regional priority despite only being on three lists because it does not occur in Alaska or British Columbia, thus, could not make those lists.

Western Screech-owl AK, BC

Western Bluebird OW BC

Western Tanager CA

Western Wood-pewee BC

Willow Flycatcher BC RC, RS SCI

Wilson’s Warbler OW BC

Winter Wren OW SCI

Wrentit SCI

Table 4. A summary of state/provincial, regional, and continental Partners in Flight priority/focal bird species associated with young 

conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region. 1—Continued

Species

State/Provincial Regional Continental

Focal in Bird 

Conservation 

Plan 2

Priority in Bird 

Conservation 

Plan 3

BCR 5

PIF Database 4

North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan 5

Western Tanager—photo by Matt Lee

Latitude, elevation, weather, and migratory status all 

contribute to considerable variability in the timing of nesting 

activities among bird species that breed in young conifer forests. For example, resident species, such as Chestnut-backed 

Chickadee and Red-breasted Sapsucker, and short-distance 

migrants, such as Varied Thrush and Western Bluebird, tend 

to initiate nesting in April and early May, whereas long-distance migrants, such as MacGillivray’s Warbler, Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher, and Western Tanager, don’t initiate nesting till late 

May or June. 

The length of the breeding season also is variable among 

species. Among resident species that nest early, some like 

Dark-eyed Junco and Spotted Towhee can produce two or 

three broods and may still be nesting in July. Conversely, 

resident species like Hutton’s Vireo and Wrentit usually 

produce only one brood and are generally done by June. Some 

long-distance migrants like Olive-sided Flycatcher and Willow 

Flycatcher may still have many active nests in August (B. Altman, unpub. data). 

As a consequence of the variability in the timing of nesting activities, it is important for land managers to be aware of 

the potential for management activities to negatively impact 

reproductive success (Sidebar: Bird Nests and the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act). In general, we recommend that management activities that might affect birds nesting in young conifer 

forests be avoided or minimized during the period from April 

15 to July 31. These dates generally ensure that management 

will occur after nesting has been completed for > 90% of 

the individuals of > 90% of the species in most places in the 

Pacific Northwest (exceptions are mostly due to latitude or 

elevation). When considering management outside these dates 

(for example, early April or early August), land managers 

should evaluate the potential for nesting species at these times, 

in particular priority or focal species (see Table 4).

Planning and Designing for Bird Habitat 17
Forest Fragmentation

Forest fragmentation is a landscape-level process (McGarigal and McComb, 1995) that involves both the reduction of 

forest area, and the isolation of forest patches (Harris, 1984). 

In the Pacific Northwest, the reduction and isolation of patches 

of older forest that have become surrounded by young stands 

managed for timber production has been referred to fragmentation (Bunnell and others, 1999). However, forest fragmentation does occur naturally and should not be interpreted solely 

in terms of negative impacts (Franklin and others, 2002). 

There is an extensive amount of literature on the effects 

of forest fragmentation on wildlife in western North America, 

including summary publications on wildlife (Rochelle and 

others, 1999) and birds (George and Dobkin, 2002). The negative effects of forest fragmentation observed in eastern and 

midwestern North America from increased nest predation and 

parasitism have not been reported as significant in western 

forests (Schieck and others, 1995; Manuwal and Manuwal, 

2002) (Sidebar: Forest Fragmentation and Birds in the Pacific 

Northwest). However, one concern in the Pacific Northwest 

regarding fragmentation is the reduction of the size of forest 

patches, particularly late-successional forest (McGarigal and 

McComb, 1999), and potentially, the older stages of young 

forests. This and other potential consequences of fragmentation on birds in young conifer forests are briefly described in 

the following sections.

Patch Size

Every pair of breeding birds requires some minimum 

area of habitat to meet its daily requirements for food, shelter 

and nesting. For most bird species that breed in young conifer 

forests, this area is usually < 5 hectares (12 acres) per pair, 

although some species have much larger requirements 

(Table 5).

Among most bird species that breed in early-successional 

forests, patch size for occupancy generally is not as limiting 

a factor as it is for late-successional species. For example, 

species like Orange-crowned Warbler, Rufous Hummingbird, 

and Willow Flycatcher will nest in patches of suitable habitat 

as small as 2 hectares (< 5 acres) in size even if embedded in a 

landscape of older forest (B. Altman, unpub. data). However, 

for a few species, such as Olive-sided Flycatcher, Townsend’s 

Solitaire, and Western Bluebird, the size of the young forest 

patch can be important. For example, a single pair of Olivesided Flycatchers requires at least 16 hectares (40 acres) and 

may require up to 40 hectares (100 acres) (Altman and Sallabanks, 2000).

Some forest bird species require patches of contiguous 

habitat much larger than their territory to be able to maintain 

a presence or a viable population. These species are referred 

to as forest-interior or area-sensitive species. In the Pacific 

Northwest, there is recent evidence at the forest patch scale to 

support this status during the breeding season for 10 bird species in late-successional forests (summarized in George and 

Most bird species in young conifer forests are non-colonial 

and highly secretive about their nests. Because of their 

quiet demeanor and well-camouflaged nests, it can be easy 

to destroy one without knowing it. Destruction of active 

bird nests is a violation of federal law. Under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703), it is illegal to 

“take” migratory birds, their eggs, feathers or nests without 

a permit. “Take” includes by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, 

possessing or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, 

or part thereof. The MBTA does not distinguish between 

“intentional” and “unintentional” take. All native birds 

Bird Nests and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

except galliformes (for example, quail and grouse) are 

protected under the MBTA. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the 

federal agency responsible for administering the MBTA. 

Permitted take under the MBTA is allowed for a variety 

of activities including scientific collecting, falconry, tribal 

uses, hunting, etc., but in general there is no exception for 

“take” associated with land management activities. The 

Service does not issue permits for incidental take of migratory birds under the MBTA. It is important to remember 

that final responsibility for compliance rests with the individual conducting the activity. 

18  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Patchwork of young and regenerating stands characteristic of managed 

forest landscapes in the Pacific Northwest­—photo by Bob Altman
Brand, 2002). The species for which there is the most evidence 

of area sensitivity include Brown Creeper, Chestnut-backed 

Chickadee, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Pileated Woodpecker, 

Red-breasted Nuthatch, Varied Thrush, and Winter Wren. 

Additionally, demographic monitoring and landscape analyses 

strongly suggest area-sensitivity for Pacific-slope Flycatcher 

(Nott and others, 2005). All these species also occur in lower 

abundance in the latter stages of young forests (that is, midsuccessional) where it is suspected that the same area-sensitivity is applicable.

Edge

One of the outcomes of increased fragmentation is a 

higher ratio of edge to interior habitat (Primack, 1998). Edges 

occur where two vegetation communities of dissimilar composition, structure, or age adjoin (Thomas and others, 1979). 

While it is true that a higher diversity of bird species often can 

be found in edge habitats (Kremaster and Bunnell, 1999), and 

some edge species like Olive-sided Flycatcher (McGarigal and 

McComb, 1995; Altman and Sallabanks, 2000) and Western 

Wood-Pewee (Hagar and others, 1995; Bemis and Rising, 

1999) need the juxtaposition of forest openings and older 

forest, edge habitats are widely available throughout forested 

landscapes of the Pacific Northwest. Thus, the creation of 

edge need not be a management objective for land managers. Furthermore, where the creation of edge is necessary (for 

example, a clear-cut harvest), the benefits to edge species 

like Olive-sided Flycatcher and Western Wood-Pewee can 

be enhanced by feathering or buffering harvest unit edges to 

decrease contrast with adjacent forest (Hunter, 1990).

Bird response to edges is highly variable and dependent 

on numerous factors ranging from changes in microclimatic 

conditions (Franklin and Forman, 1987; Chen and others, 

1999) to major changes in interspecific interactions among 

species (Sisk and Battin, 2002), including the potential for 

increased nest parasitism, especially in urbanized landscapes 

(Marzluff and Restani, 1999). However, few negative effects 

have been consistently documented for edges in western 

forests (Kremaster and Bunnell, 1999). Where the landscape 

matrix is regenerating forest, our understanding of edge effects 

on bird communities is limited and often site-specific (Nott 

and others, 2005), and potentially different for the same species at different sites (Kremaster and Bunnell, 1999).

Connectivity

If the forest landscape is characterized by a mosaic of 

patches of different forest age classes, birds may need to move 

from one habitat patch to another in order to secure sufficient 

In eastern and midwestern North America, where 

forest fragmentation has occurred in a landscape of 

agricultural and suburban development, significant 

negative effects have been reported on bird populations 

in the form of increased nest predation and parasitism 

along edges of and within forest patches (Thompson 

and others, 2002). However, in the Pacific Northwest, 

the landscape associated with forest fragmented by 

management is most often composed of forest, just different age classes. Limited studies suggest there is little 

evidence to support broad-scale negative effects of nest 

predation or parasitism on bird populations in these 

fragmented forests (Schieck and others, 1995; Manuwal and Manuwal, 2002). Despite a lack of compelling 

evidence of broad-scale effects, some studies have 

reported local decreases in nest success due to predation where fragmentation has occurred (for example, 

Swainson’s Thrush; George and Brand, 2002). Additionally, where fragmentation has occurred at low 

elevations near the juxtaposition of forest and agricultural habitats, parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbird 

may be a concern (Chambers and others, 1999).

Forest Fragmentation and Birds 

in the Pacific Northwest

Table 5. Categories of breeding season territory sizes for some bird species associated with young conifer forests 

in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region. 

Average Territory Size Species Examples

< 1 hectare (2.5 acres) Hermit Warbler, Rufous Hummingbird, Willow Flycatcher 

1-5 hectares (2.5-12 acres) Chestnut-backed Chickadee, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Swainson’s Thrush

5-10 hectares (12-25 acres) Hairy Woodpecker, Red-breasted Sapsucker, Western Tanager

10-25 hectares (25-62 acres) Northern Flicker, Townsend’s Solitaire, Varied Thrush

25-50 hectares (62-124 acres) Olive-sided Flycatcher

> 50 hectares (124 acres) Gray Jay

> 100 hectares (248 acres) Pileated Woodpecker

Planning and Designing for Bird Habitat 19
suitable habitat. Although birds are very mobile compared 

to animals that can’t fly, some are reluctant to venture across 

unsuitable habitat. For species associated with older forest, a 

strip of older forest or regularly scattered older trees across an 

area of early successional forest may help to provide connectivity to make intervening habitat more suitable. Although this 

connectivity may not be essential (Sidebar: Forest Connectivity and Birds: How Important Is It?) it does facilitate movement and some birds will use these areas rather than fly across 

open areas or areas of less suitable habitat. For birds associated with young conifer forests, there is less concern about 

connectivity unless the intervening habitat is non-forest.

While strips of forest connecting larger forest blocks may 

facilitate the dispersal of some bird species, managers should 

be aware of a potential negative impact. If connecting corridors of habitat can function as conduits for dispersing birds, 

they can similarly concentrate predators and elevate levels of 

predation (Hess, 1994). The jury is still out on the efficacy of 

connective corridors (With, 1999), and research is needed to 

determine the optimal pattern of connectivity for different bird 

species in Pacific Northwest conifer forests.

Deciduous Vegetation

The presence of deciduous trees within young conifer 

forests greatly enhances bird species abundance and richness 

(Huff and Raley, 1991; Willson and Comet, 1996). Two principal reasons for this are enhanced cavity and enhanced insect 

availability over conifer trees. Hardwood trees, such as bigleaf maple, Oregon white oak (Gumtow-Farrior, 1991), and 

Pacific madrone (Raphael, 1987) provide disproportionately 

greater habitat availability for natural cavity development or 

cavity excavation than conifer trees. As described earlier (see 

Forest Food Resources and Breeding Birds), deciduous trees 

and shrubs provide diverse and abundant insect resources that 

complement those of conifer trees, and are especially important early in the nesting season. Maintaining components of 

deciduous vegetation would greatly enhance habitat for several 

bird species highly associated with these conditions 

including Black-headed Grosbeak, Black-throated Gray Warbler, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Ruffed Grouse, and Warbling 

Vireo.

Fire and Bird Habitat

Wildfire is an occasional natural occurrence that can 

affect breeding bird habitat in young conifer forests, especially 

in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California. Wildfire 

cycles are highly variable throughout Pacific Northwest rainforests (Agee, 1993). Management after wildfire has an important influence on breeding bird habitat in the developing young 

forest. In general, management to create habitat conditions that 

support the bird-habitat relationships described throughout the 

Guide is also applicable to post-fire young conifer forest.

Black-headed Grosbeak—photo by Matt Lee

A topic frequently discussed by wildlife managers in 

Pacific Northwest conifer forests is the importance of 

maintaining connectivity among forest patches. Linkages among habitat patches may be necessary for some 

forest animals (for example, small mammals) because 

of their reluctance to traverse unsuitable habitat when 

dispersing in search of resources. Although this may be 

true for some wildlife, there is less support for the need 

for connectivity of forest patches for birds (With 1999). 

Most species of birds that breed in temperate forests 

are capable of flying long distances and negotiating a 

wide variety of habitat types. Even those species that 

are strongly associated with closed-canopy forests and 

are reluctant to cross openings may not require full 

corridors of intact forest in order to move between forest patches. What seems to be of greatest importance 

is the nature of the intervening area between the forest 

patches. As long as that gap remains as forest with 

a moderate degree of retained habitat structure suitable for a particular species (for example, big trees, 

snags, and shrubs), even if it is of low to marginal 

habitat quality for the species, it may be sufficient to 

support movement and dispersal of most bird species (McComb, 1999). However, anecdotal evidence 

suggests the need for relatively contiguous older forest 

patches by the Brown Creeper. This resident species is 

a small, relatively weak flier that prefers to make short 

flights from one large tree to the next beneath the forest 

canopy rather than to cross open areas (Hejl and others, 

2002). Therefore, a connecting patch of older forest or 

regularly scattered large trees across a forest clearing 

would be necessary to facilitate crossing for this 

species.

Forest Connectivity and Birds: 

How Important Is It?

20 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
There is little information on the response of birds to 

wildfire in the Pacific Northwest (Huff and others, 2005). 

Most data come from studies in forests of the arid west or 

from late-successional Pacific Northwest forests (Bond and 

others, 2002). Some data on bird response to wildfire are 

beginning to emerge from studies of recent fires in southwest 

Oregon. Of particular concern is the practice of salvage logging which removes some amount of dead and/or dying trees 

and has the potential to negatively affect a number of cavitynesting bird species associated with the abundance of these 

features after a wildfire (Hutto, 1995).

In general, prescribed fire is not used as a management 

technique for bird conservation in conifer forests in the Pacific 

Northwest (Huff and others, 2005). However, it is being used 

for other management purposes such as fuels reduction, and 

can support some bird habitat objectives. For example, fuels 

reduction in young conifer forests of southwest Oregon could 

open up the understory to provide suitable habitat for Chipping 

Sparrow and Common Nighthawk depending on the degree 

of canopy forest trees present (specifically, few for Common 

Nighthawk, few to many for Chipping Sparrow) 

and the degree of fuels reduction (specifically, slight with 

patchy remnants for Chipping Sparrow, extensive for 

Common Nighthawk).

Strategizing Among Desired Habitat 

Features and Bird Species

After considering all the information above, a habitat 

management strategy can be developed to meet bird conservation objectives. Initially, we recommend consideration of the 

approach put forth by PIF – that management objectives be 

driven by the habitat needs of the species of greatest conservation concern (see Table 4). This approach recognizes the need 

to emphasize some bird species over others because of their 

current and/or projected future status. It also provides opportunities to manage for relatively specific habitat conditions to 

support these species needs. 

Another strategy is to provide for the diversity of native 

bird species that should occur within the area and within 

the current and future habitat types. For this strategy, it is 

important to consider providing and maintaining a diversity of appropriate habitat components at the proper scale 

and condition, including: snags, big trees, old shrubs, shrub 

patches, berry or nectar producing shrubs, deciduous trees, 

and structural diversity. However, it is important to recognize 

that objectives for diversity are scale-dependent (Sidebar: Bird 

Species Richness: A Matter of Scale).

A sound strategy that combines these two approaches 

(i.e., priority species and habitat diversity) is to manage for 

species diversity at larger scales, and emphasize the habitat 

conditions that meet the more specialized needs of priority or 

focal species at smaller scales. This is often referred to as the 

coarse-filter/fine-filter approach to conservation. An example 

would be thinning to open up the canopy and promote development of a dense understory for a variety of understory-associated species, and then within a portion of the area emphasize 

the development of berry-producing shrubs/small trees like 

cascara or elderberry for Band-tailed Pigeon. Additionally, 

given sufficient space, the open canopy in a large patch of the 

forest could be expanded leaving scattered trees to provide 

suitable habitat for Olive-sided Flycatcher. The outcome of 

this combined strategy would be a coarse-scale emphasis on a

variety of species that use a dense understory along with finerscale emphasis on the habitat features required by priority 

species Band-tailed Pigeon and Olive-sided Flycatcher.

One of the most frequently used means of evaluating 

bird populations is species richness - the total number 

of bird species in the community or place of interest. 

This metric can be valuable when used to compare 

avian communities over large and naturally heterogeneous landscapes where diversity of habitats and bird 

species is to be expected. However, misuse often occurs 

when the scale of the evaluation is relatively small. 

At smaller scales, the individual habitats or habitat 

components of the larger-scale diversity often are the 

most ecologically appropriate conservation target, thus, 

habitat diversity and species richness are likely to be 

inappropriate targets or metrics. Managing a forest 

patch for a mixture of age classes and conditions or 

managing to emphasize edge habitats may result in 

high species richness, but these situations are likely to 

favor more generalist species to the exclusion of areasensitive and often priority species. Meeting the needs 

of the greatest number of species (that is, biodiversity) 

should not be a standard goal at small scales (Hansen 

and others, 1995), particularly if that approach fails 

to address conservation of priority species or habitat 

conditions. Thus, for most management, except at large 

scales such as watersheds, we recommend an emphasis 

on management to maintain populations of focal or 

priority species rather than an emphasis on the number 

of species that can be achieved. 

Bird Species Richness: A Matter of Scale

Planning and Designing for Bird Habitat  21
Planning Ahead: Development 

of Old Forest Habitat

Forest structural composition and patterns established 

in the early successional stages often determine conditions in 

the later stages. Driven by increasing concern for the habitat 

needs of species associated with old forests, land managers 

and researchers are working together to refine techniques for 

promoting the development of old forest habitat from young 

forests in the shortest possible time frame (Franklin and others, 1997). Thus, in young forests, one management objective 

for breeding bird habitat often is to provide the more diverse 

structure characteristic of older forests, than the simplified 

structure typical of even-aged management (Sidebar: Young 

Forests to Old Forests: It’s More Than Just Time).

Many bird species associated with older forests require 

particular habitat features that take long periods of time to 

develop, such as large trees and snags, and understory shrubs 

with stems large enough to support lush epiphyte mats. 

Although no studies have been ongoing for more than 10 

years, initial monitoring results show that some bird species 

associated with older forests, such as Olive-sided Flycatcher 

and Hairy Woodpecker, may respond positively to management of young forest to promote development of old-forest 

habitat (Hayes and others, 2003; Hagar and others, 2004). 

Addressing the conservation of older forests and/or the 

species associated with them at a site where the forest is in 

early or mid successional stages and old forest structural 

features have not been retained is a long-term commitment. 

However, the site can be managed in the early stages to set it 

on a trajectory to achieve desired older forest conditions and 

associated species. One of the most effective ways to do this 

is to manage tree density early in stand development (that is, 

before canopy closure) to help maintain a diverse stand structure throughout the life of the stand (Curtis and others, 1998). 

This is because the older a tree becomes, the less ability it has 

to respond with increased vigor to changes in the environment 

(Tappeiner and others, 2002). Over 70% of the height growth 

and crown development of most conifers in the Pacific Northwest occurs before the trees are 60 years old (Tappeiner and 

others, 2002). The shaping of stand structural features must 

therefore begin long before the fifth decade, when trees are 

still able to respond positively to a decrease in density.

Working on the Ground

Management of young conifer forests for birds requires 

an understanding of how the management will change the vegetation and the corresponding changes that may occur in bird 

populations. Bird response to forest management practices is 

dependent upon many factors - there is no “one size fits all” 

prescription for management to provide bird habitat. In general, the greater the change in the vegetation, the greater the 

change in the bird community. Intensive management such as 

clearcut logging can change nearly the entire bird community, 

while less intensive types of management such as thinning or 

retention of certain structural features will change bird species 

composition and abundance to a lesser degree. 

The following section provides some recommendations 

for management actions that can be used to shape stand-level 

forest structure and composition for some of the desired habitat features or conditions for birds in young conifer forests. 

The desired features highlighted in Table 6 are those most 

often associated with priority or focal birds in young conifer 

forests and are features strongly influenced by management. 

It seems intuitive to assume that young forests will eventually become old forests given enough time. However, it 

may come as a surprise to many that this assumption is not 

necessarily valid for all young stands. Many contemporary 

old-growth stands developed under conditions unlike those 

in today’s young stands (Curtis and others, 1998). In particular, trees typically grew at much lower densities (typically < 50/hectare [20/acre]) than are common today (Tappeiner and others, 1997; Poage and Tappeiner, 2005). Tree 

regeneration following a natural disturbance, such as fire, 

came in at low densities and was more patchily distributed 

than in today’s planted forests. Without management, 

trees that were able to become established through natural 

processes following a disturbance may have had to contend 

with fierce competition from vigorous early successional 

Young Forests to Old Forests: It’s More Than Just Time

vegetation. But once they topped the understory, these trees 

could put on a spurt of growth in the absence of competition from neighboring conifers. Trees growing rapidly in 

the open produced the large lateral limbs, deep crowns, 

and large-diameter, tapered stems that are signature characteristics of old-growth. In contrast, stands developing 

at high densities produce trees with small lateral limbs, 

short crowns, uniformly narrow stems, and low resistance 

to wind, disease, and insects (Tappeiner and others, 1997). 

Because these traits will only become more accentuated 

throughout the life of a stand, there is considerable doubt 

that dense plantations will ever achieve the defining habitat 

characteristics of old-growth without significant silvicultural intervention early in the life of the stand (Curtis and 

others, 1998). 

22  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Thinning

Thinning is a traditional and versatile silvicultural 

practice used to manipulate forest stand structure. Traditionally, the goal of thinning was to maximize timber production 

and increase harvest efficiency by channeling resources from 

many small stems to fewer large stems. This was usually 

accomplished by removing just enough stems to increase the 

growth of the remaining trees, and favoring only commercially 

valuable species. Stands managed with this type of thinning 

tend to be homogenous in structure and composition (DeBell 

and others, 1997). It may seem surprising then, that thinning is currently receiving much attention as a valuable tool 

for increasing structural diversity in young conifer forests. 

Because stand density has such a large influence on characteristics such as tree size, crown depth, and understory development, (Tappeiner and others, 2002), the control of density 

through thinning is a practical means of manipulating these 

structural features for birds and other wildlife. However, modification of traditional evenly spaced, low intensity thinning is 

necessary to achieve goals related to enhancing bird habitat. 

Below are some considerations for using thinning to manage 

habitat for birds.

Short and Long-Term Goals and Objectives

As a tool that can be used to shape the development of 

young forest stands, thinning should have both short- and 

long-term goals and objectives. Short-term goals may be to 

increase structural diversity to increase the niches available for 

birds, or to create habitat for a particular species or set of species (for example, shrub-associates). Specific objectives that 

will help achieve these goals may include creating sufficient 

openings in the canopy to promote development of understory 

and mid-story vegetation, and retaining a representative mixture of tree and shrub species.

Long-term goals of thinning may include creating structural features typical of old forests. A specific objective related 

to this goal might be to accelerate the growth of residual 

trees. Thinning to enhance creation of late-successional forest 

habitat is a relatively new concept, but has the potential to 

accelerate development of habitat for birds associated with late 

successional conditions (Garman and others, 2003).

Spacing Considerations

Thinning to create habitat for birds requires a modification of the traditional even spacing grid to determine which 

trees to harvest. The disadvantage of a traditional, even-spaced 

grid is that it can create homogenous structure that limits bird 

species diversity. As an alternative, variable density thinning 

(Carey and Wilson, 2001) uses criteria that are more biologically meaningful than spacing. An example would be leaving trees according to desired species composition or tree 

characteristics, such as size, or presence of cavities or large 

limbs. The flexibility of variable density thinning supports the 

rationale for leaving trees of low economic but high ecological 

value (for example, limby “wolf” trees).

Effects of Thinning on Understory Conditions

Thinning has the potential to significantly increase habitat 

availability for shrub-associated birds. However, the benefits 

are conditional on the impact of harvest and the time required 

for recovery of understory shrubs. In order to minimize the 

immediate negative impacts of thinning on habitat for species 

associated with a well-developed understory, it will be necessary to protect shrub patches during harvest operations.

The high productivity of most Pacific Northwest rainforest sites can result in the shading and suppression of understory vegetation. Maintaining suitable understory conditions 

for birds beneath young forest canopies can be a challenge. 

Sites with rapid growth may need heavy thinning or multiple 

thinning entries if long-term maintenance of understory vegetation is desired (Alaback and Herman, 1988). Additionally, 

some pruning of limbs from retained trees can further open 

up the forest floor to sunlight and help sustain the positive 

response of understory shrub development longer, while 

simultaneously retaining tree stems and canopy.

Managing for Multiple Tree Species

Thinning is an effective way to manipulate tree species composition to favor tree species preferred by birds that 

are management targets. For example, thinning to develop 

large Douglas-fir trees will promote habitat in the long-term 

for Brown Creepers (Weikel and Hayes, 1999) and Hermit 

Warblers (Pearson, 1997). Another approach is to manipulate 

the density around leave trees to favor growth. In particular, 

shade-intolerant tree species (for example, Oregon white oak) 

are likely to respond more noticeably to a heavy thinning. 

Working on the Ground  23

Retained trees contributing to structural diversity of developing conifer 

monoculture—photo by Bob Altman 
Table 6. Desired habitat features for breeding birds in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation 

Region, and management activities that may be used at various stages of stand development to achieve those features.

Desired 

Feature

Early Successional

Management

Mid Successional

Management

Examples of Bird Species to Benefit 

(successional stage) 1

Large Conifer 

Trees

 Retain existing large trees 

 Establish stands at low densities 

(< 500 trees per hectare [200/

acre]) to maximize individual tree 

growth

 Thin to maintain growth rates

 Thin to accelerate growth rates

 Use long rotations to maximize growth 

 Recruit and maintain replacement large 

trees

Brown Creeper (mid); Chestnutbacked Chickadee (mid); Hermit 

Warbler (mid); Olive-sided Flycatcher (early)

Large Snags

 Retain existing large snags

 Create snags through topping, girdling, etc. of residual green trees

 Create snags through topping/girdling 

etc. of residual green trees

 Use long rotations to maximize time 

for snags to develop

American Kestrel (early); Chestnutbacked Chickadee (mid); Pileated 

Woodpecker (mid); Purple Martin 

(early); Western Bluebird (early) 

Deciduous 

Trees

 Retain existing deciduous trees

 Plant deciduous trees and manage 

for their survival

 Thin competing conifers to open 

the canopy and enhance deciduous tree development

 Protect deciduous trees and patches 

when thinning conifers

 Thin competing conifers to open 

the canopy and enhance hardwood 

development

Black-throated Gray Warbler (mid); 

MacGillivray’s Warbler (early); 

Pacific-slope Flycatcher (mid);

Red-breasted Sapsucker (mid); 

Wilson’s Warbler (early)

Berry and 

Nectar 

Producing 

Trees and 

Shrubs

 Retain existing berry and nectar 

producing trees and shrubs

 Plant berry and nectar producing 

trees and shrubs and manage for 

their survival

 Maintain low percent canopy cover for 

a light-rich environment

 Protect shrub patches when thinning

Band-tailed Pigeon (early and mid); 

Cedar Waxwing (early and mid); 

Rufous Hummingbird (early 

and mid)

Mixture of 

Tree 

Species

 Retain a diversity of tree species 

 Conduct mixed species plantings  Retain a diversity of species in 

thinning prescriptions

Band-tailed Pigeon (mid); Blackthroated Gray Warbler (mid); 

Varied Thrush (mid)

Multi-layered 

Structure

 Retain a mixture of leave tree and 

shrub species

 Maintain low percent canopy 

cover to encourage diverse understory

 Conduct mixed species plantings

 Cut some hardwoods to encourage sprouting

 Thin to low relative densities

 Favor mid-story hardwoods in thinning 

prescriptions

 Use long rotations to maximize time 

for multi-layered structure to develop

 Protect pockets of natural regeneration

 Retain live trees at final entry to 

provide greater canopy layering in 

subsequent stands

Band-tailed Pigeon (mid); Redbreasted Sapsucker (mid); Varied 

Thrush (mid)

Old Shrubs

 Retain and protect old shrubs 

 Maintain low percent canopy 

cover to encourage understory 

development

 Protect old shrubs during thinning

 Thin to low relative densities to maintain open canopy

MacGillivray’s Warbler (early and 

mid); Rufous Hummingbird (early 

and mid); Swainson’s Thrush 

(early and mid); Wilson’s Warbler 

(early and mid) 

Shrub Patches

 Retain and protect shrub patches 

 Thin to encourage understory 

development 

 Cut some hardwoods to encourage sprouting

 Protect shrub patches during thinning

 Thin to low relative densities to maintain open canopy

Blue (Sooty) Grouse (early and mid); 

MacGillivray’s Warbler (early 

and mid)

Large Woody 

Debris on 

Forest Floor

 Retain and protect existing down 

logs, especially large ones

 Recruit live trees for large down 

logs

 Thin to accelerate growth, then create 

logs

 Use long rotations to maximize time 

for trees to grow;

 Fell and leave some trees as logs

Blue (Sooty) Grouse (early and mid); 

Pileated Woodpecker (early and 

mid); Winter Wren (early and mid)

24  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Variation in 

Overstory 

and Understory Cover 

(patchiness 

and edges)

 Thin to encourage diversity in the 

overstory and understory

 Conduct variable density planting 

of conifer and hardwood species

 Conduct variable density and variable 

spaced thinning 

 Conduct single tree and group selection 

harvests

Blue (Sooty) Grouse (early and mid); 

Olive-sided Flycatcher (early and 

mid)

1

 The emphasis is on birds identified in Table 4 because of their recognition as priority or focal by Partners in Flight at different levels (i.e., state/provincial, 

regional, international).

Table 6. Desired habitat features for breeding birds in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation 

Region, and management activities that may be used at various stages of stand development to achieve those features.—Continued

On the other hand, shade-tolerant tree species (for example, 

western hemlock) may experience less shock and better 

growth in a lightly thinned environment.

Effect of Thinning on Snags and Logs 

Thinning can have a short-term negative effect on the 

availability of dead wood because, by its very nature of 

decreasing competition among leave trees, thinning reduces or 

eliminates the source of woody debris provided by competition mortality. One possible measure to overcome this is to kill 

some trees during or after the thinning process to create snags 

and logs. Topping trees to create snags contributes to both 

standing and downed dead wood habitat if the tops are left on 

site. Trees that are injured during the thinning process also 

may become snags, and managers may plan where to accept 

greater risk of tree injury in order to increase potential for snag 

recruitment. Trees in thinned stands are likely to achieve large 

diameters sooner than trees in dense stands, making thinning 

a useful strategy for recruiting large snags over the long term. 

Once trees have attained a suitable size to support cavity-nesting species, large snags may be created. Another solution to 

the problem of woody debris shortage in thinned stands is to 

use variable density thinning to maintain some dense patches 

of trees as sources of competition mortality.

Achieving Old Forest Structure Through Thinning

Modified thinning of young stands can produce two 

results that promote the development of the complex structure 

characteristic of late-successional forests: 

By reducing competition and creating space, thinning 

affects stem size, crown characteristics, and vigor of 

trees (Curtis and others, 1998). First, thinning can 

promote the development of thick, tapered stems 

characteristic of old-growth trees. Such stems are more 

resistant to windthrow and remain standing longer after 

they are dead (providing habitat for snag-associated 

species) than narrow cylindrical stems. Thinning also 

can promote the retention of lateral branches, which 

become thicker with age (providing substrate for nests 

•

and epiphytes). Conifers that grow free from competition with close neighbors form deep, wide crowns. 

Thick lateral branches and deep crowns are unique 

features of old-growth trees that are important to several bird species, both in late-successional forests and 

as legacy structures in younger forests. Like conifers, 

hardwood trees may also respond to thinning with 

increased crown development (Tappeiner and others, 

2002). Finally, by reducing competition for resources, 

thinning can maintain or enhance tree vigor. Vigorous trees are more resistant to insects and disease, and 

are more likely to survive, grow rapidly, and provide 

structurally complex habitat. 

By opening the canopy and allowing light to reach 

understory vegetation, thinning can increase standlevel structural diversity (Bailey and Tappeiner, 

1998). Understory shrubs respond to increased light 

with greater production of stems, foliage, flowers, 

fruits, and seeds, providing important food and cover 

resources for many bird species. Tree seedlings also 

become established under canopies opened by thinning, creating the option of managing for multi-storied 

structure. 

•

Shrub development in Douglas-fir stand after partial harvest—photo 

by Bob Altman

Working on the Ground  25

Desired 

Feature

Early Successional

Management

Mid Successional

Management

Examples of Bird Species to Benefit 

(successional stage) 1
Bird Response to Thinning

Much has been learned about bird response to thinning 

of young forests in the Pacific Northwest over the last decade. 

As might be expected, individual species respond differently 

depending on their habitat requirements and the intensity of 

the thinning (Hansen and others, 1995). Results from the nine 

thinning studies presented in Appendix E and summarized 

here (Sidebar: Summary of Bird Response to Thinning) should 

provide land mangers with a good baseline of data from which 

to evaluate effects of their thinning activities.

Retention of Forest Structure

Forest retention, (for example, leaving trees, snags, 

shrubs, or patches of forest during harvest or other management activities) is a management practice that is mostly 

conducted at rotation harvest (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, 1994) and can have a large 

effect on bird habitat in the subsequent young conifer forest 

(Hansen and others, 1995). This practice has been referred 

to in a variety of ways, such as structural retention, greentree retention, residual structure, legacy structure, wildlife 

trees, leave trees or leave snags or leave islands, wildlife tree 

patches, etc. The emphasis in forest retention is on what is left 

behind after management.

The concept of retention of forest structure during management, especially “legacy structures” from old forests, has 

recently been promoted as a way to maintain biodiversity and 

the structural and ecological elements of older forests (which 

have been reduced across the Pacific Northwest landscape in 

the last 50 years) throughout all stages of forest succession 

(Franklin and others, 1997). This can be particularly effective 

where harvest rotations are otherwise too short to allow these 

characteristics to develop. The premise is that if older forest 

components are “left behind” then these areas may become 

In general, thinning does not change habitat so 

dramatically that some species are no longer able to 

occupy it (that is, species are usually not “lost” as a 

result of thinning).

Species that nest in closed forest canopies generally 

decline in abundance, and species associated with 

open forest canopies generally increase.

Τhinning often creates habitat for species that are 

rarely, if ever, observed in dense, young stands (for 

example, Chipping Sparrow, Dusky Flycatcher, 

Olive-sided Flycatcher, Townsend’s Solitaire, Western Wood-Pewee).

Although the abundance of some priority and/or 

declining species is often reduced in thinned stands 

in the short-term (for example, Golden-crowned 

Kinglet, Hermit Warbler, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, 

Varied Thrush), most of these species show similar 

or increased abundance in the longer-term (that is, 

within 10 to 20 years).

Some species consistently show a pattern of initial 

change in abundance in the first few years after 

thinning followed by a return to their pre-thinning 

abundance. For example, American Robin and 

Hairy Woodpecker typically show an initial increase 

in abundance, while Hermit Warbler and Varied 

Thrush typically decrease in abundance initially; all 

often return to pre-thinning abundance over time.

Some species consistently show no response to 

thinning with abundance similar in the short and 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Summary of Bird Response to Thinning

long-term (for example, Black-headed Grosbeak, 

Steller’s Jay).

Some species show no consistent pattern of 

response to thinning (for example, Brown Creeper, 

Hutton’s Vireo, Swainson’s Thrush, Wilson’s Warbler, Winter Wren). Most of these are understory 

associates indicating the importance and variability 

of local conditions both pre- and post-thinning.

Some species appear to respond to thinning intensity. Abundances of Golden-crowned Kinglet, 

Pacific-slope Flycatcher, and Varied Thrush are 

less in heavily thinned stands than in moderately 

or lightly thinned stands. Showing the opposite 

response, Evening Grosbeak tends to have higher 

abundance in heavily thinned stands than in moderately or lightly thinned stands.

Species that generally respond positively to thinning represent a broad range of successional stage 

associations, from early- (for example, Darkeyed Junco, MacGillivray's Warbler, Townsend’s 

Solitaire), to mid- (for example, Western Tanager), 

and even late-successional species (for example, 

Hammond’s Flycatcher, Red-breasted Nuthatch). 

Species that generally respond positively to thinning 

represent a variety of foraging guilds, including the 

ground-foraging Dark-eyed Junco, foliage-gleaning 

Western Tanager, bark-foraging Red-breasted Nuthatch, and aerial insectivore Hammond’s Flycatcher.

•

•

•

•

26  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
refugia where species that depend on these features may be 

able to persist. Thus, there is inherent value in retaining desirable features that might otherwise take many years or decades 

to achieve through management.

Forest retention, in the context of young forest management, can be an important tool to provide increased structural 

heterogeneity in younger forests (Hansen and others, 1995). 

Additionally, these retained features may facilitate connectivity between areas of older forest for species that have limited 

incentive to move across a clearcut. 

Factors to Consider

There are several components to forest retention that 

determine the value to bird species. These include the pattern 

of retention, the amount of retention, the size of the retained 

components, and the age and existing conditions of the retention components. A few of the major factors for consideration 

follow. 

Generally, there are three patterns of retention at the 

stand-level:

Dispersed (scattered) – individually retained forest 

components are more or less evenly distributed across 

the harvested area

Grouped (clumped or aggregate) – small groups or 

patches of forest components are retained

Mixed – a combination of the first two which can be 

relatively uniform or preferably somewhat random 

(Sidebar: Sloppy Forestry) 

The amount of retention refers to the percent of the forest 

canopy or volume of wood that is retained relative to the area 

harvested. Government regulations (for example, federal, state, 

provincial, and county) often stipulate how much forest is to 

be retained on harvest units and in ecologically sensitive areas 

(for example, riparian buffer zones). Suggestions in the Guide 

are intended for land managers who want to retain forest elements for bird habitat beyond what is required by policy. However, it may be desirable to design the retention to complement 

regulatory requirements or other management if it can meet 

some broader objectives, such as connectivity or increased size 

of patches of contiguous forest for area-sensitive species.

The Guide only discusses dispersed retention because 

the retained forest components become part of the subsequent 

young forest. As presented above, retention of intact patches 

of forest is more applicable to a discussion of bird species 

associated with older forests because the retained forest patch 

is forest of harvest age and thus, is beyond the scope of the 

Guide. Additionally, the Guide focuses on bird response to 

dispersed forest retention of live trees or “green-tree retention” because nearly all of the dispersed retention studies have 

focused on live trees.

•

•

•

How Much and Where?

After recognizing the value of retaining particular habitat 

features during management, decisions are necessary regarding how much to leave (the level of retention) and where to 

leave it (the pattern of retention). These decisions largely 

depend on the bird species being targeted and the existing 

habitat conditions. For example, the existing locations of snags 

and shrub patches will limit options because they are usually 

not as well distributed across the area as trees. Where options 

exist, trees left dispersed relatively evenly across the area will 

make it more permeable to movement for forest interior species, such as Brown Creeper (Rosenberg and Raphael, 1986; 

Brand and George, 2001). Trees left in clumps, especially if 

adjacent to the existing stand, may provide a larger area of 

contiguous habitat more suitable for area-limited species, such 

as Varied Thrush (McGarigal and McComb, 1995; Schieck 

and others, 1995). For some species associated with older 

forests that do not seem to be area-limited, such as Hermit and 

Townsend’s Warbler, the pattern of retention is less important 

than how much forest cover is retained for these cover-limited 

foliage gleaners. Some species, like Pacific-slope Flycatcher, 

tend to be both area-limited and cover-limited, so clumping of 

retained forest patches is probably the best strategy if targeting 

this species.

Snags and Down Wood

It may be more efficient to retain snags than create them 

for at least two reasons. First, the cost to create snags can be 

avoided if a sufficient density of snags is retained to accomplish wildlife objectives. Secondly, it is not currently known 

if created snags provide comparable habitat to natural snags. 

Given this uncertainty, it is safest to assume that natural snags 

provide the most appropriate habitat for native species that 

have evolved with the natural processes that cause tree 

mortality. 

Natural and created snags are continually being lost and 

degraded through disturbance and decay. Therefore, snag 

recruitment is an on-going process requiring forethought 

and planning for the retention of green trees for future snags. 

Knowing the snag requirements for cavity-nesting birds can 

assist in these decisions (Table 7).

The natural world is generally devoid of straight lines 

and neat edges. Natural disturbances often leave a 

chaotic patchwork of dead, damaged, and surviving 

vegetation in their wake. Forestry practices that mimic 

these natural patterns are more likely to provide habitat 

that is similar to that with which birds associated with 

young conifer forest have evolved.

Sloppy Forestry

Working on the Ground  27
Table 7. Relationships between cavity-nesting birds and snags in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird 

Conservation Region. 1

Species Nesting or Roosting in Snags Foraging on Snags

American Kestrel Near obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural processes 2 None

Barred Owl Opportunistic cavity or platform nester in large snags and live trees None

Bewick’s Wren Opportunistic cavity-nester using a variety of cavity or semi-cavity situations None

Black-backed 

Woodpecker Obligate cavity-nester and excavator in snags or dying trees (for example, heartrot) Moderate use; also live trees

Boreal Chickadee Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes; also excavates cavities in soft heartwood None

Brown Creeper Semi-obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other 

natural processes; often in crevices between trunk and loose bark

Minimal; mostly in live 

trees 

Chestnut-backed 

Chickadee

Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes; also excavates cavities in soft wood of large trees None

Flammulated Owl Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes; mostly in snags None

Great-horned Owl Opportunistic cavity or platform nester in large snags and live trees None

Hairy Woodpecker Obligate cavity-nester and excavator in soft or hard snags Mostly on soft snags

House Wren Near-obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or cavities or 

crevices created through other natural processes None

Mountain Bluebird Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes

None

Mountain 

Chickadee

Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes

Minimal; mostly in live 

trees

Northern Flicker Near-obligate cavity-nester and excavator in soft or hard snags; will occupy any type of 

natural cavity Moderate use

Northern PygmyOwlObligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes 

None

Northern Saw-whet 

Owl

Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes 

None

Pileated 

Woodpecker Obligate cavity-nester and excavator in hard wood of dead or dying trees Near obligate

Purple 

Martin

Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes

None

Red-breasted 

Nuthatch

Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes; also excavates cavities in soft wood of large trees 

Minimal; mostly in live 

trees

Red-breasted 

sapsucker Obligate cavity-nester and excavator in soft or hard snags Mostly on soft snags

Tree 

Swallow

Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes 

None

Vaux’s 

Swift Obligate nester along walls of large hollow snags with heartwood decay None

Violet-green 

Swallow

Near-obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural processes None

White-headed 

Woodpecker

Obligate cavity-nester and excavator in snags (mostly) or dying trees (for example, 

heartrot)

Moderate use; also live 

trees

Western 

Bluebird

Obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural 

processes 

None

28  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Western ScreechOwl

Near-obligate cavity-nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through other natural processes None

Winter Wren Opportunistic “nook and cranny” nester in cavities created by cavity excavators or through 

other natural processes Opportunistic

Table 7. Relationships between cavity-nesting birds and snags in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird 

Conservation Region. 1—Continued

1 Detailed information on specific snag diameters and densities used by species of cavity-nesters is available at the Decayed Wood Advisor (DecAID) webpage – http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf.

2

 “Other natural processes” refers specifically to tree development processes, such as broken limbs, disease, or old age.

Flowers of bigleaf maple—photo by Bob Altman

A critical habitat need for many early spring forest 

migrants is the availability of insects to replenish fat 

expended during migration, get them through unpredictable 

spring weather, and ensure they are in good condition for 

breeding. Often, this need can be met through the presence 

of big leaf maple trees. This species is among the earliest 

to leaf-out in the spring and thus, is one of the first trees to 

support herbivorous insects. Furthermore, nutrients in the 

new leaves provide for a diversity of insects (Niemiec and 

Big Leaf Maple: A Magnet for Early Spring Migrants

others, 1995). The retention of individual big leaf maple 

trees, or small patches of trees, in the conifer-forest matrix, 

especially at low elevations, provides critical habitat for 

early-spring migrant foliage-gleaning insectivores. Even 

species that are strongly associated with conifer trees 

during the breeding season, such as Hermit Warbler, 

Townsend’s Warbler, and Yellow-rumped Warbler, take 

advantage of the insect availability and forage extensively 

in big leaf maples during spring migration.

Safety concerns associated with harvest operations 

around dead trees are often a barrier to snag retention. One 

approach to reduce these concerns is maintaining patches of 

snags or snags within patches of live trees where they can 

be safely avoided during management activities. An alternative long-term approach is to create snags (see below) from 

retained green trees after the harvest.

Deciduous Trees and Shrubs

As discussed earlier, the presence of deciduous trees is 

essential for some breeding birds in young conifer forests. 

Even a single large big leaf maple tree (Sidebar: Big Leaf 

Maple: A Magnet for Early Spring Migrants) or small patches 

of deciduous vegetation (for example, 15-20 meters square) 

(Morrison, 1982) can provide important habitat. Some sites 

with existing deciduous vegetation may have little impact 

on forest management for timber, and they provide excellent opportunities to manage for breeding bird habitat. For 

example, trees such as big leaf maple, red alder, and elderberry 

tend to thrive in seeps, wet depressions, small wetlands, or 

along permanent or intermittent stream courses. Red alder also 

is a fast-growing invader along forest roads, edges and logging 

landings. In drier parts of the Pacific Northwest, especially 

southwestern Oregon and northwestern California, retention 

of deciduous trees, such as oak or broad-leafed evergreens 

such as Pacific madrone, is important in young conifer forests 

because these trees provide hard mast (oak), berries (Pacific 

madrone) and cavities (oak and Pacific madrone) (Raphael, 

1987).

Working on the Ground  29

Hermit Warbler—photo by Stephen Dowlan

Species Nesting or Roosting in Snags Foraging on Snags
Shrub retention during management activities also has 

the potential to enhance bird habitat in young conifer forests. 

Although shrubs may dominate early stages of succession, 

clear-cutting a forest stand does not immediately create quality 

habitat for shrub-associated bird species because shrub age 

and type are important. Older shrubs have more foliage (thus, 

provide more cover) and support more epiphytes (Rosso, 

2000). Furthermore, maximum flower and fruit production by 

many shrub species occurs only after a certain stage of maturity is attained (Harrington and others, 2002; Kerns and others, 

2004). The type of shrubs also is important in determining the 

resources provided (evergreen vs. deciduous; Hagar, 2004).

Bird Response to Forest Retention

Our knowledge of bird response to retention of forest 

structure is still in its infancy due to the relative newness of the 

management practice and the high potential variability in the 

spatial configuration and amount of retained forest structure. 

Additionally, most studies have been conducted within the first 

few years after retention (for example, Vega, 1993; Chambers 

and others, 1999; Chan-McLeod and Bunnell, 2003; Leu and 

others, unpub. data, 2006). Thus, cumulative and long-term 

effects of forest retention on bird species and populations are 

largely undocumented.

Despite limited research on forest retention, some preliminary patterns are emerging in the response of breeding 

birds (Sidebar: Summary of Bird Response to Forest Retention). Much of the bird response is similar to that for thinning. 

For example, in the short-term, retention of forest canopy 

does not ameliorate the negative effects on the abundance of 

canopy dwelling species, such as Golden-crowned Kinglet and 

Hermit Warbler (Chambers and others, 1999; Leu and others, 

unpub. data, 2006). However, retention may improve habitat 

over complete canopy removal for species, such as Winter 

Wren and Western Tanager (Vega, 1993; Chambers and others, 1999; Chan-McLeod and Bunnell, 2003, Leu and others, 

unpub. data, 2006). Similar to thinning, some species, such 

as Black-headed Grosbeak and Black-throated Gray Warbler, 

show similar abundance pre- and post-dispersed retention 

(Chambers and others, 1999). However, initial data for some 

species indicate different responses between thinning and 

forest retention. For example, Chestnut-backed Chickadee and 

Red-breasted Nuthatch decreased in abundance in forest retenOf the species that remain in retention forest, their 

degree of use may only be for some of their life 

requisites (for example, foraging and dispersal), but 

perhaps not for nesting (for example, Brown Creeper; 

Chambers and others, 1999).

Of the closed-canopy associated species that do 

persist in retention forest patches, their density is usually less than that of the pre-harvest closed-canopy 

forest (Beese and Bryant, 1999).

The enhanced structural complexity in green-tree 

retention stands will likely provide habitat for latesuccessional specialists such as Chestnut-backed 

Chickadee or Hammond’s Flycatcher, or edge specialists such as Western Tanager (Hansen and others, 

1995).

Edge species, such as Olive-sided Flycatcher, are 

likely to increase in abundance in forest leave patches 

because of the increase in edge habitat (Beese and 

Bryant, 1999; Chambers and others, 1999).

•

•

•

•

Summary of Bird Response to 

Forest Retention

30 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Pacific madrone with berries—photo by Bob Altman

 Varied thrush—photo by Stephen Dowlan
tion (Chambers and others, 1999; Leu and others, unpub. data, 

2006) but have similar or increased abundance in thinning 

(Appendix E). Clearly, more data are needed to assess consistent patterns of bird response to forest retention.

An important unanswered question regarding forest 

retention is the viability of bird populations using retained 

forest. For this reason, it is important to distinguish the type 

of bird use that is occurring in association with these retained 

features. For example, birds may be “hanging on” in retention patches but not finding mates, or some may be paired and 

nesting, but are unsuccessful in raising young due to insufficient resources or increased levels of predation. However, 

even if retained features are insufficient for successful nesting, 

they may be valuable as bird habitat for foraging or dispersal, which would have been unavailable had the retention not 

occurred.

There also are some concerns about the value of retained 

live trees for breeding birds in young conifer forests. Both 

Vega (1993) and Chambers (1996) reported increased nest 

predation rates on some species in green-tree retention stands, 

potentially due to the increased surveillance opportunities 

provided by dispersed live trees used as perch sites by avian 

predators. Chambers and others (1999) also noted the regular use of retention trees by Brown-headed Cowbirds in low 

elevation forests, and the consequent potential for increased 

nest parasitism. Finally, forest tree retention may function as 

suboptimal habitat that attracts breeding pairs of forest interior species that fail to reproduce. These types of situations, 

referred to as ecological sinks, not only do not contribute to 

the population, but actually may be diminishing the population 

by attracting birds away from other areas where they may be 

more likely to be nesting successfully and contributing to the 

population. 

Managing Non-Native Vegetation

Most breeding bird species use vegetation that provides 

suitable structural characteristics independent of the species 

composition (that is, native versus non-native). Some exceptions are Rufous Hummingbirds that feed on nectar provided 

by certain species of plants such as flowering currant and 

columbine. Also, Band-tailed Pigeons and Cedar Waxwings 

feed on the berries of trees and shrubs such as elderberry and 

Pacific madrone. However, many non-native plants, such as 

Himalayan blackberry and scotch broom, are aggressive to the 

point of excluding other native forest vegetation, which then 

reduces the diversity of vegetative structure that many birds 

need. Thus, there is a negative impact on bird species from 

aggressive non-native vegetation, even though it may provide 

some resources in the short-term. Of course, there are many 

reasons beyond bird habitat for land managers to maintain and 

promote native vegetation in young conifer forests. Where 

non-native vegetation is being managed, short-term impacts 

on breeding birds can be minimized by conducting activities 

outside of the breeding season (see Timing of Management 

Activities). 

Tree and Shrub Planting

Perhaps the most direct way to establish the desired trees 

and shrubs for birds is to plant what you want and manage for 

its survival. This is particularly appropriate if you are working in a situation where these features have not been retained 

from previous management or may be difficult to achieve even 

with management. The main advantage of planting is that you 

can create the species composition and structural conditions 

you want through designed plantings and maintenance. The 

major disadvantages of planting are the patience required to 

see the plantings grow into the desired forest structure, and the 

additional expense of the plantings themselves.

Working on the Ground  31

Understory development in young (50-year-old) thinned stand in 

Oregon Cascades­—photo by Joan Hagar

Fox Sparrow—photo by Stephen Dowlan
Habitat Augmentation

Brush/Slash Piles

Brush/slash piles created as a result of management 

activities may provide limited, short-term habitat in young 

conifer forests. Their primary use is as singing perches for 

species associated with open, early successional forest such 

as American Robin, Dark-eyed Junco, or Western Bluebird. 

Species, such as House Wren, Song Sparrow, and Winter 

Wren may use them as cover and short-term foraging sites, but 

brush piles provide minimal nesting habitat for birds in young 

conifer forests.

Snag Creation

Numerous studies demonstrate that snags are essential, 

not only to the wildlife that use them directly for foraging or 

nesting, but also for the healthy functioning of the ecosystem 

in which they occur. Intensive forest management practices 

of the past have altered the abundance, size, distribution, and 

recruitment rates of snags in Pacific Northwest forests. The 

result is a lower density of snags, especially large diameter 

snags, in managed forests than would be expected under a 

natural disturbance regime. This deficit of snags over much of 

the landscape jeopardizes dozens of species associated with 

dead wood. Therefore, although killing a perfectly good tree 

to create a snag may seem like an anathema to many silviculturists, snag creation may be a necessary tool for maintaining 

populations of native birds. Furthermore, dead wood has such 

a critical role in the function of Pacific Northwest forests that 

the creation of snags can be thought of as an investment in 

maintenance or improvement of ecosystem health. 

Snags can be created from live trees using a number of 

techniques, including topping with chainsaw, girdling, injection with herbicide, and inoculation with fungus. Topping 

of trees with a chainsaw can allow for subsequent salvage 

of tops, which may offset the cost of snag creation or create 

down woody debris for ecological purposes. Defective trees 

that are of low economic value make good candidates for 

snag creation by minimizing lost revenue and because such 

trees often have features that are valuable to wildlife, such as 

preformed cavities, hollow stems, and/or forks and crooks in 

the stem. Snags may be evenly dispersed throughout a stand, 

or clumped in distribution. Creating snags in patches along 

with retained green trees can minimize conflict with harvest 

operations, reduce susceptibility to windthrow, and provide for 

future snag recruitment. 

Nest Boxes 

There are 27 species of cavity-nesting birds associated 

with young conifer forests (Table 7). Under natural forest 

development and succession, many sources of mortality (for 

example, fire, disease, and competition) contribute to the 

abundance of dead or dying trees conducive to the development or excavation of cavities. However, in managed forests, 

one of the frequent deficiencies in bird habitat is the presence 

and/or abundance of snags. From a practical standpoint, some 

land managers remove them because the space they occupy 

reduces the number of young trees that can be planted. Other 

land managers may remove them due to worker safety concerns. Some even consider them unsightly and remove them 

for aesthetic reasons.

 Harvested stand with retained trees, snags, and shrubs

—photo by Bob Altman

32  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

House Wren—U. S. Fish & Wildlife image archive.

 Dense shrub-sapling successional stage—photo by Bob Altman
The long-term solution for snag scarcity is to manage for 

more snags across the landscape through natural succession 

or longer harvest rotations and then retain snags as the forest 

ages. However, this approach, even when supplemented with 

snag creation, can take many years. Many of the conifer forest bird species associated with snags continue to experience 

population declines (25% of the declining species). 

A short-term solution to augment snag deficiency (until a 

sustainable, succession-driven source of snags can be established) and support conservation of several declining bird species is to provide nest boxes for those cavity-nesting species 

that will use them. There is considerable information available 

on which species use nest boxes and how to build and place 

the boxes. A particularly useful book is Birds in Nest Boxes by 

Charlotte Corkran (Naturegraph Publishing, Inc. 2004).

Readers should be aware that there are some important 

considerations before establishing a nest box program. First, 

not all cavity-nesting species will use nest boxes. In particular, 

most woodpeckers do not use them or use them only infrequently. Additionally, nest boxes only provide for one aspect 

of the function of snags for birds – nesting and roosting cavities. This may be sufficient for species like American Kestrel, 

House Wren, Tree Swallow, Western Bluebird, and Western 

Screech-Owl which do not forage in association with snags. 

However, for most woodpeckers, snags also provide critical 

foraging habitat which is not addressed through the use of nest 

boxes. Finally, nest boxes should be monitored for use and 

need to be maintained over time. These activities add time and 

costs that need to be considered before initiating a nest box 

program.

Monitoring your Progress

To assess whether habitat management is resulting in the 

desired conditions for birds, some level of monitoring will 

be necessary. Monitoring should be designed to measure the 

change that is occurring over time to assess progress towards 

your goals. This may range from simply keeping a bird list 

for the site to systematic surveys designed to track progress of 

desired conditions for both the vegetation and the birds.

The response to habitat management varies with both 

the habitat and bird species. In addition, some management 

activities require significant time for the habitat and birds to 

respond, such as thinning to develop a dense, mature understory shrub layer for MacGillivray’s Warbler or a structurally complex midstory and understory for Varied Thrush. 

Conversely, Olive-sided Flycatcher may respond quickly to 

management that creates an open canopy and edge habitat.

If access to qualified individuals to conduct the monitoring is limited, it may be necessary to seek the assistance of 

a professional to conduct the work. Local government agencies focused on natural resource or wildlife management can 

likely provide the information needed to initiate a monitoring 

program.

Nest boxes at the edge of a clearcut—photo by Erik Ackerson

Monitoring your Progress  33

Complex structure from residual trees, created snags, and shrubs in 

Douglas-fir stand managed for timber production and habitat diversity

—photo by Bob Altman
Vegetation Monitoring

The initial desired response of vegetation to management 

is the development of suitable habitat for the target bird species. Since most birds respond to vegetative structure and can 

be somewhat flexible in their association with that structure, 

it is usually sufficient to select some basic structural measurements applicable to your desired conditions, such as plant 

growth rates, stem densities, percent cover, etc. If plantings 

are a part of your management, it is important to track survival 

over time. There are a number of publications that have summarized information and recommendations on vegetation 

monitoring objectives, methods, and data analyses, especially 

related to bird populations and habitat (for example, Noon, 

1981; Ralph and others, 1993). Additionally, the assistance 

of local expertise on vegetation monitoring may be sought to 

ensure the most effective and efficient use of your time and 

resources.

Bird Monitoring

The ultimate measure of successful habitat management 

is the response of bird populations. Regardless of monitoring intensity, the most important consideration is a consistent 

method of data collection. Fortunately, there are standardized 

protocols that are widely accepted for bird monitoring that not 

only allow a systematic approach, but also provide data that 

can be used by others at larger scales. There are a number of 

publications that have summarized information and recommendations on bird monitoring objectives, methods, and data 

analyses (for example, Ralph and others, 1993; Nur and 

others, 1999; NABCI Monitoring Subcommittee, 2006).

Adaptive Management 

It is important to recognize that despite our significant 

knowledge about Pacific Northwest conifer forests, they are 

very dynamic and complex ecosystems that may not develop 

according to our projections. Thus, it becomes important 

to track the conditions associated with management so that 

adjustments can be made if necessary. This is referred to as 

adaptive management. Monitoring is an essential component 

of the adaptive management process, providing not only the 

feedback on progress toward goals, but also information on 

the outcomes of different management strategies to provide 

options for future management. Because bird conservation 

requires a significant investment of time and land, it seems 

wise to increase the likelihood of success by monitoring and 

making changes as necessary.

Literature Cited

Adkisson, C.S., 1996, Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra), in

Poole, A., and Gill, F., eds., The Birds of North America, 

No. 256: The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

Pa.

Agee, J.K., 1993, Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests: 

Washington, D.C., Island Press, 490 p.

Alaback, P.B., and Herman, F.R., 1988, Long-term response 

of understory vegetation to stand density in Picea-Tsuga

forests: Canadian Journal of Forest Research, v. 18, p. 1522-

1530.

Altman, B., 1999, Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington, Version 

1.0: Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight, www.orwapif.

org/pdf/western_forest.pdf.

Altman, B., and Sallabanks, R., 2000, Olive-sided Flycatcher 

(Contopus cooperi), in Poole, A., and Gill, F., eds., The 

Birds of North America, No. 502: Philadelphia, Pa., The 

Birds of North America, Inc. 

Altman, B., Boulay, M., Dowlan, S., Crannell, D., Russell, K., 

Beal, K., and Dillion, J., 2003, Willow Flycatcher nesting 

ecology and habitat relationships in the Willamette Basin, 

Oregon, in Sogge, M., Kus, B., Sferra, S., and Whitfield, 

M., eds., Ecology and Conservation of the Willow Flycatcher: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 26, p. 73-80.

Artman, V.L., 1990, Breeding bird populations and vegetation characteristics in commercially thinned and unthinned 

western hemlock forests of Washington: Seattle, University 

of Washington, M.S. thesis, 55 p.

Bailey, J.D., and Tappeiner, J.C., 1998, Effects of thinning on 

structural development in 40- to 100-year-old Douglas-fir 

stands in western Oregon: Forest Ecology and Management, 

v. 108, p. 99-113.

Bailey, J.D., Mayrsohn, C., Doescher, P.S., St. Pierre, E., and 

Tappeiner, J.C., 1998, Understory vegetation in old and 

young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 112, no. 3, p. 289-302.

Beaver, D.L., and Baldwin, P.H., 1975, Ecological overlap and 

the problem of competition and sympatry in western and 

Hammond’s flycatchers: Condor, v. 77, no. 1, p 1-13.

Beese, W.J., and Bryant, A.A., 1999, Effect of alternative 

silvicultural systems on vegetation and bird communities 

in coastal montane forests of British Columbia, Canada: 

Forest Ecology and Management, v. 115, p. 231-242.

34  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Beissinger, S.R., Reed, J.M., Wunderle, J.M., Jr., Robinson, 

S.K, and Finch, D.M., 2000, Report of the AOU conservation committee on the Partners in Flight species prioritization plan: The Auk, v. 117, no. 2, p. 549-561.

Bemis, C., and Rising, J.D., 1999, Western Wood-Pewee 

(Contopus sordidulus), in Poole, A., and Gill, F., eds., The 

Birds of North America, No. 451: Philadelphia, Pa., The 

Birds of North America, Inc. 

Bettinger, K.A, 1996, Bird communities in 5- to 34-year-old 

managed Douglas-fir stands on the Willamette National 

Forest, Oregon Cascades: Corvallis, Oregon State University, M.S. thesis, 110 p.

Bond, M.L., Gutierrez, R.J., Franklin, A.B., LaHaye, W.S., 

May, C.A., and Seamans, M.E., 2002, Short-term effects of 

wildfires on Spotted Owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, 

and reproductive success: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 30, p. 

1022-1028.

Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group, 1999, Landbird 

conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions, Version 

1.0: Boreal Partners in Flight, www.absc.usgs.gov/research/

bpif/conservation.pdf.

Borror, D.J., Triplehorn, C.A., and Johnson, N.F., 1989, An 

introduction to the study of insects (6th ed.): Philadelphia, 

Saunders College Publishing, 875 p.

Bosakowski, T., 1997, Breeding bird abundance and habitat 

relationships on a private industrial forest in the western 

Washington Cascades: Northwest Science, v. 71, p. 244-

253.

Brand, L.A., and George, T.L., 2001, Response of passerine 

birds to forest edge in coast redwood forest fragments: The 

Auk, v. 118, no. 3, p. 678-686.

Brice, A.T., and Grau, C.R., 1991, Protein requirements of 

Costa’s hummingbirds Calypte costae: Physiol. Zool, v. 64, 

p. 611– 626.

Brown, E.R, ed., 1985, Management of wildlife and fish 

habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service Publication R6-

F&WL-192-1985.

Bull, E.L., Peterson, S.R., and Thomas, J.W., 1986, Resource 

partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research 

Note PNW-444, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Or., 19 p.

Bunnell, F.L., Kremsater, L.L., and Wells, R.W., 1997, Likely 

consequences of forest management on terrestrial, forest-dwelling vertebrates in Oregon: Report M-7, Centre 

for Applied Conservation Biology, University of British 

Columbia.

Bunnell, F.L., Wells, R.W., Nelson, J.D., and Kremsater, L.L., 

1999, Patch sizes, vertebrates, and effects of harvest policy 

in southeastern British Columbia, in Rochelle, J.A., Lehmann, L.A., and Wisniewski, J., eds., Forest fragmentation: 

wildlife and management implications: The Netherlands, 

Brill Publications, p. 271-293.

Busing, R.T., and Garman, S.L., 2002, Promoting old-growth 

characteristics and long-term wood production in Douglas-fir forests: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 160, 

p.161-175.

California Partners in Flight, 2002, The draft coniferous forest bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and 

managing coniferous forest habitats and associated birds in 

California, Version 1.0 (J. Robinson and J. Alexander, lead 

authors): Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, Ca., 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html.

Campbell, S., Dunham, P., and Azuma, D., 2004, Timber 

resource statistics for Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-242, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Or., 67 p.

Campbell, W.R., Dawe, N.K., McTaggart-Cowan, I., Copper, 

J.M., Kaiser, G.W., McNall, M.C.E., and Smith, G.E.J., 

1997, The birds of British Columbia. Volume 3. Passerines: 

Flycatchers through Vireos: Vancouver, B.C., University of 

British Columbia Press, 693 p. 

Carey A.B., and Wilson, S.M., 2001, Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: responses of small mammals: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 65, no. 4, p. 1014–1027.

Carter, M.F., Hunter, W.C., Pashley, D.N., and Rosenberg, 

K.V., 2000, Setting conservation priorities for landbirds 

in the United States: The Partners in Flight approach: The 

Auk, v. 117, no 2, p. 541-548.

Chambers, C.L., 1996, Response of terrestrial vertebrates to 

three silvicultural treatments in the central Oregon Coast 

Range: Corvallis, Oregon State University, Ph.D. dissertation.

Chambers, C.L., McComb, W.C., and Tappeiner, J.C., 1999, 

Breeding bird responses to three silvicultural treatments in 

the Oregon Coast Range: Ecological Applications, v. 9, no. 

1, p. 171-185.

Chan-McLeod, A., and F. Bunnell, 2003, Effects of variableretention harvest techniques on bird communities in coastal 

British Columbia: 2002-2003 annual progress report: 

Forest Sciences Centre, University of British Columbia, 

Vancouver, http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2003/

FIA2003MR059.pdf.

Literature Cited  35
Chen, J., Franklin, J.F., and Spies, T.A., 1999, Microclimate 

pattern and basic biological responses at the clearcut edges 

of old-growth Douglas-fir stands, Northwest Environmental 

Journal, v. 6, p. 424-425.

Cotter, P.A., and Andres, B.A., 2000, Breeding bird habitat 

associations on the Alaska Breeding Bird Survey: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information 

and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR – 2000-0010.

Curtis, R.O., DeBell, D.S., Harrington, C.A., Lavender, D.P., 

St. Clair, J.B., Tappeiner II, J.C., and Walstad, J.D., 1998, 

Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir 

region: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Gen. 

Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-435, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, Or., 123 p.

DeBell, D.S., Curtis, R.O., Harrington, C.A., and Tappeiner II, 

J.C., 1997, Shaping stand development through silvicultural 

practices, in Kohm, K.A., and Franklin, J.F., eds., Creating 

a Forestry for the 21st Century: the Science of Ecosystem 

Management: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 141-149.

Dellasala, D.A., Hagar, J.C., Engel, K.A., McComb, W.C., 

Fairbanks, R.L., and Campbell, E.G., 1996, Effects of silvicultural modifications of temperate rainforests on breeding 

and wintering bird communities, Prince of Wales island, 

southeast Alaska: Condor, v. 98, no. 4, p. 706-721.

Doolittle, A.M., 2000, Arthropod communities on understory 

plants in thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir forests in the 

Oregon Coast Range: Corvallis, Oregon State University, 

M.S. thesis, 83 p.

Erlich, P.R., Dobkin, D.S., and Wheye, D., 1988, The birders 

handbook: New York, Simon & Schuster Inc., 785 p.

Franklin, J.F. and Spies, T.A., 1991, Composition, function, 

and structure of old-growth Douglas-fir forests, in Ruggiero, 

L. F., Aubry, K.B., Carey, A.B., and Huff, M.H., tech. eds., 

Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-285, Portland, Or., 

p. 71-80.

Franklin, J.F., Berg, D.R., Thornburgh, D.A., and Tappeiner, 

J.C., 1997, Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber 

harvesting: variable retention harvest systems, in Kohm, 

K.A., and Franklin, J.F, eds., Creating a Forestry for the 

21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management: 

Washington, D.C., Island Press, p.111-139.

Franklin, J.F., Spies, T.A., Van Pelt, R., Carey, A.B., Thornburgh, D.A., Berg, D.R., Lindenmayer, D.B., Harmon, 

M.E., Keeton, W.S., Shaw, D.C., Bible, K., and Chen, J, 

2002, Disturbances and structural development of natural 

forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using 

Douglas-fir forests as an example: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 155, no. 1-3, p. 399-423.

Franklin, J.F., and Forman, R.T.T., 1987, Creating landscape 

pattern by forest cutting: Ecological consequences and principles: Landscape Ecology, v. 1, no. 1, p. 5-18.

Franklin, J.F., and Dyrness, C.T., 1988, The natural vegetation 

of Oregon and Washington: Corvallis, Or., Oregon State 

University Press, 452 p.

Franklin, J.F., 1993, Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes?: Ecological Applications, v. 3, no. 2, 

p. 202-205.

Gardali, T., and Ballard, G., 2000, Warbling vireo (Vireo 

gilvus), in Poole, A. and Gill, F., eds., The Birds of North 

America, No. 551: Philadelphia, Pa., The Birds of North 

America, Inc.

Garman, S.L., Cissel, J.H., and Mayo, J.H., 2003, Accelerating development of late-successional conditions in young 

managed Douglas-fir stands: A simulation study: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-557, Portland, Or., 113 p.

Gashwiler, J.S., and Ward, A.L., 1968, Oregon junco foods in 

coniferous forests: The Murrelet, v. 49, no. 3, p. 29-36.

George, T.L., and Brand, L.A., 2002, The effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in Coast Redwood forests, in 

George, T.L. and Dobkin, D.S., eds., Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: Contrasts with 

paradigms from the eastern U.S.: Studies in Avian Biology, 

v. 25, p. 92-102.

George, T.L. and Dobkin, D.S., eds., 2002, Effects of habitat 

fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: contrasts with 

paradigms from the eastern United States: Studies in Avian 

Biology, v. 25, 270 p.

Gerson, U., and Seaward, M.R.D., 1977, Lichen-invertebrate 

associations, in Seaward, M.R.D., editor, Lichen ecology: 

London, Academic Press, p. 69-119.

Grossman, D.H., Faber-Langendoen, D., Weakley, A.S., 

Anderson, M., Bourgeron, P., Crawford, R., Goodin, K., 

Landaal, S., Metzler, K., Patterson, K.D., Pyne, M., Reid, 

M., and Sneddon, L., 1998, International classification of 

ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United 

States. Volume I, The National Vegetation Classification 

System: development, status, and applications: Arlington, 

Va., The Nature Conservancy, 139 p. 

Gumtow-Farrior, D.L., 1991, Cavity resources in Oregon 

white oak and Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon: Corvallis, Oregon State University, M.S. thesis, 89 p.

Hagar, J.C., 2004, Functional relationships among songbirds, 

arthropods, and understory vegetation in Douglas-fir forests, 

western Oregon: Corvallis, Oregon State University, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 143 p.

36  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Hagar, J.C., McComb, W.C., and Chambers, C.C., 1995, 

Effects of forest practices on wildlife, Chapter 9, in Beschta, 

R.L., Boyle, J.R., Chambers, C.C., and others, eds., Cumulative effects of forest practices in Oregon: literature and 

synthesis: Corvallis, Oregon State University.

Hagar, J.C., McComb, W.C., and Emmingham, W.H., 1996, 

Bird communities in commercially thinned and unthinned 

Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon: Wildl. Soc. Bull., v. 

24, no. 2, p. 353-366.

Hagar, J.C., Howlin, S., and Ganio, L.M., 2004, Short-term 

response of songbirds to experimental thinning of young 

Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades: Forest Ecology 

and Management, v. 199, no. 2-3, p. 333-347.

Hall, F.C., Brewer, L.W., Franklin, J.F., and Werner, R.L., 

1985, Plant communities and stand conditions, Part 1: 

Chapter narratives, in Brown, E.R., technical editor, Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western 

Oregon and Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service Publication R6-F&WL-192-1985, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Portland, Or., p. 17–31.

Halpern, C.B., and Spies, T.A., 1995, Plant species diversity 

in natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest: 

Ecological Applications, v. 5, no. 4, p. 913-934.

Hammond, P.C., and Miller, J.C., 1998, Comparison of the 

biodiversity of lepidoptera within three forested ecosystems: 

Annals of the Entomological Society of America, v. 91, no. 

3, p. 323-328.

Hansen, A.J., and Hounihan, P., 1996, Canopy tree retention 

and avian diversity in the Oregon Cascades, in Szaro, R.C., 

and Johnston, D.W., eds., Biodiversity in managed landscapes: theory and practice: New York, Oxford University 

Press, p. 401-421. 

Hansen, A.J., Spies, T.A., Swanson, F.J., and Ohmann, J.L., 

1991, Conserving biodiversity in managed forests: BioScience, v. 41, no. 6, p. 382-392.

Hansen, A.J., McComb, W.C., Vega, R., Raphael, M.G., and 

Hunter, M., 1995, Bird habitat relationships in natural and 

managed forests in the west Cascades of Oregon: Ecological 

Applications, v. 5, no. 3, p. 555-569.

Harrington, C.A., Buermeyer, K.R., Brodie, L.C., and Wender, 

B.W., 2002, Factors influencing growth and flowering of 

understory plants in conifer stands in western Washington, 

in Johnson A.C., Haynes, R.W., and Monserud, R.A., eds., 

Congruent management of multiple resources: Proceedings 

from the Wood Compatibility Initiative workshop: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-563, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, Or., p. 159–168.

Harris, L.D., 1984, The fragmented forest: Island biogeographic theory and the preservation of biotic diversity: 

Chicago, Il., University of Chicago Press, 211 p.

Hayes, J.P., Weikel, J.M., and Huso, M., 2003, Response of 

birds to thinning young Douglas-fir forests: Ecological 

Applications, v. 13, no. 5, p. 1222-1232.

Hejl, S.J., Newlon, K.R., McFadzen, M.E., Young, J.S., and 

Ghalambor, C.K., 2002, Brown Creeper (Certhia americana), in Poole, A., and Gill, F., eds., The Birds of North 

America, No. 669: Philadelphia, Pa., The Birds of North 

America, Inc.

Hess, G.R., 1994, Conservation corridors and contagious 

disease: a cautionary note: Conservation Biology, v. 8, no. 

1, p. 256-262.

Huff, M.H., and Raley, C.M., 1991, Regional patterns of diurnal breeding bird communities in Oregon and Washington,

in Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Carey A.B., and Huff, M.H., 

tech. eds., Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglasfir forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-285, p. 177-205.

Huff, M.H., Seavy, N.E., Alexander, J.D., and Ralph, C.J., 

2005, Fire and birds in the maritime Pacific Northwest: 

Studies in Avian Biology, v. 30, p. 46-62.

Humphrey, J.W., Hawes, C., Peace, A.J., Ferris-Kaan, R., and 

Jukes, M.R, 1999, Relationships between insect diversity 

and habitat characteristics in plantation forest: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 113, p. 11-21.

Hunter, J.E., Fix, D., Schmidt, G.A., and Power, J.C., 2005, 

Atlas of the breeding birds of Humboldt County, California: 

Eureka, Ca., Redwood Region Audubon Society, 440 p.

Hunter, M.L., Jr., 1990, Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for biological diversity: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 370 p.

Hutchison, O.K., 1968, Alaska’s forest resource: Institute of 

Northern Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, 74 p.

Hutto, R.L., 1995, Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in the Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests: Conservation Biology v. 9, p. 

1041-1058.

Jackson, J.A., 1979, Tree surfaces as foraging substrates for 

insectivorous birds, in Dickson, J.G., Conner, R.N., Fleet, 

R.R., Kroll, J.C., and Jackson, J.A., eds., The role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystems: New York, Academic 

Press, p 69-93.

Literature Cited  37
Janes, S.W., 2003, Hermit Warbler Dendroica occidentalis, in

Marshall, D., Hunter, M., and Contreras, A., eds., Birds of 

Oregon: A general reference: Corvallis, Or., Oregon State 

University Press, p 515 – 517.

Johnson, D.H., and O’Neil, T.A., (managing directors), 2001, 

Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington: 

Corvallis, Or., Oregon State University Press, 768 p.

Jokimäki, J., Huhta, E., Itämies, J., and Rahko, P., 1998, 

Distribution of arthropods in relation to forest patch size, 

edge, and stand characteristics: Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research, v. 28, no. 7, p. 1068-1072.

Kennedy, R.S.H., and Spies, T.A., 2004, Forest cover changes 

in the Oregon Coast Range from 1939 to 1993: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 200, no. 1-3, p. 129-147.

Kerns, B.K., Alexander, S.J., and Bailey, J.D., 2004, Huckleberry abundance, stand conditions, and use in western 

Oregon: Evaluating the role of forest management: Economic Botany, v. 58, no. 4, p. 668-678.

Kessel, B., and Gibson, D.D., eds., 1978, Status and distribution of Alaska birds: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 1, 100 p.

Kessler, W.B., and Kogut, T.E., 1985, Habitat orientations of 

forest birds in southeastern Alaska: Northwest Science, v. 

59, p. 58-65.

Kimmins, J.P., 1987, Forest Ecology: New York, Macmillan 

Publishing Company, 531 p.

Knopf, F.L., 1985, Significance of riparian vegetation to 

breeding birds across an altitudinal cline, in Johnson, R.R., 

Ziebell, C.D., Patten, D.R., Ffolliot, P.F., and Hamre, R.H., 

tech. eds., Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, p. 105-111.

Kremsater, L., and Bunnell, F.L., 1999, Edge effects: theory, 

evidence and implications to management of western forests, in Rochelle, J.A., Lehmann, L.A., and Wisniewski, J., 

eds., Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications: The Netherlands, Brill Publications, p. 117-153.

Lambeck, R.J., 1997, Focal species: a multi-species umbrella 

for nature conservation: Conservation Biology, v. 11, no. 4, 

p. 849-856.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., Loggers, C.O., and Creighton, J.H., 2002, 

Wildlife considerations for small diameter timber harvesting, in Baumgartner, D.M., Johnson, L.R., and DePuit, E.J., 

eds., Small diameter timber: resource management, manufacturing, and markets: Pullman, Wa., Washington State 

University Cooperative Extension, MISC0509, p. 85-92.

Leonard, J.P., 1998, Nesting and foraging ecology of Bandtailed Pigeons in western Oregon: Corvallis, Oregon State 

University, Ph.D. dissertation.

Leu, M., 2000, Breeding territory settlement patterns and mate 

choice in a monochromatic tyrannid flycatcher: Seattle, 

University of Washington, Ph.D. dissertation.

Levey, D.J., 1994, Why we should adopt a broader view of 

Neotropical migrants: The Auk, v. 111, no. 1, p. 233-236.

Mack D. E., and Yong, W., 2000, Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), in Poole, A., and Gill, F., eds., The Birds of 

North America, No. 540: Philadelphia, Pa., The Birds of 

North America, Inc.

Manuwal, D.A., Huff, M.H., Bauer, M.R., Chappell, C.B., and 

Hegstad, K., 1987, Summer birds of the upper subalpine 

zone of Mount Adams, Mount Rainer, and Mount Saint Helens, Washington: Northwest Science, v. 61, p. 82-92.

Manuwal, D.A., and Manuwal, N.J., 2002, Effects of habitat 

fragmentation on birds in the coastal coniferous forests of 

the Pacific Northwest, in George, T.L. and Dobkin, D.S, 

eds., Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in western 

landscapes: Contrasts with paradigms from the eastern U.S: 

Studies in Avian Biology, v. 25, p. 103-112.

Manuwal, D.A., and Pearson, S., 1997, Bird populations 

in managed forests in the western Cascade Mountains, 

Washington, in Aubry, K.B., West, S.D., Manuwal, D.A., 

Stringer, A.B., Erickson, J.L., and Pearson, S.F., eds., 

Wildlife use of managed forests: a landscape perspective: 

Timber, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report TFW-WL4-98-

002, p. 1-61.

Manuwal, D.A., and Palazzotto, N., 2004, Final report: Bird 

community response to thinning in coniferous forests at Fort 

Lewis, Washington: Unpublished report submitted to U.S. 

Army, Department of Defense, Fort Lewis, Washington, 

101 p.

Marcot, B.G, 1985, Habitat relationships of birds and younggrowth Douglas-fir in northwestern California: Corvallis, 

Oregon State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 282 p.

Mariani, J.M., and D.A. Manuwal, 1990, Factors influencing 

brown creeper Certhia americana abundance patterns in the 

southern Washington Cascade Range, in Morrison, M.L., 

Ralph, C.J., Verner, J., and Jehl, J.R., Jr., eds., Avian foraging: theory, methodology, and applications: Studies in Avian 

Biology, v. 13, p. 53-57.

Marshall, D.B., Hunter, M.G., and Contreras, A.L., eds., 

2003, Birds of Oregon: A general reference: Corvallis, Or., 

Oregon State University Press, 768 p.

Martin, T.E., 1987, Food as a limit on breeding birds: a lifehistory perspective: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 18, p. 453-487.

38  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Martin, T.E., 1995, Avian life history evolution in relation to 

nest sites, nest predation and food: Ecological Monographs, 

v. 65, no. 1, p. 101-127.

Marzluff, J.M. and Restani, M., 1999, The effects of forest 

fragmentation on avian nest predation, in Rochelle, J.A., 

Lehmann, L.A., and Wisniewski, J., eds., Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications: The Netherlands, Brill Publications, p. 155-169.

Matsuoka, S.M., Handel, C.M., Roby, D.D., and Thomas, 

D.L., 1997, The relative importance of nesting and foraging sites in selection of breeding territories by Townsend’s 

warblers: The Auk, v. 114, no. 4, p. 657-667.

Mayer, K.E., and Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr., 1988, A guide to the 

wildlife habitats of California: State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, Ca.

McAllister, D.C., Holloway, R.W., and Schnee, M.W., 1999, 

Using landscape design principals to promote biodiversity 

in a managed forest, in Rochelle, J.A., Lehmann, L.A., and 

Wisniewski, J., eds., Forest fragmentation: wildlife and 

management implications: The Netherlands, Brill Publications, p. 247-270.

McComb, W.C., 1999, Forest fragmentation: wildife and 

management implications synthesis of the conference, in

Rochelle, J.A., Lehmann, L.A., and Wisniewski, J., eds., 

Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications: The Netherlands, Brill Publications, p. 295-301.

McGarigal, K., and McComb, W.C., 1992, Streamside versus 

upslope breeding bird communities in the central Oregon 

Coast Range: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 56, no. 1, 

p. 10-21.

McGarigal, K., and McComb, W.C., 1995, Relationships 

between landscape structure and breeding birds in the 

Oregon Coast Range: Ecological Monographs, v. 65, no. 3, 

p 235-260.

McGarigal, K. and McComb, W.C., 1999, Forest fragmentation effects on breeding bird communities in the Oregon 

Coast Range, in Rochelle, J.A., Lehmann, L.A., and Wisniewski, J., eds., Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications: The Netherlands, Brill Publications, p. 

223-246.

Meslow, E.C., and Wight, H.M., 1975, Avifauna and succession in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest, in

Smith, D.R., tech. coord., Proceedings of the symposium on 

management of forest and rangeland habitats for non-game 

birds: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Gen. 

Tech. Rept. WO-1, p. 266-271.

Morrison, M.L., 1981, The structure of western warbler 

assemblages: analysis of foraging behavior and habitat 

selection in Oregon: The Auk, v. 98, no. 3, p. 578-588.

Morrison, M.L., 1982, Response of avian communities to herbicide-induced vegetation changes, western Oregon: Corvallis, Oregon State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 77 p.

Morrison, M.L., and Meslow, E.C., 1983a, Bird community 

structure on early-growth clearcuts in western Oregon: 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 110, no. 1, p. 129–137.

Morrison, M.L., and Meslow, E.C., 1983b, Avifauna associated with early growth vegetation on clearcuts in the Oregon 

coast ranges: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Res. Pap. PNW-305, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, 12 p.

Muir, P.S., Mattingly, R.L., Tappeiner II, J.C., Bailey, J.D., 

Elliott, W.E., Hagar, J.C., Miller, J.C., Peterson, E.B., and 

Starkey, E.E., 2002, Managing for biodiversity in young 

Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological Sciences 

Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006, 76 p.

NABCI Monitoring Subcommittee, 2006, Opportunities for 

improving North American avian monitoring. Draft interim 

report: North American Bird Conservation Initiative Monitoring Subcommittee, www.nabci-us.org/monitoring.html

 Neitlich, P.N., 1993, Lichen abundance and biodiversity along 

a chronosequence from young managed stands to ancient 

forest: Burlington, University of Vermont, M.S. thesis.

Neitlich, P. N. and McCune, B., 1997, Hotspots of epiphytic 

lichen diversity in two young managed forests: Conservation Biology, v. 11, no. 1, p. 172-182.

Niemiec, S.S., Ahrens, G.R., Willits, S., and Hibbs, D.E., 

1995, Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest: Oregon State 

University Forest Research Laboratory, Research Publication no. 8, 115 p.

Nolan, V., Jr., Ketterson, E.D., Cristol, D.A., Rogers, C.M., 

Clotfelter, E.D., Titus, R.C., Schoech, S.J., and Snajdr, E., 

2002, Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis), in Poole, A., and 

Gill, F., eds., The Birds of North America, No. 716: Philadelphia, Pa., The Birds of North America, Inc.

Noon, B.R., 1981, Techniques for sampling avian habitats, in 

Capen, D.E., ed., The use of multivariate statistics in studies 

of wildlife habitat: U.S. Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-87, Rocky Mountain Research Station, p. 42-52.

Nott, M.P., DeSante, D.F., Pyle, P., and Michel, N., 2005, 

Managing landbird populations in forests of the Pacific 

Northwest: Publication No. 254 of The Institute for Bird 

Populations, http://www.birdpop.org/publications/NWFExecReport.pdf.

Nur, N., Jones, S.L., and Geupel, G.R., 1999, A statistical 

guide to data analysis of avian monitoring programs: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service BTP-R6001-1999, Washington. 

D.C.

Literature Cited  39
Oliver, C.D., and Larson, B.C., 1990, Forest stand dynamics: 

New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 467 p.

Otvos, Immre S., 1965, Studies on avian predators of Dentroctonus brevicomis LeConte (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) with 

special reference to Picidae: The Canadian Entomologist, v. 

97, p. 1184-1199.

Pearson, S.F, 1997, Hermit Warbler (Dendroica occidentalis),

in Poole, A., and Gill, F., eds., The Birds of North America, 

No. 303: Philadelphia, Pa., The Academy of Natural Sciences, and Washington, D.C., The American Ornithological 

Union.

Pearson, S.F. and Manuwal, D.A., 2001, Breeding bird 

response to riparian buffer width in managed Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forests: Ecological Applications, v. 11, no. 

3, p. 840-853.

Petit, L.J., Petit, D.R., and Martin, T.E., 1995, Landscape-level 

management of migratory birds: looking past the trees to 

see the forest: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 23, p. 420-429.

Pettersson, R.B., Ball, J.P., Renhorn, K.-E., Esseen, P.-A., and 

Sjöberg, K., 1995, Invertebrate communities in boreal forest 

canopies as influenced by forestry and lichens with implications for passerine birds: Biological Conservation, v. 74, no. 

1, p. 57-63.

Poage, N.J., and Tappeiner II, J.C., 2005, Tree species and 

size structure of old-growth Douglas-fir forests in central 

western Oregon, USA: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 

204, no 2-3, p. 329-343.

Primack, R.B., 1998, Essentials of conservation biology: Sunderland, Ma., Sinauer Associates.

Ralph, C.J., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E., DeSante, 

D.F., 1993, Handook of field methods for monitoring 

landbirds: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

Raphael, M.G, 1987, Use of Pacific-madrone by cavity-nesting birds, in Plumb, T.R., tech. coord., Symposium on multiple-use management of California’s hardwood resources: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General 

Technical Report PSW-100, Berkeley, Ca., p. 198-201.

Rich, T. D., Beardmore, C.J., Berlanga, H., Blancher, P. J., 

Bradstreet, M. S. W., Butcher, G. S., Demarest, D. W., 

Dunn, E. H., Hunter, W. C., Iñigo-Elias, E. E., Kennedy, J. 

A., Martell, A. M., Panjabi, A. O., Pashley, D. N., Rosenberg, K. V., Rustay, C. M., Wendt, J. S., Will, T. C., 2004, 

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation 

Plan: Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell Lab of Ornithology, http://www.

partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/.

Robbins, C.S., Sauer, J.R., and Peterjohn, B.G., 1992, Population trends and management opportunities for neotropical 

migrants, in Finch, D.M., and Stangel, P.W., eds., Status and 

management of neotropical migratory birds: U.S. Deparment of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-229, Fort Collins, Co., p. 17-23.

Rochelle, J.A., Lehmann, L.A., and Wisniewski, J., eds., 1999, 

Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications: The Netherlands, Brill Publications, 301 p.

Rosenberg, K.V., and Raphael, M.G., 1986, Effects of forest fragmentation on vertebrates in Douglas-fir forests, in 

Verner, J., Morrison, M.L., and Ralph, C.J., eds., Wildlife 

2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates: Madison, Wi., University of Wisconsin Press, p. 

263-272.

Rosso, A.L., 2000, Shrub epiphyte communities in relation to 

stand management in forests of western Oregon: Corvallis, 

Oregon State University, Ph.D. dissertation. 

Sallabanks, R., and Quinn, T., 2000, Can we infer habitat 

quality from the results of wildlife surveys?: Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife TFW-LWAG6-01-001, 

Olympia, Wa., 187 p.

Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E., and Fallon, J., 2006, The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 

1966 - 2005. Version 2006.2: Laurel, Md., USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.

gov/bbs/bbs.html.

Schieck, J.K., Lertzman, B., Nyberg, B., and Page, R., 1995, 

Effects of patch size on birds in old-growth montane forests: 

Conservation Biology, v. 9, no. 5, p. 1072-1084.

 Schowalter, T.D., and Crossley, D.A., Jr., 1983, Forest canopy 

arthropods as sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium 

pools in forests: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 7, p. 

143-148.

Seigel, R.B., and DeSante, D.F., 2003, Bird communities in 

thinned versus unthinned Sierran mixed conifer stands: 

Wilson Bulletin, v. 115, no. 2, p. 155-165.

Shure, D.J., and Phillips, D.L., 1991, Patch size of forest 

openings and arthropod populations: Oecologia, v. 86, p. 

325-334.

Sidle, W.B., 1985, Habitat management for forest birds in 

southeast Alaska: U.S. Forest Service, Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Notes, Alaska Region Administrative Document No. 146, 21 p.

40 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Sisk, T.D., and Battin, J., 2002, Habitat edges and avian 

ecology: geographic patterns and insights for western 

landscapes, in George, T.L. and Dobkin, D.S, eds., Effects 

of habitat fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: 

Contrasts with paradigms from the eastern U.S: Studies in 

Avian Biology, v. 25, p. 30-48.

Smith, M.R., Mattocks, P.W., Jr., and Cassidy, K.M., 1997, 

Breeding birds of Washington state, Volume 4, in Cassidy, 

K.M., Grue, C.E., Smith, M.R., and Dvornich, K.M., eds., 

Washington State Gap Analysis – Final Report: Seattle 

Audubon Society Publications in Zoology No. 1, Seattle, 

558 p.

Tappeiner, J.C., Huffman, D., Marshall, D., Spies, T.A., and 

Bailey, J.D., 1997, Density, ages, and growth rates in oldgrowth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon: Canadian Journal of Forest Research, v. 27, no. 5, p. 638-648.

Tappeiner, J.C., Lavender, D.P., Walstad, J.D., Curtis, R.O., 

and DeBell, D.S., 1997, Silvicultural systems and regeneration methods: Current practices and new alternatives, in

Kohm, K.A., and Franklin, J.F., eds., Creating a Forestry for 

the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management: 

Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 151-164.

Tappeiner, J.C. II, Emmingham, W.H., and Hibbs, D.E., 2002, 

Silviculture of Oregon Coast Range forests, in Hobbs, 

S.D., Hayes, J.P., Johnson, R.L., Reeves, G.H., Spies, T.A., 

Tappeiner, J.C. II, and Wells, G.E., eds., Forest and stream 

management in the Oregon Coast Range: Corvallis, Or., 

Oregon State University Press, p. 172–190.

Thomas, J.W., Maser, C., and Rodiek, J.E., 1979, Edges, 

Chapter 4 of Thomas, J.W., ed., Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington: Washington D.C., Wildlife management Institute, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Agricultural 

Handbook 533.

Thomas, S.C., Halpern, C.B., Falk, D.A., Liguori, D.A., and 

Austin, K.A., 1999, Plant diversity in managed forests: 

understory responses to thinning and fertilization: Ecological Applications, v. 9, no. 3, p. 864–879.

Thompson, F.R., Donovan, T.M., DeGraff, R.M., Faaborg, J., 

and Robinson, S.K., 2002, A multi-scale perspective of the 

effects of forest fragmentation on birds in eastern forests, in 

George, T.L. and Dobkin, D.S, eds., Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: Contrasts with 

paradigms from the eastern U.S: Studies in Avian Biology, 

v. 25, p. 8-19.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

1994, Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents 

within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Standards 

and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range 

of the Northern Spotted Owl: USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Vega, R.M.S., 1993, Bird communities in managed conifer 

stands in the Oregon Cascades: habitat associations and nest 

predation: Corvallis, Oregon State University, M.S. thesis.

Wahl, T.R., Tweit, B., and Mlodinow, S.G., eds., 2005, Birds 

of Washington: Status and Distribution: Corvallis, Oregon 

State University Press, 436 p.

Weikel, J.M., 1997, Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in 

young thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir forests of western 

Oregon: Corvallis, Oregon State University, M.S. thesis. 

Weikel, J.M., and Hayes, J.P., 1999, The foraging ecology of 

cavity-nesting birds in young forests of the northern Coast 

Range of Oregon: Condor, v. 101, no. 1, p. 58-66.

Willson, M.F., and T.A. Comet, 1996, Bird communities of 

northern forests: ecological correlates of diversity and abundance in the understory: Condor, v. 98, no. 2, p. 350-362.

With, K.A., 1999, Is landscape connectivity necessary and sufficient for wildlife management? in Rochelle, J.A., Lehmann, L.A., and Wisniewski, J., eds., Forest fragmentation: 

wildlife and management implications: The Netherlands, 

Brill Publications, p 97-115.

Literature Cited  41
42 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

This page is intentionally blank.
Appendix A

Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

Alder Flycatcher...................................... Empidonax alnorum

American Crow....................................... Corvus brachyrhynchos

American Goldfinch................................ Carduelis tristis

American Kestrel .................................... Falco sparverius

American Robin...................................... Turdus migratorius

Band-tailed Pigeon.................................. Columba fasciata

Barred Owl.............................................. Strix varia

Bewick’s Wren........................................ Thryomanes bewickii

Black-backed Woodpecker...................... Picoides arcticus

Black-headed Grosbeak .......................... Pheucticus melanocephalus

Black-throated Gray Warbler.................. Dendroica nigrescens

Blue (Sooty) Grouse ............................... Dendragapus fuliginosus

Boreal Chickadee .................................... Poecile hudsonica

Brown Creeper........................................ Certhia americana

Bushtit..................................................... Psaltriparus minimus

Calliope Hummingbird ........................... Stellula calliope

Cassin’s Finch ......................................... Carpodacus cassinii

Cassin’s Vireo ......................................... Vireo cassinii

Cedar Waxwing....................................... Bombycilla cedorum

Chestnut-backed Chickadee.................... Poecile rufescens

Chipping Sparrow ................................... Spizella passerina

Common Nighthawk............................... Chordeiles minor

Common Raven....................................... Corvus corax

Common Yellowthroat............................ Geothlypis trichas

Cooper’s Hawk........................................ Accipiter cooperii

Dark-eyed Junco ..................................... Junco hyemalis

Dusky Flycatcher .................................... Empidonax oberholseri

Evening Grosbeak................................... Coccothraustes vespertinus

Flammulated Owl.................................... Otus flammeolus

Fox Sparrow............................................ Passerella iliaca

Golden-crowned Kinglet......................... Regulus satrapa

Gray Jay .................................................. Perisoreus canadensis

Gray-cheeked Thrush.............................. Catharus minimus

Great-gray Owl ....................................... Strix nebulosa

Great-horned Owl ................................... Bubo virginianus

Green-tailed Towhee ............................... Pipilo chlorurus

Hairy Woodpecker .................................. Picoides villosus

Hammond’s Flycatcher........................... Empidonax hammondii

Hermit Thrush......................................... Catharus guttatus

Hermit Warbler ....................................... Dendroica occidentalis

House Wren ............................................ Troglodytes aedon

Hutton’s Vireo......................................... Vireo huttoni

Lazuli Bunting ........................................ Passerina amoena

Lincoln’s Sparrow................................... Melospiza lincolnii

MacGillivray’s Warbler........................... Oporornis tolmiei

Marbled Murrelet.................................... Brachyramphus marmoratus

Merlin...................................................... Falco columbarius

Mountain Bluebird.................................. Sialia currucoides

Scientific names of birds, insects, and plant species mentioned in the text, tables, or appendices.

Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

Mountain Chickadee ............................... Poecile gambeli

Mountain Quail....................................... Oreotyx pictus

Nashville Warbler ................................... Vermivora ruficapilla

Northern Flicker...................................... Colaptes auratus

Northern Goshawk .................................. Accipiter gentilis

Northern Pygmy-Owl.............................. Glaucidium gnoma

Northern Saw-whet Owl ......................... Aegolius acadicus

Northern Spotted Owl............................. Strix occidentalis

Orange-crowned Warbler........................ Vermivora celata

Olive-sided Flycatcher............................ Contopus cooperi

Pacific-slope Flycatcher.......................... Empidonax difficilis

Pileated Woodpecker............................... Dryocopus pileatus

Pine Grosbeak ......................................... Pinicola enucleator

Pine Siskin .............................................. Carduelis pinus

Purple Finch............................................ Carpodacus purpureus

Purple Martin .......................................... Progne subis

Red Crossbill........................................... Loxia curvirostra

Red-breasted Nuthatch............................ Sitta canadensis

Red-breasted Sapsucker.......................... Sphyrapicus ruber

Red-tailed Hawk ..................................... Buteo jamaicensis

Ruby-crowned Kinglet............................ Regulus calendula

Ruffed Grouse......................................... Bonasa umbellus

Rufous Hummingbird ............................. Selasophorus rufus

Sharp-shinned Hawk............................... Accipiter striatus

Song Sparrow.......................................... Melospiza melodia

Spotted Towhee....................................... Pipilo maculatus

Steller’s Jay ............................................. Cyanocitta stelleri

Swainson’s Thrush.................................. Catharus ustulatus

Townsend’s Warbler................................ Dendroica townsendi

Townsend’s Solitaire ............................... Myadestes townsendi

Tree Swallow .......................................... Tachycineta bicolor

Varied Thrush.......................................... Ixoreus naevius

Vaux’s Swift............................................ Chaetura vauxi

Violet-Green Swallow............................. Tachycineta thalassina

Warbling Vireo........................................ Vireo gilvus

Western Bluebird..................................... Sialia mexicana

Western Tanager...................................... Piranga ludoviciana

Western Screech-Owl.............................. Otus kennicottii

Western Wood-Pewee ............................. Contopus sordidulus

White-crowned Sparrow ......................... Zonotrichia leucophrys

White-headed Woodpecker..................... Picoides albolarvatus

Willow Flycatcher................................... Empidonax traillii

Wilson’s Warbler..................................... Wilsonia pusilla

Winter Wren............................................ Troglodytes troglodytes

Wrentit .................................................... Chamaea fasciata

Yellow-breasted Chat.............................. Icteria virens

Yellow-rumped Warbler.......................... Dendroica coronata

Appendix A   43
Insects

Common Name Scientific Name

Western spruce budworm........................ Choristoneura occidentalis

Douglas-fir tussock moth........................ Orgyia pseudotsugata

Plants

Common Name Scientific Name

Bigleaf maple .......................................... Acer macrophyllum

Bracken fern............................................ Pteridium aquilinum

Cascara.................................................... Rhamnus purshiana

Columbine............................................... genus Aquilegia

Currant spp.............................................. genus Ribes

Douglas-fir.............................................. Pseudotsuga menziesii

Elderberry spp......................................... genus Sambucus

Himalayan blackberry............................. Rubus procerus

Huckleberry spp...................................... genus Vaccinium

Mountain hemlock .................................. Tsuga mertensiana

Oregon-grape .......................................... Mahonia nervosa

Oregon white oak.................................... Quercus garryana

Pacific silver fir....................................... Abies amabilis

Pacific madrone....................................... Arbutus menziesii

Red alder................................................. Alnus rubra

Redwood ................................................. Sequoia sempervirens

Salal......................................................... Gaultheria shallon

Salmonberry............................................ Rubus spectabilis

Scotch broom .......................................... Cytisus scoparius

Shasta red fir ........................................... Abies magnifica shastensis

Sitka spruce............................................. Picea sitchensis

True fir spp.............................................. genus Abies

Western hemlock..................................... Tsuga heterophylla

Western red cedar.................................... Thuja plicata

White spruce ........................................... Picea glauca

44  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Scientific names of birds, insects, and plant species mentioned in the text, tables, or appendices.—Continued
Appendix B  45

Ecoregion associations of breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).1

Species

Ecoregion 2,3

Alaska British Columbia Washington Oregon Calif

SC SE NMC SMC QCI WVI NC SC OP CR CR WC HC KM KB

Alder FlycatcherAmerican CrowAmerican GoldfinchAmerican KestrelAmerican RobinBand-tailed PigeonBarred OwlBewick’s WrenBlack-backed WoodpeckerBlack-headed GrosbeakBlack-throated Gray WarblerBlue (Sooty) GrouseBoreal ChickadeeBrown CreeperBushtitCalliope HummingbirdCassin’s FinchCassin’s VireoCedar WaxwingChestnut-backed ChickadeeChipping SparrowCommon NighthawkCommon RavenCommon YellowthroatCooper’s HawkDark-eyed JuncoDusky FlycatcherEvening GrosbeakFlammulated OwlFox SparrowGolden-crowned KingletGray JayGray-cheeked ThrushGreat-gray OwlGreat-horned OwlGreen-tailed TowheeHairy Woodpecker

Appendix B
Species

Ecoregion 2,3

Alaska British Columbia Washington Oregon Calif

SC SE NMC SMC QCI WVI NC SC OP CR CR WC HC KM KB

Hammond’s FlycatcherHermit ThrushHermit WarblerHouse WrenHutton’s VireoLazuli BuntingLincoln’s SparrowMacGillivray’s WarblerMerlinMountain BluebirdMountain ChickadeeMountain QuailNashville WarblerNorthern FlickerNorthern GoshawkNorthern Pygmy-OwlNorthern Saw-whet OwlOrange-crowned WarblerOlive-sided FlycatcherPacific-slope FlycatcherPileated WoodpeckerPine GrosbeakPine SiskinPurple FinchPurple MartinRed CrossbillRed-breasted NuthatchRed-breasted SapsuckerRed-tailed HawkRuby-crowned KingletRuffed GrouseRufous HummingbirdSharp-shinned HawkSong SparrowSpotted TowheeSteller’s JaySwainson’s Thrush

46  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest Ecoregion associations of breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Appendix B  47

Species

Ecoregion 2,3

Alaska British Columbia Washington Oregon Calif

SC SE NMC SMC QCI WVI NC SC OP CR CR WC HC KM KB

Townsend’s WarblerTownsend’s SolitaireTree SwallowVaried ThrushVaux’s SwiftViolet-Green SwallowWarbling VireoWestern BluebirdWestern TanagerWestern Screech-OwlWestern Wood-PeweeWhite-crowned SparrowWhite-headed WoodpeckerWillow FlycatcherWilson’s WarblerWinter WrenWrentitYellow-breasted ChatYellow-rumped Warbler

1 The relationships presented here are for breeding season nesting habitat only. Primary sources include: Breeding Bird Survey relative abundance maps www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html [relative 

abundance maps]), the Birds of North America species accounts, Campbell and others (1997), Smith and others (1997), Cotter and Andres (2000), Johnson and O’Neil (2001), Marshall and others (2003), Hunter and others (2005), and Wahl and others (2005).

2 Ecoregions are based on the following sources (includes only ecoregions dominated by conifer forest): Alaska (Kessel and Gibson, 1978); British Columbia (Ministry of Forests adapted from Campbell 

and others, 1997); Oregon and Washington (Franklin and Dyrness, 1988; modified); California (California Biodiversity Council, http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiversity/bioregions.html). SC = southcoastal Alaska; SE = southeastern Alaska; NMC = northern mainland coast, British Columbia; SMC = southern mainland coast, British Columbia; QCI = Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia; WVI = western Vancouver Island, British Columbia; NC = northern Cascades, Washington; SC = southern Cascades, Washington; OP = Olympic Peninsula, Washington; CR = Coast Ranges, Washington and Oregon; WC = western Cascades, Oregon; HC = high Cascades, Oregon; KM = Klamath Mountains, Oregon; KB = Klamath Bioregion, California. 

3 The subjective categorizing of breeding bird species use of ecoregions is provided to assist land managers to prioritize conservation towards ecoregions most important for that species. Cells are shaded to 

indicate the degree of importance. Darker shading indicates relatively higher degrees of association with that ecoregion, and therefore greater conservation importance.

High Association Moderate Association Low Association No Association

Ecoregion associations of breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation R

High Association = species is highly associated with this ecoregion (that is, breeding population in young conifer forests of high abundance relative to other ecoregions) and this is the most appropriate ecoregion to target for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (for example, habitat, successional stage, vegetation zone, range within the ecoregion).Moderate Association = species is moderately associated with this ecoregion (that is, breeding population in young conifer forests of moderate abundance relative to other ecoregions) and it is appropriate to target this ecoregion for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (for example, habitat, successional stage, vegetation zone, range within the ecoregion).Low Association = species has a low association with this ecoregion (that is, breeding population in young conifer forests of low abundance relative to other ecoregions) and it is not appropriate to target this ecoregion for conservation activities for this species, although recognition of the limited use of this ecoregion by the species is appropriate.No Association = species either does not occur or only occasionally occurs as a breeding species in this ecoregion and conservation activities are not recommended.

egion (BCR 5).—Continued
Successional stage nesting habitat relationships of breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).1

Species

Successional Stage 2,3

Finer-Scale Nesting Habitat Associations or Conditions 4 Early Mid

Rip GF/SI SS/PT CP/ST SE/YS

Alder Flycatcher deciduous trees and shrubs, especially willow and alderAmerican Crow young/mature trees for nesting; forest edges and openingsAmerican Goldfinch patchy shrub/tree cover with extensive herbaceous; forest openingsAmerican Kestrel snags with large cavities for nesting; open forest or forest openingsAmerican Robin tree/shrub nest; open or semi-open forest and edgesBand-tailed Pigeon closed-canopy forest for nesting; berry trees and shrubs for foragingBarred Owl large trees in semi-open forest; forages in grass/forb of forest openingsBewick’s Wren stumps or snags with cavity/crevices for nesting Black-backed Woodpecker snags or dying trees for cavity excavation; open or semi-open forestBlack-headed Grosbeak broad-leaf canopy and subcanopy trees; forest edgesBlack-throated Gray Warbler broad-leaf canopy and subcanopy trees; moderate canopy cover Blue (Sooty) Grouse mesic sites with deciduous cover; open and closed forestsBoreal Chickadee snags or dying trees with small cavities for nestingBrown Creeper large snags/trees with loose bark crevices for nestingBushtit dense shrubs and sapling trees, especially deciduous vegetationCalliope Hummingbird deciduous and nectar producing vegetation; open forests and edgesCassin’s Finch mature trees in open or semi-open forest; high conifer coverCassin’s Vireo deciduous trees in canopy/subcanopy, especially drier forest typesCedar Waxwing trees/shrubs at forest edges and openings; berry shrubs for foragingChestnut-backed Chickadee large snags with small cavities; high conifer foliage volumeChipping Sparrow sapling trees for nesting; open forest, especially drier forest typesCommon Nighthawk bare to sparsely vegetated ground; open forest or forest openingsCommon Raven large conifer trees for nesting; forest interior and edgesCommon Yellowthroat dense shrub, tall herbaceous layer, especially wet areasCooper’s Hawk mature trees for nesting; open and closed forestsDark-eyed Junco mixed bare ground and low herbaceous; open forest or forest openingsDusky Flycatcher dense shrub layer in forest openings; especially drier forest typesEvening Grosbeak forest edges and openings with moderate conifer coverFlammulated Owl snags or dying trees with cavities; open forest, especially drier forest typesFox Sparrow dense shrub layer; forest edges and openingsGolden-crowned Kinglet high percent conifer canopy cover and foliage volumeGray Jay high percent conifer canopy cover and foliage volumeGray-cheeked Thrush dense, tall shrub layerGreat Gray Owl large trees in semi-open forest; forages in grass/forb of forest openingsGreat-horned Owl large snags or live trees with large cavities or nesting platformsGreen-tailed Towhee dense shrub patches, especially in drier forest typesHairy Woodpecker snags or dying trees for cavity excavation; forest edges, interior, openingsHammond’s Flycatcher open mid-story with high conifer canopy cover

Appendix C

48  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest
Appendix C  49

Species

Successional Stage 2,3

Finer-Scale Nesting Habitat Associations or Conditions 4 Early Mid

Rip GF/SI SS/PT CP/ST SE/YS

Hermit Thrush dense shrub patches with open ground cover; forest edges and openingsHermit Warbler high percent conifer canopy cover and foliage volumeHouse Wren snags or stumps with cavities for nesting; open forest or forest openingsHutton’s Vireo broad-leaf sub-canopy, especially oak and madrone; drier sitesLazuli Bunting shrub/small tree patches with extensive herbaceous; drier forest typesLincoln’s Sparrow herbaceous/low shrub edges and wet areas within forest canopy gapsMacGillivray’s Warbler dense shrub layer, especially wet sites or wetter forest typesMerlin mature trees in semi-open forest and forest edgesMountain Bluebird snags or dying trees with cavities; open forest or forest openingsMountain Chickadee snags or dying trees with cavities; high conifer foliage volumeMountain Quail dense shrub patches with herbaceous areas; forest openingsNashville Warbler dense shrub layer, especially broad-leaf vegetation; drier forest typesNorthern Flicker snags or dying trees for cavity excavation; forest edges and openingsNorthern Goshawk mature stands with large trees and high canopy closureNorthern Pygmy-Owl snags or dying trees with cavities for nestingNorthern Saw-whet Owl snags or dying trees with cavities for nestingOrange-crowned Warbler dense shrub layer, especially deciduous vegetation and mesic sitesOlive-sided Flycatcher forest edges and openings with large residual trees and snagsPacific-slope Flycatcher deciduous canopy and subcanopy trees, especially alderPileated Woodpecker large snags and dying trees for cavity excavation; forest interiorPine Grosbeak mature trees in open or semi-open conifer forestPine Siskin semi-open to closed forest; high percent conifer coverPurple Finch open to semi-open mixed coniferous/deciduous forest and edgesPurple Martin large snags with cavities for nesting; forest openings with little vegetationRed Crossbill mature trees with high foliage volume of cone-producing conifer treesRed-breasted Nuthatch snags with small cavities; high conifer foliage volumeRed-breasted Sapsucker snags or dying trees for cavity excavation, especially deciduous treesRed-tailed Hawk large area with at least a few large trees at edges or forest openingsRuby-crowned Kinglet mature conifer trees; open or closed-canopy forestsRuffed Grouse deciduous trees and shrubs, especially alder; forest openings and edgesRufous Hummingbird dense shrub layer with nectar vegetation; forest openings and interiorSharp-shinned Hawk dense stands of young treesSong Sparrow dense ground/low shrub vegetation, especially wet areasSpotted Towhee dense shrub layer; forest openings and edgesSteller’s Jay multi-layers of conifer trees; high conifer foliage volumeSwainson’s Thrush dense shrub layer, especially wetter sitesTownsend’s Warbler high percent conifer canopy cover and foliage volumeTownsend’s Solitaire sparsely vegetated ground or rocky outcrops; open forest or forest openings

Successional stage nesting habitat relationships of breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Species

Successional Stage 2,3

Finer-Scale Nesting Habitat Associations or Conditions 4 Early Mid

Rip GF/SI SS/PT CP/ST SE/YS

Tree Swallow snags or dying trees with cavities; forest openings, especially near waterVaried Thrush structural complexity, especially mid-story layer and deciduous treesVaux’s Swift large, hollow snags or dying trees with cavities/openings for nestingViolet-green Swallow cliffs or snags with crevices/cavities for nesting; forest openings or edgesWarbling Vireo broad-leaf canopy or sub-canopy trees, especially wet sitesWestern Bluebird snags with cavities for nesting; forest openings with little vegetationWestern Tanager large conifer trees; forest edges and retention trees in forest openingsWestern Screech-Owl snags or dying trees with cavities for nestingWestern Wood-Pewee deciduous trees in canopy or sub-canopy; forest edges and openingsWhite-crowned Sparrow few trees/shrubs with extensive low herbaceous; forest openingsWhite-headed Woodpecker large snags for cavity excavation; drier forest and tree typesWillow Flycatcher dense shrub layer, especially deciduous shrubs or small treesWilson’s Warbler dense shrub layer, especially wetter sitesWinter Wren low understory complexity, especially stumps, down logs, root wadsWrentit dense, tall shrub layerYellow-breasted Chat dense shrub layer; especially deciduous and wet sitesYellow-rumped Warbler high percent forest cover (conifer and mixed); open or semi-open forests

1The relationships presented here are for breeding season nesting habitat only. Primary sources include: Meslow and Wight (1975), Morrison and Meslow (1983b), Brown (1985), Kessler and Kogut 

(1985), Marcot (1985), Sidle (1985), Bettinger (1996), Bosakowski (1997), Bunnell and others (1997), Manuwal and Pearson (1997), Sallabanks and Quinn (2000), and Johnson and O’Neil (2001). 

2 GF/SI/ = Grass-forb, Stand initiation (0-5 years); SS/PT = Shrub-seedling, Shrub-sapling, Pioneer tree (5-20 years); CP/ST = Closed-canopy pole, Small tree (15-30 years); SE/YS = Stem 

exclusion, Young sawtimber (25-60 years); Rip = Riparian.

3 The subjective categorizing of breeding bird species use of successional stages is provided to assist land managers to prioritize conservation towards the successional stage(s) most important for 

that species. Cells are shaded to indicate the degree of importance. Darker shading indicates relatively higher degrees of association with that successional stage, and therefore greater conservation importance: 

High Association Moderate Association Low Association No Association

High Association = species is highly associated with this successional stage (that is, breeding population in young conifer forest of high abundance relative to other successional stages or other habitats) and this is the most appropriate successional stage to target for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (for example, range, vegetation zone, habitat features, etc.).Moderate Association = species is moderately associated with this successional stage (that is, breeding population in young conifer forest of moderate abundance relative to other successional stages or other habitats) and it is appropriate to target this successional stage for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (for example, range, vegetation zone, habitat features, etc.).Low Association = species has a low association with this successional stage (that is, breeding population in young conifer forest of low abundance relative to other successional stages or other habitats) and it is not appropriate to target this successional stage for conservation activities for this species, although recognition of the limited use of this successional stage by this species is appropriate.No Association = species either does not occur or only occasionally occurs as a breeding species in this successional stage and conservation activities are not recommended.

4 Comments provide additional information on finer-scale nesting habitat associations or conditions beyond that characteristic of successional stage.

50 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest Successional stage nesting habitat relationships of breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Appendix D Forest type associations for breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).1 Species Forest Type 2,3 Alaska British Columbia Oregon and Washington California Elevation

SS WH CWH MH SS WH SF MH MC RD KMC

Alder Flycatcher Low-midAmerican Crow Low-midAmerican Goldfinch Low-midAmerican Kestrel AllAmerican Robin AllBand-tailed Pigeon Low-midBarred Owl AllBewick’s Wren Low-midBlack-backed Woodpecker HighBlack-headed Grosbeak Low-mid (S=All)Black-throated Gray Warbler Low-mid (S=All)Blue (Sooty) Grouse Mid-high (N=All)Boreal Chickadee AllBrown Creeper AllBushtit Low-midCalliope Hummingbird Mid-highCassin’s Finch HighCassin’s Vireo Low-mid (S=All)Cedar Waxwing Low-midChestnut-backed Chickadee AllChipping Sparrow Mid-high (N=All)Common Nighthawk Low-mid (S=All)Common Raven Mid-high (S=All)Common Yellowthroat Low-midCooper’s Hawk Low-midDark-eyed Junco Mid-high (N=All)Dusky Flycatcher Mid-high

Appendix D  51
Species

Forest Type 2,3

Alaska British Columbia Oregon and Washington California Elevation

SS WH CWH MH SS WH SF MH MC RD KMC

Evening Grosbeak Mid-highFlammulated Owl Mid-highFox Sparrow N=Low;S=HighGolden-crowned Kinglet All (N=Low-mid)Gray Jay Mid-high (S=All)Gray-cheeked Thrush Low-midGreat-gray Owl Mid-HighGreat-horned Owl AllGreen-tailed Towhee HighHairy Woodpecker AllHammond’s Flycatcher Mid-highHermit Thrush Mid-high (N=All)Hermit Warbler AllHouse Wren S=All; N=LowHutton’s Vireo Low-mid (N=Low)Lazuli Bunting S=All; N=LowLincoln’s Sparrow High (N=All)MacGillivray’s Warbler Mid-highMerlin Low-midMountain Bluebird HighMountain Chickadee HighMountain Quail Mid-highNashville Warbler Mid-highNorthern Flicker AllNorthern Goshawk Mid-high (N=All)Northern Pygmy-Owl All (N=Mid-high)Northern Saw-whet Owl AllOrange-crowned Warbler All (N=Low-mid)Olive-sided Flycatcher All (S=Mid-high)

52  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest Forest type associations for breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Species

Forest Type 2,3

Alaska British Columbia Oregon and Washington California Elevation

SS WH CWH MH SS WH SF MH MC RD KMC

Pacific-slope Flycatcher Low-midPileated Woodpecker Low-midPine Grosbeak N=Low;S=HighPine Siskin Mid-high (N=All)Purple Finch Low-midPurple Martin Low (S=Low-mid)Red Crossbill AllRed-breasted Nuthatch AllRed-breasted Sapsucker Low-mid (S=All)Red-tailed Hawk Low-midRuby-crowned Kinglet Mid-high (N=All)Ruffed Grouse AllRufous Hummingbird AllSharp-shinned Hawk AllSong Sparrow Low-midSpotted Towhee Low-midSteller’s Jay AllSwainson’s Thrush Low-midTownsend’s Warbler Mid-high (N=All)Townsend’s Solitaire Mid-highTree Swallow Low-midVaried Thrush Mid-high (N=All)Vaux’s Swift Low-mid (S=All)Violet-Green Swallow All (N=Low)Warbling Vireo Low-mid (S=All)Western Bluebird Low-midWestern Tanager Mid-high (N=Low-mid) Western Screech-Owl Low-midWestern Wood-Pewee Low-mid (S=All)

Appendix D  53

Forest type associations for breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Species

Forest Type 2,3

Alaska British Columbia Oregon and Washington California Elevation

SS WH CWH MH SS WH SF MH MC RD KMC

White-crowned Sparrow AllWhite-headed Woodpecker HighWillow Flycatcher AllWilson’s Warbler Low-mid (N=All)Winter Wren AllWrentit Low-midYellow-breasted Chat LowYellow-rumped Warbler Mid-high (N=Low-mid)

1 The relationships presented here are for breeding season nesting habitat only. Primary sources include: Manuwal and others (1987), Campbell and others (1997), Smith and others (1997), Cotter and Andres 

(2000), Johnson and O’Neil (2001), Marshall and others (2003), Hunter and others (2005), and Wahl and others (2005).

2 Only conifer-dominated forest types are considered. SS=Sitka Spruce; WH=Western Hemlock (includes Western Red-cedar and Douglas-Fir); CWH = Coastal Western Hemlock (includes Douglas-fir, 

Western Red-cedar, and Sitka Spruce); MH = Mountain Hemlock (includes Interior Cedar-Hemlock); SS = Sitka Spruce; WH = Western Hemlock (includes Western Red-cedar and Douglas-Fir); SF = Pacific Silver Fir; MH = Mountain Hemlock; MC = Mixed Conifer (includes Shasta Red Fir); RD = Redwood; KMC = Klamath Mixed Conifer. Sources; Alaska (Hutchison, 1968); British Columbia (BC Ministry of Forests adapted from Campbell and others, 1997), Oregon and Washington (Franklin and Dyrness, 1980); California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988).

3 The subjective categorizing of breeding bird species use of forest types is provided to assist land managers to prioritize conservation towards the forest type(s) most important for that species. Cells are 

shaded to indicate the degree of importance. Darker shading indicates relatively higher degrees of association with that forest type, and therefore greater conservation importance:

High Association Moderate Association Low Association No Association

High Association = species is highly associated with this forest type (that is, breeding population in young conifer forest of high abundance relative to other forest types) and this is the most appropriate forest type to target for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (for example, range, successional stage, habitat features, etc.).Moderate Association = species is moderately associated with this forest type (that is, breeding population in young conifer forest of moderate abundance relative to other forest types) and it is appropriate to target this forest type for conservation activities for this species provided other factors are suitable (for example, range, successional stage, habitat features, etc.).Low Association = species has a low association with this forest type (that is, breeding population in young conifer forest of low abundance relative to other forest types) and it is not appropriate to target this forest type for conservation activities for this species, although recognition of the limited use of this forest type by this species is appropriate.No Association = species either does not occur or only occasionally occurs as a breeding species in this forest type and conservation activities for this species are not recommended.

4 Elevations identify where the species is most abundant and where conservation should be emphasized. The subjective elevation categories of low, mid, and high should be considered relative to the range 

of elevations that occur within the area of interest. For species with distinct differences in their range, N = northern part of their range in BCR 5, S = southern part of their range in BCR 5.

54  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest Forest type associations for breeding bird species in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Appendix E Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5). Species 1 Higher Abundance In Thinned 2 Similar Abundance Thinned and Unthinned 3 Lower Abundance in Thinned 2 Comments

American Robin B,C,d,e 4 F,g,H

Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short-term (1-5 

years), with no change in abundance in the mid to long-terms (5-15 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in increased abundance than lighter intensity thinning.

Band-tailed Pigeon G

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Black-headed Grosbeak B,F,H Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the short, mid, or long-terms (1-15 years).Black-throated Gray Warbler B,F C,H

Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance or no 

change in abundance in the short and mid to long-term (1-15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Brown Creeper G,H E,F,J C

Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in lower abundance in 

the short-term (1-5 years) and no change in abundance in the mid and long-term (5-20 years) or higher abundance in the mid to longterm (5-15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Calliope Hummingbird F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Cassin’s Vireo F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Chestnut-backed Chickadee E,G A,B,c,d,H,J

Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in no change in 

abundance in the short and mid to long-term (1-15 years), or higher abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Chipping Sparrow F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Appendix E  55
Species 1

Higher

Abundance

In Thinned 2

Similar

Abundance 

Thinned and 

Unthinned 3

Lower

Abundance 

in Thinned 2

Comments

Dark-eyed Junco B,

c,d,E,H

F

G

Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short-term (1-5 

years) and mid to long-term (5-15 years); although local effects may result in no change or lower abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years). Thinning intensity (light to heavy) does not appear to make much of a difference.

Dusky Flycatcher

F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Evening Grosbeak C,G,H E,F

Mixed results suggest thinning results in higher abundance or no 

change in abundance in the short and mid to long-terms (1-15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Fox Sparrow D,F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in 

the short-term (1-5 years) or mid-term (5-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Golden-crowned Kinglet D,E,G,J B,C,H

Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in lower abundance 

in the short-term (1-5 years) and mid to long-term (5-15 years) or no change in abundance in the mid and long-term (5-20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning.

Gray Jay

B C,G,H

Thinning usually results in no change or an increase in abundance in 

the short-term (1-5 years) and no change in abundance in the mid to long-term (5-15 years).

Hairy Woodpecker

a,B,

c,H,j F,

g

Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short, mid, and 

long-terms (1-20 years); although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in no change in abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years).

Hammond’s Flycatcher B,

c,f,h,j

Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short, mid, and 

long-terms (1-20 years). Thinning intensity (light to heavy) does not appear to make a difference.

Hermit Thrush

F B,D

Limited data suggests thinning results in lower abundance in the 

short-term (1-5 years), with no change in abundance in the midterm (5-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

56  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Species 1

Higher

Abundance

In Thinned 2

Similar

Abundance 

Thinned and 

Unthinned 3

Lower

Abundance 

in Thinned 2

Comments

Hermit Warbler F E,G,H,J B,C

Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in lower abundance in 

the short to mid-term (1-10 years), with local effects resulting in no change in abundance or higher abundance in the mid to longterm (5-20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning.

Hutton’s Vireo G B,J C,E,H

Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance or no 

change in abundance in the short, mid and long-terms (1-20 years) or higher abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Lazuli Bunting F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

MacGillivray’s Warbler B,G F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

short-term (1-5 years) with no change or higher abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Mountain Chickadee F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Mountain Quail F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Nashville Warbler F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Northern Flicker F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Orange-crowned Warbler D Limited data suggests no change in abundance in the short-term (1-5 years); mid and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Appendix E   57

Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Species 1

Higher

Abundance

In Thinned 2

Similar

Abundance 

Thinned and 

Unthinned 3

Lower

Abundance 

in Thinned 2

Comments

Pacific-slope Flycatcher B,D,E C,G,H,J

Mixed results suggest thinning results in no change in abundance in 

the short term (1-5 years) or lower abundance in the short, mid, and long-term (1-20 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response. 

Pileated Woodpecker

F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Purple Finch B,F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the short and mid-term (1-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Red-breasted Nuthatch E,F,G,H,J A,C

Mixed results suggest thinning results in no change in abundance in 

the short-term (1-5 years), but higher abundance in the mid and long-terms (5-20 years).

Red-breasted Sapsucker

B D,F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

short-term (1-5 years) with no change in abundance in the midterm (5-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Rufous Hummingbird

B

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

short-term (1-5 years); mid and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Song Sparrow

G

D

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in 

the short-term (1-5 years) and higher abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Spotted Towhee

G

F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance or no 

change in abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and longterm effects on abundance not reported.

Steller’s Jay D,F,G,J

C

Thinning usually results in no change in abundance in the short, mid, 

and long-term (1-20 years), although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in lower abundance in the short-term (1-5 years).

58  Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Species 1

Higher

Abundance

In Thinned 2

Similar

Abundance 

Thinned and 

Unthinned 3

Lower

Abundance 

in Thinned 2

Comments

Swainson’s Thrush G,J B,D,H C

Mixed results suggest thinning most often results in no change 

in abundance in the short and mid to long-terms (1-15 years), although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in lower abundance in the short-term (1-5 years) and higher abundance in the mid and long-term (5-20 years).

Townsend’s Solitaire B,C,F

Limited data suggests thinning usually results in higher abundance 

in the short and mid-term (1-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Townsend’s Warbler G D

Limited data suggests thinning results in lower abundance in the 

short-term (1-5 years) and no change in abundance in the mid-term 5-10 years); long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Varied Thrush D,E,J B,C

Thinning usually results in lower abundance in the short-term (1-5 

years) and no change in abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning.

Warbling Vireo C,F,H B

Mixed results suggest thinning results in higher abundance or no 

change in abundance in the short-term (1-5 years) with higher abundance in the mid to long-term (5-15 years).

Western Tanager B,C,G,H F,J

Mixed results suggest thinning results in higher abundance in the 

short-term (1-5 years) and higher abundance or no change in abundance in the mid to long-term (5-15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

White-headed Woodpecker F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Wilson’s Warbler G,J B,C,H D

Mixed results suggest thinning most often results in no change in 

abundance in the short and mid to long-term (1-15 years); although local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in lower abundance in the short-term (1-5 years) and higher abundance in the mid and long-term (5-20 years).

Appendix E   59

Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued
Species 1

Higher

Abundance

In Thinned 2

Similar

Abundance 

Thinned and 

Unthinned 3

Lower

Abundance 

in Thinned 2

Comments

Winter Wren E,H C,J B,G

Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance in the 

short and mid-term (1-10 years) or no change in abundance in the short-term (1-5 years) or long-term (10-20 years) and higher abundance in the mid to long-term (5-15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response.

Western Wood-Pewee

F

Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance 

in the mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

Yellow-rumped Warbler

F

Limited data suggests thinning results in higher abundance in the 

mid-term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported.

1 Species listed here are those cited in the studies below that are considered to be associated with young conifer forests in the Guide.2 Higher and lower abundances in thinned stands reflect statistically significant differences as reported in the studies.3 Similar abundance between thinned and unthinned indicates there was no significant difference reported in the studies.4 Letters correspond to studies listed in the table below (ordered by years post-thin).

Reference Study Type 5 Years Post-Thin Level of thinning 6 Location

A – Weikel (1997) experimental 1-2 Moderate to Heavy Northern Coast Range, OR

B – Hagar and others (2004) experimental 1-4 Moderate to Heavy West-central Cascades, OR

C – Hayes and others (2003) experimental 1-6 Moderate to Heavy Northern Coast Range, ORD – Dellasalla and others (1996) observational 3-5 Light to Moderate Southeast AK (Prince of Wales Island)E – Artman (1990) observational 4-6 Moderate to Heavy West-central Cascades, WA

F – Siegel and DeSante (2003) observational 5-11 Light to Moderate Northwestern Sierra Nevada, CA

G – Manuwal and Palazotto (2004) observational 8-11 Light and Heavy Puget Lowlands, WAH – Hagar and others (1996) observational 5-15 Light to Moderate Central and Northern Coast Range, ORJ – Muir and others (2002) observational 10-24 Light to Moderate Central Coast Range, OR

5 The summary includes both experimental studies (that is, ones with pre- and post-thinning in the same stand) and observational studies (that is, ones comparing thinned and unthinned stands in 

two different places).

6The description of the level of thinning was taken from the study or modified slightly to be relative to the other studies. It is based generally on the volume removed and remaining tree densities, 

although data presented in the studies were not always sufficient to apply consistent standards of light, moderate, and heavy thinning.

60 Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest Relationships between thinning and breeding bird species abundance in young conifer forests in the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5).—Continued

Altman and Hagar Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest SIR 2006-5304

Printed on recycled paper