Bird community dynamics and vegetation relationships among stand establishment practices in intensively managed pine stands

Iglay, Raymond B.; Demarais, Steve; Wigley, T. Bentley; Miller, Darren A.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.008

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ultimate goal of site preparation is to create a suitable growing environment that results in rapid reforestation. Vertebrate biodiversity response to stand establishment practices is strongly influenced by intensity of site preparation (e.g., White et al 1976;Johnson and Landers 2015;Enge and Marion 1986;Haeussler et al 1999;Lane et al 2011;Jones et al , 2010Iglay et al 2012b, Greene et al 2016, where intensity is typically described by the amount of exposed mineral soil, extent and intensity of vegetation suppression, or the type of site preparation (chemical, mechanical, both).…”

Section: Site Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tamm review: Terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity and intensive forest management in the U.S.

Demarais

Verschuyl

Roloff

et al. 2017

Forest Ecology and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, intensively managed forests (IFM) comprise approximately 9% (27.9 million ha) of total forest area. These forests are primarily in highly productive areas and are managed primarily for wood and fiber production. Intensively managed forests provide both opportunities and constraints for conservation of vertebrate biodiversity. However, because a comprehensive review of these opportunities and limitations within the U.S. is lacking, we reviewed effects of typical silvicultural management regimes within IFM on terrestrial vertebrate species. The typical silvicultural regime in IFM includes practices associated with establishing forest management units (stands), weed control, intermediate thinning, and final harvest. Effects of IFM on vertebrate diversity are indirect through habitat modification. Terrestrial vertebrate responses to IFM are species-specific and directly linked to intensity and extent of habitat modification. Shorter crop tree rotations compress successional stages and limit development and recruitment of mature forest structures (e.g., snags, den/roost trees, coarse woody debris). During stand establishment, increased intensification of site preparation and weed control tends to result in lower vertebrate diversity. Generally, vertebrate

show abstract

Section: Site Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tamm review: Terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity and intensive forest management in the U.S.

Demarais

Verschuyl

Roloff

et al. 2017

Forest Ecology and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…fire, browsing, predation, human and machinery disturbance), among others (Luck & Korodaj, 2008;Du Bus de Warnaffe & Deconchat, 2008;Paillet et al, 2010;Reino et al, 2010;Cardinal et al, 2012;Iglay et al, 2012;Ruiz-Benito et al, 2012;Santana et al, 2012;Pawson et al, 2013). This suggests that it captures other planted versus natural differences that are not gathered in our models, such as the removal of standing and lying dead wood in planted forests (commonly associated with invertebrate food and cavity nest resources), the scale of structural/age mosaics, the intensified thinning and human interventions in planted areas, and the frequency of disturbances (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…This suggests that it captures other planted versus natural differences that are not gathered in our models, such as the removal of standing and lying dead wood in planted forests (commonly associated with invertebrate food and cavity nest resources), the scale of structural/age mosaics, the intensified thinning and human interventions in planted areas, and the frequency of disturbances (i.e. fire, browsing, predation, human and machinery disturbance), among others (Luck & Korodaj, 2008;Du Bus de Warnaffe & Deconchat, 2008;Paillet et al, 2010;Reino et al, 2010;Cardinal et al, 2012;Iglay et al, 2012;Ruiz-Benito et al, 2012;Santana et al, 2012;Pawson et al, 2013). In addition, further Table 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Geographical variation in the contribution of planted and natural pine forests to the conservation of bird diversity

Martínez‐Jauregui

Soliño

Dı́az

2016

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Tree plantations can have beneficial or detrimental effects on regional biodiversity. Here, we focus on how the contribution of pine plantations to the maintenance of regional bird diversity varies geographically compared to natural pine forests, after controlling for the effects of other factors that are known to influence the regional richness of pine forest dwelling birds.Location Spain.Methods We combined large-scale datasets from diverse sources (i.e. the Spanish Breeding Bird Atlas, the Third Spanish Forest Inventory, land use and forest distribution maps) to analyse the geographical variation of the contribution of pine plantations in relation to their natural counterparts to the maintenance of the regional species richness of pine forest dwelling birds. To do so, we also controlled for the main environmental, land use and forest structure factors using GLM models.Results Differences in bird diversity among planted and natural pine forests varied along latitudinal and longitudinal gradients after accounting for altitude, climate, land uses and vegetation structure of pine forests. Planted pine forests in the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula have the lowest bird species richness as compared to natural pine forests, and that difference decreased following a north-west-south-east gradient. Differences also varied among pine species; they were larger for the species with a higher productive vocation (Pinus sylvestris, Pinus nigra and Pinus pinaster) and not significantly different from zero for species with low commercial interest and mainly used for the restoration of tree cover (i.e. Pinus halepensis).Main conclusions The potential of plantations or natural pine forests to enhance biodiversity is highly dependent on both the pine species and the geographical location. On this basis, we identify the geographical areas (and pine species) where a major naturalization effort of plantations would be needed to increase bird diversity.

show abstract

“…savannas, distributed spatially and temporally throughout managed pine or closed‐canopy hardwood landscapes. Open forest structure that provides habitat for species of conservation concern can be created with judicious selection of site preparation practices, lower planting densities, heavier midrotation thins, post‐thin selective herbicide, and prescribed fire (Iglay et al , ; Singleton et al ; Roach et al ; Greene et al ). In rangeland systems, the U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS) Working Lands for Wildlife Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) provides an illustration of how conservation design can be coupled with conservation delivery to produce multifunctional landscapes that provide broad ecosystem services (Runge et al ).…”

Section: Multifunctional Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private lands conservation: A vision for the future

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural production, including croplands, pasture, and timber, dominates private-land use and land cover across much of the contiguous lower 48 states. These private lands are essential to achieving the goals of national conservation initiatives such as the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (bobwhite [Colinus virginianus]), Sage Grouse Initiative, and North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Effective conservation delivery in managed landscapes requires 1) an understanding of landowner priorities and ownership objectives, 2) knowledge of the economic and environmental costs and benefits of conservation, and 3) natural resource professionals who understand the business of agriculture and forestry as well as principles of habitat management and wildlife conservation. We make the case for a new vision of multifunctional working landscapes that include designed components of natural and seminatural noncrop perennial plant communities (wetlands, grasslands, riparian areas, field margins, pine [Pinus spp.] grasslands, savannas, etc.) embedded in a matrix of row-crop, pasture, rangeland, and forested working lands that produce sustainable food, fiber, and fuel. Producing sustainable, multifunctional landscapes will require effective conservation delivery that is intentional, objective-driven, targeted, science-based, and landscape scale. We contend that it will also require a new kind of natural resource professional. We consider the specific and novel skill sets that will be required among natural resource professionals to deliver conservation to private owners-producers of working lands.

show abstract

Bird community dynamics and vegetation relationships among stand establishment practices in intensively managed pine stands

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Tamm review: Terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity and intensive forest management in the U.S.

Tamm review: Terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity and intensive forest management in the U.S.

Geographical variation in the contribution of planted and natural pine forests to the conservation of bird diversity

Private lands conservation: A vision for the future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About