Ruffed grouse brood habitat use in a mixed hardwood forest: Implications for forest management in the Appalachians

Ruffed grouse-habitat preference in the central and southern Appalachians

“…Strong site fidelity to drumming logs even through summer results in small home ranges and dominance of young forest in annual models (Craven, 1989). Alternatively, areas used by nesting and brooding females are typically characterized by moderate stem densities, abundant groundcover, and closed canopies (Haulton et al, 2003;Jones et al, 2008;Thompson et al, 1987;Tirpak et al, 2006), more characteristic of 10-20 than 1-10 years old forests on our study areas.…”

“…Young forests also provide greater food availability, as the soft mast, twigs, and buds of species commonly consumed by grouse are more abundant (Perry et al, 1999;Seehorn et al, 1981;Servello and Kirkpatrick, 1987). Roads and roadsides are important for dusting, displaying, feeding, and brood rearing (Jones et al, 2008;Schumacher, 2002;Tirpak et al, 2005). Additionally, roads may serve as travel corridors connecting smaller patches of suitable cover (Whitaker et al, 2006) or as a surrogate to young forest where its availability is limited (Bump et al, 1947;Gullion, 1984).…”

“…In particular, brood habitat is considered to have the narrowest limits of any area used by grouse (Berner and Gysel, 1969). Specifically, grouse broods prefer areas containing abundant food associated with abundant ground vegetation and the security provided by dense cover (Jones et al, 2008;Tirpak et al, 2005). In the CSA, seeded logging roads adjacent to regenerating stands can provide these habitat characteristics Hollifield and Dimmick, 1995), which may explain the importance of road area and stand age in many models.…”

“…In the CSA, seeded logging roads adjacent to regenerating stands can provide these habitat characteristics Hollifield and Dimmick, 1995), which may explain the importance of road area and stand age in many models. Additionally, mesic forest often supports lush herbaceous understories and can serve as important brood habitat (Haulton et al, 2003;Jones et al, 2008). Only the WV2 site did not contain topographic moisture index as a model variable, and it lacked mesic habitat.…”

Burning and mowing as habitat management for capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: An experimental test

“…: Crawford et al, 2004). There is some evidence supporting prescribed fire management for forest grouse (ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus: Jones et al, 2008); perhaps this approach could be extended to capercaillie. In addition, we also tested mowing, which can produce similar effects to fire (Cotton and Hale, 1994;Schimmel and Granström, 1996); we tested whether this was the case in our study, in terms of our objectives.…”