2014
DOI: 10.3375/043.034.0403
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Short-Term Response of Breeding Birds to Oak Regeneration Treatments in Upland Hardwood Forest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Immediately following stage one harvest, Carolina Wrens and Eastern Towhees likely used tangles and undergrowth thickets (Brawn et al 2001), and the presence of slash piles left behind from logging provided nesting habitat following 0SW tree harvest (McDermott and Wood 2009). Indigo Bunting and Yellow-breasted Chat occupancy in 0SW during stage one was likely in response to openings in the canopy (Strelke and Dickson 1980;Costello et al 2000;Greenberg et al 2014), creating dense layers of vegetation (e.g., Rubus spp., Ricketts and Ritchison 2000) for nesting cover. American Goldfinch's lack of immediate response to 0SW was likely due to their preference for semi-open areas with standing trees (Middleton and McGraw 2009), which 0SW stands did not provide.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Immediately following stage one harvest, Carolina Wrens and Eastern Towhees likely used tangles and undergrowth thickets (Brawn et al 2001), and the presence of slash piles left behind from logging provided nesting habitat following 0SW tree harvest (McDermott and Wood 2009). Indigo Bunting and Yellow-breasted Chat occupancy in 0SW during stage one was likely in response to openings in the canopy (Strelke and Dickson 1980;Costello et al 2000;Greenberg et al 2014), creating dense layers of vegetation (e.g., Rubus spp., Ricketts and Ritchison 2000) for nesting cover. American Goldfinch's lack of immediate response to 0SW was likely due to their preference for semi-open areas with standing trees (Middleton and McGraw 2009), which 0SW stands did not provide.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…al. 2014), and this increased heterogeneity has been shown to improve with re(Lorber et al 2018, Greenberg et al 2014. Speci cally, re seems to improve species diversity within forested landscapes through the regeneration of a dominant herbaceous understory as canopies open(Nowacki and Abrams 2008).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, major phylogenetic, physiological, and life‐history differences among wildlife taxa indicate they should respond differently to changes in forest structure created by fire or other silvicultural or natural disturbances (Harper et al ). For example, shelterwood harvests that substantially reduce canopy cover and alter the forest floor microenvironment provide habitat for shrub‐scrub bird species (Askins , Rush et al ), some lizard species (Matthews et al ), and pollinating insects (Haddad and Baum , Whitehead ) but reduce habitat suitability for some ground‐nesting bird species (Greenberg et al ) and terrestrial salamanders (Harpole and Haas , Greenberg et al ), at least in the short‐term. In contrast, silvicultural disturbances with heavy canopy retention generally have little effect on most wildlife species (Ford et al , Harpole and Haas , Homyack and Haas ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%