2011
DOI: 10.1093/sjaf/35.3.148
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Snags and Cavity-Nesting Birds within Intensively Managed Pine Stands in Eastern North Carolina, USA

Abstract: Although snags are often considered to be a limiting factor for cavity-nesting birds within intensively managed pine (Pinus spp.) stands, there is little information regarding occurrences of snags and cavity-nesting birds for such stands in the southeastern United States. Therefore, during 2002–2003, we measured characteristics of individual snags (n = 1,218) and quantified the relative abundance of cavity-nesting birds (n = 204 observations; nine species) in 35 forest stands representing seven thinning classe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The density of snags was negatively affected by thinning in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii Franco.) in Oregon (Hagar et al 1996), mixed-species forests of Maine (Garber et al 2005), and young pine stands (< 35 years) in North Carolina (Homyack et al 2011). Edworthy and Martin (2013) found reductions in post-harvest snag persistence in aspen forests in British Columbia.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The density of snags was negatively affected by thinning in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii Franco.) in Oregon (Hagar et al 1996), mixed-species forests of Maine (Garber et al 2005), and young pine stands (< 35 years) in North Carolina (Homyack et al 2011). Edworthy and Martin (2013) found reductions in post-harvest snag persistence in aspen forests in British Columbia.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Less information is available on snag dynamics or effects of management on snags in forests of the southeastern US. Research in other regions suggest single-tree selection and thinning reduces the number of snags (McComb and Noble 1980;Graves et al 2000;Doyon et al 2005;Wisdom and Bate 2008), although commercial-thinning entries may create snags via unintentional damage to trees during thinning (Homyack et al 2011). Unthinned mature stands may have substantially greater numbers of snags than partially harvested (seed tree or shelterwood) stands (Doyon et al 2005;Wisdom and Bate 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In northern hardwood forests, 65-to 75-year-old, second-growth, even-aged stands may have a substantially greater density of snags than single-tree selection stands (Goodburn and Lorimer 1998). However, few studies have compared residual snag densities resulting from a variety of regeneration methods (e.g., Homyack et al 2011). Therefore, we compared snag densities in clearcuts, unharvested controls, and stands under three partial harvest treatments the second, fourth, and sixth years after harvest in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, we predicted that residue removal in clearcuts would result in lower occurrence rates of bats, because we hypothesized this would lead to a loss of substrate that could support insect prey (Ulyshen and Hanula 2010, Riffell et al 2011 a , Seibold et al 2015). Second, we predicted that short‐rotation plantations would result in lower occurrence rates of bats, because we hypothesized this land use would result in a scarcity of structures preferred by many species for roosting (i.e., large‐diameter snags and cavity trees) and the absence of herbaceous groundcover to support insect prey (Miller et al 2009, Homyack et al 2011). Third, we predicted that thinning would be associated with increased bat occurrence, because we hypothesized thinning would lead to a greater volume of airspace beneath the canopy where bats could forage and an abundance of herbaceous groundcover to support insect prey (Blakey et al 2016, Loeb and Waldrop 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%