Wintering Birds in Intensively Established Pine Plantations of Coastal Plain Mississippi

Hanberry, Brice B.; Hanberry, Phillip; Riffell, Samuel K.; Demarais, Stephen; Jones, Jeanne C.

doi:10.5849/sjaf.11-028

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Direct mortality from logging equipment can be relatively high for small mammals (e.g., 52% of marked individuals; Escobar et al 2015 [Chile]). Intensity of MSP, which is defined by amount of exposed mineral soil, can be negatively correlated with plant abundance, may promote non-native species (Haeussler et al 1999, Lane et al 2011, Newmaster et al 2007, Lane et al 2011, and has resulted in fewer wintering birds (Hanberry et al 2013).…”

Section: Mechanical Site Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: Mechanical Site Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Practices that retain some deciduous vegetation while simultaneously regenerating conifer cover appear to positively influence bird communities (Jones et al 2012a). Hanberry et al (2013) found that wintering bird abundance in Mississippi was greatest in chemically treated pine sites for the first 5 years.…”

Section: Chemical 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

“…Biodiversity contributions of early successional stages of managed pine are often not considered with respect to their contributions to early successional and shrubland bird communities [53]. Though ephemeral in nature, managed pine stands support disturbance-dependent grassland and scrub-successional bird communities during regeneration stages [24,26,28,31,34]. These post-disturbance forests are often high in species diversity as there is ample light available to support diverse vegetative conditions [26,[28][29][30][31][32]53].…”

Section: Birds In Managed Pine Landscapes At Early Successional Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though ephemeral in nature, managed pine stands support disturbance-dependent grassland and scrub-successional bird communities during regeneration stages [24,26,28,31,34]. These post-disturbance forests are often high in species diversity as there is ample light available to support diverse vegetative conditions [26,[28][29][30][31][32]53]. Estimates of species richness suggest up to 76 native bird species detected in pine stands in the region from 1-5 years' post-establishment ( [26,32,33,36,47]; Table 1).…”

Section: Birds In Managed Pine Landscapes At Early Successional Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Bird Response to Privately-Owned, Managed Pine Stands in the Southeastern U.S.

Evans

Larsen-Gray

Miller

et al. 2021

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The southeastern U.S. is widely known as a bastion of privately-owned, managed pine (Pinus spp.) forests, comprised primarily of native pine species. The region supports high levels of biodiversity, but also a multi-billion-dollar forest products economy critical to socioeconomic stability of rural areas. We conducted a systematic review of studies focused exclusively on avifaunal associations within privately-owned, managed pine landscapes in the southeastern U.S. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis framework to examine all available studies that evaluated aspects of avian diversity, abundance, and community composition across a suite of forest types, stand ages, and forest management practices within southeastern managed pine systems in the last 70 years. We screened 160 records through primary database searches, and 1696 secondary records from supplemental searches and other sources, and identified 103 relevant articles for inclusion. As expected, although there is no single forest management practice that best provides for avian communities, we found practices that: (1) involve prudent site preparation; (2) promote forest thinning and intermediate management practices; (3) provide non-pine vegetative cover; (4) supply fine- and meso-filter resources such as retained snags and coarse woody debris; and (5) promote heterogeneity in cover types, largely enhanced value of southeastern managed pine systems to avian communities. Overall, it appears that avian communities can be best maintained by providing a diverse mosaic of forest conditions in managed pine landscapes. Key research gaps include improving understanding avian population demographics, such as survival, reproduction, and dispersal.

show abstract

“…Given enough tree removal, early successional birds may be at least as abundant in stands with tree retention as in clearcuts, while mature forest birds will be more abundant in stands with tree retention, albeit not be as abundant as in mature closed forests (Webb et al in New York, USA; Freedman et al in Nova Scotia, Canada; Merrill et al in Minnesota, USA; King and DeGraaf in New Hampshire, USA; Rodewald and Yahner in Pennsylvania, USA; McDermott and Wood in West Virginia, USA; Hanberry et al ; 2013 in Mississippi, USA). For example, clearcuts with residual overstory trees and suppressed tree sprouts produced greater abundance of most species, including early successional species, than clearcuts with young small‐diameter trees but no retained canopy trees during winter and spring in the southeastern United States (Hanberry et al , ). Nonetheless, there were greater abundances of early successional birds in clearcuts 5–12 years after harvest than in shelterwoods in Arkansas, USA, but shelterwoods contained greater abundance of some species rare in clearcuts (Perry and Thill ).…”

Section: Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Open forest management for early successional birds

Hanberry

Thompson

2019

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife biologists classify some bird species as early successional because of apparent dependence on early successional vegetation such as forbs, grasses, shrubs, and small trees. We propose that many "early successional" species were more often associated with open forests such as savannas and woodlands, which covered a much greater extent of the eastern United States under historical disturbance regimes than more ephemeral early successional forest. We draw on several lines of evidence, including knowledge of historical ecosystems and disturbance, landscape analyses, and general literature review to evaluate benefits of open forest ecosystems for early successional birds. Early successional forests covered 1-13% of forestlands in the eastern United States prior to Euro-American settlement, whereas open forests covered large extents of the United States. Many early successional songbirds reach great densities in open forests and potentially greater numbers in landscapes with historical amounts of open forest than in presentday landscapes and those under intensive even-aged forest management. Restoration and management of open forests has not been prioritized or well-articulated for management of early successional birds and other species. Although both early successional forests and open forests provide habitat for birds, we suggest the great reduction in the historical extent of open forests needs to be addressed through greater restoration and management of open forests if we want to better meet the needs of some early successional birds and other wildlife. Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract

Wintering Birds in Intensively Established Pine Plantations of Coastal Plain Mississippi

Cited by 6 publications

References 21 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.

Systematic Review of Bird Response to Privately-Owned, Managed Pine Stands in the Southeastern U.S.

Open forest management for early successional birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About