what’s new in nh northern hardwoods ‐‐ the wildlife ... · what’s new in nh northern...

What's New New in Northern Hardwood Silviculture- Bartlett, NH

October 2014

1

What’s New in NH Northern Hardwoods Silviculture ‐‐ the wildlife habitat elements

Mariko Yamasaki

USDA Forest Service

Northern Research Station

Durham, NH

1 = most abundant in climax stands; 2 = second most abundant in climax stands


October 2014

2

Predator‐Prey Relationships

Managers create habitat conditions over time across landscapes that influence predator‐prey relationships

Silvicultural Options

•Size of opening influences composition

•Frequency of cut matters – cuts create important ephemeral habitats

•Spatial and temporal patterns influence the reoccupation of these ephemeral habitats

From: DeGraaf et al. 2006


October 2014

3

Species composition of stocked milacres, 10 to 15 years after cutting in beech‐birch‐maple by tolerance groups

Tolerance Group

Clearcutting Group Selection

Single‐tree Selection

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Percent ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Tolerants 43 62 92

Intermediates 19 34 7

Intolerants 38 4 1

Tolerants: beech, sugar maple, hemlock, red spruceIntermediates: yellow birch, white ash, red mapleIntolerants: paper birch and aspen

From: Leak et al. (1987)

• Positive trendPileated woodpeckerBlue‐headed vireoBlack‐throated green warblerBlack‐throated blue warblerPine warblerOvenbird

• Negative trendVeeryWood thrushScarlet tanager

• Positive trendAmerican wigeonRock dove

• Negative trendKilldeerChimney swiftEuropean starlingVesper sparrowSavannah sparrowBobolinkE. meadowlarkHouse sparrow

1966‐2009 BBS Trends by Species‐Habitat Group

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PE

RC

EN

T

FOREST ONLY (n=17)

VT +

VT -

NH +

NH -

BCR-14 +

BCR-14 -

BCR-30 +

BCR-30 -

BCR-13 +

BCR-13 -

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

PE

RC

EN

T

NONFOREST ONLY (n=39)

VT +

VT -

NH +

NH -

BCR-14 +

BCR-14 -

BCR-30 +

BCR-30 -

BCR-13 +

BCR-13 -


October 2014

4

• Positive trendMourning doveRuby‐throated hummingbirdWarbling vireoRed‐eyed vireoTufted titmouseNorthern parulaNorthern cardinal

• Negative trendRuffed grouseNorthern flickerOlive‐sided flycatcherE. wood‐peweeLeast flycatcherE. kingbirdBrown thrasherYellow warblerChestnut‐sided warblerAmerican redstartCanada warblerE. towheeField sparrowSong sparrowRose‐breasted grosbeakBrown‐headed cowbird

1966‐2009 BBS Trends by Species‐Habitat Group

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

PE

RC

EN

T

FOREST-NONFOREST (n=106)

VT +

VT -

NH +

NH -

BCR-14 +

BCR-14 -

BCR-30 +

BCR-30 -

BCR-13 +

BCR-13 -

Composition Habitat opportunity class

Habitat breadth: Essentially forest Forest and nonforest

Forest > 90 70‐90

Nonforest 0‐10 5‐30

Water < 5 > 5

Size‐class Distribution:

RegenerationSapling‐poleSawtimber

Large sawtimber

5‐1530‐4040‐50< 10

5‐1530‐4040‐50< 10

Cover‐type Distribution:

Deciduous (not oak)

Short rotationLong rotation

5‐1520‐35

5‐2010‐20

Hard mast – oak 1‐5 1‐15

Coniferous 35‐50 25‐50

Nonforest

Upland openingsWetlands

3‐51‐3

5‐103‐5

Desired Habitat Composition Goals for NE Landscapes


October 2014

5

So what’s new?

• We’re treating stands with an eye to their patchiness –rather than tree‐by‐tree

• We’re recognizing the importance of how regeneration is laid out on‐the‐ground

• We’re paying closer attention to habitat features in managed stands that maintain/enhance wildlife habitat diversity

Ordination of avian similarity for 114 survey points, WMNF

•Early successional bird community in new hardwood clearcuts is very different from the mature hardwood bird community

•Bird community in group selection cuts are mixtures of mature hardwoods and some but not all early successional communities


October 2014

6

BEF case study – ES birds respond to group size

From: Leak et al. (in review)

• Costello et al. (2000) groups/patches studied for additional 3‐5 years

• ES birds were observed more often in larger than smaller groups/patches

BEF case study ‐‐ bird use of clearcuts, patches, and shelterwood

From: Yamasaki et al. (2014)

• ES species not present in pre‐harvest stands

• Species richness was similar (ES, Gen, M/LS)

• Higher proportions of ES species and observations in CC and patches than shelterwood


October 2014

7

Frequency of Cutting Cycle Matters ‐ Ephemeral Habitats

Species First appear Common Decline E. bluebird 1 1 2N. flicker 1 1 7‐10Willow flycatcher 1 4 7‐10Winter wren 1 2Swainson's thrush 2 4 15*Chestnut‐sided warbler 2 4 10Mourning warbler 2 5 7‐10

Common yellowthroat 2 6 10American goldfinch 2 6 7‐10Cedar waxwing 2 4 7‐10Veery 3 6 *Black‐and‐white warbler 3 4 15*Rose‐breasted grosbeak 3 15 *Canada warbler 5 15 *Ruffed grouse 10 15 *Wood thrush 10 15 *Ovenbird 10 15 *Black‐throated blue warbler 15 * *

Black‐throated green warbler 15 * *

From: DeGraaf et al. (1992)

ESH as post‐fledging habitat

From: C. Chandler et al. 2012

• Capture rates of mature forest nesting birds (BLBW, BTBW, BTNW, REVI, SWTH) in ESH > in mature forest during post‐fledging period

• ES birds were rarely mist‐netted in mature forest habitat

• Generalists use ES habitats also as post‐fledging habitat


October 2014

8

Patch cuts (1.6 ha) ‐ no adjacent roadsComp. 18 (n = 2)

0

5

10

15

20

Cut Stand Forest Stand

Softwood groups (0.2 ha) ‐mature

comparisons (n = 4)

0

5

10

15

20


Ba

t pa

sse

s/d

ete

ctor

/nig

ht

Patch cuts (1.6 ha) ‐ roads adjacent to cut stand Comp. 45 (n = 2)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Treatment Type

Ba

t pa

sse

s/d

ete

ctor

/hou

r

EFU LBO LCI LNO PSU MYOTIS

Hardwood regen (7.3 ha) ‐maturecomparisons (n = 4)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Treatment TypeEFU LBO LCI LNO PSU MYOTIS

Modified from: Krusic and Neefus 1996

Relative Bat Flight Activity Across Opening Sizes, WMNF

So what’s new?





October 2014

9

Early Successional Habitat Strategies

From: DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2003

So what’s new?





October 2014

10

BEF Vegetative Structure

From: DeGraaf et al. 1998; Leak et al. 1987; DeGraaf et al. 2001, 2005, 2006

• Cover‐type ‐‐ a good habitat descriptor for some species, not for others ‐‐ better with stand structure info

• For species with size‐class affinities, interpreting relationships needs stand structure assessment

• Forest bird habitat management needs the finer details of stand structure that neither cover‐type nor size‐class can provide

Within‐stand features enhanced with integrated prescriptions

No mgt Uneven‐aged mgt Even‐aged mgt

Single‐tree

Group/ patch

Thinning Shelterwood Clearcut

Canopy closure

Tree‐sized gaps

Closed Partial Closed ‐partial

Partial Open

Exposed perches

X X X

Inclusions X X X X X X

Large cavity trees

Abundant X X X X X

Hard mast X X NI X X NI

Soft mast X X X

Midstory X X NI X NI NI

Shrub layer X X X

Herb layer X X X

CWD Abundant Minimal X X X X


October 2014

11

Retention Areas on Larger Cuts

Provides:

• resistant beech mast opportunities

• larger diameter tree diversity within cut stand over time

• secure groups of cavity trees (OSHA)

Structure Related Within‐Stand Features

Regenerating shrub layer

Midstory layer

Soft mast and herbaceous layer

Upland openings

Vernal pools


October 2014

12

Tree Related Within‐Stand Features

Exposed perches

Cavity trees

Den trees

Soft snags


Hard mast inclusions

Seed fall in old growth northern hardwoods

0

20

40

60

80

Mill

ion

s o

f se

eds/

ha

YB SM

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Mill

ion

s o

f se

eds/

ha

BE

From: Graber and Leak 1992

• SM, YB, and BE account for 98% of seed fall

• On average 1/3 of the crop was available for regeneration

• Seed production is highly variable

• Wildlife consumption estimated at 2‐16%; BE consumption at 8%


October 2014

13

Beech seed fall in managed stands

From: Graber and Leak 1992; Leak and Graber 1993

• Production increases with age/size and percent of BE basal area

• Seed production is highly variable

• Filled seed averaged 74 to 88%

• Avian consumption ranged from 0 to 11%

• Rodents consumed 0 to 9%• Heavy seed production

occurs about 1 in 3 years

Extensive landscapes managed using single‐tree selection only tends to limit horizontal diversity, distribution of browse and early and mid‐successional foraging substrates used by herbivores and insectivores alike

Uneven‐aged Management Concerns


October 2014

14

•No vertebrate old growth‐obligates documented in NE to date

• Surveys indicate some bryophyte, mite, and ground‐dwelling beetle species may find such stands of interest

No Vegetation Management Approaches

Potential Habitats Available With Broad Management Strategies



October 2014

15

So what’s new?




CWD – Structural Habitat Elements

Large cavity and den treesLarge hollow logsCull, slash, and brush piles


October 2014

16

Species That Benefit from CWD Presence

BEF Snag Longevity –Dense Hardwoods

From: Yamasaki and Leak (2006)


October 2014

17

BEF – Large snags (> 16 in dbh)

BEF – Evidence of Woodpecker Use


October 2014

18

BEF CWD Piece Size Distributionmidpoint diameter (in)

Small Mammal CWD Test

• Pilot study on existing BEF small mammal study

• CWD removed from C45 each spring

• Very preliminary results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Pieces per acre

< 9" 9 ‐ 11.9" 12 ‐ 15.9" 16+"

Average number of CWD pieces per acre pre/post treatment

C 41 C 42 C 45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cap

ture

s/10

0 tr

ap n

igh

ts

COMP 41 (ADDED) COMP 42 COMP 45 (REMOVED)

CompCWD treat

Pre‐treat(n= 9 yr)> = <

Post‐treat(n =3 yr)> = <

41 + 4 5 1 .5

42 NC 9 3

45 ‐ 5 4 1 .5


October 2014

19

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Birds of NA

Forest Landscape Compositions

0 10 20 30 40NOGO Territories

0

20

40

60

80

100

Land

scap

e C

ompo

sitio

n (%

)

WETLAND_ALLOPENWATER_5ACT_AGRI_200D_LAND_100CL_OTH_OPEN_FOREST_400


October 2014

20

• Occur in forest‐dominated landscapes• Often a component of managed stands• Occur on lands with history of agricultural activity or prior cutting

Goshawk Nest Territories

Often near upland openings, woods roads and trails

Most often at the bottom of lower slope positions at elevations less than 1500 ft

Nest Site Characteristics


October 2014

21


or mixed stands of spruce/fir and hardwoods

Goshawks in this region use white pine stands


• More sawtimber‐sized trees and higher softwood basal areas in nest sites compared to random sites


October 2014

22

51.7 ft

Nest Tree Characteristics

White Pine

Mean DBH = 19.5 in

Hardwoods

Mean DBH = 14.8 in

43.0 ft

BEF patches

2001

2013


October 2014

23

BEF patches

Advanced regeneration can recover from severe browsing

From: Jacobs (1969)

From: Trimble (1968)


October 2014

24

Browse pressure effects

• Heavy browsing on BF can favor RS

• Can increase softwood composition on the right site

• Can be severe in localized areas

Physical obstacles to limit browse impacts?

• Resist lopping all tops• Consider leaving more tops on‐site• Consider regenerating larger stands• On small openings ‐‐ consider

strategic brush fencing


October 2014

25

• Habitats described at different scales

• Silvicultural practices described

• Structural habitat features presented

• Important habitat concepts for managers

New Forest Habitat Management Guide Available

what’s new in nh northern hardwoods ‐‐ the wildlife ... · what’s new in nh northern...

Documents