PRACTICE OF FORESTRY
A Role for Agroforestry in Forest Restoration in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Michael G. Dasskey, Gary Benlrup, and • Michele Schaenebe er
Agroforeslry op~ons ole explored for restoring impGrtonl functions and yolll8'S of boHomlond hardwood Restoring Forest Functions and (BtH) forests in tbe lower Mississippi River Alluvial Volley (!.MAV). AgrofOfeslry proctices (on ougmenl Values in the !MAV the size ond quolity of BLH hBbilol, provide corridors between 8tH areas, ond ellObie restoration 01 Restoration of BLH forests has been a oolulol hydrologic patterns 000 wo1er quality. Agroforestry practices ore designed primarily 1o benefit key conserva.tion goal in !.he LMAV si nce agriculture, whkh may appeal 10 formers in the region. Profit polenliol from some ogroforestry the 19705. The LMVJV, a partnership of proctic:es is mrent/y compelitivt! with ogrKdluroi crops and production iOfeslTy on mor,noI ogrir:uhurol state and federal agencies and private conser lands in the lMAV. lJxk of e~rience with ogroforesfry in Ihis region finders adoption, bul emerging vation orga.niutions, has establ ished a resto mall:ets lor biofuek and e
Reaivc:d July 21. 2010; accepted M~r 31. 20 11 : htlp:lldx.doi.orgll 0.5849/jo[ 10-061.
Mjchad G. Dflssltry ([email protected]) is rrstar(h «ologisl. Cltry !knlTUp [email protected]) is frstllr(h IamiscllJN planMr, and Mjch~k Schom~btrgtf ([email protected]) is rtstar(h projrd kadtr. US Form ~roift, Solubim Rts~afch STaTion. Na/ional Agrofornrry GenUr. £au CIlmpus-Univwiry of N~brilJlta, Lincoln, N£ 68583·0822.
48 journalofFort"Irry • January/February 20 12 blocks of ~xis l ing BLH forests (LMVJV 2007). Thissrratcgy is intended 10 maximilC KY imerior forest habitat and is driven mai nly MO by i nt~rests in incr ~asjng populations of for est.breeding hirds. A minimum BLH block si·leof I 0,000 ac has be~n recommended for cr~atjng viable habim fo r forest-breeding birds, which includes a 0.3- ro O.G-mi-wide (3000-GOOO acre) BLH buffer arou nd a TN core ofdesired interior BLH habitat (Llewel· Iyn et al. 1996, Muell~ r et al. 1999). By 1992, 98 for~st patches met this criterion in the LMAV, most of which arc located in the AR southern half of the LMA V (Tw~dt and Loesch 1999). The present restof3tion strategy has had some success. It is estimated that 0.77 mil lion ae of cI~ar~d land has been restored to forest cover over 30 years through 2005 MS (King et al. 2006). More recently. over 30 thousand addit io nal ac have beell restored since: 2004 under the Ivory-Billed Wood Legend pecker Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Open Wlter Service [US FWSj201O). At this pace, how Urn. n ever, reaching the goal of 2 mi ll ion ac by Upl and Forest 2020 set by the LMVJV will require sub Bottomland Forest stantial additional gains. Stratcgies that sup CropllndfPaslure plement current forest restoration practices LA may help 10 sustai n and cnhance progress toward ac hieving this conservation goal. Agroforestry Restores Forest Functions and Values Agroforestry is the imegration of trees illIO agricultuf31 systems 10 aid thc manage melll of th~ agriculruf31 companellt. [n an agroforesuy system, the "forest H areas are in tentionally designed and managed 10 en hance agricultuf31 production and !O miti Figure 1. Location and land cover of the LMAV. Land coverodapted from the 2006 National gate environmental problems genef3tcd by land Cover Database (Multi-Resolution Land Cover Consortium 20111. agricu ltural activi ti es. It is distinguished from forestry by lhe interaction between the trees and nearby agriculture. In contrast, a and pulpwood, biofuel feedslOck. hUllli ng mote BLH forest restoration goals, indud woodlot or riparian forest on one corner of a and recreation leases, and from emcrging lIlg: fa rm .hat does not beneficially interact with markets for water qualiry and carbon slOragc • Provide habitat buffcrs bcrwccn exist crops or livestock is not agroforcstry. credits (Montagnini and Nair 2004, Keole ing BLH areas and intensively farmed areas. Agroforestry could supplement current ian and Yolk 2005. Garr~1t 2009). Agrofor Curr~nt stratcgy calls for BLH forests to pro forest restoration strategies. Agroforcstry estry can add to lhe palcuc of choiees pre vide a 0.3- to O.G-mi-wide buffer 1..0ne practiccs can create fo rcst habitat and im sented to landowners for restoring forest around a core BLH foreSt palch. The buffer prove water quality on prod uctive agricul functions and values to the LMA V. 1..0ne requirement alone can more than dou tural lands (Figure 2). When properly 10- Agroforestry practices encompass a di ble the required forested area. Agroforestry cHed, they can cnha nce habitat and watcr versity of forms and arrangements. Some practices could be used to creatc thosc buffer quality within adjacent BLH areas. Agrofor general types include riparian fo rest buffers, wnes. By creating the necessary tree struc estry presents income options that may ap windbreaks, silvopasture, alley cropping, ture to function likc a fo rested buffer, agro peal to landowners that want to continue in forest farmi ng, and strip-type ar rangemcnts forestry can enlarge the area of effective in farm production. Income can be g~ncrated of shorr-rotarion woody crops. among oth terior BL H forest habitat and turn smaller. from improved yields of adjacent crops, var ers (sidebar). Agroforcstry prdctices can be less·viable BLH forest patches (5.000- ious nontimber fo rest products, sa wtimber adapted in the LMAV in several ways 10 pro- 10,000 ac) illlo effcc ti v~ illlerior habitat
Journal ofFomfry • January/February 20 12 49 C1n be toxic toward [he health and develop Agrofor..:stry is thc illlcgracion of tre~ be practiced among pines (Pinus spp.) and meilf of all species, bill particularly for se n· inco agriculcural systems co provide an ha rdwoods such as oak (Qunrus), walnut sitive larv31 fish and amphibians (Hoover optimal mix of ecosystem services and Uuglans), and pecan (CAryn). and Killgore 1998. 2002). In turn, degraded economic benents. It is distinguished Aiky Cropping: Widely spaced rows aquatic health reduces the food supply for from forestry by its designed inceraction of rrees between which agricultural crops forest wildlife that feed on aquatic plants with nearby agricuhur.U crops. Detailed are grown. The trees provide timher, and animals. Agroforestry pT'.Icliccs located deKription of most agroforestl), pr;act iccs biomass fecds(Ock, nlllS. or other prod· in critical agricultural areas can improve can be found in Garrett (2009). Short UCts and me companion .alley crop pro BLH forest habitat qualiry by reducing the rotation woody crops arc described by duces row and cereal crops. forages, or flow of sediments, nutrients, and pesticides Dickmann (2006). The major agrofor spcci.alty crops. The alley crop provides from agricultural lands into existing BLH CStry types practiced in telllper:l.le regions near-term cash flow. and the trt."C crop forest areas. ofNonh America include: provides prot!."Ction for the crop. erosion • Enable rescoration of hydrology in ex Ripllrian FOrrsl Buffin: Forest vcgcration control and water qualiry bencfits, and ist ing arcas. Drainagc and flood con· loclled adjacellt to waterways primarily co periodic financial returns over a longer 13L1-1 trol improvements design cd 10 protcct enhanct and protect the aquatic environ term. flood-sensitive annual crops, such as cotcon melll from adverse impaas of ncarhy agri FornI Fo.rming: Management offor cultural land uses. TIle forest vcgcration est ca nopy for the produCiion of spc· and soybeans, have altered the hydrolob'Y provides $hade, orb>anic debris, and stability cialty products in rhe UnderslOry. Prod and hydroperiod of remaining BLH forest areas (Ki ng and Kccland 1999). [nstalling ro ch:U1nds.and shorelincs; filt en pollutants Uct options include food (berries 3nd Out ofagricultural runoff; and creates forcst mushrooms), botanicals (herbs and me agroforeslry practices [hat have tree species habital and corridors. Although typically dicinals), decoratives (floral grecnery and and intended uses that arc more compatible installed as narrow Strips, their size, vegela dyes), and handicrafls (basket and wood with wet ness and periodic flooding can rc li\'C composition, :and management can Ix: craft materials). Forest overStol)' is mod· duce the need fordrainage and flood conr rol varied to match si le oondilions, desired ified to provide the appropriare under· :and enable the rescoration of natural hydro· ecological funaions. and opponunitics for SlOry microclimate bur 1I0t enough to logic pancrns. economic products. greatly interfere with its comributions 10 • Provide rapid development of early Willdhrto.lts: Li near 51rips of foresl wildlife habitat, erosion control, and wa succession forest slructure and accelerate de vegetation designed 10 protcct agricul ler filtering. Alley cropping and silvopas velopmelll of mature BLH foreslS. T ree tural soil from wind erosion. crops from ture can provide a transilion.al stage umil struClUre is the main determinant of bird desiccalion and soil abrasion. and live a forest canopy is created. species occurrence and community compo stock from the ~trtsS of hOi summer and Short-Rotation Woody Crops: Fast sition in the LJ\iAV (Twedt and Portwood cold wintcr winds. Windbreaks also pro growing tree species such as poplar 1997, Hamel 2003, Twedt and Scsi 2004). vide foresl habir:1.I :and corridors for wild (Populus) and willow (Salix) grown fot By seleCting f2st.growing agroforestry tree life and water erosion control and runoff fiber and biofud with rotation agc.~ of species and praC[icing weed control. agrofor filtering for water quality protcction. 3-12 years. Whcn grown in strip config estry praCtices can promote rapid initial de SillJ()pllJzurr. A system of forage urations, they can function as wind velopment of forest cover and accelerate the and/or livestock production in the lInder· breaks, riparian forest buffers, and the devdopmellt of habil'at for laler-succession story of trce pl:Ult:uion5. Forage and live tree componclH of alley cropping. Cut forest birds (Twedt and Ponwood 2003, stock provide the landowner wilh ncar~ tingsome strips every few years creatcs a Wilson and Twedt 2005). Agroforestry C11l term cash flow while the trccs mature into a diversity of SIfUClUre that may fun ct ion be used as a transition toward I3LH forest marketable commodity. Silvopasmre can Ix:tter for some wildlife restorat ion (Twedr and Portwood 2003). Agroforcsuy can also provide benefits in the LMA V beyond prolecling and ell without aClu.all y increasing the siu of Ihe • Improve water quality in eXlSllng h:mcing existing BLH forests. Agroforestry 8LH forest patches. BLH forest patches. Runoff fl owing from practices thcmselves create valuable habitat • Provide tree corridors that conneCi agricultural lands imo existing BLH forest for a broad range of birds and other forest 8LH forest habital patches. Fragmentation areas carries sediments, nutrients, and pesti dwelling wildlife (T wed, and Portwood of I3LH forests has created Ilumerous small cides thai can impair Ihe health of both 2003. Heitmeyer et ill. 2005) including parches thai arc nOI viable for .area-sensitivc aquacic and terrestrial wildlife (Hoover and game birds and nsh that impro\'e hunring specics of forest wildlife. Connecting small Killgore 1998). High sedimem loads from and nshing opportunities (Burger 2005). I3LH forest patches with tree corridors eroding farmland and stream hanks degrade Shifting lii nd from annual crops to agrofor across cropl ands will facililate the: move: waler quality and fill-i n seasonal forested estl)' can improve regional drinking water ment afforest wildlife betwee:n patches and Rood zones and backwater pools thai arc re quality and reducc erosion of valuable agri . effcctively increase the habitat viability of quired for reproduclion of many fish and cultur;al soil. Agroforestry can also provide each small I3LH fo rest patch (USDA Natu amphibian species; nutrients in ru noff lead economic diversification that improves the ral Resources Conserva tion Service 1999, to euuophicalion .and hypoxia in sloughs financial well-being or farms and communi Hilryel al. 2006). Agroforestry practices call and oxbows that degrade open water habital ties, espC{;ially those of sma!I-to-medium re be used 10 create those wi ldlire corridors. for nsh and amphibians; pesticides in runoff ~o ur ce farmers (Hendersoll 1991 ). ! 50 Journalo[Formry • January/ f ebruary 2012 Func~onal Quality of Agroforestry Allhough agroforestry can produce the kinds of environmental benefits that BLH forestS do, it is not likely thaI it produces them to the same levels as BLH forcsls. This is particularly true for wildlife because habi- 131 suilabiliry and quality can be sensilive to vegetation species and strucrure, manage ment activities, and conditions in Ihe sur rounding landscape. Generally. agroforesrry Iree species and spacing will differ from BLH planting designs. Vari ous managc mem activities such as weed comrol, gru ing, imercropping. and tree harvcsting are conducted periodically thai would not gen erally occur in a uue BLH forcst reswr:llioll. In lighl of these differences, it is important to consider what level of ecological bendit agroforestry call provide compared with BLH forestS. Because consavation of birds is a major goal of BLH forest restor-Hion , a good mea sure is comparing avian habitat value from agroforesrry-rype plamings to that from ma ture BLH forestS. Nuttle and Burger (1996) and NUtlie (1997) compared hardwood planting sites of difTe relH ages in me LMAV in Mississippi (0 mature BLH focestS (Table I). Although these you ng plantings were not agcoforestry practices per se, they are. never theless. similar in structure and provide a basis for what level of avian benefits could be expeCied from agroforestry praClices. The results clearly show substantial habital value of young hardwood stands for forest birds (Table I). By the agc of 21-27 years old, hardwood plaming siles were frequented by large populations of many forest sp«ies (high Morisita Index). Some high-prioriry forest species were also observed (high Con servation Value Index), such as prothono tary warbler (Prorht)1l0tllrill cifrtll) and yel low-billed cuckoo (COtI)'ZUS amtricanus), but not as many high-prioriry species as ob Figure 2. Agroforestry practices offer a voriety of options for landowners: (Al riparian forest served in mature BLH forests. buffers, (B) windbreaks, (C) silvopasture, (0) olley cropping, (E) forest fanning, and IF) Faster-growing tree species can provide short-rotation woody crops. (Photos provided courtesy of the USDA Forest Service and forest habitat sooner. Twedt et al. (2002) Natural Resources Conservation Service lA, B, and Fl, the University of Missouri Ie and OJ estimated that 5- to 9-year-old cottonwood and the University of Minnesota (E) .) (Populus rk/roidts) had rwice the conserva tion value of oak plantings at the same age habirar for other imponant bird communi birds are not present in older ueeplantings and attributed it 10 more rapid development ties (Table I). New planting si tes up to IS and mature BLH fores ts. These results indi of vertical structure. Selection of fast-grow years old supported grassland and shrub cate that some high-priority bird species ing tcee sp«ies plus weed control in agrofor succession bird communities. including may benefir from management-related dis estry systems would promote even faster tree high ~ prioriry dickcissel (Spiw. am~ricana) , turbance and replanting of tree stands asso growth and more rapid developmenr of for northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) , ciated with agroforestry pract'ices that are est bird habitat. yellow-breasted chat ([curia virtns), and not provided by BLH forests. Younger treeplantings can cO lllribute painted bunting (Passtrina ciris). These Even narrow plantings can provide im-
JournalofFormry • January/February 2012 51 ponan! habitat in fragmcmcd landscapes. To,*, 1. Habitat value of tr"ee~nlings of different ages for birds during the breeding Kil go el aI. (1998) reponed [hat strips as season compared with mature BlH forem in the IlMV. narrow as 165 n provided habitat fo r BLH forest species such as hooded wa rb ler (Wi/ S=d~ Mori5itllindo: Con~rvacion Value Indo< Observed bird sonia citrin~) and Acadian flycatcher (Empi '~I '%1 '%1 community type donax lIirtsctns). However, forest strips as G-4 3-, Gr:;wland wide as 1.500 n or more ma y be necessary 34 7-15 3>-42 4G Shrub 5u=ion for area-sensilive species such as Swainson's 21_ 27 Fores, 7~' warbler (Limnothfypis lwaimonil). Large Mam.., rora! 100 100" Forese mammals may also benefil from narrow Th~ Mo,i.i,. Jndo:. Mo.,,"'" 1imibtioy of.pee ....nd .bundanco. The Conx",.,ion Val"" I"""" ~.:r .... ,,,, .imiwil)' of 'I""'"".nd plantings. A study in Louisiana documemed .bund"",,,, ..... igll1«1 by ..... co".. .,...'ion in.I""""« of coch '1""';'" s.,u.ccc: D . .. f,OID Surge, (200~). black bears (Unus amtricallus) using wooded corridors 15-250 n wide 10 access habital palches for foraging and breeding menrs arc provided by government pro water quality credit Had ing co ul d also en (Anderson \997). grams (Table 2; Frey el at. 2010). hance financial returns. For example, con
The habitat value of Iree plamings is Competitive agrofo restry options include version of cropland (Q agroforestry can in greatly increased by loc:uing them adjacent pine si lvopasture and CO llonwood alley crease carbon SlOrage in soil and standing to existing BLH fores t tracts. Warwick cropping along with riparian forest buffer trees (Tolhen er aI. 1999). Credits for the (2004) observed tha t agroforestry plantings casement"S. On ave rage or beller agricultural amount of gain in ca rbon SlO ragecan be sold adjacent 10 forest remnants had more land, however, agriculmral crops arc more to companies 10 offset the carbon dioxide swamp rabbi IS (Syilliiagus aquaticus) com profitable than either forestry or agroforeslry that they produce through aCfivities such as pared wilh agroforcstry pla ntings not adja (I bendahl 2008, Frey et al. 20 I 0); therefore, the burning of foss il fuel s (Ruddell et a1. cent to remnallls. Twedt et al. (2006) csti there is currem[y [ill[e economic incentive 2006). Conversion of cropland to agrofor mated that ta rgeted BLH forcst restoration for landowners to conven good cropland to csuy is also widely recognized to improve in the LMAV could increase lhe effect ive fo rest al tern atives. These studies did not as runoff water quality (Tolben et aI. 1998, area of forest imeri or habitat for birds by 32 sess forest farm ing as an agroforcstry option Schu ltzet aI. 2009). A landowner can obtai n times more Ihan by random treeplantings. in the LMAV. credits based on the estimated level of im We hypolhesize that targeted agroforcsuy Lo nger-term profit pOlemiai from provement, and, these credits can be sold 10 can have si milar impac( on imerio r habilat agroforestry is critical to sustain gains in for buyers to offset water-degrading activities while also creating ha bitat for early succes est restoration. Allhough CRP and some elsewhere (US Environmental PrO lecrion sion species of concern. WRP connacls offset installation eosls and Agency 2007). Markets for ecoSYSlem ser Overall, agroforesuy plamings will crop production tosses in the short [erm, a vices represent a nt'W kind of profit potential probably have lower ha bitat qualiry per unit sustai nable Row of profits from markerable fo r agroforestry, but they arc not well devel area than mature BLH forcslS for most inte goods and services may be necessary 10 pre oped and may be risky umi[ they mature ve nt shon-tcrm acreage gains from becom rior forest species of concern. However, Ihe further. potential for conve ning more arca to trees, ing ephemeral aner program contracts ex fas ter uee growth, and targeted installat ion pire. Future prospects for profitability from Other Factors Affecting could translate into a substantial regionwide agroforestry hinge 011 many variables, in· Adoption of Agroforestry contribution by agroforeslry 10 conserv:
52 journalojFortJtry • JanuaryfFebruary 2012 Tabfe 2. Estimated net present value for production systems without and with government payment programs on overage ond morginal cropland in the lMAV.
Av~ragc cropland" Mo.rginal cropland"
govnnm~OI P!Y",ents govcnm~m p~yments SY"~m None Payments (program)'
...... (2008 Siha. 5% d,5O.IuOl fllIC) ...... • Annual Crop Soybeans !i.l SO 5.950 (ACRE. FDP) 9" 1.478 (ACRE and FDP) Ri~ 7.771 -768 Fo journal ofFormry • January/ February 2012 53 GAAAETT, H. E. (ED.). 2009. North Am ~ rican River Al luvial Valley. Wildl. Soc. BuH. 34: SPRIGGS, P. 2006. Privale landowners hold Ih e agrofomtry: An inugratrd scima and praC"tiu, 914-920. key. Comptm6:9-10. 2nd Ed. American Society ofAgronomy, Mad LLEWEllYN, D.W .. G.P. SHAfFER, N.j. OWG, L STANTURf, j., E. GARDINER, r.B. H... MEl, M.S. ison, WI. 379 p. OtfASMA.N. 0, PASHLEY, M. SWAN, ... ND C. DUVALL, T.O. LEININGER, AND M.E. WARREN, GOLD, MA, AND j.W. HANOVER. 1987. Agro BROWN. 1996. A decision -support syslem for JR. 2000. Ra lOring ool1omJand hnowood forc:!; uy SYSlems for me lempc:rale wne. Agro priorili1.ing rc:!;tQ rat ion sites on the Miss issippi ecosYSlems.j. For. 98(8): 10 - 16. fo rm. Syst. 5 ;10 9~ 121. River alluvial pl ain. ConsrrtJ. BioI. 10(5): STANTURF, j., E. GARDINER, AND S. ScHOEN~!OlTZ.. HAMEL, r.B. 2003. Wimer bird co mmuniI)' dif 1446 - 1 4~~. 2003. Imerplaming for bioc:nergy and riparian ferences among methods ofoonomland hard loWER MISSISS!PPI V... LlEY JOINT VENTURE resrotalion in the soumeaslem USA P. 24 1- 249 wood for eSI rC:!;lotalion: Resul u alier seven (LMVjV). 2007. Rmororian, managrment. in Proc. of thr muting on Shon rotation crops growing seasons. Form'} 76{2): 189- 197. and moniloring ofform ftIOu rcn in Ihr Millis for biornngy; Nrw h aland. 2003, 1m. Energy HAYNES, R.J. 200·i. Thedevdopmem ofOOllom sippi Alluvial Valfty; Ruommrndati01l1 for rn Agency. Bi oenergy Res. Prog., ROlOrua, New land forC:!;1 rC:!;lOration in the Lowe r Mississippi handng wildlift habilat, Wi lson, R. , K. Rib Zealand. Available onlin~ al www.shoruOiation River Alluvial Val ley. £CoL Rmor. 22:170- beck, S. King. and O. Twedt (ros.). LMVJV c r ops.orglPDFsl2oo3Mtgl29-Sla nlurf~ l alNZ. 182. For. Resaur. Conserv. WorlOng Group, Vicks pdf; last accessed. May 10, 2011. H EITMEYER , M.E., R.J. CooP£iI, J.G. D!CKSON, burg, MS. 137 p. TOLBERT. V.R" F.e. THORNTON. J.D. jOSUN, AND B.D. LEOPOLD. 2005. Ecological relalion MUln-RESOLlJT!ON lAND CoVER CoNSORTIUM B.R. BocK. W.E. B... NDARA1·'1AY"'Kf, D.O. Ty ships of warm-blooded venebtales in botlom (MIU.C). 20 11. 2006 Norional land co,," LER, O. PETTRY, T.H. GREEN, R. M ... KJK, L lan d hardwood ecoSYSle ms. P. 281 - 306 in data. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC BINGHAM, AE. HOUSTON. M. SHIItES, j. Ecology and manag~mml of botloml4nd hard Available onli ne at www. mrlc.gov/inda.php; DEWEY, ... ND S. SCHOEN HOLTZ. 1998. Soil and wood uosylUms: TIN stal( ofour und~l1l11nding, lasl accessed May 13.2011. water quality asp·eclS of herbaceous and woody Fred rickson, L H., S.L King, and R.M. Ka MONTAGNINI, F., AND P.K.R. NA.lR. 2004. Car energy crops ptoductions: Lessons from re minski (eds.). Gaylord Memorial Lab. Spec. bon sc:que5Itarion: An under~x pJ oi led envi seareh-5Cale comparisons wilh agri cuhural Pub1. 10, Vniv. of M i sso uri ~Columbia, ronmelllal benefil of agroforestry systems. crops. P. 1- 8 in PrO(". ofeo"f. on BioEnr,!! '98; Puxico. MO. ~42 p. Expanding bior"trgy pamlmhips. US DellI. of Agrofomt. S}SI. 61 - 62(l -3):281 -29~. HENDERSON. D. 1991. OpporlUnili(!S for agro Energy, Washi ngton. DC, Madison, WI. MUEllER, AJ .. D.J, TWEDT. AND C R. LoESOi. forestry in Ih e mid-SOUlh. P. 8~- 1 00 in PrO(". of 1999. Devclopmem of managemeIJ t objectives Oct. 4- 8,1998.8 p. Mid-soulhconf on agroformry pracrirts a"d pol_ TOLBERT. V.R .• J.D. JOSUN, F,C TBORNTON, fOI breeding bi rds in th e Mississippi Altuvial ici~s. Henderson, D.R. (ed.). Winrock Inter B.R. BocK, D.E. PETTRY, W. BANDARAN ... y Valley. p. I - l~ in PrO(. oft~ 3rd Parmrrs in nalional Instilute for Agricuhural Develop AKE . D. TYLER, A. HO USTON , AND S. ScHOEN Highr Worlrshop, Cal' May, Nj, Orr. 1-5. menl, MorrU lon. AR. Wc:!;1 Memphis, AK, HOLTZ. 1999. Biomass crop production: Ben 1995. Straugi~s for bird (ons~roalion: TIK Part Nov. 28 - 29, 1990. efilS for soi l qualiry and carbon I'Cqu(!Str:l.lion. nm in Hight pl4nning proms, Bonney, R. , HILTY, j.A .. W.Z. LIOICK ER JR .. AND A.M. ME 1'. 127- 132 in Biomass: Agrowth opportunity in D. Pashley, R. Coof)Cr, and L Nil(!S (eds.). RENLENDER. 2006. Corridor rcology: Thr sci~n(r grren rnrro a"d lIalur-tubkd prodUCIS: Th~ Cape May, NJ. Availableonlineal www.bi rds. and prarria oflin Iring I4ndscaptJ for biodillmity fourth biomiW e()"Jrrrne~ oft~ Amtrieas, Over eonsrrvalion. Island Press, Washinglon, DC. corndl.edu/pifapc:may/mudler.hlm: lasl ac end. R. P.. and E. Chorn<'l (eos.). FJsevier Sci 323 p. cessed May 10,2011. ence, OJord, UK. Available online al www. NASSA UER, j.1. 1988. The atSth<'l ia of horticul HOOVER, j.j., ... ND K.j. KILLGORE. 1998. Fish ornl.gov/- webworkslcppr/y 200 I/presl l 13727. lUre: Nearness as a fo rm of a re. Hartie. Sci. Communili(!S. P. 237- 287 in Soulh~", forrstrd pdf. last acc.es.scd May I]' 2011. 23:97}-977. wnl4nds: Eeolog, and mana~mrnt, Messina, TWEDT, 0.]., "'NOj. PORTWOOD. 1997. BOHom M.G .• and W.H. Conner (eds.). lLwis Pub NIJTTLE, T.J. 1997. RrsponJ~ ofbrrrding bird com lan d hardwood reforc:!;tat ion for neoHopial lishm, New York. 616 p. munitirs ro ajforrstari01l of hardwood bottom migratory birds: Arc we missing Ihe forest for I4nd sim in Millwippi. MSc Ihesis, Mississippi HOOVER, j,j .. AND K.j. KIllGORE. 2002. Small Ih e [fees~ Wildl. SO(". BuH. 25(3):647- 6~2. jloodpl4in pools as habital for fisM and amphib Stale Un;v .. Srarkville, MS. 68 p. TWEDT, D.j., AND CR. loESCH. 1999. Forest ians: MtthodJ for (tIalualion. US Army Envi NUTILE. T.J .....N D LW. BURGER. 1996. Re area and disuibution in the Mississi ppi All u tOn. R(!S. and lliv. Cem~ r Tech. NOle EM sponse of bteeding bird communilic:!; to rl.'SIO vial Valley: Implicalions for breeding bird con· RRJ>-EM-03, Vicksburg, MS. 13 p. ration of hardwood bouomlands. PrO("tfflings $l!:rvation.). Biogrogr. 26: 121 ~ - 1224. IBEN[)AHL, G. 2008. An accouming ltadeoff oflIN Annual Conformer oftIN !)qurhrastrm As TWEPT, 0.]., R.R. WLLSON, j.L HENNE- KERR, berwccn WRP and governmenl paymenlS. s()(iatio" ofFi1h and Wildlifr Agrnrits ~0:228 - AND DA GRQSSH UESCH. 2002. Avian re P. 1- 16. in PrO(. ofann. con! f)ft~ Southrr" 236. spo nse: 10 bonomland hardwood teforestalion: Agrirultural Economic AJsO("ialion, Dall as. TX, RUDDElL, S., M.j. WALSH .... ND M. KANAKASABAI. The fint 10 years. Rmor. EcoL 10 :64~ - 65~. Feb. 2~ 6, 2008. 16p. 2006. Form carbon Irading and marlrering in TWEDT. D.J., ....'om J. PORTWOOD. 2003. Synergy KEOlE!A.N, G.A .. AND T.A VOLK. 2005, Renew lIN U1I;rrd Statrs. Society of Amerian Forest· of agrofores lry and bollomland hardwood af able energy from wi llow bi omass crops: Life ers, Bethesda, MD. I ~ p. Avai lab le online al fOrl.'S13 lion. 1'. 8~- 89 in PrO(". of61h eon[ on cycle, energy, env ironmental, and economic Iwww.fs.fed.us/ecosY$temservices/pdflforesl Agroforrstry in North Amrrica. Associalion for benefilS. Crit. R(tI. Plant Sci. 24{)- 6):38~- carbon-trading. pdf; la SI accessed May 10, Temperate Agroforestry. Columbi a, MO, Hot 406. 2011. Sp rings. AK.lune 12-16, 1999. Kl LGO, j.e, RA S... RGENT, B.R. CH/J'MAN, AND RYAN, R. L, O.L ERI CKSON , AND R. DE YOUNG. TWEDT, D.J., AND C. Bm . 2004. RCSloration of K.V. MILLER. 1998. Effecl of siand widlh and 2003. Farmers' motivati ons for adopling con Rood plain fo rests for !he conservation of miW'l adjacent habilal on breeding bird communi servalion pr3.Clices along riparian w nes in a tory landbi rds. !?rstor. Erol. 22(3): 194 -203. ties in boHomland hardwoods.). WildL mid-western agricullUraI landscape. j. Enlli TWEDT. D.j., W.B. VIHLEIN Ill, ... ND AB. EL Ma1ll1g.62(1):72-83, ro". PI4". Manag. 46: 19- 37. LIOT. 2006. A spalially aplicit decision sup KING, S.L., AND B.D. KEEl..AND. 1999. Eval ua SCHULTZ, R. c.. T.M. ISENHART, J.P. CollElTI, port model for r(!slOtation offoreSI bird habi tion of reforestati on in Ihe Lower Mi ssissippi W.W. SIMPIONS, R.P. UDAW"''''A. ANO P.L lal. Comrro. Bioi. 20(1):100-110. Ri ver Alluvial Valley. &slor. Eeo/. 7(4):3 48 - SCHULTZ.. 2009. Riparian and upland buffer US DA N ... TURAl. REsoURCES CoNSERVAnON 359. praclicc:!;. P. 163-218 in North Amrrican agro SERVICE (NRCS). 1999. C01l1trvation corridor KI NG, S.L., D.J. TWEDT, ... ND R.R. WtLo;QN. forestry: Intrg,atrd Kirnuand praelier, 2nd Ed" pl4nning al the I4ndJcapr kurl· Managing for 2006, The role of the Wetland Rese:rve Pro Garren, H.E. (ed.), Amerian Society of wildlift habitat. USDA NRCS National Biol gram in conservation efforts in th e Mississippi Agronomy, Madison, WI. ogy Handbk., ParI 190, Was hington, DC. 54 jf)urnalofFomtry • january/February 2012 US ENvIRONMENTAl. f>RoTEcnoN AcWO' tMis ofillformJltion . Av.lilable online at www. (cds.). Gaylord Memorial Lab. Spec. I'ubl. (USEPA). 2007. WaUT qwdi.ry tradi"K toolKit for kfcd. usfsuslainecllsymhesis-informalion.doc; 10. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia, PU)li co, ,,"",it wrirm. EPA 833-R-07-004. USEPA, las! aocc:sscd May II . 2011. MO. 542 p. Washington. DC. Available online al _ .epa. W AftWlCK.J A 2004. Dism'bjltion andabjlNkIlU' WRICHT. L.t., AND S. BERG. 1996. Industryl go>' I owow I watershed/ ll'3ding/WQlT00110 1. oflWtlmp rabbits and bats itt ftaprmua wrtlond government collaborations o n shon -rOla· htm!; l2S1 accessed May 11 . 2011 . flm" ofsoutiNtlSl Missouri. MSc thesis, Univ. l ion woody crops for energy. fiber and wood US FISH AND W1LDU FE SERVICE (USFWS). 2010. of Missouri, Columbia. MO. 127 p. products. In Prot'. of co n! BioEntrgy '96; R(t'olluy pion for liN Iwry-bilka Wooaptritr WI LSO N, R.R., AND D.J. T WEDT. 2005. BOI /'artntrlhipl to atlltlop and appi, biomllJl (Camptphilw prinr-ipalis). US FWS Southeast lombnd hardwood cSla blish melll and avian t((hnologin, US Dept. of Energy. Washing Region. Adama. GA Available online at www. colonization of reforested siles in the Missis lOll. DC. Nashvill e. T N. SepL 15- 20 . 1996. fws.govlivorybill/!XIfli BWRecoveryPlan20 I O. sippi Alluvial Valley. P. 34 1- 351 in Ecology 6p. pdf; last accessed May 12. 201 1. ana managtmtnr ofbotlomlona harawood J]S ZINIi:HAN. F.e., AND D.E. MERCER. 1997. An as US FOREST SERVICE. 2006. LowtT Mississippi AI ums: Stau of our unatTstanainl, Frederick sess ment of agrofotcstry systems in the south "willi Vai!q "Kional Slut/mUtt worhhop; S,n' son. L.H., S.L. King, and R.M. Kaminski ern USA Axroform. SJSr. 35:303- 32 1. JounUlI ofFort Jtry • January/February 2012 55