DOCSLIB.ORG

An Examination of Habitat Management Tools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Examination of Habitat Management Tools Sand Barrens Habitat Management: A Toolbox for Managers Lloyd Raleigh, Islands Regional Ecologist Joseph Capece, Up-island Assistant Superintendent Alison Berry, Restoration Specialist The Trustees of Reservations, Islands Regional Office P.O. Box 2106, Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 Copyright 2003 The Trustees of Reservations First Edition All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording or by any storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission is granted, however, to download, reproduce, and store this document for personal use. Acknowledgements: Glenn Motzkin, Tim Simmons, Lisa Vernegaard, Joel Carlson, and Paul Goldstein for their editing help on various sections. Marilyn Jordan for her insignts on the Long Island Pine Barrens ecosystem. Jeff Boettner for his help on invertebrates. Andy Cutko and Nancy Sferra for their help explaining Maine sand barrens ecosystems. Pat Swain for her thoughts on Massachusetts vegetation communities. Austin Mason for explaining management in the Myles Standish State Forest area. Andy Windisch and Tom Warhol for discussing New Jersey Pine Barrens management and research. Karen Combs-Beatty for providing useful information about Nantucket. Chris Hawver for his insights on the Albany Pine Bush. Vin Antil for providing a map of the northeastern US. Bill Patterson for his informative tour of the Truro burn plots. Wayne Castonguay for his help in determining the appropriate grazing schemes for habitat management. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 5 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................. 7 SECTION 2—SAND BARRENS PLANT COMMUNITIES .................. 9 2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 GRASSLANDS AND HEATHLANDS ............................................................................... 9 2.3 SCRUB OAK-HEATH SHRUBLANDS AND DWARF PINE PLAINS...................................... 9 2.4 BARRENS ................................................................................................................. 10 2.5 WOODLANDS ........................................................................................................... 11 2.6 FORESTS .................................................................................................................. 11 SECTION 3: REGIONAL CONTEXT OF NORTHEASTERN SAND BARRENS HABITATS.............................................................................. 12 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 12 3.2 RAPID GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT....................................................................... 12 3.3 PESTICIDE SPRAYING ............................................................................................... 13 3.4 DECLINE IN HUMAN-CAUSED DISTURBANCES ......................................................... 13 3.5 EXOTIC AND NUISANCE SPECIES.............................................................................. 14 3.6 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................... 20 SECTION 4: PRESCRIBED FIRE........................................................... 22 4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 22 4.2 FIRE HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 22 4.3 CURRENT USES OF PRESCRIBED FIRE....................................................................... 24 4.4 FIRE EFFECTS........................................................................................................... 24 4.4.1 Soils.................................................................................................................. 25 4.4.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 25 4.4.3 Animals ............................................................................................................ 26 4.5 COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.6 THE CURRENT STATUS OF FIRE REGULATION.......................................................... 27 4.7 SMOKE MANAGEMENT............................................................................................. 28 4.8 SAFETY .................................................................................................................... 29 4.9 INSURANCE POLICY ................................................................................................. 29 4.10 PRESCRIPTIONS, ECOLOGICAL BURNING, AND WILDFIRES .................................... 30 4.11 PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, AND PARTNERSHIPS...................................................... 30 4.12 NOTIFICATION AND EDUCATION ............................................................................ 31 4.13 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 31 SECTION 5: PRESCRIBED GRAZING................................................. 33 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 33 5.2 GRAZING HISTORY................................................................................................... 34 5.3 THE PRESENT USE OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING AS A HABITAT MANAGEMENT TOOL... 35 5.4 THE COSTS OF PRESCRIPTIVE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ................................................ 35 5.4.1 Fencing ............................................................................................................ 36 5.4.2 Labor................................................................................................................ 36 5.4.3 Animal Costs .................................................................................................... 36 5.5 THE BENEFITS OF PRESCRIPTIVE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ........................................... 37 5.6 SELECTION OF THE GRAZING ANIMAL ..................................................................... 37 5.6.1 Domestic Cattle................................................................................................ 38 5.6.2 Domestic Goats................................................................................................ 38 5.6.3 Domestic Sheep................................................................................................ 38 5.7 SELECTION OF A GRAZING SYSTEM AND STOCKING RATES ..................................... 39 5.7.1 Continuous Grazing......................................................................................... 39 5.7.2 Rotational Grazing........................................................................................... 39 5.7.3 Environmental Protective Grazing .................................................................. 40 5.7.4 Stocking Rates.................................................................................................. 40 5.8 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................... 40 SECTION 6: MECHANICAL MOWING ............................................... 41 6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 41 6.2 MOWING HISTORY ................................................................................................... 41 6.3 THE USE OF MOWING IN SUCCESSION MANAGEMENT ............................................. 42 6.4 MOWING EFFECTS.................................................................................................... 42 6.4.1 Timing and Frequency of Mowing Applications.............................................. 43 6.5 THE BENEFITS OF MECHANICAL MOWING ............................................................... 44 6.6 THE COSTS OF MECHANICAL MOWING.................................................................... 44 6.7 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................... 45 SECTION 7: CLEARING AS A RESTORATION TOOL .................... 46 7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 46 7.2 CLEARING HISTORY................................................................................................. 46 7.3 CLEARING OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 47 7.3.1 Contractor with Heavy Machinery .................................................................. 47 7.3.2 Manual Clearing Using Chainsaws and Chipper............................................ 52 7.3.3 Girdling............................................................................................................ 52 7.3.4 Discussion........................................................................................................ 53 7.4 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................... 54 8.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Summary of Changes to Endangered, Threatened, And
    2015 Update to State Listed Species The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is required to review, at least every five years, the designation of species as endangered, threatened, or of special concern to determine whether species should be: (1) added or removed from the list; or, if necessary, (2) change the designation from one category to another. The following is a summary of the changes to the State Endangered Species list (DEEP Regulations Sections 26‐306‐4, 26‐306‐5, and 26‐306‐6) that became effective on August 5, 2015. The complete list can be found on the DEEP website. Summary of Amphibian Changes New species added Necturus maculosus, Mudpuppy added as Special Concern Summary of Reptile Changes New species added Clemmys guttata, Spotted turtle added as Special Concern Malaclemys terrapin terrapin, Northern diamondback terrapin added as Special Concern Taxonomic Changes Eumeces fasciatus, Five‐lined skink changed to Plestiodon fasciatus Liochlorophis vernalis, Smooth green snake changed to Opheodrys vernalis Summary of Bird Changes Northern diamondback terrapin Status Changes Falco sparverius, American kestrel downlisted to Special Concern Progne subis, Purple martin downlisted to Special Concern Sturnella magna, Eastern meadowlark uplisted to Threatened New species added Accipiter gentilis, Northern goshawk added as Threatened Setophaga cerulea, Cerulean warbler added as Special Concern Species delisted Anas discors, Blue‐winged teal Laterallus jamaicensis, Black rail Cerulean warbler Taxonomic changes Parula americana, Northern parula changed to Setophaga americana 1 Summary of Mammal Changes Status Changes Myotis leibii, Eastern small‐footed bat uplisted to Endangered New Species Added Myotis lucifugus, Little brown bat added as Endangered Myotis septentrionalis, Northern long‐eared bat added as Endangered (also Federally Threatened) Perimyotis subflavus, Tri‐colored bat added as Endangered Taxonomic Changes Phocoena phocoena, Harbor porpoise changed to Phocoena Northern long‐eared bat phocoena ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Edgartown Produced in 2012
    BioMap2 CONSERVING THE BIODIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN A CHANGING WORLD Edgartown Produced in 2012 This report and associated map provide information about important sites for biodiversity conservation in your area. This information is intended for conservation planning, and is not intended for use in state regulations. BioMap2 Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World Table of Contents Introduction What is BioMap2 – Purpose and applications One plan, two components Understanding Core Habitat and its components Understanding Critical Natural Landscape and its components Understanding Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Sources of Additional Information Edgartown Overview Core Habitat and Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Elements of BioMap2 Cores Core Habitat Summaries Elements of BioMap2 Critical Natural Landscapes Critical Natural Landscape Summaries Natural Heritage Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Rd., Westborough, MA 01581 & Endangered phone: 508-389-6360 fax: 508-389-7890 Species Program For more information on rare species and natural communities, please see our fact sheets online at www.mass.gov/nhesp. BioMap2 Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World Introduction The Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, through the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), and The Nature Conservancy’s Massachusetts Program developed BioMap2 to protect the state’s biodiversity in the context of climate change. BioMap2 combines NHESP’s 30 years of rigorously documented rare species and natural community data with spatial data identifying wildlife species and habitats that were the focus of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s 2005 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP).
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of Gwinnett County, Georgia, United States
    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
    [Show full text]
  • Fruit Production in Cranberry (Ericaceae: Vaccinium Macrocarpon): a Bet-Hedging Strategy to Optimize Reproductive Effort1
    American Journal of Botany 93(6): 910–916. 2006. FRUIT PRODUCTION IN CRANBERRY (ERICACEAE: VACCINIUM MACROCARPON): A BET-HEDGING STRATEGY TO OPTIMIZE REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT1 ADAM O. BROWN2 AND JEREMY N. MCNEIL3 Department of Biology, Laval University, Quebec City, G1K 7P4 Canada In the cultivated cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), reproductive stems produce 1–3 fruit even though they usually have 5–7 flowers in the spring. We undertook experiments to test the hypothesis that this was an adaptive life history strategy associated with reproductive effort rather than simply the result of insufficient pollination. We compared fruit production on naturally pollinated plants with those that were either manually pollinated or that were caged to exclude insects. Clearly, insects are necessary for the effective pollination of cranberry plants, but hand pollination of all flowers did not result in an increase in fruit number. Most of the upper flowers, which had significantly fewer ovules than did the lower flowers, aborted naturally soon after pollination. However, when the lower flower buds were removed, the upper flowers produced fruit. This suggests that the upper flowers may serve as a backup if the earlier blooming lower ones are lost early in the season. Furthermore, the late-blooming flowers may still contribute to the plant’s reproductive success as visiting pollinators remove the pollen, which could serve to sire fruit on other plants. These results are discussed in the context of their possible evolutionary and proximate causes. Key words:
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Population Dynamics of Roseate Terns (Sterna Dougallii) In
    Ecological Modelling 368 (2018) 298–311 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Modelling j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel Modeling population dynamics of roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean a,b,c,∗ d e b Manuel García-Quismondo , Ian C.T. Nisbet , Carolyn Mostello , J. Michael Reed a Research Group on Natural Computing, University of Sevilla, ETS Ingeniería Informática, Av. Reina Mercedes, s/n, Sevilla 41012, Spain b Dept. of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA c Darrin Fresh Water Institute, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, 307 MRC, Troy, NY 12180, USA d I.C.T. Nisbet & Company, 150 Alder Lane, North Falmouth, MA 02556, USA e Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The endangered population of roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean consists Received 12 September 2017 of a network of large and small breeding colonies on islands. This type of fragmented population poses an Received in revised form 5 December 2017 exceptional opportunity to investigate dispersal, a mechanism that is fundamental in population dynam- Accepted 6 December 2017 ics and is crucial to understand the spatio-temporal and genetic structure of animal populations. Dispersal is difficult to study because it requires concurrent data compilation at multiple sites. Models of popula- Keywords: tion dynamics in birds that focus on dispersal and include a large number of breeding sites are rare in Roseate terns literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 2
    Developed for: The State of Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels Department of Natural Resources, Director Kyle Hupfer Division of Fish and Wildlife, Director Glen Salmon By: D. J. Case and Associates 317 E. Jefferson Blvd. Mishawaka, IN 46545 (574)-258-0100 With the Technical and Conservation information provided by: Biologists and Conservation Organizations throughout the state Project Coordinator: Catherine Gremillion-Smith, Ph.D. Funded by: State Wildlife Grants U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 2 Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 3 Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 4 II. Executive Summary The Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) working with conservation partners across the state, developed a Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy (CWS) to protect and conserve habitats and associated wildlife at a landscape scale. Taking advantage of Congressional guidance and nationwide synergy Congress recognized the importance of partnerships and integrated conservation efforts, and charged each state and territory across the country to develop similar strategies. To facilitate future comparisons and cross-boundary cooperation, Congress required all 50 states and 6 U.S. territories to simultaneously address eight specific elements. Congress also directed that the strategies must identify and be focused on the “species in greatest need of conservation,” yet address the “full array of wildlife” and wildlife-related issues. Throughout the process, federal agencies and national organizations facilitated a fruitful ongoing discussion about how states across the country were addressing wildlife conservation. States were given latitude to develop strategies to best meet their particular needs. Congress gave each state the option of organizing its strategy by using a species-by-species approach or a habitat- based approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE ERICACEAE (Heath Family) A family of about 107 genera and 3400 species, primarily shrubs, small trees, and subshrubs, nearly cosmopolitan. The Ericaceae is very important in our area, with a great diversity of genera and species, many of them rather narrowly endemic. Our area is one of the north temperate centers of diversity for the Ericaceae. Along with Quercus and Pinus, various members of this family are dominant in much of our landscape. References: Kron et al. (2002); Wood (1961); Judd & Kron (1993); Kron & Chase (1993); Luteyn et al. (1996)=L; Dorr & Barrie (1993); Cullings & Hileman (1997). Main Key, for use with flowering or fruiting material 1 Plant an herb, subshrub, or sprawling shrub, not clonal by underground rhizomes (except Gaultheria procumbens and Epigaea repens), rarely more than 3 dm tall; plants mycotrophic or hemi-mycotrophic (except Epigaea, Gaultheria, and Arctostaphylos). 2 Plants without chlorophyll (fully mycotrophic); stems fleshy; leaves represented by bract-like scales, white or variously colored, but not green; pollen grains single; [subfamily Monotropoideae; section Monotropeae]. 3 Petals united; fruit nodding, a berry; flower and fruit several per stem . Monotropsis 3 Petals separate; fruit erect, a capsule; flower and fruit 1-several per stem. 4 Flowers few to many, racemose; stem pubescent, at least in the inflorescence; plant yellow, orange, or red when fresh, aging or drying dark brown ...............................................Hypopitys 4 Flower solitary; stem glabrous; plant white (rarely pink) when fresh, aging or drying black . Monotropa 2 Plants with chlorophyll (hemi-mycotrophic or autotrophic); stems woody; leaves present and well-developed, green; pollen grains in tetrads (single in Orthilia).
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of 2020 Massachusetts Piping Plover Census Data
    SUMMARY OF THE 2020 MASSACHUSETTS PIPING PLOVER CENSUS Bill Byrne, MassWildlife Prepared by: Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife March 2021 SUMMARY OF THE 2020 MASSACHUSETTS PIPING PLOVER CENSUS ABSTRACT This report summarizes data on abundance, distribution, and reproductive success of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) in Massachusetts during the 2020 breeding season. Observers reported breeding pairs of Piping Plovers present at 180 sites; 156 additional sites were surveyed at least once, but no breeding pairs were detected at them. The population increased 6.9% relative to 2019. The Index Count (statewide census conducted 1-9 June) was 779 pairs, and the Adjusted Total Count (estimated total number of breeding pairs statewide for the entire 2020 breeding season) was 794.5 pairs. A total of 1,034 chicks were reported fledged in 2020, for an overall productivity of 1.31 fledglings per pair, based on data from 99.4% of pairs. 2 SUMMARY OF THE 2020 MASSACHUSETTS PIPING PLOVER CENSUS INTRODUCTION Piping Plovers are small, sand-colored shorebirds that nest on sandy beaches and dunes along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina to Newfoundland. The U.S. Atlantic Coast population of Piping Plovers has been federally listed as Threatened, pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act, since 1986. The species is also listed as Threatened by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife pursuant to the Massachusetts’ Endangered Species Act. Population monitoring is an integral part of recovery efforts for Atlantic Coast Piping Plovers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996, Hecht and Melvin 2009a, b).
    [Show full text]
  • The Genus Vaccinium in North America
    Agriculture Canada The Genus Vaccinium 630 . 4 C212 P 1828 North America 1988 c.2 Agriculture aid Agri-Food Canada/ ^ Agnculturo ^^In^iikQ Canada V ^njaian Agriculture Library Brbliotheque Canadienno de taricakun otur #<4*4 /EWHE D* V /^ AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada/ '%' Agrrtur^'AgrntataireCanada ^M'an *> Agriculture Library v^^pttawa, Ontano K1A 0C5 ^- ^^f ^ ^OlfWNE D£ W| The Genus Vaccinium in North America S.P.VanderKloet Biology Department Acadia University Wolfville, Nova Scotia Research Branch Agriculture Canada Publication 1828 1988 'Minister of Suppl) andS Canada ivhh .\\ ailabla in Canada through Authorized Hook nta ami other books! or by mail from Canadian Government Publishing Centre Supply and Services Canada Ottawa, Canada K1A0S9 Catalogue No.: A43-1828/1988E ISBN: 0-660-13037-8 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data VanderKloet,S. P. The genus Vaccinium in North America (Publication / Research Branch, Agriculture Canada; 1828) Bibliography: Cat. No.: A43-1828/1988E ISBN: 0-660-13037-8 I. Vaccinium — North America. 2. Vaccinium — North America — Classification. I. Title. II. Canada. Agriculture Canada. Research Branch. III. Series: Publication (Canada. Agriculture Canada). English ; 1828. QK495.E68V3 1988 583'.62 C88-099206-9 Cover illustration Vaccinium oualifolium Smith; watercolor by Lesley R. Bohm. Contract Editor Molly Wolf Staff Editors Sharon Rudnitski Frances Smith ForC.M.Rae Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada http://www.archive.org/details/genusvacciniuminOOvand
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • STATUS of the PIPING PLOVER in MASSACHUSETTS by George W. Gove, Ashland
    STATUS OF THE PIPING PLOVER IN MASSACHUSETTS by George W. Gove, Ashland On January 10, 1986, the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) was added to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of endangered and threatened species of wildlife. The entire breeding popula­ tion of this species in North America has been estimated at less than 2200 pairs. Piping Plovers breed in the Great Plains from southern Alberta eastward to Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Nebraska; at scattered locations around the Great Lakes; and on the Atlantic Coast from the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Maritimes to Virginia and the Carolines. They winter along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from South Carolina to Texas and north­ ern Mexico. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the Great Lakes population, which is down to less than twenty pairs, as "endangered," a term applied when extinction is imminent, and the Great Plains and Atlantic Coast populations as "threatened" (describing the state that is precursor to "endangered"). The decline of the Atlantic Coast population has been attributed to increasing recreational use and development of ocean beaches. In Massachusetts, the Piping Plover breeds coastally from Salis­ bury south and east to Cape Cod, the islands, and Westport. It is normally found in the state from mid-March through mid-September. This species makes a shallow nest, sometimes lined with fragments of shells, with pebbles, or wrack, along ocean beaches and filled- in areas near inlets and bays. The normal clutch of pale, sand- colored, speckled eggs is four. Incubation is underway by mid- May in Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Broom Crowberry (Corema Conradii)
    Ecology of the Broom Crowberry (Corema conradii) a Pine Barren Perennial Alyssa Rosso Health Science, College of Arts and Sciences University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT Introduction Methods Conrad's Broom-Crowberry (Corema conradii) is found in both the meadow 1. Randomly select three Crowberry plants in each habitat. and forest habitats of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. The Crowberry grows 2. Collect 50 g of the soil from under each plant and determine best in well-drained soils with an acidic pH. Wild fires have a significant the average height, diameter, and area using the equation “area = effect on the growth of its native wild life. Pine barren habitats are subject to πr2”. frequent wildfires, however the meadow habitat is burned annually as part of 3. Determine the water concentration, and pH of the soil samples. The the management of the Pine Barrens wilderness. water concentration of each soil sample was determined by taking Hypotheses the initial weight once collected then placing the soil in an autoclave 1. The meadow being the most recently burned habitat in the Pine oven at 42°C for 48 hours before weighing the sample again in order Barrens, is expected to exhibit a soil with a low water concentration to determine how much water evaporated. The pH of the soils were and an acidic pH. determined by placing the soil in a 1:1 ratio with deionized water for 2. The average diameter and area of the Conrad's Broom- 24 hours before using a Lab Quest to read the pH. Crowberry (Corema conradii) plants found in the meadow habitat will 4.
    [Show full text]