Managing Small Forest Patches for Birds A Guide for Landowners About this Guide

This guide is written for land managers and property owners of small woodlots seeking to improve forest conditions for birds across their Contents full annual life cycle: breeding, migration, and wintering. Recommendations are based on Acknowledgements 1 multiple research studies conducted in Ohio and Section 1: Executive summary of small forest 3 similar “small patch” forest ecosystems through patch management recommendations the Midwest and eastern North America. Section 2: Managing for small forest patches 4 and the full life cycle of Ohio birds

Section 3: A guide to forest types in Ohio 8

Section 4: Incorporating small forest patches 12 into the landscape

Section 5: Enhancing forest composition and 18 structure

Section 6: Managing wet woods 26

Section 7: Additional considerations, beneficial 29 attractants, and harmful practices to avoid

Section 8: Management techniques 33

Appendix: Common and scientific names for 38 referenced flora and fauna

Literature Cited 40 Acknowledgements

Financial support: The majority of funding for this work has been provided through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)–Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the State Wildlife Grant program, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program (W-134-P, Wildlife Management in Ohio), and the Ohio Wildlife Diversity and Endangered Species Fund, which consists of funds raised through the state income tax check-off program, sales of the Ohio Wildlife Legacy Stamp, and the purchase of Cardinal license plates. Printing of this publication was funded by Holden Forests & Gardens, which operates The Holden and Cleveland Botanical Garden.

Contributors: Tom Macy and Kathy Smith made helpful contributions to this work. We also appreciate the external reviews by the following: Dave Apsley, Beverlee Jobrack, Lori Stevenson, Jason Van Houten, Alan Walter, Mark Wiley, Kelly Williams, and Jessica Wise.

We would also like to thank the Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative’s Steering Committee for their support, patience, and input through this process: Chair – Kim Kaufman, Vice-chair – August Froehlich, Secretary – John Watts, Treasurer – Stephen Matthews, Steve Blatt, Annie Lindsay, Stefan Gleissberg, Connie Hausman, Kate Parsons, Cotton Randall, Mike Reynolds, Katrina Schultes, and Greg Smith.

Cover and header photos: Front cover: Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Red-eyed Vireo, and White-breasted Nuthatch by Matthew B. Shumar. Aerial view of northwestern Ohio by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. Inside cover: Matthew B. Shumar. Back cover: Aerial view of suburban and agricultural woodlots by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. Section 1 header: aerial photo by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR- Division of Wildlife. Section 2 header: Nashville Warbler by Matthew B. Shumar. Section 3 header: Canada Warbler by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. Section 4 header: aerial photo by Laura J. Kearns/ ODNR-Division of Wildlife. Section 5 header: forest understory by Matthew B. Shumar. Section 6 header: Great Blue Heron rookery by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. Section 7 header: Red-headed Woodpecker by Matthew B. Shumar. Section 8 header: Yellow Warbler by Matthew B. Shumar. Appendix header: Louisiana Waterthrush by Darin J. McNeil. Literature Cited header: Palm Warbler by Tim Daniel/ ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

Authors:

Laura J. Kearns, Ph.D., ODNR-Division of Wildlife Matthew B. Shumar, Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative/The Ohio State University Marne A. Titchenell, The Ohio State University Amanda M. Duren, Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture/American Bird Conservancy Jennifer L. Thieme, University of Minnesota Erin B. Cashion, Ohio History Connection Stephen N. Matthews, Ph.D., The Ohio State University John Mueller, ODNR-Division of Forestry Christopher M. Tonra, Ph.D., The Ohio State University Mark C. Shieldcastle, Black Swamp Bird Observatory

Suggested citation:

Kearns, L. J., M. B. Shumar, M. A. Titchenell, A. M. Duren, J. L. Thieme, E. B. Cashion, S. N. Matthews, J. Mueller, C. M. Tonra, and M. C. Shieldcastle. 2019. Managing small forest patches for birds: a guide for Ohio landowners. Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative, Columbus, OH.

1 Red-headed Woodpecker. Photo by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. 2 Section 1: Executive summary of small forest patch management recommendations

Despite global conservation efforts and successes, many In Ohio, approximately 85% of forests are owned and bird species have continued to decline over the past managed privately. Thus, private landowners can have a century. Many of these species rely on forests for part tremendous impact on improving forest habitat for birds. of or all their lives. Although a variety of birds require Additionally, federal, state, and local government resources large tracts of forests, particularly for breeding, during can provide help in the form of technical and financial other stages of their life cycle, they can still benefit from assistance. smaller fragments, or “small patches,” of forest scattered throughout a non-forested landscape. Other bird species The value of a forest patch to birds strongly depends on may also rely on these small patches throughout their life interactions among patch size, tree species composition, cycle. This guide is written for landowners and managers the forest structure, and the surrounding landscape. Thus, of small forest patches seeking to improve forest conditions several management practices can help to improve forest for birds. Recommendations are based on multiple research patches. The first step is to contact a local natural resource studies conducted in Ohio and similar “small patch” forest professional and develop a management plan for your ecosystems throughout the Midwest and eastern North property. Then, where applicable, include the following America. practices:

Ohio was once covered in forest, but since European 1. Remove and control invasive plant species settlement, human activities have caused deforestation 2. Manage for native fruiting shrubs, trees, and vines throughout the state. In southeastern Ohio, much of 3. Manage for a diversity of tree species the forest has regrown, but in the rest of the state, forest 4. Manage for a high abundance and diversity of native insects remains in the form of small forest patches (2.5-250 5. Enhance vertical structure within the small patch 6. Reduce “hard” edges along forest patches acres/1-100 ha), scattered throughout an agricultural and 7. Create shrubby or forested corridors to connect small patches urban landscape. 8. Create small canopy gaps in patches greater than 20 acres 9. Create brush piles and leave some dead trees standing Generally, the more forest cover that is available in the 10. Limit browse and grazing damage from deer and livestock landscape surrounding a forest patch, the more functional 11. Consider successional stage that individual forest patch will be for birds. Fortunately, 12. Leave wet forests intact and allow for standing water even small forest patches within less-forested landscapes, when dominated by native species of trees and shrubs, Again, before starting any management, work with a local can be important habitat for resident and migrant birds natural resource professional to develop a management during breeding, migration, and overwintering periods. plan for your property and to find sources of financial During the breeding season, these patches provide nesting assistance, if necessary. habitat, abundant food sources for young birds, and cover from predators. In migration, small forest patches provide food and cover when birds need to stop to rest and refuel. Finally, in winter, birds rely on both food, such as berries, seeds, and nuts, and the cover from small forest patches to protect them from predators and winter weather. 3 Section 2: Managing for small forest patches and the full life cycle of Ohio birds

Introduction forested landscape (see Figure 2.2 for example). Ecologists often refer to an area containing smaller forest patches as a Birds not only provide delight and awe, but also important fragmented landscape (see Figure 2.3). A small forest patch ecological services such as seed dispersal, pollination, has different characteristics than forest in a contiguously and pest control. Over 400 species of birds use the Ohio forested landscape, including different vegetation landscape, and nearly half of these are considered forest or communities and microclimates. Some bird species such shrubland-dependent. Unfortunately, many species are in as Northern Cardinal and American Robin are generalists decline; nine forest/shrubland bird species are listed within and may be able to utilize small or lower quality forest Ohio as endangered or as species of concern, and 19 more patches, while others such as Scarlet Tanager and Ovenbird are listed as species of greatest conservation need in Ohio’s may be area sensitive or require conditions present only in State Wildlife Action Plan (ODNR-DOW 2015). In the larger forested landscapes. face of ongoing landcover change, forest owners can make important contributions to conservation: managing for healthy forests is an effective tool to conserve populations of birds throughout their entire life-cycle.

Within Ohio, however, most forests are privately owned by farmers or families that lack professional forestry training. In light of this, the Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative (OBCI) has collaborated with many organizations in recent years to compile resources for landowners on best-practice techniques for managing their woods. The focus has been on southeastern counties where contiguous forest is the primary landcover type (e.g., Rodewald 2013). However, more than a third of Ohio’s forests occur throughout the glaciated portion of the state (Figure 2.1; Jin et al. 2013) in a form that we refer to in this guide as a “small patch.” This guide is geared toward landowners with two or more acres of forest, and assumes some basic knowledge of bird biology. For more information on birds, consult the Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in Ohio (Rodewald et al. 2016) and Cornell’s website, https://www.allaboutbirds.org/.

What is a small patch?

A small patch is a forested area, typically between 2.5 and Figure 2.1. National Landcover Database 2011 (Jin et al. 2013). 250 acres (~1-100 ha), that is embedded within a non- Physiographic regions designated by Partners in Flight.

4 Figure 2.2. Statewide distribution of forest patch size. The detailed view of Hardin County (top right) shows that the majority of forest patches within the county are less than 125 acres (50 ha) in size, with a few scattered patches ~125-250 acres (50-100 ha) in size. One larger patch, 470 acres (190 ha) of forest contained within the Lawrence Woods State Nature Preserve, is still relatively small and disconnected compared to forest patches within southeastern Ohio.

Figure 2.3. A comparison of a contiguously forested landscape (left; Jackson County), and two fragmented landscapes dominated by agriculture (center; Defiance County) and suburban development (right; Cuyahoga County). Images from the USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office.

5 How does patch size vary across Ohio? shape, and connectedness. Each of these features can be manipulated through various management techniques, Prior to European settlement, Ohio was almost entirely although issues related to size and configuration may be forested, varying from the dense forests of southern more challenging to address, as they often depend on regions to more open, park-like forests elsewhere in the coordination among multiple landowners. Patch size is state (Hutchinson et al. 2003). In southeastern Ohio, directly related to the number of breeding bird species many forests have recovered from extensive clearing in utilizing the patch (Freemark and Collins 1992) and the 1900s for agriculture, mining, and iron production, retaining larger habitat patches is often suggested as a way which had reduced the statewide forest cover to as little to accommodate area-sensitive species. as 15% (Widmann et al. 2014). Farm abandonment and mining reclamation have also helped boost Ohio’s forest Connectivity, or lack thereof (i.e., fragmentation), as cover, which is now approximately 30% (Albright 2017). it pertains to the suitability of wildlife habitat, has also The current Ohio landscape consists of a gradient of forest, received considerable attention in recent years. Patch with nearly contiguous forest in southeastern counties, isolation may be less problematic for migratory bird and forest patches elsewhere fragmented among primarily species as long as isolation still allows migratory birds agricultural and suburban landscapes (Figure 2.3). to locate suitable habitat during migration. During the breeding season for both migratory and resident birds, the The rest of the state contains higher levels of forest ability of young to disperse into new patches for territory fragmentation compared to southeastern Ohio (Figure establishment is reduced (Rosenberg et al. 2003). 2.2). Forest patches within the Allegheny Plateau of northeastern Ohio are also more mature, particularly in The landscape surrounding a forest patch is also an some of the gorges and ravines. The landscape within this important consideration when assessing the effects of region is highly developed, and effects of fragmentation fragmentation and isolation. For example, wildlife may here are different than those in the western half of the state have more difficulty traveling between forest patches in an where row-crop agriculture is abundant. In western Ohio urbanized landscape compared to one that is dominated by forest patches also tend to be smaller and more isolated. agriculture; urban landscapes attract more exotic predators, such as cats, and increase the potential for diseases The complex land-use history of Ohio has created forest and competitors to negatively affect natural ecosystem patches varying in age, tree species composition, size, processes (Marzluff and Ewing 2001).

Figure 2.4. Annual life cycle of the Veery. Adapted from Heckscher et al. (2017) with additional information from Peterjohn (2001), Remsen (2001), and Rodewald et al. (2016). Photo by Andrew Weitzel.

6 Box 2A: Migrant songbirds that rely on small forest patches

Rusty Blackbirds breed far north of Ohio but occur throughout the state during migration and winter. Forest patches in agricultural areas are important for this species, as Rusty Blackbirds primarily forage in stubble, pasture, plowed fields, and marsh edges but roost communally in woodlots (Bent 1958, Avery 2013). Forested wetlands are important during extended refueling periods of fall migration, particularly sites with highly abundant dogwood berries (Wright et al. 2018). During the winter, Rusty Blackbirds forage more heavily in wooded habitat, especially forested wetlands (Avery 2013). Acorns, seeds, and some fruit are important resources during winter (Meanley 1995), so the availability of on the landscape is important to overwintering Rusty Blackbirds. Populations of this species have declined dramatically over the last 50 years or more (Sauer et al. 2017), and declines are likely related to loss of forest patches and wooded Rusty Blackbird. Photo by Keith Williams. wetlands on the wintering grounds (Greenberg and Droege 1999). For more information on managing wet woods, see Section 6.

The American Redstart can be found throughout woodlands in Ohio from mid-April through October (Peterjohn 2001). During spring and fall, small forest patches throughout the state provide important stopover habitat. Redstarts are exclusively insectivorous, and aquatic insects such as midges can be an important food during migration (Sherry et al. 2016). Thus, it is important to conserve riparian corridors and wet woods. The statewide breeding population of redstarts has fluctuated considerably over the last 150 years and is strongly linked to the amount of forest cover. American Redstarts breed in a variety of wooded habitats containing shrubs and saplings, or forest with a well- developed mid-story canopy. Although they are more abundant within the unglaciated portion of the state, they do nest in small forest patches throughout even the most agricultural areas of Ohio (Rodewald et al. American Redstart. Photo by Tim Lenz. 2016).

The importance of small patches to the full life cycle the young fledge, pair bonds disintegrate, and individuals of birds move into distinct habitats where they molt their feathers and prepare for migration. Small forest patches provide resources for birds throughout their entire life cycle. Most species, especially Neotropical There is a growing body of research demonstrating that migrants (i.e., birds that breed in North America, but periods of the annual cycle are inextricably linked, even overwinter in Central and South America), have multiple though they are often temporally and/or geographically periods that are important to their life cycle, including separated (Marra et al. 2015). Thus, understanding how reproduction, dispersal, migration, and overwintering. habitat needs vary across these periods is essential for Veeries, for instance (Figure 2.4), spend as much as five effective conservation. For example, biologists are learning months in South America during the non-breeding season, that Ohio’s small forest patches are critically important much of which is spent overwintering in a region of central during the migratory period for species such as the Rusty Brazil (Remsen 2001). They may spend 2-3 months in Blackbird and American Redstart (see Box 2A). Ohio, during which time they mate and raise young. After

7 Section 3: A guide to forest types in Ohio

Ohio is composed of several types of forest (Figure 3.1), - forest which are in part determined by topography, soil, rainfall or water level, and frequency of fire or other types of Maple-beech forests, sometimes referred to as northern disturbance. Due to differences in plant composition and hardwoods, contain , , and birches, and structure (see Section 5), different forest types support currently make up approximately 22% of Ohio’s forests different bird communities, so it is important to maintain (ODNR-DOF 2010, Widmann 2014). These forests have a diversity of forest communities throughout Ohio. This become more common as maple encroaches into formerly section highlights the most common forest types, along -dominated stands, creating oak-maple forests. with a few special forested habitats for Ohio. Common In closed canopy systems, maples have a competitive species for each forest type are detailed in Table 3.1.

Mixed oak forest

Historically, oak-hickory or mixed oak forests dominated the eastern half of the state and extended nearly 62 miles (100 km) west of what is now Columbus. The most widespread mixed oak forest was primarily composed of White Oak, Black Oak, and hickories. A White Oak- Black Oak-American Chestnut forest type occurred from what is now Cleveland to approximately Columbus. The introduced chestnut blight functionally eliminated American Chestnut from this forest system (Peacefull 1996). Oak-hickory forests, with very little chestnut, now comprise 63% of Ohio’s forested lands (Widmann 2016). Species such as Cerulean Warbler, Scarlet Tanager, Ruffed Grouse, and Wild Turkey thrive in oak-hickory forests.

Despite the current abundance of this forest type, there is concern for the future of mixed oak forests. These forests have depended on periodic forest fires to maintain their health, but with efforts to control forest fires, maple trees have thrived, suppressing the growth of oaks. Other threats include invasive plant species, such as Tree-of-heaven and Japanese Stiltgrass, and fungal diseases such as oak wilt and sudden oak death, and invasive insect pests such as the Gypsy Moth. More information on these problematic pests Figure 3.1. Forest types of Ohio. Adapted from Gordon (1969). can be found at http://forestry.ohiodnr.gov/pests.

8 Forest Type Structure Common Name Mixed oak Tree White Oak Northern Red Oak Black Oak Scarlet Oak hickory (multiple species) Tulip Poplar, Yellow Poplar White Ash Black Walnut Red Maple Maple-beech Tree Sugar Maple American Beech Elm-ash-cottonwood Tree American Elm Black Ash Green Ash Red Maple Silver Maple Eastern Cottonwood American Sycamore Common Hackberry American Sweetgum Black Willow River Birch Oak savanna Tree Black Oak White Oak Bur Oak Oak-blueberry Tree Black Oak White Oak Sassafras Understory/Shrub Lowbush Blueberry American Witch-hazel Black Huckleberry Beach Ridge Tree Common Hackberry Kentucky Coffeetree Eastern Cottonwood White Ash Understory/Shrub dogwood (multiple species) Buttonbush Eastern Hemlock Tree Eastern Hemlock

Table 3.1. Dominant species composition of common forest types within Ohio. Sources: Myers and Buchman (1984), Nash and Gerber (1996), Hutchinson et al. (2003), Thieme (2016), M. Shieldcastle, pers. comm.

9 advantage over oaks and can persist in areas where fire, 2016), are comprised of loosely scattered trees where the once common, now rarely occurs (Peacefull 1996). The herbaceous understory becomes the dominant plant type. recent emergence of beech leaf disease, however, poses The most well-known examples in Ohio occur in the a threat to American Beech (Ewing et al. 2018). Asian Oak Openings region of northwestern Ohio. However, Longhorned Beetle, which is currently only found in oak savannas can be found in other locations throughout southwestern Ohio, is also a threat to beeches and other the Prairie Peninsula and Upper Great Lakes Plain (see tree species commonly found in maple-beech forests. Figure 3.1), where sandy soils sit atop dense clay material, Wood Thrush, Ovenbird, Black-and-white Warbler, and preventing groundwater from quickly dissipating. Regular American Redstart are bird species that often breed in fire events exacerbate dry conditions by reducing leaf litter maple-beech forests. and killing the tops of woody plants (Thieme 2016). Black Oak, White Oak, Bur Oak, and Quaking Aspen—trees that are tolerant of nutrient-poor soils—are among the Elm-ash-cottonwood forest most common tree species in this forest type (Mayfield 1988, Abrams 1992). Northern Bobwhite, Red-headed Elm-ash-cottonwood forests are the third most common Woodpecker, and Lark Sparrow are among several species forest type, but only make up about 9% of Ohio’s associated with oak savannas that are experiencing woodlands (ODNR-DOF 2010). This habitat often occurs population declines. as riparian forest, i.e., wet woods along streams and rivers, where species such as Northern Parula, Yellow-throated Warbler, and Acadian Flycatcher can be found. Elm-ash- Oak-blueberry forest cottonwood forests once dominated northwestern Ohio as part of the Great Black Swamp, a large forested wetland Oak-blueberry forests are dominated by Black Oak that covered up to 11 counties of northwestern Ohio, until and White Oak trees and contain a substantial shrub it was drained for agriculture during the late 1800s. layer composed of blueberry species, Witch Hazel, and Black Huckleberry. This was a frequent community in Unfortunately, like the American Chestnut, the American the Lakeplain Oak Openings region and still occurs Elm was devastated by disease during the mid-1900s. It on conserved lands and private forests. Oak-blueberry is now rare to see mature individuals, but younger elms forests were more prominent in northwestern Ohio, often persist in the understory for a time. More recently, where hickories and maples were not a large component ash trees have been infested with the Emerald Ash Borer, of the forests. Due to the suppression of fire, which a non-native beetle, which has created additional stress in once maintained prairies and savannas in northwestern the remaining patches of elm-ash-cottonwood forests. See Ohio, these oak-blueberry forests now occur where open Section 5 for more information on managing small patches landscapes once existed (Gardner 2016). Birds frequently considering the loss of ash. Additionally, because these encountered in oak-blueberry forests include woodpeckers, forests are in wetter environments, special considerations Great Crested Flycatcher, and Wild Turkey. need to be made when developing a management plan (e.g., see Section 6). Beach-ridge forest The remaining forest types each comprise less than 2% of Ohio’s forests (ODNR-DOF 2010). These include forest Beach-ridge forests represent a special type of upland types such as oak savannas, oak-blueberry forests, beach- forest. The beach ridge of Ohio is an elevated region ridge forests, and hemlock ravines, which often provide between the edge of Lake Erie and the wetlands habitat for some of Ohio’s more unique bird species. formed along the coast. It is developed by a long-term accumulation of sand and gravel along the lakeshore. The added elevation allows for the establishment of herbaceous, Oak savanna shrub, and tree communities. Hackberry, Kentucky Coffeetree, Eastern Cottonwood, and White Ash make up Oak savannas, created through alternating periods of the majority of the overstory. The understory is primarily extremely wet and extremely dry conditions (Thieme comprised of several species of dogwood, Buttonbush, and

10 the non-native invasive Bush Honeysuckle. Herbaceous has the potential to decimate hemlock forests, which layers include a wide variety of herbs, sedges, and grasses. can eliminate habitat important to hemlock-associated There is a diverse wildflower component, but this receives breeding bird species. The pest can be identified by considerable stress from competition with invasive Garlic inspecting the undersides of hemlock foliage each winter Mustard and overbrowsing by White-tailed Deer. Often, for small, white, woolly masses (Figure 3.2). If you believe multiple ridges exist with low sloughs lying between you have found the adelgid, please report your finding to them, often occupied by Buttonbush and other emergent the ODNR-Division of Forestry (see link below). There are vegetation. Beach-ridge forests are among the rarest treatment options available to reduce the impacts of this habitats in Ohio with only four sizeable units remaining. pest and keep Eastern Hemlock trees healthy (see http:// Though uncommon, beach-ridge forests are particularly ohiodnr.gov/hwa). important in the landscape for birds throughout their life cycle. Migrating songbirds, waterbirds, and raptors make Another problem for hemlock forests is browsing or extensive use of beach ridges during both spring and fall antler-rubbing by White-tailed Deer that can inhibit the migration. As the last vestige of land before a daunting growth of hemlock seedlings and saplings in the forest lake crossing, and by providing an attractive shrub/tree understory that provide cover and nesting habitat for birds. component that harbors abundant aquatic insect prey, To enhance understory growth and establishment, existing beach-ridge forests offer a last rest area and abundant food hemlock seedlings or saplings can be protected from deer resource to migrants. Various landbirds, Wood Ducks, by installing deer exclusion fencing. Deer pressure can also night-herons, and egrets utilize beach-ridge forests during be reduced via hunting. Lastly, when an existing the post-breeding season. Additionally, Bald Eagles use forest surrounds an Eastern Hemlock stand, maintain the this habitat as shelter during winter and as hunting perches contiguity and integrity of the forest patch to minimize throughout the year. Most importantly, beach-ridge forests exposure and potential wind damage to the hemlocks. act as a protective barrier for the life-providing wetlands essential for waterfowl and other bird species.

Eastern Hemlock forest

Eastern Hemlock forests are a unique type of coniferous forest in Ohio. Eastern Hemlocks most often grow in ravines and cool, moist environments mainly in the eastern half of the state, and they provide habitat for some of Ohio’s more unique breeding bird species such as Blue-headed Vireo, Winter Wren, Hermit Thrush, Black-throated Green Warbler, Warbler, and Canada Warbler. Eastern Hemlocks are one of the most shade-tolerant and longest- living species native to eastern North America. Hemlock forests are “self-replacing” in that they create a habitat conducive to the establishment and growth of their own seedlings. The shade created by the evergreen foliage also moderates stream temperatures in summer and winter and benefits a number of aquatic organisms.

In general, little to no forest management practices need to be implemented to maintain hemlock forests, however there are some key factors to consider. Hemlock Woolly Figure 3.2. Eastern Hemlock-dominated forests are an uncommon but important habitat type for several migratory songbirds, such as the Winter Adelgid, an invasive insect pest that can kill Eastern Wren and Magnolia Warbler. The invasive Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Helmock trees over time, is becoming widespread in (pictured) can decimate hemlock stands, which may have significant eastern North America. Without control, the adelgid consequences for some bird species. Photo courtesy of the ODNR-Division of Forestry.

11 Section 4: Incorporating small forest patches into the landscape

Larger forest patches are associated with greater numbers breasted Grosbeak), and can serve as critical stopover of breeding bird species and increased reproductive sites for migrating landbirds. There is substantial evidence success, compared to smaller patches (Lampila et al. suggesting that migration may be the most vulnerable 2005, Keller and Yahner 2007). This is largely because and unpredictable period of the annual life cycle (Moore small patches have a lower area-to-edge ratio, which 2000, Sillett and Holmes 2002, Mehlman et al. 2005). Thus, means that the forest is exposed to increased amounts of successful conservation strategies for migratory birds light and wind, resulting in edge-effects, such as greater should aim to create a network of stopover sites along variability in temperature, drier soils, and potentially migratory routes. To maximize the usefulness of each forest more nest predators. Further, rates of nest parasitism by patch within the network, the landowner should consider Brown-headed Cowbirds are higher in landscapes with the size, shape, and connectivity of patches, and needs may more fragmented forest, such as those of the agricultural vary depending on the dominant landcover types in the Midwest (Howell et al. 2007). Nest parasitism typically surrounding landscape. In this section, we describe various reduces the nest success of the host bird species. For more features of a forest patch and ways to maximize the patch’s information on cowbirds visit https://nestwatch.org/learn/ usefulness across the landscape. general-bird-nest-info/brown-headed-cowbirds/.

That said, small forest patches still serve important roles, Patch size particularly in landscapes dominated by non-forested landcover (e.g., row crops, pasture, urban development). The number of bird species breeding within a forest patch They offer nesting habitat for forest breeding species with is directly related to the size of the patch. Additionally, lower edge sensitivity (e.g., Eastern Wood-Pewee, Rose- as area-to-edge ratio decreases, fewer territories are

Figure 4.1. Minimum area requirements for Scarlet Tanagers in landscapes containing different proportions of forested habitat. Figure adapted from Rosenberg et al. (2003).

12 Figure 4.2. Patch shape can limit the number of bird territories that can be accommodated even in the absence of true edge avoidance. In this example, a greater number of fixed-size territories can be accommodated in one contiguous patch versus multiple smaller, unevenly-shaped patches of equal total area. available for individuals of any given species. For example, Minnesota increased in more isolated forest patches, Ovenbird and Hermit Thrush breeding territories have suggesting that birds may concentrate in small patches been shown to be more abundant at greater distances from when higher quality habitat is lacking nearby (Yahner clearcut edges (Manolis et al. 2002), and Hooded Warblers 1983). and other birds have demonstrated edge avoidance in establishing breeding territories within forest patches However, the size of a patch is directly related to how (Keller and Yahner 2007). Furthermore, species such quickly a migrant can meet its energetic demands during as Wood Thrush have had greater nest success in larger stopover (Buler and Moore 2006). A study in Columbus, patches (Hoover and Brittingham 1998). Ohio that experimentally relocated Swainson’s Thrushes to forest patches of varying sizes showed that 28% of Additional research has shown that the edge-effects for thrushes that were relocated to small (<12 ac/5 ha) forest breeding birds are landscape-dependent and exacerbated patches moved away from these sites to forage elsewhere; in less forested landscapes. For example, Rosenberg et al. however, 100% of thrushes relocated to larger (>30 ac/12 (2003) demonstrated that Scarlet Tanagers in a landscape ha) forest patches remained in the patch until departing that is 70% forested could successfully utilize forest patches the area completely and continuing their migratory as small as 66 acres (27 ha), while those in a landscape of journey (Matthews and Rodewald 2010). In summary, a only 40% forest cover may need a patch size of at least 605 single small forest patch may be insufficient to meet the acres (245 ha; Figure 4.1). energetic needs of a migrant for the next leg of migration, but multiple patches in close vicinity may be beneficial. Much of the emphasis on patch size in conservation Increasing patch size is also harder to accomplish, at least biology has focused on breeding ecology. Patch size may within short time frames, in landscapes dominated by be less critical for transient migrants, as they are only agriculture or urban development. Therefore, finding ways staying at the site for a short period of time (Ewert and to address the connectivity and shape of patches may be Hamas 1996). Thus, all forest patches, regardless of size, more easily accomplished. can provide valuable migratory habitat. Bonter et al. (2009) found that islands of forested habitat in primarily developed and agricultural landscapes were important for Patch connectivity migrant landbirds, particularly near the Great Lakes. In lieu of increasing patch size, enhancing connectivity Small, isolated patches can provide critical stopover among forested patches can benefit birds as well as other habitat during migration. In Indiana, high densities of fall wildlife (e.g., Gilbert-Norton et al. 2010). Establishing migrants used small forest patches (Packett and Dunning shrubby or forested corridors between patches, by 2009). Similarly, the likelihood of encountering several planting trees and/or abstaining from mowing, can bird species in the agricultural landscape of southeastern enable movement of species to obtain additional foraging

13 Landscape surrounding the patch

The landscape surrounding forest patches can have an important influence on how birds will use the area throughout their life cycle. Generally, the more forest in the surrounding area, the better. For example, nest success has been shown to increase as the proportion of forest on the landscape increases (Hoover et al. 1995, Driscoll and Donovan 2004). Additionally, increased forest cover facilitates movements of birds during the breeding season (Desrochers and Hannon 1997, Tremblay and St. Clair 2011); during these parts of the life-cycle, birds are unlikely to cross gaps greater than ~160 ft (50 m) in length (Desrochers and Hannon 1997, Bélisle and Desrochers 2002). Migrating birds are more likely to stopover in forest Small forest patches in northwestern Ohio. patches that are within heavily forested landscapes. Studies Photo by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. have shown greater use of habitats by migrating birds to be associated with the amount of hardwood forest cover within ~3 miles (5 km; Buler and Moore 2006, Buler et al. resources (e.g., Wegner and Merriam 1979, Johnson and 2007). Likewise, a study in Hancock County, Ohio found Adkisson 1985). Haas (1995) documented increased that increasing amounts of forest cover within ~1,600 ft dispersal of American Robins when woody corridors (500 m) was positively correlated with bird abundance were present. Additionally, Doherty and Grubb (2000) and diversity of migrating birds (Cashion 2011). Further found an increase in the number of wintering Red-Bellied research has shown that the amount of forest cover at this Woodpeckers when fencerows were present near forest. scale was positively associated with arthropod (i.e., food) abundance, so migratory birds may use the amount of forest cover within ~3 miles (5 km) as an indicator of food Patch shape availability (Buler et al. 2007). Other studies in Ohio and throughout the Midwest show that migratory landbirds For larger patches, or patches in predominantly forested are more likely to be found, or are more abundant, in more landscapes, forest management recommendations have heavily forested landscapes (Groom and Grubb 2002, typically focused on creating more regularly-shaped Rosenberg et al. 2003). patches (e.g., circular or square) to maximize the area-to- edge ratio. This increases the potential for area-sensitive The amount of forest cover in the landscape can also be species to use the patch, and for the patch to accommodate important for wintering birds. For example, several species a larger number of breeding territories (Figure 4.2). of overwintering birds (e.g., Red-bellied Woodpeckers, Northern Cardinals, Dark-eyed Juncos) were less abundant Manipulating the shape of a forest patch in a when forest patches were located further from other predominantly agricultural area without drastically forest patches (Doherty and Grubb 2000). Turcotte and reducing its size may be difficult, but by reducing hard Desrochers (2005), studying Black-capped Chickadees edges and improving adjacent habitat, the effective in Canada, suggested that the combination of harsher footprint of the habitat provided by a forest patch can be winter conditions and greater forest habitat fragmentation altered (see the next page for information on methods). reduced the ability of forest birds to disperse in the winter. Irregularly shaped patches, or narrow, linear-shaped Turcotte and Desrochers (2003) also found that a greater habitats in an agricultural landscape may prove beneficial amount of deforestation in the landscape increased the for migrating birds as the amount of edge habitat and the level of predation risk, and consequently mortality, for resulting food resources are increased (Rodewald and Black-capped Chickadees in winter, which may explain Brittingham 2004). It is important that edge habitat is why wintering chickadees avoid crossing forest gaps greater comprised of native plant species, rather than invasives, than ~160 ft (50 m; St. Clair et al. 1998). St. Clair et al. which may quickly invade these areas (see Section 5). (1998) also documented woodpeckers and nuthatches to be

14 even more cautious than chickadees about crossing large 2. For patches greater than 20 acres (8 ha) gaps of unforested habitat in winter. Create canopy gaps - Canopy gaps have been shown In most of Ohio, however, agriculture and urban to contain a greater abundance of fruit resources for development represent the major alternatives to forest birds (Blake and Hoppes 1986) after vegetation is landcover in the surrounding landscape. There are several re-established. Therefore, if the forest patch is 20-100 studies, though, that have documented the value of forest acres (8-40 ha), create small canopy gaps (0.1 - 0.5 patches within these landscape types. For example, during acre) by cutting trees to simulate wind throw or winter, some bird species may be positively associated lightning strikes, which were the historic sources with forests in urban areas, due to food supplementation, of these gaps in upland forests (Sargent and Carter cover (understory stem density), and warmer temperatures 1999). Patches larger than 100 acres (40 ha) can host (Atchison and Rodewald 2006). For some breeding birds, larger canopy gaps. Do not create substantial gaps such as the Northern Cardinal, American Robin, and in patches less than 20 acres (8 ha); however, trees Wood Thrush, there was no difference in nest success in may be occasionally felled to create a small gap and riparian forest patches located in urban vs. more rural promote growth of understory shrubs and herbaceous areas, and Northern Cardinals also showed no difference vegetation. Be aware that nonnative, invasive plants in total reproductive output (i.e., number of young per may quickly overtake areas that are newly opened. nest; Rodewald et al. 2013). During both spring and fall Therefore, prior to any tree removal, treat any migration, for at least some species of migrant landbirds, invasive species, and one year after removal, assess stopover habitat quality may be similar between forest the vegetation within canopy gaps and remove any patches planted amongst agricultural areas and native undesirable plants, such as nonnative honeysuckle (See riparian forest (Liu and Swanson 2014). Similarly, Sections 5 and 8). Rodewald and Matthews (2005) found that the amount of urbanization within a ~3,300 ft (1 km) landscape was 3. For all patch sizes unrelated to the abundance of Neotropical and temperate transients within a forest patch. Reduce hard edges - A hard edge is where there is no transition between the forest edge and the surrounding landscape. The fruit or fruiting plants Methods for improving the suitability of a forest (e.g., Serviceberry and Hawthorn), particularly in the patch for birds within the landscape fall, that are important to migrating birds have been found to be more abundant at forest edges or in early- There are several methods that can be used to improve the successional (young, regenerating) forests (Rodewald suitability of forest patches within the landscape. Consider and Brittingham 2004, Packett and Dunning 2009), the following methods to make a given property more highlighting the importance of maintaining “soft” hospitable to birds. Remember to always seek professional forest edges that contain such vegetation. Softer guidance and programs for financial assistance (see Section forest edges allow for increased light and encourage 8). understory and herbaceous growth, thus providing additional foraging habitat and cover for a variety of 1. For patches less than 20 acres (8 ha) bird and other wildlife species.

Expand and enhance - If possible, allow additional a. Plant native shrubs – a variety of native shrubs (see areas to revert to forest, plant trees to expand patch Box 5B) can provide food sources and create cover size, or create shrubby or forested corridors to connect for many species of birds and other wildlife (Apsley patches. However, improving forest structure and and Gehrt 2006, Liberati et al. 2013). Shrub species composition may be more easily accomplished and can that are most suitable for the site’s conditions provide substantial benefit (see Section 5). should be planted. Consult with a natural resource professional to find out more about beneficial plants native to your area (see Section 8).

15 b. Allow edges to revegetate – In smaller patches, Create brush piles - Brush piles provide additional forest edges can be softened by allowing a 30-50 cover for birds. For suggestions on strategies, including ft (10-15 m) buffer to revegetate around the patch the size and types of materials to use, see Section 6. perimeter. If the perimeter has not been intensively farmed for an extended period, it is likely that Consider the landscape - In addition to expanding seeds of early-successional, fruit-bearing shrubs, existing patches, consider adding more forest to the such as blackberry or dogwood, remain within the landscape. Avoid mowing or plant trees to encourage soil and will emerge once mowing ceases. Monitor new forest where it will link existing patches and for invasive plants and treat as necessary (see provide corridors for travel. Recommended widths for Sections 5 and 8). corridors vary greatly depending on the landscape; in general, wider corridors are better, but any efforts to c. Feather forest edges – A typical method for connect patches, even with narrow corridors, can be reducing hard edges in larger patches (>20 acres/8 beneficial. ha) is edge feathering. Edge feathering involves felling trees along the edge and letting them lay. To promote increased forest cover beyond the bounds Areas treated for edge feathering should extend 30- of your property, consider sharing this information 50 ft (10-15 m) inward from the edge of the patch; with neighbors or local homeowner’s associations it is not necessary to treat a uniform width. Treated and planning committees. There are several regional areas should also be 50-100 ft (~15-30 m) long and forestry associations throughout Ohio that can serve as separated by untreated areas 100-150 ft (~30-45 forums for these discussions (Box 4A). m) long. Edge feathering involves removing or killing all woody vegetation greater than 3 inches Recognize the unique contributions of urban forest in diameter or 12 ft (3.5 m) in height within the patches – Small forest patches in urban areas provide treatment area (NRCS 2015); native tree species valuable habitat for migrating, breeding, and wintering that produce fruits and nuts should be retained. birds. To maximize the value of a patch as avian To keep forest edges in an early-successional state, habitat, follow the management guidelines found top-kill shrubs by brush-cutting, hand-cutting, within this document. Some considerations specific to hydro-axing, or working with professionals to urban forests include managing for window collisions, conduct prescribed fire every 3-5 years (see Section proximity of roads, and predators. 8).

Brush pile. Photo courtesy of the ODNR-Division of Wildlife. Brown Thrasher. Photo by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

16 Box 4A: Forestry associations for landowners with small forest patches in Ohio

Landowner workshop field trip. Photo by Katrina Schultes.

Forestry associations offer resources and events for members, including programs by guest speakers, newsletters, training sessions, and field days. The following organizations offer resources for small patch forest owners in Ohio:

• Ohio Forestry Association - https://www.ohioforest.org

• East Central Ohio Forestry Association (ECOFA) - http://ecofa.org

• Muskingum River Woodland Interest Group - https://www.mrwig.org

• Southern Ohio Forestry Association - http://ohiosofa.com

• Southeast Ohio Woodland Interest Group - https://seowig.weebly.com

For the groups below, contact your local natural resource professional or visit the Forest Management for Birds section at https://obcinet.org.

• Central Ohio Small Woodlot Interest Group

• Killbuck Valley Woodland Interest Group

• North Eastern Ohio Forestry Association

• Northwest Ohio Woodland Association

• Southwest Ohio Woodland Owners Association

17 Section 5: Enhancing forest composition and structure

What aspects benefit birds? Forest structure

A forest patch’s vertical structure and plant composition Forest structure refers to the vertical arrangement of woody are important habitat features for songbirds. These two and herbaceous plants within the forest, from the ground characteristics vary greatly depending on the forest’s age, up to the tree canopy. A multilayered forest, or a forest or stage of succession, but all forest patches—regardless of containing trees and shrubs in a variety of size classes their size—can be successfully managed to provide valuable and heights (Figure 5.1), will provide resources for many resources to birds throughout the year. songbirds throughout their life cycle. Multiple studies (e.g., MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Cashion 2011, Khanaposhtani et al. 2012) report a strong correlation Forest succession between forest structural complexity and bird abundance and species richness at the local scale. The amount and type of habitat available in a patch is Forest structure can impact bird habitat use in many influenced by forest succession—the natural progression, ways. Structure affects the visibility of prey and thus how development, and replacement of plant species over time. birds move through the habitat to forage (Robinson and Throughout most of Ohio, a harvested stand or abandoned Holmes 1982). For example, Gray Catbirds, Ovenbirds, farm field will eventually become mature forest. Young, and thrushes prefer to feed on or near the ground, while or “early-successional” forests, consist of woody shrubs, birds such as vireos and warblers prefer to feed in the forest seedlings, and saplings, and typically offer more fruit and canopy. Similarly, many bird species prefer different vertical woody browse than mature forests. Early-successional layers of the forest for nesting. Ovenbirds and Black-and- forests also provide cover, both for escape from predators white Warblers nest on the ground, Eastern Towhees and thermal protection during cold and wet weather. and Gray Catbirds nest within the shrub layer, Cerulean Species such as the Gray Catbird, Eastern Towhee, and Warblers nest within the canopy, and species such as the Field Sparrow require early-successional forests for Northern Cardinal build nests at a variety of heights. breeding, while many mature or boreal forest breeding species such as the Magnolia Warbler, White-throated Forest structure also plays an important role in nest site Sparrow, and Hermit Thrush also use early-successional selection and nest success of many breeding birds present in Ohio. The high density of shrubs and saplings has been forests during post-breeding and migratory periods positively associated with territory selection, nest site (Rodewald and Brittingham 2004, Chandler et al. 2012). selection, fledgling habitat selection, and higher species As succession continues, trees mature to sizes large enough richness within Pennsylvania and several Midwestern states to produce acorns and tree cavities that can be used by (Blake and Karr 1987, Rosenberg et al. 2003, Richmond birds for shelter and nesting. Mature forests are used for et al. 2011, Vitz and Rodewald 2011). Notably, heavy deer breeding by species such as the Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, browse or overuse by livestock can reduce stem density and and Wood Thrush. herbaceous cover, ultimately resulting in a loss of potential nesting sites for Wood Thrush (Rosenberg et al. 2003) or other species with similar nesting preferences.

18 requirements (e.g., seeds, berries, nuts, nectars, and insects) are supplied by plants.

Many birds eat insects during all or part of their lives. During the breeding season, insects provide an excellent source of fat and protein for nesting females and growing nestlings. During spring, migratory birds in the Midwest feed primarily upon Lepidoptera larvae, i.e., caterpillars, at stopover sites (Graber and Graber 1983, Piaskowski et al. 2008). Oaks, cherries, willows, and birches often contain a greater abundance or availability of Lepidoptera than other trees (Strode 2009, Tallamy and Shropshire 2009, Newell et al. 2014), and thus spring migrants typically forage Figure 5.1. An example of a structurally complex forest. preferentially within these tree species (Graber and Graber 1983, Ewert et al. 2006, Piaskowski et al. 2008, Wood et al. 2012). Birds arriving prior to the emergence of caterpillars Forest structure is also important outside the breeding may select other tree species (e.g., Common Hackberry) season. For example, riparian thickets increased the that provide alternative foods during that time (Strode survival of recent fledglings (Vitz and Rodewald 2010, 2009). 2011); thus, understory enhancement of native vines and shrubs is important in riparian forests. The shrub layer During autumn, many migrating birds will utilize fruiting of the forest can provide cover and reduce exposure to shrubs, trees, and vines in a forest, exhibiting plasticity in extreme weather during the winter months for species their diets to take advantage of abundant fruit resources; such as the Carolina Chickadee, Downy Woodpecker, birds that do so forage more efficiently (Parrish 2000) and and Tufted Titmouse (Doherty and Grubb 2000). Even gain more weight during stopover (Parrish 1997). It is not for migratory landbirds, structurally diverse forests surprising, then, that multiple studies have documented are important (Ewert et al. 2006). Forests with greater a positive relationship between the abundance of fall structural complexity have higher amounts of arthropod migrants and the abundance of fruit or fruiting plants in biomass, which is important to many species during forests (e.g., Suthers et al. 2000, Buler et al. 2007, Packett the post-breeding period, including the Veery, Canada and Dunning 2009, Cashion 2011). Therefore, a diversity Warbler, and Hooded Warbler (McDermott and Wood of foods including plant species that support high insect 2010). Prey biomass has also been positively associated diversity, and both hard (e.g., acorns, nuts) and soft fruits with the presence of several migrant bird species in (i.e., berries) are necessary to support a variety of birds. southern Ohio and Indiana (Fox et al. 2010) as well as Wood Thrush nest success in Ontario (Richmond et al. Unfortunately, the prevalence of non-native, invasive plant 2011). and insect species are having a strong impact on the forest composition of Ohio’s forests. The next section illustrates how invasive plants, and how one invasive insect, the Emerald Ash Borer, are having an effect on Ohio’s forests. Forest composition

In addition to forest structure, composition of plant species within the forest determines the availability of Invasive plant species food and cover resources for birds. Certain species of plants (e.g., hawthorn) are more densely structured than What is an invasive species? According to the National others, providing sheltered nesting sites and protection Invasive Species Council, an invasive species is a) non- from threats. Evergreens, offer year-round protection native to the ecosystem, and b) likely to cause harm to the to overwintering birds, like chickadees, titmice, and environment, economics, or health of humans. This section nuthatches. Cover needs are often unique to each bird focuses on invasive plant species that can harm the forest species, as are food requirements. Many of these food ecosystem (see Box 5A), but also, the effects of invasive insect species and the impact that they have had on Ohio’s

19 forests (see The loss of ash on page 22). Often, invasive germination of both Oriental Bittersweet and Autumn species owe their success in colonizing new ecosystems to Olive when the fruit was ingested and dispersed by one or more of the following characteristics: European Starlings. Further, LaFleur et al. (2007) reported the preference of the fruits of Multiflora Rose and Autumn • They tolerate a variety of habitat conditions Olive by European Starlings, which in turn limited the • They grow and reproduce rapidly dispersal of native plants. Invasive plants often decrease • They compete aggressively for resources (like food, diversity within a forest through mechanisms such as faster water, and nesting sites) dispersal of seed, increased tolerance to shade, and by • They lack natural enemies in the new ecosystem releasing allelopathic compounds that inhibit competing growth of native tree species. However, the relationship The monoculture, or near monoculture of invasive plants, between birds and invasive plant dispersal requires further that often results after an area is colonized by exotic/ exploration. invasive plants is typically less complex than native forests that have been able to progress through natural forest Invasive plants can also negatively affect the reproductive succession. The resulting structure and composition of success of forest songbirds. For example, in a study in the forest can then have profound effects on the quality of central Ohio, Northern Cardinals with brighter plumage habitat for wildlife populations, including migratory birds. found in areas dominated by Amur Honeysuckle had lower reproductive fitness than is generally associated with this Numerous studies have documented that the presence and plumage type (Jones et al. 2010). It is suspected that the abundance of non-native, invasive plant species within poorer nutrition associated with honeysuckle berries may the forest can negatively impact the bird community be responsible (Rodewald 2012a). Furthermore, researchers (McCusker et al. 2010, Rodewald 2012a). Often, generalist have documented that predation rates of songbird nests bird species, such as the Northern Cardinal, Gray Catbird, are higher in invasive shrubs such as Common Buckthorn and American Robin, persist in areas with an abundance and Amur Honeysuckle, particularly early in the breeding of non-native, invasive plant species, whereas specialist season, when these plants have flushed out earlier than bird species, such as Acadian Flycatchers and Eastern native plants (Schmidt and Whelan 1999, Borgmann Wood-Pewees, tend to decline (Rodewald and Smith and Rodewald 2004, Rodewald et al. 2010). Additionally, 1998, Bakermans and Rodewald 2006, Rodewald 2012b, Rodewald (2012b) clearly documented a decline in nest Schneider and Miller 2014). Major reasons for these success for Acadian Flycatchers with increasing density of alterations in bird communities include the nutritional Amur Honeysuckle. value of food provided by invasive plants and their impacts on nesting success.

Invasive plants can negatively impact songbirds because the nutritional value of the fruits of some invasive plants is of lower quality than that of native shrubs. Native fruiting species such as Silky Dogwood, and Gray Dogwood, for example, contain high amounts of fat and protein compared to non-native species (e.g., Tatarian Honeysuckle and Multiflora Rose) and are important for fall migrants (Bairlein 2002, Witmer and Van Soest 2002, Drummond 2005, Smith 2013, Smith et al. 2015).

Many of the invasive plants found in forests produce fleshy-fruits that are attractive to birds. Unfortunately, birds do not discriminate between native and non-native fruits, in some cases preferring non-native fruits (Drummond 2005, LaFleur et al. 2007). This has led to questions of birds’ contribution to the dispersal of invasive plants across the landscape. LaFleur et al. (2009) documented improved Yellow-rumped Warbler. Photo by Matthew B. Shumar.

20 Box 5A: Common invasive plant species in Ohio’s forests

Tatarian Honeysuckle. (Woody plant) Photo Autumn Olive. (Woody plant) Photo by Kathy Common Buckthorn. (Woody plant) Photo by Kathy Smith. Note that there are additional Smith. by Kathy Smith. The similar looking Glossy species of non-native invasive honeysuckles, Buckthorn is also a common invasive in Ohio. such as Amur Honeysuckle, that also occur throughout Ohio.

Garlic Mustard. (Herbaceous plant) Photo by Multiflora Rose. (Woody plant) Photo courtesy Oriental Bittersweet. (Woody vine) Photo by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. of the National Park Service. Kathy Smith. Note that the native American Bittersweet is similar looking, but has more elliptical-shaped leaves, compared to the rounded leaves of Oriental Bittersweet.

Tree-of-Heaven. (Woody plant) Photo courtesy Japanese Barberry. (Woody plant) Photo by Japanese Stiltgrass. (Herbaceous plant) Photo of OSU. Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. courtesy of the National Park Service.

21 Lastly, invasive plants can negatively impact the forest trees have been shown to support a diverse community arthropod communities, an important food source for of associated insects comprising 282 species (Gandhi and birds. Common Buckthorn and Glossy Buckthorn host few Herms 2010b). Of these, 43 are known to be associated arthropods (Piaskowski et al. 2008) and spring migrants only with ash trees and face high risk of endangerment were not frequently observed foraging within these shrubs by widespread ash mortality (Gandhi and Herms 2010b). in northern Ohio (P. Rodewald pers. comm., in Ewert Species of high risk in Ohio include the Black-headed Ash 2006). Additionally, Burghardt et al. (2009) showed that the Sawfly and Banded Ash Clearwing Moth. summer abundance and diversity of insects were lower in association with non-native plants. This, in turn, resulted The impacts of EAB invasion, however, have also been in lower diversity and abundance of native bird species. noted to have positive effects thus far on higher trophic Clearly, the management and removal of invasive species levels of the ecosystem. EAB-infested trees offer a should be an objective of forest bird management. significant food resource for generalist avian insectivores, including several species of woodpeckers (Koenig et al. 2013). Increases in the abundance of Red-bellied The loss of ash Woodpeckers and White-breasted Nuthatches have been documented in highly invaded areas of the Midwest Over the past decade or so, nearly all the ash trees in Ohio (Koenig et al. 2013). It is unclear how EAB will affect have sustained damage from or succumbed to infestation long-term population trends for these avian insectivores. by Emerald Ash Borer (Figure 5.2). Emerald Ash Borer It is possible that inflated populations of species like Red- (EAB) is a non-native and invasive herbivorous insect that bellied Woodpecker will eventually decline after ash trees, has exhibited explosive growth in North America since its and associated populations of EAB, are less prevalent on first detection in 2002 (Koenig et al. 2013). The result has landscape (Koenig et al. 2013, Klooster et al. 2018). ranged from a practically unnoticeable loss of scattered ash trees to total loss of forest overstory. EAB is expected to continue to spread, leading some to predict that ash trees could be functionally extirpated from North America within the next few decades (Gandhi and Herms 2010a).

Similar to Dutch elm disease, which decimated native elm populations several decades earlier, EAB has created conditions for other plant species to assume positions in Ohio’s forests in the absence of ash trees. In many cases, present-day ash stands resulted from the holes left by Dutch elm disease. However, non-native invasive plants now sit more readily poised than ever to exploit this disturbance and, thus, supplant native flora. Many invasive plant species are not highly tolerant of shade, but canopy gaps created by EAB can facilitate the establishment and spread of invasive plants by increasing light availability at the forest floor (Gandhi and Herms 2010b). Activities related to the removal of ash trees from a natural area may also lead to increased soil compaction, possibly facilitating colonization of the newly formed gaps by invasive plants (Hausman et al. 2010).

Another potential effect of the loss of ash trees is the loss of insects that rely on ash trees (Gandhi and Herms 2009). Many invertebrates have evolved in close association Figure 5.2. An ash tree damaged by the Emerald Ash Borer. The yellow with a limited number of plant genera and can only feed arrows point to D-shaped exit holes that are made by the larval forms of the or reproduce on these species. Across their range, ash beetle. Photo by Marne Titchenell.

22 Coupling the above traits with the fact that many of our 2. Manage for native fruiting shrubs, trees, and vines most desirable native plant species are often neither well-suited nor well-positioned to repopulate areas where A wide variety of native tree, shrub, and vine species ash trees once constituted most of the forest overstory, it produce fleshy berries consumed by birds and should becomes imperative to manage these sites actively if native be planted instead of invasive or other non-native forests are to be retained or restored. It is recommended woody species (Box 5B). Vines deserve some special that anyone interested in such an endeavor contact considerations. For example, grape vines can be qualified professionals (see Section 8) to assist them with damaging to trees, but if providing habitat for birds identification of potential threats and creation of a plan to is a management objective, a few vines should be left meet specific management objectives with an emphasis on on trees that are not suited for another purpose such diversity. Such a plan should include detailed instructions as timber production. Poison-ivy, while a nuisance for minimizing the impact of invasive plants thought to be to many humans, is a readily consumed food source a threat to the site, information about underlying soil types, for birds. If it is not posing an immediate problem, site preparation, appropriate plant species to introduce/ consider leaving it for the birds. reintroduce, short and long-term maintenance guidance for the project, potential incentive/cost share programs, etc. 3. Manage for a diversity of tree species A list of tree species recommended for replacement of ash trees can be found in the Ohio State University Extension Keeping a diverse composition of tree species Bulletin 924, Ash Replacements for Urban and Woodland translates into a greater diversity of the bird and biotic Plantings (Sydnor et al. 2005). community in general. During harvest, avoid removal of just one or a few species. Crop-tree management is one technique that helps to maintain and promote Management recommendations for enhancing diversity (see Section 8). forest composition and structure When planting, use a variety of native species. Diversity also helps to protect small forest patches 1. Remove invasive plant species against disease or invasive pest outbreaks (i.e., Emerald

Ash Borer). Finally, targeted and continued removal of Working to remove invasive plant species will promote non-native and invasive plants such as Tree-of-Heaven, the growth of native species that are much more honeysuckle, Garlic Mustard, and Multiflora Rose beneficial to birds throughout the year. See Box 5A for will help native plants establish and encourage greater a partial list of invasive plant species found in Ohio, diversity. as well as Section 8 for information on management and removal of invasive plants. A complete list of 4. Manage for high abundance and diversity of native invasive plant species can be obtained from the Ohio insects Department of Agriculture (https://agri.ohio.gov)

under Ohio Administrative Code 901:5-30-01. Managing small patches for high plant species diversity

will also provide a variety of host plants for various Removal and management of invasive species is, insect species. However, certain plant species can be unfortunately, not a single-step procedure, and targeted to further improve insect abundance and continual monitoring of a site and follow-up treatment diversity. For example, oak species across the United in multiple years is almost always required. The intial States host over 500 different species of Lepidopterans treatment can kill most of the targeted above-ground (butterflies, skippers, and moths). As previously vegetation, but significant seedbank is usually present described, this group of insects is a critical food source in the soil. Financial assistance programs such as the for many birds, especially during spring migration. Conservation Stewardship Program can help to offset Oaks are not shade-tolerant and will not regenerate costs associated with multi-year management (see in shaded understories. Work with a professional Section 8 & Box 8B). forester to determine the best steps to take in order to

encourage the regeneration of oak in the stand. This

23 could include the removal of undesirable species and 6. Limit browse and grazing damage from deer and poor-quality trees to increase light levels at the forest livestock floor. If the property is under a high amount of browsing To increase arthropod abundance, consider pressure from deer, allow hunting to reduce the minimizing use of insecticides within or near the small population. Contact the Ohio Department of Natural patch, as such chemicals can decrease beneficial insects Resources–Division of Wildlife (http://www.wildohio. as well as pests. gov) for information on deer hunting. Grazing livestock in a forest is not recommended either, as it 5. Enhance vertical structure within the small patch can cause compacted soils, negatively impacting tree regeneration and growth. Increasing the vertical layers (herbaceous layer, shrub layer, subcanopy, and canopy) within a small patch will 7. Consider successional stage provide a variety of foraging and nesting sites for many different species of birds. Forest layers can be enhanced It is important to realize that different forest in several ways: management practices can create different successional stages, and thus can favor different communities of a. Open the canopy through techniques such as songbirds. For example: crop-tree release (see Section 8). This will promote shrub growth by allowing light to reach the forest a. Clearcut = Early Successional Forest = Eastern floor. Towhee, Field Sparrow, Gray Catbird

b. Depending on the condition of the small patch, b. Thinning = Mature Forest with Canopy Openings thin the patch to create a diversity of plant heights = Red-eyed Vireo, Wood Thrush (see Section 8). If removing trees for a timber harvest, select a variety of species consistent with Some practices, however, benefit multiple bird commu- the species found on the property rather than one nities. For example, a combination of clearcutting and or two species. This will prevent a loss or change in edge feathering favor species that prefer early-succes- tree species diversity. Remember to always consult sional habitats, but also provide important resources a professional forester when conducting a timber for the fledglings of mature forest breeding birds. sale. For all these recommendations, there are many tools, people, c. Plant or seed native species (See Box 5B). and methods available for implementing management activities. See Section 8 for more information and where to d. Allow naturally occurring pockets of native woody go for help. plants to regenerate (See Box 5B), which will provide concealment for bird nests and refuge for fledglings.

24 Box 5B: Recommended native trees, shrubs, and vines that produce fruits and nuts for birds and other wildlife

Trees • Black Cherry • Black Gum • Hackberry (photo) • Oaks • Persimmon (photo) • Sassafras Hackberry Shrubs • Blueberry • Briars (blackberry, raspberry, native rose - Carolina or Swamp) • Chokecherry • Dogwood (Flowering, Red-osier, etc.) • Elderberry (Red (photo), Black) • Hawthorn • Hazelnut (American, Beaked) • Serviceberry Persimmon • Spicebush • Viburnums* (photo; Mapleleaf, Nannyberry, Possumhaw, Blackhaw, Rusty Blackhaw, arrowwoods - Downy, Southern, Soft-leaf)

Vines

• Grape • Greenbriar • Poison-ivy • Virginia Creeper (photo) Red Elderberry

* Be aware that viburnums are susceptible to the Viburnum Leaf Beetle. For more information, visit the following site: http://www.hort.cornell.edu/vlb

viburnum

Northern Cardinal eating Poison-ivy berries. Virginia Creeper. Photo by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife. All photos above by Kathy Smith.

25 Section 6: Managing wet woods

As described in the Section 3, about 9% of Ohio’s forests In general, forested wetlands can have value to bird species are dominated by a forest type called elm-ash-cottonwood, across the avian life cycle. For example, forested wetlands and are located in wetlands, or alongside rivers, creeks, and in southern Michigan were used by both wetland- and streams. These forests provide unique habitats for a variety upland-associated breeding birds (Riffell et al. 2006). They of bird species across the full life cycle and deserve special also provide breeding habitat for many songbird species, considerations during management. This section further as well as raptors, such as Bald Eagles and Red-shouldered distinguishes between two main types of wet woods: Hawks, and colonial waterbirds, such as Great Blue Herons forested wetlands and riparian forests. (heron rookery pictured above). Forested wetlands have been positively associated with the survival of recently fledged Ovenbirds, another upland-associated species, although the mechanism is not clear (Streby and Anderson 2013). Wood Ducks also benefit from forested wetlands during the post-breeding period and early fall migration (Thompson and Baldassare 1988). Further, migrating landbirds tend to concentrate near forested wetlands during spring and fall (Winker et al. 1992, Weisbrod et al. 1993).

For forested wetlands, maintaining soil saturation is an important management recommendation. Reduction in soil saturation and lowered water tables in urban wetlands Figure 6.1. Example of a forested wetland. Photo by Marne Titchenell. have resulted in greater nitrogen mineralization and nitrification, with higher probability of nitrate export from the watershed (Faulkner 2004), potentially altering Forested wetlands plant communities and limiting arthropod abundance. For breeding Prothonotary Warblers (see Box 6A), nest A forested wetland is forest in which the ground is predation rates were higher when water depths were lower ephemerally or permanently covered with water (Figure due to increased predation from Raccoons (Hoover 2006). 6.1). According to the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Additionally, for improved Wood Duck management, (40 CFR 230.3), wetlands are: maintaining water levels in forested wetlands throughout the post-breeding period (i.e., through November) is “...those areas that are inundated or saturated by recommended if possible (Thompson and Baldassare surface water or ground water at a frequency and 1988). Impoundments or water control structures may duration sufficient to support, and that under normal need to be installed to help maintain desirable water levels circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation in a forested wetland patch (Gray et al. 2013). Consult with typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. a professional on techniques for doing this (see Section 8). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”

26 Riparian forests

A riparian forest is a woodland buffer adjacent to a river or stream (Figure 6.2). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1993), a riparian forest is:

“A vegetated ecosystem along a water body through which energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent water body. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of these two landforms. They will not in all cases have all the characteristics necessary for them to be also classified as wetlands.”

Thus, some, but not all, parts of a riparian forest may be Figure 6.2. Example of a riparian forest. Photo by Marne Titchenell. classified as wetlands. The common elm-ash-cottonwood forest is the primary riparian forest type in Ohio. In Riparian forests filter and improve water quality, and general, riparian forests have value for a number of help to maintain lower water temperatures and increased breeding bird species (e.g., Inman et al. 2002), such oxygen levels. This is important for many invertebrate as Wood Duck, Acadian Flycatcher, Northern Parula, and fish species, and thus important for sensitive riparian Prothonotary Warbler, and Yellow-throated Warbler. bird species such as Belted Kingfisher and Louisiana Important woody plant species for birds that are associated Waterthrush. Additionally, riparian forests often increase with this forest type include grape vine, used for both connectivity to other forest patches on the landscape. nesting and as a food source, and dogwood species, which can be important for migrating songbirds such as Rusty Management for bird species can be achieved through Blackbirds and Blackpoll Warblers (Kirsch et al. 2013, timber stand improvement, but consulting with a Wright et al. 2018). professional forester is necessary because of the wide variation in site condition and patch size. Site conditions

Box 6A: Prothonotary Warbler The “Golden Swamp Warbler” is a unique member of the wood warbler family in that the species nests exclusively in cavities found in forested wetlands, swamps, and wet woods. The species is common in extensive bottomland swamps of the southeastern and becomes increasingly localized at northern extents. Ohio has lost an estimated 90% of its wetlands since European settlement, and the majority of those were swamp-forest habitats (Dahl 1990). The destruction of breeding habitat greatly affected the population, and the earliest accounts from Ohio described the species as rare (e.g., Wheaton 1882). The statewide population rebounded slightly during the mid-1900s, and has remained relatively stable in recent years. There is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of nest boxes compared to natural cavities (C. Tonra, pers. comm.). Thus, it is important for Prothonotary Warbler. Photo by Matthew B. Shumar. land managers to retain snags in wet woods.

27 can vary greatly due to flooding regimes. Many riparian (Twedt et al. 2002, Hamel 2003). One of the advantages forests are often narrow, which might result in more of planting cottonwoods for restoration of riparian wind-throw post-harvest. It is advised not to cut within forests is that the species exhibits rapid vertical growth 50 ft (15 m) of the waterway to minimize erosion (Myers (approximately 6-9 ft/2-3 m per year), thus increasing and Buchman 1984). Steeper slopes should have a wider structural diversity and improving habitat quality for riparian buffer. The greater the width of the riparian forest a variety of bird species (Twedt et al. 2002). However, the better, but the condition of the surrounding landscape consider planting other riparian tree species to increase (i.e., the amount of urbanization or development) may diversity for overall forest health. have a greater effect on the types of birds that will use the forest than width itself (Rodewald and Bakermans 2006). Structural diversity, however, is greater in remnant Invasive species such as bush honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.) than restored riparian forest patches, leading to greater and Multiflora Rose have proliferated in these forests, so overall biodiversity in remnant patches. There is a greater removal of these are recommended to improve habitat overwinter persistence of bird species using remnant for birds (see Sections 5 and 8). Riparian thickets appear riparian forests compared to restored forests, as well as to be selected for by recently fledged songbirds and are disproportionately greater use by birds of older-aged trees correlated with survival (Vitz and Rodewald 2010, 2011). (Latta et al. 2012). Thus, enhancement of understory plants, such as native vines and shrubs, can provide both food sources and For additional suggestions on management and restoration nesting cover for breeding birds. For restoration of riparian of these types of forests, consult with a natural resource forests, the planting of cottonwoods, which grow quickly, professional (see Box 8A). has been associated with increased bird species richness

Wood Duck hen with brood. Photo by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

28 Section 7: Additional considerations, beneficial attractants, and harmful practices to avoid

Enhancing beneficial aspects of habitat Dead wood

In addition to good forest management, other activities Leaving dead wood in a forest may seem wasteful, but it can benefit and attract a greater abundance and diversity of has tremendous value to birds and other wildlife species. bird species near and within a small forest patch. Retaining dead wood in the restoration of fragmented forests helps to provide diverse habitat structure and function (Marzluff and Ewing 2008). For example, dead Water standing trees, called snags, provide foraging and nesting habitat for woodpeckers. Additionally, many other Water is essential to all life, so unsurprisingly, water migratory species (e.g., Tree Swallow, House Wren) and features are an important enhancement that can be made residents (e.g., Tufted Titmouse, Black-capped Chickadee) to a small forest patch. In upland woods, vernal pools, a nest in cavities of snags and the dead branches of live kind of seasonal wetland, can provide additional foraging trees. Downed wood provides additional habitat for resources as well as a water source. Many species of fungi, insects, and mammals, which in turn provide food songbirds, ducks, and rails make use of vernal pools at for birds. Brush piles made of fallen dead branches also some point in their life cycle (Paton 2005). Additionally, a provide important cover and nesting habitat for several study in southwestern Michigan suggested that both short- species of songbirds, such as the Song Sparrow and Brown and long-distance migrating birds prefer to forage closer to Thrasher (NRCS 2002). water bodies within upland forests (Ewert et al. 2004). Leaving snags standing, where they are not a safety Thus, it is strongly suggested that vernal pools be retained concern, is encouraged. With the current statewide loss of in upland forest. Further, vernal pools should be allowed ash species, snags are common, especially in northwestern to establish wetland vegetation, such as Buttonbush or a counties of Ohio. If a property is lacking snags, or snags variety of ferns. Pools enhance structural heterogeneity have already fallen, new snags can be created by girdling and may provide additional food resources, such as aquatic trees, injecting herbicide, or through a high intensity invertebrates, to spring migrants. Creation of entirely new prescribed fire conducted with professional guidance (see vernal pools is possible, but restoration is preferred over Section 8). Use caution when creating snags and keep in creation where possible, because it is difficult to create mind they may present hazards during future management the same level of ecological function in an entirely new activities. The number of snags preferred per acre varies wetland compared to an existing wetland (Calhoun et al. among bird species. For example, 4-5 snags per acre 2014). For either restoration or creation, it is best to consult benefits Downy Woodpeckers (Schroeder 1983), while a with a natural resource professional. The Ohio Wetlands study on Red-headed Woodpeckers in Wisconsin found Association/Midwest Biodiversity Institute also holds that these birds were more likely to place their nesting annual workshops on vernal pools in March and April cavities where snag density was approximately 12 snags per throughout the state. See https://www.ohwetlands.org and acre (King et al. 2007). https://www.ohiovernalpoolnetwork.org.

29 Supplemental food setting, or by hand with soap and boiling water, a diluted bleach solution, or weak vinegar solution (10%; CLO 2012). Undoubtedly, bird feeding has been documented to have several benefits. For example, studies on both Carolina Minimize supplemental feeding in the summer. Most bird and Black-capped chickadees have shown increased species are feeding on the abundance of insects and it is overwinter survival in association with supplemental also healthier for their young to eat insects. Additionally, feeding (Brittingham and Temple 1988, Doherty and summer feeding is more likely to attract some of the Grubb 2002). Additionally, supplemental feeding can have harmful mesopredator species that are also songbird positive effects on breeding success and population levels nest predators (see page 32). See Box 7A for additional (Robb et al. 2008a). However, there can be some drawbacks resources on bird feeding. to supplemental feeding, such as an increased disease risk from individuals congregating around a central feeding location, and higher predation risk (Robb et al. 2008a). Reducing hazards Feeders should be brought in at night to avoid exploitation by mesopredators, such as Raccoons. For most birds, Other factors can have negative consequences for birds, supplemental feeding is best done during the winter when and should be minimized if possible around forest resources are limited, and positive benefits can carry over patches. These threats will likely be a greater issue in more to the breeding season (Robb et al. 2008b). Hummingbirds, urbanized areas. however, can benefit from supplemental feeding during migration. Collisions Bird feeders are the most efficient way to provide food In the United States, approximately 500 million to 1 to winter residents. Sunflower, safflower, corn, millet, billion birds die annually from collisions with buildings, milo, nyjer, and suet are good foods to provide, although automobiles, powerlines, communication towers, and sunflower seeds will appeal to the greatest variety of birds wind turbines (Loss et al. 2014, 2015). Of these, collisions (CLO 2012). From May through November, provide with buildings represent one of the greatest hazards. hummingbirds with a feeder filled with homemade Windows reflect trees and vegetation, such that birds solution of sugar water (see Box 7A). Place feeders within 3 confuse them for a continuation of the habitat. Borden et ft (1 m) of windows or more than 30 ft (9 m) from them to al. (2010) found that when trees were present within ~16 avoid fatal window collisions (CLO 2012). Feeders should ft (5m) of a window, the resulting reflection of trees in be cleaned at least every two weeks to minimize disease the windows were associated with a greater risk of fatality risk. Feeders can be cleaned in a dishwasher on a hot for birds. Other building characteristics that can increase

Box 7A: Resources related to feeding wild birds

• National Audubon Society https://www.audubon.org/news/bird-feeding-tips

• Cornell Lab of Ornithology https://feederwatch.org/learn/feeding-birds

• ODNR-Division of Wildlife http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/wildlife-watching/attracting-wildlife Carolina Wren. Photo by Tim Daniel/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

30 Box 7B: Reducing the risks of bird collisions at your home

Simple modifications can make residences much safer for migratory birds. The following methods are suggested for homes with large glass windows, especially those adjacent to forest patches and other vegetation:

• Eliminate exterior decorative lighting, especially upward-facing spotlights.

• Draw blinds at night and turn off lights in rooms that are not in use.

• Move house plants away from windows so birds don’t mistake them for available habitat.

• Position bird feeders and birdbaths either within 3 ft (1 m) of the window or further than 15 ft (5 m).

• Use products such as ABC BirdTape or Feather Friendly DIY tape to make windows safer for birds.

• Use Tempera paint (available at most art supply and craft stores) to create patterns on windows with brush or sponge, or use a stencil. Tempera is long-lasting, even in rain, and non-toxic, but comes off with a damp rag or sponge.

• Add screens to window exteriors. Not only will screens break up the reflection, but if birds do collide with the screen it will cushion the blow and significantly reduce the chance of injury.

• If fitted screens cannot be used, lightweight netting may be stretched over windows. The netting must be several inches in front of the window, so birds don’t hit the glass after hitting the net. Several companies, (www. birdscreen.com, www.birdsavers.com) sell screens or other barriers that can be attached with suction cups or eye hooks (also see http://www.birdbgone.com, http://www.nixalite.com, or http://www.birdmaster.com).

avian mortality include the height of the structure and the 1. Contact the local utility provider and ask them to amount of light used on nights with high rates of songbird install markers on powerlines near your property. migration. Electric lines can be fitted with painted markers of varying shapes and sizes that will alert birds to the Most bird-building collisions occur at residential buildings electric lines. rather than at high-rise urban structures (Loss et al. 2014). Thus, it is important that homeowners take steps to 2. Plant trees an appropriate distance from the make their windows safer for birds. Strategies for treating powerlines, so that they do not grow into cables. Use reflective glass include installing non-reflective window tree species that will grow to the approximate height films, decals, exterior screens or nets, or painting, etching, of the powerlines to encourage birds to fly up and or temporarily coating collision-prone windows to make over the lines. Consult with your electric company for them visible to birds (Sheppard 2011; see also Box 7B). advice on the most appropriate species of trees to plant Reducing exterior lighting during the peak months of bird and how to care for your growing trees (APLIC 2012). migration can also help protect migrating birds. 3. Restore suitable habitat beyond ~1,600 ft (500 m) of a If a wind-turbine, cell phone tower, powerline, or road is wind turbine. Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) found that near your property, consider the following actions: the density of breeding birds was reduced by 15-53% within ~1,600 ft (500 m) of a wind turbine, suggesting

31 that reducing suitable habitat within that distance of a cats kill 1.4–3.7 billion birds and 6.9–20.7 billion mammals turbine may help to minimize mortality. each year in the U.S (Loss et al. 2013). Even well-fed cats follow their instincts to hunt and kill wildlife (Adamec 4. Minimize potential road mortality by removing food 1976, Robertson 1998). Therefore, “outdoor” or feral cats sources such as roadkill (Jacobsen 2005). Use fruiting that are fed regularly still pose a significant threat to birds shrubs (see Box 5B) and other attractants (see Box 7A) and other wildlife. Keep cats indoors at all times. “Catios,” in areas of your property that are less risky to birds. or outdoor, caged recreation areas, can be a safe alternative to allowing cats to roam freely. Do not feed feral cats or Mesopredators other mesopredators, and feed pets inside.

Mesopredators are a group of medium-sized mammals To minimize problems with mesopredators, harvest all that prey upon a wide variety of bird species. Examples garden foods and do not let them go to waste in the garden. include Raccoons, opossums, foxes, and skunks, but also Secure lids tightly on garbage cans and use enclosed the domestic cat. Cats are likely the single greatest source composting bins. Use baffles and place feeders stategically of human-caused mortality for birds and mammals in the to minimize Raccoon and squirrel use (Pennisi and country (Loss et al. 2013). In the U.S., populations of the Vantassel 2012). Consider bringing feeders in at night. domestic cat, a nonnative species, total 148-188 million When a serious problem with nuisance wildlife arises, (TWS 2011), of which 70-100 million cats are free-ranging contact the local Division of Wildlife office (Box 7C) or a or feral (Levy and Crawford 2004). Free-ranging domestic certified nuisance wildlife control operator.

Box 7C: ODNR-Division of Wildlife offices

The ODNR-Division of Wildlife has five regional offices located throughout Ohio. For inquiries, including reports of nuisance wildlife, contact the customer service line at 1-800-WILDLIFE.

• District 1: Central Ohio 1500 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 644-3925

• District 2: Northwestern Ohio 952 Lima Ave., Findlay, OH 45840 (419) 424-5000

• District 3: Northeastern Ohio 912 Portage Lakes Dr., Akron, OH, 44319 (330) 644-2293

District 4: Southeastern Ohio 360 E. State St., Athens, OH 45701 (740) 589-9930

• District 5: Southwestern Ohio 1076 Old Springfield Pike, Xenia, OH 45385 (937) 372-9261

32 Section 8: Management techniques

Previous sections have introduced a number of possibilities selection cuts, crop-tree release, or creating canopy gaps. for managing forests to improve habitat for birds. This Details for each of these timber harvesting techniques are section provides details on many of the techniques used to provided later in this section. The downside to cutting is achieve management objectives. that many woody plants will often resprout, particularly invasive species, unless suppressed with an herbicide promptly after cutting. Certainly, repeated cutting of The importance of having a management invasives will work, but it will involve repetition over multiple years and a much bigger time investment. plan

Before any management is conducted, landowners should consult with a natural resource professional to develop a Girdling/frilling management plan for their forest (Box 8A). They will walk Girdling/frilling are useful techniques for invasive species the woods with the landowner and provide guidance. This management and crop tree release. Girdling involves might include giving advice on harvesting timeframes, cutting a ½ inch to 1½ inch groove around a standing tree. non-native species management, and providing The depth of the groove depends on the size and species of information on ways to get financial assistance that can the tree, but it is critical to reach the transport vessels of the help to achieve the goals of the management plan (Box tree. The technique works because, if done correctly, it cuts 8B). Do not harvest without consulting a forester. Use Call off the flow of sap for the tree, leading to its eventual death. Before You Cut (877-424-8288, http://callb4ucut.com/ Axes, hatchets, or chainsaws are all useful tool options for ohio/) for expert advice on how to do this. girdling. Use girdling in conjunction with herbicides (see Figure 8.1) to increase its effectiveness. Frilling is similar to girdling but involves cutting downward at an angle to Basic tools for management reach the tree vessels. Axes or hatchets are effective tools for frilling. Any forest management plan will require the use of some basic management tools. Which tools to use will depend on several factors such as budget, the scale and nature of the project, and personal preference. We briefly describe many of these methods below, but for a good primer see the Ohio State Extension factsheets under Forest Management at https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/publications/forestry.

Cutting

Simply cutting and felling trees, shrubs, or vines is one Figure 8.1. Girdling (left) and frilling (right) field techniques to control way to tackle forest management projects such as group invasive species. Illustrations courtesy of Ohio State University Extension.

33 Using herbicides to follow labels carefully. When managing invasives near streams and wetlands, use herbicides specially formulated Using herbicides will allow you to more quickly and for these situations. When in doubt, consult a conservation effectively achieve outcomes such as removing invasive professional for guidance or hire a contractor. plants or implementing a crop tree release. Researching techniques and herbicide types for the species one is trying to treat is essential for cost-effectiveness and safe use. For Prescribed burning all these techniques, it is important to pay attention to whether an oil or water-based herbicide is recommended. Prescribed fire, or a controlled burn, can be a very useful Consult Ohio State Extension Factsheet F-45 Supplement, tool in forest management, particularly in promoting the “Herbicides Commonly Used for Controlling Undesirable growth of oaks and controlling invasive plants. However, it Trees, Shrubs, and Vines in Your Woodland” under Forest is often difficult for private landowners to conduct this on Management at https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/ their properties because licensed professionals must do the publications/forestry. burning, and obtaining the proper permits can be difficult. Use of fire may be more realistic on public lands or private lands adjacent to public lands.

Fire kills the aboveground portion of fire-intolerant species such as maple, cherry, and sassafras (i.e., species with more shallow root systems and/or thin bark); in doing so, it also enables more light to reach the forest floor to promote oak growth. Repetition is important: it is more beneficial when followed up with selective herbicide the following season and an additional fire within 5-10 years (Sargent and Carter 1999, Iverson et al. 2008, Hutchinson et al. 2012). See Box Figure 8.2. Basal bark spray (left) and cut stump application (right) field 8C for more information on finding the appropriate fire techniques to control invasive species. Illustrations courtesy of Ohio State return interval for your forest. Yet, frequent, low-intensity University Extension. fires alone are not sufficient to promote oak growth and must be combined with an additional management Some basic techniques for using herbicides include tree technique such as follow-up herbicide, selective removal injection, basal bark spray, and cut stump application. of large trees, or higher-intensity fires (Hutchinson et Tree injection involves first creating a series of spaced cuts al. 2012). Do not burn the forest patch in its entirety around the tree, and then injecting herbicide into the cuts, each year; rather, create burn breaks to provide refugia and is useful for killing large trees with rough bark, such as for animals and produce a heterogenous burn pattern Tree-of-heaven (an invasive species). Basal bark spraying (Sargent and Carter 1999). Managing for fire-tolerant or is effective on smaller trees and shrubs (<4-6 in diameter) shade-intolerant trees such as oaks and hickories allows for and on species with smooth bark. Spraying the lower 12- simultaneous management against trees, such as sassafras 18 inches of the bark is most effective, but care must be and maple, which provide fewer spring resources to birds. taken to limit runoff into the soil or onto non-target plants nearby. Finally, cut stump application is useful for species that will resprout readily after being cut, such as the non- Timber harvests and other cutting techniques native honeysuckles. The timing of herbicide application after cutting will depend on whether your herbicide is Most people think of timber harvests as a way to generate water or oil-based, although it is often better to apply the revenue. A timber harvest can also be a very important herbicide as soon as possible after cutting. Alternatively, the management tool, which can help create forest stands that herbicide can be applied to newly emerged leaves during lead to a greater variety and abundance of birds. Here, the following growing season to ensure the plants are killed we outline some of these forestry practices (based on back and do not resprout at unwanted densities. Those Heiligmann et al. 2001, Apsley and Heiligmann 2002, and electing not to use herbicides may choose to apply cutting Yahner et al. 2012). Remember that forest composition, treatments more frequently. If using herbicides, remember

34 Box 8A: People who can help

• State Forester - previously known as “service forester.” State foresters work for the ODNR-Division of Forestry and assist landowners in multiple counties. http://forestry.ohiodnr.gov/serviceforesters.

• Private Lands Biologist - works for the state Division of Wildlife to assist landowners with habitat management for wildlife and assist landowners in multiple counties. http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/private-lands-management

• Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) - is organized by county, usually made up of several employees, and one or two may specialize in forestry and/or wildlife. https://ofswcd.org/who-we-are/find-your-swcd.html

• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) - is a federal agency, with local service centers, that provides technical and financial assistance for forest management. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/oh/contact/local/

• Farm Service Agency (FSA) - is a federal agency, with local offices, that provides financial assistance for land management. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Ohio/index

• Ohio State University Extension - provides educational opportunities for forest and wildlife management techniques. https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu https://u.osu.edu/seohiowoods

• County Parks Districts - often provide expertise and assistance to landowners with adjacent property. size, and other characteristics can have an impact on younger seedlings, such that a relatively even-aged forest what harvest and cutting management techniques are structure is created. most suitable. Some variation or combination of these techniques may be more suitable for a small patch. All • Thinning - cutting and (sometimes) removal of specific forestry practices should be preceded by invasive species trees or groups of trees throughout the forest (i.e., control and many practices may be eligible for cost sharing group-selection). Much of the overstory is retained, but assistance (see Box 8B). As always, seek guidance from this creates canopy gaps and allows for shade-intolerant a natural resource professional first, and use a forest tree species to be released, creating a more diverse forest management plan to guide management actions. structure. Be careful of a practice called “high-grading,” however, which is sometimes referred to as “selective • Clearcutting - cutting all trees in a given area. This cutting,” i.e., when only trees of greatest commercial creates an even-aged forest structure. Some species such value are removed. This practice can greatly reduce the as Yellow-breasted Chat and Prairie Warbler rely on the quality of your forest patch for future timber production young, shrubby habitat created through clearcutting. and as wildlife habitat.

• Shelterwood harvest - only a portion of trees, usually the • Crop-tree release/management - a non-commercial smaller trees and a few of the larger ones, are initially cut, thinning method that involves identifying desired trees, leaving a few overstory trees that are removed at a later and then girdling or removing less-desirable competing time, usually after ~10 years. This sporadic cutting allows trees (but not necessarily limited to invasives). This for the establishment of seed trees and development of reduces the competition around the crop tree. A crop

35 tree is a tree that has a desired feature to the landowner, Uneven-aged vs. even-aged management such as fruit for wildlife, timber value, or an aesthetic feature. Crop-tree release is a common management Forest patches that have trees in a variety of age classes technique for encouraging the growth of oak trees, which are called uneven-aged stands and offer greater structural have many wildlife benefits. diversity for a number of bird species. Silvicultural practices such as thinning, crop tree release, and selection • Hydro-axing - a non-commercial application that cuts will promote uneven-aged stands. These are involves the use of a special machine that could be recommended for smaller forest patches. described as a cross between a bulldozer and a shredder. It is useful for areas where a large number of undesirable, Forest patches consisting of trees belonging to the same smaller-sized trees or shrubs need to be removed. It is age class are called even-aged stands. Practices such particularly useful for control of some woody invasive as clearcutting and shelterwood cutting will create an plants such as autumn olive. even-aged stand. When the canopy is removed, a new forest begins to grow, creating a lush growth; these early- successional forests have great value for bird species Specific management goals and that require these types of habitats, such as Blue-winged recommended techniques Warbler, Prairie Warbler, Indigo Bunting, and Eastern Towhee. These stands also create important habitat for many birds during the post-breeding stage. Usually, Invasive species control however, even-aged stands are most beneficial to birds and other wildlife when created within a landscape with Common techniques for successful invasive species control contiguous forest cover. In addition, area-sensitive species, include many of the techniques described above. Detailed such as the Yellow-breasted Chat, generally only benefit descriptions and specific recommendations for control of when cuts are greater than 25 acres (10 ha; Yahner et al. these plants can be found in the Invasive Species section at 2012). https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/publications/forestry.

Box 8B: Financial assistance programs

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - this program is operated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and includes “Forest Stand Improvement” as an enhancement project. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/

• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - this program is operated by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), targets non-woodland agricultural lands, and provides cost-share assistance for planting trees, shrubland habitat management, and controlling woody invasive plants. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/

• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) - this program is operated by the NRCS and provides financial assistance for both agricultural and forest land. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/csp/

• Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) - this program is operated by the NRCS and targets non- agricultural land. The focus is on privately-owned and tribal lands that can benefit federally threatened and endangered species, improve biodiversity, and promote carbon sequestration. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/forests/

These descriptions are current as of July 2019 but are subject to change based on legislation passed by Congress. Consult with your local natural resource professional for more information.

36 Box 8C: Tips for planning a prescribed fire

Controlled burn. Photo by Stephen Rist/ODNR-Division of Forestry.

• Review all Ohio burning laws at http://forestry.ohiodnr.gov/burninglaws. Prescribed fire has its risks and can be dangerous. Please follow the laws and find the appropriate people to help.

• Find a contractor to help plan, get a permit, and conduct the burn; proper permitting and professional assistance is mandatory. A natural resource professional can help you get started.

• Consult your local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) office for information on how to enroll your forest in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to receive cost assistance for prescribed fire and other forest management practices.

• To find your fire return interval (i.e. optimal intervals at which burns should take place for your forest type), go to: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/fire_regime_table/PNVG_fire_regime_table.html#GreatLakes and look up your appropriate forest type. See also Staumbaugh et al. 2015, Figure 1 for a historical map of fire regimes. Rely on your prescribed burn professionals for additional help.

37 Appendix: Common and scientific names for referenced flora and fauna

Native trees and woody plants Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Red Maple Acer rubrum American Beech Fagus grandifolia River Birch Betula nigra American Bittersweet Celastrus scandens Rusty Blackhaw Viburnum rufidulum American Chestnut Castanea dentata Sassafras Sassafras albidum American Elm Ulmus americana Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea American Hazelnut Corylus americana Serviceberry Amelanchier spp. American Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Silver Maple Acer saccharinum American Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana Soft-leaf Arrowwood Viburnum molle Beaked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Spicebush Lindera benzoin Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Black Cherry Prunus serotina Swamp Rose Rosa palustris Black Elderberry Sambucus nigra Tulip Poplar (Yellow Poplar) Liriodendron tulipifera Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Black Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata White Ash Fraxinus americana Black Oak Quercus velutina White Birch (Paper Birch) Betula papyrifera Black Willow Salix nigra White Oak Quercus alba Blackhaw Viburnum prunifolium Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Invasive trees and woody plants Carolina Rose Rosa carolina Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Amur Honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Autumn Olive Elaeagnus umbellata Downy Arrowwood Viburnum rafinesqueanum Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica Eastern Black Walnut Juglans nigra Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis Oriental Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Glossy Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula Tatarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica Grape vine Vitis spp. Tree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus Invasive herbaceous plants Lowbush Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium Mapleleaf Viburnum Viburnum acerifolium Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Japanese Stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Poison-ivy Toxicodendron radicans Possumhaw Ilex decidua Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides

38 Birds Other vertebrates

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Domestic Cat Felis catus American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus American Robin Turdus migratorius Raccoon Procyon lotor Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora cyanoptera White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis Invertebrates Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea Asian Longhorned Beetle Anoplophora glabripennis Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Banded Ash Clearwing Moth Podosesia aureocincta Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Black-headed Ash Sawfly Tethida barda Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Emerald Ash Borer Agrilus planipennis Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Gypsy Moth Lymantria dispar European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Hooded Warbler Setophaga citrina House Wren Troglodytes aedon Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Magnolia Warbler Setophaga magnolia Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Parula Setophaga americana Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Prairie Warbler Setophaga discolor Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Veery Catharus fuscescens White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Wood Duck Aix sponsa Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Yellow-throated Warbler Setophaga dominica

39 Literature Cited

Abrams, M. D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. BioScience Blake, J. G., and W. G. Hoppes. 1986. Influence of resource abundance on use 42:346-353. of tree-fall gaps by birds in an isolated woodlot. The Auk 103:328-340.

Adamec, R. E. 1976. The interaction of hunger and preying in the domestic Blake J. G., and J. R. Karr. 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and cat (Felis catus): an adaptive hierarchy? Behavioral Biology 18:263-272. habitat relationships. Ecology 68:1724-34.

Albright, T. A. 2017. Forests of Ohio, 2016. Resource Update FS-139. Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, and A. W. Jones. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban Northern Research Station. 4 p. university campus in Cleveland, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 110:44- 52. APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Borgmann, K. L., and A. D. Rodewald. 2004. Nest predation in an urbanizing Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C. http://www.aplic.org/uploads/ landscape:the role of exotic shrubs. Ecological Applications 14:1757- files/15518/Reducing_Avian_Collisions_2012watermarkLR.pdf 1765.

Apsley, D. and S. Gehrt. 2006. Enhancing Food (Mast) Production for Bonter, D. N., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., and T. M. Donovan. 2009. Characteristics Woodland Wildlife in Ohio. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet of important stopover locations for migrating birds: remote sensing with F-60-06. radar in the Great Lakes Basin. Conservation Biology 23:440-448.

Apsley, D. K., and R. B. Heiligmann. 2002. Crop-tree Management: a new Brittingham, M. C., and S. A. Temple. 1988. Impacts of supplemental feeding tool to help you achieve your woodland goals. Extension Factsheet 50-02. on survival rates of Black-capped Chickadees. Ecology 69:581-589. The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH. Buler, J. J., and F. R. Moore. 2006. Effects of forest cover on the movement Atchison, K. A., and A. D. Rodewald. 2006. The value of urban forests to of a long-distance migrant during stopover after crossing the Gulf wintering birds. Natural Areas Journal 26:280-288. of Mexico. Poster presented at the 24th International Ornithological Congress, Hamburg, Germany. Avery, M. L. 2013. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Buler, J. J., F. R. Moore, and S. Woltmann. 2007. A multi-scale examination of Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species- stopover habitat use by birds. Ecology 88:1789-1802. Account/bna/species/rusbla DOI: 10.2173/bna.200 Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2009. Impact of native Bairlein, F. 2002. How to get fat: nutritional mechanisms of seasonal fat plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. accumulation in migratory songbirds. Naturwissenschaften 89:1-10. Conservation Biology 23:219-224.

Bakermans, M. H., and A. D. Rodewald. 2002. Enhancing wildlife habitat on Calhoun, A. J. K., J. Arigoni, R. P. Brooks, M. L. Hunter, and S. C. Richter. farmlands. The Ohio State University Extension Factsheet W-14-2002. 2014. Creating successful vernal pools: a literature review and advice for Columbus, OH. practitioners. Wetlands 34:1027-1038.

Bakermans, M. H., and A. D. Rodewald. 2006. Scale-dependent habitat use Cashion, E. B. 2011. Avian use of riparian habitats and the Conservation of Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) in central Ohio. The Auk Reserve Program: migratory stopover in agro-ecosystems. Master’s thesis, 123:368-382. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Bent, A. C. 1958. Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, Chandler, C. C., D. I. King, and R. B. Chandler. 2012. Do mature forest birds tanagers, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. no. 211. prefer early-successional habitat during the post-fledging period? Forest Ecology and Management 264:1-9. Bélisle, M., and A. Desrochers. 2002. Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based CLO (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology). 2012. Bird Notes 1: Winter models. Landscape Ecology 17:219-231. Bird Feeding. http://feederwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ BirdNote01-Winter-Bird-Feeding-_for-PDF_2012-10-22-RGB.pdf.

40 Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Gardner, R. 2016. Plant communities of the oak openings. Chapter 2 (p. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 10-15) in Living in the Oak Openings: a guide to one of the world’s last great places (J. Thieme, Ed.) Homewood Press Inc, Toledo, OH, USA. Desrochers, A., and S. J. Hannon. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post‐fledging period. Conservation Biology Gilbert-Norton, L., Wilson R., Stevens J. R., and K. H. Beard. 2010. A 11:1204-1210. meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology 24:660-668. Doherty, P. F., and T. C. Grubb, Jr. 2000. Habitat and landscape correlates of presence, density, and species richness of birds wintering in forest Gordon, R. B. 1969. The natural vegetation of Ohio in pioneer days. Ohio fragments in Ohio. The Wilson Bulletin 112:388-394. Biological Survey N.S. Bulletin 3(2):1-109.

Doherty, P. F. and T. C. Grubb. 2002. Survivorship of permanent-resident Graber, J. W., and R. R. Graber. 1983. Feeding rates of warblers in spring. birds in a fragmented forested landscape. Ecology 83:844-857. Condor 85:139-150.

Driscoll, M. J. L., and T. M. Donovan. 2004. Landscape context moderates Gray, M. J., H. M. Hagy, J. A. Nyman, and J. D. Stafford. 2013. Management edge effects: nesting success of Wood Thrushes in central New York. of wetlands for wildlife. Ch 4 in Wetland Techniques: Vol. 3 Applications Conservation Biology 18:1330-1338. and Management, J. T. Anderson and C. A. Davis, eds. Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, Germany. Drummond, B. A. 2005. The selection of native and invasive plants by frugivorous birds in Maine. Northeastern Naturalist 12:33-44. Greenberg, R. and S. Droege. 1999. On the decline of the Rusty Blackbird and the use of ornithological literature to document long-term EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Management measures for population trends. Conservation Biology 13:553-559. wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems. Chapter 7 in EPA-840-B-92-002, Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Groom, J.D. and T. C. Grubb. 2002. Bird species associated with riparian Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. woodland in fragmented, temperate-deciduous forest. Conservation Biology 16:832-836. Ewert, D. N., and M. J. Hamas. 1996. Ecology of migratory landbirds during migration in the Midwest. United States Department of Agriculture Haas, C. A. 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors by birds in wooded patches Forest Service General Technical Report NC, 200-208. in an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 9:845-854.

Ewert, D. N., R. J. Smith, and R. H. Diehl. 2004. Use of habitat patches Hamel, P. B. 2003. Winter bird community differences among methods of by migratory birds during migration in southwestern Michigan. bottomland hardwood forest restoration: results after seven growing Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. seasons. Forestry 76:189-197

Ewert D. N., G. J. Soulliere, R. D. Macleod, M. C. Shieldcastle, P. G. Hausman C. E., J. F. Jaeger, and O. J. Rocha. 2010. Impacts of emerald ash Rodewald, E. Fujimura, J. Shieldcastle, and R. J. Gates. 2006. Migratory borer (EAB) eradication and tree mortality: potential for a secondary bird stopover site attributes in the western Lake Erie basin. Ann Arbor. spread of invasive plant species. Biological Invasions 12:2013-2023. 2006 Apr;1001:48103. Heiligmann, R. B. 1997. Controlling Undesirable Trees, Shrubs, and Vines in Ewing, C. J., C. E. Hausman, J. Pogacnik, J. Slot, and P. Bonello. 2018. Beech Your Woodland. Extension Factsheet 45-97. The Ohio State University: leaf disease: an emerging forest epidemic. Forest Pathology e12488. Columbus, OH.

Faulkner, S. 2004. Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of Heiligmann, R. B. 2006. Herbicides commonly used for controlling forested wetlands. Urban Ecosystems 7:89-106. undesirable trees, shrubs, and vines in your woodland. Extension Factsheet F-45 Supplement 06. The Ohio State University: Columbus, Fox, V. L., C. P. Buehler, C. M. Byers, and S. E. Drake. 2010. Forest OH. composition, leaf litter, and songbird communities in oak-vs. maple- dominated forests in the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Heiligmann, R. B., Norland, E. R., and D. A. Hix. 2001. Harvesting and Management 259:2426-2432. reproduction methods for Ohio forests. Extension Factsheet 47-01. The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH. Freemark, K. E., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. Pages 443–454 in J. M. Hagen III and D. Heckscher, C. M., L. R. Bevier, A. F. Poole, W. Moskoff, P. Pyle, and M. A. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant Patten (2017). Veery (Catharus fuscescens), version 3.0. In The Birds of landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA. North America (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.veery.03 Gandhi, K. J. K. and D. A. Herms. 2010a. Direct and indirect effects of alien insect herbivores on ecological processes and interactions in forests of Hoover, J. P., and M. C. Brittingham. 1998. Nest-site selection and nesting eastern North America. Biological Invasions 12:389-405. success of Wood Thrushes. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 110:375- 383. Gandhi, K. J. K. and D. A. Herms. 2010b. North American arthropods at Hoover, J. P., M. C. Brittingham, and L. C. Goodrich. 1995. Effects of forest risk due to widespread Fraxinus mortality caused by the Alien Emerald patch size on nesting success of Wood Thrushes. The Auk 112:146-155. ash borer. Biological Invasions 12:1839–1846.

41 Howell, C. A., W. D. Dijak, and F. R. Thompson. 2007. Landscape context Kirsch E. M., P. J. Heglund, B. R. Gray, and P. McKann. 2013. Songbird use of and selection for forest edge by breeding Brown-headed Cowbirds. floodplain and upland forests along the Mississippi River corridor during Landscape Ecology 22:273-284. spring migration. Condor 115:115-130.

Hutchinson, T. F., D. Rubino, B. C. McCarthy, and E. K. Sutherland. 2003. Klooster, W. S., K. J. K. Gandhi, L. C. Long, K. I. Perry, K. B. Rice, and D. A. History of forests and land-use. Pages 17-28 in Characteristics of Mixed- Herms. 2018. Ecological Impacts of Emerald Ash Borer in Forests at the Oak Forest Ecosystems in Southern Ohio Prior to the Reintroduction Epicenter of the Invasion in North America. Forests 9, 250: https://doi. of Fire (E. K. Sutherland and T. F. Hutchinson, Eds). General Technical org/10.3390/f9050250 Report NE-229. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Koenig, W. D., Liebhold, A. M., Bonter D. N., Hochachka, W. M., and J. L. Dickinson. 2013. Effects of the emerald ash borer invasion on four Hutchinson, T. F., D. A. Yaussy, R. P. Long, J. Rebbeck, and E. K. Sutherland. species of birds. Biol Invasions 15:2095–2103. 2012. Long-term (13-year) effects of repeated prescribed fires on stand structure and tree regeneration in mixed-oak forests. Forest Ecology and LaFleur, N. E., M. A. Rubega, and C. S. Elphick. 2007. Invasive fruits, novel Management 286:87-100. foods, and choice: an investigation of European Starling and American Robin frugivory. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:429-438. Inman, R. L., H. H. Prince, and D. B. Hayes. 2002. Avian communities in forested riparian wetlands of southern Michigan, USA. Wetlands 22:647- LaFleur, N. E., M. A. Rubega, and J. Parent. 2009. Does frugivory by 660. European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) facilitate germination in invasive plants? The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 136:332-341. Iverson, L. R., T. F. Hutchinson, A. M. Prasad, and M. P. Peters. 2008. Thinning, fire, and oak regeneration across a heterogeneous landscape Lampila, P., M. Mönkkönen, and A. Descrochers. 2005. Demographic in the eastern US: 7-year results. Forest Ecology and Management responses by birds to forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology 255:3035-3050. 19:1537-1546.

Jacobsen, S. L. 2005. Mitigation measures for highway-caused impacts Latta, S. C., C. A. Howell, M. D. Dettling, and R. L. Cormier. 2012. Use of to birds. Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: data on avian demographics and site persistence during overwintering to Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002, assess quality of restored riparian habitat. Conservation Biology 26:482- C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, Editors. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. 492. Rep. PSW-GTR-191 Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA: 1043-1050. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/ Levy, J. K., and P. C. Crawford. 2004. Humane strategies for controlling feral jacobsen2005highwaymeasures.pdf cat populations. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 225:1354-1360. Jennings D. E., J. R. Gould, J. D. Vandenberg, J. J. Duan, and P. M. Shrewsbury. 2013. Quantifying the impact of woodpecker predation on Liberati, M., A. Janke, M. Wiley, R. Gates, and M. Titchnell. 2013. population dynamics of the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis). Managing for Bobwhite Quail in Ohio’s Agricultural Landscape. Ohio PLoS ONE 8(12): e83491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083491. State University Extension Agricultural and Natural Resources Fact Sheet W-27-13. Jin, S., L. Yang, P. Danielson, C. Homer, J. Fry, and G. Xian. 2013. A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Liu, M., and D. L. Swanson. 2014. Stress physiology of migrant birds Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sensing of Environment during stopover in natural and anthropogenic woodland habitats of the 132:159–175. Northern Prairie region. Conservation Physiology 2:cou046. https://doi. org/10.1093/conphys/cou046. Johnson, W., and C. Adkisson. 1985. Dispersal of beech nuts by Blue Jays in fragmented landscapes. The American Midland Naturalist 113:319-324. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications Jones, T. M., A. D. Rodewald, and D. P. Shustack. 2010. Variation in plumage 4:1396. coloration of Northern Cardinals in urbanizing landscapes. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:326-333. Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird-building collisions in the United States: estimates of annual mortality and species Keller, G. S., and R. H. Yahner. 2007. Seasonal forest-patch use by birds vulnerability. Condor 116:8-23. in fragmented landscapes of south-central Pennsylvania. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:410-18. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2015. Direct mortality of birds from anthropogenic sources. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Khanaposhtani, M. G., M. Kaboli, M. Karami, and V. Etemad. 2012. Effect of Systematics 46:99-120. habitat complexity on richness, abundance and distributional pattern of forest birds. Environmental Management 50:296-303. MacArthur, R. H., and J. W MacArthur. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594-598. King, R. S., K. A. Brashear, and M. Reiman. 2007. Red-headed woodpecker nest-habitat thresholds in restored savannas. Journal of Wildlife Manolis, J. C., D. E. Andersen, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2002. Edge effect on Management 71:30-35. nesting success of ground nesting birds near regenerating clearcuts in a forest-dominated landscape. The Auk 119:955-970.

42 Marra, P. P., E. B. Cohen, S. R. Loss, J. E. Rutter, and C. M. Tonra. 2015. NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2002. Wildlife Brush Piles: A call for full annual cycle research in animal ecology. Biology letters Conservation Practice Job Sheet 645. https://in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/ 11:20150552. Wildlife_Brushpile_Jobsheet.pdf.

Marzluff, J. M. and K. Ewing. 2001. Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2015. Woodland Edge for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Feathering: Conservation Practice Job Sheet 649. https://efotg.sc.egov. Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. Restoration Ecology usda.gov/references/public/OH/Edge_Feathering_JS_Jan2015.docx 9:280-292. ODNR-DOF (Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Marzluff, J., and K. Ewing. 2008. Restoration of fragmented landscapes Forestry). 2010. Ohio’s Statewide Forest Resource Assessment - 2010. for the conservation of birds: a general framework and specific 2010. Ohio Department of Natural Resources: Columbus, OH. http:// recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Chapter 31 in Urban forestry.ohiodnr.gov/portals/forestry/pdfs/FAP/Assessment.pdf Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction between Humans and Nature”, Marzluff, J., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., ODNR-DOW (Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Alberti, m., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., ZumBrunnen, C., Simon, U. (Eds.) Wildlife). 2015. Ohio’s State Wildlife Action Plan. 434 pp. Columbus, Springer US, 2008. DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5 OH. http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/wildlife/pdfs/proposed%20 rule%20changes/OHIO%202015%20SWAP.pdf Matthews, S. N., and P. G. Rodewald. 2010. Movement behaviour of a forest songbird in an urbanized landscape: the relative importance of patch- Packett, D. L., and J. B. Dunning Jr. 2009. Stopover habitat selection by level effects and body condition during migratory stopover. Landscape migrant landbirds in a fragmented forest–agricultural landscape. The Ecology 25:955-965. Auk 126:579-589.

Mayfield, H. F. 1988. Changes in bird life at the western end of Lake Erie. Parrish, J. D. 1997. Patterns of frugivory and energetic condition in Nearctic Part 1 of 3. American Birds 42:393-398. landbirds during autumn migration. The Condor 97:935-943.

McCusker, C. E., M. P. Ward, and J. D. Brawn. 2010. Seasonal responses Parrish, J. D. 2000. Behavioral, energetic, and conservation implications of of avian communities to invasive bush honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.). foraging plasticity during migration. Studies in Avian Biology 20:53-70. Biological invasions 12:2459-2470. Paton, P. W. C. 2005. A review of vertebrate community composition in McDermott, M. E., and P. B. Wood. 2010. Influence of cover and food seasonal forest pools of the northeastern United States. Wetlands Ecology resource variation on post-breeding bird use of timber harvests with and Management 13:235-246. residual canopy trees. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:545-555. Peacefull,L., ed. 1996. A Geography of Ohio. Kent State University Press, Meanley, B. 1995. Some foods of the Rusty Blackbird in the Great Dismal Kent, OH. Swamp region. Raven 66:9-10. Pennisi, L. and S. M. Vantassel. 2012. Selective bird feeding: deterring Mehlman, D. W., S. E. Mabey, D. N. Ewert, C. Duncan, B. Abel, D. Cimprich, nuisance wildlife from birdfeeders. University of Nebraska-Lincoln R. D. Sutter, and M. Woodrey. 2005. Conserving stopover sites for forest- Extension Factsheet ED1783. dwelling migratory landbirds. The Auk 122:1281-1290. Peterjohn, B. G. 2001. The Birds of Ohio with Breeding Bird Atlas Maps. Moore, F. R., Ed. 2000. Stopover ecology of Nearctic-Neotropical landbird Wooster Book Company, Wooster, OH. migrants: habitat relations and conservation implications. Studies in Avian Biology, no. 20. Piaskowski, V. D., K. M. Williams, G. K. Boese, and P. A. Brookmire. 2008. The Birds without Borders - Aves Sin Fronteras Recommendations for Moore, F. R., R. J. Smith, and R. Sandberg. 2005. Stopover ecology of Landowners: How to Manage Your Land to Help Birds (Wisconsin, intercontinental Migrants: en route consequences for reproductive Midwest and eastern United States edition). Foundation for Wildlife performance. Pages 251-261 in Birds of Two Worlds: The Ecology and Conservation, Inc. and Zoological Society of Milwaukee: Milwaukee, WI. Evolution of Migration (R. Greenberg and P. P. Marra, Eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Remsen, J. 2001. True winter range of the Veery (Catharus fuscescens): lessons for determining winter ranges of species that winter in the Myers, C. C., and R. G. Buchman. 1984. Manager’s handbook for elm-ash- tropics. The Auk, 118:838-848. cottonwood in the North Central States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-98. St. Paul, MN: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Richmond S., E. Nol, and D. Burke. 2011. Avian nest success, mammalian Experiment Station. nest predator abundance, and invertebrate prey availability in a fragmented landscape. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89:517-528. Nash, T. L. and T. D. Gerber. 1996. Ohio Soils. Pages 31-42 in Peacefull, L., ed. A geography of Ohio. Kent State University Press: Kent, OH. Riffell, S., T. Burton, and M. Murphy. 2006. Birds in depressional forested wetlands: area and habitat requirements and model uncertainty. Wetlands Newell, F. L., T. A. Beachy, A. D. Rodewald, C.G. Rengifo, I. J. Ausprey, and P. 26:107-118. G. Rodewald. 2014. Foraging behavior of Cerulean Warblers during the breeding and non-breeding seasons: evidence for the breeding currency hypothesis. Journal of Field Ornithology 85:310-320.

43 Robb, G. N., R. A. McDonald, D. E. Chamberlain, and S. Bearhop. 2008a. Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr, K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Food for thought: supplementary feeding as a driver of ecological change Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, in avian populations. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6:476-484. Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Robb, G. N., R. A. McDonald, D. E. Chamberlain, S. J. Reynolds, T. J. E. Harrison, and S. Bearhop. 2008b. Winter feeding of birds increases Schmidt, K. A. and C. J. Whelan. 1999. Effects of exotic Lonicera and productivity in the subsequent breeding season. Biology Letters 4: 220- Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conservation Biology 13:1502- 223. 1506.

Robertson, I. D. 1998. Survey of predation by domestic cats. Australian Schneider, S. C., and J. R. Miller. 2014. Response of avian communities Veterinary Journal 76:551-554. to invasive vegetation in urban forest fragments. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:459-471. Robinson, S. K., and R. T. Holmes. 1982. Foraging behavior of forest birds: the relationships among search tactics, diet, and habitat structure. Schroeder, R. L. 1983. Habitat-suitability index models: Downy Ecology 63:1918-1931. Woodpecker. USDI Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep 82.10.38.

Rodewald, A. D. 2012(a). In the thick of It: how invasive and exotic shrubs Sheppard, C. 2011. Bird-friendly building design. The American Bird affect breeding birds. Birding 44:44-51. Conservancy.

Rodewald, A. D. 2012(b). Spreading messages about invasives. Diversity and Sherry, T. W., R. T. Holmes, P. Pyle and M. A. Patten.(2016).American Distributions 18:97-99. Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from Rodewald, A. D. 2013. Managing Forest Birds in Southeast Ohio: A Guide the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/ for Land Managers. Ohio State University, School of Environment and species/amered Natural Resources, Columbus, OH. Sillett, T. S., and R. T. Holmes. 2002. Variation in survivorship of a migratory Rodewald, A. D., and M. H. Bakermans. 2006. What is the appropriate songbird throughout its annual cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:296- paradigm for riparian forest conservation? Biological Conservation 308. 128:193-200. Smith, S. B. 2013. A physiological assessment of seasonal differences in Rodewald, A. D., Kearns, L. J., and D. P. Shustack. 2013. Consequences of spring and autumn migration stopover at Braddock Bay, Lake Ontario. urbanizing landscapes to reproductive performance of birds in remnant The Condor 115:273-279. forests. Biological Conservation 160:32-39. Smith, S. B., A. C. Miller, C. R. Merchant, and A. F. Sankoh. 2015. Local Rodewald, A. D., D. P. Shustack, and L. E. Hitchcock. 2010. Exotic shrubs as site variation in stopover physiology of migrating songbirds near the ephemeral ecological traps for nesting birds. Biological Invasions 12:33- south shore of Lake Ontario is linked to fruit availability and quality. 39. Conservation Physiology 3(1): cov036.

Rodewald, P. G., and M. C. Brittingham. 2004. Stopover habitats of landbirds Stambaugh, M. C., J. M. Varner, R. F. Noss, D. C. Dey, N. L. Christensen, R. during fall: use of edge-dominated and early-successional forests. The F. Baldwin, R. P. Guyette, B.B. Hanberry, C. A. Harper, S. G. Lindblom, Auk 121:1040-1055. and T. A. Waldrop. 2015. Clarifying the role of fire in the deciduous forests of eastern North America: reply to Matlack. Conservation Biology Rodewald, P. G., and S. N. Matthews. 2005. Landbird use of riparian and 29:942-946. upland forest stopover habitats in an urban landscape. The Condor 107:259-268. St. Clair, C.C., M. Belisle, A. Desrochers, and S. Hannon. 1998. Winter responses of forest birds to habitat corridors and gaps. Conservation Rodewald, P. G., M. B. Shumar, A. T. Boone, D. L. Slager, and J. McCormac Ecology 2 (2): 19 pp. (eds). 2016. Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in Ohio. 600 pp. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. Streby, H. M., & D. E. Andersen. 2013. Survival of fledgling Ovenbirds: influences of habitat characteristics at multiple spatial scales. The Condor Rodewald, P. G., and K. G. Smith. 1998. Short-term effects of understory 115:403-410. and overstory management on breeding birds in Arkansas oak-hickory forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1411-1417. Strode, P. K. 2009. Spring tree species use by migrating Yellow-rumped Warblers in relation to phenology and food availability. The Wilson Rosenberg, K. V., R. S. Hames, R. W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S. Barker Swarthout, J. Journal of Ornithology 121:457-68. D. Lowe, and A. A. Dhondt. 2003. A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for forest thrushes. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Suthers, H. B., J. M. Bickal, and P. G. Rodewald. 2000. Use of successional habitat and fruit resources by songbirds during autumn migration in Sargent, M. S., and K. S. Carter. 1999. Managing Michigan’s Wildlife: central New Jersey. Wilson Bulletin 112:249–260. A Landowner’s Guide. Michigan United Conservation Clubs, East Lansing, MI. 297pp. https://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/ Sydnor, T. D., K. Smith, and R. Heiligmann. 2005. Ash replacements for huntingwildlifehabitat/landowners_guide/Resource_Dir/Acrobat/index. urban and woodland plantings. Extension Bulletin 924. The Ohio State htm University: Columbus, OH.

44 Tallamy D. W., and K. J. Shropshire. 2009. Ranking lepidopteran use of native Weisbrod, A. R., C. J. Burnett, J. G. Turner, and D. W. Warner. 1993. versus introduced plants. Conservation Biology 23:941-947. Migrating birds at a stopover site in the Saint Croix River Valley. The Wilson Bulletin 105:265-284. Thieme, J, ed. 2016. Living in the Oak Openings: A guide to one of the last great places. Toledo, OH: Homewood Press. 72 pp. Wheaton, J. M. 1882. Report on the birds of Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey Bulletin 4:187-628. Thompson, J. D., and G. A. Baldassarre. 1988. Postbreeding habitat preference of wood ducks in northern Alabama. The Journal of Wildlife Widmann, R. H., C. K. Randall, B. J. Butler, G. M. Domke, D. M. Griffith, Management 52:80-85. C. M. Kurtz, W. K. Moser, R. S. Morin, M. D. Nelson, R. Riemann, et al. 2014. Ohio’s Forests 2011. Resource Bulletin NRS-90. U.S. Department of Tremblay, M. A., and C. C. St. Clair. 2011. Permeability of a heterogeneous Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. Journal of PA. Applied Ecology 48:679-688. Widmann, R. H. 2016. Forests of Ohio, 2015. Resource Update FS-97. Turcotte, Y., and A. Desrochers. 2003. Landscape-dependent response to Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, predation risk by forest birds. Oikos 100:614-618. Northern Research Station. 4p.

Turcotte, Y., and A. Desrochers. 2005. Landscape-dependent distribution of Winker, K., D. W. Warner, and A. R. Weisbrod. 1992. Migration of woodland northern forest birds in winter. Ecography 28:129-140. birds at a fragmented inland stopover site. The Wilson Bulletin 104:580- 598. Twedt, D. J., R. R. Wilson, J. L. Henne-Kerr, and D. A. Grosshuesch. 2002. Avian response to bottomland hardwood reforestation: the first 10 years. Witmer M. C., and P. J. Van Soest. 1998. Contrasting digestive strategies of Restoration Ecology 10:645-655. fruit‐eating birds. Functional Ecology. 12:728-41.

TWS (The Wildlife Society). 2011. Final position statement: feral and free- Wood, E. M., A. M. Pidgeon, F. Liu, and D. J. Mladenoff. 2012. Birds see ranging domestic cats. the trees inside the forest: the potential impacts of changes in forest composition on songbirds during spring migration. Forest Ecology and USDA-NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Management 280:176-186. Conservation Service). 2018. The PLANTS Database (http://plants. usda.gov, 12 October 2018). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC Wright, J. R., L. L. Powell, and C. M. Tonra. 2018. Automated telemetry 27401-4901 USA. reveals staging behavior in a declining migratory passerine. The Auk 135:461-476. Vitz, A. C., and A. D. Rodewald. 2010. Movements of fledgling Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) and Worm-eating Warblers (Helmitheros Yahner, R. H. 1983. Seasonal dynamics, habitat relationships, and vermivorum) within and beyond the natal home range. The Auk 127:364- management of avifauna in farmstead shelterbelts. The Journal of 371. Wildlife Management 47:85-104.

Vitz, A. C., and A. D. Rodewald. 2011. Influence of condition and habitat use Yahner, R. H., C. G. Mahan, and A. D. Rodewald. 2012. Managing Forests for on survival of post-fledging songbirds. The Condor 113:400-411. Wildlife. Chapter 27 in Silvy, N. J., ed. The Wildlife Techniques Manual, 7th edition. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Wegner, J., and G. Merriam. 1979. Movements by birds and small mammals between a wood and adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 16:349-357.

45 For additional resources related to managing forest lands for birds, visit https://obcinet.org.