Benton Lake Refuge Shelterbelt Habitat Suitability and Bird Use Study

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Benton Lake Refuge Shelterbelt Habitat Suitability and Bird Use Study Benton Lake Refuge Shelterbelt Habitat Suitability and Bird Use Study Service Unit: Benton Lake NWR Reporting Office: Benton Lake Complex Species or group: Upland habitat – Shelterbelts 2007 Introduction In the recent past, planting shelterbelts was advocated in the Great Plains as a method of increasing species diversity (Schroeder 1986 and others), particularly bird diversity. Shelterbelts were planted on Benton Lake NWR initially in the 1960s, but have been maintained and expanded as recently as the 1990s. Since that time, many of the shelterbelt trees and shrubs have died, which may be the result of recent drought conditions. No attempt has been made to irrigate or replant the shelterbelts. However, during prescribed burning, the shelterbelts have been protected with firebreaks. Since the planting of shelterbelts on the refuge, additional research and understanding of the effects of woody vegetation in the Great Plains indicates that shelterbelts may have undesirable, negative effects on grassland bird species, in particular (see Bakker 2003 for review). Grassland species of concern at Benton Lake refuge include marbled godwits, chestnut-collared longspurs, Baird’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, lark bunting and Sprague’s pipit. In addition, most of the species of shrubs and trees planted on the refuge are not native, and maintenance of these would likely be in direct contradiction to the Service’s biological integrity policy (601 FW 3.10). In 2008, Benton Lake NWR will start its planning process to develop a 15 year management plan. Making management decisions about the shelterbelts on the refuge will be a key topic in this planning process. The key question will be whether or not to remove shelterbelts or maintain them. Having sufficient background data on shelterbelt condition, quality and bird use will inform future management of these shelterbelts. The initial inventory of shelterbelts described here will address four management questions (objectives): 1) What is the current condition of shelterbelts on the refuge in terms of their contribution to bird species diversity (assuming that was the original management goal)? 2) What bird species are currently using shelterbelts on the refuge and their relative relative abundance? 3) How important are shelterbelts at BNL to species of management concern? 4) Are shelterbelts having a negative impact on grassland birds on BLNWR? Methods In order to assess the current condition of shelterbelts on the refuge in terms of their contribution to bird species diversity we used a habitat suitability model described by Schroeder (1986), and later revised (Schroeder et al 1992). This model identified several characteristics related to the quality of shelterbelts for wildlife, particularly species richness of birds. Although the habitat suitability model focused on species richness, the authors speculated that the same variables defined in the model are positively correlated with wildlife productivity. Key variables in the revised Habitat Suitability Model that affect species richness in shelterbelts include shelterbelt size, number of snags/ha, average height of tallest row and foliage height diversity (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961). The area of each shelterbelt was measured by mapping the perimeter on foot using Trimble GPS unit (sub-meter accuracy). The perimeter was defined as the maximum exterior extent of the canopy of woody vegetation. Any breaks in shelterbelts greater than 50m were mapped as separate units. The 50m cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but based in part on studies showing that this is an appropriate scale for the effect of trees on grassland songbirds (Bakker 2003). Snags (dbh>10cm) in each shelterbelt were simply counted. The 10cm cut-off is based on data on natural nest cavity selection by tree swallows, the cavity nesters most likely to be found on the refuge. We measured average tree height and foliar height diversity in the tallest row at 10 locations. We used a clinometer to measure the tree or shrub height at each point. Foliar height diversity was assigned at each point by indicating the number of strata (0-1m, 1-10m and >10m) in which vegetative layers reach their maximum height. The data for each variable corresponds to a suitability index variable (SI) (Schroeder 1992). The SI values are then entered in the following equation to get an overall Habitat Suitability Index value for the shelterbelt: HSIshelterbelt = SIfoliarheightdiversity x SIsnag x SIheight x SIsize 3 The HSI values for each shelterbelt are between 0 to 1, with 1 signifying an optimal shelterbelt for maximizing bird species diversity. Although not part of the HSI model, we also estimated the percentage of the shelterbelt that was dead and took several photographs. In order to identify what bird species are currently using shelterbelts on the refuge, and their relative abundance, each shelterbelt was surveyed four times between May 15 and June 16. One random, 100m x 40m belt transect per ha (approximately) was placed in each shelterbelt parallel to the nearest tree row (Quamen and Naugle, In press). We counted all birds seen or heard within 20m on either side of the transect, and noted bird movements to avoid double counting. We walked transects slowly (approximately 1 km/hr). All surveys occurred between sunrise and 11:00am and starting locations were rotated among all transects. Counts were not conducted on days with precipitation or excessive wind (>20km.hr; Ralph 1993). We used presence/absence and densities of birds within shelterbelts versus grassland areas as an indicator of negative impacts from shelterbelts. If grassland bird species occur in the grassland plots, but not the shelterbelt plots, or at higher densities in grassland plots, we will infer that these bird species are avoiding shelterbelts and the available grassland habitat for these passerine species on the refuge is reduced by the presence of shelterbelts. To do this, four grassland plots, with one 100mx40m transect each, were surveyed in the same manner and on the same days as the shelterbelt plots. Plots were selected randomly within native grasslands >800m from any shelterbelts (Quamen and Naugle, In press). The results of the four surveys of each shelterbelt and grassland transect were averaged to avoid pseudoreplication. Density differences between shelterbelts and grasslands were compared using t- tests. Each shelterbelt was completely searched for active nests twice during the breeding season (May 23-Jun 8 and Jun 18- Jul 6). For most nests, only the bird and tree species were recorded. However, for loggerhead shrikes, the primary species of concern that has historically nested in refuge shelterbelts, nests were checked every 3-5 days until the fate was determined. Nest and egg success were calculated based on exposure days (Mayfield 1975, Johnson 1979). Results The Habitat Suitability Index score for refuge shelterbelts ranged from a high score of 0.43 to a low of 0.09 on a scale from 0 to 1 (Figure 2). For most of the shelterbelts, less than 25% of the existing vegetation was dead (Figure 3). For details on each shelterbelts’ condition, size and photos see Appendix 1. Thirty-five bird species were detected in shelterbelt and grassland plots combined (Table 1). Twenty-four species were detected only in shelterbelts and two species, horned lark and clay-colored sparrow, were detected only in grasslands. Western meadowlark was the most commonly detected species (25%, n=104) in the shelterbelts and across all plots (23%, n=111). Chestnut- collared longspur was the most commonly detected bird in the grassland plots (34%, n=20). The habitat suitability model did a good job of relating shelterbelt condition to bird species richness for Benton Lake NWR (R2 =0.49, p=0.001). However, the shelterbelt next to headquarters, which scored the highest, had a strong influence on this relationship (Figure 4). We found a total of 44 active nests in the refuge shelterbelts. The most common species’ nest was Brewer’s blackbird, followed by eastern kingbirds and loggerhead shrikes (Table 2). Shelterbelt 12 had the highest number of nests (7). We found no active nests in six of the shelterbelts. The tree species most commonly used for nests was Russian olive (Table 3). Dead trees were used for 11% of the nests we found. We found 9 loggerhead shrike nests in 8 different shelterbelts. All nests successfully fledged young with an average of 5.78 ± 0.83 fledglings/nest. Shrikes nested in Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), both alive and dead, and caragana shrubs (Caragana arborescens). Swainson’s hawks are also a species of concern, but their nests were not monitored. They also nested in Russian olive and caragana. There were five species that were recorded on both shelterbelt and grassland transects and had at least 10 total detections. Of these, densities of chestnut- collared longspurs were significantly higher on grassland transects (Figure 4)(p=0.001). Densities of other species were not significantly different between the two habitat types (BHCO p=0.69, SAVS p=0.69, VESP p=0.23, WEME p=0.44). Discussion Based on the habitat suitability ranks for refuge shelterbelts, a few shelterbelts are in moderate condition and most shelterbelts are in poor condition relative to their potential to increase bird species diversity on the refuge. Shelterbelts ranked uniformly low for each of the key factors of size, structural diversity, snags and height. Most of these factors will not improve within shelterbelts unless there is active management to plant new trees/shrubs or irrigate to increase height, size and structural diversity. Such actions would be in direct violation of the Service’s biological integrity policy (601 FW 3.10). Some of the shelterbelts with caragana shrubs have expanded naturally, increasing size and structural diversity, which would likely continue slowly if left unmanaged. Russian olive does not appear to be expanding rapidly on the refuge as it can in certain areas (Tu 2003).
Recommended publications
  • Caragana Or Siberian Peashrub
    Caragana or Siberian Peashrub slide 5a 400% slide 5b 360% slide 5d slide 5c 360% 360% III-7 Caragana or Environmental Requirements Siberian Peashrub Soils Soil Texture - Adapted to a wide range of soils. (Caragana Soil pH - 5.0 to 8.0. arborescens) Windbreak Suitability Group - 1, 1K, 3, 4, 4C, 5, 6D, 6G, 8, 9C, 9L. General Description Cold Hardiness USDA Zone 2. Drought tolerant legume, long-lived, alkaline-tolerant, tall shrub native to Siberia. Ability to withstand extreme cold Water and dryness. Major windbreak species. Drought tolerant. Does not perform well on very wet or very dry sandy soils. Leaves and Buds Bud Arrangement - Alternate. Light Bud Color - Light brown, chaffy in nature. Full sun. Bud Size - 1/8 inch, weakly imbricate. Leaf Type and Shape - Pinnately-compound, 8 to 12 Uses leaflets per leaf. Conservation/Windbreaks Leaf Margins - Entire. Medium to tall shrub for farmstead and field windbreaks Leaf Surface - Pubescent in early spring, later glabrescent. and highway beautification. Leaf Length - 1½ to 3 inches; leaflets 1/2 to 1 inch. Wildlife Leaf Width - 1 to 2 inches; leaflets 1/3 to 2/3 inch. Used for nesting by several species of songbirds. Food Leaf Color - Light-green, become dark green in summer; source for hummingbirds. yellow fall color. Agroforestry Products Flowers and Fruits No known products. Flower Type - Small, pea-like. Flower Color - Showy yellow in spring. Urban/Recreational Fruit Type - Pod, with multiple seeds. Pods open with a Screening and border, ornamental flowers in spring. popping sound when ripe. Cultivated Varieties Fruit Color - Brown when mature.
    [Show full text]
  • Legumes of the North-Central States: C
    LEGUMES OF THE NORTH-CENTRAL STATES: C-ALEGEAE by Stanley Larson Welsh A Dissertation Submitted, to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Systematic Botany Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. artment Signature was redacted for privacy. Dean of Graduat College Iowa State University Of Science and Technology Ames, Iowa I960 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 8 TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURE TREATMENT 13 REFERENCES 158 APPENDIX A 176 APPENDIX B 202 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his deep gratitude to Professor Duane Isely for assistance in the selection of the problem and for the con­ structive criticisms and words of encouragement offered throughout the course of this investigation. Support through the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station and through the Industrial Science Research Institute made possible the field work required in this problem. Thanks are due to the curators of the many herbaria consulted during this investigation. Special thanks are due the curators of the Missouri Botanical Garden, U. S. National Museum, University of Minnesota, North Dakota Agricultural College, University of South Dakota, University of Nebraska, and University of Michigan. The cooperation of the librarians at Iowa State University is deeply appreciated. Special thanks are due Dr. G. B. Van Schaack of the Missouri Botanical Garden library. His enthusiastic assistance in finding rare botanical volumes has proved invaluable in the preparation of this paper. To the writer's wife, Stella, deepest appreciation is expressed. Her untiring devotion, work, and cooperation have made this work possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Nursery Price List
    Lincoln-Oakes Nurseries 3310 University Drive • Bismarck, ND 58504 Nursery Seed Price List 701-223-8575 • [email protected] The following seed is in stock or will be collected and available for 2010 or spring 2011 PENDING CROP, all climatic zone 3/4 collections from established plants in North Dakota except where noted. Acer ginnala - 18.00/lb d.w Cornus racemosa - 19.00/lb Amur Maple Gray dogwood Acer tataricum - 15.00/lb d.w Cornus alternifolia - 21.00/lb Tatarian Maple Pagoda dogwood Aesculus glabra (ND, NE) - 3.95/lb Cornus stolonifera (sericea) - 30.00/lb Ohio Buckeye – collected from large well performing Redosier dogwood Trees in upper midwest Amorpha canescens - 90.00/lb Leadplant 7.50/oz Amorpha fruiticosa - 10.50/lb False Indigo – native wetland restoration shrub Aronia melanocarpa ‘McKenzie” - 52.00/lb Black chokeberry - taller form reaching 6-8 ft in height, glossy foliage, heavy fruit production, Corylus cornuta (partial husks) - 16.00/lb NRCS release Beaked hazelnut/Native hazelnut (Inquire) Caragana arborescens - 16.00/lb Cotoneaster integerrimus ‘Centennial’ - 32.00/lb Siberian peashrub European cotoneaster – NRCS release, 6-10’ in height, bright red fruit Celastrus scandens (true) (Inquire) - 58.00/lb American bittersweet, no other contaminating species in area Crataegus crus-galli - 22.00/lb Cockspur hawthorn, seed from inermis Crataegus mollis ‘Homestead’ arnoldiana-24.00/lb Arnold hawthorn – NRCS release Crataegus mollis - 19.50/lb Downy hawthorn Elaeagnus angustifolia - 9.00/lb Russian olive Elaeagnus commutata
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 6: Invasive Plant Species
    USDA Forest Service Understanding i-Tree – Appendix 6: Invasive Plant Species APPENDIX 6 Invasive Plant Species The following is a list of invasive tree and shrub species by state that are included in i-Tree database (version 6). Each list of invasive species is followed by the reference of the source which were obtained circa 2014. Some of the Web addresses are no longer working; some have been relocated to alternative sites. State-specific invasive species lists will be updated in the future. Alabama Ailanthus altissima Lonicera japonica Poncirus trifoliate Albizia julibrissin Lonicera maackii Pyrus calleryana Ardisia crenata Lonicera morrowii Rosa bracteata Cinnamomum camphora Lonicera x bella Rosa multiflora Elaeagnus pungens Mahonia bealei Triadica sebifera Elaeagnus umbellata Melia azedarach Vernicia fordii Ligustrum japonicum Nandina domestica Wisteria sinensis Ligustrum lucidum Paulownia tomentosa Ligustrum sinense Polygonum cuspidatum Alabama Invasive Plant Council. 2007. 2007 plant list. Athens, GA: Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. http://www.se-eppc.org/ alabama/2007plantlist.pdf Alaska Alnus glutinosa Lonicera tatarica Sorbus aucuparia Caragana arborescens Polygonum cuspidatum Cytisus scoparius Prunus padus Alaska National Heritage Program. 2014. Non-Native plant data. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska Anchorage. http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/non-native-plant-species- list/#content Arizona Alhagi maurorum Rhus lancea Tamarix parviflora Elaeagnus angustifolia Tamarix aphylla Tamarix ramosissima Euryops multifidus Tamarix chinensis Ulmus pumila Arizona Wildland Invasive Plant Working Group. 2005. Invasive non-native plants that threaten wildlands in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Southwest Vegetation Management Association https:// www.swvma.org/wp-content/uploads/Invasive-Non-Native-Plants-that-Threaten-Wildlands-in- Arizona.pdf (Accessed Sept 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Native Plants and Wildlife in the Intermountain West
    Wildlife Society Bulletin; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.306 Invasive Plants and Wildlife Habitat Non-Native Plants and Wildlife in the Intermountain West ANDREA R. LITT,1 Department of Ecology, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173460, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA DEAN E. PEARSON, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 E Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, MT 59801, USA; and Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA ABSTRACT Non-native plant invasions can change communities and ecosystems by altering the structure and composition of native vegetation. Changes in native plant communities caused by non-native plants can influence native wildlife species in diverse ways, but the outcomes and underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Here, we review and synthesize current information for the Intermountain West of the United States, to develop a general mechanistic understanding of how invasions by non-native plants affect wildlife, and we identify important information gaps. In this region, most species of recognized conservation and management concern are non-native forbs (e.g., leafy spurge [Euphorbia esula], spotted knapweed [Centaurea stoebe]), although non-native grasses (e.g., cheatgrass [Bromus tectorum], medusahead [Taeniatherum caput- medusae]) also have greatly altered vegetation communities. These invasions by non-native plants affect native fauna through both trophic and non-trophic (habitat) pathways and via both direct and indirect effects. The degree to which these invasions affect wildlife depends largely on the degree to which non-native plants alter form and function of native vegetation communities. Reciprocally, native animals can influence distribution and abundance of non-native plants by facilitating or inhibiting invasions through herbivory, seed predation, seed dispersal, soil disturbance, and pollination.
    [Show full text]
  • Caragana Arborescens.Lam) Powdery Mildew Fungi in Green Plantations in the Capital City of Mongolia
    Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. (2021). 8(6): 85-92 International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences ISSN: 2348-8069 www.ijarbs.com DOI: 10.22192/ijarbs Coden: IJARQG (USA) Volume 8, Issue 6 -2021 Research Article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22192/ijarbs.2021.08.06.012 A Study on Identification of Peashrub (Caragana arborescens.Lam) Powdery Mildew Fungi in Green Plantations in the Capital City of Mongolia Tsend ITGEL1 Ph.D. Associate Professor, Laboratory of Forest Protection, Plant protection institute, Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar Zaisan -210153 Gantumur GANZUL2 Ph.D Student., Laboratory of Forest protection, Plant protection institute, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Janchiv TEMUUJIN2 Ph.D. Student., Laboratory of Biotechnology, Plant protection institute, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia *Corresponding author: [email protected]/[email protected] Abstract This study is aimed at determining powdery mildew prevalence and disease severity index of Siberian peashrub (Caragana arborescens) in the woody-bush plantations in the capital city Ulaanbaatar of Mongolia. The shrubs were assessed for powdery mildew disease incidence and disease severity index. Also, we intended to identify the pathogenic fungi species. The survey was carried out in four different parks and one alley in Ulaanbaatar city. The leaf samples were collected from the diseased pea-shrubs from those places. The identification of fungi at the genus level was carried out by using macroscopic and microscopic examinations depending on the fruiting body-cleistothecia shape, appendages, asci, ascospores, and arrangement of ascospores. For the molecular identification of the isolated fungi at the species level, the extracted fungal DNA was amplified by PCR using specific internal transcribed spacer primer (ITS1/ITS4).
    [Show full text]
  • Caragana, Also Known As Siberian Peashrub, Is a Member of the Fabaceae Or Pea Family
    CARAGANA (Caragana arborescens) Description: Caragana, also known as Siberian peashrub, is a member of the Fabaceae or pea family. Caragana is a rapid-growing shrub or small tree that can reach 15 to 20 feet in height with a spread of 12 to 18 feet. The bark is smooth with prominent lenticels, green to grayish-brown in color, and somewhat shiny. Leaves are alternate or fascicled, evenly pinnate, petiolate, stipules spiny, and 1 1/2 to 3 inches long. Leaves are composed of 8 to 12 leaflets that are bright green in color, obovate to ellipticoblong shaped, 1/2 to 1 inch long, rounded at the apex, mucronate pubescent when young, and glabrescent as the tree matures. Twigs are green to grayish-brown, armed with weak paired spines at each node, angled to grooved, with buds that are grayish-brown and 1/4 inch long. Flowers are bright yellow in color, single or in clusters, and about 1/2 to 1 inch long. Fruit of the tree is a cylindrical pencil- shaped narrow pod that is 1 1/2 to 2 inches long, yellowish-green to brown in color, with 3 to 5 seeds. Seeds are dark brown, smooth, 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch in length, and 1/8 of an inch wide. Distribution and Habitat: Caragana is now generally located throughout the north-central part of the United States. The tree occurs on most well drained soils and is able to adapt to poor site conditions. Caragana is tolerant of infertile soils, alkaline soils, de-icing salt, cold winter temperatures, drought conditions and some shade.
    [Show full text]
  • Caragana Or Siberian Peashrub
    Caragana or Siberian Peashrub slide 5a 400% slide 5b 360% slide 5d slide 5c 360% 360% III-7 Caragana or Environmental Requirements Siberian Peashrub Soils Soil Texture - Adapted to a wide range of soils. (Caragana Soil pH - 5.0 to 8.0. arborescens) Windbreak Suitability Group - 1, 1K, 3, 4, 4C, 5, 6D, 6G, 8, 9C, 9L. General Description Cold Hardiness USDA Zone 2. Drought tolerant legume, long-lived, alkaline-tolerant, tall shrub native to Siberia. Ability to withstand extreme cold Water and dryness. Major windbreak species. Drought tolerant. Does not perform well on very wet or very dry sandy soils. Leaves and Buds Bud Arrangement - Alternate. Light Bud Color - Light brown, chaffy in nature. Full sun. Bud Size - 1/8 inch, weakly imbricate. Leaf Type and Shape - Pinnately-compound, 8 to 12 Uses leaflets per leaf. Conservation/Windbreaks Leaf Margins - Entire. Medium to tall shrub for farmstead and field windbreaks Leaf Surface - Pubescent in early spring, later glabrescent. and highway beautification. Leaf Length - 1½ to 3 inches; leaflets 1/2 to 1 inch. Wildlife Leaf Width - 1 to 2 inches; leaflets 1/3 to 2/3 inch. Used for nesting by several species of songbirds. Food Leaf Color - Light-green, become dark green in summer; source for hummingbirds. yellow fall color. Agroforestry Products Flowers and Fruits No known products. Flower Type - Small, pea-like. Flower Color - Showy yellow in spring. Urban/Recreational Fruit Type - Pod, with multiple seeds. Pods open with a Screening and border, ornamental flowers in spring. popping sound when ripe. Cultivated Varieties Fruit Color - Brown when mature.
    [Show full text]
  • Approved Plant List
    Approved Plant List Facts to Know INTRODUCTION: The Approved Tree and Plant List has been complied by highly-qualified experts in the field of horticulture and High Plains native plants, and it includes hundreds of species of plants and trees that are suited to the city’s environment. The list is to be used by property owners, developers, and the city as a standard for selecting native and adapted plant species to minimize maintenance costs, conserve water, and improve longevity. The following pages contain city-approved street tree species, prohibited species, and information regarding invasive species. This information should be used when preparing or updating a landscape plan. If you have any specific questions about this document, please contact the Community Development Department at 303-289-3683. Emerald Ash Borer Please be advised that Ash Borer (Pdodsesia syringae Harris) infestation concerns have been raised by the U.S. Forest Service and by Colorado State University for Ash trees along the Front Range and within Commerce City. The Ash Borer is an exotic insect from Asia that has been found feeding on Ash trees in the area. This insect feeds on all Ash species and can kill trees in one to three years. Therefore, in 2010 Commerce City’s Planning and Parks Planning Divisions issued a temporary, but indefinite, restriction on the use of Ash trees for developments within the city. The city’s policy regarding Ash trees is as follows: 1. Ash trees will not be approved for use in: • Any tree lawn or other right-of-way plantings that are associated with Site Plans, Development Plans, or Improvement Plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Species List the Following Tree and Shrub Species Are Currently in Tree Advisor
    Species List The following tree and shrub species are currently in Tree Advisor. Species are linked to USDA PLANTS Database to provide additional information. Mature height in the Great Plains is typically less than what is indicated in national databases, such as the USDA PLANTS Database which specifies ideal growing conditions. The Great Plains is the fringe or outside of the native ranges of most species, has a relatively harsh climate for trees and shrubs, and, consequently, they generally do not grow as large here as they do nearer the heart of their native ranges. Tree Advisor considers expected mature heights in the Great Plains. Acer ginnala – Amur Maple Celtis occidentalis – Hackberry Acer grandidentatum – Bigtooth Maple Celtis laevigata – Sugarberry Acer negundo – Boxelder Cercis canadensis – Redbud Acer rubrum – Red Maple Chilopsis linearis – Desert Willow Acer saccharinum – Silver Maple Corylus americana – American Hazelnut Acer saccharum ¬ Sugar Maple Corylus cornuta – Beaked Hazelnut Aesculus glabra – Ohio Buckeye Cornus racemosa – Gray Dogwood Alnus incana – Gray Alder Cornus sericea – Redosier Dogwood Amelanchier alnifolia – Saskatoon Serviceberry Crataegus crus–galli – Cockspur Hawthorn Amelanchier utahensis – Utah Serviceberry Crataegus mollis – Downy Hawthorn Amorpha fruticosa – False Indigo Diospyros virginiana – Persimmon Aronia melanocarpa – Black Chokeberry Elaeagnus commutata –Silverberry Asimina triloba – Pawpaw Fallugia paradoxa – Apache Plume Betula nigra – River Birch Fraxinus americana – White Ash Betula papyrifera
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Values of Conservation Trees & Shrubs
    Wildlife Values of Conservation Trees and Shrubs conservation seedlings: buyer’s guide (28-page, full color 1.25 megabyte PDF file) this information was compiled January, 1995 and updated January, 1997; by Kent Grant, Assistant District Forester, Durango District, Colorado State Forest Service. Note: Clicking on any scientific species name which is linked will take you to the plant database which provides additional information on selected species The Colorado State Forest Service tree program enables farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners to obtain trees at nominal cost. The program’s aim is to encourage landowners with two acres or more to successfully establish conservation tree plantings. Planting windbreaks, shelterbelts, or providing erosion to attract wildlife is a common objective for many landowners. Each wildlife species has its own habitat requirements, and landowners can attract individual species by planting trees and shrubs to enhance wildlife food and cover. For example, pheasants (and other game birds) are attracted to windbreaks having a fruit-bearing shrub row such as plum or Nanking cherry. A more complex windbreak design for game birds incorporates a “thicket” planting. The windbreak keeps the thicket free of snow in winter and creates a snow storage area that can be planted with milo, millet, or sunflowers to provide game birds a winter food source and a hidden loafing area. Thicket plantings are usually square in shape with fruit-bearing shrubs spaced 4 to 6 feet apart. When planting to increase wildlife habitat, decide first which wildlife species you wish to attract. To attract deer and elk, plant tree and shrub species which provide them with a winter source of food and cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Snow Fences
    Living Snow Fences Species Matrix for New York State Justin P. Heavey Timothy A. Volk Forest & Natural Resource Management SUNY ESF Syracuse, NY 2012 Living Snow Fences Species Matrix for New York State Living Snow Fences Species Matrix Species selection is an important step in the design of effective and efficient living snow fences. A species matrix assists in the plant selection process for living snow fences by providing a pallete of suitable species, and a summary of relevant plant traits to compare and contrast species. Recent research at SUNY ESF has built on previous research (Tabler, 2003) and identified key plant traits for living snow fences. Twenty-eight species that possess the traits relevant to living snow fences have been identified and included in this plant matrix. These species are tolerant to a variety of roadside conditions across New York State, and possess the traits necessary to achieve adequate snow trapping and snow storage capabilities. Every plant species is unique, and this matrix is therefore intended as a selection tool to compare and contrast a variety of plants for living snow fences within the context of design goals and site conditions. Plant Traits for Living Snow Fences The morphological traits of height and stem density are the two most important factors influencing the function of living snow fences. Mature height should be at least eight feet to achieve adequate snow storage capacity. Stem density should be 40-60% to achieve optimal snow trapping efficiency and drift shape. Deciduous shrubs and evergreen trees are most suitable for expressing these traits in the landscape.
    [Show full text]