Management Strategies for the Conservation of Forest Birds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Management Strategies for the Conservation of Forest Birds Kathleen E. Franzreb Deborah M. Finch Petra Bohall Wood David E. Capen Abstract—We recommend that managers of forest-associated bird continuing to meet other resource objectives, managers and species follow a five-step hierarchy in establishing and implement- researchers must plan at the landscape and even regional ing management programs. In essence, a manager must evaluate scales. the composition and physiognomy of the landscape mosaic in the Managers need a wealth of information to make informed context of the regional and subregional goals and objectives. Then decisions about implementing projects, including informa- he/she can explore alternatives that allow manipulation of the tion that will help to predict how specific projects aimed at configuration of the land uses within the management area to other resources will improve or alter available habitats for integrate elements of the surrounding landscape matrix. Wherever birds. Understanding the habitat relationships, distribu- possible, spatial relationships within the region should be consid- tions, and abundances of each bird species or species assem- ered to help maintain connectivity among these and other suitable blage is necessary to plan an appropriate management habitats in various ownerships. Partnerships and cooperation across program. Information on the spatial distributions, quanti- ownerships are important to incorporate different rotation sched- ties, and successional stages of habitats over a large area is ules and spatial arrangements of harvested sites, so that larger essential in a well-devised plan. Temporal considerations blocks of mature forest, rather than scattered small tracts, are such as changes in habitats, species compositions, and bird emphasized in the management of forest-associated species. populations over time must be accounted for, and a monitor- ing schedule may need to be established to evaluate the temporal success or impacts of a plan. The responses of the targeted as well as non-targeted species or groups must be Until recently, most research on the use of forested habi- monitored to fully evaluate management effects. By apply- tats by birds has focused at the local or stand level, and the ing the “adaptive management” concept, monitoring results majority of management decisions affecting birds also were can be used to modify management plans as necessary. made at that level. Past studies have provided invaluable Cooperation among different landowners to manage larger information on habitat requirements, foraging behavior, landscapes than those under individual ownership may be avian community dynamics, and the responses of birds to called for, especially when habitats or species are shared habitat perturbations (Conner and Adkisson 1975; Webb across ownerships, and are high priority, endangered, or and others 1977; Conner and others 1979; Crawford and declining in size or population. others 1981; Franzreb and Ohmart 1978; Thompson and Fritzell 1990). Increasingly, however, natural resource managers must make decisions that encompass more than Strategies ______________________ just stand level considerations. With respect to bird conservation, such decisions may An effective approach for managing forest-associated spe- involve collaborating with adjacent private or public land- cies is to use a decision hierarchy consisting of regional, owners to conserve habitats for endangered or umbrella subregional, landscape, ownership, and stand levels (fig. 1). species, or managing a national forest for a full range of seral Although definitions for these levels may vary, we define the stages required by a mix of high-priority species. To manage regional level in the decision tree to be equivalent to the for multiple bird species with different habitat needs while divisions of the United States used by Partners in Flight (PIF). For instance, the Southeast would be considered a region. Physiographic areas or major watersheds would determine the subregional levels whose boundaries usually In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry, would incorporate multiple states. The landscape level in- eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight plan- ning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 cludes 10 km around the area for which the local manage- October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Ogden, UT: U.S. ment plan or decisions are being made. (In practice, how- Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. ever, there will be greater variability in definition of Kathleen E. Franzreb, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Sta- landscapes than of the other scales.) Land under one owner- tion, Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, SC ship or jurisdiction would constitute the ownership level. 29634. Deborah M. Finch,USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Re- search Station, 2205 Columbia SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106. Petra Bohall The stand level is regarded as a forest patch with consistent Wood, West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Bio- habitat features. Management decisions should begin with logical Resource Division, USGS, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6125, a review of the regional situation and proceed downward Morgantown, WV 26506. David E. Capen, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. through the decision hierarchy to the stand level. In this USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 91 DECISION HIERARCHY Historical Forest Cover Current Conditions Regional Level Priority List-Bird Species Umbrella Species Ecosystem Endangerment Biodiversity Distribution of Birds Objectives Trend Data Subregional Level Ownership Patterns Data Sources Recovery Plans Regulatory Acts Objectives of Regional Plans Ecosystem Management Objectives Bird Habitat Requirements Landscape Level Biodiversity Formalized Partnerships Forest Types/Seral Stages Maps, GIS, and Other Tools Ownership Configuration Economic & Personnel Constraints Ownership Values Assess Opportunities Ownership Level to Manage Review Constraints Conduct Vegetation & Bird Inventories Examine & Relate to Local Landscape Stand Level Adapt Applicable Stand Objectives Bird Habitat Requirements: Incorporate New Information Figure 1—Decision hierarchy for managing forest-associated birds. process, management decisions on a particular level are reach a plateau (Bond 1957; MacArthur and Wilson 1963, designed to complement the objectives and goals of those 1967; Galli and others 1976; Robbins and others 1989a). The levels above it in the hierarchy; thus, this process is basically heterogeneity of habitats, including the diversity of seral a “top-down” strategy. stages and microhabitats within an area, also influences This approach obviously brings the issue of scale into play. bird species richness and presence/absence of individual Scale is important in the maintenance of individual popula- species. Thus, managers who administer large and diverse tions, species richness, and biological diversity. Population properties typically manage more species than those with viability of many bird species within a regional context is smaller and more uniform properties, and their lands corre- reported to be dependent on large tracts of contiguous spondingly contribute in a more powerful way to the regional habitat that are minimally isolated from similar habitats pool of biological diversity. When habitats and properties (Whitcomb and others 1981; Lynch and Whigham 1984; are combined under a particular conservation venture, the Harris 1984; Jones and others 1985; Verner and others 1986; overall biological diversity of the total conservation area is Thomas and others 1990). Often, area-sensitive species are increased, thus the project has a greater chance of benefiting not present or do not breed successfully in isolated, small, or more species. fragmented tracts of land (Whitcomb and others 1981; Ambuel Because species differ in home range or territory sizes, and Temple 1983; Hayden and others 1985; Robbins and geographic distributions, microhabitat requirements, sea- others 1989a; Faaborg and others 1993). The landscape sonal habitat uses, and responses to habitat alterations, the context in relation to a given habitat can have an important complex array of habitat needs can be bewildering (Finch effect on avian demography, especially reproductive success and others 1993b; Block and others 1995). This presents a and, hence, population health (Martin 1992b). Large scales, special challenge to those managers who are responsible for such as the regional, subregional, and landscape levels effectively maintaining populations of threatened and en- described herein, may impose important top-down con- dangered species under the Endangered Species Act as well straints in terms of how birds respond on a more local level as biological diversity under the National Forest Manage- to habitat modifications such as timber harvesting (Mauer ment Act. By keeping in mind that the loss of an endangered 1993; Thompson and others 1993b). species ultimately means a reduction in biological diversity, As the size of an area increases, the number of bird species it is easier to understand how a management plan to meet present generally increases until species accumulation curves both objectives (endangered species and biological diversity) 92 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16.