Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Date: Friday, February 23, 2018
Morning Tour: meet at the property at 9:00 AM ET, lunch at noon Afternoon Tour: meet at 11:30 AM for sign in and lunch, tour at 1:00 pm
Tour: South Prong Plantation is located at the
headwaters of the South Prong of the St. Mary’s River in Baker County. Doug Moore, South Prong owner and manager, purchased this timberland in 2002 because it was close to his farm in Duval County, and most of all, because the property was diverse. South Prong Plantation encompasses over 2,400 acres of pine flatwoods, cypress swamps and hydric hammock that is home to a wide variety of wildlife. While Doug’s primary objective is managing for high-quality wildlife habitat, the plantation also produces timber and is a great example of integrating timber and wildlife habitat management, and prescribed fire is an important tool here. We will tour the property on trailers.
Agenda: 9:00 am Sign-in, meet and greet for morning tour group
9:30 Tour 1 departs 11:30 Sign-in, meet and greet for afternoon tour group, Tour 1 group returns,
complete and turn in evaluations 11:45 Doug Moore presents brief history of South Prong Plantation to all 12:00 pm Lunch for all 1:00 Tour 2 departs 3:00 Tour 2 returns, turn in evaluations, adjourn
Florida Forest Stewardship Tour: South Prong Plantation Property of Doug Moore Baker County, FL
Funding for this event is provided by the USDA Forest Service via the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service’s Florida Forest Service and the Florida Sustainable Forestry Initiative Implementation Committee.
Topics to be covered during the tour:
- The use of prescribed fire in pine plantations of varying ages and species
- Various management techniques which enhance wildlife habitat
- Site preparation techniques for planting pines
Table of Contents Page
Tour Information Tour Resource Contacts 4 Assistance Florida Forest Stewardship Program Fact Sheet 5 Tree Farm Program Fact Sheet 6 Silviculture Best Management Practices 7 Forestry Wildlife Best Management Practices for State Imperiled Species 8 Florida Forest Service Open Burning Benefits and Rules 9 Got Invasives? Get Assistance. 11 Publications Lightning Season Burning: Friend or Foe of Breeding Birds? 12 Guidelines for Creating and Managing Wildlife Openings in Pine Plantations 28 Longleaf Pine Regeneration 32 National Bobwhite Quail Conservation Initiative 39 UF/IFAS Forest Management and Stewardship Publications 41 Note space 42
We appreciate the support of our 2018 Florida Forest Stewardship Program Sponsors
-listed on the back cover-
Resource Contacts
Doc Bloodworth Wildfire Mitigation Specialist/PIO Florida Forest Service 137 SE Forestry Circle Lake City, FL 32025 386-243-6228 [email protected]
Ricky Lackey Cooperative Biologist National Wild Turkey Federation (229) 378-0003 [email protected]
Albert Oliver District Conservationist USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2304 SW Main Blvd, Ste 103 Lake City, FL 32025 (386) 755-3194 [email protected]
Chris Demers Extension Program Manager UF/IFAS School of Forest Resources and Conservation PO Box 110410 Gainesville, FL 32611 (352) 846-2375 [email protected]
Alicia Lamborn Extension Agent UF/IFAS Extension Baker County 1025 W Macclenny Ave Macclenny, FL 32063 (904) 259-3520 [email protected]
Scotland Talley North Central Region Conservation Biologist Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 3377 E US Hwy 90 Lake City, FL 32055 (386) 758-0525 [email protected]
Matt Greene Private Lands Biologist Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 5353 NE 39th Ave Gainesville, FL 32609 (352) 334-0311 [email protected]
Doug Moore Landowner, South Prong Plantation [email protected]
James Tootle Baker County Forester Florida Division of Forestry 8791 U.S. Hwy 90 W Glen Saint Mary, FL 32040 (386) 496-2190 [email protected]
Robin Holland Silvicultural BMP Forester Florida Forest Service 2735 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala, FL 34470 (352) 732-1273 [email protected]
Ginger Morgan North Central Regional Coordinator Landowner Assistance Program Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 3377 East US Highway 90 Lake City, FL 32055 (386) 758-0525 [email protected]
Jay Tucker Union County Forester Florida Forest Service 11367 SR 100 West Lake Butler, FL 32054 (386) 496-2190 [email protected]
Questions about this or other Florida Forest Stewardship Program activities can be directed to
Chris Demers, (352) 846-2375, [email protected]
http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/forest_stewardship
Florida’s Forest Stewardship Program Forest Stewardship is active management of forest land to keep it in a productive and healthy condition for present and future generations, and to increase the economic, environmental and social benefits of these lands. Forest Stewards are landowners who manage their forest lands on a long-term basis by following a multiple resource management plan.
The Forest Stewardship Program addresses the improvement and maintenance of timber, wildlife, soil and water, recreation, aesthetics, as well as forage resources.
Eligibility Private forest landowners with at least 20 acres of forest land and a desire to manage their ownerships according to Stewardship principles can participate in the Forest Stewardship Program. Also, adjacent landowners, with similar management objectives, may combine their holdings to meet this acreage limitation. Benefits to Landowners • A customized management plan that is based on the landowner's objectives. The
plan will include forest stand characteristics, property maps, management recommendations, and a five-year time line for future planning. This plan also serves as documentation of active management on the property that may help reduce tax liability.
• An opportunity for public recognition as a certified "Forest Steward". • Educational workshops, tours and the quarterly Florida Land Steward newsletter
developed and distributed by the University of Florida, IFAS Cooperative Extension Service and other partners.
How to Enroll Contact your local Florida Forest Service County Forester and tell them that you would like to have a Forest Stewardship Plan prepared for your property. More information and application online at: http://FreshFromFlorida.com/ForestStewardship
Tree Farm Program The American Tree Farm System® is a program of the American Forest Foundation and was founded in 1941 to promote the sustainable management of forests through education and outreach to family forest landowners. Nearly 26 million acres of privately owned forestland and 80,000 family forest landowners in 46 states are enrolled in this program and committed to excellence in forest stewardship. About half of all Tree Farms are located in the South.
Eligibility Private forest landowners with at least 10 acres of forest land and have a desire to manage their ownerships according to sustainable forestry guidelines can participate in Tree Farm. Benefits to Landowners Tree Farmers are good stewards of their forestland committed to protecting watersheds and wildlife habitat and conserving soil. They manage their forestland for various reasons, including timber production, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and education/outreach. Tree Farmers receive many benefits:
- Representation on local, state, and federal issues affecting forestland owners. - Exposure to a network of forestry professionals and landowners committed to
sustainable forestry. - Invitations to workshops, tours and the quarterly Florida Land Steward newsletter
produced by University of Florida IFAS and other partners. - Certification that meets international standards of sustainable forest management. - Participation in local, state, regional, and national Outstanding Tree Farmer of the
Year awards and recognition.
Getting into the Program Contact your local Florida Forest Service County Forester and tell them that you would like to join the Tree Farm program. More information here: https://www.treefarmsystem.org/florida
Silviculture BMP Courtesy Checks
Silviculture BMP courtesy checks are available for landowners, land managers, and loggers. These courtesy checks provide a “report card” on Silviculture BMP implementation for recent or ongoing forestry operations. This helps future management planning and evaluates the performance of contractors on your property.
Additional Services
For information on the services listed above or any other services provided by the Florida Forest Service’s hydrology section, please contact your local BMP Forester.
Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Silviculture BMPs are the minimum standards necessary to protect our state’s waterbodies and wetlands from degradation and sedimentation that can sometimes occur because of erosion from forestry operations. Silviculture BMPs should be applied on all bonafide ongoing forestry operations, especially those adjacent to waterbodies and wetlands, and may be enforced by federal, state and local authorities.
Silviculture BMP Site Assessments
On-the-ground Silviculture BMP site assessments are available to determine which Silviculture BMPs apply to planned operations on a specific site. This helps with harvest plan development, road layout, mitigation of existing problem areas, etc.
Silviculture BMP Notice of Intent
The Silviculture BMP Notice of Intent (Rule 5I-6 F.A.C.) is a voluntary, one-time pledge that a landowner signs, indicating intent to adhere to Silviculture BMPs on their property. Once a landowner has signed the Notice of Intent, he or she will become eligible to receive a presumption of compliance based on reasonable evidence with state water quality standards during future ongoing forestry operations. This is very important if a landowner’s property falls within an area covered by a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Basin Management Action Plan for impaired waters.
Florida Forest Service
Silviculture Best Management Practices
Roy Lima Panhandle Area
[email protected] (850) 681-5942
Robin Holland Peninsula Area
[email protected] (352) 732-1273
Forestry
Wildlife Best Management Practices
for State Imperiled Species
Forestry Wildlife Best Management Practices for State Imperiled Species (WBMPs) were adopted into Florida Administrative Code (Rule 5I-8) on October 21, 2014.
WBMPs were developed through a partnership between the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Florida Forest Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).
WBMPs are voluntary practices designed as a practical approach for avoiding and minimizing the loss of State Imperiled Species due to silviculture operations.
WBMP practices address the 16 State Imperiled Species which are considered to be potentially vulnerable to silviculture operations including ten aquatic species, two burrowing animals, and four nesting birds.
WBMPs are designed to supplement the existing water quality-based Silviculture BMPs which already provide many valuable benefits to the conservation and management of fish and wildlife in Florida.
Landowners and other forestry resource professionals can enroll in the voluntary program by completing a WBMP Notice of Intent. Those who do not wish to enroll will continue to be subject to all current laws and regulations regarding State Imperiled Species.
Once enrolled, applicants who properly implement WBMPs will no longer be required to obtain a permit authorizing the incidental take of State Imperiled Species during bonafide ongoing forestry operations. In addition, they will not be subject to any fines or penalties associated with an incidental take of the State Imperiled Species covered by the WBMP Manual.
WBMPs are not designed to facilitate wildlife habitat restoration or species recovery and expansion. Also, they do not address any Federally Listed Species. For information on Federally Listed Species, refer to FWC’s online “Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide.”
To obtain more information or a copy of the WBMP Manual and Notice of Intent, contact your local Florida Forest Service BMP forester (see below) or a FWC Landowner Assistance Program biologist (850) 488-3831.
Florida Forest Service BMP Foresters
Roy Lima Panhandle Area (850) 681-5942
Robin Holland Peninsula Area (352) 732-1273
Open Burning Benefits Agriculture, Land Clearing, Silviculture
https://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Florida-Forest-Service/Wildland-Fire/Prescribed-Fire/Using-Fire-Wisely
Objectives:
1. Fuel Reduction* - one of the most important reasons; one of the most effective elements of any Fire Prevention/Life Safety program; provides an indirect benefit to wildlife and other resources 2. Site Preparation - preparing areas for the seeding or planting process 3. Disease Control - certain pathogens that reduce growth can be controlled or eliminated 4. Wildlife Management - prescribed fire is rarely lethal to most forms of wildlife 5. Range Management - more acres being burned for grazing purposes than for all other uses of fire combined 6. Biological Community Restoration and Maintenance – periodic prescribed burning is critical to natural systems restoration and in maintaining biological diversity and balance * Wildfire events typically include hazards of fireline intensity, flame length, and crown fire potential.
http://myfdacs.doacs.state.fl.us/forestry/forest_protection/fp_docs/2014_Fire_Laws.pdf
Wildfire Hazard Reduction Treatment by the Florida Forest Service: [590.125, (5) F.S.]. The Florida Forest Service may conduct fuel reduction initiatives, including, but not limited to, burning and mechanical and chemical treatment, on any area of wildland within the state which is reasonably determined to be in danger of wildfire…
Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: [590.01 F.S.] “The application of prescribed burning or other alternative fuel treatment methods to reduce vegetative fuels as a hazard. This service is provided on an area that is determined to be a wildfire hazard area by the FFS.”
Wildfire Hazard Mitigation in the WUI involves:
-prevention and mitigation actions to increase awareness of communities and homeowners regarding their wildfire risk and hazards, and -the pre-fire implementation of measures which modify/reduce fuels or ignition sources within a wildland/forest environment and the built environment. The end: that the effects of subsequent wildfire upon natural resources, human life, and property are minimized.
Suwannee Forestry Center D 6 serves Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Hamilton, Suwannee and Union Counties
Per the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal Risk Summary Report for the Suwannee Forestry Center D 6, it is estimated that 197,366 people live within the WUI.
https://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Florida-Forest-Service/For-Communities/Firewise-Communities/Wildfire-Mitigation-Contacts
A Wildfire Mitigation Specialist is assigned to each of the Florida Forest Service (FFS) field units.
As part of the total Florida Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Program, the FFS field unit assists in all community planning and provides guidance for the application of Firewise principles in pre-fire preparedness, mitigation and protection initiatives.
Wildfire Mitigation Specialist/PIO, services provided:
-facilitation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (each has a Wildland Fuel Management Strategy which includes both the education and demonstration of prescribed fire as a mitigation tool on public and private wildlands)
-liaison for the Fire Adapted Communities and Firewise USA program (fuel reduction in the Home Ignition Zone is key to surviving a wildfire)
-assistance to fire departments on the International Assoc. Of Fire Chief’s Ready Set Go Program (incorporates Firewise principles in the Ready element)
-coordinate District WUI wildfire mitigation projects with Region 2 Mitigation Team
-Public Information Officer Duties for District. Audiences are local, state and national. Topics FFS Successes, shared knowledge regarding all FFS Programs, the WUI, the Cohesive Strategy, current wildfires, prescribed fire awareness…collaboration, e.g. Baker County Fire Adapted Community Work Group involving: County and city government, planning, emergency, law enforcement and fire agencies, FL FWC and State Parks, US Forest Service, US FWS, land/timber managers, Firewise Communities, and cross-boundary GA County Fire Departments
[Type here]
Got lnvasives?
Invasive exotic plant problem? Find a program to help by using
FloridaInvasives.org.
The Florida Invasive Species Partnership has collected, evaluated and categorized ass istance programs into a single resource, making it easier to find the financial and/or technical assistance available to Florida landowners to prevent or control invasive exotic species problems. Floridalnvasives.org has an online resource of management assistance programs to help in your fight against problematic plant species. This resource takes the guesswork out of finding the agencies or organizations offering assistance and will direct you to available programs. The Landowner’s Incentives Database will also provide the requirements for each program, to help you decide if they are a good match for your needs.
Why was Floridalnvasives.org developed? Invasive species have been identified as being costly ecologically and economically statewide in Florida. The Florida Invasive Species Partnership (FISP) is a collaboration of public and private entities in Florida, formed to link efforts at preventing and controlling invasive exotic plants across agency and property boundaries. FISP has developed an on-line tool of available financial and technical assistance sources to make it easier for landowners and land managers to find them.
How does Floridalnvasives.org help you? FISP has created a searchable database, the Florida landowner incentives database, accessible at Floridalnvasives.org that allows you to find an assistance program for your needs. Search by your county, target species or other pertinent information into the online tool, and you will retrieve a current list of available programs. Floridainvasives.org will help provide focus to your search so that you can get the right person at the right program.
Floridalnvasives.org:
Builds community awareness,
Leverages limited resources through cooperation and
May reduce individual land management costs. This resource will be regularly updated with the most current program information to provide you the most up-to-date opportunities.
Go to Floridalnvasives.org to find out more.
Species Shown from top to bottom:
Mexican Petunia, Boston Fern, Mimosa, Cogongrass, Camphor
Lightning-Season Burning: Friend or Foe of Breeding Birds?
By Jim Cox & Brent Widener
Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy
2
3 Summary
4 Fire: The Force Shaping Southern Forests
5 What About Nesting Birds?
6 Birds of Management Concern
7 Northern Bobwhite
8 Wild Turkey
9 Red-cockaded Woodpecker
9 Brown-headed Nuthatch
10 Loggerhead Shrike
10 Bachman’s Sparrow
11 Henslow’s Sparrow
12 Impacts to Other Breeding Birds
13 Conclusions
13 Recommendations
14 Literature Citations
Contents
The Power of Flight Program created by the Southern Company and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation protects birds through habitat and species restoration and environmental education. The program focuses on southern birds, such as Bobwhite Quail, the endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker, American Swallow-tailed Kite, and Bachman’s Sparrow. The program has improved quail habitat on more than 37,000 acres across the region as well as habitat for endangered Mississippi Sandhill Cranes, beach-nesting shorebirds, waterfowl, and wading birds. Southern Company has committed $3.3 million in matching funds to the program over 10 years in support of projects that benefit southern birds and their habitats.
Ron Masters
Bachman's SparrowNorthern Bobwhite
Loggerhead Shrike
Wild Turkey
Shane Wellendorf
Ross McG
regor
USFW
S
USFW
S
3
SummaryFor decades, the prescribed fires needed to maintain suitable habitat conditions for pineland birds were applied early in the calendar year (i.e., before April) when cooler temperatures and steady winds prevailed. More recently, some land managers have shifted to burning areas dominated by native forbs and grasses later in the year (e.g., after April) both to increase the acreage treated with fire each year and also in consideration of ecological observations. The shift to burning later in the year has led to concerns about the effects such burns may have on nesting birds.
We reviewed recent research on the effects of “lightning-season” burning on the breeding birds associated with southern pine forests. The threat posed to nesting birds generally is not as severe as perceived, though additional research is needed for several species. Many ground-nesting birds that might be affected by burns prefer to nest in areas that have been burned recently (i.e., within the past 18-24 months), so the number of nests located in areas typically scheduled for lighting-season burns will be small relative to the total number of nests constructed each year. Birds also frequently re-nest following the loss of a nest, and improved habitat conditions created through the application of prescribed fire may improve adult and juvenile sur-vival and effectively offset the loss of a nest. Burns set in May also provide time for nests of some species to fledge but also are early enough to avoid peak nesting activity for Northern Bobwhite. Late-season burning does not pose a threat to nesting birds when it is included as part of a comprehensive burn program and is used to achieve the fire frequencies required to maintain suitable habitat conditions for many pineland birds on large managed areas. For several pineland species that are experiencing steep population declines, the preferred fire frequency is burning every two-to-three years.
Nothing can be more destructive to ground nesting game birds than summer fires…
– Stoddard 1931
(Summer fires)…are key in restoring and maintaining the herbaceous vegetation so crucial to brood-rearing for species like
bobwhite quail and wild turkey.
– South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2006
Rose Rodriguez
4
Figure 1. Southern pine forests that have been burned frequently using a one-to-three year fire interval have a majestic park-like look. This picture shows the Wade Tract, a longleaf pine research area in southwest Georgia.
Figure 2. A prescribed fire clearing ground vegetation.
Prescribed fire is as important as sunlight, air, and rain for southern pine forests. The slow-moving fires used to man-age southern pine forests clear brush, recycle nutrients, and create open conditions where native forbs and grasses flourish. Prescribed fires allow grassland and forest elements to merge in a beautiful park-like setting (Fig. 1) and create conditions where species like Northern Bobwhite, Bachman’s Sparrow, and Red-cockaded Woodpecker thrive.
For decades, prescribed fires (Fig. 2) needed to main-tain open pinewoods were applied early in the calendar year when cooler temperatures and steady winds prevailed. More recently, some land managers have shifted to burning later in the year – sometimes as late as August -- because research suggests this may have been the time of year when Mother Nature liked to burn.
Some evidence supporting this approach lies in the prolific flowering responses that dominant plants exhibit when fires are conducted after late April in areas with natives forbs and grasses (Fig. 3). Additional evidence comes from the burn scars
found on ancient pine stumps (Huffman 2006). These scars recorded fire events prior to extensive European settlement and suggested the fires burning from 1670-1830 occurred later in the calendar year. Finally, wildfires ignited by lightning in Florida from 1995-2001 (Freeman 2004) took place nearly exclusively from May to August, not February to April.
More practical considerations also have led some manag-ers to look carefully at lightning-season burning (definitions provided to right). First, lightning-season fires can be more ef-fective in restoring grass and forb ground cover in areas where hardwood shrubs and saw palmetto have become a nuisance (Glitzenstein et al. 1995). Second, lightning-season burns create good conditions for natural pine seedling establishment in fall and winter (Hermann et al. 1998; Fig. 4). Seed produc-tion for longleaf pine in particular is variable from year to year, and years with good seed crops can be difficult to discern very early in the calendar year. Lightning-season fires also pro-vide the open ground-cover conditions that improve longleaf germination and establishment. Finally and perhaps most important, lightning-season fires provide a broader window within which burns can be conducted, and this could lead to a much-needed increase in the acreage burned each year.
Fire: The Force Shaping Southern ForestsRon M
asters
Jim C
ox
5
Figure 4. Established longleaf pine seedlings.
Figure 3. Wiregrass with flower stalks emerging.
Figure 5. Bachman’s sparrow nest.
Season of Fire TerminologyThe terms used to describe the season of burning can be confusing. Phrases such as warm and cool season, summer and winter, growing and dormant season, and lightning and non-lightning season are used, but dates defined by these phrases depend on latitude and local conditions. The phrase “lightning-season burning” describes the underlying rationale for burning later in the calendar year because it focuses on natural ignition that can take place when lower humidity and higher thunderstorm activity coincide. In north Florida, for example, the requisite combination of increased thunderstorm activity and low humidity is common in late spring and early summer (Komarek 1964). Further north, appropriate conditions occur at different times and may be bimodal. Because the lightning-season is defined by local weather, appropriate times may stretch from late April to September.
What About Nesting Birds?Interest in lightning-season burning has not come with-out controversy (Hermann et al. 1998, Sisson and Speake 1994, Tucker et al. 2004). Prescribed fires set anytime after late February coincide with the nesting season of one or more pineland breeding birds, and bird nests built of dried grasses and twigs (Fig. 5) and placed in shrubs or directly on the ground obviously are no match for fire. At first glance, lightning-season fires appear capable of destroying scores of nests, and concerns about the effect that fires set during the breeding season may have on breeding birds have surfaced on several fronts (Tucker et al. 2004, Tyler 2006).
The situation for breeding birds is much more complex than lightning-season burning being bad or good. In any given year, many nests are lost to snakes, ants, raccoons, heavy rains, drought, cats, opossums, deer, coyotes, dogs, foxes, mice, and heavy equipment -- not fires. Lightning-season burns destroy some nests and obviously have a direct effect on nesting activity, but, unlike the other threats that nesting birds face, lightning-season fires provide clear benefits that
have the potential to offset losses in a big way. For example, if lightning-season burns provide a 5% increase in the survival of adults and juveniles as a result of habitat improvements, these increases could offset a 15% reduction in nest produc-tivity attributable to burning.
Several recent studies have concluded that the threat posed by lightning-season burning is not as dire as once presumed (Cox and Jones 2007, Tucker et al. 2004). Many ground-nesting birds prefer to nest in areas that have been burned within the past two years, not areas that have lain fal-low for three years (often called “three-year roughs"). Schedul-ing a lightning-season burn for a three-year rough potentially affects only a small percentage of the ground nests constructed
Jim C
oxJim
Cox
Jim C
ox
6
SPECIES TOTALS AL AR FL GA LA MS OK NC SC TX VA
Red-cockaded Woodpecker 11 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Bachman’s Sparrow 11 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Henslow’s Sparrow 11 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Loggerhead Shrike 10 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Northern Bobwhite 9 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Brown-headed Nuthatch 9 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Grasshopper Sparrow 8 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Prairie Warbler 7 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Southeastern American Kestrel 5 √ √ √ √ √
Field Sparrow 5 √ √ √ √ √
Eastern Meadowlark 5 √ √ √ √ √
Common Ground-Dove 3 √ √ √
Red-headed Woodpecker 3 √ √ √
Florida Sandhill Crane 2 √ √
Eastern Wood Peewee 2 √ √
Eastern Kingbird 2 √ √
Cooper’s Hawk 1 √
Sharp-shinned Hawk 1 √
Common Nighthawk 1 √
Florida Grasshopper Sparrow 1 √
Table 1. Pineland species of management concern as determined by wildlife agencies in the southeastern U.S. The effects of lightning-season burning on species listed in italics are discussed at length below.
in a given year. Many birds also re-nest quickly when a nest is lost, and benefits such as improved late summer and fall brood habitat, improved fall and winter food resources, and improved nesting success in subsequent years also can offset losses to lightning-season burning.
This booklet reviews some of the benefits of lightning-season burns that have emerged from recent research in hopes of providing balance to the debate regarding the threats such fires may pose to breeding birds. Land managers will always need to burn during the dormant season, and most may want to burn primarily during this time, but lightning-season burn-ing provides more burning opportunities during the calendar year, and more frequent burning that is integrated into a com-prehensive burn program provides benefits that can outweigh short-term impacts to nesting birds.
Birds of Management Concern Over 100 species of birds occur in southern pinelands through-out the year (Engstrom 1993), and approximately one third of these may nest and forage on or near the ground where the effects of lightning-season burning will be most pronounced (Engstrom et al. 1996). Among these ground-dwelling species are several with declining population trends based on recent reviews conducted by fish and wildlife agencies throughout the southeastern U.S. (Table 1). Wildlife agencies have adopted the term Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Table 1) to describe species with severe population declines, and we review recent research relating to the effects of lightning-season burning on six rapidly declining species (Table 1) as well as the Wild Turkey because of its importance as a game species.
7
Potential benefits of lightning-season burning in comparison to exclusive dormant-season burning include (1) reduced mortality, (2) improved habitat structure and habitat diversity, and (3) improved brooding-rearing habitat for August to October broods. In addition, the peak nesting period in many areas may not occur until June, so a mid-May burn applied to a three-year rough affects very few nests and provides better hardwood control and improved brood-rearing habitat.
Northern Bobwhite
Management for Northern Bobwhite (Fig. 6) has shaped the prescribed burning performed in southern pinelands for decades. Quail hunting ends early in March, while the earli-est quail nests do not appear until late April or early May (though nests in south Florida may be initiated in March). These considerations have focused traditional prescribed burning to a few months in late winter and early spring, and they also probably have shaped many opinions regarding the impacts of lightning-season burning on breeding birds.
The vegetation structure preferred by Northern Bobwhite includes a mix of forbs and woody shrubs with ample bare ground. This structure is ephemeral, and populations quickly decline within less than three years post fire as vegetation grows and becomes thick at ground level. While prescribed fires in other seasons may create the preferred vegetation structure, fires set during the early part of the lightning season (late April and May) maintain the structure longer than fires set during the dormant season. Lightning-season fires in May provide preferred vegetation structure that persists as much as six months longer than the structure created by dormant-season burning.
Studies at Tall Timbers Research Station examined the impacts of dormant-season versus lightning-season burns on quail more directly and found that seasonal effects were insignificant at the population level (Brennan et al. 1997, 1998, Carver et al. 1997). The specific month burns are conducted is important because nesting activity varies consid-erably within the lightning season. Nesting activity peaked in June in these studies, so burns conducted in mid May when <10% of the hens were incubating can provide many of the benefits of lightning-season burning without posing a threat
to the majority of nests. In addition, because quail often nest preferentially in areas burned within the past two years, a lightning-season burn applied to a three-year rough actually threatens very few nests.
Lightning-season burning also may improve adult survival during the late-winter period (February to April). In a study conducted by Tall Timbers Research Station and supported by the Power of Flight Bird Conservation Program, quail were monitored on Arcadia Plantation (GA) where the acreage of
Figure 6. Northern Bobwhite on the wing.
Figure 7. Study area and month of burn for Power of Flight re-search project.
Shane Wellendorf
Shane Wellendorf
8
Potential benefits include (1) improved habitat conditions in subsequent breeding seasons and (2) improved brood-rearing habitat. More research is needed.
habitat burned early versus late in the season varied over two years. In 2006, approximately 75% of the 700-acre study area was burned by mid April. In the following year, 75% of the area was burned again, but a 200-acre block was not burned until June (Fig. 7). It should be noted that the study area was dominated by native ground cover that burns readily during summer months.
Adult survival was higher in 2007 when the burning was spread out among many months, March to June, instead of burning only during March and April (Fig. 8). March is a time when migratory hawks are abundant, and extensive burning within a three-to-four week period in March may expose quail to these and other predators. In contrast, by extending burns over a broader window of time, more cover is provided because burns conducted later in the year take place after the vegetation burned early in the year has recovered. In addition, vegetation recovery following an early season burn takes place slowly in comparison to recovery from a burn conducted later in the year, so exposure to predators follow-ing a dormant-season burn extends over a longer time period. Large-scale burning at one time can be detrimental to bob-white populations, and populations benefit when burns are extended over several months rather than burning as much as possible within a few weeks. Again, these recommendations
Figure 8. Survival recorded for Northern Bobwhites under differ-ent burn regimes in 2006 and 2007.
“The use of prescribed fire during the growing season is a win-win situation for wild turkeys,” according to Dr. James Earl Kennamer, National Wild Turkey Federation senior vice president for conservation programs. “I hope this will ease the minds of turkey hunters the next time they smell the smoke of a growing-season fire.”
apply primarily to areas where the flammability of ground cover has not been altered by past land management or fire suppression. It is difficult to burn some altered lands outside a narrow window early in the year, and fires must be applied to these areas when the fires will be most successful.
Quail also re-nest readily unless burns are conducted very late in the season, and lightning-season burning may pro-vide additional benefits during re-nesting and brood rearing. Burning at different times of the year provides diversified patterns of plant growth and seed and insect abundances and also exposes seeds on the forest floor. Grasshoppers and other insects increase significantly following lightning-season burn-ing (Provencher et al. 1998), and lightning-season burns may provide a greater abundance of insects throughout brood-rearing months in comparison to fires set early in the season (Brennan et al. 1995, 1997).
Wild Turkey
Wild Turkeys are not as tightly linked to southern pine forests as many of the other species treated here, but wild turkeys ben-efit from lightning-season burning if the burns help to achieve consistent two-to-three-year fire frequencies on managed areas. Wild Turkeys prefer to forage in southern pinelands burned within the past two years (Palmer and Hurst 1998, Sisson et al. 1990, Juhan 2003), and maintaining a two-to-three-year fire frequency may be easier to accomplish when some acreage is burned in May and early June in addition to the acreage burned earlier in the year.
Lightning-season fires applied to areas that have not been burned recently also are not likely to threaten many nests. Sisson et al. (1990) found that 62% of all nests occurred in mature pine forests that had been burned within the past two years. Moore et al. (2005) monitored 22 hens in areas subject-ed to lightning-season fires and found only 2 nests destroyed by the burns, and one of these hens re-nested. Similarly, for 64 turkey nests monitored in Mississippi (National Wild Tur-
9
Lightning-season fires are beneficial to this declining species. Nuthatches nest early each year, and dormant-season burns destroy scores of nests. Dormant-season burns also may lead to lower adult survival.
Potential benefits include (1) improved habitat conditions through better midstory hardwood control and (2) potentially improved foraging conditions through increases in favored prey items. More research is needed.
Figure 9. Red-cockaded Woodpecker at cavity entrance.
Todd Engstrom
2002, Hess et al. 1998). James et al. (1997) also suggested fire frequency and season might influence essential nutrients (such as calcium) that are important during the nesting season because clutch size increased in the year following burns in their study. Studies suggesting improved food resources also are consistent with data showing that some of the smallest home ranges observed for this endangered species come from an old-growth forest where roughly 50% of the acreage was burned each year during the lightning season (Engstrom and Sanders 1997).
Brown-headed Nuthatch
Lightning-season fires are decidedly beneficial to Brown-headed Nuthatches (Fig. 10) when compared to prescribed fires conducted early in the calendar year. The nuthatch breeding season commences in early March when ambient temperatures generally are cool. Nuthatches excavate nest-ing cavities in dead trees close to the ground (Fig. 10), and dormant-season burns set in March may destroy scores of nests, while lightning-season burns occur well after most nest-ing is completed.
key Federation 2006), only four were located in areas sched-uled to be burned and only two nests were actually destroyed by lightning-season fires. Allen et al. (1996) also found that areas not burned within the past two years were almost en-tirely avoided by hens.
Lightning-season burns also may improve brood-rearing habitats by diversifying plant growth and seed and insect abundances (Provencher et al. 1998). The average number of insects on sites treated with lightning-season fires exhibits a sharp increase in the first year after burning (Hardy 2003). Jones (2001) suggested the availability of good brood-rearing habitat might limit turkey populations on large, unbroken expanses of mature pine forest, and the grasses and forbs favored by lightning-season burns could lead to higher insect abundances for poults. Native legumes important to Wild Turkey also are promoted by lightning-season burning, and Komarek (1969) noted that Wild Turkeys frequently foraged in areas soon after prescribed burns were conducted. Sisson and Speake (1994), on the other hand, found little benefit in terms of food resources when lightning-season fires were ap-plied to small (10-acre) plots.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Lightning-season burning is considered integral to restor-ing habitat for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (Fig. 9; Titus 2006, Walters 1997). Hardwood encroachment has become a problem on many areas where prescribed fire has not been applied at two-to-three frequencies (Conner et al. 1996, Rudolph et al. 2002, Titus 2006). If hardwood trees reach the height of woodpecker cavities, woodpeckers may abandon territories. Hardwood encroachment also has been linked to changes in foraging behavior (Rudolph et al. 2002) and may lead to increases in nest-site competitors (Conner et al. 1996). Lightning-season burning improves the control of hardwood mid-story and brush, while dormant-season burning encour-ages re-sprouting of top-killed hardwood saplings in native plant communities.
Some research suggests lightning-season fires also may im-prove food resources for this endangered species. Arthropods typically consumed by Red-cockaded Woodpeckers disperse from the ground cover into the canopy (Hanula and Franzeb 1998), and prey biomass improves with the increased herba-ceous and grass vegetation and decreased hardwood midstory vegetation created by lightning-season burning (Collins et al.
10
Bachman’s Sparrow prefers areas burned recently (within past three years), so lightning-season fires applied to long unburned areas disturb only a small percentage of the nests initiated. The nesting season also spans many months (late March to August), and re-nesting is common when nesting is disrupted by fire. Potential benefits include (1) improved wintering and (2) improved nesting habitat after burns are conducted.
many preferred food items, especially grasshoppers (Yosef 1996), increased by more than 90% when lightning-season burns were conducted in longleaf pine forests. Shrikes also require open ground-cover conditions for successful foraging and use recently burned sites extensively (Komarek 1969). Lightning-season burning may improve foraging conditions by reducing woody shrubs, though Hands et al. (1989) warn that high-frequency burning also can eliminate shrubs used as foraging perches.
Bachman’s Sparrow
Bachman’s Sparrow, an endemic songbird (Fig. 11), figures prominently in the debate about lightning-season burning be-cause it is declining in portions of its range and, much like quail and Wild Turkey, forages and nests (Fig. 12) exclusively on the ground (Dunning 1993). Although these traits would appear to make this species susceptible to lightning-season burning, Bachman’s Sparrow appears to be well adapted to life in a fire-dependent ecosystem.
In recent research sponsored by the Southern Company and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the Power of Flight initiative in partnership with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Georgia Depart-ment of Natural Resources, over 250 Bachman’s Sparrows
Figure 11. Bachman’s Sparrow.
Lightning-season fires may be beneficial because they (1) do not occur in the primary nesting season, (2) improve prey availability, and (3) reduce woody vegetation that hinders foraging. More research is needed.
Long-term studies conducted at Tall Timbers Research Station suggest the loss of early nests can be detrimental to the health of nuthatch populations. The nesting cycle requires more than a month to complete (Withgott and Smith 1990), and female nuthatches incubate eggs and brood young almost exclusively during early stages. The low nests constructed by nuthatches are susceptible to predatory snakes. If an early nest is lost to a dormant-season burn, nuthatches re-nest later in spring when predatory snakes have emerged from hibernation thanks to warmer ambient temperatures. Incubating females are regularly killed by snakes (Cox and Slater 2007), and higher female mortality will harm nuthatch populations more than the small percentage of nests that might be lost to lightning-season burns.
Loggerhead Shrike
Loggerhead Shrike is one of the first species to disappear when fire is not used frequently in southern pine forests (Eng-strom et al. 1984). Lightning-season burns will be beneficial if they help land managers achieve appropriate burn frequencies (ca. two- to three-year return intervals). In addition, much like the Brown-headed Nuthatch, Loggerhead Shrikes nest early in the calendar year (in February in some areas; Yosef 1996), and nests located in shrubs may be destroyed by dormant-season burns.
Low reproductive success has been implicated in popula-tion declines in some areas and may be linked to food short-ages (Gawlik 1988). Provencher et al. (1998) found that
Figure 10. Brown-headed Nuthatch at a nest.
Loggerhead Shrike
Jim C
ox
Ross McG
regor
11
Figure 14. Henslow’s Sparrow.
Henslow’s Sparrows spend the winter in southern pinelands, so dormant-season fires eliminate wintering habitat and can be more detrimental than lightning-season fires. Additional potential benefits of lightning-season fires included (1) improved winter habitat and (2) higher winter survival rates.
takes place following lightning-season burns could improve winter food resources in combination with the documented increases in insect abundances (Provencher et al. 1998) that take place following lightning-season burning. A combination of lightning-season and dormant-season burning also could provide a larger quantity of preferred nesting habitat the fol-lowing breeding season, so positives associated with lightning-season burning can outweigh negatives when measured over several years.
Henslow’s Sparrow
Henslow’s Sparrows (Fig. 14) spend the winter in southern pinewoods but breed in grasslands well to the north (Fig. 15). Wintering Henslow’s Sparrows typically arrive in late Sep-tember and occupy wintering grounds until late March and early April. Early season (February and March) prescribed burns eliminate the winter ground cover needed by this spe-cies (McNair 1998). Because vegetation recovers slowly fol-lowing dormant-season burns, early season burns essentially eliminate wintering habitat for Henslow’s Sparrows, while lightning-season burns affect areas after Henslow’s Sparrows have returned north.
Lightning-season fires also may provide better winter habitat conditions. Thatcher et al. (2006) found that winter survival for Henslow’s Sparrow was better in areas burned within the previous 12 months. They also found evidence of higher winter survival and higher winter abundances in sites burned during the previous lightning-season. These results may stem from increased food resources and/or improved vegetation structure at ground level.
were individually marked and followed for five years on a 400-acre site (Cox and Jones 2007). Half the site received a lightning-season burn during each year of study and half was not burned. Sparrows did not abandon territories on areas that were burned any more frequently than sparrows hold-ing territories on unburned areas. Several re-nesting attempts also were documented during an extensive nesting season that spanned six months (from late March through early Septem-ber). Burns conducted in May allowed time for initial nests to fledge but also allowed sufficient time afterwards for re-nest-ing attempts to be completed.
Most (>85%) nests located during this study were con-structed in areas burned the previous growing season, not the three-year rough often treated with a lightning-season burn. Lightning-season burns also appeared to improve winter habitat conditions because winter sparrow counts were con-sistently higher in areas burned the previous growing season (Fig. 13). The prolific flowering of forbs and grasses that
Figure 13. Average winter sparrow counts on Power of Flight study area.
Figure 12. Bachman’s Sparrow nest with four eggs. Jim Cox
Ross McG
regor
12
burned area and took place quickly for some species. Three days after the burn, several nests of the Common Night-hawk were discovered. Seven days after the burn, a Northern Cardinal was found incubating five eggs. Twelve days later, a Blue Grosbeak was observed incubating four eggs in another leafless shrub. Re-nesting is common when lightning-season burning is conducted early in the year (e.g., by early June), and loss of early nests to fire can be offset by improved adult survival or improved nesting success after a fire. Engstrom et al. (1996) also compared the effects of lightning-season versus dormant-season burning on bird communities in longleaf for-ests. A total of 73 species was observed, and avian communi-ties on lightning-season burns were indistinguishable from the communities associated with dormant-season burns. In other field studies in Florida and North Carolina, no differences in songbird numbers have been observed when comparing plots burned during the dormant-season with plots burned during the lightning-season (Brennan et al. 1998).
Although movements of individual birds were not fol-lowed in the studies mentioned above, research conducted elsewhere suggests that species that nest above the ground often remain on burned sites despite the dramatic changes brought about by fire (Bendell 1974). Emlen (1970) found little immediate effect of burns conducted in South Florida. He concluded that attachments to home ranges and familiar foraging areas transcended the changes in habitat brought about by fire.
As suggested for several species discussed in the previous section, improvements in habitat created by lightning-season burning may improve nesting success in the subsequent breeding season. Raftovich (1998) compared nesting success for six shrub- and ground-nesting songbirds associated with (1) a one-year-old, lightning-season burn and (2) a one-year-
old, dormant-season burn. The season of burning had no effect on the nesting success of four species, but for two species (Yellow-breasted Chat and Northern Cardinal), nesting success was better on areas burned during the lightning season.
There are also other potential benefits that have not been thoroughly investigated. Prescribed fires recycle nutri-ents (James et al. 1997) whose availability may improve the physiological conditions needed for nesting. Frequent use of prescribed fire also may influence the predator communities associated with southern pine forests (Jones et al. 2004). Populations of some nest predators (e.g., raccoons and gray rat snakes) have been shown to change in relation to the use of prescribed fire (Jones et al. 2004) and also in relation to the changes in vegetation structure and composition that take place with frequent burning.
Impacts to Other Breeding BirdsTen additional pineland species are considered Species of Management Concern by one or more state wildlife agencies in the southeastern U.S. (Table 1). Although these species are not considered here at length, lightning-season fires can be beneficial to many of these species in a manner similar to that discussed above for other species. In addition, species such as American Kestrel, Swallow-tailed Kite, Red-headed Woodpecker, Common Nighthawk, and Eastern Wood Peewee have been shown to be attracted to sites as they are burned (Komarek 1969).
In 2005, researchers at Tall Timbers Research Station monitored breeding birds before and after a lightning-season prescribed burn was conducted in mid June. Counts of shrub and ground-nesting birds declined dramatically after the burn, as expected, but also returned to pre-burn levels within six weeks (Fig. 16). Re-nesting was common within the
Figure 15. Distribution map for Henslow’s Sparrow
Figure 16. Return of ground-foraging species in comparison to spe-cies that use the mid-story and canopy.
13
ConclusionsBirds associated with southern pinelands have faced the benefits and perils of fire for eons. If lightning-season fires were as common historically as data suggest (Huffman 2006), pineland birds could survive only if they developed methods for adjusting to the temporary set-backs created by fire.
The most direct impact of lightning-season burning typi-cally is loss of a nest, but recent studies suggest the number of nests potentially affected by lightning-season burning is smaller than many believe. Among the studies considered here, lightning-season fires destroyed less than 10% of the nests of ground-nesting species that were monitored. Loss of a nest to fire also is similar to the losses created by predators and bad weather, and few long-term consequences are likely to occur for nesting birds when lightning-season burns are incorporated into a comprehensive burn program on large managed areas. Many benefits also can be shown that include improved breeding habitats in subsequent years, increases in fall food availability, potential improvements to adult and ju-venile survival, and decreases in woody shrubs, saw palmetto, and ground-level clutter.
In addition, declining birds that are associated with southern pinelands are heavily dependent on prescribed fire for their continued existence. Northern Bobwhite, Bachman’s Sparrow, and Loggerhead Shrike disappear if fire is suppressed for three or more years (Engstrom et al. 1984), and the steep population declines these animals are experiencing on many public lands are directly linked to the absence of prescribed fire (Brennan et al. 1997). To halt these declines, the applica-
tion of prescribed fire must increase on conservation lands. The lightning season may not be the primary season in which most of this acreage is treated, but chances of achieving ap-propriate fire intervals of one to three years are greatly im-
proved if the season of burning is expanded beyond a six-week period from March to early April.
Finally, southern pinelands are part of a complex of fire-maintained communities that are highly imperiled within United States (Noss et al. 1995). Scores of other species bene-fit from increased burning, while fire exclusion and infrequent fire frequencies both lead to degraded conditions that can be difficult to restore. Maintaining a three-year fire interval for a 20,000-acre tract requires burning approximately 7,000 acres each year. To meet this need, we must be ready to apply fire at varied seasons with an emphasis on late spring and early summer at scales that are both practical and also based on the long-term ecological needs of pineland species.
RecommendationsFirst and foremost, it is important to remember that compli-ance with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances relating to open air burning, including air quality regulations, is critical. It is advisable to contact the local state forestry agency and environmental health department for more information on prescribed burning and air quality regu-lations, permit applicability, and any required notifications to adjacent landowners. This is necessary from a legal regula-tory standpoint, but it is also very important as a courtesy to neighboring landowners and land managers.
Burning conducted in mid to late May provides many of the desired effects (e.g., hardwood control and improved grass and forb response) while also allowing sufficient time for many species (e.g., Bachman’s Sparrows) to complete initial nests or to re-nest afterwards. Early May burns also avoid peak nesting times for Northern Bobwhite, and late-season cold weather fronts that occur regularly in May can bring the predictable weather conditions that many like to have for burning.
Caution is needed when attempting to introduce light-ning-season burning to areas not burned regularly. Lightning-season burns can kill over-story pines under heavy fuel loads and may compromise other restoration objectives. Lightning-season burning during periods of prolonged droughts also poses a similar threat to over-story pines. To gain experi-ence with the potential impacts, it may be best to introduce lightning-season burns initially on sites with one- or two-year roughs rather than three-year or older roughs. Sites with a his-tory of fire-exclusion should be treated with dormant-season, fuel-reduction burns for several intervals before lightning-season burns are attempted.
In habitat types altered by past land management or fire suppression, the reduced flammability of fuels also can be a barrier to burning during the lightning-season. Old-field pinelands and recently-thinned pine plantations in upland areas are often dominated by forbs and non-flammable hardwood species instead of grasses, making them difficult to burn well under conditions of high humidity (Robertson and Ostertag 2007). Also, fire-excluded upland areas dominated by hardwood trees and broadleaf litter may not burn well in the late spring and summer months. Management practices to reduce hardwood density and shift the dominance to grasses may be necessary before such areas will burn in the lightning-season. Otherwise, fires should be lit when they have the greatest chance of success, given that maintaining a high fire frequency (one-to-three year interval) is the most important goal for providing appropriate habitat conditions for many declining pineland birds.
Rose Rodriguez
14
Literature CitationsAllen, A.W., Y.K. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine
plantations and wildlife in the southeastern United States: an assessment of impacts and opportunities. Informa-tion and Technology Report 3, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Bendell, J.F. 1974. Effects of fire on birds and mammals. In: Kozlowski, T.T. and C.E. Ahlegren (Eds.). Fire and Eco-systems. Academic Press, Inc., New York, New York.
Brenan, L.A., J. M. Lee, and S. Wellendorf. 1995. The new bobwhite initiative at Tall Timbers: first-year progress re-port. Pages 21-28 in L.A. Brennan, K.C. Gainey, and T.L. Pruden (Eds.). Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Game Bird Seminar. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
Brennan, L.A., J.M. Lee, E. Staller, S. Wellendorf, and R.S. Fuller. 1997. Effects of seasonal fire applications on bobwhite brood habitat and hunting success. Quail IV: Fourth National Quail Symposium. Program Abstract. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL
Brennan, L., R.T. Engstrom, W.E. Palmer, S.M. Hermann, G.A. Hurst, L W. Burger, and C.L. Hardy. 1998. Whither wildlife without fire? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 63: 402-414.
Brunjes, J.H. 1998. The effects of prescribed winter burning on avian communities in mature pine habitats. M. Sc. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Carver, A.V., L.W. Burger, and L.A. Brennan. 1997. Bob-white brood ecology in relation to fallow field manage-ment techniques and prescribed fire regime. Quail IV: Fourth National Quail Symp. Program Abstract.
Collins, C.S., R.N. Conner, and D. Saenz. 2002. Influence of hardwood midstory and pine species on pine bole arthro-pods. Forest Ecology and Management 164:211-220.
Conner, R N., D.C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, and R.R. Schaefer. 1996. Red-cockaded Woodpecker nesting success, forest structure, and southern flying squirrels in Texas. Wilson Bulletin 108:697-711.
Cox, J. and C. Jones. 2007. Home range and survival char-acteristics of male Bachman’s Sparrows in an old-growth forest managed with breeding season burns. Journal of Field Ornithology 78:263–269.
Cox, J., and G. Slater. 2007. Cooperative breeding in the Brown-headed Nuthatch. The Wilson Journal of Orni-thology 119:1-8.
Freeman, D.L. 2004. Lightning-ignited wildfire occurrences in a central-Florida landscape managed with prescribed fire. M. Sc. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Dunning, J.B. 1993. Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestiva-lis). Birds of North America. No. 38.
Emlen, J.T. 1970. Habitat selection by birds following a forest fire. Ecology 51:343-345.
Engstrom, R. T. 1993. Characteristic mammals and birds of longleaf pine forests. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Confer-ence 18:127-138.
Engstrom, R.T. and F. Sanders. 1997. Red-cockaded Wood-pecker foraging ecology in an old-growth longleaf pine forest. Wilson Bulletin 109:203-217.
Engstrom. R.T., R. Crawford, and W. Baker. 1984. Breeding bird populations in relation to changing forest structure following fire exclusion: a 15-year study. Wilson Bulletin 96:437-450.
Engstrom, R.T., D.B. McNair, L.A. Brennan, C.L. Hardy and L.W. Burger. 1996. Influence on birds of dormant versus lightning-season prescribed fire in longleaf pine forests: experimental design and preliminary results. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 61:200-207.
Gawlik, D. 1988. Reproductive success and nesting habitat of Loggerhead Shrikes and relative abundance, habitat use, and perch use of Loggerhead Shrikes and American Kes-trels in South Carolina. M. Sc. thesis, Winthrop College, Rock Hill, SC.
Glitzenstein, J.S., W.J. Platt, and D.R. Streng. 1995. Effects of fire regime and habitat on tree dynamics in north Florida longleaf pine savannas. Ecological Monographs 65:441-476.
Hands, H.M., R.D. Drobney, and M.R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the Loggerhead Shrike in the north central United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Columbia, Missouri. 15 pages.
Hardy, C. 2003. Flora and fauna community response to seasonal prescribed fire treatments in longleaf pine forests of the North Carolina sandhills. Ph. D. dissertation, Mis-sissippi State University, Starkville, MS.
Hanula, J.L. and K. Franzreb 1998. Source, distribution, and abundance of macroarthropods on the bark of longleaf pine: potential prey of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Forest Ecology and Management 102: 89-102.
Hermann, S., T.V. Hook, R.W. Flowes, L.A. Brennan, J.S. Glitzenstein, D.R. Streng, J.L. Walker, and R.L. Myers. 1998. Fire and biodiversity: studies of vegetation and arthropods. Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 63:384-401.
Huffman, J. 2006. Historical fire regimes in southeastern pine savannas. Ph. D. Dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
15
Hess, C.A. and F.C. James. 1998. Diet of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the Apalachicola National Forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 509-517.
James, F.C., C.A. Hess, and D. Kufrin. 1997. Species-cen-tered environmental analysis: indirect effects of fire his-tory on Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. Ecological Applica-tions 7:118-129.
Jones, B.C. 2001. Wild Turkey reproductive ecology on a fire-maintained national forest in Mississippi. M. Sc. thesis, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.
Jones, D.D., L.M. Conner, T.H. Storey, and R.J. Warren. 2004. Prescribed fire and raccoon use of longleaf pine for-ests: implications for managing nest predation? Wildlife Society Bulletin 2004, 32:1255-1259.
Juhan, S.M. 2003. Influences of forest cover type and struc-ture on seasonal and daily habitat use of Wild Turkeys in southern Georgia. M. Sc. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Komarek, E.V. 1964. The natural history of lightning. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 3: 139-148.
Komarek, E.V., Sr. 1969. Fire and animal behavior. Tall Tim-bers Fire Ecology Conference 9: 161-207.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2006. Wild Turkey poult production survey. On-line version: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/hunting/programs/turkey/poultsurvey2005final.pdf
Main, M.B. and L.W. Richardson. 2002. Response of wildlife to prescribed fire in southwest Florida pine flatwoods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:213-221.
McNair, D.B. 1998. Response of Henslow’s Sparrows and Sedge Wrens to a dormant-season prescribed fire. Florida Field Naturalist 26:46-47
Moore, W.F., J.C. Kilgo, W.D. Carlisle, and M B. Caudell. 2005. Chapter 6. Wild Turkey. Pages 359-366 in Kilgo, J.C. and J.I. Blake (Eds.). Ecology and management of a forested landscape. Island Press, Washington, DC.
National Wild Turkey Federation. 2006. Spring fire is good for wild turkeys. On-line version: http://www.nwtf.org/nwtf_newsroom/press_releases.php?id=11901
Noss, R., E. LaRoe and J. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystem of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C
Palmer, W.E. and G.A. Hurst. 1998. Prescribed burning effects on Wild Turkey hens during preincubation. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 20:102-106
Provencher, L., N.M Gobris, H.L. Rodgers, D.R. Gordon and J.P McAdoo. 1998. Scientific coordination and adap-tive management and experimental restoration of longleaf pine community structure, function, and composition.
Annual Report 3 (Dec 97-30 Mar 98). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Raftovich, R.V., Jr. 1998. Effects of management for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on avian communities in mature pine stands in the Georgia Piedmot. M.Sc. thesis, Univer-sity of Georgia, Athens. 76 pp.
Robertson, K.M. and T.E. Ostertag. 2006. Effects of land use on fuel characteristics and fire behavior in pinelands of southwest Georgia. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings 23:181-191.
Rudolph, D.C., R.N. Conner, and R.R. Schaefer. 2002. Red-cockaded Woodpecker foraging behavior in relation to midstory vegetation. Wilson Bulletin 114:235-242
Sisson, D.C. and D.W. Speake. 1994. Spring burning for Wild Turkey brood habitat: an evaluation. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 48: 134-139.
Sisson, D.C., D.W. Speake, J.L. Landers, and J.L. Buckner. 1990. Effects of prescribed burning on Wild Turkey habi-tat preference and nest site selection in south Georgia. National Wild Turkey Symposium 6:44-50.
South Carolina DNR. 2006. Growing season burns a natural process in South Carolina. On-line version: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/news/Yr2006/may08/may8_burns.html
Stoddard, H. L. 1931. The Bobwhite Quail: Its Habits, Pres-ervation and Increase. Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Thatcher, B.S., D.G. Krementz, and M.S. Woodrey. 2006. Henslow’s Sparrow winter-survival estimates and response to prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:198–206.
Titus, G. 2006. Draft ecological assessment. Apalachicola FY 2007-2011 prescribed burning. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL.
Tucker, J.W., Jr., W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2004. In-fluence of fire on Bachman’s Sparrow, an endemic North American songbird. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1114-1123
Tyler, R. 2006. Burning method used by Forest Service devas-tates wildlife. On-line version: http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2006/faxback/3027_Burning.htm
Walters, J.R. 1997. Population and management studies of Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Croatan National For-est, 1988-1997. Project Final Report. National Forests of North Carolina, Ashville, NC.
Withgott, J.H. and K.G. Smith. 1998. Brown-headed Nut-hatch (Sitta pusilla). The Birds of North America. No. 349.
Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanus ludovicianus). The Birds of North America. No. 231.
AcknowledgmentsSupport for this project was provided by the Power of Flight Bird Conservation Program. We thank the Southern Company and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for establishing this important program dedicated to conserving southern birds and their habitats. We also thank Leslie Montgomery (Southern Company) and Erin Gibbs, Suzanne Sessine, Mike Slattery, Peter Stangel, and Amelia Wegner (National Fish and Wildlife Foundation) for their timely reviews and administrative help at several points in the process. We appreciate the opportunity provided by Jep and Paddy Wade to study birds on Arcadia Plantation. We also appreciate comments provided by Clark Jones, Carolyn Kindell, Nathan Klaus, James Martin, Ron Masters, Karl Miller, Bill Palmer, Kevin Robertson, Eric Spadgenske, Phil Spivey, Jonathan Stober, and Shane Wellendorf on early drafts. Finally, thanks to Rose Rodriguez for help with layout and production.
Guidelines for Creating and Managing Wildlife Openings in Pine Plantations
Scotland Talley, Wildlife Biologist
Habitat Conservation Scientific Services Division of Habitat and Species Conservation
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Always keep in mind that openings are just a supplement to well managed forest
habitat and should never be considered the primary resource for wildlife. Openings are an opportunity to increase diversity in the landscape, a source of supplemental nutrition, and an attractant to increase harvest or improve viewing opportunities. Food plots cannot substitute for poor quality habitat in an unmanaged forest.
Size, Shape and Location
When developing a plan for wildlife openings the targeted species determines the size, shape and location. Openings for deer and turkey should be no less than 1 acre in size, while openings for bobwhite quail ¼ to 1 acre in size are perfectly adequate. Fields planted for doves should be a minimum of 3-5 acres in size, or larger depending on the number of hunters. On forested properties with no agriculture at least 5% of the acreage should be maintained in openings, 10% if the stands have a high basal area and dense canopy.
Openings should maximize the amount of edge created. Long, linear openings with irregular shapes are more effective than large square or round fields. Wildlife tends to avoid large open areas and tends to stay close to cover. If a log ramp or other existing opening is to be managed leaving brush piles or clumps of shrubs in the opening can create more edges and break up sight lines. Utility right-of-ways are good locations for managing vegetation, but require coordination with the utility company to avoid conflicts. Full sunlight for at least 6 hours per day is desirable for maximizing the productivity of openings. In mature stands with trees 50+ feet in height the orientation of the opening is important. Openings that are oriented on an east-west axis can be narrower since they will receive more sunlight. A width of 30-50 ft. should be sufficient for an east-west opening, while a north-south oriented opening would require 75-100 ft. in width. Openings that will be managed for native vegetation can be narrower than openings that are planted to agronomic species. For bobwhite quail “ring-a-round” openings can be created around large hardwood trees or clumps of hardwoods. These openings should be created outside the dripline of the hardwoods and serve as firebreak to protect them from prescribed burns. These openings can also be managed for native vegetation or agronomic species, and shrubby vegetation can be managed inside the ring. These openings will provide hard and soft mast, seeds and excellent cover.
Openings should be well distributed across the property and away from public
roads or property boundaries where they might be attractive to poachers. Avoid slopes or areas with poor soils. Openings that are located along changes in habitat are very beneficial to wildlife. For example, an opening placed along the transition between pine
plantation and hardwood drain will create a space where three habitat types are in close proximity. Openings placed near bedding or roosting areas and thick escape cover are also beneficial. On properties where water is scarce openings should be close to a water source.
Openings can be managed for native vegetation or agronomic species. The type of vegetation managed depends on the primary species of interest, the acceptable costs, and the level of supplemental nutrition required for meeting your objectives.
Managing Native Vegetation in Openings
Managing native vegetation is the least costly and time-consuming option. If the
area is forested there is a high initial cost associated with clearing the trees, but using log ramps or temporary harvest roads or skid trails can reduce this cost. Stumps should be cleared if possible to allow manipulation of the soil to maintain the opening. If stumps are not cleared then the opening can be maintained by burning and/or mowing for several years, then disking can be begin after the stumps have rotted sufficiently.
Disking at different times of year and different frequencies will favor different
plant communities and structure. Similarly, burning can be used to affect the structure and composition of the plant community. As a general rule, disking in the late fall and winter favor legumes and seed producing herbaceous plants such as ragweed and beggarweeds, while spring and summer disking and burning tend to favor a grass dominated community. On land that has been in agricultural production prior to reforestation spring and summer disking can result in stands dominated by undesirable weeds such as coffeeweed, wild radish, and rattlebox. Disking annually or biannually will maintain a community of annual forbs and legumes while disking less frequently will promote a community that includes grasses, woody shrubs, and blackberry.
Larger openings provide an opportunity to create diversity by dividing them into
strips or blocks that receive treatments in rotation. By disking or burning one-half or one-third of an opening each year several different types of habitat are available. Including a border around the opening that is allowed to grow up into shrubby cover that is mown, disked, or burned every 4-5 years can enhance this diversity. In smaller openings it may be impractical to divide them into strips, but a rotation of treatments on smaller openings around the property can provide diversity in the landscape.
Managing openings for natural vegetation has several advantages. The cost is
lower, and native vegetation is adapted to the site and climactic conditions. The diversity of forages produced ensures that something is available year round for wildlife. The volume and palatability of forage may not equal the production of a food plot planted to agronomic species, but improvements can be made by applying fertilizer.
Managing Agronomic Species in Openings
Planting wildlife openings to agronomic species is a popular option, but is more costly and requires a significantly greater investment of time. Unsuccessful plantings
are usually the result of poor planning or “cutting corners”. These plantings are essentially agricultural crops and therefore require the same degree of planning and care as a crop planted for market. The payoff for proper planning and care is a large quantity of highly palatable and nutritious forage. The first step is determining what crops are to be managed in each opening (Table 1). Larger openings can be divided into strips and planted to several different crops. Some openings can be planted to reseeding annuals or perennials, which will reduce the intensity of management. Ideally a planting schedule will ensure that across the property some of the wildlife openings are producing quality forage throughout the year.
For example, a planting schedule for annuals might be strips of grain sorghum (milo) and browntop millet planted in spring/summer followed by a fall planting of a rye/wheat mixture in fall over the browntop millet strips. Food is provided through summer/fall and early winter by the millet and grain sorghum and the rye/wheat mixture provides forage in late winter through spring. A planting of reseeding annuals or perennials might consist of deer vetch (Aeschynomene), perennial peanut, or clovers. Selecting the best species depends on the soils and moisture available on the site. The deer vetch and perennial peanut are warm season forages and clovers will provide winter and spring forage. This type of planting will require a light disking in the fall to promote reseeding and should not need replanting for 3-5 years. Another strategy is planting a reseeding annual such as clover and over-planting with an annual such as iron clay pea in summer or wheat in the fall.
After determining what will be planted a soil test should be obtained for each opening. Your County Extension agent can provide you instructions on collecting soil samples. The test will provide liming and fertilization requirements for the crops you intend to plant. Liming should be carried out as soon as possible because the effect of lime on soil chemistry requires 2-3 months to develop. Fertilization requirements will be reported for the three major nutrients: Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), and Potassium (K). Fertilizer is sold in various mixes of these three nutrients. The mix is identified on the label in percent by weight in the order N-P-K, thus a 50 lb. bag of 10-10-10 contains 5 lb. of each nutrient in 35 lb. of inert material. Fertilizer should be applied just prior to planting at the rate recommended by the soil test. If the Nitrogen (N) requirement is very high (> 100 lb./ac.) applications should be made, half at planting and the other half at 6-8 weeks after germination.
Your County Extension agent can provide information on the best local varieties
to plant, planting dates, and recommended planting rate. If planting legumes the proper inoculants must be applied to the seed prior to planting. Crops should be monitored for any sign of insect activity after planting. If caught early a light application of pesticide can be effective and prevent loss. For reseeding annuals or perennials a selective herbicide treatment may be necessary to control competition and ensure good establishment.
Keeping records and experimenting with different planting strategies is the best way to determine what will give you the best results. Soils, climate, aspect, wildlife population density and many other variables will influence your openings.
Other Considerations If you are planting for white-tailed deer using exclusion cages to protect a small area will allow you to determine what impact deer are having on your planting. A 10-foot piece of welded wire fencing will make a 3-foot diameter cage that can be staked down in your opening. Roll the fencing into a cylinder and stake it down securely in your food plot. This will give you an easy visual assessment of the utilization of your planting. You may find that the peas germinated just fine, but your deer hammered them before they could become established. If you are managing your openings for birds you should not use insecticides in spring because hens and poults are feeding heavily on insects at that time of year. Mowing or disking strips in fall and winter will make seed more readily available for quail and dove, but some cover strips should be left standing. Always make sure there is a brush pile or some weedy thickets nearby so quail and turkey poults can escape avian predators. Another feature that can be added to an opening is planting edges with fruit producing shrubs and small trees. Native plums, crabapple, blueberries, pears and other species will provide excellent food and cover further enhancing the wildlife opening. These can be planted or you can take advantage of existing blackberries, dogwoods, etc. by protecting them from fire or mechanical disturbance. Hedgerows of blackberries, blueberries, plums and other shrubs should be cut back periodically (4-7 years) to encourage new growth that will produce more fruit. No more than ½ of the hedgerow should be cut back in a given year. Experiment and keep records to ensure that you’re getting the most out of your efforts. Most importantly take time to sit a few evenings and enjoy watching visitors to your wildlife garden. After all that’s the best reward!
SS-FOR-13
Longleaf Pine Regeneration1
Chris Demers, Alan Long, and Patrick Minogue2
1. This document is SS-FOR-13, one of a series of the School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date January 2000. Revised November 2010 and January 2017. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
2. Chris Demers, forest stewardship coordinator; Alan Long, former professor, Forest Operations and Environmental Regulations; and Patrick Minogue, associate professor, silviculture, North Florida Research and Education Center; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.
The use of specific trade names in this publicaiton does not constitute endorsement of these products in preference to others containing the same active ingredients. Mention of a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warrranty of the product by the authors or the publisher.
All chemicals should be used in accordance with directions on the manufacturer’s label.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county’s UF/IFAS Extension office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension.
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) has many favorable charac-teristics for landowners who have long-term, multiple-use resource management objectives. Of all the southern pine species, longleaf pine is the most insect-, disease-, and fire-resistant and has the greatest longevity. When burned regularly, longleaf pine forests develop a stable grass savan-nah ecosystem, providing ideal habitat for many plants and animals.
Longleaf pine is a pioneer species on a variety of sites but is intolerant of competition and flooding during its grass stage, when it appears like a clump of grass. Historically, fire and moisture have been the principal factors controlling longleaf distribution within its natural range. In the lower Coastal Plain longleaf grows on sandy, well-drained to excessively well-drained soils where loblolly or slash pine perform more poorly. Fire removes competing vegetation, exposing the bare soil necessary for successful seedling establishment. In the historic fire-dominated longleaf pine grass savannah ecosystem, relatively stable plant com-munities are characterized by an overstory of uneven-aged, widely spaced longleaf pines and fire-tolerant oaks such as bluejack oak (Quercus incana) and turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and a predominate ground cover of bunch grasses such as wiregrass (Aristida stricta) and bluestems (Andro-pogon spp.) which facilitate ignition and spread of periodic
fires (Landers 1991). It is interesting to note that, despite this tree’s performance on high, dry ground, its Latin name means “swamp pine.” It does grow sparsely in wet areas as well.
Artificial RegenerationOptions for artificial regeneration include planting of bareroot or containerized seedlings or direct seeding. Control of pine stocking (density) is best when seedlings are planted and container-grown seedlings generally provide the best survival rate. However, direct seeding may be a viable option for some situations, such as regenerating relatively small areas.
Site PreparationLongleaf pine is very intolerant of shade and is difficult to regenerate successfully without vegetation control. Vegetative competition around seedlings must be kept at a minimum until an adequate number of seedlings emerging from the grass stage are at least as tall as the competition. The type and degree of site preparation and the choice of site preparation methods before planting longleaf seedlings will depend on the regeneration technique used, site conditions and your management goals.
2Longleaf Pine Regeneration
At the very least, prepare the area for direct seeding by first performing a prescribed burn. Disking also enhances seeding establishment by exposing mineral soil and reduc-ing competing vegetation for a short period of time. More challenging site conditions require more extensive site preparation techniques to increase the likelihood of success.
The most common situations encountered include recently harvested forest sites and conversion of old fields and pasture land. On recently harvested forest sites, most residual hardwoods should be removed with heavy machinery such as a root rake or controlled using various herbicides (Table 1). Following herbicide treatment, broadcast site preparation burning is often done to improve hand or machine planting access. V-blade planters are used to improve machine planting access by pushing debris away from the planted row. On old fields and pastures ripping will help break hardpans (compacted soil layers) and scalping a narrow (1–2 ft) strip, about 2 to 3 inches deep, along the planted row will break up the sod and improve the effectiveness of the planting machine in setting the seedlings with good soil contact. Scalping and ripping are usually done following the contour on sloping land to avoid erosion problems. It is best to rip the soil during dry periods in the summer to obtain good soil fracture and well in advance of the planting season, so that eventually rain will settle the soil prior to planting in the late fall or winter. When planting into established grass sod, the most effective practice is to deaden the sod with glyphosate herbicide (Table 1) either by broadcast application or by treating a 5–6 ft wide band centered on the planted row prior to planting. Herbicide control of grasses is very important for successful longleaf establishment, and glyphosate is most effective when applied during periods of active grass growth. Disking established sod prior to planting is not recommended because it makes herbaceous vegetation control after planting very difficult.
The best results are obtained when vegetation is managed both before and after planting. During the first and sometimes the second growing season following plant-ing, selective herbicides are used to control grasses and broadleaf weeds (herbaceous weed control). This practice significantly improves seedling survival, and accelerates seedling growth rates by reducing the period that seedlings remain in the grass stage by one or more years. In longleaf plantations in the sandy soils of the Coastal Plain, hexa-zinone and sulfometuron methyl are the most commonly used herbicides for herbaceous weed control in longleaf pine plantations (Table 1). These herbicides may be applied directly over planted seedlings safely when care is taken
to ensure the proper herbicide rate is applied and labeled method is followed. Pine tolerance to these herbicides is best when seedlings have initiated new root growth following transplanting. Many growers excavate a few trees prior to herbicide application to check for new roots, which are white in color. Herbaceous weed control treatments are most effective when weeds just start to develop in the Spring, which is typically in late March through mid-April.
Once seedlings are established, a prescribed burning program is a natural and cost-effective means to manage hardwood vegetation and also shift the ground cover to grass savannah species which provide desirable habitat for many desired wildlife species (Platt et al. 1998; Noss 1989).
PlantingSince longleaf pine seedlings do not become truly dormant, they require greater care in handling and planting than other southern pines. The success of longleaf pine plant-ing depends on (1) good soil moisture at and following planting; (2) a well-prepared, competition-free site; (3) fresh, healthy, top quality planting stock; (4) extreme care in handling the stock from lifting to planting; (5) quality planting; and (6) managing competing vegetation through stand establishment. High quality seedlings can be grown as either bareroot or container stock, but container stock is somewhat more forgiving of less than optimum conditions.
The appropriate planting density will depend on your objectives. Low planting densities, 300 to 500 seedlings per acre or less, may be appropriate for longleaf ecosystem restoration and/or to provide wildlife habitat (such as that for bobwhite quail), whereas as many as 750 seedlings per acre or more may be desirable to optimize timber produc-tion and pine straw raking.
Supplies of longleaf pine seedlings may not be sufficient to meet demands, so order your seedlings by early summer at the latest. For a list of longleaf nurseries, call your Florida Forest Service County Forester (http://www.freshfrom-florida.com/Divisions-Offices/Florida-Forest-Service/For-Landowners/County-Foresters) or the Longleaf Alliance, at 334-427-1029, and request a copy of the Longleaf Nursery List. This is also available on their website: http://www.longleafalliance.org/.
Choose a tree planting contractor that has experience with planting longleaf pine. Planting failures frequently result from improper seedling handling and planting. Hiring an experienced and reputable contractor may help to ensure
3Longleaf Pine Regeneration
seedling survival and minimize the possibility of having to replant.
BAREROOT SEEDLINGS
Longleaf pine seedlings at the nursery are stem-less and resemble a carrot with a clump of pine needles on top. Ideally, bareroot seedlings should have (1) a root collar diameter (RCD) of 0.4 to 0.6 inch; (2) a stout, 6- to 8-inch or longer tap root; (3) at least 6 well-developed, 6- to 8-inch lateral roots with evidence of ectomycorrhizal development; (4) a winter bud with scales; (5) abundant, large, fascicled needles that are free of brown-spot disease; (6) been grown at a reputable nursery; (7) been undercut in the nursery bed well before lifting; and (8) a seed source from the same region as the planting site. Seedlings with a RCD of 0.3 inch or less generally have low survival rates.
Longleaf seedlings come out of the grass stage and initiate stem height growth when the seedlings have a RCD of about one inch. After planting, longleaf seedlings allocate their growth to develop a tap root prior to initiating stem height growth. As noted above, seedlings may initiate height growth at a younger age if competing vegetation is controlled. Once the seedlings emerge from the grass stage, height growth is comparable with loblolly or slash pine of the same age.
CONTAINERIZED SEEDLINGS
There is increasing interest in using containerized longleaf pine seedlings (plugs) because they generally have greater survival than bareroot seedlings. Also, containerized seedlings can be planted throughout the year, whenever soil moisture is adequate before and after planting. Con-tainerized seedlings have even been successfully planted during the hot summer months, when afternoon rains are common. They can be used to replant partial regeneration failures in the year they occur as well. Studies have shown that both fall-planted and late winter-planted containerized longleaf seedlings often have better survival and growth than winter-planted bareroot seedlings. Seedlings grown in large containers (large plugs) can enhance survival on adverse sites, but to ensure success sufficient site prepara-tion and vegetation control measures must be taken.
The main drawback of containerized seedlings is cost. On average, the price per thousand is about twice as much for container-grown seedlings as the cost for bareroot seedlings. The larger the plug volume, the greater the cost to produce the plugs. Also, containerized seedlings are more bulky to handle during shipping and planting. However,
cost-share programs and increased survival make them a feasible option.
NURSERY TO FIELD
Proper care and handling of seedlings from the nursery to the field includes several steps: (1) pick up seedlings from the nursery the day they are lifted; (2) protect roots from desiccation; (3) protect seedlings from wind and refrigerate them if possible during transportation to the planting site (place plugs loosely in large coolers or waxed boxes); (4) store seedlings in a cool, well-ventilated area for no more than three days before planting (or up to 3 weeks in refrigeration, 5 weeks with humidity control); and (5) do not expose seedlings to sunlight or heat. To optimize success, plant seedlings within three days of pickup from the nursery. Large planting jobs may require multiple trips to the nursery.
Longleaf seedlings are normally planted between November and the beginning of March when cool temperatures are prevalent and soils are normally moist. Planting during the early part of this time frame is best to give seedlings time to grow new roots before the dry weather of April and May. Containerized seedlings can be planted earlier whenever available soil moisture is adequate and rainfall occurs as noted above, but risks are diminished during the winter planting season. Avoid planting during periods of low soil moisture, dry weather, high temperature, low relative humidity, high winds or when soil is frozen.
Take enough seedlings to the field for one day of planting and keep them moist, but not submerged. When hand-planting bareroot seedlings, keep a little water or wet Tera-Sorb in the bottom of the planting bag. Make sure tree planters carry seedlings in the bag to prevent the roots from drying out.
For bareroot seedlings, machine planting is preferable to hand planting because the larger slit created by the machine provides for better root alignment. If hand-planting, bareroot seedlings should be planted with a shovel or large dibble. Containerized seedlings can be planted with a cylinder-type dibble or any of the flat-bladed implements used to plant bareroot stock.
For bareroot stock, position seedlings with taproots straight down and root collars at or slightly below the ground line (no more than 1 inch below), which allows the bud to be exposed once the soil has fully settled. Attention to detail during planting is critical—a seedling planted too shallow will die quickly, and a seedling planted too deep will die slowly.
4Longleaf Pine Regeneration
For containerized seedlings, position the plug so that the terminal bud is just slightly above the soil surface to insure the seedling is not planted too deep; the terminal bud must remain above the soil surface. Planting plugs too shallow could cause them to dry out and die.
Do not plant directly in a subsoiled/ripped furrow because the seedlings may sink. Instead, offset 2–4 inches to the side of the ripped furrow.
On scalped sites with sandy soil, soil movement back into the scalped furrow should be anticipated, and containerized seedlings should be planted somewhat more shallowly. Optimum planting depth will depend on conditions; sandy soils and sloping ground tend to have more soil movement. Recent research by the Longleaf Alliance suggests that on scalped sites prone to soil movement leaving approximately ½ to 1 inch of the plug above the soil surface may position the terminal bud at an optimum final height, favoring good survival. However, keep in mind that planting plugs too shallowly will increase the risk of the seedlings drying out and dying, especially if an extensive dry period follows planting.
A WORD ABOUT COST-SHARE CONTRACTS
If you have a cost-share contract under the USDA’s Con-servation Reserve Program or Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the planting crew must know about it. If not, they may plant more than the maximum number of seedlings allowed in the terms of the contract, causing problems with your funding.
POST-PLANTING CARE
Once seedlings are planted, the principal factors affecting seedling development are vegetative competition and brown-spot needle blight. Prescribed fire is the most common cultural treatment used to control both. If average brown-spot infection exceeds 20% of the cumulative foliage on sampled seedlings, a burn will be needed to control the disease unless it will result in excessive mortality. Seedlings in the early stages of height growth (coming out of the grass stage) are most susceptible to fire kill, especially when heavily infected by brown-spot.
Direct SeedingDue to increases in seed costs, this once cost-effective regeneration option is now potentially cost prohibitive, and it involves substantial risk. Failure can occur as a result of inadequate control of competing vegetation, low seeding rates, using seed not treated with bird or rodent repellent, seeding at the wrong time, or adverse weather conditions.
Often, direct seeding results in stands with patchy stocking, with some areas not adequately stocked and some areas with too many trees. Low, poorly drained sites that are likely to be covered with standing water a week or more after seeding should be avoided. Likewise, deep upland sands that dry out rapidly after a rain are also unsuitable for direct seeding. Generally, sites that can be successfully planted can also be successfully seeded. As with planting, site preparation methods must control vegetative competi-tion and expose at least 50% of the mineral soil. Seeds must be in contact with the mineral soil for germination to take place. Seeds lodged in non-soil material will probably not become established.
In general, local seed sources are best. Seed or seedlings from North and South Carolina tend to grow poorly when planted on the Florida peninsula and vice versa. Most genetic improvement work with longleaf pine is concen-trated on breeding for brown-spot disease resistance and accelerated initial height growth.
Purchase seeds from a reputable seed dealer. Longleaf seeds should be refrigerated at subfreezing temperatures until sowing. Sowing can take place in fall, when moisture is ad-equate and maximum daytime temperatures drop below 85 degrees. Seed can be sown at low cost by broadcast seeding at 3 pounds per acre, or spot seeding (dropping 3 to 5 seeds per spot). Row seeding, at 1 to 2 feet spacing between seeds, can be used when better control over spacing and density is desired. Large areas are best seeded by aircraft which use carefully calibrated equipment. After establishment (two to three years), clumps of seedlings can be thinned down to one tree.
Natural Regeneration For Even-
Aged StandsLandowners who already have stands of longleaf pine can take advantage of a practical, inexpensive natural regenera-tion method known as the shelterwood system, a natural seeding method well-suited to the biological requirements of this species. The shelterwood method maximizes per-acre seed production and yields sufficient needle litter to fuel fires hot enough to inhibit hardwood regeneration and to prepare a seed bed. Regular prescribed burns should be scheduled throughout the rotation to maintain a low understory. The mature stand is removed in a series of three harvests, with a portion left standing as a seed source until regeneration is well established. Success with this method depends on (1) a good seed year with adequate seed supply,
5Longleaf Pine Regeneration
(2) a receptive seedbed, (3) minimal vegetative competition and (4) ample soil moisture.
The three harvests of the shelterwood system serve 3 basic purposes: (1) to prepare the stand for production of abundant seed, (2) to modify the environment in a way that promotes germination and survival, and (3) to build up the amount and size of advance regeneration to ensure a well-distributed stand following overstory removal.
Preparatory CutThe preparatory cut may be 10 or more years before the planned final “removal” harvest date of the stand and at least 5 years before the “seed cut”. This preparatory cut is essentially a thinning which reduces the basal area (BA) of the stand to a maximum of 60–70 square feet per acre of dominant and codominant pines. This cut promotes crown development and cone production. Most of the hardwoods not controlled by fire should also be cut at this time.
Seed CutThe seed cut is made 5 years prior to the planned removal harvest and leaves no more than 30 square feet BA per acre of the largest dominant trees, with well-developed crowns and best stem form, typically 15 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater. Trees with evidence of past cone production are favored. Cone production peaks in the range of 30 to 40 square feet BA per acre, but the lower end of this range is preferred because logging-related seedling losses increase when more trees are removed in the final cut.
Monitor the cone crop by taking spring binocular counts of both flowers (next year’s cone crop) and 1 year-old conelets (this year’s cone crop) on selected sample trees in the regeneration area. These counts will give an estimate of the potential for the cone crop to regenerate the stand so that the seedbed can be prepared before the cones open. Generally, few seeds are produced by trees under 30 years old or under 10 inches dbh.
In order to achieve adequate natural regeneration, the available seed supply must feed various forms of wildlife with enough left over to establish a satisfactory stand. A minimum of 750 to 1,000 or more cones per acre is needed for successful regeneration. Longleaf cone crops are highly variable. Good seed crops occur every 5 to 10 years. Seedfall begins in late October and continues through November, but most seeds fall within a period of 2 to 3 weeks. About 70% of viable seeds fall within 65 feet of the parent tree. Under favorable weather conditions, seeds will
germinate one or two weeks after dispersion. A prescribed burn 1 year before seedfall will remove accumulated litter and expose sufficient mineral soil for seedling establish-ment. A late-spring burn is most effective in controlling woody stems.
Removal CutOnce an acceptable stand of seedlings is established, the parent overstory can be removed. This cut can be delayed if necessary for management needs or market conditions. Seedlings can survive 8 or more years under the parent overstory with little or no effect on survival given exclusion of burning. However, logging damage becomes more seri-ous once seedling height growth begins and fire exclusion leads to encroachment of competing hardwoods.
Naturally regenerated stands require the same attention as planted stands with respect to brown-spot disease and competing vegetation. Young stands should not be burned until at least 2 years after the removal cut to allow time for logging slash to decay and the seedlings to respond to release.
Natural Regeneration for Uneven-
Aged StandsUneven-aged stands are created using the selection system. In the selection system, trees representing a range in diameter classes are harvested at fixed intervals (called the cutting cycle, which ranges from 10 to 25 years). Regenera-tion (either natural or artificial) occurs in the harvested openings. This management approach allows periodic harvests, while maintaining a continuous forest cover. Smaller, lower quality trees are also removed to improve the overall quality of the stand. This method is covered in detail in this publication on opportunities for uneven-age management: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fr132.
ConclusionLongleaf pine has many desirable characteristics for landowners who have multiple-use forest management objectives. On appropriate sites, and with careful attention to detail during the regeneration phase, it is possible to enjoy the versatility of this species without compromising growth rates.
ReferencesAnon. “Keys to successfully planting longleaf pine.” Bro-chure by the Longleaf Alliance. Andalusia, AL.
6Longleaf Pine Regeneration
Barnett, J. P., D. K. Lauer, and J. C. Brissette. 1989. “Regen-erating longleaf pine with artificial methods.” Pages 72–93 in: Proc. of the symposium on the management of longleaf pine; 1989 April 4–6; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-75, New Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Service, South. Forest Exp. Sta.
Beam, L. G. 1996. “Longleaf pine on the Guerry Farm.” Pages 20–21 in: Proc. of the 1st Longleaf Alliance conference; 1996 September 17–19; Mobile, AL. Longleaf Alliance.
Boyer, W.D. 1997. “Long-term changes in flowering and cone production by longleaf pine.” Pages 92–98 in: Proc. of the 9th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; February 25–27; Clemson, SC. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-20, Asheville, NC: U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest. Service, South. Res. Sta.
Boyer, W. D. 1993. “Regenerating longleaf pine with natural seeding.” Pages 299–309 in: Proc. of the 18th Tall Timbers fire ecology conf.;1991 May 30–June 2; Tallahassee, FL. Tall Timbers Res. Sta.
Boyer, W. D. and J. B. White. 1989. “Natural regeneration of longleaf pine.” Pages 94–113 in: Proc. of the symposium on the management of longleaf pine; 1989 April 4–6; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-75, New Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Service, South. Forest Exp. Sta.
Croker, T. C., Jr. 1989. “Longleaf pine - myths and facts.” Pages 2–10 in: Proc. of the symposium on the management of longleaf pine; 1989 April 4–6; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-75, New Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of Agr. Forest Service, South. Forest Exp. Sta.
Dennington, R. W. and R. M. Farrar, Jr. 1991. “Longleaf pine management.” Forestry Rep. R8-FR 3. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Service, South. Region. 17 p.
Earley, L. S. 1996. “Learning from Choctawhatchee: ninety years of longleaf pine management.” Pages 4–5 in: Proc. of the 1st Longleaf Alliance conf.; 1996 September 17–19; Mobile, AL. Longleaf Alliance.
Franklin, R. M. 1997. Stewardship of Longleaf Pine Forests: A Guide for Landowners. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 2. Andalusia, AL. 41p
Landers, J. L. 1991. “Disturbance influences on pine traits in the Southern United States.” In: Proc. Tall Timbers Ecol. Conf., Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, Florida. 17:61–98.
Noss, R. F. 1989. “Longleaf pine and wiregrass: Keystone components of an endangered ecosystem.” Nat. Areas J. 9: 211–213.
Platt, W. J., G. W. Evans, S. L. Rathbun. 1988. “The popula-tion dynamics of a long-lived conifer (Pinus palustrius).” Am. Naturalist 131: 491–525.
Shoulders, E. 1989. “Identifying longleaf pine sites.” Pages 23–37 in: Proc. of the symposium on the management of longleaf pine; 1989 April 4–6; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-75, New Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Service, South. Forest Exp. Sta.
South, D. B. 1997. “Needle-clipping longleaf pine and top-pruning loblolly pine in bare-root nurseries.” South. J. Appl. For. 22(4):235–240.
The Longleaf Alliance - Agricultural Fields and Pastures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.longleafalliance.org/restoring-and-managing/restoration/determine-the-starting-point/agricultural-fields-and-pastures
7Longleaf Pine Regeneration
Table 1. Common herbicide treatments for longleaf pine establishment. Read and follow all label directions.Common Name/
Soil Texture
Rate of Active
Ingredient (ai) or Acid
Equivalent (ae) per
Acre
Trade Name Amount Product
per Acre
Comments
Site preparation of recently harvested forest sites primarily to control hardwood and shrub vegetation prior to planting:
Hexazinone/ For soil types: Velpar® L For soil types: Hand “spotgun application” to soil on grid pattern or to soil around individual rootstocks in spring (see label). Works well for oak control on sandy soils.
Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam
2-3 lb ai/Ac 4-6 qts/Ac
Loam, silt loam, sandy clay loam
3-4 lb ai/Ac 6-8 qts/Ac
Silty clay loam, clay loam, sandy clay, silt, silty clay, clay
4-5 lb ai/Ac 8-10 qts/Ac
Imazapyr plus Glyphosate
0.625 lb ai + 3.0 lb ai/Ac
Chopper® Accord® XRT
40 oz mass + 2.2 qts/Ac
Broadcast by helicopter or ground sprayer. Very broad spectrum hardwood control. Add 1% (v:v) methylated seed oil (MSO) surfactant to improve control.
Site preparation prior to planting on fallow pasture sites:
Glyphosate 2.0 lb ai/Ac Accord® XRT 1.5 qts/Ac Foliar application with no soil residual. Broadcast or apply as a six foot wide band where tree rows will be planted. Add 1% MSO surfactant.
Herbaceous weed control (grasses and broadleaf weeds) applied over-the-top of planted longleaf seedlings in early spring, at least
one month after planting to allow for new root growth prior to herbicide treatment.
Hexazinone plus Sulfometuron
6 oz ai/Ac + 1.5 oz ai/Ac
Velpar® L
Oust® XP
24 oz liq. + 2 oz mass/Ac
Tank mix, very broad spectrum for grasses and broadleaves.
Hexazinone plus Sulfometuron
7.6 oz ai/Ac 1.4 oz ai/Ac
Oustar® *12 oz/Ac Pre-packaged mix, very broad spectrum. *Use 10 oz product on sandy soils.
Overview
➢ NBCI is an historic interstate commitment by the 25 core bobwhite states, private conservation groups and research institutions to work together at regional and national levels to restore viable wild populations of bobwhite quail. (See map below.)
➢ NBCI is the range-wide plan—by the states and for the states—for recovering bobwhite populations to density targets established by the respective state wildlife management agencies. NBCI components include:
• A massive, constantly evolving on-line database detailing and characterizing the bobwhite potential of 600 million acres of landscape across 25 states and 17 Bird Conservation Regions—to the local level
• A range-wide “prescription” for restoring recreationally viable populations of wild bobwhites across this landscape, including a range of specific management actions necessary to increase quail populations in specific settings
• A suite of mapping applications and web-based tools for biologists to identify, plan and implement projects that offer the greatest return on investment, i.e., the “most bobwhites for the bucks”
➢ NBCI is a team of targeted specialists to support state efforts and help overcome obstacles on a regional and national level.
… the unified strategy to restore wild quail
WHAT IS NBCI?
www.bringbackbobwhites.org
Background
➢ The steady decline of bobwhites—an estimated 80% over the past 40 years—can be traced to numerous land use practices which have destroyed habitat for bobwhites and other species on a landscape scale.
➢ Living space for bobwhites has been lost to development and to forest management and agricultural practices.
➢ As the bobwhite is a resident (non-migratory) game bird, it is the management responsibility of individual state wildlife agencies. Those agencies came together to examine the issues on a range-wide basis because individual efforts by the respective states were largely unsuccessful on more than an individual project scale.
➢ The Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies first put 50 state biologists to work analyzing the wild quail decline from a range-wide perspective in the late 90’s. The result was NBCI 2002.
➢ A paper-based plan, NBCI 2002 spurred progress, including changes in U.S. agricultural policy that created thousands of acres of new quail habitat, however, it did not overcome all the challenges.
➢ The interest and momentum created by this new range-wide approach did incentivize all states in the core bobwhite range to participate in the recent massive revision and upgrade—managed by Tall Timbers Research Station—of the original plan.
➢ Some 600 biologists helped develop NBCI 2.0, a GIS-based online plan with a suite of new digital tools for quail biologists that is on the cutting edge of conservation planning. As such, NBCI 2.0 represents the most comprehensive interstate effort on behalf of a resident game species in the history of wildlife management.
BobwhiteHabitat
Potential
NBCI 2.0’s Biologist Ranking Information (BRI) indicating the potential for habitat restoration benefiting bobwhites, grassland songbirds and other species.
Stev
e M
aslo
wsk
i/USF
WS
The 25 NBCI states include: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
Early Adopters
➢ The NBCI database has been or is being used to develop quail focal areas and/or perform quail priority mapping by state working groups in Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Kansas, South Carolina and New Jersey, and to refine existing plans in Missouri.
➢ University of Tennessee researchers have used it to develop bird monitoring plans in Tennessee and Ohio.
➢ NBCI has been used to create maps to support multi-state proposals for habitat initiatives and to educate forestry commissions in South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.
➢ Florida is using NBCI to support their bobwhite conservation efforts and to encourage partnerships among various species-oriented conservation strategies.
➢ The Grassland Bird Working Group of the East Gulf Coastal Plan Joint Venture and the Ouachitas Landbird Working Group of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture have used NBCI as an education platform and a template for conservation, and other bird groups are using it as a reference or guide.
➢ The Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability has used the NBCI database for mapping purposes.
Some Findings
➢ Of the 195 million acres classified by biologists as having either “high” or “medium” potential for conservation efforts, increased use of prescribed fire is the greatest single need.
➢ Range-wide, other specific management needs include field/field edge management, compatible forest management, conversion of sod-forming exotic grasses to native warm-season grasses, and brush management (in the West).
➢ NBCI has already begun to identify significant policy gaps, especially the need for private, state and federal use of prescribed fire and new incentives for both private and public landowners and managers.
www.bringbackbobwhites.org
Brian VanAlstine
Dave M
enke/USFW
S
Dav
e M
enke
/USF
WS
Dave M
enke/USFW
S
Fran
k D
oyle
/USF
WS
Ed S
chni
de
The loss of native grasslands affects more than bobwhite quail. For instance, grassland birds are declining at faster rates than any other community of birds in North America. Other species, such as the cottontail rabbit and the gopher tortoise, are also registering declines.
July 2011
Eastern Cottontail Loggerhead Shrike
Bewick’s Wren
Gopher Tortoise
Greater Prairie Chicken
Bachman’s Sparrow
UF/IFAS Forest Management and Stewardship Extension Publications:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/TOPIC_Forest_Management_and_Stewardship
• Assessing the Economic Feasibility of Short-Rotation Woody Crops in Florida • Assessment and Management of Hurricane Damaged Timberland • Beyond the Trees: A Systems Approach to Understanding Forest Health in the Southeastern United
States • Carbon Stocks on Forest Stewardship Program and Adjacent Lands • Cooperation and Communication: Benefits for Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners • Dead Wood: Key to Enhancing Wildlife Diversity in Forests • Florida Forest Landowner Preferences for Carbon Offset Program Characteristics • Florida’s Forest Stewardship Program: An Opportunity to Manage Your Land for Now and the Future • Forest Management in the Interface: Forest Health • Forest Management in the Interface: Practicing Visible Stewardship • Forest Resource Information on the Internet: Connecting to Today's Online Resources • Improving, Restoring, and Managing Natural Resources on Rural Properties in Florida: Sources of
Financial Assistance • Improving, Restoring, and Managing Wildlife Habitat in Florida: Sources of Technical Assistance for
Rural Landowners • Longleaf Pine Regeneration • Making the Most of Your Mast • Management Practices to Support Increased Biodiversity in Managed Loblolly Pine Plantations • Opportunities for Uneven-Aged Management in Second Growth Longleaf Pine Stands in Florida • An Overview of Carbon Markets for Florida Forest Landowners • Ownership Succession: Plan Now for the Future of Your Land • Selecting a Consulting Forester • Steps to Marketing Timber • Stewardship Ecosystem Services Study Series: Assessing Forest Water Yield and Regulation
Ecosystem Services in the Lower Suwannee River Watershed, Florida • Ten Tips for Encouraging the Use of Your Pine Plantations by Game Species • Ten Tips for Increasing Wildlife Biodiversity in Your Pine Plantations • Thinning Southern Pines—A Key to Greater Returns • Tips for Integrating Land and Wildlife Management: Deer in Forests • Tips for Integrating Land and Wildlife Management: Quail and Timber • What is in a Natural Resource Management Plan? • What to Expect in a Forest Inventory
NOTES
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
NOTES
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
(850) 222-5646 www.FloridaForest.org
International Forest Company Chris Johnston (229) 985-0321 (800) 633-4506
Mobile: (229) 589-7142 [email protected]
Forest Environmental Solutions, LLC
Joseph Gocsik ( 352) 206-8776
Southern Forestry
Consultants
Monticello, FL office: (850)-997-6254 Quincy, FL office: (229) 246-5785 Northwest FL office: (334) 393-7868
www.soforest.com/
Forestry Consulting and
Real Estate Services Alachua, FL - (386) 518-6344 Marianna, FL - (850) 526-5110 americanforestmanagement.com
Mickey Parker Meeks' Farm and Nursery
Pensacola, FL (850) 572-3932
COTTONDALE, LLC
Alan Jaye (334) 830-1677
Boyd Christenberry (205) 873-9214
bchristenberry@ forestfoundation.org
THANKS to our SPONSORS for their support of 2018 Florida Forest Stewardship Program Events
