ManagingSmall Forest Patches for Birds A Guide for

Ohio Landowners

About this Guide

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

ContentsAcknowledgements

Section 1: Executive summary of small forest patch management recommendations

Section 2: Managing for small forest patches and the full life cycle of Ohio birds

Section 3: A guide to forest types in Ohio

Section 4: Incorporating small forest patches into the landscape

Section 5: Enhancing forest composition and structure

Section 6: Managing wet woods

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

Section 8: Management techniques

Appendix: Common and scientific names for referenced flora and fauna

Literature Cited

1

3

4

8

12

18

26

29

33

38

40

1

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

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

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

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

Authors:

Laura J. Kearns, Ph.D., ODNR-Division of WildlifeMatthew B. Shumar, Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative/The Ohio State UniversityMarne A. Titchenell, The Ohio State UniversityAmanda M. Duren, Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture/American Bird ConservancyJennifer L. Thieme, University of MinnesotaErin B. Cashion, Ohio History ConnectionStephen N. Matthews, Ph.D., The Ohio State UniversityJohn Mueller, ODNR-Division of ForestryChristopher M. Tonra, Ph.D., The Ohio State UniversityMark C. Shieldcastle, Black Swamp Bird Observatory

Suggested citation:

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

2Red-headed Woodpecker. Photo by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

3

Despite global conservation efforts and successes, many bird species have continued to decline over the past century. Many of these species rely on forests for part of or all their lives. Although a variety of birds require large tracts of forests, particularly for breeding, during other stages of their life cycle, they can still benefit from smaller fragments, or “small patches,” of forest scattered throughout a non-forested landscape. Other bird species may also rely on these small patches throughout their life cycle. This guide is written for landowners and managers of small forest patches seeking to improve forest conditions for birds. Recommendations are based on multiple research studies conducted in Ohio and similar “small patch” forest ecosystems throughout the Midwest and eastern North America.

Ohio was once covered in forest, but since European settlement, human activities have caused deforestation throughout the state. In southeastern Ohio, much of the forest has regrown, but in the rest of the state, forest remains in the form of small forest patches (2.5-250 acres/1-100 ha), scattered throughout an agricultural and urban landscape.

Generally, the more forest cover that is available in the landscape surrounding a forest patch, the more functional that individual forest patch will be for birds. Fortunately, even small forest patches within less-forested landscapes, when dominated by native species of trees and shrubs, can be important habitat for resident and migrant birds during breeding, migration, and overwintering periods. During the breeding season, these patches provide nesting habitat, abundant food sources for young birds, and cover from predators. In migration, small forest patches provide food and cover when birds need to stop to rest and refuel. Finally, in winter, birds rely on both food, such as berries, seeds, and nuts, and the cover from small forest patches to protect them from predators and winter weather.

Section 1: Executive summary of small forest patch management recommendations

In Ohio, approximately 85% of forests are owned and managed privately. Thus, private landowners can have a tremendous impact on improving forest habitat for birds. Additionally, federal, state, and local government resources can provide help in the form of technical and financial assistance.

The value of a forest patch to birds strongly depends on interactions among patch size, tree species composition, the forest structure, and the surrounding landscape. Thus, several management practices can help to improve forest patches. The first step is to contact a local natural resource professional and develop a management plan for your property. Then, where applicable, include the following practices:

1. Remove and control invasive plant species2. Manage for native fruiting shrubs, trees, and vines3. Manage for a diversity of tree species4. Manage for a high abundance and diversity of native insects5. Enhance vertical structure within the small patch6. Reduce “hard” edges along forest patches7. Create shrubby or forested corridors to connect small patches8. Create small canopy gaps in patches greater than 20 acres9. Create brush piles and leave some dead trees standing

10. Limit browse and grazing damage from deer and livestock11. Consider successional stage12. Leave wet forests intact and allow for standing water

Again, before starting any management, work with a local natural resource professional to develop a management plan for your property and to find sources of financial assistance, if necessary.

4

Section 2: Managing for small forest patches and the full life cycle of Ohio birds

Introduction

Birds not only provide delight and awe, but also important ecological services such as seed dispersal, pollination, and pest control. Over 400 species of birds use the Ohio landscape, and nearly half of these are considered forest or shrubland-dependent. Unfortunately, many species are in decline; nine forest/shrubland bird species are listed within Ohio as endangered or as species of concern, and 19 more are listed as species of greatest conservation need in Ohio’s State Wildlife Action Plan (ODNR-DOW 2015). In the face of ongoing landcover change, forest owners can make important contributions to conservation: managing for healthy forests is an effective tool to conserve populations of birds throughout their entire life-cycle.

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

What is a small patch?

A small patch is a forested area, typically between 2.5 and 250 acres (~1-100 ha), that is embedded within a non-

forested landscape (see Figure 2.2 for example). Ecologists often refer to an area containing smaller forest patches as a fragmented landscape (see Figure 2.3). A small forest patch has different characteristics than forest in a contiguously forested landscape, including different vegetation communities and microclimates. Some bird species such as Northern Cardinal and American Robin are generalists and may be able to utilize small or lower quality forest patches, while others such as Scarlet Tanager and Ovenbird may be area sensitive or require conditions present only in larger forested landscapes.

Figure 2.1. National Landcover Database 2011 (Jin et al. 2013). Physiographic regions designated by Partners in Flight.

5

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

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

6

shape, and connectedness. Each of these features can be manipulated through various management techniques, although issues related to size and configuration may be more challenging to address, as they often depend on coordination among multiple landowners. Patch size is directly related to the number of breeding bird species utilizing the patch (Freemark and Collins 1992) and retaining larger habitat patches is often suggested as a way to accommodate area-sensitive species.

Connectivity, or lack thereof (i.e., fragmentation), as it pertains to the suitability of wildlife habitat, has also received considerable attention in recent years. Patch isolation may be less problematic for migratory bird species as long as isolation still allows migratory birds to locate suitable habitat during migration. During the breeding season for both migratory and resident birds, the ability of young to disperse into new patches for territory establishment is reduced (Rosenberg et al. 2003).

The landscape surrounding a forest patch is also an important consideration when assessing the effects of fragmentation and isolation. For example, wildlife may have more difficulty traveling between forest patches in an urbanized landscape compared to one that is dominated by agriculture; urban landscapes attract more exotic predators, such as cats, and increase the potential for diseases and competitors to negatively affect natural ecosystem processes (Marzluff and Ewing 2001).

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

How does patch size vary across Ohio?

Prior to European settlement, Ohio was almost entirely forested, varying from the dense forests of southern regions to more open, park-like forests elsewhere in the state (Hutchinson et al. 2003). In southeastern Ohio, many forests have recovered from extensive clearing in the 1900s for agriculture, mining, and iron production, which had reduced the statewide forest cover to as little as 15% (Widmann et al. 2014). Farm abandonment and mining reclamation have also helped boost Ohio’s forest cover, which is now approximately 30% (Albright 2017). The current Ohio landscape consists of a gradient of forest, with nearly contiguous forest in southeastern counties, and forest patches elsewhere fragmented among primarily agricultural and suburban landscapes (Figure 2.3).

The rest of the state contains higher levels of forest fragmentation compared to southeastern Ohio (Figure 2.2). Forest patches within the Allegheny Plateau of northeastern Ohio are also more mature, particularly in some of the gorges and ravines. The landscape within this region is highly developed, and effects of fragmentation here are different than those in the western half of the state where row-crop agriculture is abundant. In western Ohio forest patches also tend to be smaller and more isolated.

The complex land-use history of Ohio has created forest patches varying in age, tree species composition, size,

7

The importance of small patches to the full life cycle of birds

Small forest patches provide resources for birds throughout their entire life cycle. Most species, especially Neotropical migrants (i.e., birds that breed in North America, but overwinter in Central and South America), have multiple periods that are important to their life cycle, including reproduction, dispersal, migration, and overwintering. Veeries, for instance (Figure 2.4), spend as much as five months in South America during the non-breeding season, much of which is spent overwintering in a region of central Brazil (Remsen 2001). They may spend 2-3 months in Ohio, during which time they mate and raise young. After

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

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

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

Rusty Blackbird. Photo by Keith Williams.

the young fledge, pair bonds disintegrate, and individuals move into distinct habitats where they molt their feathers and prepare for migration.

There is a growing body of research demonstrating that periods of the annual cycle are inextricably linked, even though they are often temporally and/or geographically separated (Marra et al. 2015). Thus, understanding how habitat needs vary across these periods is essential for effective conservation. For example, biologists are learning that Ohio’s small forest patches are critically important during the migratory period for species such as the Rusty Blackbird and American Redstart (see Box 2A).

American Redstart. Photo by Tim Lenz.

8

Section 3: A guide to forest types in Ohio

Figure 3.1. Forest types of Ohio. Adapted from Gordon (1969).

Ohio is composed of several types of forest (Figure 3.1), which are in part determined by topography, soil, rainfall or water level, and frequency of fire or other types of disturbance. Due to differences in plant composition and structure (see Section 5), different forest types support different bird communities, so it is important to maintain a diversity of forest communities throughout Ohio. This section highlights the most common forest types, along with a few special forested habitats for Ohio. Common species for each forest type are detailed in Table 3.1.

Mixed oak forest

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

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

Maple-beech forest

Maple-beech forests, sometimes referred to as northern hardwoods, contain maples, beeches, and birches, and currently make up approximately 22% of Ohio’s forests (ODNR-DOF 2010, Widmann 2014). These forests have become more common as maple encroaches into formerly oak-dominated stands, creating oak-maple forests. In closed canopy systems, maples have a competitive

9

Forest Type Structure Common NameMixed oak Tree White Oak

Northern Red Oak

Black Oak

Scarlet Oak

hickory (multiple species)

Tulip Poplar, Yellow Poplar

White Ash

Black Walnut

Red Maple

Maple-beech Tree Sugar Maple

American Beech

Elm-ash-cottonwood Tree American Elm

Black Ash

Green Ash

Red Maple

Silver Maple

Eastern Cottonwood

American Sycamore

Common Hackberry

American Sweetgum

Black Willow

River Birch

Oak savanna Tree Black Oak

White Oak

Bur Oak

Oak-blueberry Tree Black Oak

White Oak

Sassafras

Understory/Shrub Lowbush Blueberry

American Witch-hazel

Black Huckleberry

Beach Ridge Tree Common Hackberry

Kentucky Coffeetree

Eastern Cottonwood

White Ash

Understory/Shrub dogwood (multiple species)

Buttonbush

Eastern Hemlock Tree Eastern Hemlock

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

10

advantage over oaks and can persist in areas where fire, once common, now rarely occurs (Peacefull 1996). The recent emergence of beech leaf disease, however, poses a threat to American Beech (Ewing et al. 2018). Asian Longhorned Beetle, which is currently only found in southwestern Ohio, is also a threat to beeches and other tree species commonly found in maple-beech forests. Wood Thrush, Ovenbird, Black-and-white Warbler, and American Redstart are bird species that often breed in maple-beech forests.

Elm-ash-cottonwood forest

Elm-ash-cottonwood forests are the third most common forest type, but only make up about 9% of Ohio’s woodlands (ODNR-DOF 2010). This habitat often occurs as riparian forest, i.e., wet woods along streams and rivers, where species such as Northern Parula, Yellow-throated Warbler, and Acadian Flycatcher can be found. Elm-ash-cottonwood forests once dominated northwestern Ohio as part of the Great Black Swamp, a large forested wetland that covered up to 11 counties of northwestern Ohio, until it was drained for agriculture during the late 1800s.

Unfortunately, like the American Chestnut, the American Elm was devastated by disease during the mid-1900s. It is now rare to see mature individuals, but younger elms often persist in the understory for a time. More recently, ash trees have been infested with the Emerald Ash Borer, a non-native beetle, which has created additional stress in the remaining patches of elm-ash-cottonwood forests. See Section 5 for more information on managing small patches considering the loss of ash. Additionally, because these forests are in wetter environments, special considerations need to be made when developing a management plan (e.g., see Section 6).

The remaining forest types each comprise less than 2% of Ohio’s forests (ODNR-DOF 2010). These include forest types such as oak savannas, oak-blueberry forests, beach-ridge forests, and hemlock ravines, which often provide habitat for some of Ohio’s more unique bird species.

Oak savanna

Oak savannas, created through alternating periods of extremely wet and extremely dry conditions (Thieme

2016), are comprised of loosely scattered trees where the herbaceous understory becomes the dominant plant type. The most well-known examples in Ohio occur in the Oak Openings region of northwestern Ohio. However, oak savannas can be found in other locations throughout the Prairie Peninsula and Upper Great Lakes Plain (see Figure 3.1), where sandy soils sit atop dense clay material, preventing groundwater from quickly dissipating. Regular fire events exacerbate dry conditions by reducing leaf litter and killing the tops of woody plants (Thieme 2016). Black Oak, White Oak, Bur Oak, and Quaking Aspen—trees that are tolerant of nutrient-poor soils—are among the most common tree species in this forest type (Mayfield 1988, Abrams 1992). Northern Bobwhite, Red-headed Woodpecker, and Lark Sparrow are among several species associated with oak savannas that are experiencing population declines.

Oak-blueberry forest

Oak-blueberry forests are dominated by Black Oak and White Oak trees and contain a substantial shrub layer composed of blueberry species, Witch Hazel, and Black Huckleberry. This was a frequent community in the Lakeplain Oak Openings region and still occurs on conserved lands and private forests. Oak-blueberry forests were more prominent in northwestern Ohio, where hickories and maples were not a large component of the forests. Due to the suppression of fire, which once maintained prairies and savannas in northwestern Ohio, these oak-blueberry forests now occur where open landscapes once existed (Gardner 2016). Birds frequently encountered in oak-blueberry forests include woodpeckers, Great Crested Flycatcher, and Wild Turkey.

Beach-ridge forest

Beach-ridge forests represent a special type of upland forest. The beach ridge of Ohio is an elevated region between the edge of Lake Erie and the wetlands formed along the coast. It is developed by a long-term accumulation of sand and gravel along the lakeshore. The added elevation allows for the establishment of herbaceous, shrub, and tree communities. Hackberry, Kentucky Coffeetree, Eastern Cottonwood, and White Ash make up the majority of the overstory. The understory is primarily comprised of several species of dogwood, Buttonbush, and

11

the non-native invasive Bush Honeysuckle. Herbaceous layers include a wide variety of herbs, sedges, and grasses. There is a diverse wildflower component, but this receives considerable stress from competition with invasive Garlic Mustard and overbrowsing by White-tailed Deer. Often, multiple ridges exist with low sloughs lying between them, often occupied by Buttonbush and other emergent vegetation. Beach-ridge forests are among the rarest habitats in Ohio with only four sizeable units remaining.Though uncommon, beach-ridge forests are particularly important in the landscape for birds throughout their life cycle. Migrating songbirds, waterbirds, and raptors make extensive use of beach ridges during both spring and fall migration. As the last vestige of land before a daunting lake crossing, and by providing an attractive shrub/tree component that harbors abundant aquatic insect prey, beach-ridge forests offer a last rest area and abundant food resource to migrants. Various landbirds, Wood Ducks, night-herons, and egrets utilize beach-ridge forests during the post-breeding season. Additionally, Bald Eagles use this habitat as shelter during winter and as hunting perches throughout the year. Most importantly, beach-ridge forests act as a protective barrier for the life-providing wetlands essential for waterfowl and other bird species.

Eastern Hemlock forest

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

In general, little to no forest management practices need to be implemented to maintain hemlock forests, however there are some key factors to consider. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, an invasive insect pest that can kill Eastern Helmock trees over time, is becoming widespread in eastern North America. Without control, the adelgid

has the potential to decimate hemlock forests, which can eliminate habitat important to hemlock-associated breeding bird species. The pest can be identified by inspecting the undersides of hemlock foliage each winter for small, white, woolly masses (Figure 3.2). If you believe you have found the adelgid, please report your finding to the ODNR-Division of Forestry (see link below). There are treatment options available to reduce the impacts of this pest and keep Eastern Hemlock trees healthy (see http://ohiodnr.gov/hwa).

Another problem for hemlock forests is browsing or antler-rubbing by White-tailed Deer that can inhibit the growth of hemlock seedlings and saplings in the forest understory that provide cover and nesting habitat for birds. To enhance understory growth and establishment, existing hemlock seedlings or saplings can be protected from deer by installing deer exclusion fencing. Deer pressure can also be reduced via hunting. Lastly, when an existing deciduous forest surrounds an Eastern Hemlock stand, maintain the contiguity and integrity of the forest patch to minimize exposure and potential wind damage to the hemlocks.

Figure 3.2. Eastern Hemlock-dominated forests are an uncommon but important habitat type for several migratory songbirds, such as the Winter Wren and Magnolia Warbler. The invasive Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (pictured) can decimate hemlock stands, which may have significant consequences for some bird species. Photo courtesy of the ODNR-Division of Forestry.

12

Section 4: Incorporating small forest patches into the landscape

Larger forest patches are associated with greater numbers of breeding bird species and increased reproductive success, compared to smaller patches (Lampila et al. 2005, Keller and Yahner 2007). This is largely because small patches have a lower area-to-edge ratio, which means that the forest is exposed to increased amounts of light and wind, resulting in edge-effects, such as greater variability in temperature, drier soils, and potentially more nest predators. Further, rates of nest parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds are higher in landscapes with more fragmented forest, such as those of the agricultural Midwest (Howell et al. 2007). Nest parasitism typically reduces the nest success of the host bird species. For more information on cowbirds visit https://nestwatch.org/learn/general-bird-nest-info/brown-headed-cowbirds/.

That said, small forest patches still serve important roles, particularly in landscapes dominated by non-forested landcover (e.g., row crops, pasture, urban development). They offer nesting habitat for forest breeding species with lower edge sensitivity (e.g., Eastern Wood-Pewee, Rose-

breasted Grosbeak), and can serve as critical stopover sites for migrating landbirds. There is substantial evidence suggesting that migration may be the most vulnerable and unpredictable period of the annual life cycle (Moore 2000, Sillett and Holmes 2002, Mehlman et al. 2005). Thus, successful conservation strategies for migratory birds should aim to create a network of stopover sites along migratory routes. To maximize the usefulness of each forest patch within the network, the landowner should consider the size, shape, and connectivity of patches, and needs may vary depending on the dominant landcover types in the surrounding landscape. In this section, we describe various features of a forest patch and ways to maximize the patch’s usefulness across the landscape.

Patch size

The number of bird species breeding within a forest patch is directly related to the size of the patch. Additionally, as area-to-edge ratio decreases, fewer territories are

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

13

available for individuals of any given species. For example, Ovenbird and Hermit Thrush breeding territories have been shown to be more abundant at greater distances from clearcut edges (Manolis et al. 2002), and Hooded Warblers and other birds have demonstrated edge avoidance in establishing breeding territories within forest patches (Keller and Yahner 2007). Furthermore, species such as Wood Thrush have had greater nest success in larger patches (Hoover and Brittingham 1998).

Additional research has shown that the edge-effects for breeding birds are landscape-dependent and exacerbated in less forested landscapes. For example, Rosenberg et al. (2003) demonstrated that Scarlet Tanagers in a landscape that is 70% forested could successfully utilize forest patches as small as 66 acres (27 ha), while those in a landscape of only 40% forest cover may need a patch size of at least 605 acres (245 ha; Figure 4.1).

Much of the emphasis on patch size in conservation biology has focused on breeding ecology. Patch size may be less critical for transient migrants, as they are only staying at the site for a short period of time (Ewert and Hamas 1996). Thus, all forest patches, regardless of size, can provide valuable migratory habitat. Bonter et al. (2009) found that islands of forested habitat in primarily developed and agricultural landscapes were important for migrant landbirds, particularly near the Great Lakes.

Small, isolated patches can provide critical stopover habitat during migration. In Indiana, high densities of fall migrants used small forest patches (Packett and Dunning 2009). Similarly, the likelihood of encountering several bird species in the agricultural landscape of southeastern

Minnesota increased in more isolated forest patches, suggesting that birds may concentrate in small patches when higher quality habitat is lacking nearby (Yahner 1983).

However, the size of a patch is directly related to how quickly a migrant can meet its energetic demands during stopover (Buler and Moore 2006). A study in Columbus, Ohio that experimentally relocated Swainson’s Thrushes to forest patches of varying sizes showed that 28% of thrushes that were relocated to small (<12 ac/5 ha) forest patches moved away from these sites to forage elsewhere; however, 100% of thrushes relocated to larger (>30 ac/12 ha) forest patches remained in the patch until departing the area completely and continuing their migratory journey (Matthews and Rodewald 2010). In summary, a single small forest patch may be insufficient to meet the energetic needs of a migrant for the next leg of migration, but multiple patches in close vicinity may be beneficial. Increasing patch size is also harder to accomplish, at least within short time frames, in landscapes dominated by agriculture or urban development. Therefore, finding ways to address the connectivity and shape of patches may be more easily accomplished.

Patch connectivity

In lieu of increasing patch size, enhancing connectivity among forested patches can benefit birds as well as other wildlife (e.g., Gilbert-Norton et al. 2010). Establishing shrubby or forested corridors between patches, by planting trees and/or abstaining from mowing, can enable movement of species to obtain additional foraging

Figure 4.2. Patch shape can limit the number of bird territories that can be accommodated even in the absence of true edge avoidance. In this example, a greater number of fixed-size territories can be accommodated in one contiguous patch versus multiple smaller, unevenly-shaped patches of equal total area.

14

resources (e.g., Wegner and Merriam 1979, Johnson and Adkisson 1985). Haas (1995) documented increased dispersal of American Robins when woody corridors were present. Additionally, Doherty and Grubb (2000) found an increase in the number of wintering Red-Bellied Woodpeckers when fencerows were present near forest.

Patch shape

For larger patches, or patches in predominantly forested landscapes, forest management recommendations have typically focused on creating more regularly-shaped patches (e.g., circular or square) to maximize the area-to-edge ratio. This increases the potential for area-sensitive species to use the patch, and for the patch to accommodate a larger number of breeding territories (Figure 4.2).

Manipulating the shape of a forest patch in a predominantly agricultural area without drastically reducing its size may be difficult, but by reducing hard edges and improving adjacent habitat, the effective footprint of the habitat provided by a forest patch can be altered (see the next page for information on methods). Irregularly shaped patches, or narrow, linear-shaped habitats in an agricultural landscape may prove beneficial for migrating birds as the amount of edge habitat and the resulting food resources are increased (Rodewald and Brittingham 2004). It is important that edge habitat is comprised of native plant species, rather than invasives, which may quickly invade these areas (see Section 5).

Landscape surrounding the patch

The landscape surrounding forest patches can have an important influence on how birds will use the area throughout their life cycle. Generally, the more forest in the surrounding area, the better. For example, nest success has been shown to increase as the proportion of forest on the landscape increases (Hoover et al. 1995, Driscoll and Donovan 2004). Additionally, increased forest cover facilitates movements of birds during the breeding season (Desrochers and Hannon 1997, Tremblay and St. Clair 2011); during these parts of the life-cycle, birds are unlikely to cross gaps greater than ~160 ft (50 m) in length (Desrochers and Hannon 1997, Bélisle and Desrochers 2002). Migrating birds are more likely to stopover in forest patches that are within heavily forested landscapes. Studies have shown greater use of habitats by migrating birds to be associated with the amount of hardwood forest cover within ~3 miles (5 km; Buler and Moore 2006, Buler et al. 2007). Likewise, a study in Hancock County, Ohio found that increasing amounts of forest cover within ~1,600 ft (500 m) was positively correlated with bird abundance and diversity of migrating birds (Cashion 2011). Further research has shown that the amount of forest cover at this scale was positively associated with arthropod (i.e., food) abundance, so migratory birds may use the amount of forest cover within ~3 miles (5 km) as an indicator of food availability (Buler et al. 2007). Other studies in Ohio and throughout the Midwest show that migratory landbirds are more likely to be found, or are more abundant, in more heavily forested landscapes (Groom and Grubb 2002, Rosenberg et al. 2003).

The amount of forest cover in the landscape can also be important for wintering birds. For example, several species of overwintering birds (e.g., Red-bellied Woodpeckers, Northern Cardinals, Dark-eyed Juncos) were less abundant when forest patches were located further from other forest patches (Doherty and Grubb 2000). Turcotte and Desrochers (2005), studying Black-capped Chickadees in Canada, suggested that the combination of harsher winter conditions and greater forest habitat fragmentation reduced the ability of forest birds to disperse in the winter. Turcotte and Desrochers (2003) also found that a greater amount of deforestation in the landscape increased the level of predation risk, and consequently mortality, for Black-capped Chickadees in winter, which may explain why wintering chickadees avoid crossing forest gaps greater than ~160 ft (50 m; St. Clair et al. 1998). St. Clair et al. (1998) also documented woodpeckers and nuthatches to be

Small forest patches in northwestern Ohio. Photo by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

15

even more cautious than chickadees about crossing large gaps of unforested habitat in winter.

In most of Ohio, however, agriculture and urban development represent the major alternatives to forest landcover in the surrounding landscape. There are several studies, though, that have documented the value of forest patches within these landscape types. For example, during winter, some bird species may be positively associated with forests in urban areas, due to food supplementation, cover (understory stem density), and warmer temperatures (Atchison and Rodewald 2006). For some breeding birds, such as the Northern Cardinal, American Robin, and Wood Thrush, there was no difference in nest success in riparian forest patches located in urban vs. more rural areas, and Northern Cardinals also showed no difference in total reproductive output (i.e., number of young per nest; Rodewald et al. 2013). During both spring and fall migration, for at least some species of migrant landbirds, stopover habitat quality may be similar between forest patches planted amongst agricultural areas and native riparian forest (Liu and Swanson 2014). Similarly, Rodewald and Matthews (2005) found that the amount of urbanization within a ~3,300 ft (1 km) landscape was unrelated to the abundance of Neotropical and temperate transients within a forest patch.

Methods for improving the suitability of a forest patch for birds within the landscape

There are several methods that can be used to improve the suitability of forest patches within the landscape. Consider the following methods to make a given property more hospitable to birds. Remember to always seek professional guidance and programs for financial assistance (see Section 8).

1. For patches less than 20 acres (8 ha) Expand and enhance - If possible, allow additional areas to revert to forest, plant trees to expand patch size, or create shrubby or forested corridors to connect patches. However, improving forest structure and composition may be more easily accomplished and can provide substantial benefit (see Section 5).

2. For patches greater than 20 acres (8 ha) Create canopy gaps - Canopy gaps have been shown to contain a greater abundance of fruit resources for birds (Blake and Hoppes 1986) after vegetation is re-established. Therefore, if the forest patch is 20-100 acres (8-40 ha), create small canopy gaps (0.1 - 0.5 acre) by cutting trees to simulate wind throw or lightning strikes, which were the historic sources of these gaps in upland forests (Sargent and Carter 1999). Patches larger than 100 acres (40 ha) can host larger canopy gaps. Do not create substantial gaps in patches less than 20 acres (8 ha); however, trees may be occasionally felled to create a small gap and promote growth of understory shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Be aware that nonnative, invasive plants may quickly overtake areas that are newly opened. Therefore, prior to any tree removal, treat any invasive species, and one year after removal, assess the vegetation within canopy gaps and remove any undesirable plants, such as nonnative honeysuckle (See Sections 5 and 8).

3. For all patch sizes Reduce hard edges - A hard edge is where there is no transition between the forest edge and the surrounding landscape. The fruit or fruiting plants (e.g., Serviceberry and Hawthorn), particularly in the fall, that are important to migrating birds have been found to be more abundant at forest edges or in early-successional (young, regenerating) forests (Rodewald and Brittingham 2004, Packett and Dunning 2009), highlighting the importance of maintaining “soft” forest edges that contain such vegetation. Softer forest edges allow for increased light and encourage understory and herbaceous growth, thus providing additional foraging habitat and cover for a variety of bird and other wildlife species.

a. Plant native shrubs – a variety of native shrubs (see Box 5B) can provide food sources and create cover for many species of birds and other wildlife (Apsley and Gehrt 2006, Liberati et al. 2013). Shrub species that are most suitable for the site’s conditions should be planted. Consult with a natural resource professional to find out more about beneficial plants native to your area (see Section 8).

16

b. Allow edges to revegetate – In smaller patches, forest edges can be softened by allowing a 30-50 ft (10-15 m) buffer to revegetate around the patch perimeter. If the perimeter has not been intensively farmed for an extended period, it is likely that seeds of early-successional, fruit-bearing shrubs, such as blackberry or dogwood, remain within the soil and will emerge once mowing ceases. Monitor for invasive plants and treat as necessary (see Sections 5 and 8).

c. Feather forest edges – A typical method for reducing hard edges in larger patches (>20 acres/8 ha) is edge feathering. Edge feathering involves felling trees along the edge and letting them lay. Areas treated for edge feathering should extend 30-50 ft (10-15 m) inward from the edge of the patch; it is not necessary to treat a uniform width. Treated areas should also be 50-100 ft (~15-30 m) long and separated by untreated areas 100-150 ft (~30-45 m) long. Edge feathering involves removing or killing all woody vegetation greater than 3 inches in diameter or 12 ft (3.5 m) in height within the treatment area (NRCS 2015); native tree species that produce fruits and nuts should be retained. To keep forest edges in an early-successional state, top-kill shrubs by brush-cutting, hand-cutting, hydro-axing, or working with professionals to conduct prescribed fire every 3-5 years (see Section 8).

Create brush piles - Brush piles provide additional cover for birds. For suggestions on strategies, including the size and types of materials to use, see Section 6. Consider the landscape - In addition to expanding existing patches, consider adding more forest to the landscape. Avoid mowing or plant trees to encourage new forest where it will link existing patches and provide corridors for travel. Recommended widths for corridors vary greatly depending on the landscape; in general, wider corridors are better, but any efforts to connect patches, even with narrow corridors, can be beneficial. To promote increased forest cover beyond the bounds of your property, consider sharing this information with neighbors or local homeowner’s associations and planning committees. There are several regional forestry associations throughout Ohio that can serve as forums for these discussions (Box 4A). Recognize the unique contributions of urban forest patches – Small forest patches in urban areas provide valuable habitat for migrating, breeding, and wintering birds. To maximize the value of a patch as avian habitat, follow the management guidelines found within this document. Some considerations specific to urban forests include managing for window collisions, proximity of roads, and predators.

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

17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Central Ohio Small Woodlot Interest Group

• Killbuck Valley Woodland Interest Group

• North Eastern Ohio Forestry Association

• Northwest Ohio Woodland Association

• Southwest Ohio Woodland Owners Association

Landowner workshop field trip. Photo by Katrina Schultes.

18

What aspects benefit birds?

A forest patch’s vertical structure and plant composition are important habitat features for songbirds. These two characteristics vary greatly depending on the forest’s age, or stage of succession, but all forest patches—regardless of their size—can be successfully managed to provide valuable resources to birds throughout the year.

Forest succession

The amount and type of habitat available in a patch is influenced by forest succession—the natural progression, development, and replacement of plant species over time. Throughout most of Ohio, a harvested stand or abandoned farm field will eventually become mature forest. Young, or “early-successional” forests, consist of woody shrubs, seedlings, and saplings, and typically offer more fruit and woody browse than mature forests. Early-successional forests also provide cover, both for escape from predators and thermal protection during cold and wet weather. Species such as the Gray Catbird, Eastern Towhee, and Field Sparrow require early-successional forests for breeding, while many mature or boreal forest breeding species such as the Magnolia Warbler, White-throated Sparrow, and Hermit Thrush also use early-successional forests during post-breeding and migratory periods (Rodewald and Brittingham 2004, Chandler et al. 2012). As succession continues, trees mature to sizes large enough to produce acorns and tree cavities that can be used by birds for shelter and nesting. Mature forests are used for breeding by species such as the Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, and Wood Thrush.

Section 5: Enhancing forest composition and structure

Forest structure

Forest structure refers to the vertical arrangement of woody and herbaceous plants within the forest, from the ground up to the tree canopy. A multilayered forest, or a forest containing trees and shrubs in a variety of size classes and heights (Figure 5.1), will provide resources for many songbirds throughout their life cycle. Multiple studies (e.g., MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Cashion 2011, Khanaposhtani et al. 2012) report a strong correlation between forest structural complexity and bird abundance and species richness at the local scale.

Forest structure can impact bird habitat use in many ways. Structure affects the visibility of prey and thus how birds move through the habitat to forage (Robinson and Holmes 1982). For example, Gray Catbirds, Ovenbirds, and thrushes prefer to feed on or near the ground, while birds such as vireos and warblers prefer to feed in the forest canopy. Similarly, many bird species prefer different vertical layers of the forest for nesting. Ovenbirds and Black-and-white Warblers nest on the ground, Eastern Towhees and Gray Catbirds nest within the shrub layer, Cerulean Warblers nest within the canopy, and species such as the Northern Cardinal build nests at a variety of heights.

Forest structure also plays an important role in nest site selection and nest success of many breeding birds present in Ohio. The high density of shrubs and saplings has been positively associated with territory selection, nest site selection, fledgling habitat selection, and higher species richness within Pennsylvania and several Midwestern states (Blake and Karr 1987, Rosenberg et al. 2003, Richmond et al. 2011, Vitz and Rodewald 2011). Notably, heavy deer browse or overuse by livestock can reduce stem density and herbaceous cover, ultimately resulting in a loss of potential nesting sites for Wood Thrush (Rosenberg et al. 2003) or other species with similar nesting preferences.

19

Forest structure is also important outside the breeding season. For example, riparian thickets increased the survival of recent fledglings (Vitz and Rodewald 2010, 2011); thus, understory enhancement of native vines and shrubs is important in riparian forests. The shrub layer of the forest can provide cover and reduce exposure to extreme weather during the winter months for species such as the Carolina Chickadee, Downy Woodpecker, and Tufted Titmouse (Doherty and Grubb 2000). Even for migratory landbirds, structurally diverse forests are important (Ewert et al. 2006). Forests with greater structural complexity have higher amounts of arthropod biomass, which is important to many species during the post-breeding period, including the Veery, Canada Warbler, and Hooded Warbler (McDermott and Wood 2010). Prey biomass has also been positively associated with the presence of several migrant bird species in southern Ohio and Indiana (Fox et al. 2010) as well as Wood Thrush nest success in Ontario (Richmond et al. 2011).

Forest composition

In addition to forest structure, composition of plant species within the forest determines the availability of food and cover resources for birds. Certain species of plants (e.g., hawthorn) are more densely structured than others, providing sheltered nesting sites and protection from threats. Evergreens, offer year-round protection to overwintering birds, like chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches. Cover needs are often unique to each bird species, as are food requirements. Many of these food

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

Many birds eat insects during all or part of their lives. During the breeding season, insects provide an excellent source of fat and protein for nesting females and growing nestlings. During spring, migratory birds in the Midwest feed primarily upon Lepidoptera larvae, i.e., caterpillars, at stopover sites (Graber and Graber 1983, Piaskowski et al. 2008). Oaks, cherries, willows, and birches often contain a greater abundance or availability of Lepidoptera than other trees (Strode 2009, Tallamy and Shropshire 2009, Newell et al. 2014), and thus spring migrants typically forage preferentially within these tree species (Graber and Graber 1983, Ewert et al. 2006, Piaskowski et al. 2008, Wood et al. 2012). Birds arriving prior to the emergence of caterpillars may select other tree species (e.g., Common Hackberry) that provide alternative foods during that time (Strode 2009).

During autumn, many migrating birds will utilize fruiting shrubs, trees, and vines in a forest, exhibiting plasticity in their diets to take advantage of abundant fruit resources; birds that do so forage more efficiently (Parrish 2000) and gain more weight during stopover (Parrish 1997). It is not surprising, then, that multiple studies have documented a positive relationship between the abundance of fall migrants and the abundance of fruit or fruiting plants in forests (e.g., Suthers et al. 2000, Buler et al. 2007, Packett and Dunning 2009, Cashion 2011). Therefore, a diversity of foods including plant species that support high insect diversity, and both hard (e.g., acorns, nuts) and soft fruits (i.e., berries) are necessary to support a variety of birds.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of non-native, invasive plant and insect species are having a strong impact on the forest composition of Ohio’s forests. The next section illustrates how invasive plants, and how one invasive insect, the Emerald Ash Borer, are having an effect on Ohio’s forests.

Invasive plant species

What is an invasive species? According to the National Invasive Species Council, an invasive species is a) non-native to the ecosystem, and b) likely to cause harm to the environment, economics, or health of humans. This section focuses on invasive plant species that can harm the forest ecosystem (see Box 5A), but also, the effects of invasive insect species and the impact that they have had on Ohio’s

Figure 5.1. An example of a structurally complex forest.

20

forests (see The loss of ash on page 22). Often, invasive species owe their success in colonizing new ecosystems to one or more of the following characteristics:

• They tolerate a variety of habitat conditions• They grow and reproduce rapidly• They compete aggressively for resources (like food,

water, and nesting sites)• They lack natural enemies in the new ecosystem

The monoculture, or near monoculture of invasive plants, that often results after an area is colonized by exotic/ invasive plants is typically less complex than native forests that have been able to progress through natural forest succession. The resulting structure and composition of the forest can then have profound effects on the quality of habitat for wildlife populations, including migratory birds.

Numerous studies have documented that the presence and abundance of non-native, invasive plant species within the forest can negatively impact the bird community (McCusker et al. 2010, Rodewald 2012a). Often, generalist bird species, such as the Northern Cardinal, Gray Catbird, and American Robin, persist in areas with an abundance of non-native, invasive plant species, whereas specialist bird species, such as Acadian Flycatchers and Eastern Wood-Pewees, tend to decline (Rodewald and Smith 1998, Bakermans and Rodewald 2006, Rodewald 2012b, Schneider and Miller 2014). Major reasons for these alterations in bird communities include the nutritional value of food provided by invasive plants and their impacts on nesting success.

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

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

germination of both Oriental Bittersweet and Autumn Olive when the fruit was ingested and dispersed by European Starlings. Further, LaFleur et al. (2007) reported the preference of the fruits of Multiflora Rose and Autumn Olive by European Starlings, which in turn limited the dispersal of native plants. Invasive plants often decrease diversity within a forest through mechanisms such as faster dispersal of seed, increased tolerance to shade, and by releasing allelopathic compounds that inhibit competing growth of native tree species. However, the relationship between birds and invasive plant dispersal requires further exploration.

Invasive plants can also negatively affect the reproductive success of forest songbirds. For example, in a study in central Ohio, Northern Cardinals with brighter plumage found in areas dominated by Amur Honeysuckle had lower reproductive fitness than is generally associated with this plumage type (Jones et al. 2010). It is suspected that the poorer nutrition associated with honeysuckle berries may be responsible (Rodewald 2012a). Furthermore, researchers have documented that predation rates of songbird nests are higher in invasive shrubs such as Common Buckthorn and Amur Honeysuckle, particularly early in the breeding season, when these plants have flushed out earlier than native plants (Schmidt and Whelan 1999, Borgmann and Rodewald 2004, Rodewald et al. 2010). Additionally, Rodewald (2012b) clearly documented a decline in nest success for Acadian Flycatchers with increasing density of Amur Honeysuckle.

Yellow-rumped Warbler. Photo by Matthew B. Shumar.

21

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

Tatarian Honeysuckle. (Woody plant) Photo by Kathy Smith. Note that there are additional species of non-native invasive honeysuckles, such as Amur Honeysuckle, that also occur throughout Ohio.

Autumn Olive. (Woody plant) Photo by Kathy Smith.

Common Buckthorn. (Woody plant) Photo by Kathy Smith. The similar looking Glossy Buckthorn is also a common invasive in Ohio.

Garlic Mustard. (Herbaceous plant) Photo by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

Multiflora Rose. (Woody plant) Photo courtesy of the National Park Service.

Oriental Bittersweet. (Woody vine) Photo by Kathy Smith. Note that the native American Bittersweet is similar looking, but has more elliptical-shaped leaves, compared to the rounded leaves of Oriental Bittersweet.

Tree-of-Heaven. (Woody plant) Photo courtesy of OSU.

Japanese Barberry. (Woody plant) Photo by Laura J. Kearns/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

Japanese Stiltgrass. (Herbaceous plant) Photo courtesy of the National Park Service.

22

Lastly, invasive plants can negatively impact the forest arthropod communities, an important food source for birds. Common Buckthorn and Glossy Buckthorn host few arthropods (Piaskowski et al. 2008) and spring migrants were not frequently observed foraging within these shrubs in northern Ohio (P. Rodewald pers. comm., in Ewert 2006). Additionally, Burghardt et al. (2009) showed that the summer abundance and diversity of insects were lower in association with non-native plants. This, in turn, resulted in lower diversity and abundance of native bird species. Clearly, the management and removal of invasive species should be an objective of forest bird management.

The loss of ash

Over the past decade or so, nearly all the ash trees in Ohio have sustained damage from or succumbed to infestation by Emerald Ash Borer (Figure 5.2). Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a non-native and invasive herbivorous insect that has exhibited explosive growth in North America since its first detection in 2002 (Koenig et al. 2013). The result has ranged from a practically unnoticeable loss of scattered ash trees to total loss of forest overstory. EAB is expected to continue to spread, leading some to predict that ash trees could be functionally extirpated from North America within the next few decades (Gandhi and Herms 2010a).

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

Another potential effect of the loss of ash trees is the loss of insects that rely on ash trees (Gandhi and Herms 2009). Many invertebrates have evolved in close association with a limited number of plant genera and can only feed or reproduce on these species. Across their range, ash

trees have been shown to support a diverse community of associated insects comprising 282 species (Gandhi and Herms 2010b). Of these, 43 are known to be associated only with ash trees and face high risk of endangerment by widespread ash mortality (Gandhi and Herms 2010b). Species of high risk in Ohio include the Black-headed Ash Sawfly and Banded Ash Clearwing Moth.

The impacts of EAB invasion, however, have also been noted to have positive effects thus far on higher trophic levels of the ecosystem. EAB-infested trees offer a significant food resource for generalist avian insectivores, including several species of woodpeckers (Koenig et al. 2013). Increases in the abundance of Red-bellied Woodpeckers and White-breasted Nuthatches have been documented in highly invaded areas of the Midwest (Koenig et al. 2013). It is unclear how EAB will affect long-term population trends for these avian insectivores. It is possible that inflated populations of species like Red-bellied Woodpecker will eventually decline after ash trees, and associated populations of EAB, are less prevalent on landscape (Koenig et al. 2013, Klooster et al. 2018).

Figure 5.2. An ash tree damaged by the Emerald Ash Borer. The yellow arrows point to D-shaped exit holes that are made by the larval forms of the beetle. Photo by Marne Titchenell.

23

Coupling the above traits with the fact that many of our most desirable native plant species are often neither well-suited nor well-positioned to repopulate areas where ash trees once constituted most of the forest overstory, it becomes imperative to manage these sites actively if native forests are to be retained or restored. It is recommended that anyone interested in such an endeavor contact qualified professionals (see Section 8) to assist them with identification of potential threats and creation of a plan to meet specific management objectives with an emphasis on diversity. Such a plan should include detailed instructions for minimizing the impact of invasive plants thought to be a threat to the site, information about underlying soil types, site preparation, appropriate plant species to introduce/reintroduce, short and long-term maintenance guidance for the project, potential incentive/cost share programs, etc. A list of tree species recommended for replacement of ash trees can be found in the Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 924, Ash Replacements for Urban and Woodland Plantings (Sydnor et al. 2005).

Management recommendations for enhancing forest composition and structure

1. Remove invasive plant species Working to remove invasive plant species will promote the growth of native species that are much more beneficial to birds throughout the year. See Box 5A for a partial list of invasive plant species found in Ohio, as well as Section 8 for information on management and removal of invasive plants. A complete list of invasive plant species can be obtained from the Ohio Department of Agriculture (https://agri.ohio.gov) under Ohio Administrative Code 901:5-30-01. Removal and management of invasive species is, unfortunately, not a single-step procedure, and continual monitoring of a site and follow-up treatment in multiple years is almost always required. The intial treatment can kill most of the targeted above-ground vegetation, but significant seedbank is usually present in the soil. Financial assistance programs such as the Conservation Stewardship Program can help to offset costs associated with multi-year management (see Section 8 & Box 8B).

2. Manage for native fruiting shrubs, trees, and vines A wide variety of native tree, shrub, and vine species produce fleshy berries consumed by birds and should be planted instead of invasive or other non-native woody species (Box 5B). Vines deserve some special considerations. For example, grape vines can be damaging to trees, but if providing habitat for birds is a management objective, a few vines should be left on trees that are not suited for another purpose such as timber production. Poison-ivy, while a nuisance to many humans, is a readily consumed food source for birds. If it is not posing an immediate problem, consider leaving it for the birds.

3. Manage for a diversity of tree species Keeping a diverse composition of tree species translates into a greater diversity of the bird and biotic community in general. During harvest, avoid removal of just one or a few species. Crop-tree management is one technique that helps to maintain and promote diversity (see Section 8). When planting, use a variety of native species. Diversity also helps to protect small forest patches against disease or invasive pest outbreaks (i.e., Emerald Ash Borer). Finally, targeted and continued removal of non-native and invasive plants such as Tree-of-Heaven, honeysuckle, Garlic Mustard, and Multiflora Rose will help native plants establish and encourage greater diversity.

4. Manage for high abundance and diversity of native insects Managing small patches for high plant species diversity will also provide a variety of host plants for various insect species. However, certain plant species can be targeted to further improve insect abundance and diversity. For example, oak species across the United States host over 500 different species of Lepidopterans (butterflies, skippers, and moths). As previously described, this group of insects is a critical food source for many birds, especially during spring migration. Oaks are not shade-tolerant and will not regenerate in shaded understories. Work with a professional forester to determine the best steps to take in order to encourage the regeneration of oak in the stand. This

24

could include the removal of undesirable species and poor-quality trees to increase light levels at the forest floor. To increase arthropod abundance, consider minimizing use of insecticides within or near the small patch, as such chemicals can decrease beneficial insects as well as pests.

5. Enhance vertical structure within the small patch Increasing the vertical layers (herbaceous layer, shrub layer, subcanopy, and canopy) within a small patch will provide a variety of foraging and nesting sites for many different species of birds. Forest layers can be enhanced in several ways:

a. Open the canopy through techniques such as crop-tree release (see Section 8). This will promote shrub growth by allowing light to reach the forest floor.

b. Depending on the condition of the small patch, thin the patch to create a diversity of plant heights (see Section 8). If removing trees for a timber harvest, select a variety of species consistent with the species found on the property rather than one or two species. This will prevent a loss or change in tree species diversity. Remember to always consult a professional forester when conducting a timber sale.

c. Plant or seed native species (See Box 5B).

d. Allow naturally occurring pockets of native woody plants to regenerate (See Box 5B), which will provide concealment for bird nests and refuge for fledglings.

6. Limit browse and grazing damage from deer and livestock If the property is under a high amount of browsing pressure from deer, allow hunting to reduce the population. Contact the Ohio Department of Natural Resources–Division of Wildlife (http://www.wildohio.gov) for information on deer hunting. Grazing livestock in a forest is not recommended either, as it can cause compacted soils, negatively impacting tree regeneration and growth.

7. Consider successional stage It is important to realize that different forest management practices can create different successional stages, and thus can favor different communities of songbirds. For example:

a. Clearcut = Early Successional Forest = Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow, Gray Catbird

b. Thinning = Mature Forest with Canopy Openings = Red-eyed Vireo, Wood Thrush

Some practices, however, benefit multiple bird commu-nities. For example, a combination of clearcutting and edge feathering favor species that prefer early-succes-sional habitats, but also provide important resources for the fledglings of mature forest breeding birds.

For all these recommendations, there are many tools, people, and methods available for implementing management activities. See Section 8 for more information and where to go for help.

25

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

Virginia Creeper.All photos above by Kathy Smith.

Trees

• Black Cherry• Black Gum• Hackberry (photo)• Oaks• Persimmon (photo)• Sassafras

Shrubs

• Blueberry• Briars (blackberry, raspberry, native rose - Carolina or Swamp)• Chokecherry• Dogwood (Flowering, Red-osier, etc.)• Elderberry (Red (photo), Black)• Hawthorn• Hazelnut (American, Beaked)• Serviceberry• Spicebush• Viburnums* (photo; Mapleleaf, Nannyberry, Possumhaw, Blackhaw,

Rusty Blackhaw, arrowwoods - Downy, Southern, Soft-leaf)

Vines

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

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

Red Elderberry

viburnum

Persimmon

Hackberry

Northern Cardinal eating Poison-ivy berries.Photo by Nina Harfmann/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

26

As described in the Section 3, about 9% of Ohio’s forests are dominated by a forest type called elm-ash-cottonwood, and are located in wetlands, or alongside rivers, creeks, and streams. These forests provide unique habitats for a variety of bird species across the full life cycle and deserve special considerations during management. This section further distinguishes between two main types of wet woods: forested wetlands and riparian forests.

Section 6: Managing wet woods

In general, forested wetlands can have value to bird species across the avian life cycle. For example, forested wetlands in southern Michigan were used by both wetland- and upland-associated breeding birds (Riffell et al. 2006). They also provide breeding habitat for many songbird species, as well as raptors, such as Bald Eagles and Red-shouldered Hawks, and colonial waterbirds, such as Great Blue Herons (heron rookery pictured above). Forested wetlands have been positively associated with the survival of recently fledged Ovenbirds, another upland-associated species, although the mechanism is not clear (Streby and Anderson 2013). Wood Ducks also benefit from forested wetlands during the post-breeding period and early fall migration (Thompson and Baldassare 1988). Further, migrating landbirds tend to concentrate near forested wetlands during spring and fall (Winker et al. 1992, Weisbrod et al. 1993).

For forested wetlands, maintaining soil saturation is an important management recommendation. Reduction in soil saturation and lowered water tables in urban wetlands have resulted in greater nitrogen mineralization and nitrification, with higher probability of nitrate export from the watershed (Faulkner 2004), potentially altering plant communities and limiting arthropod abundance. For breeding Prothonotary Warblers (see Box 6A), nest predation rates were higher when water depths were lower due to increased predation from Raccoons (Hoover 2006). Additionally, for improved Wood Duck management, maintaining water levels in forested wetlands throughout the post-breeding period (i.e., through November) is recommended if possible (Thompson and Baldassare 1988). Impoundments or water control structures may need to be installed to help maintain desirable water levels in a forested wetland patch (Gray et al. 2013). Consult with a professional on techniques for doing this (see Section 8).

Forested wetlands

A forested wetland is forest in which the ground is ephemerally or permanently covered with water (Figure 6.1). According to the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230.3), wetlands are:

“...those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”

Figure 6.1. Example of a forested wetland. Photo by Marne Titchenell.

27

Riparian forests

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

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

Thus, some, but not all, parts of a riparian forest may be classified as wetlands. The common elm-ash-cottonwood forest is the primary riparian forest type in Ohio. In general, riparian forests have value for a number of breeding bird species (e.g., Inman et al. 2002), such as Wood Duck, Acadian Flycatcher, Northern Parula, Prothonotary Warbler, and Yellow-throated Warbler. Important woody plant species for birds that are associated with this forest type include grape vine, used for both nesting and as a food source, and dogwood species, which can be important for migrating songbirds such as Rusty Blackbirds and Blackpoll Warblers (Kirsch et al. 2013, Wright et al. 2018).

Riparian forests filter and improve water quality, and help to maintain lower water temperatures and increased oxygen levels. This is important for many invertebrate and fish species, and thus important for sensitive riparian bird species such as Belted Kingfisher and Louisiana Waterthrush. Additionally, riparian forests often increase connectivity to other forest patches on the landscape.

Management for bird species can be achieved through timber stand improvement, but consulting with a professional forester is necessary because of the wide variation in site condition and patch size. Site conditions

Figure 6.2. Example of a riparian forest. Photo by Marne Titchenell.

Box 6A: Prothonotary Warbler

Prothonotary Warbler. Photo by Matthew B. Shumar.

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

28

can vary greatly due to flooding regimes. Many riparian forests are often narrow, which might result in more wind-throw post-harvest. It is advised not to cut within 50 ft (15 m) of the waterway to minimize erosion (Myers and Buchman 1984). Steeper slopes should have a wider riparian buffer. The greater the width of the riparian forest the better, but the condition of the surrounding landscape (i.e., the amount of urbanization or development) may have a greater effect on the types of birds that will use the forest than width itself (Rodewald and Bakermans 2006). Invasive species such as bush honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.) and Multiflora Rose have proliferated in these forests, so removal of these are recommended to improve habitat for birds (see Sections 5 and 8). Riparian thickets appear to be selected for by recently fledged songbirds and are correlated with survival (Vitz and Rodewald 2010, 2011). Thus, enhancement of understory plants, such as native vines and shrubs, can provide both food sources and nesting cover for breeding birds. For restoration of riparian forests, the planting of cottonwoods, which grow quickly, has been associated with increased bird species richness

(Twedt et al. 2002, Hamel 2003). One of the advantages of planting cottonwoods for restoration of riparian forests is that the species exhibits rapid vertical growth (approximately 6-9 ft/2-3 m per year), thus increasing structural diversity and improving habitat quality for a variety of bird species (Twedt et al. 2002). However, consider planting other riparian tree species to increase diversity for overall forest health.

Structural diversity, however, is greater in remnant than restored riparian forest patches, leading to greater overall biodiversity in remnant patches. There is a greater overwinter persistence of bird species using remnant riparian forests compared to restored forests, as well as disproportionately greater use by birds of older-aged trees (Latta et al. 2012).

For additional suggestions on management and restoration of these types of forests, consult with a natural resource professional (see Box 8A).

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

29

Enhancing beneficial aspects of habitat

In addition to good forest management, other activities can benefit and attract a greater abundance and diversity of bird species near and within a small forest patch.

Water

Water is essential to all life, so unsurprisingly, water features are an important enhancement that can be made to a small forest patch. In upland woods, vernal pools, a kind of seasonal wetland, can provide additional foraging resources as well as a water source. Many species of songbirds, ducks, and rails make use of vernal pools at some point in their life cycle (Paton 2005). Additionally, a study in southwestern Michigan suggested that both short- and long-distance migrating birds prefer to forage closer to water bodies within upland forests (Ewert et al. 2004).

Thus, it is strongly suggested that vernal pools be retained in upland forest. Further, vernal pools should be allowed to establish wetland vegetation, such as Buttonbush or a variety of ferns. Pools enhance structural heterogeneity and may provide additional food resources, such as aquatic invertebrates, to spring migrants. Creation of entirely new vernal pools is possible, but restoration is preferred over creation where possible, because it is difficult to create the same level of ecological function in an entirely new wetland compared to an existing wetland (Calhoun et al. 2014). For either restoration or creation, it is best to consult with a natural resource professional. The Ohio Wetlands Association/Midwest Biodiversity Institute also holds annual workshops on vernal pools in March and April throughout the state. See https://www.ohwetlands.org and https://www.ohiovernalpoolnetwork.org.

Dead wood

Leaving dead wood in a forest may seem wasteful, but it has tremendous value to birds and other wildlife species. Retaining dead wood in the restoration of fragmented forests helps to provide diverse habitat structure and function (Marzluff and Ewing 2008). For example, dead standing trees, called snags, provide foraging and nesting habitat for woodpeckers. Additionally, many other migratory species (e.g., Tree Swallow, House Wren) and residents (e.g., Tufted Titmouse, Black-capped Chickadee) nest in cavities of snags and the dead branches of live trees. Downed wood provides additional habitat for fungi, insects, and mammals, which in turn provide food for birds. Brush piles made of fallen dead branches also provide important cover and nesting habitat for several species of songbirds, such as the Song Sparrow and Brown Thrasher (NRCS 2002).

Leaving snags standing, where they are not a safety concern, is encouraged. With the current statewide loss of ash species, snags are common, especially in northwestern counties of Ohio. If a property is lacking snags, or snags have already fallen, new snags can be created by girdling trees, injecting herbicide, or through a high intensity prescribed fire conducted with professional guidance (see Section 8). Use caution when creating snags and keep in mind they may present hazards during future management activities. The number of snags preferred per acre varies among bird species. For example, 4-5 snags per acre benefits Downy Woodpeckers (Schroeder 1983), while a study on Red-headed Woodpeckers in Wisconsin found that these birds were more likely to place their nesting cavities where snag density was approximately 12 snags per acre (King et al. 2007).

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

30

Supplemental food

Undoubtedly, bird feeding has been documented to have several benefits. For example, studies on both Carolina and Black-capped chickadees have shown increased overwinter survival in association with supplemental feeding (Brittingham and Temple 1988, Doherty and Grubb 2002). Additionally, supplemental feeding can have positive effects on breeding success and population levels (Robb et al. 2008a). However, there can be some drawbacks to supplemental feeding, such as an increased disease risk from individuals congregating around a central feeding location, and higher predation risk (Robb et al. 2008a). Feeders should be brought in at night to avoid exploitation by mesopredators, such as Raccoons. For most birds, supplemental feeding is best done during the winter when resources are limited, and positive benefits can carry over to the breeding season (Robb et al. 2008b). Hummingbirds, however, can benefit from supplemental feeding during migration.

Bird feeders are the most efficient way to provide food to winter residents. Sunflower, safflower, corn, millet, milo, nyjer, and suet are good foods to provide, although sunflower seeds will appeal to the greatest variety of birds (CLO 2012). From May through November, provide hummingbirds with a feeder filled with homemade solution of sugar water (see Box 7A). Place feeders within 3 ft (1 m) of windows or more than 30 ft (9 m) from them to avoid fatal window collisions (CLO 2012). Feeders should be cleaned at least every two weeks to minimize disease risk. Feeders can be cleaned in a dishwasher on a hot

setting, or by hand with soap and boiling water, a diluted bleach solution, or weak vinegar solution (10%; CLO 2012).

Minimize supplemental feeding in the summer. Most bird species are feeding on the abundance of insects and it is also healthier for their young to eat insects. Additionally, summer feeding is more likely to attract some of the harmful mesopredator species that are also songbird nest predators (see page 32). See Box 7A for additional resources on bird feeding.

Reducing hazards

Other factors can have negative consequences for birds, and should be minimized if possible around forest patches. These threats will likely be a greater issue in more urbanized areas.

Collisions

In the United States, approximately 500 million to 1 billion birds die annually from collisions with buildings, automobiles, powerlines, communication towers, and wind turbines (Loss et al. 2014, 2015). Of these, collisions with buildings represent one of the greatest hazards. Windows reflect trees and vegetation, such that birds confuse them for a continuation of the habitat. Borden et al. (2010) found that when trees were present within ~16 ft (5m) of a window, the resulting reflection of trees in the windows were associated with a greater risk of fatality for birds. Other building characteristics that can increase

Box 7A: Resources related to feeding wild birds

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

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

• ODNR-Division of Wildlife http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/wildlife-watching/attracting-wildlife

Carolina Wren. Photo by Tim Daniel/ODNR-Division of Wildlife.

31

avian mortality include the height of the structure and the amount of light used on nights with high rates of songbird migration.

Most bird-building collisions occur at residential buildings rather than at high-rise urban structures (Loss et al. 2014). Thus, it is important that homeowners take steps to make their windows safer for birds. Strategies for treating reflective glass include installing non-reflective window films, decals, exterior screens or nets, or painting, etching, or temporarily coating collision-prone windows to make them visible to birds (Sheppard 2011; see also Box 7B). Reducing exterior lighting during the peak months of bird migration can also help protect migrating birds.

If a wind-turbine, cell phone tower, powerline, or road is near your property, consider the following actions:

1. Contact the local utility provider and ask them to install markers on powerlines near your property. Electric lines can be fitted with painted markers of varying shapes and sizes that will alert birds to the electric lines.

2. Plant trees an appropriate distance from the powerlines, so that they do not grow into cables. Use tree species that will grow to the approximate height of the powerlines to encourage birds to fly up and over the lines. Consult with your electric company for advice on the most appropriate species of trees to plant and how to care for your growing trees (APLIC 2012).

3. Restore suitable habitat beyond ~1,600 ft (500 m) of a wind turbine. Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) found that the density of breeding birds was reduced by 15-53% within ~1,600 ft (500 m) of a wind turbine, suggesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32

that reducing suitable habitat within that distance of a turbine may help to minimize mortality.

4. Minimize potential road mortality by removing food sources such as roadkill (Jacobsen 2005). Use fruiting shrubs (see Box 5B) and other attractants (see Box 7A) in areas of your property that are less risky to birds.

Mesopredators

Mesopredators are a group of medium-sized mammals that prey upon a wide variety of bird species. Examples include Raccoons, opossums, foxes, and skunks, but also the domestic cat. Cats are likely the single greatest source of human-caused mortality for birds and mammals in the country (Loss et al. 2013). In the U.S., populations of the domestic cat, a nonnative species, total 148-188 million (TWS 2011), of which 70-100 million cats are free-ranging or feral (Levy and Crawford 2004). Free-ranging domestic

cats kill 1.4–3.7 billion birds and 6.9–20.7 billion mammals each year in the U.S (Loss et al. 2013). Even well-fed cats follow their instincts to hunt and kill wildlife (Adamec 1976, Robertson 1998). Therefore, “outdoor” or feral cats that are fed regularly still pose a significant threat to birds and other wildlife. Keep cats indoors at all times. “Catios,” or outdoor, caged recreation areas, can be a safe alternative to allowing cats to roam freely. Do not feed feral cats or other mesopredators, and feed pets inside.

To minimize problems with mesopredators, harvest all garden foods and do not let them go to waste in the garden. Secure lids tightly on garbage cans and use enclosed composting bins. Use baffles and place feeders stategically to minimize Raccoon and squirrel use (Pennisi and Vantassel 2012). Consider bringing feeders in at night. When a serious problem with nuisance wildlife arises, contact the local Division of Wildlife office (Box 7C) or a certified nuisance wildlife control operator.

Box 7C: ODNR-Division of Wildlife offices

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

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

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

• District 3: Northeastern Ohio 912 Portage Lakes Dr., Akron, OH, 44319 (330) 644-2293 District 4: Southeastern Ohio 360 E. State St., Athens, OH 45701 (740) 589-9930

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

33

Previous sections have introduced a number of possibilities for managing forests to improve habitat for birds. This section provides details on many of the techniques used to achieve management objectives.

The importance of having a management plan

Before any management is conducted, landowners should consult with a natural resource professional to develop a management plan for their forest (Box 8A). They will walk the woods with the landowner and provide guidance. This might include giving advice on harvesting timeframes, non-native species management, and providing information on ways to get financial assistance that can help to achieve the goals of the management plan (Box 8B). Do not harvest without consulting a forester. Use Call Before You Cut (877-424-8288, http://callb4ucut.com/ohio/) for expert advice on how to do this.

Basic tools for management

Any forest management plan will require the use of some basic management tools. Which tools to use will depend on several factors such as budget, the scale and nature of the project, and personal preference. We briefly describe many of these methods below, but for a good primer see the Ohio State Extension factsheets under Forest Management at https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/publications/forestry.

Cutting

Simply cutting and felling trees, shrubs, or vines is one way to tackle forest management projects such as group

selection cuts, crop-tree release, or creating canopy gaps. Details for each of these timber harvesting techniques are provided later in this section. The downside to cutting is that many woody plants will often resprout, particularly invasive species, unless suppressed with an herbicide promptly after cutting. Certainly, repeated cutting of invasives will work, but it will involve repetition over multiple years and a much bigger time investment.

Girdling/frilling

Girdling/frilling are useful techniques for invasive species management and crop tree release. Girdling involves cutting a ½ inch to 1½ inch groove around a standing tree. The depth of the groove depends on the size and species of the tree, but it is critical to reach the transport vessels of the tree. The technique works because, if done correctly, it cuts off the flow of sap for the tree, leading to its eventual death. Axes, hatchets, or chainsaws are all useful tool options for girdling. Use girdling in conjunction with herbicides (see Figure 8.1) to increase its effectiveness. Frilling is similar to girdling but involves cutting downward at an angle to reach the tree vessels. Axes or hatchets are effective tools for frilling.

Section 8: Management techniques

Figure 8.1. Girdling (left) and frilling (right) field techniques to control invasive species. Illustrations courtesy of Ohio State University Extension.

34

Using herbicides

Using herbicides will allow you to more quickly and effectively achieve outcomes such as removing invasive plants or implementing a crop tree release. Researching techniques and herbicide types for the species one is trying to treat is essential for cost-effectiveness and safe use. For all these techniques, it is important to pay attention to whether an oil or water-based herbicide is recommended. Consult Ohio State Extension Factsheet F-45 Supplement, “Herbicides Commonly Used for Controlling Undesirable Trees, Shrubs, and Vines in Your Woodland” under Forest Management at https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/publications/forestry.

to follow labels carefully. When managing invasives near streams and wetlands, use herbicides specially formulated for these situations. When in doubt, consult a conservation professional for guidance or hire a contractor.

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire, or a controlled burn, can be a very useful tool in forest management, particularly in promoting the growth of oaks and controlling invasive plants. However, it is often difficult for private landowners to conduct this on their properties because licensed professionals must do the burning, and obtaining the proper permits can be difficult. Use of fire may be more realistic on public lands or private lands adjacent to public lands.

Fire kills the aboveground portion of fire-intolerant species such as maple, cherry, and sassafras (i.e., species with more shallow root systems and/or thin bark); in doing so, it also enables more light to reach the forest floor to promote oak growth. Repetition is important: it is more beneficial when followed up with selective herbicide the following season and an additional fire within 5-10 years (Sargent and Carter 1999, Iverson et al. 2008, Hutchinson et al. 2012). See Box 8C for more information on finding the appropriate fire return interval for your forest. Yet, frequent, low-intensity fires alone are not sufficient to promote oak growth and must be combined with an additional management technique such as follow-up herbicide, selective removal of large trees, or higher-intensity fires (Hutchinson et al. 2012). Do not burn the forest patch in its entirety each year; rather, create burn breaks to provide refugia for animals and produce a heterogenous burn pattern (Sargent and Carter 1999). Managing for fire-tolerant or shade-intolerant trees such as oaks and hickories allows for simultaneous management against trees, such as sassafras and maple, which provide fewer spring resources to birds.

Timber harvests and other cutting techniques

Most people think of timber harvests as a way to generate revenue. A timber harvest can also be a very important management tool, which can help create forest stands that lead to a greater variety and abundance of birds. Here, we outline some of these forestry practices (based on Heiligmann et al. 2001, Apsley and Heiligmann 2002, and Yahner et al. 2012). Remember that forest composition,

Figure 8.2. Basal bark spray (left) and cut stump application (right) field techniques to control invasive species. Illustrations courtesy of Ohio State University Extension.

Some basic techniques for using herbicides include tree injection, basal bark spray, and cut stump application. Tree injection involves first creating a series of spaced cuts around the tree, and then injecting herbicide into the cuts, and is useful for killing large trees with rough bark, such as Tree-of-heaven (an invasive species). Basal bark spraying is effective on smaller trees and shrubs (<4-6 in diameter) and on species with smooth bark. Spraying the lower 12-18 inches of the bark is most effective, but care must be taken to limit runoff into the soil or onto non-target plants nearby. Finally, cut stump application is useful for species that will resprout readily after being cut, such as the non-native honeysuckles. The timing of herbicide application after cutting will depend on whether your herbicide is water or oil-based, although it is often better to apply the herbicide as soon as possible after cutting. Alternatively, the herbicide can be applied to newly emerged leaves during the following growing season to ensure the plants are killed back and do not resprout at unwanted densities. Those electing not to use herbicides may choose to apply cutting treatments more frequently. If using herbicides, remember

35

size, and other characteristics can have an impact on what harvest and cutting management techniques are most suitable. Some variation or combination of these techniques may be more suitable for a small patch. All forestry practices should be preceded by invasive species control and many practices may be eligible for cost sharing assistance (see Box 8B). As always, seek guidance from a natural resource professional first, and use a forest management plan to guide management actions.

• Clearcutting - cutting all trees in a given area. This creates an even-aged forest structure. Some species such as Yellow-breasted Chat and Prairie Warbler rely on the young, shrubby habitat created through clearcutting.

• Shelterwood harvest - only a portion of trees, usually the smaller trees and a few of the larger ones, are initially cut, leaving a few overstory trees that are removed at a later time, usually after ~10 years. This sporadic cutting allows for the establishment of seed trees and development of

younger seedlings, such that a relatively even-aged forest structure is created.

• Thinning - cutting and (sometimes) removal of specific trees or groups of trees throughout the forest (i.e., group-selection). Much of the overstory is retained, but this creates canopy gaps and allows for shade-intolerant tree species to be released, creating a more diverse forest structure. Be careful of a practice called “high-grading,” however, which is sometimes referred to as “selective cutting,” i.e., when only trees of greatest commercial value are removed. This practice can greatly reduce the quality of your forest patch for future timber production and as wildlife habitat.

• Crop-tree release/management - a non-commercial thinning method that involves identifying desired trees, and then girdling or removing less-desirable competing trees (but not necessarily limited to invasives). This reduces the competition around the crop tree. A crop

Box 8A: People who can help

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

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

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

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

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

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

• County Parks Districts - often provide expertise and assistance to landowners with adjacent property.

36

tree is a tree that has a desired feature to the landowner, such as fruit for wildlife, timber value, or an aesthetic feature. Crop-tree release is a common management technique for encouraging the growth of oak trees, which have many wildlife benefits.

• Hydro-axing - a non-commercial application that involves the use of a special machine that could be described as a cross between a bulldozer and a shredder. It is useful for areas where a large number of undesirable, smaller-sized trees or shrubs need to be removed. It is particularly useful for control of some woody invasive plants such as autumn olive.

Specific management goals and recommended techniques

Invasive species control

Common techniques for successful invasive species control include many of the techniques described above. Detailed descriptions and specific recommendations for control of these plants can be found in the Invasive Species section at https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/publications/forestry.

Box 8B: Financial assistance programs

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

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

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

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

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

Uneven-aged vs. even-aged management

Forest patches that have trees in a variety of age classes are called uneven-aged stands and offer greater structural diversity for a number of bird species. Silvicultural practices such as thinning, crop tree release, and selection cuts will promote uneven-aged stands. These are recommended for smaller forest patches.

Forest patches consisting of trees belonging to the same age class are called even-aged stands. Practices such as clearcutting and shelterwood cutting will create an even-aged stand. When the canopy is removed, a new forest begins to grow, creating a lush growth; these early-successional forests have great value for bird species that require these types of habitats, such as Blue-winged Warbler, Prairie Warbler, Indigo Bunting, and Eastern Towhee. These stands also create important habitat for many birds during the post-breeding stage. Usually, however, even-aged stands are most beneficial to birds and other wildlife when created within a landscape with contiguous forest cover. In addition, area-sensitive species, such as the Yellow-breasted Chat, generally only benefit when cuts are greater than 25 acres (10 ha; Yahner et al. 2012).

37

Box 8C: Tips for planning a prescribed fire

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

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

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

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

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

38

Native trees and woody plants

American Beech Fagus grandifoliaAmerican Bittersweet Celastrus scandensAmerican Chestnut Castanea dentataAmerican Elm Ulmus americanaAmerican Hazelnut Corylus americanaAmerican Sweetgum Liquidambar styracifluaAmerican Sycamore Platanus occidentalisAmerican Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginianaBeaked Hazelnut Corylus cornutaBlack Ash Fraxinus nigraBlack Cherry Prunus serotinaBlack Elderberry Sambucus nigraBlack Gum Nyssa sylvaticaBlack Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccataBlack Oak Quercus velutinaBlack Willow Salix nigraBlackhaw Viburnum prunifoliumBur Oak Quercus macrocarpaButtonbush Cephalanthus occidentalisCarolina Rose Rosa carolinaChokecherry Prunus virginianaCommon Hackberry Celtis occidentalisDowny Arrowwood Viburnum rafinesqueanumEastern Black Walnut Juglans nigraEastern Cottonwood Populus deltoidesEastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensisGlossy Buckthorn Rhamnus frangulaGrape vine Vitis spp.Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosaGreen Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanicaKentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicusLowbush Blueberry Vaccinium angustifoliumMapleleaf Viburnum Viburnum acerifoliumNannyberry Viburnum lentagoNorthern Red Oak Quercus rubraPersimmon Diospyros virginianaPoison-ivy Toxicodendron radicansPossumhaw Ilex deciduaQuaking Aspen Populus tremuloides

Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosaRed Maple Acer rubrumRiver Birch Betula nigraRusty Blackhaw Viburnum rufidulumSassafras Sassafras albidumScarlet Oak Quercus coccineaServiceberry Amelanchier spp.Silky Dogwood Cornus amomumSilver Maple Acer saccharinumSoft-leaf Arrowwood Viburnum molleSpicebush Lindera benzoinSugar Maple Acer saccharumSwamp Rose Rosa palustrisTulip Poplar (Yellow Poplar) Liriodendron tulipiferaVirginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefoliaWhite Ash Fraxinus americanaWhite Birch (Paper Birch) Betula papyriferaWhite Oak Quercus alba

Invasive trees and woody plants

Amur Honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Autumn Olive Elaeagnus umbellataCommon Buckthorn Rhamnus catharticaJapanese Barberry Berberis thunbergiiMultiflora Rose Rosa multifloraOriental Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatusTatarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tataricaTree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima

Invasive herbaceous plants

Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolataJapanese Stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum

Appendix: Common and scientific names for referenced flora and fauna

39

Birds

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescensAmerican Redstart Setophaga ruticillaAmerican Robin Turdus migratoriusBald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalusBlack-and-white Warbler Mniotilta variaBlack-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillusBlue-winged Warbler Vermivora cyanopteraBrown-headed Cowbird Molothrus aterBrown Thrasher Toxostoma rufumCanada Warbler Cardellina canadensisCarolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensisCerulean Warbler Setophaga ceruleaDark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalisDowny Woodpecker Picoides pubescensEastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmusEastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virensEuropean Starling Sturnus vulgarisField Sparrow Spizella pusillaGray Catbird Dumetella carolinensisHermit Thrush Catharus guttatusHooded Warbler Setophaga citrinaHouse Wren Troglodytes aedonIndigo Bunting Passerina cyaneaLark Sparrow Chondestes grammacusMagnolia Warbler Setophaga magnoliaNorthern Bobwhite Colinus virginianusNorthern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalisNorthern Parula Setophaga americanaOvenbird Seiurus aurocapillaPrairie Warbler Setophaga discolorProthonotary Warbler Protonotaria citreaRed-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinusRed-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceusRose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianusRed-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalusRuffed Grouse Bonasa umbellusRusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinusScarlet Tanager Piranga olivaceaSong Sparrow Melospiza melodiaSwainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatusTree Swallow Tachycineta bicolorTufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolorVeery Catharus fuscescensWhite-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensisWhite-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollisWild Turkey Meleagris gallopavoWood Duck Aix sponsaWood Thrush Hylocichla mustelinaYellow-breasted Chat Icteria virensYellow-throated Warbler Setophaga dominica

Other vertebrates

Domestic Cat Felis catusGray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteusRaccoon Procyon lotorRed Fox Vulpes vulpesStriped Skunk Mephitis mephitisVirginia Opossum Didelphis virginianaWhite-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Invertebrates

Asian Longhorned Beetle Anoplophora glabripennisBanded Ash Clearwing Moth Podosesia aureocinctaBlack-headed Ash Sawfly Tethida bardaEmerald Ash Borer Agrilus planipennisGypsy Moth Lymantria dispar

40

Abrams, M. D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. BioScience 42:346-353.

Adamec, R. E. 1976. The interaction of hunger and preying in the domestic cat (Felis catus): an adaptive hierarchy? Behavioral Biology 18:263-272.

Albright, T. A. 2017. Forests of Ohio, 2016. Resource Update FS-139. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 4 p.

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C. http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/15518/Reducing_Avian_Collisions_2012watermarkLR.pdf

Apsley, D. and S. Gehrt. 2006. Enhancing Food (Mast) Production for Woodland Wildlife in Ohio. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet F-60-06.

Apsley, D. K., and R. B. Heiligmann. 2002. Crop-tree Management: a new tool to help you achieve your woodland goals. Extension Factsheet 50-02. The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.

Atchison, K. A., and A. D. Rodewald. 2006. The value of urban forests to wintering birds. Natural Areas Journal 26:280-288.

Avery, M. L. 2013. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/rusbla DOI: 10.2173/bna.200

Bairlein, F. 2002. How to get fat: nutritional mechanisms of seasonal fat accumulation in migratory songbirds. Naturwissenschaften 89:1-10.

Bakermans, M. H., and A. D. Rodewald. 2002. Enhancing wildlife habitat on farmlands. The Ohio State University Extension Factsheet W-14-2002. Columbus, OH.

Bakermans, M. H., and A. D. Rodewald. 2006. Scale-dependent habitat use of Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) in central Ohio. The Auk 123:368-382.

Bent, A. C. 1958. Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, tanagers, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. no. 211.

Bélisle, M., and A. Desrochers. 2002. Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landscape Ecology 17:219-231.

Blake, J. G., and W. G. Hoppes. 1986. Influence of resource abundance on use of tree-fall gaps by birds in an isolated woodlot. The Auk 103:328-340.

Blake J. G., and J. R. Karr. 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68:1724-34.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, and A. W. Jones. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 110:44-52.

Borgmann, K. L., and A. D. Rodewald. 2004. Nest predation in an urbanizing landscape:the role of exotic shrubs. Ecological Applications 14:1757-1765.

Bonter, D. N., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., and T. M. Donovan. 2009. Characteristics of important stopover locations for migrating birds: remote sensing with radar in the Great Lakes Basin. Conservation Biology 23:440-448.

Brittingham, M. C., and S. A. Temple. 1988. Impacts of supplemental feeding on survival rates of Black-capped Chickadees. Ecology 69:581-589.

Buler, J. J., and F. R. Moore. 2006. Effects of forest cover on the movement of a long-distance migrant during stopover after crossing the Gulf of Mexico. Poster presented at the 24th International Ornithological Congress, Hamburg, Germany.

Buler, J. J., F. R. Moore, and S. Woltmann. 2007. A multi-scale examination of stopover habitat use by birds. Ecology 88:1789-1802.

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2009. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219-224.

Calhoun, A. J. K., J. Arigoni, R. P. Brooks, M. L. Hunter, and S. C. Richter. 2014. Creating successful vernal pools: a literature review and advice for practitioners. Wetlands 34:1027-1038.

Cashion, E. B. 2011. Avian use of riparian habitats and the Conservation Reserve Program: migratory stopover in agro-ecosystems. Master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Chandler, C. C., D. I. King, and R. B. Chandler. 2012. Do mature forest birds prefer early-successional habitat during the post-fledging period? Forest Ecology and Management 264:1-9.

CLO (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology). 2012. Bird Notes 1: Winter Bird Feeding. http://feederwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BirdNote01-Winter-Bird-Feeding-_for-PDF_2012-10-22-RGB.pdf.

Literature Cited

41

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Desrochers, A., and S. J. Hannon. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post‐fledging period. Conservation Biology 11:1204-1210.

Doherty, P. F., and T. C. Grubb, Jr. 2000. Habitat and landscape correlates of presence, density, and species richness of birds wintering in forest fragments in Ohio. The Wilson Bulletin 112:388-394.

Doherty, P. F. and T. C. Grubb. 2002. Survivorship of permanent-resident birds in a fragmented forested landscape. Ecology 83:844-857.

Driscoll, M. J. L., and T. M. Donovan. 2004. Landscape context moderates edge effects: nesting success of Wood Thrushes in central New York. Conservation Biology 18:1330-1338.

Drummond, B. A. 2005. The selection of native and invasive plants by frugivorous birds in Maine. Northeastern Naturalist 12:33-44.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Management measures for wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems. Chapter 7 in EPA-840-B-92-002, Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

Ewert, D. N., and M. J. Hamas. 1996. Ecology of migratory landbirds during migration in the Midwest. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report NC, 200-208.

Ewert, D. N., R. J. Smith, and R. H. Diehl. 2004. Use of habitat patches by migratory birds during migration in southwestern Michigan. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ewert D. N., G. J. Soulliere, R. D. Macleod, M. C. Shieldcastle, P. G. Rodewald, E. Fujimura, J. Shieldcastle, and R. J. Gates. 2006. Migratory bird stopover site attributes in the western Lake Erie basin. Ann Arbor. 2006 Apr;1001:48103.

Ewing, C. J., C. E. Hausman, J. Pogacnik, J. Slot, and P. Bonello. 2018. Beech leaf disease: an emerging forest epidemic. Forest Pathology e12488.

Faulkner, S. 2004. Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of forested wetlands. Urban Ecosystems 7:89-106.

Fox, V. L., C. P. Buehler, C. M. Byers, and S. E. Drake. 2010. Forest composition, leaf litter, and songbird communities in oak-vs. maple-dominated forests in the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 259:2426-2432.

Freemark, K. E., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. Pages 443–454 in J. M. Hagen III and D. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gandhi, K. J. K. and D. A. Herms. 2010a. Direct and indirect effects of alien insect herbivores on ecological processes and interactions in forests of eastern North America. Biological Invasions 12:389-405.

Gandhi, K. J. K. and D. A. Herms. 2010b. North American arthropods at risk due to widespread Fraxinus mortality caused by the Alien Emerald ash borer. Biological Invasions 12:1839–1846.

Gardner, R. 2016. Plant communities of the oak openings. Chapter 2 (p. 10-15) in Living in the Oak Openings: a guide to one of the world’s last great places (J. Thieme, Ed.) Homewood Press Inc, Toledo, OH, USA.

Gilbert-Norton, L., Wilson R., Stevens J. R., and K. H. Beard. 2010. A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology 24:660-668.

Gordon, R. B. 1969. The natural vegetation of Ohio in pioneer days. Ohio Biological Survey N.S. Bulletin 3(2):1-109.

Graber, J. W., and R. R. Graber. 1983. Feeding rates of warblers in spring. Condor 85:139-150.

Gray, M. J., H. M. Hagy, J. A. Nyman, and J. D. Stafford. 2013. Management of wetlands for wildlife. Ch 4 in Wetland Techniques: Vol. 3 Applications and Management, J. T. Anderson and C. A. Davis, eds. Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, Germany.

Greenberg, R. and S. Droege. 1999. On the decline of the Rusty Blackbird and the use of ornithological literature to document long-term population trends. Conservation Biology 13:553-559.

Groom, J.D. and T. C. Grubb. 2002. Bird species associated with riparian woodland in fragmented, temperate-deciduous forest. Conservation Biology 16:832-836.

Haas, C. A. 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors by birds in wooded patches in an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 9:845-854.

Hamel, P. B. 2003. Winter bird community differences among methods of bottomland hardwood forest restoration: results after seven growing seasons. Forestry 76:189-197

Hausman C. E., J. F. Jaeger, and O. J. Rocha. 2010. Impacts of emerald ash borer (EAB) eradication and tree mortality: potential for a secondary spread of invasive plant species. Biological Invasions 12:2013-2023.

Heiligmann, R. B. 1997. Controlling Undesirable Trees, Shrubs, and Vines in Your Woodland. Extension Factsheet 45-97. The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.

Heiligmann, R. B. 2006. Herbicides commonly used for controlling undesirable trees, shrubs, and vines in your woodland. Extension Factsheet F-45 Supplement 06. The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.

Heiligmann, R. B., Norland, E. R., and D. A. Hix. 2001. Harvesting and reproduction methods for Ohio forests. Extension Factsheet 47-01. The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.

Heckscher, C. M., L. R. Bevier, A. F. Poole, W. Moskoff, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten (2017). Veery (Catharus fuscescens), version 3.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.veery.03

Hoover, J. P., and M. C. Brittingham. 1998. Nest-site selection and nesting success of Wood Thrushes. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 110:375-383.

Hoover, J. P., M. C. Brittingham, and L. C. Goodrich. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on nesting success of Wood Thrushes. The Auk 112:146-155.

42

Howell, C. A., W. D. Dijak, and F. R. Thompson. 2007. Landscape context and selection for forest edge by breeding Brown-headed Cowbirds. Landscape Ecology 22:273-284.

Hutchinson, T. F., D. Rubino, B. C. McCarthy, and E. K. Sutherland. 2003. History of forests and land-use. Pages 17-28 in Characteristics of Mixed-Oak Forest Ecosystems in Southern Ohio Prior to the Reintroduction of Fire (E. K. Sutherland and T. F. Hutchinson, Eds). General Technical Report NE-229. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Hutchinson, T. F., D. A. Yaussy, R. P. Long, J. Rebbeck, and E. K. Sutherland. 2012. Long-term (13-year) effects of repeated prescribed fires on stand structure and tree regeneration in mixed-oak forests. Forest Ecology and Management 286:87-100.

Inman, R. L., H. H. Prince, and D. B. Hayes. 2002. Avian communities in forested riparian wetlands of southern Michigan, USA. Wetlands 22:647-660.

Iverson, L. R., T. F. Hutchinson, A. M. Prasad, and M. P. Peters. 2008. Thinning, fire, and oak regeneration across a heterogeneous landscape in the eastern US: 7-year results. Forest Ecology and Management 255:3035-3050.

Jacobsen, S. L. 2005. Mitigation measures for highway-caused impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002, C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, Editors. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191 Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA: 1043-1050. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/jacobsen2005highwaymeasures.pdf

Jennings D. E., J. R. Gould, J. D. Vandenberg, J. J. Duan, and P. M. Shrewsbury. 2013. Quantifying the impact of woodpecker predation on population dynamics of the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis). PLoS ONE 8(12): e83491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083491.

Jin, S., L. Yang, P. Danielson, C. Homer, J. Fry, and G. Xian. 2013. A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sensing of Environment 132:159–175.

Johnson, W., and C. Adkisson. 1985. Dispersal of beech nuts by Blue Jays in fragmented landscapes. The American Midland Naturalist 113:319-324.

Jones, T. M., A. D. Rodewald, and D. P. Shustack. 2010. Variation in plumage coloration of Northern Cardinals in urbanizing landscapes. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:326-333.

Keller, G. S., and R. H. Yahner. 2007. Seasonal forest-patch use by birds in fragmented landscapes of south-central Pennsylvania. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:410-18.

Khanaposhtani, M. G., M. Kaboli, M. Karami, and V. Etemad. 2012. Effect of habitat complexity on richness, abundance and distributional pattern of forest birds. Environmental Management 50:296-303.

King, R. S., K. A. Brashear, and M. Reiman. 2007. Red-headed woodpecker nest-habitat thresholds in restored savannas. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:30-35.

Kirsch E. M., P. J. Heglund, B. R. Gray, and P. McKann. 2013. Songbird use of floodplain and upland forests along the Mississippi River corridor during spring migration. Condor 115:115-130.

Klooster, W. S., K. J. K. Gandhi, L. C. Long, K. I. Perry, K. B. Rice, and D. A. Herms. 2018. Ecological Impacts of Emerald Ash Borer in Forests at the Epicenter of the Invasion in North America. Forests 9, 250: https://doi.org/10.3390/f9050250

Koenig, W. D., Liebhold, A. M., Bonter D. N., Hochachka, W. M., and J. L. Dickinson. 2013. Effects of the emerald ash borer invasion on four species of birds. Biol Invasions 15:2095–2103.

LaFleur, N. E., M. A. Rubega, and C. S. Elphick. 2007. Invasive fruits, novel foods, and choice: an investigation of European Starling and American Robin frugivory. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:429-438.

LaFleur, N. E., M. A. Rubega, and J. Parent. 2009. Does frugivory by European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) facilitate germination in invasive plants? The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 136:332-341.

Lampila, P., M. Mönkkönen, and A. Descrochers. 2005. Demographic responses by birds to forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology 19:1537-1546.

Latta, S. C., C. A. Howell, M. D. Dettling, and R. L. Cormier. 2012. Use of data on avian demographics and site persistence during overwintering to assess quality of restored riparian habitat. Conservation Biology 26:482-492.

Levy, J. K., and P. C. Crawford. 2004. Humane strategies for controlling feral cat populations. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 225:1354-1360.

Liberati, M., A. Janke, M. Wiley, R. Gates, and M. Titchnell. 2013. Managing for Bobwhite Quail in Ohio’s Agricultural Landscape. Ohio State University Extension Agricultural and Natural Resources Fact Sheet W-27-13.

Liu, M., and D. L. Swanson. 2014. Stress physiology of migrant birds during stopover in natural and anthropogenic woodland habitats of the Northern Prairie region. Conservation Physiology 2:cou046. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cou046.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird-building collisions in the United States: estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor 116:8-23.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2015. Direct mortality of birds from anthropogenic sources. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 46:99-120.

MacArthur, R. H., and J. W MacArthur. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594-598.

Manolis, J. C., D. E. Andersen, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2002. Edge effect on nesting success of ground nesting birds near regenerating clearcuts in a forest-dominated landscape. The Auk 119:955-970.

43

Marra, P. P., E. B. Cohen, S. R. Loss, J. E. Rutter, and C. M. Tonra. 2015. A call for full annual cycle research in animal ecology. Biology letters 11:20150552.

Marzluff, J. M. and K. Ewing. 2001. Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9:280-292.

Marzluff, J., and K. Ewing. 2008. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Chapter 31 in Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction between Humans and Nature”, Marzluff, J., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, m., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., ZumBrunnen, C., Simon, U. (Eds.) Springer US, 2008. DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5

Matthews, S. N., and P. G. Rodewald. 2010. Movement behaviour of a forest songbird in an urbanized landscape: the relative importance of patch-level effects and body condition during migratory stopover. Landscape Ecology 25:955-965.

Mayfield, H. F. 1988. Changes in bird life at the western end of Lake Erie. Part 1 of 3. American Birds 42:393-398.

McCusker, C. E., M. P. Ward, and J. D. Brawn. 2010. Seasonal responses of avian communities to invasive bush honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.). Biological invasions 12:2459-2470.

McDermott, M. E., and P. B. Wood. 2010. Influence of cover and food resource variation on post-breeding bird use of timber harvests with residual canopy trees. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:545-555.

Meanley, B. 1995. Some foods of the Rusty Blackbird in the Great Dismal Swamp region. Raven 66:9-10.

Mehlman, D. W., S. E. Mabey, D. N. Ewert, C. Duncan, B. Abel, D. Cimprich, R. D. Sutter, and M. Woodrey. 2005. Conserving stopover sites for forest-dwelling migratory landbirds. The Auk 122:1281-1290.

Moore, F. R., Ed. 2000. Stopover ecology of Nearctic-Neotropical landbird migrants: habitat relations and conservation implications. Studies in Avian Biology, no. 20.

Moore, F. R., R. J. Smith, and R. Sandberg. 2005. Stopover ecology of intercontinental Migrants: en route consequences for reproductive performance. Pages 251-261 in Birds of Two Worlds: The Ecology and Evolution of Migration (R. Greenberg and P. P. Marra, Eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Myers, C. C., and R. G. Buchman. 1984. Manager’s handbook for elm-ash-cottonwood in the North Central States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-98. St. Paul, MN: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Nash, T. L. and T. D. Gerber. 1996. Ohio Soils. Pages 31-42 in Peacefull, L., ed. A geography of Ohio. Kent State University Press: Kent, OH.

Newell, F. L., T. A. Beachy, A. D. Rodewald, C.G. Rengifo, I. J. Ausprey, and P. G. Rodewald. 2014. Foraging behavior of Cerulean Warblers during the breeding and non-breeding seasons: evidence for the breeding currency hypothesis. Journal of Field Ornithology 85:310-320.

NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2002. Wildlife Brush Piles: Conservation Practice Job Sheet 645. https://in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/Wildlife_Brushpile_Jobsheet.pdf.

NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2015. Woodland Edge Feathering: Conservation Practice Job Sheet 649. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/OH/Edge_Feathering_JS_Jan2015.docx

ODNR-DOF (Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Forestry). 2010. Ohio’s Statewide Forest Resource Assessment - 2010. 2010. Ohio Department of Natural Resources: Columbus, OH. http://forestry.ohiodnr.gov/portals/forestry/pdfs/FAP/Assessment.pdf

ODNR-DOW (Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Wildlife). 2015. Ohio’s State Wildlife Action Plan. 434 pp. Columbus, OH. http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/wildlife/pdfs/proposed%20rule%20changes/OHIO%202015%20SWAP.pdf

Packett, D. L., and J. B. Dunning Jr. 2009. Stopover habitat selection by migrant landbirds in a fragmented forest–agricultural landscape. The Auk 126:579-589.

Parrish, J. D. 1997. Patterns of frugivory and energetic condition in Nearctic landbirds during autumn migration. The Condor 97:935-943.

Parrish, J. D. 2000. Behavioral, energetic, and conservation implications of foraging plasticity during migration. Studies in Avian Biology 20:53-70.

Paton, P. W. C. 2005. A review of vertebrate community composition in seasonal forest pools of the northeastern United States. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:235-246.

Peacefull,L., ed. 1996. A Geography of Ohio. Kent State University Press, Kent, OH.

Pennisi, L. and S. M. Vantassel. 2012. Selective bird feeding: deterring nuisance wildlife from birdfeeders. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Factsheet ED1783.

Peterjohn, B. G. 2001. The Birds of Ohio with Breeding Bird Atlas Maps. Wooster Book Company, Wooster, OH.

Piaskowski, V. D., K. M. Williams, G. K. Boese, and P. A. Brookmire. 2008. The Birds without Borders - Aves Sin Fronteras Recommendations for Landowners: How to Manage Your Land to Help Birds (Wisconsin, Midwest and eastern United States edition). Foundation for Wildlife Conservation, Inc. and Zoological Society of Milwaukee: Milwaukee, WI.

Remsen, J. 2001. True winter range of the Veery (Catharus fuscescens): lessons for determining winter ranges of species that winter in the tropics. The Auk, 118:838-848.

Richmond S., E. Nol, and D. Burke. 2011. Avian nest success, mammalian nest predator abundance, and invertebrate prey availability in a fragmented landscape. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89:517-528.

Riffell, S., T. Burton, and M. Murphy. 2006. Birds in depressional forested wetlands: area and habitat requirements and model uncertainty. Wetlands 26:107-118.

44

Robb, G. N., R. A. McDonald, D. E. Chamberlain, and S. Bearhop. 2008a. Food for thought: supplementary feeding as a driver of ecological change in avian populations. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6:476-484.

Robb, G. N., R. A. McDonald, D. E. Chamberlain, S. J. Reynolds, T. J. E. Harrison, and S. Bearhop. 2008b. Winter feeding of birds increases productivity in the subsequent breeding season. Biology Letters 4: 220-223.

Robertson, I. D. 1998. Survey of predation by domestic cats. Australian Veterinary Journal 76:551-554.

Robinson, S. K., and R. T. Holmes. 1982. Foraging behavior of forest birds: the relationships among search tactics, diet, and habitat structure. Ecology 63:1918-1931.

Rodewald, A. D. 2012(a). In the thick of It: how invasive and exotic shrubs affect breeding birds. Birding 44:44-51.

Rodewald, A. D. 2012(b). Spreading messages about invasives. Diversity and Distributions 18:97-99.

Rodewald, A. D. 2013. Managing Forest Birds in Southeast Ohio: A Guide for Land Managers. Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.

Rodewald, A. D., and M. H. Bakermans. 2006. What is the appropriate paradigm for riparian forest conservation? Biological Conservation 128:193-200.

Rodewald, A. D., Kearns, L. J., and D. P. Shustack. 2013. Consequences of urbanizing landscapes to reproductive performance of birds in remnant forests. Biological Conservation 160:32-39.

Rodewald, A. D., D. P. Shustack, and L. E. Hitchcock. 2010. Exotic shrubs as ephemeral ecological traps for nesting birds. Biological Invasions 12:33-39.

Rodewald, P. G., and M. C. Brittingham. 2004. Stopover habitats of landbirds during fall: use of edge-dominated and early-successional forests. The Auk 121:1040-1055.

Rodewald, P. G., and S. N. Matthews. 2005. Landbird use of riparian and upland forest stopover habitats in an urban landscape. The Condor 107:259-268.

Rodewald, P. G., M. B. Shumar, A. T. Boone, D. L. Slager, and J. McCormac (eds). 2016. Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in Ohio. 600 pp. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.

Rodewald, P. G., and K. G. Smith. 1998. Short-term effects of understory and overstory management on breeding birds in Arkansas oak-hickory forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1411-1417.

Rosenberg, K. V., R. S. Hames, R. W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S. Barker Swarthout, J. D. Lowe, and A. A. Dhondt. 2003. A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for forest thrushes. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Sargent, M. S., and K. S. Carter. 1999. Managing Michigan’s Wildlife: A Landowner’s Guide. Michigan United Conservation Clubs, East Lansing, MI. 297pp. https://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/landowners_guide/Resource_Dir/Acrobat/index.htm

Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr, K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Schmidt, K. A. and C. J. Whelan. 1999. Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conservation Biology 13:1502-1506.

Schneider, S. C., and J. R. Miller. 2014. Response of avian communities to invasive vegetation in urban forest fragments. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:459-471.

Schroeder, R. L. 1983. Habitat-suitability index models: Downy Woodpecker. USDI Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep 82.10.38.

Sheppard, C. 2011. Bird-friendly building design. The American Bird Conservancy.

Sherry, T. W., R. T. Holmes, P. Pyle and M. A. Patten.(2016).American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/amered

Sillett, T. S., and R. T. Holmes. 2002. Variation in survivorship of a migratory songbird throughout its annual cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:296-308.

Smith, S. B. 2013. A physiological assessment of seasonal differences in spring and autumn migration stopover at Braddock Bay, Lake Ontario. The Condor 115:273-279.

Smith, S. B., A. C. Miller, C. R. Merchant, and A. F. Sankoh. 2015. Local site variation in stopover physiology of migrating songbirds near the south shore of Lake Ontario is linked to fruit availability and quality. Conservation Physiology 3(1): cov036.

Stambaugh, M. C., J. M. Varner, R. F. Noss, D. C. Dey, N. L. Christensen, R. F. Baldwin, R. P. Guyette, B.B. Hanberry, C. A. Harper, S. G. Lindblom, and T. A. Waldrop. 2015. Clarifying the role of fire in the deciduous forests of eastern North America: reply to Matlack. Conservation Biology 29:942-946.

St. Clair, C.C., M. Belisle, A. Desrochers, and S. Hannon. 1998. Winter responses of forest birds to habitat corridors and gaps. Conservation Ecology 2 (2): 19 pp.

Streby, H. M., & D. E. Andersen. 2013. Survival of fledgling Ovenbirds: influences of habitat characteristics at multiple spatial scales. The Condor 115:403-410.

Strode, P. K. 2009. Spring tree species use by migrating Yellow-rumped Warblers in relation to phenology and food availability. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:457-68.

Suthers, H. B., J. M. Bickal, and P. G. Rodewald. 2000. Use of successional habitat and fruit resources by songbirds during autumn migration in central New Jersey. Wilson Bulletin 112:249–260.

Sydnor, T. D., K. Smith, and R. Heiligmann. 2005. Ash replacements for urban and woodland plantings. Extension Bulletin 924. The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.

45

Tallamy D. W., and K. J. Shropshire. 2009. Ranking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants. Conservation Biology 23:941-947.

Thieme, J, ed. 2016. Living in the Oak Openings: A guide to one of the last great places. Toledo, OH: Homewood Press. 72 pp.

Thompson, J. D., and G. A. Baldassarre. 1988. Postbreeding habitat preference of wood ducks in northern Alabama. The Journal of Wildlife Management 52:80-85.

Tremblay, M. A., and C. C. St. Clair. 2011. Permeability of a heterogeneous urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:679-688.

Turcotte, Y., and A. Desrochers. 2003. Landscape-dependent response to predation risk by forest birds. Oikos 100:614-618.

Turcotte, Y., and A. Desrochers. 2005. Landscape-dependent distribution of northern forest birds in winter. Ecography 28:129-140.

Twedt, D. J., R. R. Wilson, J. L. Henne-Kerr, and D. A. Grosshuesch. 2002. Avian response to bottomland hardwood reforestation: the first 10 years. Restoration Ecology 10:645-655.

TWS (The Wildlife Society). 2011. Final position statement: feral and free-ranging domestic cats.

USDA-NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2018. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 12 October 2018). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.

Vitz, A. C., and A. D. Rodewald. 2010. Movements of fledgling Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) and Worm-eating Warblers (Helmitheros vermivorum) within and beyond the natal home range. The Auk 127:364-371.

Vitz, A. C., and A. D. Rodewald. 2011. Influence of condition and habitat use on survival of post-fledging songbirds. The Condor 113:400-411.

Wegner, J., and G. Merriam. 1979. Movements by birds and small mammals between a wood and adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 16:349-357.

Weisbrod, A. R., C. J. Burnett, J. G. Turner, and D. W. Warner. 1993. Migrating birds at a stopover site in the Saint Croix River Valley. The Wilson Bulletin 105:265-284.

Wheaton, J. M. 1882. Report on the birds of Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey Bulletin 4:187-628.

Widmann, R. H., C. K. Randall, B. J. Butler, G. M. Domke, D. M. Griffith, C. M. Kurtz, W. K. Moser, R. S. Morin, M. D. Nelson, R. Riemann, et al. 2014. Ohio’s Forests 2011. Resource Bulletin NRS-90. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Widmann, R. H. 2016. Forests of Ohio, 2015. Resource Update FS-97. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 4p.

Winker, K., D. W. Warner, and A. R. Weisbrod. 1992. Migration of woodland birds at a fragmented inland stopover site. The Wilson Bulletin 104:580-598.

Witmer M. C., and P. J. Van Soest. 1998. Contrasting digestive strategies of fruit‐eating birds. Functional Ecology. 12:728-41.

Wood, E. M., A. M. Pidgeon, F. Liu, and D. J. Mladenoff. 2012. Birds see the trees inside the forest: the potential impacts of changes in forest composition on songbirds during spring migration. Forest Ecology and Management 280:176-186.

Wright, J. R., L. L. Powell, and C. M. Tonra. 2018. Automated telemetry reveals staging behavior in a declining migratory passerine. The Auk 135:461-476.

Yahner, R. H. 1983. Seasonal dynamics, habitat relationships, and management of avifauna in farmstead shelterbelts. The Journal of Wildlife Management 47:85-104.

Yahner, R. H., C. G. Mahan, and A. D. Rodewald. 2012. Managing Forests for Wildlife. Chapter 27 in Silvy, N. J., ed. The Wildlife Techniques Manual, 7th edition. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

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