EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
47,893,527
Abstracts:
28,296,643
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Creating snags and wildlife trees in commercial forest landscapes






Western Journal of Applied Forestry 13(3): 97-101, July

Creating snags and wildlife trees in commercial forest landscapes

Conversion of original older forests to second-growth stands has resulted in the loss of snag and wildlife tree habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Because many species require these habitat features, habitat managers have attempted to create snags and wildlife trees. From written contracts and contractor interviews, I summarized information about currently used snag and wildlife tree creation techniques including operation specifications, cost-effectiveness, safety considerations, and numbers of trees created. Removing the top of a tree with a chainsaw (apprxdollar sign35 per tree) or explosives (apprxdollar sign45 per tree) was commonly used to create snags and wildlife trees. Girdling in or near the base of the crown (dollar sign20-30 pertree) has also been used extensively. Cavity creation (dollar sign34-50per tree), fungal inoculation (dollar sign23-33 per tree), and limbing (dollar sign32 per tree) have been used to create or enhance snags and wildlife trees and cost less when used in conjunction with topping or girdling. These techniques have shown some success at providing suitable habitat for cavity- and snag-using wildlife; however, they have been used with the assumption that they will be successful. More in-depth research and monitoring are required to assess their effectiveness at meeting wildlife-habitat and forestry objectives.


Accession: 003395176



Related references

Bull, E.; Partridge, A.1; Williams, W., 1981: Creating snags with explosives Pinus ponderosa trees, use of dynamite to create sites for cavity nesting wildlife, habitats. PNW research note US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 981 (393)

Bull, E.; Partridge, A.1; Williams, W., 1981: Creating snags with explosives Topping of ponderosa pine trees to create nest sites for birds, forest management biological control of insects. PNW research note US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 981 (393)

Bate, L.J.; Garton, E.O.; Wisdom, M.J., 2002: Sampling methods for snags and large trees important to wildlife. We developed efficient and accurate methods for sampling snags and large trees important to wildlife. These methods are described in detail in a recent Forest Service publication, which also includes spreadsheets, macros, and instructions to condu...

Raphael, M.; White, M., 1978: Snags, wildlife, and forest management in the Sierra Nevada. Cal Neva wildlife: 3-41

James, Philip., 1999: Ecological networks: creating landscapes for people and wildlife. Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation, 32: 3-10

Reynolds, R.T.; Linkhart, B.D.; Jeanson, J.J., 1985: Characteristics of snags and trees containing cavities in a Colorado conifer forest. Douglas fir, ponderosa pine and Pinus flexilis were important snag species in an area of Manitou Experimental Forest. Retaining P.flexilis trees with cavities should provide bird cavities well into the future.

Vogt, K.A.; Honea, J.M.; Vogt, D.J.; Patel Weynand, T.; Edmonds, R.L.; Sigurdardottir, R.; Briggs, D.G.; Andreu, M.G., 2006: Global societies and forest legacies creating today's forest landscapes. This paper discusses how historically humans have selectively used forests in some biomes compared with others because they provided more resources to clothe, feed and build houses for humans. Case studies are included that go into more depth abou...

Potvin, F.; Bertrand, N., 2004: Leaving forest strips in large clearcut landscapes of boreal forest: a management scenario suitable for wildlife?. Riparian forest strips (RS) along lakes and streams have been incorporated in regulations on clearcuts to protect water quality and fish habitat. As well, upland strips (US) are used to limit the size of clearcut patches. We conducted a three-year...

Nyberg, J.B.K.ssler, W., B., 1992: Integrating timber and wildlife in forest landscapes

Burger, G.; Wagner, F.; Harris, L., 1986: Wildlife prescriptions for agricultural, range and forest landscapes. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 1st) 573-577