A unit of Lasting Forests
evolving since March 30, 1999
 
  

A Total Forest Management Plan
and Wildland Management
Decision Support System

 		 
[ HOME | The Trevey Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ]


The Bird Resource of the Area

Knowing the actual or potential birds of an area is useful. Knowing where a particular species may be seen and where the most numbers of species may be seen has to be an advantage to recreationist or to someone guiding others to see the birds (the avifaunal resource).

Knowing the likely birds may also

To get detailed bird surveys done over large areas is very expensive and time consuming. Even staff for coordinating volunteer efforts is beyond most budget and personnel ceilings. There are other complicating factors, namely

These factors represent a complex space where decisions must be made and are needed. Guidance is needed to make them; precise answers are not available and (in our opinion) never will be available (except in some very small areas).

The following is a general section on songbird management. Herein we describe the method used to develop a gross, reasonable estimate of the potential bird populations of the area and estimate of the potential dynamic expected value of the resource. We maintain a set of assumptions and, while we find them lengthy and difficult to state, we think they are at least as important as the results. We presume the general awareness that habitat requirements differ for species. The needs of some birds such as the yellow-breasted chat are met almost entirely in recent forest site preparation, seedlings, and saplings in pine and hardwood. Red-cockaded woodpeckers depend upon mature pines. Bluejays prosper in all stages of forest crown cover in both pine and hardwoods. Many songbird species prefer the zone of change between habitat types.

Partially based on the forest bird work of Jesse Overcash, we believe there are 8 different bird spaces within forests. These are:

No species should be lost from the site. Rare species provide special attractions and market opportunities for guides, group tours, etc.

Birdwatchers seek richness or maximum numbers of species seen in a day (or outing), thus many different habitat types (faunal space units such as listed above with additions of wetland and aquatic situations) close together is one objective (or ready links to such places).

Managing residents is essential. Migrants can be noted but local area work will usually have little effect on them.

Not birds but opportunities to see each species present (without regard for numbers) is the managerial objective. (The more there are the more easily the species is seen and recorded, but too many reduces the value of a single observation.)

We now believe that bird abundance is distributed as the negative logarithm of the rank-order of the resident species abundance. (Staff will be glad to comment and explain this perceived relationship.) The number seen is more a function of past than present conditions (of parents, food supplies, and nesting structure.)

Strangely, longterm studies of birds have not been made. With adequate resources, we would do an in-depth 10 year study on birds in the major forest types. We would fail, however, because we are confounded snd confronted by (and we think the skeptical reader must be confronted with the same obstacles):

  1. There are about 20 forest types to be studied
  2. The areas are distant and travel time is great
  3. Ten years is not sufficient; a 50-year tree harvest rotation seems minimal, 150 preferred
  4. Cross-sectional studies (e.g., 50 areas, all of age 13) can be done but they are variable and statistical control on soils, shrub height, wind, in each area is difficult
  5. Some birds seem selective of habitats but others are not very discriminating
  6. Standardizing observational skills is nearly impossible. Control over 20 variables of the environment is easier than control over 20 observers
  7. Variance in bird numbers is high, allowable error great (what, exactly, are the limits based on what will be done with the data and conclusions resulting from them), and confidence levels are large (we can probably afford to be wrong more than one time in ten, except for threatened and endangered species.)
  8. Exactly the right stand age is difficult to find. What is needed is at least 30 different areas in each of 50 age classes in each of the 20 forest types. The number (30 x 50 x 20 = 30,000) is absurdly largefor the number of observation areras. They cannot all be intensively studied in real time by controlled observers in every year of a (minimum 10-year period).

The above , in part, helps explain the current situation with the avifauanal resource, its profound problem of assessment and inventory, and hopefully, sheds some realism over sweeping over-simplistic statements made about the avian resource.

Within The Trevey we create (using an ascillary spreadsheet procedure) an estimate of the probable minimum value of the expected avian resource potentially within the property over 150 years if the prescribed harvests are completed on schedule.

The following steps are used:

  1. Develop a list of common birds potentially subject to management. Exclude shore birds , ocean birds (e.g., gulls)and accidentals. This list is created from the state information system and is developed for the 409 species for the state (Virginia).
  2. List the stands or major units
  3. List the habitat types typically encountered in the service area
  4. List the habitat or forest types (e.g., SAF) likely to be present in the ownership boundary (these are estimated using alpha unit procedures)
  5. List the probable age class of each stand or alpha unit
  6. From Hammel et al.(CD-ROM) find all birds in the area associated with each type and age class
  7. For each stand (or alpha unit) list the type, acres, and age
  8. Make a table of probable densities(d*) (medians over many years by type and age class) of each bird species by acre (These are usually very small numbers, estimates with high variance, and continuously improved using all available sources)
  9. Assign for each bird species, for each type and age condition, an estimate of how optimal that condition, C,is for that species. If optimal, the condition (a cell of the matrix) is assigned 1.0, otherwise 0.7 or 0.3 . Wherever zero density is expected, the assigned value is zero.[Later the sensitivity of the resource value analyses in computer simulations to these numbers needs to be evaluated.Perhaps they can be verified by intensive studies.]
  10. We produce a table, a matrix, with (preliminary) rows being the "stand numbers" , columns being type, likely age of one-third of dominant trees, and acres A.
  11. We multiply

    A x C x D*

    to get the number of birds of a species probably present in a similar stand of this type, size, and age.

  12. We group all stands (columns) as deciduous, mixed, coniferous and other (clearings, etc) and total birds by age classes present (rows), with sub totals
  13. We map these gross total bird abundance estimates(for all 4 groups) in 15 color classes, one color for each of the 10-year age classes
  14. We compute the probable total number of birds in each species in each 5-year age class (all areas)
  15. We compute the proportion of all birds in each species
  16. We compute the Shannon-Weiner and modified Simpson diversity index for each 5-year analysis
  17. We report the changes in these 2 indices (with graphs) likely with the forests of the area not being harvested
  18. We make an identical report with the numbers being those following harvests prerscribed (each harvest sets a stand of whatever age back to age class 0-5)
  19. We compare the probable diversity indices that would occur if all stands were of the optimal type and age(C=1.0) with the existing and proposed conditions.
  20. We compare high rates of harvest (10% of all older types), and clearcutting 50 %(Since there are at least 12 diversity measures, they need further analysis for Virginia Forests)
  21. A working hypothesis is that for maximum avian diversity, all age classes equally distributed within each type, with types equally distributed is the needed condition. It needs further analysis but seems to be the requirement if maximizing the Shannor or Simpson is the definition of maximizing diversity
  22. Since all birds do not have equal human value (sighting a golden eagle vs a chipping sparrow) we shall assign likely weights (V) to each species, then compute total weighted value potentially available on each stand, then re-run the above analyses for value units, not bird counts. Value maps will be provided. It is likely the "maximum diversity" will not equate well to maximum human value.

As this section matures, eventually a question can be posed to the system such as "given all of the data on area A, what will bee the consequence of cutting 15 acres of Type 64 of age 40 on the bird resource?" Answers in the consequence table will likely appear in terms of

The possibility for answering such a question seems very near. Resources provided to complete such an analysis and include it within The Trevey will be acklowledged and will make a fit, living honararium or memorial as well as a progressive action project for any group interested in forests or birds.

A beginning interior document for a Trevey Report

Managing the Bird Resources of the Area

A list of birds likely to be found in the area is shown in Table 1. (To be attached)

Bird richness for the tract was **richness. (See the discussion of richness and biodiversity.)

There are xxx bird species recorded for Virginia.(To be included.)

The Trevey can lead landowners and managers in managing their avian or bird resources in ways not likely seen before. The system provides general advice (which follows), but also special programs and alternative opportunities for land use, and in some cases, profit making. Units of The Trevey are those for:

The xxxxx spaces are to be completed by the Rural System, Trevey staff by their software developed for The Trevey. These are completed from standard field forms and from database searches.

The birds are the most conspicuous fauna of xxxxxx. They represent some of the major elements of the area's ecosystem and play profound roles in mineral cycling and in changing energy flow. Because they are conspicuous, many people can see, study, and enjoy them. They constitute not only a part of the xxxxx(the area) but a resource, a part that can be used, and used many times.

The list provided here is extracted from two different databases, one being a component of the first. The official state wildlife information system is managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), P.O. Box 111O4, Richmond, VA 23230-1104. It has been developed by data entry from literature reviews collected throughout the State, and has since been supplemented by agency research. "Collections", the second database also managed by the VDGIF was, and still is, continually being developed by actual collections in the field and through statewide surveys. Each individual animal collected, the date, and its exact location are reported. The list retrieved pertaining to species within xxxxx(the area) consists of many birds of the same species, but seen on different locations at different times. This list contained many individuals sighted, but all within only two species, for example xxxxxthe loggerhead shrike and the yellow- crowned night heron. Only limited bird data has been collected for these areas in this database.

The majority of this list is not based on birds actually seen within the area boundaries (such a list is now being created). This list includes species from database searches descriptive of locations within the three counties and four quadrants that encompass the xxxxx(the area). This area, much larger than the xxxxx(the area), includes habitats and associated birds not known to be present within xxxxx(the area) boundaries. Years of high quality field work will produce a very exact list of birds inside the xxxxx(the area). The one herein probably represents a maximum list, all possible species including some with a very low probability of occurrence.

Such lists and databases are always undergoing revision. The reader visiting the xxxxx(the area) is requested to report birds seen with certainty including the date and time spent observing. Send these observations and recordings to Lasting Forests (email link), xxxxx(the area) . Each person can contribute to the xxxxx(the area) list that is being continually verified and updated.

Several classifications represent species whose survival is threatened depending on the extent of risk. Seven species are listed as "Sensitive" meaning that the destruction of their habitat from human encroachment would threaten their existence. The status of four species are in the class "State special concern." These birds are closely watched to ensure their populations do not decline to the point of meeting the status of a threatened species. "State threatened" is the class for two of the listed birds, meaning that in the state of Virginia these species are threatened, but viable populations may exist in other parts of the country. "State threatened" may also mean that a species is being reviewed for the federal endangered species list, but has not yet been accepted. An example is the migrant loggerhead shrike. Only one species, the bald eagle, meets the qualifications for the status of Federal Endangered.

There are XXX migratory species, implying that even superior management on the xxxxx(the area) cannot protect, or assure the protection of these birds. Those birds depend upon habitat elsewhere, some within other continents. The xxxxx(the area) management has control of the destiny of only 4% of its species list. The others are migratory and depend on food, cover, and spaces elsewhere on Earth.

A species list is sometimes called the bird diversity, or biodiversity. The count is "species richness." Staff of the xxxxx(the area) use the equation (Species - 1) as their expression of avian richness.

The preliminary list of birds on the xxxxx(the area), or nearby are as follows:

A pocket checklist is available. Please send questions or comments to the xxxxx(the area) at the above address.

Why Manage? "Why manage for birds?" or "can I afford to forego this much money from the forest for the birds?" are good questions. Late in our list of things to consider, the questions of why and how much are important. The list perhaps should have been suggested first. Each person and land owner has to answer them personally. The answers will be yes for some for the following reasons:

If interested and if any one of these items is not provided or available in this session of The Trevey, please contact your manager.

Birds in the area range in size from wrens to geese and eagles and all are not "songbirds." There are many songbird species in your area, well over 60. (A list is available.) Each species has very special requirements so it is impossible to make any more than very general recommendations. (Single-species management plans are availableand others may be prepared to honor friends or relatives.) Trying to manage birds in large groups like songbirds or waterfowl as if they were alike has not worked well for people or for the birds.

The management of the bird or avian resources of the area require special attention for they are an important resource, very conspicuous, and respond readily to management efforts. With management they represent an untapped means to gain funds to support the area. In the managed environment, they can supply untold hours of anticipation, excitement, and pleasant days afield. Hunters have decreased nation wide, but the number of bird watchers has increased significantly within the past 30 years. Bird watching is one of the most popular of the wildlife related activities. It ranges from casual observation to full-time professional study for inventory and research. Over 11 million Americans are fairly seriously involved in bird watching.

Rural System staff believe that local people and others can be attracted to the region, perhaps to your land for bird watching at all seasons. Seasonal surveys (like the national Christmas bird count) can be organized. Speeches, tours, special hikes can be created and managed. Species (such as the wild turkey, ruffed grouse, and owls can be can be featured in a variety of programs, sponsored events, and conferences. Sales of aids, binoculars, publications, and local checklists seem likely. Newspaper reports of the birds likely to be seen may be published. Phenology groups within Nature Folks can report bird migration.

An unusual development,Avi, a sport of bird watching, (also later described at http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/rhgiles/aruralsystem/officialAvi.html)is being proposed. Until then, the more general management of the birds must be given high priority.

The birds of the area are recognized as a set of resources, only some of which are mutually exclusive in providing opportunities for benefits. As a resource they may provide resource benefits (and opportunities for benefits) of the following classes: food, recreation, option demand, visual and audile beauty, educational opportunities, genetic potentials, ecological.

Ecological benefits are sometimes discussed when ecological "services" are discussed. They may be used for monitoring habitats and toxic levels. Although related to ecology, this hardly seems like an appropriate element of a list of ecological services. Birds perform important ecological functions or services in both natural and disturbed ecosystems. A more comprehensive list will be developed later, but for now it is useful to recognize that birds are highly specialized and play unique and irreplaceable roles in energy transfers within food chains. Most birds eat insects at some stage of their lives and are able to exploit the large biomass of insects without real competition from other classes of animals. This type of feeding is believed by some people to suppress potentially destructive insect populations.

Birds also play an important role in dispersing seeds, primarily through ingesting fruits that have indigestible seeds. Such seeds remain in the digestive tract for several days and are then excreted in a viable condition great distances from their source.

Transferring energy and nutrients as well as introducing plants to disturbed areas are made easy by the ability of birds to exploit distant food sources.

Management emphasis for habitats will be on the resident species. (To base managerial success on population change among the migrants (over which the management staff have little or no control or influence (but could do so with advice from Lasting Forests staff and their contacts)) puts the managers in an untenable condition.) Droege and Sauer (1989) reported about 50% of the breeding bird species were increasing. Others have reported the opposite trend in some species. Nationwide (in 1988) there was observed a significant decline in 33 out of the 222 species studied. Most apparent declines were in the mid-states and the change was surmised to be due to drought.

The objective suggested is to achieve probable or expected maximum mean annual income from bird-related activities for a 50-year period sliding forward one year each year.

Songbird management techniques have been listed elsewhere. Trying to put in a capsule how to provide for the needs for current or increasing populations of about 60 species on an area is nearly impossible. Herein, the Trevey seeks to encourage species- or life-group-specific management, not management of broad aggregates. Nevertheless, many reasonable people cannot define their needs for songbirds, cannot identify many species, and have a general desire for more birds and the comforting awareness that much is being done by them for the birds.

The following are thought to be basic understandings and principles related to the bird or avian resource:

  1. Most observers desire more species (a higher count or species "richness")than individual species abundance.
  2. Richness is called diversity by many bird watchers.
  3. Bird species richness increases to a level with the area being observed.
  4. Birds are strongly related to the age of forest types (the more age classes the more species of birds). There is an increasing trend in the number of pairs as the forest stands age. Species lists decline to a modest level over time as stands age.
  5. Bird species richness is related to forest and vegetation types (e.g., white pine, red oak)(the more types, the more bird species)
  6. The greater the edge tunnel volume (length, width, height, and quality) the more the birds. Edge volume is more beneficial to more birds that the harm it may do to a few species caused by nest parasitism and predation. Staff can suggest how to increase edge, stabilize edge over time (since the tunnel-volume changes), and where edge should be placed.
  7. The more layers within each type unit (the stand), the greater will be bird richness.
  8. The greater the stem density in some stands (sub-units), the greater will be the richness.
  9. The greater the coefficient of variation in stem diameters (among plots), the greater will be bird richness.
  10. The greater the juxtaposition index (types adjacent to supportive or needed types)the greater will be the richness.
  11. The more random the pattern (poissonal) of forest type units (stands), the greater will be the avian richness.
  12. The species richness is likely to change each year of observation. The biomass of the birds observed is likely to stay constant.
  13. The more stable the environment, the more stable the richness. The birds seen in a year is a function of the breeding birds last year (the conditions for them), their fate during the migration, and the conditions this year. The land managers' investment this year to increase richness should be judged only on success (plus or minus 20%) in 2 years in the future.
  14. Many of the conditions present desirable for birds in mature forests with large trees may take years to develop or may not develop due to harvest rotation age policy. Providing these needs (e.g., bird houses) is likely to increase bird density.
  15. Providing or protecting cover and nesting sites are probably more important than providing food.
  16. In the grasslands, birds live off of excess insects. They do not have a major effect on insects that are consuming plants in pastures or rangeland.
  17. Abundance of a bird species is rarely directly affected by modern pesticides but many are affected by pollutants and the effects of insecticides on insects. Since many song birds are insectivorous, discouraging broad-spectrum insecticide use is likely to reduce insect-food losses. Food losses are critical to many bird species in the spring breeding period.
  18. Providing or stabilizing an accessible water supply(s) will meet the needs of many species.
  19. Care for the rare birds is critical. Monitoring is needed. Preservation of increasingly threatened forms should not be neglected. Ability to show people the rare birds may have financial benefits in a fully developed ranging system.

Using these as principles of management local efforts can increase bird richness. The principles also explain the frequent question, "Where are all of the birds?"

The forest management patterns and optimization described by Waldon for 40 species will be followed where possible.

Typically birds will be assigned a relative value based on conspicuousness and rarity and observers will be encouraged to relate daily experiences with the "value" of the birds observed or sought. A secondary objective suggested is to maximize the number of quality-weighted bird watching hours experienced on the area. (It is expected that willingness to pay will relate well to this system performance measure.)

Breeding bird community densities have been found as follows: 8.5 pairs/ha, 21 species (West Va., DeGarmo 1948)
9.4 pairs/ha, 29 species (young spruce)
6.5 pairs/ha, 19 species (young northern hardwood forest)
8.9 pairs/ha, 14 species (mature northern hardwood forest)
0.4 to 0.99 pairs/ha, (Georgia abandoned fields, Johnson and Odum 1956)
3.4 pairs/ha, (Georgia 20-year-old shrub land)
2.2 to 2.3 pairs/ha, (Georgia young pine forest)
5.9 pairs/ha, (Georgia 100-year-old pine forest)
5.6 pairs/ha, (Georgia oak-hickory forest)
8.1 pairs/ha 19 species (Illinois? upland maple-oak forest, Karr 1968)

A breeding species is one recorded within or beyond the study area boundaries during at least 2 (about one-third) of the observation periods. (Robbins 1970). Others are called "visitors."

Maximum bird densities and maximum richness are of biological and managerial interest. The cost of adding the "next" species can be very high.

In Georgia (Johnson 1970) about 19.8 pairs per ha were observed at a biological station. Maximum richness per unit area may be a function of how many distinctively different habitats are crowded into a small area. Attracting birds from distant areas to water or feeders is a common richness increasing activity, one that does not increase density.

Overcash worked on the premise that in a year there is a relatively constant biomass of birds. Large birds may replace of "e;substitute"e; for several small species of birds (or the converse). Annual bird biomass seems to remain the same in his Virginia/West Virginia border mature red oak study area. In general, density will increase with structure and plant biomass within the forest. Such structure tends to develop rapidly within the edge volume. Chapman (1977) found that breeding bird species on abandoned Virginia surface mines related to the percent volume of vegetation in the first meter off the ground as:

y= 13.93 + 0.207 x (r)

See the The All-Bird Bulletin, the newsletter of the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Committee. See current and back issues

References

Boccardy, J. A., and W. M. Spaulding, Jr. 1968. Effects of surface mining on fish and wildlife in Appalachia. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C. 20 p.

Bond, R. R. 1957. Ecological distribution of breeding birds in the upland forests of southern Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr., 27:351-384.

Brewer, R. 1958. Breeding-bird populations of strip-mined land in Perry County Illinois. Ecology, 39:543-545.

Chapman, D.L. 1977. Breeding bird populations in relation to the vegetation structure of abandoned contour mines in Southwest Virginia, MS Thesis, VPI and SU, Blacksburg, Va 93pp.

Conner, R. N., and C. S. Adkisson. 1975. Effects of clearcutting on the diversity of breeding birds. J. Forestry, 73:781-785.

Dambach, C. A. 1944. A ten-year ecological study of adjoining grazed and un-grazed woodlands in northeastern Ohio. Ecol. Monogr., 14:255-270.

DeGarmo, W. R. 1948. Breeding-bird populations in Pocahontas and Randolf Counties West Virginia. Audubon Field Notes, 2:219-222.

Dorst, J. 1974. The life of birds. Translated from French. Cox & Wyman Ltd. London.

Garton, A. W. 1974. A comparative study of breeding-bird populations on two strip-mined areas. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Tennessee. 94 p.

Gleason, H. A., and A. Cronquist. 1964. The natural geography of plants. Columbia Univ. Press. New York, N. Y.

Graber, R. R., and J. W. Graber. 1963. A comparative study of bird populations in Illinois, 1906-1909 and 1956-1958. Illinois Nat. Hist. Survey Bull., 28:383-528.

Hoffman, R. L. 1969. The biotic regions of Virginia. Part II. In: The insects of Virginia: No. 1. Research Div. Bull. 48. V.P.I. & S.U., Blacksburg, Va. 62 p.

Hooper, R. G. 1967. The influence of habitat disturbances on bird populations. M.S. Thesis, V.P.I. & S.U. 132 p.

Johnston, D. W. 1970. High density of birds breeding in a modified deciduou8 forest. Wilson Bull., 82:79-82. to plant succession in the Piedmont of Georgia. Ecology, 3/:50-bZ.

Johnston, V. R. 1947. Breeding birds of the forest edge in Illinois. Condor, 49:45-53.

Karr, J. R. 1968. Habitat and avian diversity on strip-mined land in east-central Illinois. Condor, 70:348-357.

Lack, D. 1933. Habitat selection in birds with special reference to the effect of afforestation on the Breckland avifauna. J. Anim. Ecol., 2:239-262.

Lay, D. W. 1938. How valuable are woodland clearings to birdlife? Wilson Bull., 50:254-256.

Lennartz, M.R. and A..J. Bjugstad. 1975. Information needs to manage forest and range habitats for nongame birds, p.328-333 in Proc Symposium on the Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds (Tucson, Ariz.., May 1975), USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report WO-1, 343pp.

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

Martin, N. D. 1960. An analysis of bird populations in relation to forest succession in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Ecology, 41:126-140. Monson, G. 1941. The effect of revegetation on the small bird population in Arizona. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 5:395-397.

Odum, E. P. 1950. Bird populations of the Highlands (North Carolina) Plateau in relation to plant 8uccession and avian invasion. Ecology, 31:587-605.

Proctor, V. W. 1968. Long-distance dispersal of seeds by retention in digestive tract of birds. Science, 160:321-322. (See also A. Holthuijzen, Phd, Va. Tech)

Robbins, C. 5. 1949. Thirteenth breeding bird census. Mature and lumbered oak-maple ridge. Audubon Field Notes, 3:259-261.

Robbins, C. S., ed. 1970. An international standard for a mapping method in bird census work recommended by the Irternational Bird Census Committee. Audubon Field Notes, 24:723-726.

Shafer, E. L., G. H. Moeller, and R. E. Getty. 1974. Future leisure environments. NE. Forest Exp. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. 14 p.

Shugart, H. H., Jr., and D. James. 1973. Ecological succession of breeding bird populations in northwestern Arkansas. Auk, 90:62-77.

Twomey, A. C. 1945. The bird population of an elm-maple forest with special reference to aspection, territorialism, and coactions. Ecol. Monogr.,15:173-205.

Warbach, 0. 1958. Bird populations in relation to changes in land use. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 22:23-28.

Williams, A. B. 1936. The composition and dynamics of a beech-maple climax community. Ecol. Monogr., 317-408.

Winters, G. 1957. The east-central uplands. Pages 553-578. In: U. S. Dept. of Agri., Yearbook. U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 784 p.

Yahner, R. H. 1973. Breeding-bird populations on a strip-mined area in a deciduous forest in Campbell County, Tennessee. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Tennessee. 114 p.

Yahner, R. H., A. W. Garton, and J. C. Howell. 1975. Breeding avifauna associated with two strip mine areas. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci., 50:95-98.

Yahner, R. H., and J. C. Howell. 1975. Habitat use and species composition of breeding avifauna in a deciduous forest altered by strip mining. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci., 50:142-147.

Droege, S. and J.R. Sauer. 1989. North American breeding bird survey: annual summary 1988. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rpt 89(13) 16pp.

Go to top of page.

Other Resources:
[ HOME | Lasting Forests (Introductions) | Units of Lasting Forests | Ranging | Guidance | Forests | Gamma Theory | Wildlife Law Enforcement Systems | Antler Points | Species-Specific Management (SSM) | Wilderness and Ancient Forests | Appendices | Ideas for Development | Disclaimer]
Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.