|
| Fall 2001 Newsletter | Edited by Steve Windels | ||||||
In This Issue:
FROM THE CHAIR Dear Restoration Working Group Members: I feel very honored to be writing this to you as the new Chair of the Restoration Working Group. Dale Gawlik and other members have done an excellent job over the last year or so in moving the Working Group forward in good style. Don't hesitate to write to Dale, past section representatives and committee members to express your appreciation to them. Our annual TWS meeting in Reno was outstanding. It was good to get to meet a number of people associated with the RWG that I hadn't had the opportunity to meet before. Dave Ross, our new Western Representative arranged two outstanding field trips, one to a desert site, the other to a riparian site on the Truckee River. The field trips, the RWG meeting itself, and five days of discussion made the Reno meeting a truly memorable one. Restoration Working Group officers for 2001-2002 are as follows (see "Election Results" in this newsletter contact info):
Chair-elect: Marcia Wolfe Past-Chair: Dale Gawlik Sec/Treasurer: Pete Fasbender Northeast Representative: Jeff Kiefer Southeast Representative: Dan Twedt West Representative: Dave Ross Central Representative: Brian Gray
Membership - Scott Ackerman, Chair (members: Steve Windels, Nathan Burkepile) Annual Meeting Technical Program - Jeffrey Kelly, John Cox, and Jeffrey Larkin, Chairs Communications - Steve Windels, Chair (members: Dale Gawlik, Mitch Sternberg) Audit - Pete Fasbender, Chair Resolutions, Position Statements and Technical Reviews - Dale Gawlik, Chair Steve Windels has been working very hard on getting our website up and running. Once this site is available, it should markedly aid in our communications effort. A big thanks to Steve and others responsible for this work. I encourage you to get actively involved with the Restoration Working Group. Any ideas regarding RWG activities or communications are very welcome. Here's hoping that you have an outstanding year. Rich Crawford, Chair FEATURE ARTICLE: Riparian Habitat Restoration And Historic Changes In The Bird Community Of The Lower Truckee River, Nevada Elisabeth M. Ammon, Dep. of Biology / 314, University of Nevada at Reno, Reno, NV 89557. Email: ammon@unr.edu The story of the lower Truckee River begins much like that of other western rivers. When settlers expanded into the Truckee Meadows in the mid-1800's, they began to harvest the broad riparian woodland corridor and converted it to agricultural lands. Soon after the turn of the 20th century, the Newlands water project began to divert much, often most, of the Truckee River's flows for agricultural operations in another basin. Finally, in the 1940's, a flood control project straightened and deepened the river channel through much of the lower reaches. Where the story of the Truckee River differs from that of many others is that Robert Ridgway, a young ornithologist who accompanied Clarence King on a geologic expedition, meticulously characterized its bird community before most impacts to the river had occurred. The expedition rested at the Truckee River for three weeks in June 1868, giving Ridgway time to assess bird species and even rank their summer abundances. By comparing more recent bird surveys to Ridgway's, we now have the unique opportunity to evaluate the effects of human-induced habitat changes on a riparian bird community. Impacts to the Biological Community of the Lower Truckee River As a result of water and floodplain developments, the Truckee River became incised (i.e., down-cut) and the ground water table of its floodplain receded. During many years, diversions reduced the river to a trickle by the time it reached its terminus in the Great Basin desert at Pyramid Lake. Meanwhile, massive losses occurred in the biological communities that depended on the Truckee River. Cottonwood forests (Populus fremontii), previously described as forming almost impenetrable thickets (Ridgway 1877), were reduced to small stands of a few old individuals whose roots were deep enough to reach the low ground water table. Oxbow wetlands dried up as the river stage dropped. For Nevadans of the early 20th century, the most notorious losses, though, involved two endemic game fish, a unique strain of the Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarki henshawi) and the cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus), a lake sucker. Both species were, prior to river impacts, so abundant that they represented a significant economic asset. They resided in Pyramid Lake most of the year and migrated upriver to spawn in the spring. After years of diminishing catches, Lahontan cutthroat trout were finally extirpated from the Truckee River in the first half of the 20th century. Cui-ui, historically a principal food resource of the Pyramid Lake Paiutes, were reduced to a small population of aging individuals. The species was already recognized as endangered in1967, and it was one of the first to be federally listed when the Endangered Species Act was ratified in 1973. The species' main threat was reproductive failure from reduced access to the river during their spawning runs in May and June. Therefore, the main objective in the cui-ui's recovery plan was improving river access during spawning season. Signs of Recovery of the Riparian System To allow cui-ui access to the river during spawning, management agencies and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe effected an agreement to release supplemental instream flows from upstream reservoirs beginning in the early 1980's. A series of wet years in the mid-1980's provided particularly ample spring flows, filling the river bed all the way to Pyramid Lake, and then receding only slowly, giving the fish opportunity to migrate and reproduce successfully before returning to the lake. Since then, supplemental flows have been released on a regular basis, and the cui-ui population has expanded by more than 10-fold (Scoppettone and Rissler 2000). With the cui-ui spawning flow releases, another phenomenon was observed. The barren banks of the Truckee River became vegetated with cottonwood seedlings (Populus fremontii). Previous studies indicate that cottonwood seedlings germinate best when spring flows recede slowly after seed dispersal (Rood and Mahoney 1990), which takes place in early June. Thus, the supplemental flows designed to help cui-ui reproduction also created suitable conditions for cottonwood reproduction at a time when most remaining trees were becoming senescent. After 15 years, the trees recruited since flows have been supplemented have grown into distinct young, multi-aged riparian woodlands, and they are starting to fill in point bars and oxbows of the lower Truckee River. Bird Population Changes Throughout the Truckee River's History Robert Ridgway recorded 107 species of birds during his stay at the lower Truckee River in June 1868. Over 100 years later, when impacts to the Truckee River had accumulated and before any mitigation was attempted, a group of researchers re-surveyed the river's bird community. In the summers of 1972 -1976, Klebenow and Oakleaf (1984) could only detect 65 species, representing a 40% loss in species richness since the 1800's. An additional set of species was ranked as "rare" in the 1970's after having been "abundant" or "common" during Ridgway's times. Overall, Klebenow and Oakleaf's surveys documented an astounding loss of bird diversity over the course of a century. Birds that experienced the greatest losses were species whose life history is closely linked to riverine and wetland habitats. For instance, American Widgeon (Anas americana), Gadwall (Anas strepera), Western and Eared grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis and Podiceps nigricollis), American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus), American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana), Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris), Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens), and Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) were absent in the 1970's after being ranked "common" or "abundant" in 1868. Around the turn of the 21st century, after instream flows were supplemented and early-successional riparian woodlands re-appeared, species richness increased again. Morrison (1993) reported 87 species during surveys in 1993. In 1998 and 2001, I recorded a total of 95 species, or 89% of the species richness originally reported in 1868. These numbers give the appearance of an enormous bird recovery since the ecosystem's presumed low point in the 1970's. However, the composition of today's bird community paints a less optimistic picture. Over 20 species recorded in the 20th century were new additions since Ridgway's times. For example, species such as California Quail (Lophortyx californicus), Rock Dove (Columba livia), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) had not been observed in 1868, but are now common breeders along the Truckee River. Many of the newly added species are commensals of human settlement and agriculture, and thus indicate a change in wildlife that parallels the transition toward more artificial landscapes. However, other species truly began to recover since the 1980's; some returned to the river after having been extirpated as breeders, others recovered in numbers after having become rare. In my recent studies, I was interested in whether the recovering species were associated with the recovering vegetation, providing evidence that habitat loss and recovery could explain most historic changes in the bird community. Thus, besides conducting standard point count surveys, I also recorded the vegetation types used by birds at the time of detection and, finally, I measured vegetation cover and structure in the survey plots to be able to relate habitat availability to bird abundance. Of 30 recovering breeding birds, eight are associates of riparian shrublands or early-successional woodlands, including species such as Yellow-breasted Chat, Common Yellowthroat, Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus), Song Sparrow, and Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus cyanocephalus). Nine other species are primarily associated with emergent wetlands or active riverine wetlands, including for example, American Bittern, Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera), and Marsh Wren. Thus, the majority of species that have begun to recover since the 1970's are, in fact, species with life histories that require those habitats for breeding that increased most as a result of supplemental instream flows. Secondly, species that have increased since the 1970's were observed actively using early-successional riparian woodlands and wetlands. For instance, Yellow Warblers (Dendroica petechia), Song Sparrows, Black-headed Grosbeaks, and Common Yellowthroats were most commonly detected in < 15-year old cottonwood/willow stands and in riparian shrubs. Marsh Wrens and American Bitterns were almost exclusively detected in emergent wetlands, most of which consist, in this ecosystem, of relic oxbow channels. Finally, correlation analyses involving the more common recovering birds suggested that their abundance is greater with increased cover by young riparian woodlands. For instance, positive relationships between Black-headed Grosbeak, Song Sparrow, Yellow Warbler, and Warbling Vireo abundances and cover by young cottonwood/willow stands or riparian shrublands suggest, at least the possibility of, a causal link between habitat increase and the observed return of these birds to the Truckee River. Implications of the Truckee River Bird Data for Riparian Restoration With its unusually detailed information on historic changes in bird populations, the Truckee River helps to clarify a variety of issues relevant to other western riparian systems. It provides a rare glimpse at the real extent of bird losses due to habitat reduction, which is often invoked, but can rarely be documented with this degree of accuracy. For example, in riparian conservation efforts, benefits to particular wildlife species are often cited as a goal but can rarely be specified in their historic context. The Truckee River studies show that not only sensitive and declining species, such as Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailli) and Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), suffered significant losses from habitat impacts, but so did regionally common birds, such as Yellow Warbler and Common Yellowthroat. Widespread species that are also sensitive to habitat change may thus be considered as early indicators of community recovery in land conservation and restoration projects. This approach would be particularly useful for projects that focus on the recovery of rare and sensitive species, for example Yellow-billed Cuckoo, but also seek multi-species benefits as a secondary (and often underfunded) goal. Finally, the historic changes in the Truckee River bird species composition suggest that the community has undergone a unidirectional transition over time. This, too, has an important implication for habitat restoration. An alternative to the species-centered approach to monitoring habitat protection or restoration progress focuses on bird species richness, or another measure of diversity, as an indicator of improvement. However, the Truckee River story suggests that increases in species richness may not always indicate recovery of the native bird community. Specifically, invasion of generalist species into a human-dominated landscape may increase species richness even without the recovery of many native species that were lost to habitat impacts. Therefore, monitoring native, but reasonably common, species avoids potential pitfalls of either extreme in evaluating success of habitat improvements, an exclusively species-centered and an all-species approach. Acknowledgments I thank the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and The Nature Conservancy of Nevada for partial financial support of the project, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and Chad Gourley for their contributions and support of my surveys. Literature Cited Klebenow, D. A., and R. J. Oakleaf. 1984. Historical avifaunal changes in the riparian zone of the Truckee River, Nevada. In: R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, California, pp. 203-209. Morrison, M. L. 1993. Avian surveys along the Truckee River, California and Nevada, Spring 1993. Unpubl. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Surveys, Reno, NV. 22 pp. Ridgway, R. 1877. Ornithology. Pp. 303 - 669 in C. King (ed.), Ornithology and Paleontology. U.S. Geological Explorations 40th Parallel 4. Washington, D. C. Rood, S. B., and J. M. Mahoney. 1990. The collapse of riparian poplar forests downstream from dams on the western prairies: probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Env. Manage. 14:451-464. Scoppettone, G. G., and P. H. Rissler. 2000. Endangered cui-ui of Pyramid Lake, Nevada. USGS-BRD website, http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/frame/r250.htm OTHER ARTICLES Everglades Restoration Moves Forward On December 11, 2000, former President Clinton signed historic legislation that cleared the way for the joint state-federal Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to proceed. The legislation authorized an initial $1.4 billion for 10 construction projects and 4 pilot projects to be carried out primarily by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. The legislation also formalized the federal government's commitment to share with the state of Florida the total cost of the 30-year $7.8 billion project. This amount is in addition to the $2.3 billion that Florida Governor Jeb Bush estimates the state has already spent on Everglades restoration-related activities. Currently, South Florida is a testament to water control, with over 1800 miles of canals and levees, 25 major pumping stations, and 2200 water control structures. That efficient water control network moves almost 75% of surface water flows directly out to sea. The natural system has suffered as a result. Wading bird populations have declined by roughly 90% since the 1930s, biologically diverse tree islands have disappeared, dense stands of cattail have displaced sawgrass marshes, and exotic plants have invaded many areas of the remnant wetland. The main challenge of the restoration will be to improve water quality, deliver more water to the natural system, and do so in a way that closely mimics natural hydrologic fluctuations. All this must be done while preserving the function of the current flood control and water supply system for south Florida's 6 million (and growing quickly) residents. Hydrologic requirements of wildlife species were used as criteria for selecting a final plan and population responses of these animals will be used in the adaptive assessment process to evaluate the plan's success. The main components of the plan are (1) reservoirs to store surface water, (2) aquifer storage and recovery through deep wells, (3) storm water treatment areas that use constructed marshes to filter nutrients from agricultural and urban runoff, (4) wastewater reuse plants for urban areas, (5) seepage management of ground water with pumps and underground barriers, (6) re-establishing sheetflow through the removal of canals and levees, and (7) operational changes in water delivery schedules to better match rainfall patterns. Surface water storage reservoirs will encompass about 181,300 acres and will have the capacity to store 1.5 million acre-feet of water. They will be built on agricultural lands and former rock-mining areas. Aquifer storage and recovery will be achieved with 300 wells that will inject water 1000 feet underground in the Floridean aquifer. Because water does not evaporate when stored underground less land is needed for storage than with surface reservoirs. Stormwater treatment areas will consist of about 35,000 acres of constructed wetlands that will filter nutrients from urban and agricultural runoff. These marshes are in addition to the 44,000 acres of constructed wetlands currently being built by the South Florida Water Management District to clean water as directed by the Everglades Forever Act. Wastewater reuse will be improved with the construction of two advanced treatment plants in Miami-Dade county. Wastewater will be cleaned thoroughly enough to be discharged into wetlands along Biscayne Bay, which will recharge the Biscayne Aquifer. Seepage management will direct more water to where it is needed in the natural system. Currently, millions of gallons of water seep from the Everglades eastward underground or through levees. Seepage management consists of adding impervious barriers to levees to block water loss, installing pumps near levees to redirect water back to the Everglades, and holding water levels higher in undeveloped areas just east of the eastern perimeter levees. One of the defining characteristics of the pristine Everglades was the uninterrupted sheet flow of water across the landscape driven by seasonal rainfall patterns. That sheet flow was interrupted when the Everglades was bisected with roads, canals, and levees. Removing barriers to sheetflow consists of removing 240 miles of canals and levees within the interior Everglades. One of the consequences of having great control over the water in South Florida is that the system was operated to meet primarily human needs. With the help of spatially explicit simulation models, a rainfall driven operational plan was developed to more closely mimic the natural seasonal wet-dry cycles in rainfall. These operational changes will improve both the timing and location of flows. The information presented above is only a very brief summary of the Everglades restoration components. Much more information exists on the role of wildlife and the innovative tools used to develop the restoration plan. For a full description of the plan, background information, and links to other Everglades web sites, please visit www.evergladesplan.org, www.evergladesvillage.net, and www.sfwmd.gov.
Dale E. Gawlik Chair, Restoration Working Group of TWS Everglades Department South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 561-682-6712 dale.gawlik@sfwmd.gov Restoration of South Texas Brushlands The Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas is an important region for wildlife conservation research and ecosystem management because it has less than five percent of its original native brush remaining (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie, 1988) and the area marks the northernmost extension for many tropical species of flora (Lonard and Judd, 1993) and fauna (Blair, 1950; Oberholser, 1974). The existing sites of native vegetation are fragmented among a landscape of agriculture and development. The LRGV is home to over 15 species of endangered animals and 4 species of endangered plants and many more species are threatened due to loss of habitat. Reforestation efforts are an unquestionably important tool in the conservation of wildlife in many parts of the world and the LRGV is an example of where the work has just begun. In the late 1950's, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) began revegetation efforts to provide nesting habitat for white-winged doves (Zenaida asiatica) (Homerstad et al., 1988). From 1993 to 1996, The Nature Conservancy of Texas (TNC) planted an average of 120 ha/year in the LRGV as part of a private lands initiative program (Lisa Williams, pers. comm.). Recently, they have continued to plant natives although on a smaller scale. The TNC planting effort has relied on a variety of techniques such as random plantings between existing plants and row-planting. Since 1984, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the LRGV also have been planting large areas to native vegetation (Vora, 1992). All three agencies have been working together to re-establish a wildlife corridor along the Rio Grande in the LRGV. Early efforts by the USFWS in the LRGV planted as much land as possible (400 to 750 ha/yr) although most resulted in high plant mortality and low species diversity. Since 1995, the USFWS have attempted to plant at least 405 ha/year on tracts comprising the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (LRGVNWR). Plant survivorship and diversity has increased substantially due to adjustments of the initial techniques. Two primary methods for planting, direct-seeding and seedling plantings, have been used by the USFWS in the LRGV. The differences between the methods involve a trade-off between the diversity of the group of species to be planted, and the amount of time, labor, and money required to implement the method. Direct-seeding involves the planting of seeds of native tree and shrub species. While seeding is quicker and less expensive, empirical data demonstrate that there are few tree and shrub species that can out-compete invasives and early succession plants. Consequently, the USFWS used seeds of only 2 to 12 species and in most cases only 2 or 3 species survived. Plants that have survived on these areas are mostly huisache (Acacia minuata), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), retama (Parkinsonia aculeata), sugar hackberry (Celtis laevigata), tepeguaje (Leucaena pulverulenta), and Texas ebony (Chloroleucon ebano). Direct-seeding was first used in the LRGV by TPWD in the late 1950's, and later by the USFWS from 1982 to 1995. After 1995, seedling-only planting became the favored technique of the USFWS. The seedling approach incorporates the use of native plants (grown by refuge personnel or contracted growers) that are (or were) known to occur in the relatively undisturbed brush near the area to be planted. The benefits of the seedlings method are greater survival of planted individuals and the immediate establishment of a more diverse plant community than that gained by the direct-seeded method. A typical planting of seedlings incorporates from 20 to 47 species (averaging 40 species) and plant survivorship averages 70%. Plant survivorship can be quite high with careful execution of all steps in the seedling planting process. Some of the considerations include the amount and quality of care used in growing and handling seedlings, timely irrigation of the field after planting, and timely herbicide applications and plowing to prohibit invasions by undesirable plant species at the planting site. Planting with seedlings is much more labor-intensive, slow, and costly. Planting with seedlings requires more personnel and nursery expenses, delivery and care of nursery-grown plants, supervising contracts with field laborers and growers, and considerably more planning than the direct-seeded method. Although planting techniques have varied over the years, the seed sources have remained the same. Most of the seeds needed for the planting effort are gathered by USFWS personnel from the relatively few remaining areas of native brushlands in the LRGV. Some of the local nurseries are given permits to gather seeds on national wildlife refuge property. At least once each year, the public is invited to help USFWS replant a tract (usually 16 - 40 ha) to native brush species. These events involve school groups, various community outreach organizations, city Parks and Recreation workers, and other volunteers. At one of these events in November 2000, the USFWS and approximately 950 local volunteers replanted 9,841 seedlings on 17 ha in 2.5 hours. The USFWS provided the lunch, refreshments, and native plants; the volunteers provided most of the work. In June 2001, a volunteer and myself found that the plants had a survivorship of 76.4%. The LRGV revegetation program has benefited the people of the LRGV in many ways. Volunteers at planting events have the opportunity to meet people with similar interests, work with local leaders, and educate their children on the need for community involvement and natural areas for wildlife communities. The public has begun to show an interest in using native plants in their areas; LRGV school groups are now involved in growing and planting native plants in their schoolyards with the help of TPWD, TNC, and USFWS. Contracts between USFWS and local nurseries for the growing of native plants has formed positive relationships between the USFWS and nurseries and provided a steady source of income for their nursery services. Also, the majority of planting (about 90%) is done by contracted farm crews. Contracting to farm crews allows more acreage to be replanted per year than could be replanted with the limited number of USFWS personnel. It also provides local farmers and laborers with additional income and encourages good relations between local farmers and the USFWS. The LRGV reforestation effort will not be a success until the replanted species start replacing themselves and the community becomes self-sustaining. The interactions between individual plants will determine if the species planted will result in plant and wildlife communities representative of their former mature brush communities. But it is not known how long this facilitated succession will take or how similar replanted areas will be to the original mature brushlands. Unfortunately, much of the mature riparian brushlands of the LRGV have been destroyed. Therefore acquisition of areas to be revegetated as well as remaining mature brushland tracts are critical needs for the conservation of rare habitats and wildlife in the LRGV. The seedling method of planting in the LRGV appears to be a success and should continue but wildlife monitoring should be conducted to determine how these revegetated areas are being used. The Restoration Working Group of The Wildlife Society provides us with a great opportunity to exchange information regarding our successes and failures and I thank all of you who play an active role in maintaining these learning opportunities. I would be interested to hear from any of you with reference to your restoration efforts and research interests dealing with restored areas. Literature Cited Blair, W. F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas. Texas Journal of Science 2:93-117. Homerstad, G. E., G. L. Waggerman, R. R. George. 1988. The reforestation of cropland in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas with emphasis on white-winged dove nesting habitat. Second Regional Conference of the Rio Grande Border States on Parks and Wildlife. Unpublished report. Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico. 13pp. Jahrsdoerfer, S. E. and D. M. Leslie, Jr. 1988. Tamaulipan brushland of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas: description, human impacts, and management implications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88. 66pp. Lonard, R. I. and F. W. Judd. 1993. Phytogeography of the woody flora of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 45:133-147. Oberholser, H. C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. 1069pp. Vora, R. S. 1992. Restoration of native vegetation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 1984-1987. Restoration and Management Notes 10:150-157. Mitch Sternberg U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR Rt. 2, Box 202-A Alamo, Texas, 78516 Phone: (956) 583-0416 Email: mitch_sternberg@fws.gov WORKING GROUP ELECTION RESULTS Congratulations to our newly elected officers for 2001-02! Thanks to everyone who voted. CHAIR - Richard D. Crawford University of North Dakota Biology Dept. Box 9019 Grand Forks, ND 58202 Phone: (701) 777-4673 Fax: (701) 777-2623 Email: richard_crawford@und.nodak.edu CHAIR-ELECT - Marcia H. Wolfe M.H. Wolfe and Associates P.O. Box 10254 Bakersfield, CA 93389 Phone: (661) 837-1169 Email: yakimapark@aol.com SECRETARY-TREASURER - Peter J. Fasbender U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056 Phone: (612) 713-5343 Fax: (612) 713-5292 Email: peter_fasbender@fws.gov Board Members Northeast - Jeffrey Keifer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 210 W. Oak St. Elletsville, IN 47429 Phone: (812) 334-4261 ext. 212 Fax: (812) 334-4273 Email: jeffrey_kiefer@fws.gov Southeast - Daniel J. Twedt U.S.G.S - Biological Resources Division 2524 S Frontage Rd, Suite C Vicksburg, MS 39180-5269 Phone: (601) 629-6605 Fax: (601) 636-9541 Email: dan_twedt@usgs.gov Midwest - Brian T. Gray Ducks Unlimited Canada Stonewall P.O. Box 1160 Oak Hammock Msh. MB R0C 2Z0, Canada Phone: (204) 467-3349 Fax: (204) 467-9426 Email: b_gray@ducks.ca West - David A. Ross U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 8022 Big Buck Ln. Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Phone: (541) 885-8481 Fax: (541) 885-7837 Email: dave_ross@fws.gov SOUTHEAST SECTION NEWS U.S.G.S National Wetlands Research Center -Forest Ecology Branch Bottomland Hardwood Regeneration Success in the Lower Mississippi River Valley: Under this title we have several projects that describe the success of artificial regeneration projects on cropped wetlands. We are evaluating the success of reforestation efforts primarily on state and federal fish and wildlife agency lands. We are tracking stand dynamics on 'restored' sites at several time intervals following replanting or direct seeding of oaks and other woody species at many sites. We have developed an interactive, web-based CD providing field descriptions with location maps and summary data for each field included in the study. The locations of transects and study plots are show on the figures to ease remeasurement in the future. We have also conducted experimental plantings of baldcypress and various oak species to determine ways that natural resource managers can enhance the success of their restoration efforts on difficult sites such as Sharkey clay soils and impoundments that are semipermanently flooded. Natural Regeneration Assessment: This is a project in the Lower Mississippi Valley designed to determine the natural rate of reforestation in cropped wetlands. Our scientists have established transects on former agricultural lands at several sites in the Yazoo Basin, MS, to determine the composition and rate of natural regeneration of forest stands and the factors that influence regeneration (such as distance and direction from nearby forests). We are also evaluating how site preparation and other land management practices affect natural recruitment and establishment of forest vegetation. For example, we evaluated how the disking of fallow cropland (to reduce herbaceous plant competition) affects the natural regeneration of trees and shrubs. Conservation Genetics: Understanding the Role of Genetics in Habitat Restoration: This project was designed to determine if there is a difference in the genetic diversity of natural and restored forests in the Lower Mississippi River Valley. We compared leaf tissue of trees in natural stands with trees in stands that were regenerated by planting or direct seeding. Guide To Bottomland Hardwood Restoration: This joint effort with the USDA Forest Service consists of a review and compilation of information needed by restoration practitioners who are attempting to re-establish the vegetation of bottomland hardwood forests. A comprehensive volume of information is complete and will be printed shortly. Mangrove Modeling of Landscape, Stand-level and Soil Nutrient Processes for the ATLASS Program and Everglades Restoration Project: This project was initiated in 2001 to assist the managers of the Everglades in restoring and maintaining the extensive mangrove forests that distinguish this unique ecosystem. The resulting information and simulation model will help managers understand how hydrology, soils, and nutrients influence mangrove stand dynamics. Model design and applications will help determine the benefits and consequences of active management of the Everglades fresh water delivery process and of various restoration alternatives on the land-margin ecosystems of South Florida. Determining the effects of sea-level rise and storms on the ecology and fate of mangrove systems in the Everglades region are additional objectives of this study. Submitted by Virginia Burkett Chief, Forest Ecology Branch-U.S.G.S. National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, LA virginia_burkett@usgs.gov | |||||||
Web site created by Wildlifer.com.
© Copyright 2001.