Transcript Breeding Bird Use of Hybrid Poplar Plantations in Minnesota

Planning for the expansion of
biomass production in the
Midwest: Remaining wildlife
neutral
JoAnn Hanowski
Natural Resources Research Institute
University of Minnesota-Duluth
Remaining Wildlife Neutral
No net loss in Conservation Reserve
Program acreage
 Establish landscape appropriate biomass
crop
 Understand habitat change implications
from upland brush and timber harvest
residue removal
 Create positive habitat change for wildlife
in under-utilized ecosystem types, lowland
brush

No net loss in CRP acreage




CRP protects almost
40 million acres of
highly erodible
farmland
CRP has restored over
1.8 million acres of
wetland
CRP produces 2.1
million ducks/year
CRP provides critical
habitat for 100’s of
wildlife species
Establish landscape appropriate
biomass crop



Avoid planting hybrid
poplar in open
landscapes
Switchgrass managed
properly could have
positive impacts on
wildlife
Switchgrass mix would
provide better wildlife
habitat than
monoculture
Breeding birds and hybrid poplar
What are the pressing issues with wildlife
(specifically breeding birds)?
 Studies completed in Minnesota in the last
decade
 Developed recommendations for hybrid
poplar plantations
 Pulp prices have made it difficult to utilize
hybrid poplar as an energy source

Study Sites



Large plantations (up
to 300 acres) located
in western and
southwestern MN
Eleven plantations
were surveyed over 7
years
Oldest plantation was
11 years (in 2001)
Bird sampling in plantations and
surrounding habitats
Habitat



What species respond
positively to presence
of plantation habitat?
What species are
replaced when
existing land-use is
converted to
plantation?
How can we increase
plantation diversity?
Community response


Total number of
individuals increase as
plantations age
Species richness does
not change much,
usually 4 to 6 species
12
Individuals
Species
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
8
7
6
4 5
Plantation Age in Years
9
10 11
Habitat guild response



Composition of bird
community changes
as plantations age
Young plantations
have species
associated with open
and shrub habitats
Number of forest
dwelling individuals
increases with age
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
Both
Forest
4
5
6
7
8
9
Open, shrub
10 11
Species response



Species that colonize
plantations are generally
found in adjacent habitats
Young plantations have
lots of sparrows and
blackbirds
Beginning to see vireos
and warblers in older
plantations and some
permanent residents
Hay
Other wild
Other non-wild
Forest/shrub
Crop
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
7
8
9
10
11
Bird species replaced



Dependent upon
habitat
Replacement of
cropland least amount
of impact
Replacement with
“good” CRP most
impact
Pheasants Forever?



Initial concern that
pheasants would be
negatively impacted
We observed
pheasants in summer
and winter
Likely not affected
unless large
percentage of area is
in plantation
Landscape Context



Species that colonize
plantations are dependent
upon landscape context
Plantations in a
predominantly agricultural
landscape are colonized by
mostly open country and
shrub bird species
Plantations in forest
landscapes are colonized
earlier by forest birds
Negative landscape effects
Habitat quality




Longevity of habitat
for individual species
is short
Community turnover
is almost 50% each
year
Productivity of
individuals is
questionable
Are plantations largely
sink habitats?
Are plantations attractive hazards?

Open tree
architecture, lack of
understory and
ground cover may
result in increase
predation of bird nests
and increased
parasitism rates by
Brown-headed
Cowbirds
Artificial nest studies



Plantation and
surrounding habitats
Results indicated that
predation rates were
independent of habitat
type and distance
from plantation edge
Predation rates were
high on some sites,
likely due to local
predator populations
Recommendation: What to avoid



Replacement of “good CRP
habitat” and highly
erodible sites
Fragmentation of open
habitats especially in areas
with sharp-tailed grouse
and prairie chickens
“Large” areas of singleaged plantations
Agroforestry in Minnesota’s Open Landscapes:
Information, Concerns, and Recommendations
in Regard to Native Wildlife and Their Habitats
by the Minnesota Chapter of The Wildlife Society
October 28, 2001
Understand habitat change implications from
upland brush and timber harvest residue
removal


Fire suppression has
resulted in buildup of
brush in forest
ecosystems-create
guidelines for habitat
restoration
A percentage of
residue from timber
harvest could be
removed from sitecreate guidelines
Minnesota guidelines: Woody Biomass
Removal
Retain timber harvest guidelines for
retention trees, snags and CWD
 Old guideline for slash- leave scattered on
site
 New guideline: Leave 20% of tree tops
and limbs scattered on site
 Issue for certified land owners to ensure
that operations are sustainable

Create positive habitat change for wildlife in
under-utilized ecosystem types, lowland brush


Brush management
for open country
species includes
shearing and burning
brush on site which
cost money
Opportunity to harvest
biomass from these
sites and have positive
impact on wildlife
Lowland Brush Harvest
Positive impact on open country birds
 Negative impact on other species
 Planning needs to be done on landscape
level to get best results for species with
complicated life histories (Sharp-tailed
grouse)

Identify species of concern


Partners in Flight
species of concern
4 species, Veery,
Rose-breasted
Grosbeak, Goldenwinged Warbler and
Canada Warbler, use
upland and/or lowland
brush habitat
Summary: remaining wildlife neutral
Control crop expansion on CRP lands (corn
and soybeans)
 Establish landscape suitable biomass crops
and diverse species crops if possible
 Exploit woody biomass on timber harvest
sites with a plan
 Explore habitat restoration possibilities
with upland brush removal
 Plan landscape level lowland brush harvest
to benefit species of concern
