state wildlife grants (swg) were created with the intent of protecting and managing wildlife species...
TRANSCRIPT
State Wildlife Grants (SWG) were created with the intent of protecting and managing wildlife species in greatest conservation need. With 80 percent of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) original forest cover lost, breeding birds of the MAV warrant our conservation efforts. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries commissioned Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) on the state’s wildlife management areas to look at how forest management techniques in the MAV impact bird populations. At Boeuf Wildlife Management Area (WMA) species richness and diversity were compared across treatments. A list of confirmed breeding birds on the WMA is being generated as well as a checklist of all avian species encountered to include those detected outside the constraints of the BBS.
Boeuf WMA is 51,000 + acres of bottomland hardwoods and wetland habitat in northeast Louisiana. The land is owned by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Point count locations were randomly selected using a map of Boeuf WMA, projected with ArcView software. Locations were chosen for comparisons of different silvicultural practices. Accessibility and spatial concerns were considered.
Multiple point counts (Hamel et al. 1996) were conducted within each compartment on the WMA. Each point count was sampled approximately once monthly during April, May, and June. Point counts were conducted between 0.5 hours before sunrise and 3.0 hours after sunrise. Point counts were not conducted during periods of high wind or rain.
All birds seen or heard within 100m of the observer were recorded. Distances from the observer to all birds detected were broken down between three categories; less then 25m, 25m to 50m, and greater then 50m.
Each count was conducted for 10 minutes. The point count was subdivided into three intervals: 1-3 min, 2-5 min, and 5-10 min.
Literature shows that a diversity of habitats is most beneficial to the avian community and the environment as a whole. Future management should seek to find a sustainable balance between conservation and preservation when making decisions concerning bottomland hardwoods and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV).
At Boeuf Wildlife Management Area (WMA), further monitoring is necessary to determine reasons for low numbers of HOWA, KEWA, WOTH, and EAPW. Low abundance may be due to the factors within the WMA, but may also be part of the larger trend in the declining population of neo-tropical migrants throughout the MAV. A greater understanding of the dynamics of new plantations will also improve the success of future forest regeneration efforts.
Protecting and managing wildlife species of greatest conservation need will become more necessary as natural habitats are pressured by the expansion of agriculture and exurban areas. Boeuf WMA hosts a diverse range of habitats and is a valuable refuge in which to protect threatened species in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.
Avian response to silviculture practices in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley:
A breeding bird survey of Boeuf Wildlife Management AreaJOHN QUINN and KIM MARIE TOLSON,
Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Monroe
To effectively manage southern forests in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, a thorough understanding of the impacts of various silviculture techniques is needed. Wilson et al. (1996) have identified the need to survey biological resources as the first step in developing effective management strategies. The first step in a biological resource survey is an estimation of diversity at one time and location.
For this study, we are looking to estimate the total number of breeding species in each community within the WMA. We will examine the difference between managed and unmanaged forests and how age and structure of a plantation influences the avian population.
To increase use of Boeuf WMA by the general public and the birding community, we will develop an avian species list for the WMA, providing the community and birders with species present.
A complete species list and a copy of the poster can be found at:http://www.ulm.edu/~tolson/johnqiv.htm
Unmanaged
Introduction Methods
Aim
Results Conclusion
Further Information
AcknowledgementsWe thank Elbert Rachal for advice and helpful discussions, Buddy Dupris, David Breithaupt, Tommy Tuma, and Fred Hagaman for field data about Boeuf WMA. Funding for this project was provided by the LDWF & USFWS, Division of Federal Aid through the State Wildlife Grants Program. Photos by Mike Baranski
T09Managed Timber Cut/Individual
T15Managed Timber Cut/Individual
T18Managed Timber Cut/Individual
T10 Unmanaged
T12 Unmanaged
T13Unmanaged/Tornado
T16Unmanaged/Greentree
T17 Unmanaged
T21 Unmanaged
T22 Unmanaged
T25 Unmanaged
T31Unmanaged/Flooded
T06Managed Timber Cut/Group
T06BManaged Timber Cut/Group
Species richness per transect
T36T63
T32T37 T38
T01 T33T05
T06b T18 T31T13
T09 T12 T21 T25t06 T17 T22
T07 T15 T10
0
5
10
15
20
25
Works Cited
Hamel, P.B., W.P. Smith, D.J. Twedt, J.R. Woehr, E. Morris, R.B. Hamilton, and R.J. Cooper. 1996. A land manger’s guide to point counts of birds in the southeast. U.S.D.A Forest Service, Report SO-120Wilson, D.E., F.R. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R. Rudran, M.S. Foster 1996. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Smithsonian Institution Press
A total of 198 point counts were conducted on 22 transects in
plantations, managed and unmanaged forests. A total of 38
species were counted during the 2005 BBS season. Total species
richness for the management area currently stands at 171 species.
T01 Replantation High/Low
T32Replantation/Moist Soil/WRP
T33 Replantation High/Low
T36 Replantation High/Low
T37 Replantation WRP
T38 Replantation WRP
T63 Replantation High/Low
T05Natural Area/Flooded
T07 Natural Area
Description of TransectsManaged Reforested
BBS abundance per species
BA
OR
, 3
RT
HB
, 3
GR
CB
, 5
WO
TH
, 5
BLJA
, 6
EA
PW
, 6
EA
TO
, 6
HO
WA
, 7
KE
WA
, 8
GC
FL, 10
CO
YT
, 14
OR
OR
, 14
RH
WP
, 14
NO
BW
, 17
YT
VI, 1
9
DO
WP
, 25
RE
VI, 2
7
PA
BU
, 35
BG
GN
, 36
BH
CB
, 37
NO
PA
, 41
PIW
P, 41
SU
TA
, 43
YB
CH
, 46
AC
FL, 48
EA
ML, 57
PR
OW
, 73
INB
U, 81
YB
CU
, 86
WIV
I, 9
2
TU
TM
, 95
RB
WP
, 97
DIC
K, 101
CA
CH
, 172
NO
CL, 217
HA
WP
, 5
MO
DO
, 12
CA
WR
, 141
Reforested
Species Richness S = 23
Simpson's Index (D) D = 0.113
Simpson's Index of Diversity 1-D = 0.887
Shannon's Index (H‘) H'= 3.629
Simpson's Evenness 1/D E = 0.377
Managed
Species Richness S = 29
Simpson's Index (D) D = 0.074
Simpson's Index of Diversity 1-D = 0.926
Shannon's Index (H‘) H'= 4.163
Simpson's Evenness 1/D E = 0.451
Unmanaged
Species Richness S = 32
Simpson's Index (D) D = 0.067
Simpson's Index of Diversity 1-D = 0.933
Shannon's Index (H‘) H'= 4.243
Simpson's Evenness 1/D E = 0.463
Percent Similarity of Relative AbundanceUnmanaged Reforested
Managed 83.42 31.25
Reforested 34.43