Project Number: WVA00085
CRIS Number: 0181726
Management of Appalachian Forests for Cavity-dwelling Wildlife
Investigators: Anderson, J. T.
Performing Department: Forestry -- 1240
Start Date: 05/01/1999
Termination Date: 04/30/2004
Reporting period: 01/01/2001 to 12/31/2001
Progress Report:
This study evaluates wildlife-habitat relationships in West Virginia. There are 4 main study sites: Monongahela National Forest, Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Camp Dawson Collective Training Area, and wetlands scattered throughout north-central West Virginia. On the Ohio River, basal area was greater on the back channel (41 m2/ha; SE=2.8) than the navigational channel (28 m2/ha; SE=2.1) side (P=0.0002) of islands. There were more cavity trees found on the back channel side (9.9/plot; SE=1.1) than the navigational channel (6.5/plot; SE=0.8) side (P=0.03). Also, cavity abundance was higher for the back channel side (19.4/plot; SE=2.1) than the navigational channel (11.7/plot; SE=1.6) sides (P=0.007). In 2000, bird species richness was greater on the back channel (5.0 species/plot; SE=0.4) than the navigational channel (6.1/plot; SE=0.5) sides (P=0.09). In 2001, bird species richness also was similar between back channel (6.4/plot; SE=0.3) and navigational channel (6.0/plot; SE=0.3) sides (P=0.39).More cavity-nesting birds were found on back channel (1.1/plot; SE=0.1) than navigational channel (0.8/plot; SE=0.1) sides (P=0.14). The quality of habitat is better on the back channel side, considering the higher basal area, quantity of cavity trees, and cavities. In the Monongahela National Forest, efforts were concentrated in mature forest stands in the following cover types Red spruce - yellow birch (RS - YB), Black cherry - maple (BC - M), and White oak - black oak - Northern red oak (WO - BO - NRO) to represent each of the three general forest cover categories, respectively. Each plot was surveyed twice for breeding birds and tree, cavity, and stand level characteristics were recorded. The number of cavity trees per plot differed significantly among the RS - YB (4.7/plot, SE=2.6), BC - M (9.2/plot, SE=5.0), and WO - BO -NRO (13.1/plot, SE=4.4) forest cover types (P
Publications:
Forcey, G. M., J. T. Anderson, and F. K. Ammer. 2001. A comparison of bird abundance within habitat types using two different point count methodologies. Proceedings of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference 57:88.
Kahler, H. A., and J. T. Anderson. 2001. Cavity-tree abundance and characteristics among three Central Appalachian forest types. Proceedings of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference 57:92-93.
Warren, K. A. 2001. Habitat use, nest success, and management recommendations for grassland birds of the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Impact:
This study is ecologically important because it provides evidence for the importance of particular habitat types for wildlife. This information can then be used for management and conservation actions necessary for sound forest and wildlife management.