Management Techniques For The Red

Management Techniques For The Red-Cockaded Woodpec Essay ker On Federal LandsSean FraserNRM 304ABSTRACTThe red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) has been listed as an endangeredspecies since October, 1970. This species inhabits pine forests in thesoutheastern United States where the majority of prime timberland is privatelyowned. Private ownership of preferred habitat and historically destructivesilvicultural practices create unique problems for federal wildlife managers. This report analyzes three management techniques being used to assess andaugment red-cockaded woodpecker populations on federal lands in the region,primarily military installations. Seeking cooperation between diversegovernment agencies, wildlife managers attempt to accurately assess speciesabundance, alter woodpecker nesting cavities, and construct nest sites in aneffort to enhance red-cockaded woodpecker habitat on limited federal holdings inthe American southeast. Key words: Picoides borealis, Global Positioning System, Geographic InformationSystem, cavity trees, cavity restrictorsThe red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is an endangered speciesthat inhabits pine forests in an historical range from Texas to the Atlanticcoast (Jackson, 1986; Reed et al., 1988). Picoides borealis nest in clans orfamily groups that usually consist of one breeding pair and 2 non-breeding malehelpers (Jackson, 1986 ). This group establishes and defends a territory thatincludes foraging habitat and nesting cavity trees (Copeyon et al., 1991;Jackson et al., 1986; Rossell and Gorsira, 1996). Red-cockaded woodpeckerclans excavate cavities in living pines, and have established a living andforaging routine in conjunction with the southeastern pine forests and thehistorical occurrence of fire, which reduces hardwood understory while sparingfire-resistant pines (Jackson, 1986). Much of the prime nesting and foraginghabitat for this species has been systematically el iminated due to development,timber harvest and intensive fire suppression (Jackson, 1986). The emergenceof dense hardwood understory and midstory as a result of fire suppression inred-cockaded woodpecker habitat has resulted in the abandonment of manyotherwise undisturbed areas (Jackson, 1986; Kelly et al., 1993). The red-cockaded woodpecker has been listed as endangered since 1970(Federal Register, 1970 as cited by Ertep and Lee, 1994). Four requirementsfor sustained red-cockaded woodpecker populations that are lacking in thespecies historical range are identified as critical to species stabilization andrecovery: 1.) Open pine forests with shade tolerant understory controlled bycyclical fire seasons; 2.) Old growth Pinus palustrus aged 95 years and Pinustaeda aged 75 years; 3.) Approximately 200 acres for nesting group or clan;4.) Multiple clans per area to maintain genetic stability and variability(Jackson, 1986). The opportunity to establish or preserve these habitatqualities on private timberland is largely lost due to historical harvestpractices and development, and research on expanding populations on federalholdings is the most vital component in red-cockaded woodpecker stabilizationand recovery (Jackson et al., 1979a; Jackson, 1986). Exacerbating the problemof habitat loss due to enc roachment and fire-suppression are natural hazardssuch as hurricanes, pine-beetle infestations and usurpation of red-cockadedwoodpecker cavities by other species (Carter et al., 1989; Rossell and Gorsira,1996). Effects of historically natural hazards are multiplied in the contextof a diminished species abundance (Carter et al., 1989; Jackson, 1986). Land management for wildlife is subject to unique difficulties in theSoutheast, as the majority of forested land is privately owned (Jackson, 1986). In western states, approximately 2/3 of undeveloped land is federallyadministered, making the enactment of widespread management policies feasible,and controversies are apt to center around questions of access and use, ratherthan the more difficult problems concerned with private property rights. MATERIALS AND METHODSThis report will focus on the current techniques being explored andenacted to stabilize and increase red-cockaded woodpecker populations on federallands throughout its previous range. Three areas of concern regarding the red-cockaded woodpecker populations on federal lands interact to define currentmanagement practices (Jackson, 1986). Wildlife biologists, foresters, and themilitary have tested and combined specific techniques involving habitatassessment and identification, cavity alteration, and cavity construction tomanage limited habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker on federally administeredland (Carter et al., 1989; Copeyon, 1990; Ertep and Lee, 1994). Analysisof specific studies and practices in these three areas serve as a description ofthe technique for managing limited federal lands for the enhancement andstabilization of red-cockaded woodpecker populations. DISCUSSIONHABITAT ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFICATIONA significant problem associated with the management of red-cockadedwoodpecker populations is obtaining an accurate assessment of habitatavailability and home range estimates (Ertep and Lee, 1994; Reed et al.,1988). Differences in habitat quality and availability throughout the range ofthe red-cockaded woodpecker affect population density and the range of foragingand nesting activities within colonies, making general application of populationestimators difficult (Reed et al., 1988). This issue was addressed in 1988during a study to evaluate red-cockaded woodpecker population indices. Reed etal. (1988) set out to evaluate studies concerning red-cockaded woodpeckerpopulation indices and, if necessary, develop a new techniques to moreaccurately estimate adult population size. Reed at al. (1988) researched thecircular scale technique (CST) as described by Harlow et al. (1983) and foundthat application of this method of population estimation is limited. CSTutilizes aerial identification of active cavity tree groups, and encompassessaid groups in a 460-m diameter circle that contains as many of the activecavity trees as possible (Harlow et al., 1983 as cited by Reed et al., 1988). A soldiers Tale EssayPerhaps the most comprehensive study concerning artificial cavity constructionfor the benefit of the red-cockaded woodpecker was conducted by Copeyon, Waltersand Carter as part of a ten year study of red-cockaded woodpecker populations inthe Sandhills region of North Carolina (1991). Their work, Induction of Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Group Formation by Artificial Cavity Construction, (Copeyonet al., 1991) represents the most practical and valuable guide to red-cockadedwoodpecker population enhancement techniques to date (Conner and Rudolph, 1995). In 1990, Carole Copeyon published an article describing a technique forconstructing artificial cavities for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Explaining thatexcavation of suitable living cavities takes a minimum of ten months andnormally much longer to complete, Copeyon (1990) surmised that construction ofartificial cavities may be an effective management tool that would encouragecolonization of abandoned areas and reduce energy expenditure associated withnesting cavity construction. After making the decision to use artificial nesting cavities as amanagement tool, wildlife managers should attempt to select older trees in theirrespective areas of responsibility (Copeyon, 1990; Copeyon et al., 1991). Selection of older trees mimics the natural inclination of the red cockadedwoodpecker and that older trees have sufficient heartwood development to supportlarge nesting and roosting cavities without sustaining damage (Copeyon, 1990). As indicated previously, red-cockaded woodpeckers generally select trees between80 and 100 years old depending on species availability. Copeyon (1990) revealsthat an adequate artificial nesting cavity requires an entrance approximately4.4cm.-6.4cm. in diameter placed at 1-24 meters above ground level. An entrancetunnel should be excavated into the heartwood with the nesting chamber extendingdown at a right angle to the entrance tunnel to a depth between 20.3 and 27.3cm. (Figure 2) (Copeyon, 1990). Small resin wells are drilled around the treeabove and below the entrance site (Copeyon 1990; Rossell and Gorsira, 1996). Seepage from these wells act to discourage competitors and predators (Copeyon,1990). The results of Copeyons initial study concerning red-cockadedwoodpecker cavity construction are contained in (Table 2). TABLE 1. Use ofartificial cavities by red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) in theSandhills region of North Carolina (Copeyon, 1990). SpeciesAge #Constructed#Active LongleafOld2925Moderate74Young22Total3831LoblollyOld43Young21Total64Cavity construction for red-cockaded woodpecker management is aneffective tool for inducing the formation of new colonies in the specieshistorical range, and may prove to increase reproductive success in alreadyestablished colonies (Copeyon et al., 1991). RESULTSFurther research is necessary to establish the impact of management forthe red-cokaded woodpecker on other species (Masters et al., 1996). Initialstudies indicate that management practices involving the clearance of hardwoodunderstory and the initiation of prescribed burns in red-cockaded woodpeckerhabitat increase forage for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Masterset al., 1996). Studies continue to examine concerns about possible negativeeffects of single species management practices in association with red-cockadedwoodpecker recovery effort (Masters et al., 1996). In the 25 years since theidentification of the red-cockaded woodpecker as an endangered species,establishing a unified recovery program among the diverse federal agenciesresponsible for the administration of lands within the species range has beendifficult (Jackson, 1986). In the first 15 years of listing, no programsexisted to effectively manage habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Jackson(1986) des cribed the situation as especially urgent, as the red-cockadedwoodpecker was becoming dependent on widely dispersed islands of habitat,isolating colonies and creating the potential for catastrophic losses due tonatural occurrences and inter-species competition for roosting and nesting sites. Since 1986, research into habitat requirements for successful red-cockadedwoodpecker colonies have been identified (Copeyon et al., 1991; Jackson, 1986). Improvements in identifying suitable habitat, altering existing cavities todecrease competition for roosting and nesting sites, and initiating formation ofred-cockaded woodpecker colonies through construction of artificial cavitieshave been synthesized into a specific technique of managing federal lands forthe red-cockaded woodpecker (Copeyon et al., 1991; Ertep and Lee, 1994;Rossell and Gorsira, 1996). Category: Social Issues