the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington - Southern ...

the Blue Mountainsof Oregon and Washington

U.S. Department of Agriculture l Forest ServiceSeptember 1979 l Agriculture Handbook No. 553

Preface

Until just a few years ago, forestmanagers were not especially con-cerned with wildlife. The law did notrequire it. The public did not demandit. Politics did not compel it. Publicforest lands in the West were stilllargely an untapped source of woodproducts and recreational space forthe growing nation. Many resourcemanagement professionals were se-cure in the assurance given them intheir basic forestry and wildlife man-agement classes that “good timbermanagement is good wildlife man-agement.”

Times have changed. Laws havechanged. Public demands and poli-tics have changed. The public forestshave been thrust into the forefront asa prime supplier of wood productsand recreation. It seems likely thatthese forests will become ever moreintensively managed to meet the Na-tion’s burgeoning demands for wood,water, recreation, grazing, and wild-life. As for good timber managementbeing good wildlife management,wildlife biologists and foresters alikehave found that it is not necessarilyso!

Forest managers are now under in-creasing pressure to account forwildlife in their management activi-ties, particularly land use planning.That means all wildlife-not just spe-cies that are hunted or are estheti-cally pleasing or classified as threat-ened or endangered.

In reacting to these pressures, for-est managers are asking more andtougher questions about how forestmanagement practices will affect themyriad of wildlife species. Too oftenthe wildlife biologists’ responseshave been inadequate, ranging from“Don’t do i t ” to “We don’t knowenough to give you an answer.”Neither response will help the forestmanager make the decisions andevaluations that must be made. Todo nothing is seldom a realistic alter-native-economically or politically.

The knowledge necessary to makea perfect analysis of the impacts ofpotential courses of forest manage-ment action on wildlife habitat doesnot exist. It probably never will. Butmore knowledge is available thanhas yet been brought to bear on theproblem. To be useful, that knowl-edge must be organized so it makessense both biologically and silvicul-turally.

In the past, wildlife managementin forests has been considered froma rather limited viewpoint. The stand-ard practice has been to study onespecies at a time or develop manage-ment plans for one species or a lim-ited number of species. As a result,wildlife biologists and foresters havebeen unable to effectively evaluatethe impacts of forest managementon all wildlife.

So we began with a different ap-proach and a simple question. Whatdo forest managers do that affectswildlife? They certainly do not man-age wildlife directly. They managehabitat. The forest manager alterswildlife habitat with every decision.Habitat is something the managercan relate to, understand, and con-trol. Most important, it is an entityfor which a manager can be held ac-countable. The maintenance of ap-propriate habitat is the foundation ofall wildlife management. Habitat,therefore, is the key to organizingknowledge about wildlife so it can beused in forest management.

In this book, wildlife habitats aredescribed in such a way that theycan be considered simultaneouslywith t imber management. By ac-counting for the habitats, the ma-ager can account for the wildlife.

Perhaps the greatest challengethat faces professionals engaged inforest research and management isthe organization of knowledge andinsights into forms that can be readilyapplied. To say we don’t know enoughis to take refuge behind a half-truthand ignore the fact that decisionswi l l be made regard less of theamount of information available. Inmy opinion it is far better to examineavailable knowledge, combine it withexpert opinion on how the systemoperates, and make predict ionsabout the consequences of alterna-tive management actions.

Dean Kile, Supervisory ForesterUSDA Forest Service, Malheur Na-tional Forest

Glen 0. Klock, Soils ScientistUSDA Forest Service, Pacific North-west Forest and Range ExperimentStation

William C. Knechtel, Timber Manage-ment OfficerUSDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Jack R. Krieger, District RangerUSDA Forest Service, Malheur Na-tional Forest

Al LaTourette, Timber ManagementAssistantUSDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Don A. Leckenby, Project Leader andResearch BiologistOregon State Department of Fishand Wildlife

Thomas A. Leege, Senior Game Biol-ogistIdaho Fish and Game Department

Ira D. (Dave) Luman, Wildlife BiologistU.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management, Ore-gon State Office

Paul C. MacMillan, Associate Profes-s o rHanover College

Charles R. McComb, ForesterWashington State Department ofG a m e

Roger A. McKeel, Wildl i fe ProjectL e a d e rWashington State Department ofG a m e

Joseph E. Means, TechnicianUSDA Forest Service, Pacific North-west Forest and Range ExperimentStation

Bruce H. Morgan, Supervisory CivilEngineerUSDA Forest Service, Umatilla Na-tional Forest

Leon W. Murphy, Director of Fishand WildlifeUSDA Forest Service, Pacific North-west Region

Carl Nellis, Senior Game BiologistIdaho Fish and Game Department

Bruce E. Pyles, Supervisory ForestryTechnicianUSDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Richard T. Reynolds, Graduate Stu-dentOregon State University, OregonCooperative Wildlife Research Unit

Dale L. Robinson, Fire ManagerUSDA Forest Service, Malheur Na-tional Forest

Bud Salisbury, Zone EngineeringManagerUSDA Forest Service, Malheur Na-tional Forest

Merv M. Schouten, Fuels ManagerUSDA Forest Service, Malheur Na-tional Forest

E. Haven Stanaway, Forestry Techni-c ianUSDA Forest Service, Umatilla Na-tional Forest

Charles Sundstrom, Wildlife Biolo-gistUSDA Forest Service, Malheur Na-tional Forest

A. D. Twombly, Head, Reforestationand Stand ImprovementUSDA Forest Service, Pacific North-west Region

Annski E. Williams, Biological Tech-nic ianUSDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Merle Wischnofske, Wildlife Biolo-gistUSDA Forest Service, WenatcheeNational Forest

Kenneth L. Witty, Fisheries BiologistOregon State Department of Fishand Wildlife

Foreword

Man’s activities have had an im-pact on North American forests forcenturies. In the 500-year “instant”of geologic time following Europeansettlement, forested landscapes haveundergone dramatic and acceleratedchange. More people, advanced tech-nology, and increased material wealthhave combined to generate greaterdemands and capabilities to modifythe continent’s forests.

These alterations continue to haveprofound effects on wildlife. Roadconstruct ion, t imber harvest, andchanges in species composition offorests all affect wildlife habitatsand populations. Certain kinds ofwildlife benefit from some changes;other wildlife may be adversely af-fected. In the past, our understand-ing of forest-wildlife relationshipswas inadequate to minimize adverseimpacts and to assure required con-ditions for individual wildlife speciesor groups of species with similar

habitat needs. Data are available butscattered, making it difficult for for-esters, biologists, and resource man-agers to obtain and consolidate vitalinformation into practical guidelinesuseful in resource management.

This book is a response to thatneed. It is the first major attempt touse an integrated system to examinethe impacts of forest managementon terrestrial vertebrate fauna. Thispioneering perspective is both theo-retically sound and of immediatepractical value. It skillfully blendstheories, facts, and managementpractices to provide essential infor-mation and predictions about howwildlife respond to changes in foresthabitats.

The authors demonstrate that thehabitat needs of wildlife can be ac-commodated readily in carefully inte-grated plans for intensive forestmanagement. Application of this sys-tem has led to substantial improve-ments in the effectiveness of forest-wildlife planning in the Pacific North-west’s Blue Mountains. Similar sys-tems are being designed for other

types of forest ecosystems in theWestern United States. As they arecompleted and applied, additionalimprovement in yields of multiplebenefits from forested lands can beexpected.

The full potential of this new plan-ning system can be realized onlythrough its broad application in for-est management. The challenge isours- foresters, b io logis ts , man-agers, and citizens alike.

Laurence R. JahnVice PresidentWildlife Management Institute

That is what this book is about. Itis a framework for planning, in whichhabitat is the key to managing wild-life and making forest managers ac-countable for their act ions. Thisbook is based on the col lect iveknowledge of one group of resourceprofessionals and their understand-ing about how wildlife relate to for-est habitats. And it provides a long-overdue system for considering theimpacts of changes in forest struc-ture on all resident wildlife.

This book presents a reasonablefacsimile of the way managed forestsand wildlife interrelate. In this sense,the entire book may be termed aworking hypothesis. It is a place tostart and a way to derive tentativeresponses to questions for whichthere are no certain answers. As Wal-ter P. Taylor (1956, p. 11) said, “nobook dealing with living creatures isin any sense final. The subject mat-ter is so fascinatingly complicatedthat no contribution can be morethan a progress report.”

The many people who contributedto this book are acknowledged else-where. But there are several who de-serve particular mention here. JohnL. Rogers, Herbert B. Rudolph, AlOard, Glen E. Hetzel, and Dan E. Wil-liams, who served as Forest Super-visors of the four National Forests inthe Blue Mountains while this effortwas underway, are due special recog-nition. They saw the utility of andneed for such a tool and gave thedirect ion and encouragement tocarry out the task. Leon W. Murphyof the USDA Forest Service and IraD. (Dave) Luman of the Bureau ofLand Management obtained addi-tional financial resources for com-pleting this effort. Robert F. Tarrantand Robert A. Hann, of the USDAForest Service’s Pacific NorthwestForest and Range Experiment Sta-tion, encouraged us to compile andpublish this material so others coulduse the fully developed wildlife eval-uation system.

Jack Ward ThomasTechnical Editor

Wildlife Habitatsin Managed Forests


LIBRARY FILE COPYRocky Mountain Respch St ’ n

midlife Habitatsin Managed Forests


Jack Ward ThomasTechnical Editor

Agriculture Handbook No. 553

U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Service

Published in cooperation with theWildlife Management Institute

Washington, D.C.and the

U.S. Department of InteriorBureau of Land Management

September 1979

Prepared in Information Services at the Pacific NorthwestForest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service,U. S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, Oregon

Editors: J. Louise Parker, Robert A. Mowrey,George M. Hansen, Betty J. Bell

Design: Ellen Blonder, Karen EsterholdtIllustrations: Ellen BlonderFigures: Ellen Blonder from sketches by Jon E. Rodiek

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 79-600 038

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU. S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402STOCK NO. 001-000-04049-9

Authors

Ralph G. Anderson; A.B. (Forestry)Biological Technician, USDA For-est Service, Wallowa-Whitman Na-tional Forest, Wallowa, Oregon

Hugh Black, Jr.; B.S. (Wildlife Man-agement)Wildl i fe Biologist , USDA ForestService, San Bernardino NationalForest, San Bernardino, California

Evelyn L. Bull; B.S. (Zoology), M.S.(Wildlife Management)Associate Research Wildlife Biolo-gist, USDA Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Forest and RangeExperiment Station, La Grande,Oregon

Paul R. (Rod) Canutt; B.S. (Fish andWildlife Management)Regional Wildlife Biologist, USDAForest Service, Pacific NorthwestRegion, Portland, Oregon

Bernie E. Carter; B.S., MS. (WildlifeManagement)Wildl i fe-Watershed Staff , USDAForest Service, Ochoco NationalForest, Prineville, Oregon

Kermit Cromack, Jr.; B.A., M.A. (Zool-ogy), Ph. D. (Botany)Research Associate, Departmentof Forest Science, College of For-estry, Oregon State University,Corvallis, Oregon

Frederick C. Hall; B.S. (Forest Man-agement), M.S. (Range Manage-ment), Ph. D. (Plant Ecology)Regional Ecologist, USDA ForestService, Pacific Northwest Region,Portland, Oregon

Robert E. Martin; B.S. (Physics), B.S.,M.F., Ph. D. (Forestry)Principal Research Silviculturistand Project Leader, USDA ForestService, Pacific Northwest Forestand Range Experiment Station,Bend, Oregon

Chris Maser; B.S. (General Science),M.S. (Zoology)Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Departmentof the Inter ior, Bureau of LandManagement, La Grande, Oregon

Rodney J. Miller; B.S. (Wildlife Man-agement)Wildlife Habitat Program Manager,USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker,Oregon

Richard J. Pedersen; B.S., M.S. (Wild-life Management)Research Biologist, Oregon StateDepartment of Fish and Wildlife,La Grande, Oregon

Jon E. Rodiek; B.S. (Plant Science),M.L.A. (Landscape Architecture),MS., Ph. D. (Natural ResourcesPlanning)Associate Professor, Environmen-tal Design, University of Arizona,Tucson

Richard J. Scherzinger; A.S.T.P. (En-gineering), B.S. (Game Manage-ment )Land Appraisal Biologist, OregonState Department of Fish and Wild-life, Portland, Oregon

Jack Ward Thomas; B.S. (WildlifeManagement), M.S. (Wildlife Biol-ogy), Ph. D. (Forestry-Natural Re-sources Planning)Principal Research Wildlife Biolo-gist, Project Leader, USDA ForestService, Pacific Northwest Forestand Range Experiment Station, LaGrande, Oregon

Herbert L. Wick; B.S. (Forest Man-agement), M.F. {Silviculture)Silviculturist, USDA Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Region, Port-land, Oregon

Jerry T. Williams; B.S. (Humanities),M.S. (Forest Fire Science)Smokejumper, USDA Forest Serv-ice, Redmond Air Center, Redmond,Oregon

Acknowledgments

Besides the authors, many peoplecontr ibuted to the content of thisbook. During the review process, thecomments of forest managers, envi-ronmentalists, planners, wildlife biol-ogists, and others were consideredand carefully incorporated into laterdrafts. The final result is an expres-sion of the knowledge and insightsof many people. Special thanks aredue to the following:

Beverly S. Ausmus, Project ScientistBattelle Institute

Ronald R. Bartels, District BiologistOregon State Department of Fishand Wildlife

Paul H. Bouchard, ForesterUSDA Forest Service, Umatilla Na-tional Forest

Jack C. Capp, Supervisory WildlifeBiologistUSDA Forest Service, DeschutesNational Forest

J. Edward Dealy, Plant EcologistUSDA Forest Service, Pacif icNorthwest Forest and Range Ex-periment Station

Ralph R. Denney, District BiologistOregon State Department of Fishand Wildlife

Paul J. Edgerton, Research WildlifeBiologistUSDA Forest Service, Pacific North-west Forest and Range Experi-ment Station

Lee Ehmer, Soil and Water Manage-ment OfficerUSDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Gary R. Flanik, District RangerUSDA Forest Service, Umatilla Na-tional Forest

Jerry F. Franklin, Chief Plant Ecolo-gistUSDA Forest Service, Pacific North-west Forest and Range ExperimentStation

J. Michael Geist, Soils ScientistUSDA Forest Service, Pacific North-west Forest and Range ExperimentStation

Gordon W. George, Supervisory For-esterUSDA Forest Service, Umatilla Na-tional Forest

Glenn M. Hawk, Research AssociateOregon State University

Glen E. Hetzel, Forest SupervisorUSDA Forest Service, Ochoco Na-tional Forest

Mike Hillis, Wildlife and FisheriesBiologistUSDA Forest Service, Umatilla Na-tional Forest

Kirk Horn, Wildlife BiologistUSDA Forest Service, Mt. HoodNational Forest

Murray L. Johnson, Curator of Mam-m a l sUniversity of Puget Sound, PugetSound Museum of Natural History

Mike Kemp, District BiologistOregon State Department of Fishand Wildlife

Contents,

Chapter 1: IntroductionJack Ward Thomas

Chapter 2: Plant Communities and Successional StagesJack Ward Thomas, Rodney J. Miller, Chris Maser, Ralph G. Anderson, Bernie E. Carter

Chapter 3: Riparian ZonesJack Ward Thomas, Chris Maser, Jon E. Rodiek

Chapter 4: EdgesJack Ward Thomas, Chris Maser, Jon E. Rodiek

Chapter 5: SnagsJack Ward Thomas, Ralph G. Anderson, Chris Maser, Evelyn L. Bull

Chapter 6: Dead and Down Woody MaterialChris Maser; Ralph G. Anderson; Kermit Cromack, Jr.; Jerry T. Williams; Robert E. Martin

Chapter 7: Cliffs, Talus, and CavesChris Maser, Jon E. Rodiek, Jack Ward Thomas

Chapter 8: Deer and ElkJack Ward Thomas; Hugh Black, Jr.; Richard J. Scherzinger; Richard J. Pedersen

Chapter 9: Silvicultural OptionsFrederick C. Hall, Jack Ward Thomas

Chapter 10: Impacts on Wood ProductionHerbert L. Wick, Paul R. (Rod) Canutt

Appendices

References Cited

Glossary

Index

Photo Credits

page 10

page 22

page 40

page 48

page 60

page 78

page 96

page 104

page 128

page 148

page 162

page 438

page 470

page 495

page 512

1Introduction---~ _ _---_

byJack Ward Thomas

Topography in the Blue Mountains istypically rugged with timber stands inter-spersed with openings.

The Nation’s forests are one of thelast remaining natural habitats forter-restrial wildlife. Much of this vast for-est resource has changed dramatical-ly in the last 200 years and can nolonger be considered wild. It is nowmanaged for multiple use benefits, in-cluding timber production. Timberharvesting and roadbuilding now alterwildlife habitat more than any otherforest management activity.

In recent years public forest man-agers have had to account morecompletely for the impacts of theiractivities on wildlife. Federal lawsand other legislation have set forthspecific responsibilities for protec-t ion and enhancement of wi ld l i fehabitats in managed forests. Thispublication is designed to help forestmanagers deal more effectively withthese new responsibilities.

The setting is the Blue Mountainsof Oregon and Washington (Dicken1973). But it could be anywhere inNorth America where coniferous for-ests are a dominant part of the land-scape and where public ownership offorest land is extensive. Althoughthe setting is geographically narrow,the general concepts, principles, andpractices are applicable to forestmanagement throughout the country.

The book has three purposes: (1)to develop a common understandingamong resource specialists aboutwildlife habitats in managed forests,

1 0 Introduction

(2) to provide a’system to predict theimpact of forest management prac-tices on wildlife, and (3) to show howthe system can be applied to a spe-ci f ic areain th is case, the BlueMountains. With the information pro-vided, forest managers, wildlife biol-ogists, and other specialists will beable to work together to assure theexistence of most, if not all, impor-tant wi ld l i fe habi tats in managedforests.

Timber management and wildlifehabitat management are seen asgenerally compatible, but only if theneeds of wildlife are recognized andconsidered along with requirementsfor timber management. This com-patibility can be realized through abetter understanding of plant and ani-mal communities, how they changeover time, and how they respond tosilvicultural practices.

Management of wildlife on publiclands is a joint responsibility of Stateand Federal governments. By long-standing agreement, the manipula-tion of wildlife populations or regula-t ion of the harvest of wi ldl i fe onfederally owned land is the preroga-tive of the States. Habitat manage-ment is the prerogative of the Federalland management agencies. There-fore, close cooperation is requiredbetween State and Federal agenciesin setting and achieving wildlife man-agement goals. This book deals onlywith the relationship of wildlife totheir habitats. The forest managershould work with appropriate Stateofficials to develop suitable wildlifeproduction goals.

Wildlife as a Productof Forest Management

Forest management is the processof manipulating the forest environ-ment to produce a mix of productsdesired by the owners. These pro-ducts change with time, economicconditions, public demand, legisla-tion, and capability of the land. Man-agers of federally administered landshave guidance, in the form of lawspassed by Congress, as to what theseproducts shall be. Other regulationsresult from agency and court inter-pretations of these laws. A numberof laws specify that wildlife shall bea product of Federal lands and thatwildlife shall be considered in every

Public Law No.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Endangered Species Act of 1973

Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974

6 5 - 6 2 4

8 6 - 5 1 7

9 1 - 1 3 5

9 1 - 1 9 0

9 3 - 2 0 5

9 3 - 3 7 8

Sikes Act 9 3 - 4 5 2

National Forest Management Act of 1976 94-588

management decision (fig. 1). Man-agers of State-owned lands and pri-vate landowners are influenced bysimilar State laws. For example, theOregon Forest Practices Act (OregonLaws, Statutes, etc. 1971, p. 455)s a y s :

. . . Recognizing that the forestmakes a vital contribution toOregon by providing jobs, pro-ducts, tax base and other socialand economic benefits, by help-ing to maintain forest tree spe-c i e s , soi l , a i r and water re-sources and by providing a habi-tat for wildlife and aquatic life, itis. . . public policy. . . to encour-age forest practices that main-tain and enhance such benefitsand such resources, and thatrecognize varying forest condi-tions.In most managed forests, wildlife

habitat is a byproduct of timber man-agement. As demands have grownfor increased production of woodfiber, recreation, and livestock, aswell as for increased allocation forwilderness, it has become increas-ingly obvious that such cliches as

Figure 1. Some major Federal laws andplanning requirements that influence wild-life habitat management on public lands.

“good timber management is goodwildlife management” will no longersuffice (Bunnell 1976a). Passage ofthe National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.,Public Law 91-190) brought mattersto a critical stage. It required that theenvironmental effects of any federallyfinanced project must be fully evalu-ated. Bunnell (1976b, p. 151-152) putit this way:

. foresters have changed little,but the social and natural envi-ronment in which forestry ispracticed has changed greatly.Not only are more demands be-ing placed on the same base offorested-land, but the demandscome from more diverse groups.One result of the increasing di-versity in demands is that wild-life habitat is no longer synony-mous with game habitat but en-compasses the requirements ofa multitude of non-game speciesas well. Prognosis suggests anenormous increase in the num-ber of decisions arbitrating useof forested land including the ex-ploration of very different kindsof forestry. . . . the average for-ester will frequently encounter adilemma in such decisions: on

Introduction 1 1

Forests are being altered rapidly. by roadconstruction and timber harvest.

one hand, a professional chargeto pursue what is good for theland in terms of sustained woodfibre production; on the otherhand, a professional charge tofacilitate societal ends which lo-cally may be in complete opposi-tion to fibre production . . . Im-perfect knowledge and doubt ismanifest at all the trade-offs be-tween resource uses, and partic-ularly with forestry-wildlife. . . .It is equally his charge to indi-cate how he weighed the uncer-tainties and now accepts respon-sibility.

TheNeedHow is the public forest manager

to balance the demands for forest re-sources, including wildlife, and stillmaintain a sustained yield of woodproducts? How can the needs of allwildlife be considered? As theseproblems are pondered, the forestmanager is likely to discover the wis-dom of two of Commoner’s (1971)“laws” of ecology-“everything isconnected to everything else” and“there is no such thing as a freelunch.” Forest managers must notbe solely timber managers. Theymust take a more holistic view.

The National Forest ManagementAct of 1976 (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.,Public Law 94-588) requires that de-tailed and holistic plans be preparedfor the management of National For-est System lands. Further, the Na-tional Environmental Policy Act of1969 (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc., PublicLaw 91-190) requires that the environ-mental impacts and consequencesof planned actions involving anyFederal Government funds be ex-amined and revealed. One of theweakest aspects of such planningand examination has been the inabil-ity of forest managers to predict theeffects of management alternatives

on wildlife populations. This has fre-quently resulted in criticism of land-use plans and environmental impactstatements by the public, other agen-cies, and the courts.

Continued generalized criticism oftimber management and land-useplanning by conservationists andwildlife biologists will do little tohelp wildlife. Instead, better tech-niques are needed to help predict theconsequences, whether good or bad,of timber management on wildlife.Managers need a conceptual frame-work that will enable them: (1) toconsider the habitat needs of all ver-tebrate wildlife, (2) to emphasizemanagement of particular wildlifespecies when desired, and (3) toidentify habitats that require specialattention. Perhaps the greatest chal-lenge will be to bring together exist-ing information so it can be readilyused in resource planning. Giles(1962, p. 404-405) described the prob-lem as follows:

A great hindrance to the ad-vancement of a coordinated useprogram is failure to imagina-tively use existing knowledge offorest wildlife needs and to de-velop these into managementdirectives. . . .Certainly, researchis needed, but while waiting, weneed to work with what we have.Work to be done is not for theresearch staff, but the manage-ment team who sees the needs,recognizes limitations, and canmake modifications to fit exist-ing conditions. The “appliedecologist” needs to start applying. . . . Managers must thenshare information on the resultsof their efforts with their col-leagues.The development of a process to

consider the impact of timber man-agement on wildlife should no longerbe delayed. The land-use planningprocess continues at full speed;loaded log trucks roll into the millsby the hundreds every day, and thedemand for wood fiber from publiclands is increasing. In the Blue Moun-tains, for example, about 45 344 hec-tares (112,045 acres) or 3 percent ofthe commercial forest land is af-fected each year by timber harvestactivities.

1 2 introduction

Some will say’it is too soon to un-dertake such a task, but there arereally only two choices-too soon ortoo late. Of these, the first is far pre-ferable. With intensified forest man-agement, impacts on wildlife will bemagnified. The need is critical. Thetime is now.

The Blue MountainsGuidelines

This book grew out of a need forguidelines to help forest managers inthe Blue Mountains with a specificproblem-how to salvage large quan-tities of timber damaged by an out-break of the Douglas-fir tussockmoth and at the same time protectwildlife habitat.

As the salvage program was beingplanned, the supervisors of theWallowa-Whitman and Umatilla Na-tional Forests requested their staffsto develop guidelines to protect wild-life habitat. The guidelines were pro-duced by a team of forestry and wild-life professionals from the USDAForest Service, the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, and theWashington State Department ofGame. The guidelines so impressedthe supervisors of all four NationalForests in the Blue Mountains thatthey asked for expanded guidelinesfor use in all types of forest manage-ment and land-use planning.

As managers began to use theguidelines, they also prepared cri-tiques. And they were adamant onone point-that the guidelines weretoo rigid. The managers needed moreflexibility to apply them to local situ-ations. As a result, the informationhas been drawn into a system thatcan be used to predict the conse-quences of contemplated manage-ment alternatives on wildlife, ratherthan specific guidelines for all situa-tions. This gives the manager theability to respond to individual man-agement situations while still being

fully accountable for the impacts ofsuch decisions on wildlife habitat.The manager can survey alternatives,make trade-offs, and account forthose decisions.

Large-scale wildlife goals must~~

becauseThe data in this book are applicable

only in the Blue Mountains andshould not be used elsewhere with-out modification. The concepts andprinciples are adaptable, however,and can be used as guides for pre-paring similar analyses of forest-wildlife relationships in other areas.

timber management:

l affects many acresl is well financedl dramatically affects

wildlife habitatl has great impact

on wildlife

while

A Basic Assumption wildlife habitat management:The basic assumption about wild-

life habitat management in foreststhat are managed under the policy ofmultiple-use is that it must be carriedout in coordination with timber man-agement. On public forest lands inthe Blue Mountains, as in many otherparts of North America, timber man-agement is the dominant land man-agement activity. Large-scale wildlifemanagement usually results from themanipulation of forest vegetation pri-marily for wood production. Timbermanagement is wildlife management.The degree to which it is good wild-life management depends on howwell the wildlife biologist can explainthe relationship of wildlife to habitatand how well the forester can manip-ulate habitat to achieve wildlife goals.These interrelationships are shownin figure 2.

l affects few acresl has little financing0 has little influence on

wildlife habitat. has little present impact

on wildlife

figure 2. Large-scale wildlife habitat man-agement mus t be accompl i shed th rought imber management .

The time has come to face upto the fact that the harvest ofwood, a forester’s function, hasgreater influence on game [wild-life] than any active techniqueavailable to the wildlifer. In onesale a forester can.. . influencemore cover over a longer timethan a game [wildlife] manager

Wildlife habitat management inforests requires manipulation of treecover (Trippensee 1948), but this isusually too expensive solely for wild-life purposes. Forest managementpractices undertaken to enhancewood production, however, causedramatic changes in wildlife habitat.If correctly planned and executed,timber management practices arepotentially the most practical way toachieve wildlife habitat goals.

can create.. . in a decade.?he wildlifer, realizing the poten-tials of the wood harvest, mustnot only increase the effective-ness of his present practices,but must provide guidance forforesters so their efforts will notso strongly negate his effortsand can be made to complementthem.

In most situations, the wildlifebiologist is responsible for makingthe forest manager aware of the ram-ifications of proposed forest man-agement activities on wildlife habi-tats. The forest manager considersadvice from many staff specialistsand selects a course of action. Butit is the field forester who actuallymanipulates the vegetation and altershabitat. It is essential, therefore, thatthe forest manager, field forester,and wildlife biologist work closelytogether. Giles (1982, p. 406) said:

,

I n t roduc t ion 73

requires

Each animal speciesI

interacts withI

combines with others to form

Plants on a-

form

1Environment: abiot ic factors,

its species,other species,habitat

iAnimal community

Iwhich interacts with

Site: which is influenced byelevation,solar radiation,slope,aspect,temperature,soils,precipitation

throu:h the

- Ecological niches

tPlant communities

Iin a constant process of

- - - - - - - - ( r o u g h l y e q u i v a l e n t ) - - - - - - - - 1 S i t e t y p e sI

composed of

Stands

which under silvicultural

- - - - - - - - - ( r o u g h l y e q u i v a l e n t ) - - - - - - - -

1j t rea t men i p rod ;

Stand conditions

whose occupants-.

/I

EdgesI

along which occur1

EcotonesI

which because ofI

Edge effectI

increasesI

Habitat richness+

which is increased by the degree oft

Interspersion II

which tends to increaseI

which increasesI,

Wildlife species richness

Plant species richnessI

which increases

DiversityI

which is related to

Stability

Figure 3. Relationship between termsused in forest and wildlife habitat manage-ment.

1 4 Introduction

Principlesof Forest-WildlifeManagement

Resource management profession-als come from varied backgrounds:forestry, ecology, wildlife biology,forest engineering, and landscapearchitecture, to name a few. Forthese professionals to work together,they need a common vocabulary andan understanding of the principles offorestry, ecology, and wildlife man-agement. The relationship betweenterms used in forest and wildlife hab-itat management is shown in figure 3.These have been touched upon bysuch authors as Odum (1963), Leopold (1933), and Hylander (1966). Thediscussion that follows draws heavilyon summaries by Thomas et al. (1975,1976) and Gill et al. (1976).

Animal habitat is the arrangementof food, cover, and water required tomeet the biological needs of one ormore individuals of a species. Eachspecies is adapted to a habitat nicheor specific arrangement and amountof food, cover, and water. The role aparticular wildlife species plays inthe environment is referred to as itsecological niche.

A plant community type is a uniquecombination of plants that occurs inparticular locations under certainenvironmental influences. The plantcommunity type reflects the environ-mental influences on the site, suchas soil, temperature, elevation, solarradiation, slope, aspect, and rainfallas they influence vegetation (Dauben-mire 1976).

P/ant communities, as describedin chapter 2, are defined in terms ofthe dominant single species of cli-max vegetation. As many as fivekinds of plant community types maybe included. The plant communityevolves through a general series ofconditions as it progresses frombare ground to final climax stage.This process is called successionand the various stages are known assuccessional stages.

Each combination of plant com-munity and successional stage hasits own unique set of habitat niches.The wildlife supported by these habi-tat niches make up the attendant ani-ma/ community. The animals fill var-ious ecological niches and, in turn,influence the plant community. Habi-tat niches are valuable to wildlife forfeeding, reproduction, or security. In-dividual species may use a particularhabitat on a seasonal or yearlongbasis. See also reviews by Meslowand Wight (1975) and Thomas et al.(1975).

Some of the terms already dis-cussed have counterpart terms thatare used primarily in forestry. It isimportant to understand their rela-tionship to the language of ecologyand wildlife biology.

A site is an area considered interms of its environment, particularlyas this determines the type and qual-ity of the vegetation the area cansupport. Sites are classified eitherqualitatively by their climate, soil,and vegetation into site types orquantitatively by their potential forproducing wood into site classes(Ford-Robertson 1971, p. 242). Sitetype is roughly analogous to theplant community.

Each site is occupied by one ormore stands. They are plant com-munities, particularly trees, that havesufficient uniformity of composition,size, density, age, spatial arrange-ment, and condition to distinguishthem from adjacent plant communi-ties. Stands are the common basison which silvicultural prescriptionsare considered (USDA Forest Service1974). The stand condition can bedescribed by measuring these fac-tors. Timber harvest or other silvi-cultural treatment alters stand condi-tion. Stand condition is roughly an-alogous to successional stage, whenwildlife habitat is considered, be-cause both measure the compositionand structure of the stand.

The juxtaposition of plant com-munities, successional stages, orstand conditions within communitiesproduces edge. The area where thetwo communities or successionalstages overlap or produce a distinctcombination of plants or structure iscalled the ecotone. Edges and theirecotones are rich habitat for wildlifebecause they have attributes of theedge itself plus those of the adjoin-ing communities or successionalstages (Leopold 1933). The influenceof this phenomenon on animal popu-lations is called edge effect.

Increasing the amount of edge in-creases habitat richness which’ is ameasure of the number of wildlifespecies resident within an area. Themixing of plant communities or suc-cessional stages is measured by thedegree of interspersion. An increasein interspersion Increases the amountof edge. In turn, this may increasediversity or the variety that exists inplant and animal communities (Pat-ton 1975). Increased diversity in plantcommunities provides an increasingnumber of habitat niches which, inturn, support more animal species. Aforest with a high degree of diversityof communities and successionalstages provides habitat for a widevariety of wildlife (Odum 1971).

Increased diversity is thought bysome ecologists to be related tocommunity stability. Stability is theability of a community to withstandcatastrophe (Margalef 1969) or toreturn to Its original state after severealteration. Such a cause-and-effect issuspected but has not been proved(Odum 1971, p. 256):

. If it can be shown that bioticdiversity does indeed enhancephysical stability in the ecosys-tem, or is the result of it, thenwe would have an importantguide for conservation practice.. . . is variety only the spice of lifeor is it a necessity for the longlife of the total ecosystem com-prising man and nature?A forest ecosystem is a Complex

of plant and animal communitiesalong with the abiotic environmentthat comprises one functioningwhole. Forest ecosystems are dyna-mic. Any change in forest structureor composition will favor some wild-life species while adversely affectingothers. Such changes can affect thenumber and type of wildlife speciesand their use of habitat.

Introduction 15

Wildlife management on public forests

is the art of

I 1

has two production goalsI

r1

Populationmanagement:

manipulatinga n i m a lpopulationsto achievedesiredobjectives

Iwhich is

pr imlar i ly

A-Habitatmanagement:

-manipulatinghabitat toproducespecies ornumbers ofindividuals

which is

prim?ri’y

Stateresponsibility I

r- tSpeciesrichnessmanagement:

to maintainthe highestpossible numberof residentspecies inviable numbers

--T---YLwhich may be applied

I

Featuredspeciesmanagement:

to producedesired speciesin the locationand numbersnecessary toaccomplish goals

Federal

responsibility

Figure 4. The art and goals of wildlife management on public forests.

Management forspecies richness

-~Insure that all residentspecies exist in viablenumbers. All speciesare important.

Manipulate vegetation sothat characteristic stagesof each plant communityare represented in thevegetative mosaic.-_____-.---~ ..--

Featured speciesmanagement

Produce selected speciesin desired numbers indesignated locations.Production of selectedspecies is of primeimportance.

Manipulate vegetationso that limiting factorsare made less limiting.

Figure 5. Production goals in wildlifemanagement.

Forest-WildlifeManagement Systems

Wildlife management is the scien-tifically based art of manipulatinghabitat to enhance conditions for aselected species or manipulating ani-mal populations to achieve other de-sired ends (fig. 4). The term “wildlifemanagement” implies the ability andmanagerial flexibility to manipulatevegetation (habitat) or animal popu-lations or both (Leopold 1933, Trip-pensee 1948, Giles 1971).

There are two general productiongoals in wildlife management-man-agement for species richness (Evans1974; USDA Forest Service 1973a,1975) and featured-species manage-ment (Zeedyk and Hazel 1974, USDAForest Service 1971 b) (fig. 5).

The goal of management for spe-cies richness is to insure that mostwildlife species are maintained asresidents of the managed forest in vi-able numbers (King 1966). lience, allspecies are important. Managementfor species richness can be achievedby providing a broad spectrum ofhabi tat condi t ions; character ist icstages of adequate size of each plantcommunity should be represented inthe vegetative mosaic. To do this, itis necessary to have information onthe habitat needs of each species.This must then be incorporated intoguides to protect the integrity, stabil-ity, and diversity of the forest eco-system. The result should be a rela-tively stable and varied wildlife popu-lation.

Under featured-species manage-ment, the goal is to produce selectedspecies in desired numbers in speci-fic locations. This can be achievedby manipulating vegetation so thelimiting factors of food, cover, andwater are made less limiting for thespecies featured. These may begame species, threatened or endan-gered species, or species that haveparticular esthetic value.

Featured-species management hasalso been called key-species man-agement or indicator-species man-agement i f the species se lectedrepresent the habitat needs of severalspecies. If the species to be featuredare carefully selected and their habi-tat needs vary widely, then featured-species management will also insurehabitat diversity. The result can besimilar to management for speciesr i chness .

1 6 lntroducfion

The two manaaement svstems canalso be used together to \nsure spe-cies richness while favoring selectedspecies in specific locations for par-ticular purposes. For example, man-agement for species richness can beaccomplished by providing an appro-priate mix of successional stages orstand conditions within each plantcommunity. Featured-species man-agement can be accomplished by ar-ranging stand size and successionalstages to provide both cover and for-age for selected species.

Timber ManagementSystems

Different timber management sys-tems have different potential to affectdiversity and stability of the forestecosystem because of their tendencyto either magnify or reduce the dy-namic aspects of plant communitydevelopment. Two timber manage-ment systems are used by forestmanagers in the Blue Mountains-uneven-aged management and even-aged management (Twombly 1977,Work 1977).

Uneven-aged management main-tains stands of trees that differ mark-edly in age (Ford-Robertson 1971).Such stands are “continuously orperiodically regenerated, tended, andharvested with no real beginning orend” (Alexander and Edminster 1977,p. 5). This management system tends,over time, to reduce the diversity ofplants and animals in the forest. Theresulting stands often have highstructural diversity because of the in-termingling of different ages andsizes of trees. But there is a gradualreduction of shade-intolerant treesand understory plants (Franklin 1976).Uneven-aged management tends toproduce large blocks of continuousforest cover dominated by relativelymature trees. Such forests lack thevariety of distinct successionalstages that insure diversity and amyriad of habitat niches.

Uneven-aged management, how-ever, can be a useful wildlife man-agement technique, It benefits wild-life species adapted to more matureforest conditions, and it can be usedto preserve the integrity of delicateand disproportionately importantwildlife habitats, such as riparianzones.

Uneven-aged management involvesharvest of timber by either singletree selection or group selection.Uneven-aged stands have a highdegree of vertical diversity. They “aredistinctly irregular in height withgreat variation in size of trees. Com-petition between age classes is un-equal; the smaller, younger treestend to grow slowly because they aresuppressed by the larger, older treeswhich grow quite rapidly.” (Smith1962, p. 357). Conversely, the hori-zontal diversity between stands willbe low in an ideal uneven-aged situa-tion. When forests under uneven-aged management are examinedcarefully, it is obvious that the forestis composed of small groups ofeven-aged trees. The characteristicsof horizontal diversity “are most pro-nounced along the margins of thesmall even-aged groups that must in-evitably make up most of an uneven-aged stand. . . .” (Smith 1962, p. 357).

In the group selection form ofuneven-aged management, trees arecut in small groups rather than indi-vidually. If the openings created ex-ceed 0.4 hectare (1 acre), this willtend to produce conditions similar toeven-aged management (USDA For-est Service 1973b). Group selectiontends to increase diversity of plantsand animals because of temuorarv

Timber harvest activities are the dominantmanagement activity affecting wildlifehabitat in the Blue Mountains.

increases in shade-intolerant plantsand forage plants in the small open-ings created. But such small open-ings do not satisfy the territorial re-quirements of many species adaptedto early successional stages. Suchspecies may not be present in such aforest even though a variety of suc-cessional stages are present.

The objective of even-aged timbermanagement is to maintain foreststands and produce crop stands withlittle or no difference in tree age. Byconvention, the age of trees in suchstands can vary from 10 to 20 yearsfor rotations of less than 100 yearsand as much as 30 percent of the ro-tation period for longer rotations(Ford-Robertson 1971). In coniferforests of the Blue Mountains, unitarea control (Davis 1959) is the pri-mary criterion by which silviculturaltreatments are determined (Twombly1977).

Introduction 1 7

High elevation forests and meadows areimportant for recreational use and assummer habitat for elk.

Even-aged management impliesthat even-aged stands of variousages and sizes are distributedthroughout the managed forest. Thisis necessary to insure a continuousflow of wood products to the market.As a result, the potential for a mix ofsuccessional stages or stand condi-tions is present at all times. Thisshould insure a comparatively highdegree of diversity of habitat nichesand wildlife.

A forest under even-aged manage-ment usually has individual stands ofrelatively low vertical diversity be-cause of the comparative simplicityof the stand structure. Smith (1962,p. 357) said that even-aged standstend to be of uniform height with ahigh degree of competition betweentrees of approximately the same size.The lower branches die and the treeshave short, narrow crowns.

Most even-aged stands have asingle-tiered canopy. This is not al-ways true, however. Stands resultingfrom shelterwood and seed-tree re-generation techniques may be multi-tiered for many years after final har-vest in a rotation because sometrees are left to provide shade orseed. This adds vertical diversity andenables birds that would otherwisebe eliminated during the early yearsof the rotation to use the stands. Theeffect is temporary, however, becauseoverstory trees are usually removedafter the new stand is established. If.left, they often succumb to wind-throw, sun-scald, insects, or disease.

The major difference betweenuneven-aged and even-aged manage-ment systems, in terms of habitat, isthe long-lasting effect of the regener-ation harvest. Even-aged systems-such as clearcutting, seed-tree, orshelterwood harvest-produce dis-tinct successional stages and a highdegree of horizontal diversity be-cause there are numerous stands ofvarious age classes scattered throughthe forest. These stands provide avariety of habitats. For example, thevegetation associated with early suc-cessional stages provides forage fordeer and elk and a myriad of habitatniches for other wildlife. These con-ditions are not available in the moremature forest. The mature stagesprovide hiding and thermal cover fordeer and elk and for other wildlifespecies, such as the pileated wood-pecker, that are adapted to matureforest habitats. The edges betweenstands form ecotones that provide

additional habitat niches. The impactof regeneration cuts on wildlife havebeen reviewed by Hooven (1973),Pengelly (7972), and Resler (1972).

No single system of forest man-agement can be a panacea for wild-life management. The decision aboutwhich system to use must be basedon specific wildlife managementgoals. The forest structure must beconsidered, along with size andshape of the stand, its juxtapositionto other stands, the road systems,and special habitat needs. Flexibilityin the use of silvicultural systemscan be a key to meeting a range ofwildlife goals. The appropriate usesof various silvicultural systems forthe two largest forest types in theBlue Mountains-ponderosa pineandmixed conifer-are summarized bySeidel (1973) and Barrett (1973).

Every silvicultural decision has con-sequences for wildlife. The chaptersthat follow discuss the relationshipsbetween forest conditions and wild-life habitats. The forest managershould consider, in each case, thatthe habitat described results fromsome kind of silvicultural activity.Each chapter should be read with aneye to how these conditions can beproduced in the managed forest.

The SettingThe Blue Mountains of northeast-

ern Oregon and southeastern Wash-ington contain a number of rangesincluding the Strawberry, Greenhorn,Elkhorn, Aldrich, and Maury Ranges,and the Ochoco, Blue, and WallowaMountains. (Franklin and Dyrness1973). These mountains extendthroughout the Oregon counties ofBaker, Crook, Grant, Harney, Malheur,Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa,and Wheeler; and the Washingtoncounties of Asotin, Columbia, Gar-field, and Walla Walla.

Franklin and Dyrness (1973) andHall (1973) have described the envi-ronments of the Blue Mountains indetail. The great diversity of the re-gion is reflected by the occurrenceof 10 (9 percent) of the 116 forest andrange ecosystems identified byKilchler (1964) for the United States(fig. 7). This broad spectrum of eco-systems made the Blue Mountainsan ideal place to develop and testthe timber-wildlife management sys-tems discussed in this book.

1 8 Introduction

In 1973, about 1602590 hectares(3,960,OOO acres), or 72 percent of the2 239 579 hectares (5,534,OOO acres)of total commercial forest land in theBlue Mountains, were in the Malheur,O c h o c o , Umatilla, a n d Wallowa-Whitman National Forests (fig. 8).These National Forests contained 87percent (40,578 million board feet,Scribner Rule) of the total standingtimber volume of 46,683 million boardfeet. Other publ ic lands covered46540 hectares (115,000 acres) andincluded 2 percent of the commercialforest land and 2 percent (829 millionboard feet) of the standing timber.Farmers, ranchers, and other privatecitizens owned 379 199 hectares(937,000 acres) or 17 percent of thecommercial forest land and 7 percent(3,173 million board feet) of the stand-ing timber. Timber companies owned211 251 hectares (522,000 acres) or 9percent of the commercial forestland and 4 percent (2,103 millionboard feet) of the standing timber(Bassett and Choate 1974% 1974b). Acomparison of the land area, stand.ing timber volume, and potential tim-ber production in each ownershipclass is shown in figure 8.

Extensive public landownership I”~creases pressure from local govern-ments for more intensive forest man.agement which, in turn, increasesemployment and Federal paymentsto local governments in lieu of prop-erty taxes (Hall 1977). This is typicalof the national situatton (USDA For-est serwce 1973C).

Timber harvest in the Blue Moun-tains has bet?” relatively constantsince 1955, averaging 882 millionboard feet per year through 1976. Thecut on private land declined from a”average of 516 million board feet peryear in the late 1950’s to 212 millionin the early 1970’s. Harvest on Na-tional Forest land in the same periodincreased from an average of 357 mil-lion to 706 million (Berger 1964;Beuter 1962, 1963; Gedney 1962;L l o y d 1973.78a, 1973.78b; M e t c a l f1963, 1964; Nielsen 1963; PaaficNorthwest Forest and Range Experi.ment Station 1962; Pacific NorthwestForest and Range Experiment Sta-tion, Division of Forest Economics1955.59a, 1955.59b; Wall 1965, 196572, 1966.72). Inventories on NationalForests declined about 10 percentfrom the mid.1950’s to the early1970’s while inventories on otherownerships declined about 40 per.cent (Bassett and Choate 1974.X1974b; Bolsinger and Berger 1975:

Bones and Simonson 1960; Moravets1954, 1955). Obviously, the timber in- F,rJ”E 6 The Blue MO”“fal”S prov,nce

dustries of the area are becomlng(after Frank,,” and ITyrness ,973, p. 3,

more dependent on the public for-ests. It seems likely that there wll beincreasing pressure on the NationalForests of the Blue Mountains toprovide wood to sustain a local econ-omy heavily dependent on the timberindustry.

Ponderosa shrub forest *i

western ponckrosa forest:

Douglas-iv forest:

Grand fir-Douglas-far torest:

western spruce-t,r fores4i

i

Jumper steppe woodlandWASHINGTON

:

Mountammahagany-oak scrub* iGreat Basin sagebrush” :

\Whf3&pS*-bl”~gk?SS

At the same time, there is a bur-geoning use of these same lands forrecreation. The number of hunters,particularly elk hunters, has contin-ued to increase. This results in in-creased pressure to produce andsustain large numbers of deer andelk. Extensive areas are classified asWilderness, and other areas are be-ing considered for addition to theWilderness System. Such special useallocation, no matter how well justi-fied, will increase industry and publicpressure on managers of the publicforests to produce more timber fromfewer acres.

Increasing demands for more tim-ber, wildlife, recreation, and grazinglead inevitably to conflicts. Carefulmanagement will be necessary to ob-tain the desired wildlife and wildlife-related recreational experiences fromsuch heavily managed forests.

The Following ChaptersThe following chapters are pre-

sented in a sequence designed tologically develop certain principlesand ideas. Chapter 2 relates all ter-restrial vertebrates to wildlife habi-tats that are described by plant com-munity and their successional stageor condition. The idea is that eachspecies is adapted to a particularhabitat and the welfare of each spe-cies can be predicted by the quantityand quality of available habitat. Thepurpose is to show the manager howto deal simultaneously with all spe-cies in forest land-use planning.

Chapters 3 through 7 discuss spe-cial and unique habitats. Specialhabitats are biological in nature, canbe manipulated by the forest man-ager, and play a critical role in thelives of at least some species. Thesehabi tats inc lude r ipar ian zones,edges, snags, logs, and other deadwoody material on the forest floor.Unique habitats are geomorphic innature, usually cannot be manipu-lated to the advantage of wildlife,and are critical to certain species. Inthe Blue Mountains such habitats in-clude cliffs, talus, and caves.

7 0

60-

50-

40-

30-

2 0 -

Percent land area

Percent standing timbervolume

Percent potential cubicfoot timber production

Figure 8. Percent of standing timber vol-ume in the Blue Mountains by ownershipclass (Bolsinger and Berger 1975; Bassettand Choate 1974a, 1974b; Lloyd, unpub-lished, see “References Cited”‘).

Chapter 8 points out that some an-imals receive more attention in for-est planning and management thanothers. As Orwell (1946, p. 112) put it:“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUTSOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUALTHAN OTHERS.” Federal agencies,for example, are required by law topay special attention to species des-ignated as threatened or endangered.More attention is also paid to eco-nomically important animals, such asgame species or other animals thatprovide recreational opportunities.Mule deer and elk are used as exam-ples of how forests can be managedto provide habitat for such featuredspec ies .

Chapter 9 demonstrates that thereare often several silvicultural ap-proaches that will meet diverse wild-life goals and at the same time pro-duce the desired wood products. Themessage is that both wildlife andtimber management objectives canbe met, given flexibility and carefulplanning.

Chapter 10 turns the tables. Up tothis point the emphasis has been onpredjcting the consequences to wild-life of various timber managementdecisions. But to make well-informeddecisions, the forest manager needsto know all the trade-offs. This finalchapter provides a system for pre-dicting the consequences to timberproduction of decisions made to en-hance wildlife habitat.

Introduction 2 1

2Plant CommunitiesandsuccessionalstagesbyJack Ward ThomasRodney J. MillerChris Maser

Ralph G. AndersonBernie E. Carter

The Federal forest land managermust account for the impacts-whether good or bad-of manage-ment activities on ali species of wild-life. The legal challenges, reviews,and court opinions that have emergedfrom conflicts over management ofFederal forest land have raised ques-tions for which the land manager hashad inadequate answers.

For example, which species ofwildlife will be adversely influenced,which benefited, and which unaffect-ed by forest management activites?What is the degree of impact onthose species? How will these influ-ences vary over time? Which nega-tive impacts are irreversible andwhich can be reduced by appropriatemanagement activity? Which speciesare especially sensitive to habitatchange and how will they respond tohabitat alterations? Which speciesare threatened or endangered andhow will they be influenced?

This chapter shows how the forestmanager can deal with these prob-lems in forest management planning.The system described is designed tohandle a large volume of technicalinformation about wildlife and theirhabitats in a way that makes senseto the forest manager.

The first task was to assemble allpertinent data for the 378 species ofvertebrates in the Blue Mountains.The amount of data varied from ex-tensive for some species to almostnothing for others. This presentedtwo problems-how to “fill in theblanks” when information was inad-equate and how to present informa-tion on a large number of specieswithout overwhelming the managerwith detail.

Another problem was to weigh theimpact of timber management activ-ities on wildlife. There are basicallytwo ways to consider wildlife in for-est planning and management. Themore traditional way is to developmanagement plans for one or severalspecies of prime interest. But thisdoes not take into account the habi-tat needs of all species. The approachused here was to consider habitat asthe prime determinant of wildlifewelfare and to associate wildlife withhabitat condition.

Wildlife habitats also had to beidentified in such a way that theycould be considered simultaneouslywith timber management activities.This was accomplished by equatingplant communities and their succes-sional stages with habitats for wild-life. Successional stages are theresult of the natural growth and de-velopment of plant communities.These stages are sometimes alteredby management activities, such ascontrolling brush, planting or seed-ing trees or grass, and thinning for-est stands. The conditions producedby these activities differ somewhatfrom natural conditions, but they areroughly equivalent because the struc-ture of the altered forest is similar tonatural conditions at various stagesof succession. By associating indi-vidual wildlife species and groups ofspecies with plant communities andtheir successional stages (fig. 9), theforest manager can translate standardforest inventories into informationon wildlife habitats.

Plant CommunityDescriptions

The starting point for describingthe plant communities was the clas-sification of the forest and rangeecosystems of the Blue Mountainsas adapted from Garrison et al.‘s(1977) descriptions of forest and rangeecosystems. This classification re-quired some modification to bring itin line with other systems already inuse by forest land managers. Sincewildlife usually respond to vegetativestructure rather than plant speciescomposition, structurally similarecosystems were grouped and otherswere divided or identified as struc-turally distinct and importanthabitats.

Forest planning and management involves:I I

1

Timber management Wildlife management,

which uses which uses

~1.~

ir--z+-j

which supportI

Animal communitiest

which can beI

Common ground for timber-wildlife planning

1

Figure 9. Plant communities and theirsuccessional stages can be a commonground for timber-wildlife planning.

Timber harvest activities produce condi-tions that mimic natural stages of suc-cess ion . C learcu t t ing , fo r example ,changes a mature or old-growth forest(left) to the grass-forb stage and then tothe shrub-seedling stage (below).

Plant Communities and Successional Stages 23

Plant community designations

Pinyon-tunrper Western juniper

Ponderosa pine Ponderosa pane

Douglas-fir Mixed conifer

~-~.Larch

Spruce-fir

_odgepole pine

Zhaparral-mountain shrub

tiountarn meadows

vlountain grasslands

qo provrsion in Garrrson et al.1977)]

White fir (grand fir)

Subalpine fir

Lodgepole pine

Other shrubs

Curlleaf mountainmahogany

Dry meadow

Moist meadow

Quaking aspen

Other grasses

Alpine meadow

Riparian (deciduous)

--A-Subalpine fir/big huckleberrySubalpine fir/grouse huckleberrySubalpine fir-whitebark pine/sedge

K15 Western spruce-fir forest

Lodgepolelpinegrass-grouse huckleberry [No provision in Kijchler (1964)]Lodgepolelbig huckleberryLodgepolelgrouse huckleberry

Snowberry shrublandNinebark shrublandThinleaf alder snowslides

[No provision in Kijchler (1964)]

Curlleaf mountainmahoganylgrass

Dry meadow

Moist meadowWet meadow

Quaking aspen meadow

K37 Mountainmahogany-oak scrub

[No provision in Ktichler (1964)]

Bunchgrass on shallow soil, gentle slopesBunchgrass on deep soil, gentle slopesBunchgrass on shallow soil, steep slopes3unchgrass on deep sorl, steep slopes3luegrass scabland3iscuit scabland

K51 Wheatgrass-bluegrass

3ubalprne fir-whitebark pine/sedge

[No provision in Ktichler (1964)j

Plant community types of the BlueMountains as described by Hall (1973)

Potential natural vegetationas described by Kijchler (1964)

Stiff sage scablandLow sagebrushlbunchgrassBig sagebrushlbunchgrassBitterbrushlbunchgrass

K55 Sagebrush steppe

Juniper/bunchgrassJuniper/stiff sage scablandJuniper/low sagebrushJuniper/big sagebrush

K24 Jumper steppe woodland

Ponderosa pinelwheatgrassPonderosa pine/fescuePonderosa pinelbitterbrushlfloss sedgePonderosa pine/blue wildrye

KlO Ponderosa shrub forestKll Western ponderosa forest

Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir/elk sedgePonderosa pine-Douglas-fir/

snowberry-oceansprayPonderosa pine-Douglas-firlninebark

K12 Douglas-fir forest [interior]

Mixed coniferlpinegrass-ash soilMixed coniferlpinegrass-residual soil

K14 Grand ftr-Douglas-frr forest

White firltwinflowerWhite fir/big huckleberryWhite fir/grouse huckleberry

Figure 70. Relationships between plantcommunities as described in this publica-tion and three other p/ant classificationsys tems used in the B lue Moun ta ins(sources: appendix 25 and table 40).

2 4 Plant Communities and Successional Stages

The modifications are described infigure 10 which shows the relationship between the ecosystems de-scribed by Garrison et al. (1977) andKuchler (1964) and the plant com-munity types in the Blue Mountainsdescribed by Hall (1973). Hall’s clas-s i f ica t ion system is much moredetailed and is widely used in ForestService planning and management inthe Blue Mountains. It could not beused in this book, however, becauseinformation on the relationships ofwi ld l i fe to thei r habi tats was notdetailed enough.

The following discussion showswhy and how these descriptions ofecosystems and plant communitieswere modified to fit the wildlife hab-itat conditions in the Blue Mountains.Similar modifications would probablybe required of any standard vegeta-tive classification scheme.

The Douglas-fir and larch ecosys-tems were combined to make up themixed conifer community. In theBlue Mountains, these ecosystemsare most frequently found as a mixof conifers commonly involving twoor more of these species: Douglas-fir, larch, ponderosa pine, lodgepolepine, and white fir. Mixed coniferstands have a structure that is rea-sonably consistent and usually quitediverse compared with relatively purestands. In addition, the mixed coniferdesignation was already used fortimber management and land-useplanning.

The spruce-f i r ecosystem wasdivided into white fir and subalpinefir. These subdivisions are well de-veloped, and each has a distinctstructure which results in differentwildlife communities.

The chaparra l -mountain shrubecosystem was broadly defined. Thetwo expressions of this ecosystemfrequently encountered are curlleafmountainmahogany-dominated com-munities and other shrub-dominatedcommunities, such as those domi-nated by ninebark, ceanothus, andoceanspray. Curlleaf mountainma-hogany is associated with rocky out-crops where the shrubs are protectedfrom fire (Dealy 1975). The othershrub-dominated communities usu-ally occur on forest sites after a dis-turbance, such as f i re, logging,snowslides, avalanches, or overgraz-ing. Shrub communities that resultfrom such disturbances can last along time but are eventually replacedby other vegetation.

Each plant community supports a distinctanimal community. Three plant communi-ties common in the Blue Mountains arequaking aspen (above left), mixed conifer(above right), and riparian.

Three other communities-aspen,riparian, and other grasslands-arecontained within two or more of theecosystems. They are separatelyident i f ied here because they aredistinct and important communitiesfor wildlife. For example, aspen doesnot occur over large enough areas tobe identified as an ecosystem, butn u m e r o u s stands are scatteredthroughout higher elevations. Decid-uous stands within the predominant-ly coniferous forest and grasslandlandscape add a different kind ofwildlife habitat.

Riparian communities are well de-veloped along stream courses in for-est, grassland, and shrub areas.These communities are character-ized by deciduous shrubs and trees,primarily cottonwood and willow, thathave distinct structure and lots ofedge with special value to wildlife.

Other grasslands include all grass-lands cultivated and maintained inselected grasses and forbs.

Plant Communities and Successional Stages 2 5

Successional stages

Plant diversity

~ Vegetation height

g Canopy volume;;iz Canopy c losureisE Structural diversity

E” Forage production

!! Browse production�55 Animal diversity

ee l eeee l *e l l * l *e

l l e l ee l eee l eeee

l l e l ee l eeee l eee

l l e l eee l eee l eee l ee

l l eee l l l e l eeee

l eeee l ee l l l e l ee

‘e l eeee l l l e l ee

l ee l eee l l e l eeee l eee

Wildlife HabitatRelationships

F igure 11. Forest successional stagesand related environmental conditions.

Plant communities and their suc-cessional stages have unique en-vironmental conditions that areecologically important as niches forwildlife species (fig. 11). The nichesare a product of the plant community,its successional stages, and otherenvironmental factors-includingsoil type, moisture regime, micro-climate, slope, aspect, elevation, andtemperature. The complex interac-tions of site and plant communitystructure could be dissected and themore precise influence of each onthe animal community determined. Ifsuch information existed, it wouldprobably be too complex to usereadily. The plant community type,however, can be considered an inte-grator of the many factors interact-ing on the site.

Wildlife species are individuallyadapted to combinations of plantcommunity and successional stagefor feeding or reproduction or both.These wildlife-habitat relationshipsprovide the basic information fromwhich the following informationaldisplays (tables, figures, and appen-dices) were developed. Depending ontheir requirements, forest managersand planners can extract informationat four levels of detail. The amountof detail increases with each level:

Level 1: The relationship of animallife forms to plant communities andtheir successional stages for feedingand reproduction. Life forms aregroups of wildlife species that ex-hibit similar habitat requirements forboth feeding and reproduction.

Level 2: The relationship of indi-vidual species to plant communitiesand their successional stages forfeeding and reproduction.

Level 3: A summary of the avail-able biological data for each species.

Level 4: Selected references onhabitat relationships for each species.Examination of these references andtheir bibliographies can provide theuser with more detailed data andadditional sources of information.

The information on each speciesin level 2 has been used to develop arelative measure of vulnerability ofeach species to habitat manipula-tion. This is another source of infor-mation for the manager’s use.

The informational displays wereconstructed from: (1) the literature,(2) interpretation and extrapolation ofinformation in that literature, and (3)a consensus of wildlife biologists. Inall cases, the best available informa-tion was used. If the literature wasspecific to the Blue Mountains andcontained the required information,it was used. If the literature was notspecific to the area or habitat condi-tion, it was adapted as appropriate.In the absence of published informa-tion, the relationship of the speciesto habitat was determined by con-sensus of the consulting biologists.

Naturally, data for the most inten-sively studied species were morevoluminous and detailed than forrelatively obscure species. As newinformation becomes available, itcan be added to the system.

2 6 Plant Communities and Successional Sfages

Level 1:Life Form Associationwith Plant Communitiesand Successional Stages

The large number of wildlife spe-cies present in most areas makes itdifficult for the land manager to ac-count for them in the land-use plan-ning process. In the Blue Mountains,this number was reduced from 378species (appendix 1) to 16 life forms(table 1). This life form concept wasadapted from Haapanen’s (1965) divi-sion of birds of the Finnish forestsinto groups based on specific com-binations of habitat requirements forreproduction and feeding. The con-cept was expanded to include all ter-restial vertebrates. The relationshipof the species to their habitats is thebasis for grouping them into lifeforms.

This grouping is distinctly differ-ent from the usual grouping of spe-cies by morphological characteris-tics. It enables the forest manager toevaluate the response of wildlife tohabitat much more readily than ifeach species were considered indi-vidually. If this concept is applicablein land use planning, new and differ-ent life forms will most likely bedeveloped. They can be changed asneeded to fit the circumstances.

The relationship of vertebrate lifeforms to plant communities and suc-cessional stages is shown in appen-dix 10 (table 2). Fifty-two of the 378species that occur in the Blue Moun-tains do not appear in this listing orsubsequent discussion. Fifty-one birdspecies migrate through or are acci-dental in the Blue Mountains. Thebullfrog, the only species in life form1, has also been omitted as it issemiterrestrial. The 51 bird speciesexcluded are listed in appendix 3.

Life form 13 is shown here as anexample. The species in life form 13feed in trees, in bushes, on theground, or in the air and excavatetheir own holes in trees for nesting.In the Blue Mountains, the life formcontains 13 species.

I.

j 1 I in water / in water 1 11 bu l l f rog

I / , I

3 on the ground around water on the ground, and in bushes.trees. and water

45 common garter snake, killdeer,western jumping mouse

4I ial,,

I” clrffs. caves, rimrock. and/or on the ground or in the air1 1 ptka

32 side blotched lizard. common raven.

5 on the ground without specific On the groundwater, cliff, rimrock, or talus

48 western fence lizard. dark-eyedjunco. elk

association

6 on the QrOUnd in bushes. trees. or the air 7 common nighthawk, Lincoln’ssparrow. porcupine

7 in bushes on the ground. tn water. or theair

30 American robin, Swainson’s thrush.chiooino soarrow

8 in bushes I’‘” trees, bushes* Or the air9

I ’m trees. bushes, or the air

14 cedar waxw~ng, northern oriole,

1 house finch I

10 primarily in conifers in trees, bushes, or the air 1 4 Qolden-crowned kinglet. yellow-rumped warbler, red squirrel

11 in conifers or deciduous trees

12 on very thick branches

in lrees, in bushes, on theground, or in the arr

on the ground or in water

24 go$hawk, evening grosbeak, hoary

7 great blue heron, red-tailed hawk,great horned owl

13 in own hole excavated in tree in trees, in bushes, on theground, or in the atr

13 common flicker, pileatedwoodpecker, red-breasted nuthatch

14 in a hole made by another1 soecies or in a natural hole

on the ground, in water, or theI air f

37 wood duck, America” kestrel,1 northern flvino sauirrel

I5 in a burrow underground on the ground or under it 40 rubber boa, burrowing owl,Columbia” ground squirrel

I6 in a burrow underground in the air or in the water 10 bank swallow, muskrat, river otter

Total: 327

Species assignment to life form is bessd on predominant habitat.w* patterns

Table 1. Life form descriptions (source:appendix 7)

The Columbian ground squirrel belongsto life form 15. It characteristically feedsabove ground and reproduces in a burrowunderground.


IR. 0

Sagebrush-bitterbrush. F 0

J-

R 0 R 0Dry meadow

F 0 F 0

I R 0 R 0 These plant communities do not achieve a habitatMoist meadow form like that characterized by these

F 0 F 0 successional stages.’

R 0 R 0Other grasses

F 0 F 0

R 0 0

0 iI

F 0

R 0 R 0 0Other shrubs I

F 0 F 0 0

Curlleaf mountain- R 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 0mahogany F 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0

R 1 I

F 1 IF/ 1 1 1 1 1 1

R 3 IQuaking aspen

F 4 I

I

I

n a I

F 8 I

R 9 fMixed conifer

F 10 - iz 2 2 1 5 1 0 1 0I I I

White fir (grand fir)

Western juniper

I Ponderosa pine

Successional stage’

Grass-forb Shrub- Pole- Young Mature O l dC seedling sapl ing growth0.-

i (O-10 years) (11-39 years) (40-79 years) (80-159 years) (160-c years

I= I30 F 2 R O F 2 R O Fl R 8 F 8 R13 F13 R12 F12

Alpine meadow ‘as above

IR (reproduction) and F (feeding) refer to total species performing either function in the respective plant communities and succes.sional stages. Vertical scale of each species-total box in life form 13 is equivalent to IO units.

Table 2. Relative degree of use of plantcommunities and successional stages bywildlife species in life form 13 (source:appendix 70)


Much usefu’l information can bederived from such displays. Fromtable 2 it can be seen that: (1) lifeform 13 is strongly associated withforest communities, (2) some forestcommunities, such as ponderosapine and mixed conifer, are dispro-portionately important, and (3) theolder forest successional stages arecritical. Reproductive and feedingorientation to plant community typesand their successional stages can bedetermined for the entire life form.

By examining the relationship ofthe life form to plant communitiesand their successional stages, theforest manager can judge the impactof forest management practices onthe life form. This is done by deter-mining the importance (expressed bythe number of species) of a particu-lar successional stage of a commu-nity. The impact of a contemplatedmanagement action is determined bycomparing the two numbers for thestages involved.

For example, consider the impor-tance of the mature (150-year-old)stage of a mixed conifer forest to lifeform 13. Of the 13 species in the lifeform, 11 feed there and 10 speciesreproduce there. The manager is con-templating two courses of action: (1)harvest the stand by clearcutting,thereby altering the vegetative con-dition to the grass-forb stage or (2)forgo timber harvest and allow thearea to progress to the old-growthsuccessional stage and harvest atstand age 180. What are the conse-quences of each alternative to lifeform 13?

Reduction to the grass-forb suc-cess ional s tage would e l iminatereproduction for all 10 species andeliminate feeding for 9 species. Thisextremely adverse impact would con-tinue for about 40 years after regen-eration. At that time, the stand wouldenter the young forest successionalstage where six species both feedand reproduce. Full recovery of thehabitat for life form 13 would notoccur until the stand was about 80years old and had returned to themature forest successional stage.

A decision to allow the stand toprogress from the mature stage tothe old-growth stage would havelittle effect on the life form because11 species feed and 10 species re-produce in both stages. The areawould continue as good habitat for30 years until the stand is clearcut.Then it would revert to the grass-forb stage with the results alreadydiscussed.

Management action I

Shrub control:

l Herbicides b b b 4 4 4

. Mechanical control 4 4 NA 4 4 4

Controlled burn:

. Cold burn 4 4 b b 4 4

l Hot burn 4 4 4 4 4 4

Fertilization 4 b b b b 0

Grazing and, browsing (moderate rates):

l Cattle and sheep 4 b 0 0 4 4

. Goats 0 4 0 0 4 4

. Deer and elk 4 ä 0 0 4 4

Planting:

l Trees b b NA NA b b

. Shrubs b 4 NA NA NA NA

. Grasses-forbs b 4 NA b b 0

Regeneration cut:

. Clearcut NA NA NA 4 4 4

. Shelterwood NA NA NA b 4 4

. Seed tree NA NA NA 4 4 4

Salvage NA NA 4 4 4 4

Thinning (including single NA b b b b 0tree selection harvest)

4 retards successionno effect on

NA not applicable

Successional stage condition

Obviously, i f the manager con-sidered factors such as the percent-age of the area affected, the distribu-tion of plant communities and suc-cessional stages, and anticipatedchanges over time, a more sophisti-cated analysis could be made. Butthe same basic comparisons wouldbe used.

The displays in appendix 10 can beused to predict the response of ani-mal life to all alterations in the plantcommunity, whether manmade ornatural. Such alterations could resultfrom natural phenomena, such asfire, insect infestation, or windstorm,or from management activites likeseeding, planting, herbicide treat-ment, thinning, or fertilization.

Table 3. Anticipated changes in succes-sional stage or condition because ofmanagement activities

Any of these actions would eitheradvance or retard succession (table 3)(Thomas et al. 1975). For example,planting trees advances succession,thinning and fertilization make standsappear older, and wildfire sets suc-cession back. Since wildlife is mainlya product of the vegetative structureof a community and not the age ofthe vegetation, it is possible to pre-dict the effect of various manipula-tions of vegetation on wildlife.

P/ant Communities and Successional Stages 2 9

FCOAU

DRPI

ASLE

SPVA

S P T H

DEW

DEPU

DEAL

3CA

3CAN

3lPY

common flicker

pilealed woodpecker

black.backed three-toedwoodpeckernorthern three-toedwoodpecker

2 2

. . . . 4 4

. . 2 2

Table 4. Orientation of wildlife species inlife form 13 to plant communities (source:appendix 8)

The yellow-bellied sapsucker shows pri-mary orientation to the quaking aspenand riparian communities.

Level 2:Relationship of Speciesto Plant Communitiesand Successional Stages

The responses of vertebrate lifeforms to plant communities and suc-cessional stages can be generalized.But the response of each specieswithin a life form varies becauseof itsspecific habitat requirements. Level2 shows orientation to plant com-munity and successional stage foreach species. Species are groupedby life form to facilitate comparisonwith information in level 1. The pri-mary orientation of species withinlife forms to plant communities isillustrated for life form 13 in table 4.Similar information for all life formsis in appendix 8. Information onspecies orientation to successionalstages is illustrated in table 5; com-plete information for all life forms isin appendix 9.

The use of plant communities andsuccessional stages by a particularspecies can be determined from ap-pendices 8 and 9. Table 4 containsinformation on the orientation ofspecies to plant communities forfeeding and reproduction. Table 5shows the use of successionalstages by each species. The two setsof information must be considered intandem-one before the other.

For example, the pygmy nuthatchshows orientation to the aspen com-munity for feeding only. This meansthat information on reproduction intable 5 should be disregarded forthe pygmy nuthatch in the aspencommunity.


Wildlife obviously have habitat re-quirements other than plant com-munity and successional stage. Ori-entations to special and unique habi-tat components are shown for all lifeforms in appendix 14 and illustratedfor life form 13 in table 6. The impor-tance of these special and uniquehabitat components, as reflected bythe number of wildlife species usingthem, is shown in figure 12.

Additional information may bederived from appendices 8 and 9. Thetotal number of species oriented toeach plant community and succes-sional stage for feeding and repro-duction was used to produce appen-dix 10 and table 2 which demonstratethe orientation of the life form. Inother words, to develop the informa-tion on life form (level 1) the informa-tion for individual species in level 2must first be completed.

The information in level 2 has avariety of uses. For example, the im-portance of each community andsuccessional stage can be evaluatedin terms of its ability to provide habi-tat for different species. In eachplanning scenario, the forest man-ager can examine the impact of pro-posed management actions on wild-life-individual species or all wild-life. The information can also beused to determine the role of plantcommunities as habitat for featuredspecies or for rare and endangeredspecies.

Table 6. Orientation of wildlife species inlife form 73 to special and unique habitats(source: appendix 14)

Species . ReprOd”ttlOn and leedl”Q R Reproduction only F Feeding only

BIRDS

COAU common Ilicker F F F l . . 3 6

DRPI pileated woodpecker . . 2 2

ASLE Lewis’ woodpecker F F . . . 3 5

SPVA yellow.bellied sapsucker . . 2 2

S P T H Williamson’s sapsucker . . 2 2

DEVI hairy woodpecker . . . 3 3

DEPU downy woodpecker . . . 3 3

DEAL white.headed woodpecker . . 2 2

PIAR black.backedthree- toed

. . . 3 3wwdpecker

PITRnorthernthree- toed . . . 3 3woodpecker

SICA white-breasted nuthatch . . 2 2

SICAN / red.breasted nuthatch . . . 13 3ISIPY pygmy nuthatch . . 2 2

mx No. ” Spec’es Reproductv,” 0 0 0 8 13 12 ?a:,?: “Sf”Q b; csuccessIo”al

= stage Feeding 2 2 1 8 13 12 $2 k?

Table 5. Orientation of wildlife species in life form 73 to successional stages (source:appendix 9)

COAU

DRPI

ASLE

SPVA

S P T H

DEVI

DEPU

DEAL

PIAR

PITR

SPECIES . Reproductm and feedIng R Reproduction onl

sapsucker

Williamson’s . . . F F F F F . 4 9sapsucker

1

hairy woodpecker’ F F F F F F F F F F . F 1 12

downy woodpecker . . . . . . . . . F F . F 10 13

white-headed . 1 1woodpecker

black.backed three- F F . F 1 4toed \voodpecker I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1I

northern three.toedI woodt

1 I./F1 1 1 1 / 1 1 3leckar’ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1I’I-II

white-breasted F F . F 1 4nuthatch

SlCA

SICAN

SIPY0

::

:z3

red-breastednuthatch’

F F F F F F . F 1 8

pygmy nuthatch F F F F F F . 1 7

Reproduction P6 6 4 5 5 4 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

I-n

8Feeding 99466706)60060001091390000i:“.


Number of species’ M

Rivers

Streams

Sloughs

Lakes

Reservoirs LO.6 ha (22 acres)

Reservoirs < 0.6 ha (~2 acres)

intermittent ponds

LargeLO. ha (~2 acres)

Small co.8 ha (4 acres)

Rush, cattail

2 S e d g e

EZ$ Deciduous vegetation

Standing or slow-running water

Fast.runnlng water6

Figure 12. Number of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species using special and uniquehabitats (source: appendix 15).

m Reproduction m Feedingt 1 iCA I I I I I I I

L J”

Ponderosa Mixed White fir Lodgepole Subalpinepine conifer (grand fir) pine fir

Forested plant communities

Figure 13. Number of wildlife species oriented to forested plant communities for feedingand reproduction (source: appendix 8).

Some forest communities obvi-ously produce more species of wild-life than others (fig. 13). It should beinteresting to the manager to notethat the ponderosa pine and mixedconifer communities in the BlueMountains-those most affected bytimber management activites-arealso the most productive in terms ofwildlife.

Figure 14 shows that the laterstages of succession in the mixedconifer community are important tomore species than are earlier stages.Habitat for reproduction is also morerestrictive than habitat for feeding. Asimilar display for all plant commu-nities is shown in appendix 11.

Using the same data, the forestmanager can predict the response ofindividual species to alterations in asuccessional stage. For example, aseries of timber sales might beplanned in an extensive area coveredby 80-year-old lodgepole pine stands.The stands have a dense canopy andlittle understory. What species arelikely to be affected? In an actualanalysis, the information on eachspecies in each life form would beexamined (appendices 8 and 9). Asan example, consider the data for lifeform 13 (table 4). Of the 13 species inlife form 13, 4 (hairy woodpecker,black-backed three-toed woodpecker,northern three-toed woodpecker, andthe red-breasted nuthatch) have astrong association with lodgepolepineforbothfeedingandreproduction.

In this situation, what effect wouldclearcutting 35 percent of the areahave on these species? Clearcuttingwould put those areas into the grass-.forb successional stage. Table 5shows that these four species areoriented to the mature successionalstage for both feeding and reproduc-tion. None show orientation to thegrass-forb stage. It can be concludedthat such action will reduce habitatfor those species by approximately 35Percent for at least 40-50 years-thetime required for the stand to regen-erate and reach a successional stagesuitable for reoccupancy.


At the same t ime, a number ofspecies would benefit from the earlysuccess ional s tages that fo l lowclearcutting. Appendix 9 shows thatmost of the species in life forms 5and 6 would benefit for the period oftime (10 to 20 years) that the grass-forb and shrub-seedl ing succes-sional stages were present. As thevegetation on the site moves into thepole-sapling stage the suitability ofthe site for these species declines.

As another example, consider thegeneralized relationship of wildlifein the Blue Mountains to succes-sional stages of forested communi-ties (fig. 15). This shows why manypeople are concerned about the ef-fects of intensive timber manage-ment on wildlife diversity and on thewelfare of species that are narrowlyadapted to certain successionalstages, particularly grass-forb, shrub-seedling, and old growth (Wight 1974,Meslow and Wight 1975, Thomas eta l . 1975) .

Only a few uses of such data havebeen illustrated. There are as manyothers as there are specific manage-ment questions, and new applica-tions are being found as managersbegin to use this system.

Level 3:Summaryof Biological Databy Species

Level 3 is a one-line summary ofkey information on each species.Some of the information was derivedfrom the appendices and some fromliterature reviews. Other informationwas drawn from the experience ofwildlife biologists.

Details for each species are pre-sented in appendix 6. Life form 13 isshown here as an example (table 7).Additional information on distribu-tion, habits, and other biological at-tributes are shown in appendix 16and illustrated here by table 8.

m Reproduc t ion m FeedingPlant community: Mixed conifer

200 ,

180 1 I I I I I I I I I I II 1

/ / / / /Successional stage

Figure 14. Number of wildlife species associated with successional stages in the mixedconifer community (source: appendix 11).

m Reproduction m Feeding

I I I I I I I I I I 1_-_

Grass- Shrub- Pole- Young Mature Oldforb seedling sapling g r o w t h

Management will These stages will These stagesshorten time in be emphasized will bethese stages eliminated

Figure 15. Number of wildlife speciesoriented to forest successional stagesand the potential effect of intensive tim-ber management (source: appendix 9).


I--COAU

IDRPI

I ASLE

SPVA

SPTH

DEVI

DEPU

DEAL

Activity; seasonal occurrence

13 common flicker

13 pileatedwoodpecker

13 Lewis’woodpeckerlo

13 yellow-belliedsapsucker

13 Williamson’ssapsucker

13 hairywoodpeckerlo

13 downywoodpecker

13 white-headedwoodpecker

PIAR 13 black-backedthreetoedwoodpecker

PITR 13 northernthree-toedwoodpecker10

SICA

SICAN

13 white-breastednuthatch

13 red-breastednuthatchlO

SIPY 13 pygmy nuthatch

BIRDS

-

terr. 16.2 ha(40 acres)/pairterr. 121 ha(300 acres)/pair

terr. 6.1 ha(15 acres)/pairterr. 4 ha(10 acres)/pair

terr. 4 ha(10 acres)/pairterr. 10.1 ha(25 acres)/pairterr. 4 ha(10 acres)/pairterr. 8.1 ha(20 acres)/pair

terr. 30.4 ha(75 acres)/pair

terr. 30.4 ha(75 acres)/pair

L Low; M Medium; H High

See footnotes at end of appendix 6.

Reproductive activity t-eeamg activity


B I R D S

common flicker

pileatedwoodpeckerLewis ’woodpeckerloyellow-belliedsapsuckerWilliamson’ssapsuckerhairywoodpeckerlo

downywoodpeckerwhite-headedwoodpecker

black-backedthree-toedwoodpecker

northernthree-toedwoodoecker1°

-~pygmy nuthatch

Plant commune roups (habitats)4 1 Special habitats (components1 Uniquehabi-tat@

Reproduction: l Primary (240%); 0 Secondary (~40%) Feeding: m Primary (240%); 0 Secondary (<40%)L

Table 7. Key information on species inlife form 13 (source: appendix 6)


a/w

i?CT? 6-? sec7Yc .$J 8P,v v 0”SPTH 13 Williamson’s sapsucker

DEVI 13 hairy woodpecker

“?Jf0”Feeds by gleaning and sapsucking; locally abundant.

Feeds in both live and dead wood; widely distributed in coniferzones .

DEPU 13 downy woodpecker Feeds and nests largely in deciduous trees; feeds primarily onsurface insects on trees and bushes.

DEAL 13 white-headed woodpecker Primarily associated with ponderosa pine; feeds by gleaning; eatspine seeds in winter; locally distributed and abundant.

PIAR 13 black-backed three-toed Feeds on bark and subsurface insects in both live and dead wood.woodpecker

PITR 13 northern three-toed woodpecker Feeds on bark and subsurface insects in both live and dead wood;species suggested as threatened in Oregon due to restrictedhabitat and local distribution (see appendix 4).

30AU 13 common flicker Feeds extensively on ground; uses open areas; occurs in allhabitat types.

IRPI 13 pileated woodpecker Feeds largely in dead wood; requires large snags for nesting.

ISLE 13 Lewis’ woodpecker Feeds largely in air-hawking; locally abundant in deciduoustimber situations; semicolonial nester.

5PVA 13 yellow-bellied sapsucker Feeds by gleaning, sapsucking, hawking, and pecking; nestinglargely restricted to open water sources.

;lCA 1 3 white-breasted nuthatch Primarily associated with ponderosa pine; feeds extensively oninsects in trunk bark of live trees.

;lCAN 1 3 red-breasted nuthatch Associated with mixed conifer stands; feeds extensively oninsects in bark of live trees.

;lPY 13 pygmy nuthatch Primarily associated with ponderosa pine; forages in flocks; feeds

I Ion insects in bark and on surface of trees; locally distributed inponderosa pine zone; loosely colonial.

Table 8. Information of management sig-nificance for wildlife species in life form13 (source: appendix 16)


Level 4:Selected References

If the information displayed so faris not sufficient, additional sourcesmay be consulted. The most appro-priate references for each speciesare listed in appendix 29, illustratedhere by table 9 for life form 13. If theuser, after consulting the sourcessuggested, still does not have suffi-cient information, the literature citedsections of these sources may pro-vide useful leads.

Versatility IndexEach wildlife species exhibits a

different degree of versatility (adapt-ability) in the number of plant com-munities and successional stages itcan use for feeding and reproduc-tion. The sensitivity of each speciesto habitat change is directly relatedto that versatility. The most versatilespecies are the least sensitive tohabitat manipulation; the least versa-tile are most sensitive.

Data in appendices 8 and 9 (itlus-trated by tables 4 and 5) were used todevelop a versatility score (V score)for each species. The V scores canbe used to rate the versatility of indi-vidual spec ies . Collectively, thescores also provide an index to therelative versatility of all resident wild-life species.

The V score for each species isderived by determining the totalnumber of plant communities andthe total number of successionalstages to which the species showprimary orientation for feeding andreproduction:

v = (C, + S,) + (Cf + sf);

where V is the versatility score, Cr isthe number of communities used bythe species for reproduction, Sr isthe number of successional stagesused for reproduction, Cf is the num-ber of communities used for feeding,and Sf is the number of stages usedfor feeding.

species Selected references

COAU 13 common flicker Anderson 1972. Burns 1900, Conner 1973, Jackman 1974b. Jackmanand Scott 1975. Kelleher 1963, Lawrence 1967, Neff 1926

DRPI 13 piiealed woodpecker Anderson 1972, Bull 1975. Conner 1973, Hoyt 1957, Jackman 1974b.Jackman and Scott 1975. Meslow and Wight 1975, Tanner 1942

( ASLE / 13 1 Lewis’ woodpecker / and scott 1’g75Bent 1964~ Bock 1970, Bock et al. 1971, Jackman 1974b. Jackman

SPVA I13 1 yellow-bellied sapsucker/ 1971b. Rushmor: 1973

Bent 1964c Ersklne and McLaren 1972. Jackman 1974b. Kilham

SPTH I3 Williamson’s sapsucker Bent 1964c. Jackman 1974b, Michael 1935

DEVI 13 hairy woodpecker Anderson 1972. Conner 1973, Jackman 1974b. Kilham 1968a.Lawrence 1967. Staebler 1949

___-DEPU 13 downy woodpecker Anderson 1972, Conner 1973, Jackman 1974b. Jackson 1970,

Lawrence 1967. Staebler 1949

1 DEAL j 13 / white-headed woodpecker

1 PIAR / I 3 1 t$zx;~zk&d fhree.toed

1 Bent lQ64c; Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, 1970; Jackman 1974b;Jackman and Scott 1975; Ligo” 1973 I

/ Bock and Bock 1974, Jackman 19746. Short 1974I

! I !

PITR 113 1 northern three-toed woodpecker / Jackman 1974b. Jackman and Scott 1975. Short 1974 1

SICA 13 white-breasted nuthatch Anderson 1972; Balda 1975; Bent 19641; Jackman 1974a; Kilham1968b. 197la. 1972; Tyler 1916

SlCAN 13 red.breasted nuthatch Anderson 1970. 1976: Bent 1964f: Jackma” 1974a: Kilham 1973:s,a,,o,,n lO6R

I I I -.-. --- .---

SlPY 13 pygmy nuthatch Balda 1975, Barefield 1943, Bent lQ64f. Bock 1969, Jackman 1974a.Knorr 1957. Norris 1958

Table 9. Selected references for speciesin life form 13 (source: appendix 29)

Species that are similar in appearancemay have very different versatility ratings.The hairy woodpecker (left) has a mediumversatility rating and is found in many for-est communities. The white-headed wood-pecker (below) has a low versatility ratingand much narrower habitat requirements.


TF 4 5 6Species I ’ 2 3

3 9

2 5

3 6

2 4

2 6

3 a3 5

2 4

3 7

3 5

2 4

3 6

2 3

25 d0 35 403

I

1B I R D S

c o m m o n f l i c k e r 6

pileated woodpecker 3

Lewis’ woodpecker’ 3

ye l low-be l l ied sapsucker 2

Wi l l i amson ’s sapsucke r 4

hairy woodpecker’ 5

downy woodpecker 2

white-headed woodpecker 2

black-backed three-toed 4woodpecker

northern three-toedwoodpecker’

2

whi te-breasted nuthatch 2

red-breasted nuthatch’ 3

pygmy nuthatch 1/

--L

COAU

DRPI

ASLE

SPVA

SPTH

DEVI

DEPU

DEAL

PIAR

3lTR

:lCA

;lCAN

SIPY

Versatility rating (mean scale)

lspecies of special interest; see appendix 4.Table 10. Versatility ratings for wildlifespecies in life form 13 (source: appendix12)

Table 11. life form versatility rating forlife form 13 (source: appendix 13)

See appendix 13 for footnotes.


V scores for all wildlife species inthe Blue Mountains are shown in ap-pendix 12 and illustrated here bytable 10. The V score for each spe-cies can be used to derive a V scorefor the life form as a whole as illus-trated in table 11 and shown for alll i fe forms in appendix 13. Thesescores reflect the versatility of spe-cies only in the Blue Mountains. It ispossible for a nationally commonand very versatile species, such asthe house sparrow, to have a low Vscore in a particular area becausesuitable habitat is limited.

Potentially rare or threatened spe-c ies are ident i f ied in appendix 4(illustrated by table 12). These spe-cies were identified by Dyrness et al.(1975), Arbib (1975), and the U.S. De-partment of the Interior, Bureau ofSport Fisheries and Wildlife (1973)among others. More complete dataon rare, threatened, and endangeredspecies are given in appendix 4.

A Data BaseFor Planners

The informational displays pre-sented here are a data base fromwhich the forest manager may drawinformation at various levels. Thesystem has been tested in prepara-tion of land-use plans, environmentalimpact statements, and environmen-tal analysis reports. It has enabledthe users to produce better, morecomprehensive, and more accurateresults in less time.

The information system presentedin this chapter is best suited for usein broad-scale land-use planning. Thesmaller the area and the greater thedetai l of the plan, the less l ikelythese data are to predict results ac-curately. The general predictive abil-i ty should hold, but the inherentbiological variability is more apt tobecome noticeable as size of thearea diminishes.

This information base is not in-tended to replace the trained andexperienced wildlife biologist; rather,it is a tool for use by the wildlifebiologist. If applied without properinterpretation, qualification, and sen-sitivity to individual conditions, theresults will be less accurate.

------Spew?s

. . . .._~PAHA 12 osprey

,FAME 4 prairie falcon

FAPE 4 peregrine

FACO 1 1 merlin

Table 12. Some species in the Blue Moun-tains are of special interest because oftheirpotentially threatened or endangeredstatus (source: appendix 4)

The mountain goat is worthy of specialmanagement consideration because ofits “unique” status.


3Riparian ZonesbyJack Ward ThomasChris MaserJon E. Rodiek

Riparian zones can be identifiedby the presence of vegetation that re-quires free or unbound water or con-ditions that are more moist than nor-mal (fig. 16) (Franklin and Dyrness1973, Minore and Smith 1971). Ripari-an zones can vary considerably insize and vegetative complex becauseof the many combinations that can becreated between water sources (fig.17) and physical characteristics of asite. Such characteristics includegradient, aspect, topography, soil,type of stream bottom, water quality,elevation, and plant community(Odum 1971).

Figure 16. Riparian zones are identifiedby the presence of vegetation requiringlarge amounts of free or unbound water.

4 0 Riparian Zones

i Shrubs

/ Emergents

Deciduoustrees

Coniferoustrees

All riparian zones within forestedareas of the Blue Mountains havethese things in common: (1) they cre-ate well-defined habitat zones withinthe much drier surrounding areas; (2)they make up a minor proportion ofthe overall area; (3) they are generallymore productive in terms of biomass-plant and animal-than the re-mainder of the area; and (4) they area critical source of diversity withinthe forest ecosystem. Carothers andJohnson (1975) and Curtis and Ripley(1975) have prepared summary paperson the subject of riparian habitats asassociated, respectively, with rangeand forest areas.

Importanceof Riparian Zones

Wildlife use riparian zones dispro-portionately more than any othertype of habitat (Kelly et al. 1975; Bot-torff 1974; Wooding 1973; Beidleman1948, 1954). Of the 378 terrestrial spe-cies known to occur in the BlueMountains, 285 are either directly de-pendent on riparian zones or utilizethem more than other habitats. Ver-tebrates that either reproduce inwater or feed in water are totally de-pendent on riparian and adjacentaquatic zones. In short, riparian zonesare the most critical wildlife habitatsin the Blue Mountains.

Riparian zones are also dispropor-tionately important for other forestand range uses. Stream margins fre-quently contain highly productivetimber sites. Cattle utilize the vegeta-tion in riparian meadows more heavilythan in other areas. The relatively gen-tle topography, particularly in moun-tainous areas, makes riparian zonesattractive for road locations. Streamsand rivers and their banks are alsohandy sources of rock for buildingroads. Recreationists concentratetheir use in such areas. In addition,scenic values are often high. As a re-sult, riparian zones are the most criti-cal zones for multiple use planningin the Blue Mountains.

Lakes 11 Ponds

Standing water (lentic) habitats

Seeps, bogs, meadows

1 Running water (lotic) habitats I

Figure 17. The type of water source inflo-ences riparian vegetation.

The Pacific treefrog is highly dependenton riparian zones as habitat for both feed-ing and reproduction.

Riparian Zones 4 1

Figure 18. Riparian zones frequently havea high number of edges and strata in acomparatively small area. These producehabitat for a greater number of species,reflecting the diversity of plant speciesand community structure.

The western grebe, a minor species in theBlue Mountains, is important because itspopulation may be declining.

There are many reasons why ripari-an zones are so important to wildlife.Not all can be attributed to everyriparian zone. Each combination ofwater source and site attributesmust be considered separately.Some of these reasons are dis-cussed below:

1. The presence of water lends im-portance to the zone. Wildlife habitatis composed of food, cover, andwater. Riparian zones offer one ofthese critical habitat componentsand often all three.

2. The greater availability of waterto plants, frequently in combinationwith deeper soils, increases plantbiomass production and provides asuitable site for plants that are lim-ited elsewhere by inadequate water(Minore and Smith 1971, Minore1970). These factors, in combination,lead to increased diversity of plantspecies and structural diversity inthe community.

3. The dramatic contrasts of theplant complex of the riparian zonewith the general surrounding uplandforest vegetation add to the struc-tural diversity of the area. For ex-ample, open wet meadows and grovesof deciduous trees around seeps pro-vide edges with stark contrast whenthey are surrounded by coniferousforest. Moreover, those riparianzones dominated by deciduous vege-tation provide one type of habitatduring the summer when in full leafand another type of habitat duringthe winter following leaf fall.

4. The shape of many riparianzones, particularly the linear natureof streams, maximizes the develop-ment of edge which is so productiveof wildlife (Bottorff 1974, Patton1975).

4 2 Riparian Zones

5. Riparian’ zones in coniferousforests f requent ly produce moreedges within a small area than wouldbe expected (fig. 18). In addition,there are many vegetative strata ex-posed in stairstep fashion. This stair-stepping of vegetation of contrastingform (deciduous vs. coni ferous;shrubs vs. trees) provides diversenesting and feeding opportunities forwildlife-especially birds and bats.The association of particular birdswith distinct layers of vegetation hasbeen repeatedly demonstrated (Lack1933, MacArthur et al. 1962, Dambach1944, Preston and Norris 1947, Thom-as et al. 1977, DeGraaf et al. 1975). Inaddition, birds have been shown toselect between coniferous and decid-uous vegetative volumes in distinctstrata (Thomas 1973, DeGraaf 1976).

6. The microclimate of riparianzones is different from that of thesurrounding coniferous forest be-cause of increased humidity, a higherrate of transpiration, more shade,and increased air movement. Somewildlife species are attracted to thismicroclimate. For example, elk on aBlue Mountain summer range spent40 percent of their time in riparianzones which made up only 7 percentof the area (Pedersen, unpublished,see “References Cited”). The attrac-tion of elk to these areas was causedby the abundance of thermal coverand the microclimate produced bythat vegetation.

7. Riparian zones along intermittentand permanent streams and riversprovide migration routes for wildlifesuch as birds, bats, deer, and elk.Deer and elk frequently use suchareas as travel corridors between highelevation summer ranges and low ele-vation winter ranges (fig. 19).

Summerrange

Figure 19. Riparian zones along rivers andstreams are frequently used as migrationroutes by wildlife. A migration corridorused by elk between summer range athigh elevation and winter range at loweleva f ion is illustrated.

Riparian zones are disproportiona rely im-portant for some wide-ranging speciessuch as elk.

Riparian Zones 4 3

8. RIparIa? LO”e3. paitlcuiariyalong rivers and streams, may serveas forested connectors betweenforested habitats. Wildlife may usesuch nparian zones for cover whiletraveling across otherwise unfor-ested areas. Some species, espe-cially small mammals and bltds, mayuse such routes !n dispersal fromtheir original habitats. This may becaused by population pressure or byshortages of food, water, or cover.The riparian zones provide cover andoften provide food and water duringsuch movements (fig. 20).

Sensitivityto Disturbance

Riparian zones occupy ieiat~veiysmall areas and should be CO~SI-dered vulnerable to severe alteration.Because of the distinct vegetatwecommumty and the structure of ripar-8an zones, they must also be con-sidered fragile. The more mature thevegetative complex of the riparianzone, the more apt it is to assumedistinct edges and strata that Intens!-fy edge-effect and increase diverstty.This mature condition is sensitive tomanagement activities that occur mthe riparian zone itself or in the sur-rounding conifer forest (fig. 21).

The sensttivity of the vegetativelymature riparian zone as wildlife habi-tat can also be attributed to its dis-tinct microclimate. This includesboth the terrestrial portions of theriparian zone and the characteristicsof water quality, including tempera-ture, of the associated aquatic zoneChanges in the canopy cover can al-ter these characteristics markedly(Meehan 1970, Brown et al. 1971.Brown and Krygier 1967). For exam-ple, an increase of a few degrees inwater temperature may eliminate astream as a trout fishery.

ManagementConsiderations

Riparian zones are so differentfrom one another that specificanimal-to-habitat relationships aredifficult to develop for these areas.Forest land managers should consultboth fishery and wildlife biologistswhen management activities areplanned within the riparian zone. Thefollowing considerations can behelpful:

1. Road construction in riparianzones will reduce the effectivenessof the zone as habitat for many wild-life species (fig. 22). This resultsfrom alteration in the vegetative com-plex and increased disturbance fromtraffic along the road. Increased sedi-mentation from road constructionmay be detrimental to water qualityand hence to aquatic life. Manystreams in the Blue Mountains arealready paralleled by roads. Eachtime a new streamside road is consid-ered, managers need to determinehow much riparian habitat is alreadyseriously impaired by such roads.This can be done by comparing thepercent of streams with roads along-side with the percent of streamswithout roads. Road constructionprobably has a more critical andlong-lasting impact on riparian zonesthan any other management activity.

2. The narrower the riparian zonethe more easily it is altered by man-agement action.

3. Construction of campgrounds inriparian zones enhances the oppor-tunity for human-wildlife contactsbut simultaneously decreases effec-tiveness of the riparian zone as wild-life habitat because of disturbancecaused by humans, trampling, soilerosion and compaction, and loss ofvegetation (Settergren 1977).

4. improper grazing practices inriparian zones can reduce water qual-ity, eliminate streamside shrubs,cause soil compaction, accelerateerosion, and break down stream-banks (Marcuson [1977), Ames 7977).Proper grazing management shouldinclude particular attention to insur-ing the welfare of riparian zones.

Narrow zone of influence

Figure 21. A combination of tactors makes riparian zones especially sensitive to man-agement activities.

Figure 22. Road construction in riparianzones reduces their usefulness as wildlifehabitat. Roads in riparian zones: (1) altervegetative structure, (2) altar microcli-mate, (3) reduce the size of riparian zones,(4) disturb the wildlife, (5) impact waterquality in the aquatic zone, and (6) de-stroy the wildlife habitat.

Riparian Zones 45

5. If logging is planned in riparianzones, the environmental impactsshould be carefully evaluated. Themore dramatic type of regenerationcuts-clearcutting, shelterwood, andseed t ree-wi l l have more impactthan single tree selection and groupselection harvests (fig. 23). Removalof s igni f icant amounts of canopycover results in increased solar radi-ation reaching the ground or watersurface. This in turn affects micro-climate and stream temperature. Byusing the group and single tree se-lection harvest methods, it may bepossible to cut some timber in ripari-an zones and still retain the integrityand function of the zone as wildlifehabitat. The closer logging is to ariparian zone, the more severe theerosion impacts and the greater thedanger of reducing water quality inassociated aquatic zones.

6. Man-caused debris should usu-ally be removed, but the watercourseshould not be overcleaned. Debrisexisting prior to disturbance by man-agement activities might be left in-tact since it sometimes serves as acritical habitat component for repro-duction of reptiles and amphibians.Other semiaquatic species use suchdebris for resting and entry into andexit from the water.

7. Recreational use of the riparianzone is many times that of otherhabitats (North Central Forest Ex-periment Station 1977). The impactof such use on wildlife varies withthe season and with the type, inten-sity, and duration of use. Construc-t ion of t ra i ls , p icnic tables, anddocks encourages recreational useand increases conflict with wildlife.Alternatives should be carefully eval-uated. Recreational use may also re-duce water quality because of prolif-eration of human wastes (Aitchisonet al. 1977).

The long bill of the common snipe is aspecial adaptation for probing in wet soil.The bird nests in marshes, bogs, and wetmeadows.

4 6 Riparian Zones

8. Timber ‘management activitiesthat take place outside the riparianzone may also affect the quantityand quality of water that enters andinfluences the riparian zone and as-sociated aquatic habitats (Environ-mental Protect ion Agency 1976).Such act iv i t ies may change sus-pended solids, nutrients, electricalconductance, and mineral content aswell as water temperature and volume(Snyder et al. 1975, Sharpe 1975).

A “Red Flag”for Riparian Zones

The riparian zone is the most im-portant type of wildlife habitat in theBlue Mountains. It is also the area ofmaximum potential conflict betweenusers of timber, grazing, recreation,water, and wildlife resources. Ripari-an zones are usually quite sensitiveto management activities and shouldbe caut iously managed. As eachriparian zone is somewhat different,the land manager should consult awildlife biologist and a fishery biolo-gist during the planning process. Thepurpose of this chapter has been toraise a “red f lag” where riparianzones are concerned. Habitat altera-t ions wi l l af fect wi ld l i fe far morethan indicated by the proportion ofthe total area disturbed.

Single tree Moderateselection cut impact

Shelterwood orseed tree cut

Heavyimpact

Clearcut

Figure 23. When timber is cut in riparianzones, environmental impacts should becarefully evaluated.

In the Blue Mountains, the raccoon ishighly dependent on riparian zones.

Riparian Zones 47

byJack Ward ThomasChris MaserJon E. Rodiek

An edge (fig. 24) is the place whereplant communities meet or wheresuccessional stages or vegetativeconditions within plant communitiescome together. The area influencedby the transition between communi-ties or stages is called an ecotone(fig. 25). Edges and their ecotones areusually richer in wildlife than the ad-joining plant communities or succes-sional stages. As a result, they arean important consideration in wildlifemanagement .

Aldo Leopold (1933, p. 131) was thefirst to state that “game [wildlife] is aphenomenon of edges.” Wildlife “oc-curs where the types of food andcover which it needs come together,i.e., where their edges meet . . . . Wedo not understand the reason for allof these edge-effects, but in thosecases where we can guess the rea-son, it usually harks back either tothe desirability of simulfaneous ac-cess to more than one environmentaltype, or the greater richness of bordervegetation, or both.”

4 8 Edges

As biologists investigated the ef-fects of edge on wildlife, they beganto recognize other relationships thathelped explain the phenomenon.These concepts have become knownas the “laws” of dispersion and inter-spers ion.

Dispersion describes the patternof distribution of individuals in ananimal population. In the mathemati-cal sense, dispersion describes theprobability of occurrence of such in-dividuals in particular places (Han-son 1962, p. 111). The law of disper-sion says that the potential densityof wildlife species with small homeranges that require two or more typesof habitat is roughly proportional tothe sum of the peripheries of thosetypes (Leopold 1933, Dice 1931). Thismeans that species which are adapt-ed to particular edges and their eco-tones increase in proportion to an in-crease in edges of the appropriatekind.

Figure 24. An edge is the place whereplant communities (A and 6) or succes-sional stages within a plant communitycome together.

The law of dispewon was devei-oped from studies of small animalswith small home ranges. Later re-search indicates that some largermammals with wider home rangesalso use edges and ecotones dispro.portlonateiy more than other habitats.This is particularly true where theedge occurs between relatively openareas and cover areas (Harper 1969;Reyno lds 1962, 1966a) .

Interspersion is the lntermlxmg ofplant species and plant communitiesthat provide habitat for animals with-in a defined area (Hanson 1962. p.191) The law of Interspersion saysthat the number of resident speciesreqwring two or more types of habi-tat depends on the degree of inter-spersion of numerous blocks of suchtypes (Keiker 1964).

The laws of dispersion and interspers~on work together to show theforest manager how to mcrease wild-lhfe populat ions associated wi thedge. More edge of a particular typewill produce more individuals of thewildlife spec!es associated with thatedge. Edge effect can be magnifiedby increasmg the interspersion ofthe types of habitat creating thoseedges. Wildlife managers, then, havetwo factors to consider in evaluatingthe ro le of edge-the amount ofedge and how it is arranged.

Some influence of community A extendsinto 6 along the edge forming ecotone C.

F,gure 25 . Ecofones a re fo rmed a longedges and may be created in sweralw a y s .

When influence of community A extendsinto 9 and that of 8 into A, ecotone E isformed.

Figure 26. Inherent edges are createdwhere plant communities meet; for exam-ple, where a ponderosa pine communitymeets a mixed coni fer communi ty . In-duced edges are created where succes-sional stages within communities cometogether. Inherent and induced edges areinfluenced by many factors.

Figure 27. Inherent edges may be abruptor mosaic.

Inherent EdgeAn edge that resul ts f rom the

meeting of two plant communities iscalled an inherent edge (fig. 26). Theplant community is the tangible ex-pression or integrator of myriad in-fluences acting on a particular site(Daubenmire 1976). The edges be-tween plant communities, as far asthe land manager is concerned, areissued with the area-that is, theyare inherent. Four of the most ob-vious natural factors that work sepa-rately and in combination to produceinherent edges are: (1) abrupt changesin soil type, (2) topographic differ-ences, (3) geomorphic differences,and (4) changes in microclimate.

inherent edges are long-term fea-tures of the landscape; they resultfrom geomorphic conditions or otherfactors that create the plant com-munities involved. For all practicalpurposes, inherent edges are rela-tively stable and permanent featuresof the landscape. They can change,however. For example, subtle modifi-cations in microclimate and soilsover many decades may result in ashifting of the plant communitiesalong the edge until it becomes lessabrupt. Sometimes the plant com-munities are broken into patterns ofislands and peninsulas until a mosa-ic pattern emerges (fig. 27). In othersituations, a broadened ecotone mayresult. An inherent edge can also becreated suddenly, for example, bylandslides or severe sheet erosion.

The conditions of the plant com-munities that form an inherent edgemay be altered by management ac-tivities or other short-term phenom-ena. But since the underlying causesfor that edge are related to geomor-phic factors, inherent edges are verystable and tend, over time, to returnto their earlier vegetative state.

5 0 Edges

Induced EdgeAn edge that resul ts f rom the

meeting of successional stages cvegetative conditions within a plarcommunity is called an induced edg(fig. 26). Such edges can be createby management practices or shorterm natural phenomena-- that IS,they can be induced.

Under natural conditions, inducededges are created by drastic short-term environmental factors, such asgrazing, manipulation of vegetation,planting or seeding, fire, disease, in-sect outbreaks, floods, logging, anderos,on. All of these factors, exceptplanting or seeding, tend to shiftp lant communi t ies toward earlier.less mature, successional stages.Compared with inherent edges, insduced edges are relatively short hved.Although they may last for manyyears. they are constantly changingand are not permanent features ofthe landscape.

Importanceto Wildlife Management

The biological importance of edgesto wildlife managers is expressed bythe term “richness.” Edges and theirecotones are rich in wildlife, both innumber of species and of individuals,because of the additive effect on thefauna when two plant commumtiesor successional stages come togeth-er. In the ecotone there IS a minglingof the species cc~mmcr to each typeand the addi t ion of other speciesthat may be products of the eGOtOn’itself (fig. 28). In another sense, wild-life richness is related to the plantand habitat dwerslty expressed inthe ecotone.

1

Characteristics’of Edges

Edges have characteristics (fig. 29)that influence the amount of edgehabitat and the degree of habitatrichness. In combination, these twofactors determine the total impact ofedges as wildlife habitat.

rCharacteristics of edges

Figure 29. Edges have characteristics thatinfluence habitat and species richness.

Figure 30. Edges differ in their degree ofcontrast.

The amount of edge habitat or eco-tone in an area is a function of edgewidth, the length of the edge, and itsconfiguration. The width and lengthmeasurements can be used to deter-mine the area of ecotone. An abruptnarrow edge yields less ecotone hab-itat than a wider edge. Configurationis the arrangement of edges in a pat-tern that may range from simple tomosaic (fig. 27).

The degree of habitat richness as-sociated with a particular edge is in-fluenced by the size of the foreststand and the type of habitats com-ing together in the edge. The size ofthe habitat block has a direct effecton the number of wildlife species inthat area (Galli et al. 1976). The spe-cies associated with each habitathave a tendency to lap over the edgeinto the other habitat. So, the largerthe habitat blocks, the more specieswill be associated with them-andthe richer the species diversity alongthe edge.

1 2 3 4 5 6Grass- Shrub- Pole- Young Mature Oldfo rb seedl ing sap l ing g r o w t h

Six succesijonal stages

Example 1

Combination of the shrub-seedling and Combination of the grass-forb and old-pole-sapling stages results in habitat growth stages results in habitat edgeedge of low contrast (3 - 2 = 1). of high contrast (6 - 1 = 5).

Example 2

In addition, habitat richness is as-sociated with the degree of contrastin vegetat ive structure along theedge. The greater the contrast, themore likely the adjoining habitats areto be very different in structure andin the wildlife species they support.This tends to increase the speciesrichness of the ecotone.

As an example of the effect ofcontrast, consider the idealized suc-cessional stages in figure 30. Thereare 6 successional stages that canbe formed into 15 combinations bythe joining of 2 stages. Each com-bination produces a different degreeof contrast. Little contrast is pro-duced by combining closely relatedstages. Contrast can be dramatic,however, if an early successionalstage is joined with a late stage. Thedegree of contrast may be deter-mined by subtracting the smalleridentifying numbers from the larger.The greater the difference, the great-er the contrast.

Stand Size andDiversity

At some point, increasing diversitytends toward homogeneity and tendsto become decreasing diversity. Galliet al. (1976, p. 356) say that “Thenumber of species present in a par-ticular habitat is strongly influencedby the size of that habitat.” The num-ber of species of both animals andplants in an area is another indicatorof diversity. Arrhenius (1921) andGleason (1922) seem to have pio-neered this concept. The rather vo-luminous literature on the subjectthat has developed since that time iswell summarized and reviewed byCain and Castro (1959) and Greig-Smi th (1964) .

5 2 Edges

Hopkins (1955), Preston (1960). andMacArthur and Wilson (1967) discuss“species-area curves” or the relation-ship of numbers of plant and animalspec,es to Increasing s,ze of an area.After review of this literature Gal11 etal. (1976) concluded that there wasusually a direct linear reiationshipbetween the number of species andthe logarithm of the area, and thatthere were distinct relatIonships fordifferent areas. This simply meansthat the number of species occupy-Ing an area usually increases withthe size of the area.

Increasing wildlife dwersity tendsto become decreasing diversity whenthe average size of the habitat blocksbecomes larger than that requiredto mawmize the number of speciespresent (fig. 31). Gall et al. (1976)studied the relationship between thenumber of bird species present andthe size of blocks of forest habitatinterspersed with agricultural landsin New Jersey. They found (p. 363)that “Bird spec,es richness increasessignificantly through an island size of24 ha [59.30 acres] and IS lhkely tomnt~nue increasing slgnlflcantly atforest sizes beyond 24 ha:‘ Increasein bird species with increase in sveof habitat was attributed to: (1) theaddition of new speces as their min-imum habitat size requirements weremet, (2) the inclusion of specific hab-itat components in sufficient quanti-ty, and (3) the presence of specializedconditions in the interior of the foreststands.

Study of a 44.hectare (108.72.acre)plot showed a decline of speciesnumbers predlcted by their “best-prediction” equation relating speciesrichness to the size of the forestedarea (Galli et al. 1976). This relation-ship accounted for 85 percent of thevariation in species richness. Further-more, the number of spews wasless than that encountered on thenext largest plot of 24 hectares (59.30acres). The decline was attributed toa loss of species adapted to edges.

Data are lacking for these relationsshops in the Blue Mountains. A bestestimate is that species richness, atleast for birds, will increase signifi-cantlywlthstandsiretoabout34 hect-ares (84 acres). Bird species richnessis assumed to be a reasonable indica-tor of the relationship of all vertebratewildlife to stand size (fig. 31).

If the average stand s,ze IS about34 hectares (84 acres), wildlife spe-cies richness attributable strictly tostand size should approach maxi-mum. The word average is important.

This I n d i c a t e s t h e existence o fstands both larger and smaller than34 hectares (84 acres). Stands largerthan the average may accommodatethe few species that require largerblocks of habltat. whereas the smallerstands increase the edge effect thataccommodates species adapted toedge.

S o m e species m a y require ex -tremely large areas of contiguousand similar habitats. These wouldsuffer If smaller areas were substl-tuted. The requirement of some spewties for habitat blocks of specificsize should not be confused with theanimals’ need for solitude or protec-tion from the intrusions of man. Insome cases, regulation of man’s ac-tivities may suffice in lieu of preser-vation of large areas of pristine habi-tat. This must be determined on aspec ies -by -spec ies bas i s .

Edge as a Measureof Diversity

Emphasis on management lor *I~verslty in forest ecosystems WIII helpinsure the continued existence of thehwng components of the system-plants as well as almais. That goalIS laudable for esthetic or moral reamsons alone. but it is also a practicalmanagement objective. In the ecolog-ical sense. diversity is thought to berelated to stability or the ablllty of asystem. when changed from a steadystate, to develop forces that tend tor e s t o r e lt to i t s orlginal condition(Margalef 1969). Diversity acts as I”-surance for the system by increasingits abilitv to withstand disaster.

it has been said that the first ruleof intelligent tinkering is to save allthe pieces (Leopold 1949). A concernfor diversity is a step toward insuringthe continued existence of all thepieces in managed forest ecosys-t e m s .

Some land management agenciesare beginning to be concerned aboutdiversity. The Chief of the ForestService, for example, has said thatthe wi ld l i fe goal for the Nat ionalForests is to insure wildlife diversityand to maintain or enhance wildlifepopulations (USDA Forest Service1976a, 1976b). If diversity is a goal inforest land management, it behoovesmanagers and planners to be able tomeasure it and account for ip in theiractivities.

Figure 32. The amount and arrangement ofedge is an expression of habitat diversity.

Edges between p lan t communi t ies

Inherent;diversity

Both inherent and induced edgesare a direct reflection of the total di-versity (fig. 32) in an area. Patton(1975) indicated that edge can beused as a measure of diversity. Stan-dard diversity indexes (see Pielou1975) require information about num-bers of plant and animal species andtheir frequency of occurrence. Thisapproach is too expensive for plan-ners and managers who must oper-ate under severe constraints of budg-ets, personnel, and time. A feasiblealternative is to use edge as an indi-cator, or index, of diversity.

There are at least three uses for adiversity index in forest land man-agement: (1) to investigate trends inhabitat diversity, (2) to evaluate man-agement alternatives for their im-mediate and long-term effects on di-versity, and (3) to evaluate the effectof the shape of timber harvest areason diversity.

Edges between successional stagesor condi t ions

I

tInduced diversity

Derivationof Diversity Index

Patton (1975) described a systemthat expressed, by index, the amountof edge within an area of any givensize. Because of the relationship be-tween edge and interspersion andbecause these factors are a measureof diversity, he referred to this meas-ure as the diversity index. Pattonworked entirely with English meas-urements, but the same results maybe achieved with metric measure-m e n t s .

The fo l lowing is taken direct lyfrom Patton (1975, p. 172). DI signi-fies the diversity index:

The geometric figure with thegreatest area and the least pe-rimeter or edge is a circle. If theratio of circumference to area ofa circle is given an index valueof 1, a formula can be derived tocompute a comparable index forany area to compare with a cir-cle. Any index larger than 1 is ameasure of irregularity and canbe used as a DI. A l-acre circlehas a circumference of 739.86feet and an area of 43,560 squarefeet. The formula to set the ratioequal to 1 is:

where C is the circumference, Ais the area, and rt is 3.1416. Thissame formula is often used bylimnologists to express shore-line irregularity of a lake. Thenext step is to restate the for-mula for habitat diversity as:

where TP is the total perimeteraround the area plus any linearedge within the area.

1 Total diversity

54 Edges

Several examples will showhow the DI is computed andwhat it means. A l-acre squarehas 208.71 feet on a side. . . [fig.33A], and the perimeter of theblock is 834.84 linear feet. Sub-stituting these values in the for-mula:

DI = 8 3 4 . 8 4 = 1.13.2d43560 x 3.1416

This indicates a square of 1 acrehas 0.13 times more edge than acircle of 1 acre. Dividing the l-acre block into 4 units of differ-ent vegetation types increasesthe DI to 1.69.. . [fig. 3381. If thel-acre block is divided into 4blocks in a long, narrow unit.. .[fig. 33D], the DI is increased to1.83. In . . . [fig. 33D] the TP(1356.68 feet) is computed byadding the outside perimeter(1043.60 feet) to the 3 insideedges (313 .08 fee t ) .

The DI can be expressed as apercentage figure when conven-ient. It is only necessary to re-write the formulas as:

Percent = (DI- 1)lOO.

For the l-acre square with a DIof 1.13 the percent is:

(1.13-1) x 100 = 13%.

This percent figure simplymeans that the l-acre squarehas 13 percent more perimeterthan a l-acre circle. A square-mile block also will have 13 per-cent more perimeter than a cir-cle of the same area.

t-31.81 m

(104.36 ft) --I

/------. 63.67 m (208.71 ft)-jA

t-3 1 . 8 1 m

(104.36 ft)

1.81 I

4 . 3 6n .w-

Configurations of1 -acre area

Total edge

Meters 1 Feet

Diversityi n d e x

A 254.46 8 3 4 . 8 4 1.13

B 381.69 1,252.26 1.69

C 318.09 1,043.60 1.41

D 413.52 1,356.68 1.83

Figure 33. Comparison of diversity in-dexes fo r fou r l -ac re con f igu ra t ions(adapted from Patton 1975, p. 172).

Mosaic pattern of small clearcut areas isa distinct contrast to the straight edgesof a large clearcut.

Edges 55

Patton’s diversity index assumesthat the total perimeter of an area isactually edge. In that case, the indexwould be applicable. All or part ofthe perimeter of an area under con-sideration, however, is usually not anedge in the ecological sense. Thus,in the majority of cases, the indexwill not be applicable. When Pattonexpressed Of as a percentage therewas a factor in the formula that sub-tracted the “perfect circ le” of as-sumed peripheral edge from consid-eration. This is the “minus one” inthe formula quoted from Patton (1975,p. 172). The formulas that follow inthis chapter do not assume that theperimeter of an area is necessarilyedge. Therefore, the “minus one”adjustment factor used by Pattonhas been eliminated.

Furthermore, if diversity is ex-pressed as a product of edge, i tseems best to consider it as derivedfrom two sources: inherent edge andinduced edge (fig. 32). As a result,Patton’s index has been modified inthe following discussion to make itmore applicable in land-use planningand land management.

Inherent edges are site related andare created when plant communitiesmeet. Such edges may be consideredas the degree of diversity “given” tothe area. Induced edges occur whensuccessional stages or conditionswithin plant communities come to-gether. Induced edges can be pro-duced when and where desired bythe forest land manager; however,they are certain to result from anyactivity that alters vegetative struc-ture.

Inherent DiversityThe Inherent Diversity

computed as follows:

TF

IndexIndex is

Inherent DI = ‘Y2-l

where TE, is the total edge betweenplant communities in meters or feetfound within or on the perimeter ofthe area under consideration, A isthe area expressed in square metersor square feet, and ?‘I is 3.1416. TheInherent DI is expressed as a per-centage increase over perfect sim-plicity by this process:

Inherent DI, percent = (inherent Dl)lOO.

Perfect simplicity may be expressedas DI = 0. Perfect simplicity may alsobe viewed as any delineated areawhich has no edge present-eitherinternally or on the periphery.

I n f i g u r e 3 4 , a 61- x 61-metersquare of 3 721 square meters (200-x 200-ft square of 40,000 ft*) is di-vided into four plant communities ofequal size. In this case the perimeterof the area is also inherent edge. TheInherent DI in’ percent is computedas follows:

Inherent DI = ‘-f-C(in meters) 2*

= 3 6 6 m

2v(3 721 m2) (3.1416)= 1.69;

Inherent DI = T EC

(in feet) ZqJG-i-

= 1 , 2 0 0 ft

2\/(40,000 ft2) (3.1416)= 1.69.

The number of plant communitiesrepresented is also an importantcomponent of inherent diversity. Al-though the number of plant com-munities will obviously increase theinherent DI, percent, an added de-scriptor showing the number of com-munities seems appropriate (Patton1975). The descriptor may be addedin parentheses after the Inherent Ill,percent. In this case:

Inherent DI, percent (number ofcommunities) or 169%(4).

In this example the total perimeterrepresents inherent edge and was in-cluded in calculating TE,. If all orpart of the perimeter had not been in-herent edge, those parts would nothave been used in computing TE,. Inother words, only the portions of theperimeter that are inherent edge areused in deriving TE,. This is a modifi-cation of the approach describedearlier (Patton 1975).

The northern flying squirrel is associatedwith ecotones formed by the junction offorest and shrubs.

Inherent DI, percent = (Inherent Dl)lOO= (1.69)100 = 169%.

5 6 Edges

Induced Diversity Index 1

Induced diversity can be expressedin the same manner:

Induced DI = l-5 ;

2G

where TE, is the total length of theedges (in meters or feet) created be-tween successional stages or condi-tions, within plant communities oralong their peripheries, for the areaunder consideration. Then,

induced DI, percent = induced Dl(100).

Again, consider f igure 34. Thedotted lines represent induced edgewithin plant communities A and B.The TE, is 61 meters (200 ft) and thetotal area is 3 721 square meters(40,000 ft*). The induced DI in percentis computed as follows:

T EInduced DI = A(in meters) 2*

6 1 m= = 0.28:2x/(3 721 m2) (3.1416)

T EInduced DI = 5(in feet) 2qx-T

200 ft - 0.282~(40.000 ft2) (3.1416) -

Induced DI, percent = Induced Dl(100)= 0.28(100) = 28%.

The number of successional stagesor conditions represented should beadded in parentheses after the In-duced DI, percent as a further de-scriptor of induced diversity:

Induced DI, percent (number ofsuccessional stages or conditions) or

28%(6).

60.9 m (200 ft) ----- -4I_-~-...-~~ 30.5 m (100 ft) ~__ ~~-----’

Success iona lstage 1

r-- - .--- 30.5 m (100 ft)-----/

Inherent edges Induced edges ~~~~~~~~~

Total area in meters = (60.9 m)(60.9 m) = 3 708.8 m*

Total area in feet = (200 ft)(200 ft) = 40,000 ft*

Total inherent edge = 365.8 m 1,200 ftTotal induced edge = +60.9 m + 200 ft

4 2 6 . 7 m 1,400 ft total edge

Figure 34. An area showing plant com-munities, successional stages, and edges.

Edges 5 7

The b l ack ta i l j a ck rabb i t i s espec ia l l yadapted to the grass-shrub ecotone. Someedges, such as this sagebrush-juniperedge, result from differences in soils.

Total Diversity IndexTotal DI is an index of the com-

bined effects of Inherent DI and In-duced DI. This is computed as fol-l o w s :

Total DI = T’S+,- , andPm

Total DI, percent = (Total Dl)lOO;

where TE, + S is the total length, inmeters or feet, of all inherent and in-duced edges. This is computed asfollows (see fig. 34):

Total DI _ TEc+s

(in meters) 2m

= 427 m = 1.97;2\/(3 721 m*) ( 3 . 1 4 1 6 )

TETotal DI = C+S

(in feet) 2$Cii

= 1,400 ft = 1.97.2\/(40,000 ft*) (3.1416)

Total DI, percent = Total Dl(lOO) =1.97(100) = 197%.

Total DI, percent can be enhancedby showing the contributions of thenumber of plant communities andthe number of successional stagesor conditions as follows:

Total DI, percent (number of communities)(number of stages or conditions) or

197%(4)(6).

Note that when the expressions ofinherent and induced diversity areadded they equal total diversity:

Inherent DI, percent 169%+ Induced DI, percent + 28%

Total DI, percent 197%

Therefore, if any two of the indexesare known, the third may be derivedby appropriate addition or subtrac-tion.

Mapping CodesThe indexes just discussed can be

helpful in evaluating the generalstatus of edge and diversity in aplanning area. The forest managermay find it desirable to account forthe amount and characteristics of in-dividual edges in an area. The follow-ing coding system and order is sug-gested:

5 8 Edges

Edge type: T = induced;P = inherent

Community: Commun i t y - commun i t yfor inherent edges, com-m u n i t y f o r i n d u c e dedges; the code is thef i rs t two le t ters o f theg e n u s a n d s p e c i e snames (Garrison et al.1 9 7 6 )

Length: In meters or feetAverage widthof ecotone: In meters or feetContrast: 1 to5Configuration: A = abrupt; M = mosaicExample: T-PIPO-1,700-25-5-AThe codes in the example mean thatthe area has an edge that is induced;it is within the Pinus ponderosa com-munity; it is 1,700 feet long and 25feet wide; the contrast is 5; and ithas an abrupt edge.

ManagementConsiderations

Each forest area has a unique setof possibi l i t ies for diversi ty. Onearea may have a high degree of di-versity as a result of its inherent mix-ture of communities. Such an areamay have low priority for manage-ment to increase diversity. Converse-ly, an area may have only one or afew communities all in the same suc-cessional stage or condition andmay be a good candidate for im-provement in diversity if that is inkeeping with management objec-tives.

The diversity of an area cannot bei nc reased i nde f i n i t e l y by mak ingmore and smaller “islands” and moreedges. Beyond some point the area’sincreasing heterogeneity tends to-ward homogeneity (fig. 32). The piecesbecome so small and mixed that theyassume a sameness .

Diversity as a concept and goal ofwildlife habitat management has be-come a shibboleth for many land-useplanners and forest managers. Thisis because diversity seems to be aworthy goal. First, a wide variety ofhabitats are maintained which as-sures the presence of many kinds ofwildlife. Second, all pieces of thesystem are preserved. Third, the sys-tem is protected to some extent frompotential disasters.

As a result, the use of diversity asa goal has a certain biopolitical ap-peal. Diversity goals that are toobroad are essentially non-constraining.The forest manager can talk a goodstory about wildlife habitat manage-ment, never state the objectives pre-cisely, and never have to show exactlyhow the goal of diversity was accom-plished. This is a misuse of the con-cept.

Diversity as a goal in managementmust be used with caution. The de-gree of habitat diversi ty can be“good” or “bad” only in relation tomanagement goals and objectives.And maximum diversity may not al-ways be an appropriate choice. Forexample, it is impossible to maxi-mize diversity and at the same timemaximize numbers of a particularspecies. Thus, diversity is a measureof habitat condition and must beconsidered in combination with theneeds of the affected species. A mixof management for species richness

A scenic vista provides an opportunity tostudy edges in the landscape.

and featured species management isfeasible and will probably precludethe loss of any species while insur-ing desired yields of the featuredspecies-usually game or threatenedor endangered species (Gill et al.1976) .

Diversity is meaningful only in thecontext of cl-early stated forest man-agement objectives. If diversity is agoal of land management, it can beaccomplished only if the manager iswilling and able to measure changesin diversity. Without a concise state-ment of .goals and adequate meas-urement of the status of diversity,forest managers cannot be held ac-countable.

Edges 5 9

SnagsbyJack Ward ThomasRalph G. AndersonChris MaserEvelyn L. Bull

The pileated woodpecker, a primary exca-vator, requires snags at least 50.&centi-meter (20~in) d.b.h. for nesting.

Snags provide a portion of the lifesupport system ‘for many species ofplants, invertebrates, birds, andmammals (fig. 35). In the Blue Moun-tains, 39 bird and 23 mammal spe-cies use snags for nesting or shelter.These species can be divided intothose that excavate their own cavi-ties and those that occupy existingcavities (fig. 36) (USDA Forest Service[n.d.]). Cavities can occur naturally,be excavated, or be formed by thespaces under loose bark. Such cavi-ties nearly always occur in dead orpartly dead trees (fig. 37). Table 13shows some examples of the typesof excavation and uses made of cavi-ties by selected wildlife species. Appendix 20 has a complete list of all62 cavity users.

It has been persuasively arguedthat the absence of suitable nestsites is the usual limiting factor forcavity nesting birds. See literature re-views by Thomas et al. (7975), Beebe(1974), Jackman (1974b), P o z n a n i n(1956), B r u n s (1960), F r a n z (1961),Herberg (1965), Haapanen (1965) andGysel (1961). In this discussion, a di.rect relationship has been assumedbetween the number of snags andthe number of snag-dependent wild-life in the forest.

The extensive literature that wassurveyed to provide information onindividual species for this chapter islisted in appendix 29.

Types of SnagsThe common forestry definition of

a snag is a standing dead tree fromwhich the leaves and most of thelimbs have fallen. If the dead tree isbroken off and more than 6.1 meters(20 ft) tall it is still properly called asnag. If shorter than that it is calleda stub (Ford-Robertson 1971, p. 246).This definition, however, does notmeet the requirements for manage-ment of snag-dependent wildlife. Forpurposes of this discussion, a snagis any dead or partly dead tree atleast 10.2 centimeters (4 in) in diam-eter at breast height (d.b.h.) and atleast 1.8 meters (6 ft) tall. This defini-tion is based on the minimum diam-eter and height of dead trees used bybirds for nesting.

Snags can be classified as eitherhard or soft. There are two reasonsfor making this breakdown-a for-estry reason and a wildlife reason.The forestry reason is that hard snagsare frequently marketable but softsnags are usually without marketvalue. Hard snags are essentiallycomposed of sound wood, especiallyon the outside. Soft snags are in ad-vanced stages of decay and deteriora-tion. Gale (1973) classified types ofsnags by striking them with an ax. if

6 0 Snags

the ax sank in with difficulty, the snagwas termed “hard”; if it penetratedeasily, the snag was called “soft.”Hard snags usually have many deadbranches and an intact top. Softsnags usually have broken tops andfew limbs (Gale et al. 1973).

The wildlife reason for designatingtypes of snags is that some speciescan excavate only in soft wood. Softsnags also produce the substrate forinvertebrates on which many wildlifespecies feed. Other wildlife speciesexcavate only in hard snags. Someauthorities believe that woodpeckerstest for the presence of heart rot-which usually makes snags easier toexcavate (Conner et al. 1976).

Forest Insect ControlThere has been a recent surge of

interest in retaining snags for wild-life habitat in managed forests. Thisinterest has been brought about bytwo factors: (1) the increased empha-sis of recent Federal laws on man-agement of publicly owned forestlands for wildlife and (2) the recogni-tion that birds may play a significantrole in regulation of insect popula-tions. Most of the snag-dependentb i rds and mammals in the B lueMountains are insect ivorous andrepresent a major portion of the in-sectivorous forest fauna.

The role of insectivorous birds incontrol of forest insect pests hasbeen reviewed by the German workersBruns (1960), Franz (1961), and Her-berg (1965). Beebe (1974) reviewed re-lationships between insectivoroushole-nesting birds and forest man-agement. Buckner (1966, 1971) dis-cussed the role of other vertebratepredators in insect control.

Early workers (Beal 1906, 1917;Forbush 1907; McAtee 1911, 1915,1926; and many others) vividly de-scribed the number of insects con-sumed by birds, but they had a tend-ency to overstate the case. For ex-ample, McAtee (1926) referred tomany instances of control or sup-pression of insect populations bybirds alone. Later studies cast doubton such simplistic interpretations(Tinbergen 1960, Morris 1963).

Form of life

Fung i ,mosses, andlichens

Uses of snags Examples

Decayed wood Fungus Moss Lichenserves as a growthsubstrate.

Invertebrates Spaces under barkserve as cover and

3ird.s Cavities are used fornesting or roosting.Snags are used asperches and tosupport nests.

Aammals Cavities serve as Bat Flying squirrel Mar tendens or as resting orescape cover. Areasunder loose bark areused by bats forroosting.

Figure 35. Snags support many forms of life.

Excavators

16 birds

+ 23 mammals

\

Occupy existingcavities

+ 0 mammals1 6

IExcavate in

1 sound wood

10 birds+ 0 m a m m a l s‘10

4Excavate insoft wood

8 birds+ 0 mammals-i

+ 18 mammals

ioccupyspacesunderloose bark

1 bird+ 10 mammals-

1 1

*occupycavitiescreatedby decayor otherprocesses

25 birdsf 23 mammals-

4 8

Figure 36. Wildlife species that excavateandlor occupy cavities in trees and snagscan be divided into several categories(source: appendix 20).

Snags 6 1

Type of cavity

Natural cavities

I Spaces under bark

Dead or oartlv dead trees 1

Figure 37, Most cavities occur in deadtrees, but they may also be found in liveor partly dead trees.

Owls, such as the saw-whet, use cavitiesexcavated by other species.

Tinbergen (1960) contended thatthe exact relationship of birds to in-sect population dynamics could beshown only by intensive study of asingle bird species over a large areafor a prolonged period. Pospelov(1956, as quoted in Otvos 1965) indi-cated that the relationship of birds toinsect population dynamics must bedetermined for each bird and insectspecies and for each forest stand.Beebe (1974) listed a number of stud-ies which suggested that birds helpregulate spruce budworm popula-tions at endemic levels (Kendeigh1947, Morris et al. 1958, Morris 1963,Dowden and Carolin 1950, Dowden etal. 1953, George and Mitchell 1948).Others have reported similar regula-tion of the larch sawfly by insectivor-ous vertebrates (Buckner and Tur-neck 1965) w e s t e r n p i n e b e e t l e(Otvos 1965), and other beetles bywoodpeckers (Massey and Wygant1973) and moth larvae by tits (Gibb1958, 1960).

There are many instances in whichbirds may have reduced outbreakpopulations of forest insects. Wood-peckers seem to have had such aneffect on outbreaks of southern hard-wood borers (Solomon 1969,Solomon and Morr is 1971), Kn ight(1958) and McCambridge and Knight(1972) reported control of Engelmannspruce beetle by woodpeckers,

Insect control has also been re-ported when large numbers of birdsdrift into or congregate in outbreakareas during the winter. This phenom-enon has been most frequently notedfor woodpeckers by Blackford (1955),Koplin (1969), and Baldwin (1960). Ithas also been reported in many otherspecies by Turcek (1948), Blais andParks (1964), Sloan and Coppel(1968),Coppel and Sloan (1970), Mattson etal. (1968), and Dahlsten and Herman(1965). The importance of birds asbiological control agents has receivedmore at tent ion in Europe whereshorter rotations, intensive forestry,and loss of snag habitat have beenevident longer than in North America.

6 2 Snags

Species 1 11 2 3 4 516 7 8 9101

PAAT -G-GAGA 1 4

-D E P U 1:

SPVA 13

DEVI 13

PAD0 14

EUAM 15

FASP 14

OTAS 14

BUAL 14

LOCU G

AISP Yi

B U C L 14-

zEti0

25 2r -12

black-capped chickadee’

mountain chickadee’

downy woodpecker2

I1 0 . 2 l l l l 0 l

(4)l l l l l l

15.2 l l l l l l

(6)yellow-bellied sapsucker2

hairy woodpecker2

house sparrow

yellow pine chipmunk

American kestrel

screech owl

bufflehead

hooded merganser

wood duck

common goldeneye

‘Primary excavators in soft wood.

*Primary excavators in sound wood.

l Symbol denotes occurrence only.

25.4 l l l l

(�0) ll l l l

l l l l

l l l

3 0 . 5 l l l

. (12)l l l l l

38.1 l l l

(15)l l l

5 0 . 8 l l l

(20)l l l

/ / Types of cavities utilized/ Uses of cavities/-

Literature reviews by Poznanin(1956), Bruns (1960), Franz (1961), andHerberg (1965) also address the roleof birds in insect control. Franz (1961)cites 229 references to support hisconclusion that birds, along with in-sectivorous bats, small mammals,microbes, and predatory insects,help hold insect populations at en-demic levels or exert some controlduring early stages of an outbreak.Bruns (1960) did a thorough review ofthe European literature dealing withinsect control programs that satis-factorily used nest boxes to enhancepopulations of hole-nesting birds.Appel and Schwartz(l921), Freiberger(1926-27), Hahnle (1936), and Herberg(1965) reported satisfactory resultswith such techniques.

The importance that some Euro-pean forest managers p lace on Table 13. Types of excavation and uses

insectivorous birds as biological con-made of cavities by selected wildlife spe-

trol agents is reflected in the fundst ies (source: appendix 20)

expended to provide artificial nestingcavities. Cole [n.d.] noted that instal-lation of boxes is common in Bavar-ian forests and that some 400,000boxes have been placed in an area of140 000 hectares (345,947 acres). An-other 300,000 were planned in Spain(Molina 1971). It might be well to re-flect on the cost of constructing, in-stalling, and maintaining bird boxesin lieu of retaining snags.

Snags 63

Stage 1Live

7gure 38

s; tage 2C lee l in ing

1 Figure 39f

stage 4.oose)ark

stage 5Xean

stage 63roken

jtage 9j tump

Figure 38. Snags undergo a series ofBeebe (1974, p. 27-28) summarized in which the sheer numbers of

successional changes from death of the his extensive literature review on the insects simply overwhelm thetree to final decomposition. relationship between insectivorous bird’s ability to exert regulatory

hole-nesting birds and forest man- influence.Figure 39. The wildlife species fhat use agement:snags are influenced by the stage of for- . . . With few exceptions the con-esf succession in which a snag occurs. elusions of literally hundreds of

papers dealing with the impactof avian predators on their in-sect prey have been that, inmany instances, birds act as im-portant components of naturalbiological regulation of insectpopulation dynamics at endemic. . . levels. In some rather unusualcircumstances birds may act to-gether, each species and some-times each sex in its own spe-cialized way, to be a major causeof the suppression of an insectoutbreak.. . .the most importantrole of birds is in the preventionof insect epidemics, rather thantheir suppression. This impor-tant role is probably still under-estimated because the vast ma-jority of research has been con-ducted during insect epidemics

Bruns (1960, p. 204) provides an aptconclusion to the discussion:

Birds are not a complete rem-edy. On the balance of opinionsand considering recent investi-gations, the truth may lie neitherin the one, nor in the other ex-treme direction, but in between.. . within the community of allanimals and plants of the forest,birds form an important factor.The birds generally are not ableto break down an insect plague,but their function lies in prevent-ing insect plagues. It is our dutyto preserve birds from aestheticas well as economic reasons,and to create artifical (sic] com-pensation in the form of nest-boxes, where nesting chancesare diminished by the forestrywork.

6 4 Snags

.the wood is still able to de-fend itself biologically againstinsect plagues. It is our duty tofurther these biological forces(birds, bats, wood ants, para-sites) and to conserve or createa rich and diverse community. Bysuch a prophylactic, carrying outof ‘hygiene’ before a possibleoutbreak of an insect pest, theforests will be better protectedthan by any other means. If thereshould be further insect plaguestheir effect will at least be dimin-ished, so that we will only needto use chemical control in excep-tional circumstances.

Snag SuccessionTwo successional processes influ-

ence the use of snags by wildlife: (1)the internal and external characteris-tics of the snag itself (fig. 38) and (2)the successional stage of the plantcommunity that surrounds the snag(fig. 39).

A snag undergoes a ser ies o fchanges from the time the tree dies un-til final collapse (Keen 1955) (fig. 38).Hard snags become sof t snagsthrough a gradual process of deteri-oration and decay. The rate at whicha hard snag becomes soft dependson a combination of factors, includ-ing the tree’s species and cause ofdeath, its condition prior to death,the decay organisms present, itslocation, and site conditions.

Each stage in the decay processhas particular value to certain wild-life species. For example, stage 4 infigure 38 is important to bats be-cause they roost under loose bark.Stage 6 is most heavily used by exca-vating woodpeckers such as the pile-ated woodpecker. Stage 7 providesnest sites for birds such as the chick-adee and Lewis’ woodpecker whichexcavate in soft wood. Stages 8 and 9provide feeding sites for insectivorousbirds and small mammals.

The successional s tage of thesurrounding plant community alsoinfluences the way wildlife use snags(fig. 39). Bluebirds and house wrenswill use cavities in a snag that occursin the grass-forb stage or shrub-seed-ling stage and will not ordinarily usethe same snag if it is surrounded bymore advanced successional stages.The pileated woodpecker, however,will nest in a snag surrounded bytrees but tends to avoid nesting insnags located in earlier successionals tages .

Snags 65

Snag 1-teight: 17.4 m

(57 ft)1.b.h.: 50.8 cm

( 2 0 in)

Number of cavitynesting bird speciesusing snags thissize: 24

Snag 2 Number of cavityHeight: 11.6 m’ nesting bird species

(38 ft) using snags thisD.b.h.: 30.5 cm size: 22

(12 in)

Figure 40. The potential use of a snag byThe size and height of snags also

wildlife depends on its diameter anddetermine which species will use a

height.snag for nesting. Each cavity nestingspecies exhibits a decided prefer-ence for a specific height at which tobuild its nest. The size of the speciesdictates the minimum diameter ofthe snag that can provide a largeenough nest ing s i te. F igure 40shows the number of cavity nestingspecies that can be accommodatedby two snags of different heightsand diameters.

It has been pointed out that softsnags are critical habitat compo-nents for a number of wi ld l i fespecies. They are relatively rare inmanaged forests because theyevolve from hard snags, only a few ofwhich stand long enough to becomesoft snags (Keen 1955).

But there is little reason to removesoft snags or keep them from de-veloping in the managed forest. Theyhave little or no commercial valueand, because of decay, are hazard-ous to cut down. Furthermore, theypresent little fire hazard as their topsare usually broken off and do notattract lightning. All soft snags thatare not distinct safety or fire hazardsshould be retained in the stand.

If the requirements for hard snagsare met, their gradual deteriorationwill probably provide sufficient softsnags for cavity excavators. If thebirds that chisel out cavities (primaryexcavators) are provided for, then thecavities they leave will probably pro-vide nesting sites for secondary cavi-ty nesters. As a result, if the require-ments of woodpeckers for hardsnags are met and all possible softsnags are retained, the requirementsof all snag-dependent species shouldbe met.

Site Selectionby Primary Excavators

A number of investigators havepointed out the relationship betweenthe sites selected for excavation byprimary excavators and the presenceof softened heartwood caused byfungal heart rots. Woodpeckers prob-ably select these sites because ittakes less energy to excavate in rot-ten wood (Odum 194la, 1941b; Steirly1957; Shigo and Kilham 1968; Dennis1969; Ligon 1970; Kilham 197lb; Con-ner et al. 1975, 1976; Crockett andHadow 1975; Jackson 1977).

Conner et al . (1976) th ink thatwoodpeckers detect the presence ofheart rot by pecking the tree and lis-tening for a particular resonance.The system is obviously not fool-proof as woodpeckers make many“false starts” and have to abandonthe excavation when they encountersolid heartwood. This phenomenonhas also been observed in the BlueMountains (Bull, unpublished, see“References Cited”).

Conner (1978) suggested that toclassify a tree as a suitable nest sitefor cavity excavators there should besome sign of heart rot at the heightand diameter required by the primaryexcavator. According to Conner,trees that harbor heart rot can some-times be identified by:

1. Conks of species of fungi associ-ated with heart rot (Shigo and Larson1969, Hepting 1971,Conneretal. 1976).

2. Stubs of broken branches (Shigoand Larson 1969, Baumgartner 1939b,Conner et al. 1976).

3. Wounds or scars resulting fromfire, lightning, or mechanical damage(Hepting 1935, Hepting and Hedg-cock 1937, Stickel 1940, Wright andIsaac 1956, Toole 1960, Shigo andLarson 1969) .

6 6 Snags

Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BIRDS

MEME 14 common merganser

TYAL 14 barn owl

STVA 14 barred owl

CHVA 14 Vaux’s swif t

DRPI 13 pileated woodpecker-

SPVA 13 yellow-beflied sapsucker

DEVI 73 hairy woodpecker

D E P U 13 downy woodpecker

PAAT 14 black-capped chickadee

PAGA 14 mountain chickadee

P A R U 14 chestnut-backed chickadee

MAMMALS

s l l l l

S l l l l

S l l l l

S l l l l l

P l l l

P l l

P l l l l l

P l l

P l l

P l l l l l l

P l l l

D IMA 5 o p o s s u m

PRLO 14 raccoon

MAPE 14 fisher

SPPU 15 spotted skunk

a l E0 5

P Primary cavity excavator” - S Secondary cavity userzi 2 l Symbol denotes.-Z -I

lUl I

3primary occurrence

/l

Occurrence by major habitat(plant community)

4. Discolored or soft , decayedwood in samples taken with an incre- Table 14. Each forest community sup-

ment borer (Toole 1960, Shigo andports a distinct combination of primary

Larson 1969, Conner et al. 1976, Jack-excavators and secondary cavity users;some examples are shown (source: ap-

son 1977) . pendix 17)5. Woodpecker holes or cavities.6. Dead areas on living trees.7. Heart rot fungi in cultures of

wood from increment cores (David-son et al. 1942, Nobles 1965, Conneret al. 1976).

8. Positive indication of wood decayusing the “Shigometer” (Northeast-ern Forest Experiment Station [n.d.]).

Snags 6 7

Lind, Gordon S. 1976. Production, nestsite selection, and food hab i t s o fospreys on Deschutes National Forest,Oregon. M.S. thesis. 64 p. Oreg. StateUniv., Corvallis.

ILindsay, Stephen L., and Alfred E. Perry.1977. An additional Merriam’s shrew(Sorex m . merriam/) s p e c i m e n f r o mOregon. Murrelet 58(7):17.

Lindzey, Frederick G. 1976. Characteris-tics of the natal den of the badger.Northwest Sci. 50(3):178-180.

Lindzey, Frederick G., and E. CharlesMeslow. 1 9 7 6 . Characteristics ofblack bear dens on Long island, Wash-ington. Northwest Sci. 50(4):236-242.

Linsdale, Jean Myron, and P. QuentinTomich. 1953. A herd of mule deer: Arecord of observations made on theHastings Natural History Reservation.567 p. Univ. Calif. Press., Berkeley.

Lloyd, J. D., Jr. 1973-78a. Oregon timberharvest. USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull.PNW-49, PNW-55, PNW-63 (rev.), PNW-69, and PNW-78. Pac. Northwest For.and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

L loyd, J . D. , J r . 1973-78b. Wash ing tontimber harvest. USDA For. Serv. Resour.Bull. PNW-48, PNW-61, PNW-68, PNW-71, and PNW-81. Pac. Northwest For.and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Lloyd, J. D., Jr. [n.d.] Unpublished timberinventories for counties in Oregon andWashington, 1964 and 1968; on file atRenewable Resources Evaluation WorkUnit, Pac. Northwest For. and RangeExp. Stn., P.O. Box 3141, Portland,Oreg. 97208.

Lloyd, James A. 1975. Social structureand reproduction in two freely-growingpopulations of house mice (Mus mus-culus L.). Anim. Behav. 23(2):413-424.

Lokemoen, John Theodore. 1962. Theproductivity of the redhead (Aythyaamericana) in the Flathead Valley, Mon-tana. M.S. thesis. 120 p. Univ. Mont.,Missoula.

Loveless, Charles M. 1964. Some rela-tionships between wintering mule deerand the physical environment. NorthAm. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. Trans. 29:4 1 5 - 4 3 1 .

Low, Jessop B. 1945. Ecology and man-agement of the redhead, Nyroca ameri-cana, in Iowa. Ecol. Monogr. 15(1):35-69.

Lunk, William A. 1962. The rough-wingedswallow Stelgidopteryx ruf icol l is (Vieil-lot): A study based on its breeding biol-ogy in Michigan. Nuttal l Ornithol. ClubPubl. 4, 155 p. Cambridge, Mass.

Lu t t i ch , S tua r t , Dona ld H . Rusch, E .Charfes Meslow, and Lloyd B. Keith.1970. Ecology of red-tailed hawk pred-ation in Alberta. Ecology 51(2):190-203.

Lyon, L. Jack. 1975. Conduct annual pel-let count surveys to describe elk distri-bution patterns within the BurdetteCreek-Deer Creek area, Job II-A, Pro-cedure B-1. ln Montana cooperative elk-logging study, progress report for theperiod Jan. l-Dec. 31, 1974. Reg. 1,USDA For. Serv.; Intermt. For. andRange Exp. Stn.; Mont. Dep. Fish andGame; Bur. Land Manage.; Sch. For.,Univ. Mont.

Lyon, L. Jack. 1976. Elk use as related tocharacteristics of clearcuts in westernMontana. ln Proceedings of the elk-logg ing- roads sympos ium, Moscow,Idaho, Dec. 16-17, 1975. p. 69-72. SusanR. Hieb, ed. Univ. Idaho, Moscow.

Lyon, L. Jack. 1977. Attrition of lodge-pole pine snags on the Sleeping Childburn, Montana. USDA For. Serv. Res.Note INT-219, 4 p. lntermt. For. andRange Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

McAllister, Nancy Mahoney. 1955. Repro-ductive behavior of the eared grebe,Pod iceps casp icus nigricoll is. M . S .thesis. 68 p. Univ. B. C., Vancouver.

McAllister, Nancy Mahoney. 1964. On-togeny of behaviour in five species ofgrebes. Ph. D. thesis. 135 p. Univ. B. C.,Vancouver.

MacArthur, Robert H., John W. MacArthur,and James Preer. 1962. On bird spe-cies diversity: Il. Prediction of birdcensus from habitat measurements.Am. Natur. 96(888):167-174.

MacArthur, Robert H., and Edward 0. Wil-son. 1967. The theory of island bio-geog raphy . 203 p, P r ince ton Un iv .Press, Princeton, N.J.

McAtee, W. L. 1915. Bird enemies offorest insects. Am. For. 21(6):681-691.

McAtee, Waldo Lee. 1911. Woodpeckersin relation to trees and wood products.USDA Biol. Surv. Bull. 39, 99 p.

McAtee, Waldo Lee. 1926. The role ofvertebrates in the control of insectpests. In Annual report of the Board ofRegents of the Smithsonian Insiitute,1925, p, 415-437. Gov. Print. Off., Wash-ington, D.C.

McCambridge, William F., and Fred B.Knight. 1972. Factors affecting sprucebeetles during a small outbreak. Ecol-ogy 53(5):830-839.

McClelland, Bernard Riley. 1975. Effec-tiveness of brown creeper’s conceal-ment behavior. West. Birds 6(1):24.

McClelland, Bernard Riley. 1977. Rela-tionships between hole-nesting birds,forest snags and decay in westernlarch-Douglas-fir forests of the north-ern Rocky Mountains. Ph. D. thesis.498 p. Univ. Mont., Missoula.

McClelland, Bernard Riley, and Sidney S.Frissell. 1975. Identifying forest snagsuseful for hole-nesting birds. J. For.73(7):414-417.

McConnell, Burt R., and Justin G. Smith.1965. Understory response three yearsafter thinning pine. J. Range Manage.18(3):129-132.

McConnell, Burt R., and Justin G. Smith.1970. Response of understory vegeta-tion to ponderosa pine thinnings ineastern Washington. J. Range Manage.23(3):208-212.

McEwan, E. H., and P. E. Whitehead.1970. Seasonal changes in the energyand nitrogen intake of reindeer andcaribou. Can. J. Zool. 48(5):905-913.

McFee, W. W., and E. L. Stone. 1966. Thepersistence of decaying wood in thehumus layers of northern forests. Soil.Sci. Sot. Am. Proc. 30(4):513-516.

McGowan, Jerry D. 1975. Distribution,density and productivity of goshawksin interior Alaska. Final Rep.,- Fed. AidW i l d l . Restor. Pro j . W-17-3, W-17-4,W-17-5, and W-17-6, 59 p. Alaska Dep.Fish and Game, Juneau.

McIntyre, Judith W. 1974. Territorial af-finity of a common loon. Bird-Banding45(2):178.

McKeever, S tu rg is . 1960 . Food o f thenorthern flying squirrel in northeasternCalifornia. J. Mammal. 41(2):270-271.

McKinney, Theodore Duane. 1966. Sur-vival, distribution and reproduction ofan introduced gray partridge popula-tion. MS. thesis. 55 p. Cola. State Univ.,Fort Collins.

McLaren, William David. 1962. A prelim-inary study of nest site competition ina group of hole nesting birds. M.S.thesis. 57 p. Univ. B. C., Vancouver.

MacMillan, P., J. Means, G. M. Hawk, K.Cromack, Jr., and R. Fogel. 1977. Logdecomposition in an old-growthDouglasfir f o r e s t . N o r t h w e s t S c i .Assoc. Program and Abstr. of the pa-pers scheduled for presentation at the50th Annu. Meet., p. 13.

References Cited 4 5 5

MacMillan, Paul C., Joseph Means, KermitCromack, Jr., and Glenn M. Hawk. [n.d.]Unpublished data on file at ForestrySciences Laboratory, 3200 JeffersonWay, Corvallis, Oreg. 97331. Used withpermission.

McNichol l , Martin Keli. 1971. The breed-ing biology and ecology of Forster’stern (Sterna forsteri) at Delta, Manitoba.M.S. thesis. 652 p. Univ. Manitoba, Win-nipeg.

Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecologyand relations of mule deer, elk, andcattle in the Missouri River Breaks,Montana. Wildl. Monogr. 20, 79 p.

Mackie, Richard John. 1960. The naturalannual cycle of reproduction in chuckarpartridge of southeastern Washington.MS. thesis. 110 p. Wash. State Univ.,Pullman.

Manuwal, David A. 1970. Notes on theterritoriality of Hammond‘s flycatcher(Empidonax hammondi) in westernMontana. Condor 72(3):364-365.

Marcellini, Dale, and James P. Mackey.1970. Habitat preferences of the liz-ards, Sceloporus occidentalis and S.graciosus (Lacertilia, Iguanidae). Herpe-tologica 26(1):51-56.

March, James Robert. 1967. Dominancerelations and territorial behavior of cap-t ive shovelers , Anas c l ypea fa . M.S .thesis. 47 p. Univ. Minn., Minneapolis.

Marcum, C. Les. 1975. Summer-fall habi-ta t se lec t ion and use by a westernMontana elk herd. Ph. D. diss. 203 p.Univ. Montana, Missoula.

Marcum, C. Les. 1976. Habitat selectionand use during summer and fall monthsby a western Montana elk herd. In Pro-ceedings of the elk-locqinq-roads sym-posium, Moscow, Idaho, -Dec. 16117,1975. D. 91-96. Susan R. Hieb. ed. Univ.Idaho,’ Moscow

Marcuson, Patrick E. [1977.) The effect ofcattle grazing on brown trout in RockCreek, M o n t a n a . Spec. Rep . , P ro j .F-20-R-21, Job 2-a, 26 p, Mont. Dep.Fish and Game, Fish. Div.

Margalef, Ramon. 1969. Diversity andstability: A practical proposal and amodel of interdependence. In Diversityand stability in ecological systems.Brookhaven Symp. Biol. 22, p. 25-37.Brookhaven Natl . Lab., Upton, N.Y.

Marks, G. C., and T. T. Kozlowski, Eds.1973. Ectomycorrhizae: Their ecologyand physiology. 444 p. Acad. Press,New York.

Marshall, David B. 1969. Endangeredplants and animals of Oregon: III. Birds.Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Rep. 278, 23 p.Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis.

Marshall, David B., and Harold F. Dueb-bert. 1965. Nesting of the ring-neckedduck in Oregon in 1963 and 1964. Mur-relet 46(3):43.

Marshall, Joe R., Jr. 1939. Territorial be-havior of the flammulated screech owl.Condor 41(2):71-78

Mart i , Carl D. 1974. Feeding ecology offour sympatric owls. Condor 76(1):45-61.

Mart i , Carl D., and Clait E. Braun. 1975.Use of tundra habitats by prairie fal-cons in Colorado. Condor 77(2):213-214.

Martin, Alexander C., Herbert S. Zim, andArnold L. Nelson. 1951. American wild-life & plants: A guide to wildlife foodhabits; the use of trees, shrubs, weeds,and herbs by birds and mammals of theUnited States. 500 p. McGraw-Hill BookCo.. New York.

Martin, Fant W. 1963. Behavior and sur-vival of Canada geese in Utah. Ph. D.diss. 98 p. Utah State Univ., Logan.

Martin, R. E. (1976.1 Prescribed burningfor site preparation in the inland North-west. In Tree planting in the inlandNorthwest, p. 134-156. David M. Baum-gartner and Raymond J. Boyd, eds.Wash. State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv.[Pullman.]

Martin, Robert E., Hal E. Anderson, WilliamD. Boyer, and others. [nd.] Effects offire of fuels: State-of-the-knowledge re-port. 224 p. Unpubl. data, SilvicultureLab., USDA For. Serv., Bend, Oreg.

Martin, Robert E., and John D. Dell. 1978.Planning for prescribed burning in theinland Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-76, 67 p. Pac. North-west For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland,Oreg.

Martin, Stephen G. 1970. The agonisticbehavior of varied thrushes (Ixoreusnaevius) in winter assemblages. Condor72(4):452-459.

Martin, Stephen G. 1974. Adaptations forpolygynous breeding in the bobolink,Dolichonyx oryzivorus. Am. Zool . 14(l):1 0 9 - l 1 9 .

Martin, Wm. F., and R. B. Huey. 1971.The function of the epiglottis in soundproduction (hissing) of Pituophis me-lanoleucus. Copeia 1971(4):752-754.

Marx, Donald t-1. 1973. Mycorrhizae andfeeder root d iseases. In Ectomycor-rhizae: Their ecology and physiology.G. C. Marks and T. T. Kozlowski, eds.p. 351-382. Acad. Press, New York.

Maser, Chris, and Jerry F. Franklin. 1974.Checklist of vertebrate animals of theCascade Head Experimental Forest.USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull. PNW.51,32 p. Pac. Northwest For. and RangeExp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Maser, Chris, and Jay S. Gashwiler. 1978.Interrelationships of wildlife and west-ern juniper. In Proceedings of the west-ern juniper ecology and managementworkshop. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.Rep. PNW-74, p. 37-82. Pac. NorthwestFor. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland,Oreg.

Maser, Chris, E. Wayne Hammer, andStanley H. Anderson. 1970. Compara-tive food habits of three owl species incentral Oregon. Murrelet 51(3):29-33.

Maser, Chris, E. Wayne Hammer, andStanley H. Anderson. 1 9 7 1 . Foodhabits of the burrowing owl in centralOregon. Northwest Sci. 45(1):19-26.

Maser, Chris, E. Wayne Hammer, CheriBrown, Rober t E . Lewis , Rober t L .Rausch, and Murray L. Johnson. 1974.The sage vole, Lagurus curtatus (Cope,1868) in the Crooked River NationalGrassland, Jefferson County, Oregon.A contribution to its life history andecology. S&rgetierkd. Mitt. 22(3):193-2 2 2 .

Maser, Chris, and Robert M. Storm. 1970.A key t o m ic ro t i nae o f t he Pac i f i cNorthwest (Oregon, Washington, Idaho).162 p. Oreg. State Univ. Book Stores,inc., Corvallis.

Maser , Chr is , James M. Trappe, andRonald A. Nussbaum. 1978. Fungal-small mammal interrelationships withemphasis on Oregon coniferous for-ests. Ecology 59(6):799-809.

Maser, Chris. [nd.] Unpublished data onfile at Puget Sound Museum of NaturalHistory, University of Puget Sound, Ta-coma, Wash. 98416. Used with permis-sion

Mason, C. F., and S. M. Macdonald. 1976.Aspects of the breeding biology of thesnipe. Bird Study 23(1):33-38.

Mason, Edwin A. 1953. Barn swallow lifehistory data based on banding records.Bird-Banding 24(3):91-100.

Mason, Georgia. 1 9 7 5 . G u i d e t o t h eplants of the Wallowa Mountains ofnortheastern Oregon. Mus. Nat. Hist.Spec. Publ., 4 1 1 p. U n i v . O r e g o n ,E u g e n e .

Massey, Calvin L., and Noel D. Wygarit.1973. Woodpeckers: Most importantpredators of the spruce beetle. Colo.Field Ornithol. 16, p. 4-8.

4 5 6 References Cited

Mathwig, Herbert J. 1973. Food and pop- Mewaldt, L. Richard. 1956. Nesting be-ulation characteristics of Iowa coyotes. havior of the Clark nutcracker. CondorIowa State J. Res. 47(3):167-189. 58(1):3-23.

Ma t t son , W i l l i am J . , F red B . Kn igh t ,i Doug las C . A l l en , and John L . Foltz.

1968. Vertebrate predation on the jack-pine budworm in Michigan. J. Econ.Entomol. 61(1):229-234.

Meyer, Walter H. 1961. Yield of even-agedstands of ponderosa pine. Tech. Bull.630 rev., 59 p. U.S. Dep. Agric., Wash-ington, D.C.

Maxwell, George Ralph, il. 1965. Life his-tory of the common grackle, Quisca/usquiscala (Linnaeus). Ph. D. diss. 232 p.Ohio State Univ., Columbus.

Michael, Chas. W. 1935. Nesting of theWi l l iamson sapsucker . Condor 37(4):209-210.

Mech, L. David, and L. Cl. Frenzel, Jr., Eds.1971. Ecological studies of the timberwolf in northeastern Minnesota. USDAFor. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-52, 62 p. NorthCent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Michener, Harold R., and Josephine R.Michener. 1935. Mockingbirds, theirterritories and individualities. Condor37(3):97-l 4 0 .

Meehan, William R. 1970. Some effectsof shade cover on stream temperaturein southeast Alaska. USDA For. Serv.

’ Res. Note PNW-113, 9 p. Pac. North-west For. and Range Exp. Stn., Port-land, Oreg.

Mickelson, P. G. 1975. Breeding biologyof cackling geese and associated spe-cies on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta,Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 45, 35 p.

Mielke, James L. 1950. Rate of deteriora-tion of beetle-killed Engelmann spruce.J. For. 48(12):882-888.

Melin, Elias, and Haro ld Nilsson. 1 9 5 7 .Transport of 04. label led photosynthateto the fungal associate of pine mycor-rhiza. Sven. Bot. Tidskr., Sweden 55(l):1 6 6 - 1 8 6 .

Miller, Alden H. 1939a. The breedingLeucost ic tes o f the Wallowa M o u n -tains, Oregon. Condor 41(1):34-35.

Miller, Alden H. 1939b. Status of thebreeding Lincoln’s sparrows of Oregon.Auk 56(3):342-343.

Menda l l , Howard L. 1958. The ring-neckedduck in the Northeast. Univ. Maine Bull.60(16), 2d Ser. 73, 317 p. Orono.

. Meng, Heinz K. 1 9 5 2 . The Cooper’shawk, Accipiter cooper/i (Bonaparte).Ph. D. thesis. 136 p. Cornell Univ.,Ithaca, N.Y

Miller, Alden H., and T. T. McCabe. 1935.Racial differentiation in Passerella(Melospiza) lincolnii. Condor 37(3):144-1 6 0 .

Meredith, Don H. 1976. Habitat selectionby two parapatric species of chipmunks(Eutamias). Can. J. Zool. 54(4):536-543.

Miller, Don, and Eileen Miller. 1974-75.Snags, partly dead and deformed trees.47 p. Umat i l la Natl. For., Pendleton,Oreg.

Meslow, E. Charles, and Howard M. Wight.1 9 7 5 . Av i fauna and success ion inDouglas-fir forests of the Pacific North-west. In Proceedings of the symposiumon management of forest and rangehabitats for nongame birds. D. R. Smith,ed. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.WO-1, p. 266-271. Washington, D.C.

Miller, Don E., and John T. Emlen. 1975.Individual chick recognition and familyintegrity in the ring-billed gull. Behav-iour 52(1-2):124-144.

Miller, Donald H., and Lowell L. Getz.1972. Factors influencing the local dis-tribution of the redback vole, Clethrion-omys gapperi, in New England. Univ.Conn. Occas. Pap. Biol. Sci. Ser. 2(9):115138.

Metcalf, M. E. 7963. 1962 Oregon logoroduction. USDA For. Serv. Resour.Bull. PNW-2, 2 p., illus. Pac. NorthwestFor. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland,Oreg.

Metcalf, M. E. 1964. 1963 Oregon logproduction. Misc. Publ., 2 p., illus. Pac.Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,Portland, Oreg.

Metter, Dean E. 1964. A morphologicaland ecological comparison of two pop-ulations of the tailed frog, Ascaphustruei Stejneger. Copeia 1964(1):181-195.

Miller, Donald H., and Lowell L. Getz.1973. Factors influencing the local dis-tribution of the redback vole, Clethrion-omys gapperi, in New England: II. Vege-tation cover, soil moisture, and debriscover. Univ. Conn. Occas. Pap. Biol.Sci. Ser. 2(11):159-180.

Miller, Howard A., and Lowell K. Halls.1969. Fleshy fungi commonly eaten bysouthern wildlife. USDA For. Serv. Res.Pap. SO-49, 28 p. South. For. Exp. Stn.,New Orleans. La.

Miller, Steven W., and John S. Barclay.1974. Predation in warm water reser-voirs by wintering common mergansers.ln Proceedings of the 27th annual con-ference of the Southeastern Associa-tion of Game and Fish Commissioners,Oct. 14-17, 1973, Hot Springs, Ark.,p. 243-252. [Columbia, S.C.]

Miller, Wayne. 1970. Factors influencingthe status of eastern and mountainbluebirds in southwestern Manitoba.Btue Jay 28(1):38-46.

Mills, Richard S., Gary W. Barrett, andMichael P. Farrell. 1975. Populationdynamics of the big brown bat (Eptesi-cus fuscus) in southwestern Ohio. J.Mammal. 56(3):591-604.

Minderman, G. 1968. Addition, decom-position and accumulation of organicmatter in forests. J. Ecol. 56(2):355-362.

Minore, Don. 1966. Identification of rot-ten logs in the coastal forests of Oregonand Washington. USDA For. Serv. Pac.Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,16 p. Portland, Oreg.

Minore, Don. 1970. Seedling growth ofeight northwestern tree species overthree water tables, USDA For. Serv.Res. Note PNW-115, 8 p. Pac. North-west For. and Range Exp. Stn., Port-land, Oreg.

Minore, Don, and Clark E. Smith. 1971.Occurrence and growth of four north-western t ree spec ies over sha l lowwater tables. USDA For. Serv. Res.Note PNW-160, 9 p. Pac. NorthwestFor. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland,Oreg.

Misterek, David Lloyd. 1974. The breed-ing ecology of the ruddy duck (Oxyurajamaicensis) on Rush Lake, WinnebagoCounty, Wisconsin. MS. thesis. 82 p.Univ. Wis., Oshkosh.

Mitchell, Glenn E. 1950. Wildlife-forestrelationships in the Pacific Northwestregion. J. For. 48(1):26-30.

Mitchell, Russel G., and Charles Sartwell.1974. Insects and other arthropods. InEnvironmental effects of forest resi-dues management in the Pacific North-west: A state-of-knowledge compen-dium. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.PNW-24, p. R-l to R-22. Pac. NorthwestFor. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland,Oreg.

Moen, Aaron N. 1973. Wildlife ecology;An analytical approach. 458 p. W. H.Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

Mohler, Levi L. 1974. Threatened wildlifeof Idaho. Idaho Wildl. Rev. 26(5):3-5.


Moisan, Gaston. 1966. The green-winged Morris, William, Ed. 1976. The Americanteal: Its distribution, migration andpopulation dynamics. Ph. D. diss. 354 p.

heritage dictionary of the English lan-

Lava1 Univ., Quebec.guage. New Coi l . ed. 1,550 p. HoughtonMifflin Co., Boston, Mass.

Moldenhauer, Ralph R. 1970. The effectsof temperature on the metabolic rateand evaporative water loss of the sagesparrow Amphispiza bel l i nevadensis.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 36(3):579-587.

Morse, Douglass H. 1972. Habitat differ-ences o f Swa inson ’s and hermi tthrushes. Wilson Bull. 84(2):206-208.

Moldenhauer, Ralph R., and John A.Wiens. 1970. The water economy ofthe sage sparrow, Amphisp iza bel l inevadensis. Condor 72(3):265-275.

Morse, Thomas E., Joel L. Jakabosky, andVernon P. McCrow. 1969. Some as-pects of the breeding biology of thehooded merganser. J. Wildl. Manage.33(3):596-604.

Molina, J. J. 1971. Muestreo de nidalespara aves insectivoras e n pinares d eSoria. Bol. Serv. Plagas For. 14(27):56-76. Madrid.

Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study.1975. Progress report for the periodJan. 1-Dec. 31, 1974. Annu. Prog. Rep.,Reg. 1, USDA For. Serv.; Intermt. For.and Range Exp. Stn.; Mont. Dep. Fishand Game; Bur. Land Manage.; Sch.For., Univ. Mont.

Morton, Martin L., and John S. Gallup.1975 Reproductive cycle of the Beld-i n g g r o u n d squirrel (Spermophilusbeldingi beldingl): Seasonal and agedifferences. Great Basin Nat. 35(4):427-4 3 3 .

Morton, Martin L., Judith L. Horstmann,and Janet M. Osborn. 1972. Reproduc-tive cycle and nesting success of themountain white-crowned sparrow(Zonotrichia leucophrys oriantha) in thecentral Sierra Nevada. Condor 74(2):1 5 2 - 1 6 3 .

Montgomery, Marvin L., and Logan A.Norris. 1970. A preliminary evaluationof the hazards of 2,4,5-T in the forestenv i ronment . USDA For . Serv . Res.Note PNW-116, 11 p. Pac. NorthwestFor. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland,Oreg.

Morton, Martin L., and Hsing-chu LucyTung. 1971. Growth and developmentin the Belding ground squirrel (Spermo-phi lus befdingi beldingh. J. Mammal.52(3):61 l-616.

Moore, A. W. 1933. Food habits of Town-send and coast moles. J. Mammal.14(1):36-40.

Moulton, John C., and Phillip V. Vander-schaegen. 1974. Bibliography of theruffed grouse. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour.,31 p. Madison.

Moore, A. W. 1940. Wild animal damageto seed and seed l ings on cu t -overDouglas-fir lands of Oregon and Wash-ington. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 706,28 p. Washington, D.C.

Munro, J. A. 1939. Studies of water-fowlin British Columbia: No. 9. Barrow’sgolden-eye, American golden-eye. Trans.R. Can. Inst. 22(48):259-318.

Moore, Albert Watts, and Elbert H. Reid.1951. The Dalles pocket gopher and itsinfluence on forage production of Ore-gon moun ta in meadows . U .S . Dep .Agric. Circ. 884, 36 p.

Munro, J. A. 1942. Studies of waterfowlin British Columbia: Buffle-head. Can.J. Res. Sect. D. 20(6):133-160.

Moravets, F. L. 1954. Forest statistics forCrook County, Oregon. For. Surv. Rep.1 1 4 , 2 2 p. Pac. Nor thwest For . andRange Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Murie, Adolph. 1940. Ecology of thecoyote in the Yellowstone. U.S. Natl.Park Serv. Fauna Ser. 4, Fauna of theNational Parks of the United States,206 p. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C.

Moravets, F. L. 1955. Forest statisticsfor Wheeler County, Oregon. For. Surv.Rep. 119. 23 D. Pac. Northwest For. andRange Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Murie, Jan 0. 1971. Behavioral relation-sh ips between two sympat r ic vo les(Microtus): Relevance to habitat segre-gation. J. Mammal. 52(1):181-186.

Murray, Keith F. 1 9 6 5 . Populationchanges during the 1957-1958 vole(Microtus) outbreak in California. Ecol-ogy 46(1-2):163-171.

Morris, R. F., Ed. 1963. The dynamics ofepidemic spruce budworm populations.Entomol. Sot. Can. Mem. 31, 332 p.

Morris, R. F., W. F. Cheshire, C. A. Miller,and D. G. Mott. 1958. The numericalresponse o f av ian and mamma l i anpredators during a gradation of thespruce budworm. Ecology 39(3):487-494.

Murton, R. K., C. F. B. Coombs, and R. J.P. Thearle. 1972. Ecological studies ofthe feral pigeon Columba livia var., Il.Flock behaviour and social organiza-tion. J. Appl. Ecol. 9(3):875-889.

Murton, R. K., R. J. P. Thearle, and C. F.B. Coombs. 1974. Ecological studiesof the feral pigeon Columba livia var.,Ill. Reproduction and plumage poly-morphism. J. App l . Ecol. 11(3):841-854.

Myers, Harriet Williams. 1912. Nestinghabits of the western bluebird. Condor14(6):221-222.

Myres, Miles Timothy. 1957. An intro-duction to the behavior of the golden-eyes: Bucephala islandica and B. clan-gula (class Aves: family Anatidae). MS.thesis. 254 p. Univ. B. C., Vancouver.

Navon, Daniel I. 1971. Timber RAM users’manual. Part I: Smokey Forest casestudy. USDA For. Serv. Pac. SouthwestFor. and Range Exp. Stn., 36 p. Berkeley,Calif.

Neff, Johnson Andrew. 1926. A study ofthe economic status of the commonwoodpeckers in re la t ion to Oregonhorticulture. M.S. thesis. 133 p. Oreg.State Coil., Corvallis.

Nellis, Carl H., and Lloyd B. Keith. 1968.Hunt ing ac t iv i t ies and success o flynxes in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage.32(4):718-722.

Nellis. Carl H., Stephen P. Wetmore, andLloyd B. Keith. 1972. Lynx-prey inter-actions in central Alberta. J. Wildl.Manage. 36(2):320-329.

Nelson, E. E., and G. M. Harvey. 1974.Diseases. In Environmental effects offo res t res idues management in thePacific Northwest: A state-of-knowledgecompendium. USDA For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-24, p. S-l to S-11. Pac.Northwest For. and Range Exp. Sm.,Portland, Oreg.

Nelson, Theodora. 1939. The biology ofthe spotted sandpiper, Actitis macularia(Linn.). Ph. D. diss. 170 p. Univ. Mich.,Ann Arbor.

Nethersole-Thompson, Desmond. 1 9 6 6 .The snow bunting. 316 p. Oliver andBoyd Ltd., London.

Newton, Michael. 1977. Vegetation man-agement alternatives in the practice ofsilviculture. Sot. Am. For. Proc. 1977:270-277.

Newton, Michael, and Joel A. Norgren.1977. Silvicultural chemicals and pro-tection of water quality. U.S. EPA, Reg.10, EPA Rep. 91019-77-036, 224 p. En-viron Prot. Agency, Seattle, Wash.


Nice, Margaret Morse. 1943. Studies inthe life history of the song sparrow: Il.The behavior of the song sparrow andother passer ines. Trans. L inn. Sot.New York 6:1-328.

iN i cho l l s , Thomas f-f., and Dwain W.

Warner. 1972. Barred owl habitat useas determined by radiotelemetry. J.Wildl. Manage. 36(2):213-224.

Nickell, Waiter P. 1966. The nesting ofthe black-crowned night heron and itsassociates. Jack-Pine Warbler 44(3):130-139.

Nielsen, Richard L. 1963. 1962 Washing-ton log production. USDA For. Serv.Resour. Bull. PNW-6, 2 p., illus. Pac.Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,Portland, Oreg.

Nobles, Mildred K. 1965. Identificationof cultures of wood-inhabiting Hymen-

! omycetes. Can. J. Bat. 43(9):1097-1139.

Norman, Richard F., and Raleigh J. Robert-son. 1975. Nest-searching behavior inthe brown-headed cowbird. Auk 92(3):610-611.

Norris, Logan A. 1974. The behavior andimpact of organic arsenical herbicidesin the forest: Final report on coopera-tive studies. 98 p. Typescript report onfile at USDA For. Serv. Pac. NorthwestFor. and Range Exp. Stn., Corvallis,

Norris, Robert A. 1958. Comparative bio-systematics and life history of the nut-hatches Sitta pygmaea and Sitta pusi l la.Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 56(2):119-300.

North Central Forest Experiment Station.1977. Proceedings-symposium on riverrecreation management and research.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28,455 p. St. Paul, Minn.

Northcott, Tom H., Neil F. Payne, andEugene Mercer. 1974. D ispersa l o fmink in insular Newfoundland. J. Mam-mal. 55(1):243-248.

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,[n.d.] ‘Sh igometer ’ -new too l fo r fo r -estry. Photo story 29. [4 p.] Northeast.For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Novakowski, N. S. 1 9 5 6 . Additionalrecords of bats in Saskatchewan. Can.Field Nat. 70(3):142.

Nowicki, Timothy. 1974. The census ofscreech owls (Otus as io ) us ing tape-recorded calls. Jack-Pine Warbler 52(3):98-101.

Nussbaum, Ronald A., and Chris Maser.1975. Food habits of the bobcat, Lynxrufus, in the Coast and Cascade Rangesof western Oregon in relation to pres-ent management policies. NorthwestSci. 49(4):261-266.

Odin, Clyde R. 1957. California gull pred-ation on waterfowl. Auk 74(2):185-202.

Odum, Eugene P. 1941a. Annual cycle ofthe b lack -capped ch ickadee- l . Auk58(3):314-333.

Odum, Eugene P. 1941 b. Annual cycle ofthe b lack-capped ch ickadee-2 . Auk58(4):518-535.

Odum, Eugene Pleasants. 1963. Ecology.152 p. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.,New York.

Odum, Eugene Pleasants. 1971. Funda-mentals of ecology. 3d ed. 574 p. W. B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

Odum, Howard T. 1970. Summary: Anemerging view of the ecological sys-tem at El Verde. In A Tropical rainforest. A study of irradiation and ecol-ogy at El Verde, Puerto Rico. Howard T.O&m and Robert F. Pigeon, eds. Book3. p. l-191 to l-289. US. At. EnergyComm. Tech. Inf. Cent., Oak Ridge,T e n n .

Oeming, Albert Frederick. 1955. A pre-liminary study of the great gray owl inA lber ta w i th observa t ions on someother species of owls. M.S. diss. 129 p.Univ. Alberta, Edmonton.

O’Farrell, M i chae l J . , and Eugene H .Studier. 1973. Reproduction, growthand development in Myotis fhysanodesand M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vesperti-lionidae). Ecology 54(1):18-30.

O’Farrell, Thomas P., Richard J. Olson,Richard 0. Gilbert, and John D. Hed-l u n d . 1975. A population of GreatBasin pocket mice, Perognathus par-vus, in the shrub-s teppe o f south-cen t ra l Wash ing ton . Eco l . Monogr .45(1):1-28.

Ohlendorf, Harry M. 1974. Competitiverelationships among kingbirds (Tyran-nus) in Trans-Pecos Texas. Wilson Bull.86(4):357-373.

Ohlendorf, Harry M. 1976. Comparativebreeding ecology of phoebes in Trans-Pecos Texas. Wilson Bull. 88(2):255-271.

Olendorff, Richard R. 1972. The largebirds of prey of the Pawnee NationalGrassland: Nesting habits and produc-tivity, 1969-1971. U.S. Int. Biol. Program,Grassland Biome Tech. Rep. 151, 59 p.Nat. Resour. Ecol. Lab., Cola. StateUniv., Fort Collins.

Olendorff, Richard R. 1976. The foodhab i t s o f Nor th Amer i can go ldeneagles. Am. Midl. Nat. 95(1):231-236.

Olson, David Peter. 1964. A study of can-vasback and redhead breeding popula-t ions : Nes t ing hab i ta ts and produc-tivity. Ph. D. diss. 106 p. Univ. Minn.,Minneapolis.

Olson, Jerry S. 1963. Energy storage andthe balance of producers and decom-posers in ecological systems. Ecology44(2):322-331.

Olson, Sigurd T., and William H. Marshall.1952. A common loon in Minnesota.Minn. Mus. Nat. Hist. Occas. Pap. 5,76 p. Univ. of Minn. Press, Minneapolis.

Olterman, James H., and B. J. Verts. 1972.Endangered plants and animals of Ore-gon: IV. Mammals. Agric. Exp. Stn.Spec. Rep. 364, 47 p. Oreg. State Univ.,Corvallis.

Oregon State Department of Fish andWildlife. [1977.] Oregon’s threatened orendangered wildlife. [Ron Shay, ed.]13 p. Oregon State Dep. Fish and Wildl.,Portland.

Oregon Laws, Statutes, etc. Ch. 316. [HB16241, June 5 , 1971. Oregon Fores t[Conservation] Practices Act. In its Ore-gon laws. 1971. Vol. 1, p. 455460.Salem, Oreg. Legis. Assem., 1971.

Ormiston, John H. 1966. Food habits,habitat and movements of mountainquail in Idaho. MS. thesis. 39 p. Univ.Idaho, Moscow.

Orr, Robert T. 1940. The rabbits of Cali-fornia. Calif. Acad. Sci. Occas. Pap. 19,2 2 7 p .

Orr, Robert T. 1954. Natural history ofthe pallid bat, Antrozous pal l idus (Le-Conte). Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. FourthSer. 28(4):165-246. San Francisco.

Orwell, George. 1 9 4 6 . Animal farm.118 p. Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc.,New York.

Otvos, lmre S. 1965. Studies on avianpredators of Dendroctonus brevicomisLeConte (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) withspecial reference to Picidae. Can. Ento-m o l . 9 7 ( 1 1 ) : 1 1 8 4 - l 1 9 9 .


Ouellet, Henri. 1970. Further observa-tions on the food and predatory habitsof the gray jay. Can. J. Zool . 48(2):327-3 3 0 .

Owen, Myrfyn. 1973. The winter feedingecology of wigeon at Bridgewater Bay,Somerset. Ibis 115(2):227-243.

Ozoga, John J., and Leslie W. Gysel.1972. Response of white-tailed deer towinter weather. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(3):8 9 2 - 8 9 6 .

Pace, Ann E. 1974. Systematic and bio-logical studies of the leopard frogs(Rana pipiens Complex) of the UnitedStates. Univ. Mich. Misc. Publ. Mus.2001. 148, 140 p. Ann Arbor.

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Ex-periment Station. 1962. 1960 Washington log production. For. Surv. Rep. 140,2 p., illus. Portland, Oreg.

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Ex-periment Station, Division of ForestEconomics Research. 1955~59a. T i m -ber harvest by ownership in State ofOregon. Unpublished reports on file atPac. Northwest For. and Range Exp.Stn., Portland, Oreg. 97208.

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Ex-periment Station, Division of ForestEconomics Research. 195559b. Tim-ber harvest by ownership in State ofWashington. Unpublished reports onfile at Pac. Northwest For. and RangeExp. Stn., Portland, Oreg. 97208.

Palmer, Ralph Simon. 1954. The mam-mal guide: Mammals of North Americanorth of Mexico. 384 p. Doubleday andCo., Inc., Garden City, N.Y.

Pank, Larry F. 1974. A bibliography ofseed-eating mammals and birds thataffect forest regeneration. U.S. Dep.Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Bur. SportFish. and Wildl. Spec. Sci.‘Rep. W’ildl.1 7 4 , 2 8 p .

Parker, William S. 1 9 7 2 . Ecologicalstudy of the western whiptai l lizard,Cnemidophorus tigris gracilis, in Ari-zona. Herpetologica 28(4):360-369.

Parker, William S. 1974a. Home range,growth, and population density of Utastansburiana in Arizona. J. Herpetol.8 ( 2 ) : 1 3 5 - l 3 9 .

Parker, William S., and William S. Brown.1974a. Notes on the ecology of regalringneck snakes (Diadophis punctafusregalis) in northern Utah. J. Herpetol.8(3):262-263.

Parker, William S., and William S. Brown.1974b. Mortality and weight changesof Great Basin rattlesnakes (Crotalusviridis) at a hibernaculum in northernUtah. Herpetologica 30(3):234-239.

Parker, William S., and Eric R. Pianka.1975. Comparative ecology of popula-tions of the lizard Uta stansburiana.Copeia 1975(4):615-632.

Parker, William Skinker. 1974b. Com-parative ecology o f two co lub r idsnakes, Masticophis t. taeniatus (Hal-lowel l ) a n d P i t u o p h i s melanoleucusdeserticola (Stejneger), in northernUtah. Ph. D. thesis. 307 p. Univ. Utah,Salt Lake.

Parsons, David R. 1975. Time and energybudgets of a population of dippers(Cinclus mexicanus) during winter inthe Cascade Range of Oregon. M.S.thesis. 29 p. Oreg. State Univ., Corval-lis.

Patton, David R. 1975. A diversity indexfor quantifying habitat “edge.” Wildl.Sot. Bull 3(4):171-173.

Patton, David R. 1978. Run wild: A stor-age and retrieval system for wildlifehabitat information. USDA For. Serv.Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-51, 8 p. Rocky Mt.For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins,Cola.

Patton, Robert Farmer. 1974. Ecologicaland behavioral relationships of theskunks of Trans-Pecos Texas. Ph. D.thesis. 219 p. Tex. A & M Univ., CollegeStation.

Peabody, Robert B., Judith A. Johnson,and Edmund D. Brodie, Jr. 1975. lntra-specific escape from ingestion of therubber boa, Charina bottae. J. Herpetol.9(2):237.

Peakal l , David B. 1970. The eastern blue-bird: Its breeding season, clutch sizeand nesting success. Living Bird 9:239-2 5 5 .

Pearson, Oliver P., Mary R. Koford, andAnita K. Pearson. 1952. Reproductionof the lump-nosed bat (Corynorhinusrafinesquei) in California. J. Mammal,33(3):273-320.

Pedersen, Richard J. [n.d.] Unpublisheddata on file at U.S. Dep. Agric., ForestService, Range and Wildlife HabitatLaboratory, “C” & Gekeler Lane, Route2, Box 2315, La Grande, Oreg. 97850.Used with permission.

Pendergast, B. A., and D. A. Boag. 1971.Nutritional aspects of the diet of sprucegrouse in central Alberta. Condor 73(4):4 3 7 - 4 4 3 .

Pengelly, W. L. 1972. Clearcutting: Detri.mental aspects for wildlife resources,J. Soil and Water Conserv. 27(6):255-2 5 8 .

Perry, Charles, and Robert Overly. 1977.Impact of roads on big game distribu-tion in portions of the Blue Mountainsof Washington, 1972-1973. Wash. GameDep. App l . Res. Sect., Bull. 11, 39 p.Olympia.

Petersen, Arnold J. 1955. The breedingcycle in the bank swallow. Wilson Bull.67(4):235-286.

Peterson, Roger Tory. 1 9 6 1 . A fieldguide to western birds: Field marks ofa l l spec ies found in Nor th Amer i cawest of the 100th meridian, with a sec-tion on the birds of the Hawaiian Is-lands. 2d ed. 366 p. Houghton MifflinCo., Boston.

Phillips, Thomas A. 1966. Calf drop ridgeelk calving ground survey. USDA For.Serv. Unpublished report, 4 p. SawtoothNatl. For., Twin Falls, Idaho.

Pianka, Eric R., and William S. Parker.1975. Ecology of horned lizards: A re-view with special reference to Phryno-soma platyrhinos. Copeia 1975(1):141-1 6 2 .

Pickwell, Gayle B 1931. The prairiehorned lark. Trans. Acad. Sci. St. ‘Louis,v o l . 2 7 , 1 5 3 p .

Pielou, E. C. 1975. Ecological diversity.165 p. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NewYork.

Pierovich, John M., Edward H. Clarke,Stewart G. Pickford, and Franklin R.Ward. 1975. Forest residues manage-ment guidelines for the Pacific North-west. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.PNW-33, 281 p. Pac. Northwest For.and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Pinkowski, Ben, and Larry Zeleny. 1975.Bibliography of the North Americanbluebirds (Sialia sialis, S. currucoides,and 5’. mexicana). 11 p., mimeogr.

Pitelka, Frank A. 1959. Numbers, breed-ing schedule, and territoriality in pec-toral sandpipers of northern Alaska.Condor 61(4):233-264.

Planck, Roy Jonathan. 1967. Nest siteselection and nesting of the Europeanstarling (Sturnus vulgaris L.) in Cali-fornia. Ph. D. thesis. 124 p. Univ. Calif.,Davis.

Poelker, Richard J., and Harry D. Hartwell.1973. Black bear of Washington. Wash.State Game Dep. Biol. Bull. 14, 180 p.Olympia.


Porter, David K., Mark A. Strong, J. BrentGiezentanner, and Ronald A. Ryder.1975. Nest ecology, productivity, andgrowth of the loggerhead shrike on theshor tgrass pra i r ie . Southwest . Nat .

’ 19(4):429-436.

Porter, Richard D., and Clayton M. White.1973. The peregrine falcon in Utah,emphasizing ecology and competitionwith the prairie falcon. Brigham YoungUniv. Sci. Bull. Biol. Ser. 18(l), 74 p.Provo, Utah.

ospahala, Richard S., David R. Ander-son, and Charles J. Henny. 1974. -Pop-ulation ecology of the mallard: Il. Breed-i ng hab i t a t cond i t i ons , s i ze o f t hebreeding populations, and productionindices. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. and Wildl.Resour. Publ. 115, 73 p.

;Pospelov, S. M. 1956. [The economic im-1 portance of woodpeckers in the forestso f Len ing rad d i s t r i c t . ] Zoo l . Zh . 35(4):

600-605. [In Russ.]

Poston, H. J . 1974. Home range andbreeding biology of the shoveler. Can.Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. 25, 49 p. Ottawa.

Poutson, Thomas L., and David C. Culver.1969. Diversity in terrestrial cave com-munities. Ecology 50(1):153-158.

Poulson, Thomas L., and William B. White.1969. The cave environment. Science

165(3897):971-981.

Power, Harry W., III. 1966. Biology of themountain bluebird in Montana. Condor68(4):351-371.

Powers, Roger A., and B. J. Verts. 1971.Reproduction in the mountain cotton-tail rabbit in Oregon, J. Wildl. Manage.35(4):605-613.

Poznanin, L. P., Ed. 1956. [Ways andmeans o f us ing b i rds i n comba t ingnoxious insects.] Proceedings of con-ferences held on Nov. 25-28, 1953, andDec. 21-23, 1954. 138 p. Izd. Minist.sel’sk Khoz. S.S.R., Moscow, Russia.[In Russ.]

Pratt, Helen M. 1970. Breeding biologyo f g rea t b lue he rons and commonegrets in central California. Condor72(4):407-416.

Preston, F. W. 1960. Time and space andthe variation of species. Ecology 41(4):6 1 l - 6 2 7 .

Preston, F. W., and R. T. Norris. 1947.Nest ing he igh ts o f b reed ing b i rds .Ecology 28(3):241-273.

Price, Frank E., and Carl E. Bock. 7973.Polygyny in the dipper. Condor 75(4):4 5 7 - 4 5 9 .

Pruitt, William O., Jr. 1954. Notes onColorado Phenacomys and pikas. J.Mammal. 35(3):450-452.

Pulliainen, Erkki. 1971. Winter nutritionof crossbills (Loxia curvirostra and L.leucoptera) in northeastern Lapland in1969. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 8(2):326-329.

Pulliainen, Erkki. 1972. Summer nutritionof crossbills (Loxia pyfyopsiftacus, L.curvirostra and L. leucoptera) in north-eastern Lapland in 1971. Ann. Zool.Fenn. g(l):2831.

Pulliam, H. Ronald, and Frank Enders.1971. The feeding ecology of five sym-patr ic finch species. Ecology 52(4):557-5 6 6 .

Purdue, James Richard. 1974. Adapta-tions of the snowy plover, Charadriusalexandrinus, to an inland salt plain.Ph. D. thesis. 82 p. Univ. Okla., Norman.

Quaintance, Charles W. 1942. Americanreds tar t in eas tern Oregon. Condor44(6):282.

Quaintance, Charles W. 1944. Californiacuckoo collected in eastern Oregon.Condor 46(2):89-90.

Radwan, M. A. 1963. Protecting foresttrees and their seed from wild mam-mals (A review of the literature). USDAFor. Serv. Res. Pap. PNWB, 28 p. Pac.Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,Portland, Oreg.

Rahn, Hermann. 1942. The reproductivecyc le o f t he p ra i r i e ra t t l e r . Cope ia1942(4):233-240.

Rausch, R. A., and A. M. Pearson. 1972.Notes on the wolverine in Alaska andthe Yukon Territory. J. Wildl. Manage.36(2):249-268.

Rawls, Charles K., Jr. 1949. An investiga-tion of the life history of the white-winged scoter (Melanit ta fusca deglan-d/J. M.S. thesis. 128 p. Univ. Minn.,Minneapolis.

Rees, William Ernest. 1973. Comparativeecology of three sympatric sparrows ofthe genus i’onotrichia. Ph. D. thesis.224 p, Univ. Toronto, Toronto.

Reese, Jan G. 1975. Productivity andmanagement of feral mute swans inChesapeake Bay. J. Wildl. Manage.39(2):280-286.

Reeve, Wayne L. 1952. Taxonomy anddistribution of the horned lizard genusPhrynosoma. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. Vol.34, Part 2, No. 14, p. 817-960. Lawrence.

Reeves, Henry M., Compiler. 1975. Acontribution to an annotated bibt iogra-phy of North American cranes, rails,woodcock, snipe, doves, and pigeons.U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv.Natl. Tech. fnf. Serv. Rep. PB-240-999,527 p. [Off. Migratory Bird Manage.,Laurel, Md.]

Reichard, Timothy A. 1974. Barred owlsightings in Washington. West. Birds5(4):138-140.

Resler, Rexford A . 1972 . C lea rcu t t i ng :Bene f i c ia l aspec ts fo r w i l d l i f e re -sources. J. Soil and Water Conserv.27(6):250-254.

Reynolds, Hudson G. 1962. Use of natu-ral openings in a ponderosa pine forestof Arizona by deer, elk, and cattle.USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mt. For. andRange Exp. Stn. Res. Note 78, 4 p. FortCollins, Colo.

Reynolds, Hudson G. 1 9 6 6 a . Use ofopenings in spruce-fir forests of Ari-zona by elk, deer and cattle. USDA For.Serv. Res. Note RM-66, 4 p. Rocky Mt.For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins,Cola.

Reynolds, Hudson G. 1 9 6 6 b . Slashcleanup in a ponderosa pine forest af-fects use bv deer and cattle. USDA For.Serv. Res. Note RM-64, 3 p. Rocky Mt.For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins,Cola.

Reynolds, Richard T. 1970. Nest obser-vations of the long-eared owl (Asiootus) in Benton County, Oregon, withnotes on their food habits. Murrelet51(1):8-Q.

Reynolds, Richard Truman. 1975. Distri-bution, density, and productivity ofthree spec ies o f acc ip i te r hawks inOregon. M.S. thesis. 39 p. Oreg. StateUniv., Corvallis.

Robbins, Sam. 1974. The willow andalder flycatchers in Wisconsin: A pre-liminary description of summer range.Passenger Pigeon 36(4):147-152.

Roberts, Hadley B. 1 9 7 4 . Ef fects o flogging on elk calving habitat, MoyerCreek, Salmon National Forest, Idaho.USDA For. Serv., Salmon Natl . For.,22 p. Salmon, Idaho.

Roberts, Hadley B., and Gordon S. Lind.1972. Status of the American osprey inOregon. North Am. Osprey Res. Conf.Trans., 1971, p. 215-222. Oreg. Coop.Wildl. Res. Unit. Corvallis. and USDAFor. Serv. Coop. Rep


Roberts, Joan Beltz. 1969. Vocalizationsof the rufous-sided towhee, Pip i lo erythrophthalmus oregonus. Condor 71(3):2 5 7 - 2 6 6 .

Robinette, W. Leslie, Jay S. Gashwiler,and Owen W. Morris. 1961. Notes oncougar productivity and life history. J.Mammal. 42(2):204-217.

Roest, A. I. 1957. Notes on the Americansparrow hawk. Auk 74(1):1-19.

Rogers, John Patrick. 1962. The ecologi-cal effect of drought on reproductionof the lesser scaup, Aythya affinis (Ey-ton). Ph. D. diss. 109 p. Univ. MO., Co-lumbia.

Rothacher, Jack, and William W. Lopu-shinsky. 1974. Soil stability and wateryield and quality. In Environmental ef-fects of forest residues management inthe Pac i f i c Nor thwest : A state-of-knowledge compendium. USDA For.Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24, p. D-l toD-23. Pac. Northwest For. and RangeExp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Ruben, John A. 1976. Reduced nocturnalheat loss associated with ground litterburrowing by the California red-sidedgarter snake Thamnophis sirtalis infer-nal is. Herpetologica 32(3):323-325.

Ruffer, David G. 1965. Burrows and bur-rowing behavior of Onychomys leuco-gaster. J. Mammal. 46(2):241-247.

Ruibal, Rudolfo. 1962. The ecology andgenetics of a desert population of Ranapipiens. Copeia 1962(1):189-195.

Rundquist, Vaughn Marlan. 1974. Avianecology on stock ponds in two vegeta-tional types in north-central Montana.Ph. D. thesis. 125 p. Mont. State Univ.,Bozeman.

Rusch, Dona ld H. , E . Char les Meslow,Phi l l ip D. Doerr, and Lloyd B. Keith.1972. Response of great horned owlpopulations to changing prey densi-ties. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(2):282-296.

Rush, William Marshall. 1932. NorthernYellowstone elk study. 131 p. Mont.F i sh and Game Comm. [M issou l i anPubl. Co., Missoula, Mont.]

Rushmore, Francis M. 1973. Techniquesfor calling sapsuckers and finding theirnesting territories. USDA For. Serv.Res. Pap. NE-281, 7 p. Northeast. For.Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Russel l , Henry N. , J r . , and Angus M.Woodbury. 1941. Nesting of the grayflycatcher. Auk 58(1):28-37.

Rust, Henry Judson. 1946. Mammals ofnorthern Idaho. J. Mammal. 27(4):308-3 2 7 .


Ruth, Robert H., and A. S. Harris. 1975.Forest res idues in hemlock-spruceforests of the Pacific Northwest andAlaska: A state-of-knowledge reviewwi th recommendat ions fo r res iduemanagement. USDA For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-39, 52 p. Pac. North-west For. and Range Exp. Stn., Port-land, Oreg.

Rutter, Russell J. 1969. A contributionto the biology of the gray jay (Peri-soreus canadensis). Can. Field Nat.83(4):300-316.

Ryder, John P. 1972. Biology of nestingRoss’s geese. Ardea 60(3-4):185-215.

Ryder, John Pemberton. 1967a. T h ebreeding biology of Ross’ goose in thePerry River region, Northwest Territo-ries. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. 3, 56 p.Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa.

Ryder , Rona ld A . 1967b. D is t r ibu t ion ,migration and mortality of the white-faced ib i s (Plegadis chihi) i n Nor thAmerica. Bird-Banding 38(4):257-277.

Sabine, Winifred S. 1959. The wintersociety of the Oregon junco: Intoler-ance, dominance, and the peckingorder. Condor 61(2):110-135.

Salt, George W., and Daniel E. Willard.1971. The hunting behavior and suc-cess of Forster’s tern. Ecology 52(6):9 8 9 - 9 9 8 .

Sanderson, Glen C., and Helen C. Schultz,Eds. 1973. Wild turkey management:Current problems and programs. 355 p.Univ. MO. Press, Columbia.

Sargeant, Alan B., and Dwain W. Warner.1972. Movements and denning habitsof a badger. J. Mammal. 53(1):207-210.

Sather, J. Henry. 1958. Biology of theGreat P la ins muskrat in Nebraska.Wildl. Monogr. 2, 35 p.

Saul, Scott, Mark Swisher, Cliff Oakley,and o thers . (1977.1 A survey o f batpopulations and their habitat prefer-ences in southern Oregon. A student-oriented studies project funded by Natl.Sci. Found. through South. Oreg. StateCoil., Ashland. 89 p.

Savely, Harvey Epperson, Jr. 1939. Eco.logical relations of certain animals indead pine and oak logs. Ecol. Monogr.9(3):321-385.

Scheffer, Theo. H. 1938. Pocket mice ofWashington and Oregon in relation toagriculture. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull.608, 16 p. Washington, D.C.

Schil ler, Robert John. 1973. Reproduc-tive ecology of female sharp-tailedgrouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus) andits relationship to early plant succes-sion in northwestern Minnesota. Ph. D.thesis. 186 p. Univ. Minn., St. Paul.

Schitoskey, Frank, Jr., James Evans, andG. Keith LaVoie. 1972. Status and con-trol of nutria in California. In Proceed-ings: Fifth vertebrate pest conference,Fresno, Calif., p. 1517. Rex E. Marsh,ed. [Dep. Anim. Physiol., Univ. Caiif.,Davis.]

Schmidt, Karl Patterson, and D. DwightDavis. 1941. Field book of snakes ofthe United States and Canada. 365 p.G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.

Schmidt, Wyman C., and Raymond C.Shearer. 1971. Ponderosa pine seed-for animals or trees? USDA For. Serv.Res. Pap. INT-112, 14 p. Intermt. For.and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Schmidt-Nielsen, Knut, and Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen. 1952. Water metabolism ofdesert mammals. Physiol. Rev. 32(2):135166.

Schneider, Dean G., L. David Mech, andJohn R. Tester. 1971. Movements offemale raccoons and their young asdetermined by radio tracking. Anim.Behav. Monogr. 4(part l), 43 p.

Schnell, Gary D. 1968. Differential habi-tat utilization by wintering rough-leggedand red-tailed hawks. Condor 70(4):373-3 7 7 .

Schnell, Jay H. 1969-70. Rest site selec-tion by radio-tagged raccoons. J. Minn.Acad. Sci. 36(2-3):83-88.

Schroder, Gene D., and Michael L. Rosen-zweig. 1975. Perturbation analysis ofcompetition and overlap in habitat utili-zation between Dipodomys ordii andDipodomys merriami. Oecologia (Berl.)19(1):9-28.

Schroeder, Max H., and David L. Sturges.1975. The effect on the Brewer’s spar-row of spraying big sagebrush. J. RangeManage. 28(4):294-297.

Schwarz, Charles F., Edward C. Thor, andGary H. Elsner. 1976. Wi ld land plan-ning glossary. USDA For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-13, 252 p. Pac. South-west For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berke-ley, Calif.

Schwarz, Ernest, and Henriette K. Schwarz.1943. The wild and commensal stocksof the house mouse, Mus musculus Lin-naeus. J. Mammal. 24(1):59-72.

Scott, J. Michael, Thomas W. Haislip, Jr.,and Margaret Thompson. 1972. A bib-liography of Oregon ornithology (19351970) with a cross-referenced list of

I( the b i rds o f Oregon. Nor thwest Sc i .46(2):122-139.

Sebetich, Michael John. 1969. Spatialdistribution, movement, and growth ofthe bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana Shaw.M.A. thesis. 75 D. Col l . William andMary, Williamsburg, Va.

Seidel, K. W. 1973. Mixed pine-fir ofeastern Oregon and Washington. U.S.Dep. Agric. Handb. 445, p. 15-17. Wash-ington, D.C.

Seidel, K. W. 1974. Natural regenerationof east-side conifer forests. In Environ-mental effects of forest residues man-agement in the Pacific Northwest: Astate-of-knowledge compendium. USDAFor. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24,p, L-l to L-25. Pac. Northwest For. andRange Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Seidensticker, John C., IV., Maurice G.Hornocker, Wilbur V. Wiles, and JohnP. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion socialorganization in the Idaho primitivearea. Wildl. Monogr. 35, 60 p.

Selander, Robert K. 1954. A systematicreview of the booming nighthawks ofwestern North America. Condor 56(2):5 7 - 8 2 .

Seton, Ernest Thompson. 1928. Lives ofgame animals. Vol. 2, part 2, 460 p.Charles T. Branford Co., Boston.

Settergren, Carl D. 1977. Impacts of riverrecreation use on streambank soils andvegetation: State-of-the-knowledge. InProceedings: Symposium on river recre-ation management and research, p. 5559. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.NC-28, North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St.Paul, Minn.

Severaid, Joye Harold. 1950. The p igmyrabbit (Sylvilagus idahoensis) in MonoCounty, California. J. Mammal. 31(1):1-4.

Shapiro, Jacob. 1949. Ecological and lifehistory notes on the porcupine in theAdirondacks. J. Mammal. 30(3):247-257.

Sharpe, William E. 1975. Timber manage-ment influences on aquatic ecosystemsand recommendations for future re-search. Water Resour. Bull. 11(3):546-5 5 0 .

Shaw, Roger H. 1977. Secondary windspeed maxima inside plant canopies. J.Appl. Meteorol. 16(5):514-521.

Shaw, William T. 1921. Moisture and alti.tude as factors in determining the sea.sonal activities of theTownsend groundsauirrel in Washinaton. Ecoloav 2(3):189.192.

-,

Shaw, William T. 1924. Alpine life of theheather vole (Phenacomys olympicus).J. Mammal. 5(1):12-l!%

Shaw, William T. 1926. Age of the animaland slope of the ground surface, fac-tors modifying the structure of hiberna.tion dens of ground squirrels. J. Mam-mal. 7(2):91-96.

Sheldon, William G. 1949. Reproductivebehavior of foxes in New York State. J.Mammal. 30(3):236-246.

Sheppe, Walter. 1967. Habitat restriction

Sheppard, David Henry. 1965. Ecology of

by. competitive exclusion in the mice

the ch ipmunks, Eutamias amoenus

Peromvscus and Mus. Can. Field Nat.81(2):8i-98.

luteiventr is (A l l en ) and E. minimusoreocetes Merriam. Ph.D. thesis. 255 p.Univ. Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

Sherwood, Glen A. 1960. The whistlingswan in the West with particular refer.ence to Great Salt Lake Valley, Utah.Condor 62(5):370-377.

Shiqo, Alex L., and Lawrence Kilham.1968. Sapsuckers and Fomes igniariusvar. oooul inus. USDA For. Serv. Res.Note’ N’E-84, 2 p. Northeast. For. Exp.Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Shigo, Alex L., and Edwin vH. Larson.1969. A photo guide to the patterns ofdiscoloration and decay in living north-ern hardwood trees. USDA For. Serv.Res. Pap. NE-127, 100 p. Northeast. For.Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Short, Lester L. 1974. Habits and inter-actions of North American three-toedwoodpeckers (P i co ides arcticus a n dPicoides tridactylus). Am. Mus. Novit.2547, 42 p. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., NewYork.

Shump, Ann U., Karl A. Shump, Jr., GaryA . He id t , and R icha rd J . Au le r i ch .1976a. A b i b l i o g r a p h y o f mustelids,Part II: Mink. Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn.7390, 156 p, Mich. State Univ., EastLansing.

Shump, Karl A., Jr., Ann U. Shump, Rich-ard J. Aulerich, and Gary A. Heidt.1976b. A bibliography of mustelids,Part V: Otters. Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn.7759, 32 p. Mich. State Univ., East Lan-sing.

Shump, Kar l A . , J r . , Ann U . Shump,Thomas W. Nelson, Gary A. Heidt, andRichard J. Aulerich. 1975. A bibliogra-phy of muste l ids, Par t I I I : Skunks.Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn. 7472, 34 p. Mich.State Univ., East Lansing.

Skovlin, Jon M., Robert W. Harris, GeraldS. Strickler, and George A. Garrison.1976. Effects of cattle grazing methodson ponderosa pine-bunchgrass rangein the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dep.Agric. Tech. Bull. 1531, 40 p. Washing-ton, D.C.

Slankis, V. 1973. Hormonal relationshipsin mycorrhizal development. In Ectomy-corrhizae: Their ecology and physiol-ogy. G. C. Marks and T. T. Kozlowski,eds. p. 231-298. Acad. Press, New York.

Skryja, David D. 1 9 7 4 . Reproductivebiology of the least chipmunk (Eutamiasminimus operar ius) in southeasternWyoming. J. Mammal. 55(1):221-224.

Sloan, Norman F., and Harry C. Coppel.1968. Ecological implications of birdpredators on the larch casebearer inWisconsin. J . Econ. E n t o m o l . 61(4):1 0 6 7 - 1 0 7 0 .

Smith, Andrew T. 1974a. The distributionand dispersal of pikas: Influences ofbehavior and climate. Ecology 55(6):1 3 6 8 - 1 3 7 6 .

Smith, David Martyn. 1962. The practiceof silviculture. 7th ed. 578 p. JohnWiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Smith, Dwight G., Charles R. Wilson, andHerbert H. Frost. 1972. The biology ofthe American kestrel in central Utah.Southwest. Nat. 17(1):73-83.

Smith, Dwight G., Charles R. Wilson, andHerbert H. Frost. 1974. History andecology of a colony of barn owls inUtah. Condor 76(2):131-136.

Smith, Robert I. 1968a. The social as-pects of reproductive behavior in thepinta i l . Auk 83(3):381-396.

Smith, Robert Leo. 1963. Some ecologi-cal notes on the grasshopper sparrow.Wilson Bull. 75(2):159-165.

Smith, Susan M. 1973a. A study of prey-attack behaviour in young loggerheadshrikes, Lanius ludovicianus L. Behav-iour 44(1-2):113-141.

Smith, Susan M. 1973b. An aggressivedisplay and related behavior in the log-gerhead shrike. Auk 90(2):287-298.

Smith, Susan M. 1974b. Nest site selec-tion in black-capped chickadees. Con-dor 76(4):478-479.


Smith, Walton A. 1968b. The band-tailed Soil Science Society of America. 1973.pigeon in California. Calif. Fish and Glossary of soil science terms. 36 p.Game 54(1):4-16. Madison, Wis.

Snapp, Barbara D. 1973. The occurrenceof colonial breeding in the barn swal-low (Hirundo rustica) and its adaptivesignificance. Ph. D. thesis. 209 p. Cor-nell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.

Snead, Edwin, and George 0. Hendrick-son. 1942. Food habits of the badgerin Iowa. J. Mammal. 23(4):380-391.

Solomon, J. D., and R. C. Morris. 1971.Woodpeckers in the ecology of south-ern hardwood borers. In Tall TimbersConference on Ecological Animal Con-trol by Habitat Management, Proceed-ings, 1970, No. 2, p. 309-315. Tall Tim-bers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Fla.

Snow, Carol. 1972. Habitat managementseries for endangered species: Ameri-can peregrine falcon Falco peregrinusanatum and a rc t i c pe reg r ine fa l conFalco peregrinus tundrius. U.S. Dep.Inter., Bur. Land Manage. Tech. Note167, Rep. 1, 35 p. Denver, Colo.

Solomon, James D. 1969. Woodpeckerpredation in insect borers in livinghardwoods. Ann. Entomol. Sot. Am.62(5):1214-1215.

Sooter, Clarence A. 1941a. Americanegret, Treganza heron, and ring-billedgull at Malheur Lake in winter. Condor43(2):121.

Snow, Carol. 1973a. Habitat manage-ment series for unique or endangeredspecies: Golden eagle Aqui la chrysae-tos. US. Dep. Inter.,-Bur. Land Manage.Tech. Note 239, Rep. 7, 52 p. Denver,Cola.

Sooter, Clarence A. 1941b. Additionalrecords of the western mockingbird inOregon. Condor 43(3):157.

Sooter, Clarence A. 1945. Relations ofthe American coot with other waterfowl.J. Wildl. Manage. 9(2):96-99.

Snow, Carol. 1973b. Habitat manage-ment series for endangered species:Southern bald eagle Haliaeetus leuco-cephalus leucocephalus and northernbald eagle t ial iaeetus leucocephalusalascanus. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. LandManage. Tech. Note No. 171, Rep. 5,58 p. Denver, Colo.

Snow Carol. 1974a. Habitat managementseries for unique or endangered spe-cies: Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis.U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage.Tech. Note 255, Rep. 13, 23 p. Denver,Cola.

Snow, Carol. 1974b. Habitat manage-ment series for unique or endangeredspecies: Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus.U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage.Tech. Note 240, Rep. 8, 18 p. Denver,Cola.

Snow, Carol. 1974c. Habitat manage-ment series for endangered species:Spotted bat Euderma maculatum. U.S.Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage. Tech.Note 170, Rep. 4, 13 p. Denver, Colo.

4 6 4

Snyder, Gordon G., Harold F. Haupt, andGeorge H. Belt, Jr. 1975. Clearcuttingand bu rn ing s lash a l t e r qua l i t y o fstream water in northern Idaho. USDAFor. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-168, 34 p.Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn.,Ogden, Utah.

References Cited

Snyder, L. L. 1949. The snowy owl migra-tion of 1946-47. Wilson Bull. 61(2):99-1 0 2 .

Sorenson, M. W. 1962. Some aspects ofwater shrew behavior. Am. Midl. Nat.68(2):445-462.

Southern, William Edward. 1968. Therole of environmental factors in ring-billed and herring gull orientation.Ph. D. diss. 292 p. Cornell Univ., Ithaca,N . Y .

Sou thern Fores t Exper imen t S ta t ion .1969. White-tailed deer in the southernforest habitat: Proceedings of a sym-posium at Nacogdoches, Texas, March25-26, 1969. USDA For. Serv., in cooper-ation with For. Game Comm. South-east. Sect. Wildl. Sot. and Sch. For.,Stephen F. Austin State Univ. [NewOrleans, La.]

Spalding, D. J., and H. B. Mitchell. 1970.Abundance and distribution of Cali-fornia bighorn sheep in North America.J. Wildl. Manage. 34(2):473-475.

Sparks, Donnie R. 1968. Diet of black-tailed jackrabbits on sandhil l rangelandin Colorado. J. Range Manage. 21(4):203-208.

Spencer, Howard E., Jr. 1953. The cinna-mon teal (Anas cyanoptera Vieillot) itslife history, ecology, and management.M.S. thesis. 184 p. Utah State Agric.Coil., Logan.

Springer, Alan M. 1975. Observations onthe summer diet of rough-legged hawksfrom Alaska. Condor 77(3):338-339.

Staebler, Arthur Eugene. 1949. A com-parative life history study of the downyand hairy woodpeckers (Dendrocopospubescens and Dendrocopus vi/lows).Ph. D. diss. 234 p. Univ. Mich., AnnArbor.

Stallcup, Patrick L. 1968. Spatio-temporalrelationships of nuthatches and wood-peckers in ponderosa pine forests ofColorado. Ecology 49(5):831-843.

Stanley, William C. 1963. Habits of thered fox in northeastern Kansas. Univ.Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Publ. 34,31 p. Topeka State Biol. Surv. Kans.,Lawrence.

States, James B. 1976. Local adapta-tions in chipmunk (Eutamias amoenus)populations and evolutionary potentialat species’ borders. Ecol. Monogr. 46(3):2 2 1 - 2 5 6 .

Stebbins, Robert C. 1944. Field notes ona lizard, the mountain swift, with spe-cial reference to territorial behavior.Ecology 25(2):233-245.

Stebbins, Robert C. 1966. A field guideto western reptiles and amphibians:Field marks of all species in westernNorth America. 279 p. Houghton MifflinCo. Boston.

Stebbins, Robert Cyril. 1951. Amphibiansof western North America. 539 p. Univ.Calif. Press, Berkeley.

Stebbins, Robert Cyril. 1954. Amphibiansand reptiles of western North America.528 p. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NewYork.

Stefanski, Raymond A. 1967. Utilizationof the breeding territory in the black-capped chickadee. Condor 69(3):259-2 6 7 .

Steiner, A. L. 1971. Play activity of Co-lumbian ground squirrels, Z. Tierpsy-chol . 28(3):247-261.

Steirly, C. C. 1957. Nesting ecology ofthe red-cockaded woodpecker in Vir-ginia. Atl. Nat. 12(6):280-292.

Stelfox, John G. 1976. Range ecology ofRocky Moun ta in b ighorn sheep inCanadian national parks, Can. Wildl.Serv. Rep. Ser. 39, 50 p. Ottawa.

Stepney, Philip H. R. 1975. Winteringdistribution of Brewer’s blackbird: His-torical aspect, recent changes, andf l uc tua t i ons . B i rd -Band ing 46(2):106-1 2 5 .

Stewart, Paul A. 1952. Dispersal, breed-ing behavior, and longevity of bandedbarn owls in North America. Auk 69(3):2 2 7 - 2 4 5 .

Stickel, Paul W. 1940. The effect of basal-wounding by fire on trees in the North-east. USDA For. Serv. Northeast. For.Exp. Stn. Tech. Note 30, 2 p.

Stoddard, Herbert L. 1931. The bobwhitequail: Its habits, preservation and in-crease. 559 p. Charles Scribner’s Sons,New York.

Stoddard, Herbert L. 1961. The coopera-tive quail study association. Tall Tim-bers Res. Stn. Misc. Publ. 1. 500 D. Tal-lahassee, Fla.

Stoner, Dayton. 1936. Studies on thebank swallow Riparia riparia riparia (Lin-naeus ) i n the One ida Lake reg ion .Roosevelt Wild Life Ann. 4(2):126-233.Roosevelt Wild Life For. Exo. Stn.. N.Y.State Col t For. Syracuse ‘Univ., ‘Syra-cuse.

Storer, T. I., F. P. Cronemiller, E. E. Horn,and Ben Glading. 1942. Studies onvalley quail. Calif. Agric. Stn. Bull. 663:130-135.

Storm, Gerald L., Ronald D. Andrews,Robert L. Phillips, Richard A. Bishop,Donald B. Siniff, and John R. Tester.1976. Morphology, reproduction, dis-persal, and mortality of midwestern redfox populations, Wildl. Monogr. 49,82 p.

Storm, Robert M. 1 9 6 6 . Endangeredplants and animals of Oregon: II. Am-phibians and reptiles. Agric. Exp. Stn.Spec. Rep. 206, 12 p. Oreg. State Univ.,Corvallis.

Stout, I. Jack, and Daniel E. Sonenshine.1974. Ecology of an opossum popula-tion in Virginia, 1963-69. Acta Theriol.19(15):235-245.

Streubel, Donald P. 1968. Food storingand related behavior of red squirrels(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) in interiorAlaska. M.S. thesis. 56 p. Univ. Alaska,Fairbanks.

Struthers, Parke H. 1928. Breeding habitsof the Canadian porcupine (Erethizondorsatum). J. Mammal. 9(4):300-308.

Stull, Olive Griffith. 1940. Variations andre la t ionsh ips in the snakes o f thegenus Pituophis. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull.175, 225 p. Washington, D.C.

Sturman, William A. 1968. Descriptionand analysis of breeding habitats ofthe chickadees, Parus atricapil lus andP. rufescens. Ecology 49(3):418-431.

Sullivan, Edward G. 1956. Gray fox repro-duction, denning, range and weights inAlabama. J. Mammal. 37(3):346-351.

Summers-Smith, James Denis. 1963. Thehouse sparrow. 269 p, Collins, London.

Summers-Smith, James Denis. 1967. Anannotated bibliography of the genusPasser. Int. Stud. Sparrows 1(2):3-82.

Summers-Smith, James Denis, and J. Pin-owski. 1968. An annotated bibliogra-phy of the genus Passer. II. Int. Stud.Sparrows 2(2):43-75.

Tabor, James E/don. 1974. Productivity,survival, and population status of riverotter in western Oregon. MS. thesis.62 p. Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis.

Sumner, E. Lowell, Jr. 1935. A life his-tory study of the California quail, withrecommendations for its conservationand management. Calif. Fish and Game21(3):167-256.

Tanner, James Taylor. 1942. The ivory.billed woodpecker. Res. Pap. 1, p. 44,8182. N. Y. Natl. Audubon Sot., NewYork. [Reprinted 1966 by Dover Publ.,New York.]

Sunds t rom, Char les , Wi l l i am G. Hep-worth, and Kenneth L. Diem. 1 9 7 3 .Abundance , d i s t r i bu t i on and f oodhabits of the pronghorn: A partial char-acterization of the optimum pronghornhabitat. Wyo. Game and Fish Comm.Bull. 12, 61 p. Cheyenne.

Taylor, Walter P. 1935. Ecology’and lifeh is to ry o f the porcup ine (Ere th izonepixanthum) as related to the forests ofArizona and the Southwestern UnitedStates. Univ. Ariz. Bull. Biol. Sci. Bull. 3,6(5), 177 p. Tucson.

Swanson, Donald Oscar. 1970. Rooseveltelk-forest relationships in the Douglas-fir region of the southern Oregon CoastRange. Ph. D. thesis. 186 p. Univ. Mich.,Ann Arbor.

Taylor, Walter, P., Ed. 1956. Preface. InThe deer of North America: The white-t a i l e d , mu le and b lack - ta i l ed dee r ,genus Odocoi leus, the i r h is to ry andmanagement, p. ix-xi. Stackpole Co.,Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildl. Manage.Inst., Washington, DC.

Swanson, Frederick J., George W. Lien-kaemper, and James R. Sedell. 1976.History, physical effects, and manage-ment implications of large organicdebr is in western Oregon st reams.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-56,15 p. Pac. Northwest For. and RangeExp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Taylor, Walter Penn, and William T. Shaw.1927. Mammals and birds of MountRainier National Park. 249 p. U.S. Gov.Print. Off., Washington, DC.

Terrel, Ted Leon. 1973. Mule deer usepatterns as related to pinyon-juniperconversion in Utah. Ph. D. diss. 187 p.Utah State Univ., Logan.

Swanson, George A., Mavis I. Meyer, andJerome R. Serie. 1974. Feeding ecol-ogy of breeding blue-winged teals. J.Wildl. Manage. 38(3):396-407.

Tevis, Lloyd, Jr. 1952. Autumn foods ofchipmunks and golden-mantled groundsquirrels in the northern Sierra Nevada.J. Mammal. 33(2):198-205.

Swanson, John Roger. 1974. Prescribedunderburning for wildfire hazard abate-ment in second-growth stands of west-side Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii(Mirb.) France). MS. thesis. 130 p. Univ.Wash., Seattle.

Tevis, Lloyd, Jr. 1953. Stomach contentsof chipmunks and mantled squirrels innortheastern California. J. Mammal.34(3):316-324.

Swarth, H. S. 1936. Savannah sparrowmigra t ion rou tes in the Nor thwest .Condor 38(1):30-32.

Thiessen, J. L. 1976. Some relations ofelk to logging, roading and hunting inIdaho’s game management unit 39. InProceedings of the elk-logging-roadssymposium, Moscow, Idaho, Dec. 16-17, 1975. p, 3-5. Susan R. Hieb, ed.Univ. Idaho, Moscow.

Swenson, Jon Eugene. 1975. Ecology of Thomas, Jack Ward. 1973. The deter-the bald eagle and osprey in Yellow- mination of habitat requirements Iorstone National Park. M.S. thesis. 146 p. birds in suburban areas: A pilot study.Mont. State Univ., Bozeman. Ph. D. diss. 245 p. Univ. Mass., Amherst.

Swift, M. J., I. N. Heaiey, J. K. Hibberd, J.M. Sykes, V. Bampoe, and M. E. Nes-bitt. 1 9 7 6 . The decomposition ofbranch-wood in the canopy and floor ofa mixed deciduous woodland. Oecolo-gia (Berl.) 26(2):139-149.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Glenn L. Crouch,Roger S. Bumstead, and Larry D. Bryant.1975. Silvicultural options and habitatvalues in coniferous forests. In Pro-ceedings of the symposium on man-agement of forest and range habitatsfor nongame birds. D. R. Smith, ed.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1,p. 272-287. Washington, D.C.


Thomas, Jack Ward, Richard M. DeGraaf,and Joseph C. Mawson. 1977. Deter-mination of habitat requirements forbirds in suburban areas, USDA For.Serv. Res. Pap. NE-357, 15 p. Northeast.For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pa.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Rodney J. Miller,Hugh Black, Jon E. Rodiek, and ChrisMaser. 1976. Guidelines for maintain-ing and enhancing wildlife habitat inforest management in the Blue Moun-tains of Oregon and Washington, 41stNor th Am. Wi ld l . and Nat . Resour .Conf. Trans., p. 452-476. Wildl. Manage.Inst., Washington, D.C.

Thompson, Benjamin Hunter. 1932. His-tory and present status of the breed-i ng co l on i es o f wh i t e pe l i can (Pele-canus erythrorhynchos) in the UnitedStates. M.A. thesis. 82 D. Univ. Calif..Berkeley.

Thompson, William L. 1976. Vocaliza-t i ons o f t he l azu l i bun t i ng . Condo r78(2): 195207.

Thornton, W. A. 1960. Population dynam-ics in Bufo woodhousei and Bufo valli-ceps. Tex. J. Sci. 12(3-4):176-200.

Thut, Rudolph N. 1970. Feeding habitsof the dipper in southwestern Washing-ton. Condor 72(2):234-235.

Tinbergen, N. 1935. Field observationsof east Greenland birds: I. The behavioro f the red -necked pha la rope (Phala-ropus lobatus L.) in spring. Ardea 24:1-4 2 .

Tinbergen, N. 1939. The behavior of thesnow bunting in spring. Trans. Linn.Sot. N. Y. 5:1-94.

Tinbergen, L. 1960. The natural controlof insects in pinewoods: I. Factors in-fluencing the intensity of predation bysongbirds. In The dynamics of insectand bird populations in pine woods.Arch. Neerl. Zool. 13(3):265-335.

Tinkle, Donald W. 1967. The life anddemography of the side-blotched lizard,Uta s tansbur iana . Univ . Mich. Mus.Zool. Misc. Publ. 132, 182 p. Ann Arbor.

Tinkle, Donald W. 1973. A populationanalysis of the sagebrush lizard, Scelo-porus graciosus i n s o u t h e r n U t a h .Copeia 1973(2):284-296.

Tompa, Frank S. 1962. Territorial behav-ior: The main controlling factor of alocal song sparrow population. Auk79(4):687-697.

Toole, E. Richard. 1960. Butt rot of south-ern hardwoods, U.S. Dep. Agric. For.Pest Leafl. 43, 4 p. Washington, D.C.

Toweill, Dale E. 1974. Winter food habitsof river otters in western Oregon. J.Wildl. Manage. 38(1):107-111.

Trappe, James M., and Robert D. Fogel.1 9 7 7 . Ecosys temat ic func t ions o fmycorrhizae. In The belowground sym-posium: A synthesis of plant-associatedprocesses. Range Sci.. Dep. Sci. Ser.26, P. 205214. Cola. State Univ.. FortCollfns.

Trappe, James M., and Chris Maser. 1976.Germina t ion o f spores o f Glomusmacrocarpus (Endogonaceae) after pas-sage through a rodent digestive tract.Mycologia 68(2):433-436.

Trimble, Stephen A. 1975a. Habitat man-agement series for unique or endan-gered spec ies : Mer l in Falco colum-barius. U.S. Dep. In te r . . Bur . LandManage. Tech. Note 271, Rep. 15, 41 p.Denver, Cola.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 7956. Glossary of terms usedin forest fire control. U.S. Dep. Agric.Agric. Handb. 104, 24 p. Washington,D . C .

Trimble, Steve. 1975b. Non-game birdsof the West: An annotated bibliography;the ecology and life histories of sevenorders . US. Dep. In ter . , Bur . LandManage. Tech. Note T-N-269, 320 p.Denver, Colo.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1968. Guide for fuel typeidentification. USDA For. Serv. Reg. 6,48 p. Portland, Oreg.

Trippensee, Reuben Edwin. 1948. Wild-life management: Upland game andgene ra l p r i nc ip les . Vo l . 1 , 4 7 9 p .McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestServ i ce . 1971a . Endangered-rare-unique species in Region &as of March1971. Unpublished report on file at Reg.6, Portland, Oreg.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1971 b. Wildlife habitat man-

Tuck, Leslie M. 1972. The snipes: Astudy of the genus Capella. Can. Wildl.

agement handbook, Southern Region,

Serv. Monogr. Ser. 5, 429 p, Ottawa.FSH 2609.23R. 189 p. U.S. Dep. Agric.For. Serv. Reg. 8, Atlanta, Ga.

Tueller, Paul T., and Leslie A. Monroe.11975.1 Management guidelines forselected deer habitats in Nevada. Agric.Exp. Stn. Publ. R104, 185 p. Univ. Nev.,Reno.

Turcek, Frank J. 1948. Birds in an oakforest during a gypsy moth outbreak inSouth-Slovakia. Am. Midl. Nat. 40(2):3 9 1 - 3 9 4 .

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1973a. Wildlife habitat man-agement guide for the National Forestsin Missouri. 42 p. Mark Twain Natl. For.,Rolla, MO. [In cooperation with the MO.Dep. Conserv.]

Turner, Bruce C., and William Threlfall.1975. The Metazoan parasites of green-winged teal (Anas crecca L.) and blue-winged teal (Anas discors L.) from east-e rn Canada . Proc. H e l m i n t h o l . Sot.Wash. 42(2):157-169.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1973b. Silvicultural systemsfor the major forest types of the UnitedStates. U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. Handb.445, 114 p. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1973c. The outlook for timberin the United States. For. Resour. Rep.20, 367 p. Washington, D.C.

Turner, Frederick, B. 1960. Populationstructure and dynamics of the westernspotted frog, Rana p. pretiosa Bairdand Girard, in Yellowstone Park, Wyom-ing. Ecol. Monogr. 30(3):251-278.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1974. Silvicultural examina-tion and prescription handbook. USDAFor. Serv. FSH 2409.26d, Reg. 6, 106 p.Portland, Oreg.

Turner, Larry W. 1972. Habitat differencesbe tween Spermoph i lus beld ingi a n dSpermophilus columbianus in Oregon.J. Mammal. 53(4):914-917.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1975. Fisheries and wildlifehabitat management handbook, Ottawa,Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee NationalForests, Michigan, FSH 2609.23-R9. U.S.Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Reg. 9, Milwau-kee. Wis.

Tuttle, Merlin D., and Lawrence R. Heaney.1974. Maternity habits of Myotis leibiiin South Dakota. South. Calif. Acad.Sci. Bull. 73(2):80-83. Los Angeles.

Twombly, Asa D. 1977. Even-aged silvi-culture. In Integration of forest resourcemanagement in the Blue Mountains,p. 47-49. John Herbst, ed. Oreg. StateUniv. Ext. Serv., and Blue Mt. ChapterSot. Am. For., Corvallis.

Tyler, Winsor M. 1916. A study of awhite-breasted nuthatch. Wilson Bull.28(1):18-25.


US. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1976a. Final environmentalstatement & renewable resource pro-gram-1977 to 2020. (RPA: A recom-mended renewable resource program.)

: 658 p. Washington, D.C.

J.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 7976b. The National ForestManagement Act of 1976. Curr. Inf.Rep. 16, 43 p. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestServ ice .

1

1978a. Draft environmentalstatement: Roadless area review andevaluation. 112 p. [Plus RARE II maps Aand B.] Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1978b. An overview of the TRISystem. 12 p. [Plus append., map, andmicrofiche.] Unpublished report on fileat Pac. Northwest Reg., TRI ServiceCenter, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oreg.

’ 97208.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. [nd.] Snag management: Co-ordination guidelines for wildlife, No. 1.11 p. Calif. Reg.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, PressService. 1921. Mice and chipmunkshelp restock forests. J. Mammal. 2(2):1 1 3 .

.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofSport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1 9 7 3 .T h r e a t e n e d w i l d l i f e o f t h e U n i t e dStates. [“Red Book.“] Resour. Publ. 114,289 p. Off. Endangered Species and Int.Act., Washingtion, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service. 1962. Abst racts o fmourning dove literature. U.S. Fish andWildl. Serv. Circ. 136, 153 p. Washing-ton, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. En-dangered and threatened wildlife andplants: Republication of the list of spe-cies Fed. Regist. 41 (Oct. 27):47179-4 7 1 9 8 .

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 85624. [H.R. 131381, August 12, 1958. Toamend the Act of March 10, 1934, toprovide for more effective integrationof a fish and wildlife conservation pro-gram wi th Federa l water-resourcedevelopments, and for other purposes.In its United States statutes at large.1958. Vol. 72, p. 563. Washington, D.C.,U.S. Gov. Print. Off., 1959. El6 U.S.C.sec. 661-664 (1959).]

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 86.517. [H.R. 105721, June 12, 1960. An actto authorize and direct that the NationalForests be managed under principlesof multiple use and to produce a sus-tained yield of products and services,and for other purposes. In its UnitedStates statutes at large. 1960. Vol. 74,p. 215. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washing-ton, D.C. 1961. [16 U.S.C. sec. 528-531(1976).]

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 91-135. [H.R. 113631, December 5, 1969.Endangered Species Conservation Actof 1969. In its United States statutes atlarge. 1969. Vol. 83, p. 275. Washing-ton, D.C., U.S. Gov. Print. Off., 1970. [I6U.S.C. sec. 668 (1970).]

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 91.190. IS. 10751. Jan. 1, 1970. NationalEnvironment&i Policy Act of 1969. Anact to establish a national policy forthe environment, to provide for theestablishment of a Council on Environ-mental Quality, and for other purposes.In its United States statutes at large.1969. Vol. 83, p. 852.856. U.S. Gov.Print. Off., Washington, D.C. 1970. [42U.S.C. sec. 4321, et seq. (1970).]

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 93-205. [S. 19831, December 28, 1973. En-dangered Species Act of 1973. In itsUnited States statutes at large. 1973.Vol. 87, p. 884. [16 U.S.C. sec. 668(1976).]

U .S . Laws, S ta tu tes , e tc . Pub l i c Law93-378. [S. 22961, Aug. 17, 1974. Forestand Rangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974. An act to providefor the Forest Service, Department ofAgriculture, to protect, develop, andenhance the productivity and othervalues of certain of the Nation’s landsand resources, and for other purposes.In its United States statutes at large.1974. Vol. 88, Part 1, p. 476-480. U.S.Gov. Pr in t . Of f . , Wash ing ton , D.C.1976. [16 U.S.C. sec. 1601(1976).]

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 93-452. fH.R. 115371. October 18. 1974. Anact to extend and expand the authorityfor carrying out conservation and reha-bilitation programs on military reserva-tions and to authorize the implementa-tion of such programs on certain publiclands. In its United States statutes atlarge. 1974. Vol. 88, p. 1369. Washing-ton, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976.116 U.S.C. sec. 670 (1976).]

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 94-588 [S. 30911, Oct. 22, 1976. NationalForest Management Act of 1976. inUnited States code congressional andadministrative news. 94th Congr. 2dSess., 1976. Vol. 2, p. 2949-2963. WestPubl. Co., St. Paul, Minn. [1976.] (16USC. sec. 1600(1976).]

Urban, David. 1970. Raccoon popula-tions, movement patterns, and preda-tion on a managed waterfowl marsh. J.Wildl. Manage. 34(2):372-382.

Urhahn, Helmuth J. M. 1968. Feedingrequirements, feeding ecology, andfeed ing behav io r o f t he g rea t b l ueheron. Term pap. 40 p. Univ. 8. C., Dep.Zool., Vancouver.

Urner, Chas. A. 1925. Notes on twoground-nesting birds of prey. Auk 42(l):3 1 - 4 1 .

Van Ballenberghe, Victor, Albert W. Erick-son, and David Byman. 1975. Ecologyof the timber wolf in northeastern Min-nesota. Wildl. Monogr. 43, 43 p.

VanCamp, Laurel F., andcharles J. Henny.1975. The screech owl: Its life historyand population ecology in northernOhio. U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish and Wildl.Serv., North Am. Fauna 71, 65 p. Wash-ington, D.C.

Van de Velde, Robert L., Jan Martan, andPaul L. Risley. 1962. Eggs and hatch-lings of the snake Coluber consfrictormormon from Oregon. Copeia 1962(l):2 1 2 - 2 1 3 .

Van Meter, Wayne P., and Charles E.Hardy. 1975. Predicting effects on fishof fire retardants in streams. USDA For.Serv. Res. Pap. INT-166, 16 p. Intermt.For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Van Tets, Gerrard Frederick. 1959. Acomparative study of the reproductivebehavior and natural history of threesympatric species of cormorants,Phalacrocorax auritus, P. penici l latu;,and P. pelagicus. M.A. zoology thesis.86 p. Univ. B. C., Vancouver.

Vaughan, Michael R. 1975. Aspects ofmountain goat ecology, Wallowa Moun-tains, Oreg. M.S. thesis. 113 p, Oreg.State Univ., Corvallis.

Verbeek, Nicolaas A. M. 1967. Breedingbiology and ecology of the horned larkin alpine tundra. Wilson Bull. 79(2):208-2 1 8 .

Verbeek, Nicolaas A. M. 1970. Breedingecology of the water pipit . Auk 87(3):425-451.


Vermeer , Kees. 1967. A s tudy o f twospecies of gulls, Larus californicus andLarus delawarensis, breeding in an in-land habitat. Ph. D. diss. 157 p. Univ.Alberta, Edmonton.

Verner, Jared. 1975a. Complex songrepertoire of male long-billed marshwrens in eastern Washington. LivingBird, 14th Annu. 197.5, p. 263-300. Cor-nell Lab. Ornithol., New York.

Verner , Jared. 197513. I n te rspec i f i c ag -gression between yellow-headed black-b i rds and long-b i l led marsh wrens .Condor 77(3):328-331.

Verner, Jared, and Gay H. Engelsen. 1970.Territories, multiple nest building, andpolygyny in the long-billed marsh wren.Auk 87(3):557-567.

Verts, B. J. 1967. The biology of thestriped skunk. 218 p. Univ. Ill. Press,Urbana.

Vos, Anton de. 1952. The ecology andmanagement of fisher and marten inOntario. Ont. Dep. Lands and For. Tech.Bull., 90 p. Toronto.

Vuilleumier, Francois. 1973. Insular bio-geography in continental regions: If.Cave faunas f rom Tessin, southernSwitzerland. Syst. Zool. 22(1):64-76.

W. B . Saunders Company . 1968 . Dor-land’s pocket medical dictionary, 21stedition. 699 p. Philadelphia, Pa.

Wagener, Willis W., and Harold R. Offord.1972. Logging slash: Its breakdownand decay at two forests in northernCalifornia. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.PSW-83, 11 p. Pac. Southwest For. andRange Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

Waian, Lee B., and Rey C. Stendall. 1970.The white-tailed kite in California withobservations of the Santa Barbara pop-ulation. Calif. Fish and Game 56(3):188-1 9 8 .

Wakeley, James S. 1974. Activity peri-ods, hunting methods and efficiency ofthe fer rug inous hawk. Raptor Res.8(3-4):67-72.

Walker, Alex. 1935. The snowy egret inOregon. Condor 37(2):80.

Walkinshaw, Lawrence H. 1 9 4 9 . T h esandhil l cranes. Cranbrook Inst. Sci.Bull. 29, 202 p. Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

Wall, Brian R. 1965. 1964 Oregon logproduction, USDA For. Serv. Resour.Bull. PNW-13, 2 p. Pac. Northwest For.and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.


Wall, Brian R. 196572. Washington tim-ber harvest. USDA For. Serv.- Resour.Bull. PNW-14. PNW-18. PNW-21. PNW-25, PNW-30, ’ PNW-34: PNW-37, a n dPNW-41. Pac. Nor thwest For . andRange Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Wall, Brian R. 1966-72. Oregon timberharvest. USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull.PNW-16, PNW-22, PNW-27, PNW-29,PNW-33, PNW-38, and PNW-43. Pac.Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,Portland, Oreg.

Wallestad, Richard. 1975. Life historyand hab i ta t requ i rements o f sagegrouse in central Montana. Mont. Dep.Fish and Game, Game Manage. Div.,66 p. Helena.

Wallmo, 0. C. 1969. Response of deer toalternate-strip clearcutting of lodgepolepine and spruce-fir timber in Colorado.USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-141, 3 p.Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn.,Fort Collins, Colo.

Ward, A. Lorin. 1976. Elk behavior in rela-tion to timber harvest operations andt ra f f i c on Med i c i ne Bow Range i nsouth-central Wyoming. In Proceedingsof the elk-logging-roads symposium,Moscow, Idaho, Dec. 16-17, 1975. p. 32-43. Susan R. Hieb, ed. Univ. Idaho,Moscow.

Warren, Edward R. 1926. A study of thebeaver in the Yancey region of Yellow-stone National Park. Roosevelt WildLife Ann. l(l-2):13-191.

Weaver, Richard Lee. 1939. Winter obser-vations and a study of the nesting ofEnglish sparrows. Bird-Banding 10:73-7 9 .

Weber, Wayne C. 1975. Occurrence andpossible breeding of the white-throatedswift at Spences Bridge, British Colum-bia. Murrelet 56(2):10-l 1.

Weeden, J. Stenger. 1965. Territorial be-havior of the tree sparrow. Condor 67(3):193-209.

Weeden, Robert Barton. 1960. The ecol-ogy and distribution of ptarmigan inwestern North America. Ph. D. diss.247 p. Univ. B. C., Vancouver.

Welsh, Daniel A. 1975. Savannah sparrowbreeding and territoriality on a NovaScotia dune beach. Auk 92(2):235-251.

Westerskov, Kaj E. 1949. A comparativestudy of the ecology and managementof the European partridge, Perdix p.pe rd i x , i n Oh io and Denmark . MS.thesis. 339 p. Ohio State Univ., Colum-bus

Weston, John Bradford. 1969. Nestingecology of the ferruginous hawk Buteoregalis. Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull.Biol. Ser. 10(4):25-36.

Wetmore, A l exande r . 1964 . Song andgarden birds of North America. 400 p.Natl. Geogr. Sot., Washington, D.C.

Wheeler, Richard J. 1965. Pioneering ofblue-winged teal in California, Oregon,Washington, and B r i t i sh Co lumb ia .Murrelet 46(3):40-42.

Whitaker, Gene A. 1974. Phoebe andbarn swallow nesting structures. 3lstNortheast. Fish and Wildl. Conf. Trans.,p. 57-62. Northeast Sect. Wildl. Sot.[USDA Conserv. Serv., College Park,M d . ]

Whitaker, John O., Jr., and Chris Maser.1976. Food habits of five western Ore-gon shrews. Northwest Sci. 50(2):102-1 0 7 .

Whitaker, John O., Jr., Chris Maser, andLaurel E. Keller. 1977. Food habits ofbats of western Oregon. Northwest Sci.51(1):46-55.

Whitaker, John O., Jr., and Russell E.Mumford. 1972. Ecoloaical studies onReithrodontomys mega:otis in Indiana.J. Mammal. 53(4):850-860.

Whitford, Walter G. 1976. Temporal fluc-tuations in density and diversity ofdesert rodent populations. J. Mammal.57(2):351-369.

Wiens, John Anthony. 1966. An approachto the study of ecological relationshipsamong grassland birds. Ph. D. thesis.277 p. Univ. Wis., Madison.

Wiewandt, Thomas A. 1969. Vocalization,aggressive behavior, and territorialityi n t h e b u l l f r o g , Rana catesbeiana.Copeia 1969(2):276-285.

Wight, Howard M. 1974. Nongame wild-life and forest management. In Wildlifeand forest management in the PacificNorthwest, p. 27-38, Hugh C. Black, ed.Sch. For., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis.

Wight, Howard M., Robert U. Mace, andWesley M. Batterson. 1967. Mortalityestimates of an adult band-tailed pigeonpopulation in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage.31(3):519-525.

Wil ley, Charles Harvey. 1968. The ecol-ogy, distribution and abundance of themute swan (Cygnus o/or) in Rhode Is-land. M.S. thesis. 93 p. Univ. R. I.,Kingston.

Williams, Laidlaw. 1941. Roosting habitsof the chestnut-backed chickadee andthe Bewick wren. Condor 43(6):274-285.

Williamson, Penelope. 1 9 7 1 . Feeding Wooding, Jerry. 1973. Census o f theecology of the red-eyed vireo (Vireo o/i- b reed ing b i rds o f the Roar ing Forkvaceus) and associated foliage-gleaning watershed. Colo. Field Ornithol. 18:23-birds. Ecol. Monogr. 41(2):129-152. 3 7 .

,Willner, Gale R., Joseph A. Chapman, andJames R. Goldsberry. 1975. A studyand review of muskrat food habits withspec ia l re fe rence to Mary land . Md .Wildl. Adm. Publ. Wildl. Ecol. 1, 25 p.[Md. Dep. Nat. Resour., LaVale.]

Woods John G. 1972. An introduction tothe literature on the saw-whet owl. Ont.Bird-Banding 8(1):8-23.

Willson, Mary F. 1966. Breeding ecologyof the yellow-headed blackbird. Ecot.Monogr. 36(1):51-77.

Work, Lewis M. 1977. Uneven-aged man-agement. In Integration of forest re-source management in the Blue Moun-tains, p. 5054. John Herbst, ed. Oreg.State Univ. Ext. Serv. and Blue Mt.Chapter Sot. Am. For., Corvallis.

Willson, Mary F., and Gordon H. Orians.1 9 6 3 . Comparative ecology of red-

w inged and ye l l ow-headed b lackb i rdsduring the breeding season. 16th Int.Congr. 2001. Proc. 3:342-346.

Wright, Ernest. 1971. Mycorrhizae onDouglas-fir and ponderosa pine seed-lings, Oreg. State Univ. Sch. For. Res.Bull. 13, 36 p. Corvallis.

Winn, David S. 1976. Terrestrial verte-brate fauna and selected coniferous

’ forest habitat types on the north slopeo f t he Unita Mounta ins . USDA For .Serv. Reg. 4, Wasatch Natl . For., 145 p.Salt Lake City, Utah.

Wright, Ernest, and Leo A. Isaac. 1956.Decay following logging injury to west-ern hemlock, Sitka spruce, and true firs.U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1148, 34 p.Washington, D.C.

Wright, Albert Hazen, and Anna (Allen)Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs andtoads, of the United States and Canada.640 p. Comstock Publ. Co., Inc., Ithaca,N . Y .

Winter, Jon. 1974. The distribution oft h e f l a m m u l a t e d o w l i n C a l i f o r n i a .

i West. Birds 5(2):25-44.

Wirtz, William O., II., and Paul G. Pearson.1960. A preliminary analysis of habitatorientation in Microtus and Peromys-cus. Am. Midl. Nat. 63(1):131-142.

- Wiseman, Ar thur J . 1975 . Changes inbody weight of American goldfinches.Wilson Bull. 87(3):390-411.

Wolfe, Michael L., and Durward L. Allen.1973. Continued studies of the status,socialization, and relationships of IsleRoyale wolves, 1967 to 1970. J. Mam-mal. 54(3):61 l-635.

Wolff, Jerry O., and John C. Zasada. 1975.Red squirrel response to clearcut andshelterwood systems in interior Alaska.USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-255,7 p. Pac. Northwest For. and RangeExp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Wood, John E. 1958. Age structure andproductivity of a gray fox population. J.Mammal. 39(1):74-86.

Wood, Thomas J., and Stanley A. Munroe.1 9 7 7 . Dynamics of snowshoe harepopulations in the Maritime Provinces.Can. Wildl. Serv. Occas. Pap. 30, 21 p.Ottawa.

Woodbury, Marian, and Angus M. Wood-bury. 1945. Life-history studies of thesagebrush lizard Sceloporus g. gracio-sus with special reference to cycles inreproduction. Herpetologica 2(7-8):175-1 9 6 .

Wright, Albert Hazen, and Anna (Allen)Wright. 1957. Handbook of snakes ofthe United States and Canada. 2 vols.1,105 p. Comstock Publ. Assoc., CornellUniv. Press, Ithaca, N.Y.

Wythe , Margare t W. 1938 . The white-throated sparrow in western NorthAmerica. Condor 40(3):110-l 17.

Yoakum, Jim. 1967. Literature of theAmerican pronghorn antelope: An an-no ta ted b ib l i og raphy w i th abs t rac tsemphasizing food habits and range rela-tionships. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. LandManage., 82 p. Reno, Nev.

Yocom, Charles F. 1943. The Hungarianpartridge, Perdix perdix L. in the Pa-louse region, Washington. Ecol. Mon-ogr. 13(2):167-201.

Yocom, Charles F. 1974a. Recent wolver-ine records in Washington and Oregon.Murrelet 55(2):15-18.

Yocom, Charles F. 197413. S t a t u s o fmarten in northern California, Oregonand Washington. Calif. Fish and Game60(1):54-57.

Young, Howard. 1955. Breeding behaviorand nesting of the eastern robin. Am.Midl. Nat. 53(2):329-352.

Young, J. A., D. W. Hedrick, and R. F.Keniston. 1 9 6 7 . Forest cover andlogging-herbage and browse produc-tion in the mixed coniferous forest ofnortheastern Oregon. J. For. 65(11):807-8 1 3 .

Young, Vernon A., and W. Leslie Robin-ette. 1939. A study of the range habitsof elk on the Selway Game Preserve.Univ. Idaho Bull. 34(76), 48 p.

Yousef, M. K., and W. G. Bradley. 1971.Physiological and ecological studieson Cite//us lateralis. Comp. Biochem.and Physiol. 39(4A):671-682.

Zak, Bratislav. 1964. Role of mycorrhizaein root disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.2:377-392.

Zarn, Mark. 1974a. Habitat managementseries for unique or endangered spe-cies: Osprey Pandion hal iaetus carol in-ensis. U.S. Dep. In te r . , Bur . LandManage. Tech. Note 254, Rep. 12, 41 p.Denver, Colo.

Zarn, Mark. 1974b. Habitat managementseries for unique or endangered spe-c ies : Bur rowing owl Speofyfo cuni-w/aria hypugaea. U.S. Dep. Inter., But-.Land Manage. Tech. Note 250, Rep. 11,25 p. Denver, Colo.

Zarn, Mark. 1974c. Habitat managementseries for unique or endangered spe-cies: Spotted owl Strix occidentalis.U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage.Tech. Note 242, Rep. 10, 22 p. Denver,Cola.

Zarn, Mark, Thomas t-feller, and Kay Col-lins. 1977a. Wild, free-roaming horses:Status of present knowledge. Tech.Note 294, 72 p. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur.Land Manage., and USDA For. Serv.

Zarn, Mark., Thomas Heller, and Kay Col-lins. 197713. Wild, free-roaming horses:An annotated bibliography. Tech. Note295, 54 p. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. LandManage., and USDA For. Serv.

Zeedyk, William D., and Robert B. Hazel.1974. The southeastern featured spe-cies plan. In Timber-wildlife manage-ment symposium. J. P. Slusher and T.M. Hinckley, eds. MO. Acad. Sci. Occas.Pap 3, p. 58-62. Columbia.

Zirul, D. L., and W. A:Fuller. 1970. Winterfluctuations in size of home range ofthe red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsoni-cus). 35th North Am. Wildl. and Nat.Res. Conf . Trans. , p. 115-127. W i l d l .Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C.


Glossaryabiotic the nonl iv ing components

of the environment, such as air,rocks, soil, water, coal, peat, plantlitter, etc. (Schwarz et al. 1976).

abrupt edge an edge betweenstands or communities that is reg-ular (i.e., straight lines or gentlysweeping curves) leading to rela-tively low amounts of edge perunit area.

adapted the suitability of an organ-ism for a particular condition, usu-ally habitat, which comes from theprocess by which an organism be-comes better suited to its environ-ment or particular functions.

adjunct a stand attached to or join-ing another stand.

adventitious root a root arising froma plant part other than preexistingroots, such as from a stem or leaf(Ford-Robertson 1971).

aerate to mix air and water so thatthe oxygen content of the water isenhanced.

aerial oblique photograph a photo-graph of a landscape taken froman aircraft or elevated position withthe camera at an angle of lessthan 90” to the earth’s surface.

age classes intervals (commonly 10years) into which the age range ofa tree crop is divided; also thetrees falling into such an interval(Ford-Robertson 1971).

ambient surrounding, enci rc l ing(Morr is 1976) .

angiosperm any of a class of plantsthat is identified by having theirseeds enclosed in an ovary (Mason1975) .

animal community (also see “habitatniche”) the species of animalssupported by a combinat ion ofhabitat niches.

animal complex the variety of spe-cies that together form the faunaof a particular area.

animal habitat the arrangement offood, cover, and water required tomeet the biological needs of anan ima l .

apical growth growth from the ter-minal shoot meristem.

aquatic habitat habitat that occursin free water.

aquatic zone an area covered bywate r .

area control an indirect method ofcontrolling (and roughly determin-ing) the amount of forest produceto be harvested, annually or peri-odically, on the basis of stockedarea (Ford-Robertson 1971); synon-ymous with “area regulation.”

area regulation see “area control.”

arithmetical mean see “mean.”

arthropod any invertebrate organ-ism of the phylum Arthropoda,which includes the insects, crusta-ceans, arachnids, and myriapods,having a horny, segmented, ex-ternal covering and jointed limbs(Morris 1976).

ascomycetes fungi with hyphaedivided into cells by cross septa;with asexual reproduction by con-idia and sexual reproduction bythe formation of ascospores in theascus (Abercrombie et al. 1964).

asexual having no evident sex orsex organs; sexless; pertaining toor characterizing reproduction in-volving a single individual, andwithout male or female gametes,such as binary fission or budding(Morris 1976).

aspect the direction toward which aslope faces (Ford-Robertson 1971).

average snag life the average timea class of snags (based on speciesand d.b.h.) may be expected tostand after death.

basal area (also see “crop basal area”and “stand basal area”) the areaof the cross section of a tree stemnear its base, generally at breastheight-l.37 meters (4.5 ft)-abovethe ground and inclusive of bark(Ford-Robertson 1971).

basal metabolism the measure ofmetabolism of the body in the rest-ing state, determined by the amountof oxygen utilized or of heat pro-duced (W. B. Saunders Company1968) .

basalt (also see “igneous”) of orpertaining to basalt, an extrusiveigneous rock.

base use potential the amount ofuse expected by deer and elk on aland-type when al l forest s i tesmeet the definition of hiding orthermal cover or both.

bedding the process of an animallying down for rest.

best estimate the best possible ap-proximation given a combinationof available information and under-standing of a situation.

best-prediction equation the equa-tion which best predicts, on thebasis of existing information, therelationship between two or morevariables.

Betulaceae a family of plants; spe-cifically, the birch family.

big game large animals hunted, orpotentially hunted, for sport; in theBlue Mountains area-elk, muledeer, big-horned sheep, pronghorn,black bear, and puma.

binomial the latinized name of anorganism consisting of two words,the first of which is the genus andthe second the species (Hanson1962); synonymous with scientificname.

biological control the use of organ-isms or viruses to control para-sites, weeds, or other pests (Han-son 1962) .

470 Glossary

biological potential the maximumproduction of a selected organismthat can be attained under opti-mum management.

biomass the total quantity of livingorganisms of one or more speciesper unit of space which is calledspecies biomass, or of all the spe-c ies in a communi ty which iscalled community biomass (Han-son 1962) .

biotic life or the act of living (Han-son 1962) .

biotrophic levels the feeding levelsin a food chain.

bird box a box with an entrancehole into a hollow interior; theseboxes, when mounted in the forest,provide nesting and roosting sitesprimarily for secondary cavity-usingspec ies .

blowdown (also see “windthrow”)trees felled by high winds.

blue stain the most common formof fungal stain of the sap stain type,producing a bluish discoloration of,usually, the sapwood. Most com-monly caused by species of Cerato-cystis, Aureobasidium, and Lasiodi-plodia (Ford-Robertson 1971).

blue stain fungi (also see “bluestain”) any fungi that cause bluestain in wood.

board foot the amount of t imberequivalent to a piece 1 by 1 footand 1 inch thick (= 1112 ft3) (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

bole a tree stem once it has grownto substantial thickness-roughlycapable of y ie ld ing sawt imber,veneer logs, or large poles (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

broadcast burning intentional burn-ing in which fire is intended tospread over all a specific area(USDA Forest Service 1956).

brushblade a vert ical ly mounted carrying capacity the maximumblade, commonly attached to rate of animal stocking possibletracked logging equipment, having without inducing damage to vege-f inger l ike project ions along i ts tation or related resources; maylower edge which facilitates the vary from year to year because ofmoving of logging debris without f luctuat ing forage product ionexcessive scraping of the soil. (Kothmann 1974).

brush form woody vegetation thatg ives the v isual impress ion ofsh rubs .

case-harden in wood, characterizedby compression in the outer layersand tension in the core, the resultof too severe drying conditions(Ford-Robertson 1971); trees orlogs charred on the outside areoften case hardened.

buffer strip a strip of vegetationthat is left or managed to reducethe impact of a treatment or actionof one area on another.

burrow a hole or tunnel dug in theground by an animal (Morris 1976).

cable assisted felling a techniquefor felling trees in which a cable isattached to the tree and pulledtaut to help guide the tree in thedesired direction.

calving area (also see “elk calvinghabitat”) the areas, usually onspring-fall range, where cows givebirth to calves and maintain themduring their f i rst few days orw e e k s .

cambium in woody vegetation, thelayer of cells that lies between thesecondary xylem and secondaryphloem cell layers; through a pro-cess of cell division, the cambiumproduces the secondary xylem andthe secondary phloem which arealso known, respectively, as thewood and the innermost livingbark (Ford-Robertson 1971).

canopy the more or less continuouscover of branches and fol iageformed collectively by the crownsof adjacent trees and other woodygrowth. Layers of canopy may becalled stories (Ford-Robertson1971) .

canopy closure the progressive re-duction of space between treecrowns as they spread laterally(Ford-Robertson 1971); a measureof the percent of potential openspace occupied by the collectivetree crowns in a stand.

catastrophic events events result-ing from a great and sudden ca-lamity or disaster. In the case offorest stands such events includewindstorms, wildfire, floods, snow-slides, and insect outbreaks.

catchment the total area draininginto a. given waterway or reservoir(Ford-Robertson 1971).

cave a natural underground cham-ber that is open to the surface.

cavity the hol low excavated insnags by birds; used for roostingand reproduction by many birdsand mammals .

cavity excavation the process ofdigging or chipping a cavity in deadwood.

cavity excavator an animal that ex-cavates a cavity in wood for nestingor roosting.

cavity nesters wildlife species thatnest in cavities.

char to burn the surface of; scorch;to reduce to charcoal by incom-plete combustion (Morris 1976).

charcoal a black, porous carbon-aceous material produced by thedestruct ive dist i l lat ion of wood(Morris 1976).

chill factor the increased chillingeffect on an animal, attributable toair movement.

Glossary 471

chipping the process of reducinglarge pieces of wood into smallpieces of more or less uniformsize by running the mater ia lthrough a chipper.

colonization (also see “colony”) theact or process of establishing acolony or colonies (Morris 1976).

chipper a machine for cutting woodinto chips of more or less uniformdimension (Ford-Robertson 1971).

colony a group of the same kind ofanimals or plants living together(Morris 1976).

commercial forest base see “com-mercial forest land.”

chlorophyll a complex of mainlygreen pigments in the chloroplasts,character is t ic of p lants whoselight-energy-transforming proper-ties permit photosynthesis (Ford-Robertson 1971).

chloroplast the protoplasm body orplastid in plant cells that containschlorophyll (Hanson 1962).

commercial forest land in the BlueMountains, a working definition isforest land capable of producing1.4 cubic meters of wood per hec-tare (20 ft3/acre) per year of mer-chantable t imber, current ly orprospectively accessible to timberharvest and not withdrawn fromsuch use.

clearcut an area f rom which a l l commercial harvest the cutting andtrees have been removed by cutting. marketing of trees for use.

clearcutting removal of the entirestanding crop of trees; in practicemuch unsalable material may belef t standing (Ford-Robertson1971) .

commercial thinning any type ofthinning that produces merchant-able material at least equal to thevalue of the direct costs of harvest-ing (Ford-Robertson 1971).

cliff a steep, vertical, or overhang-ing rock face.

commercial timber production theprocess of growing wood productsfor sale or use.

climax the culminat ing stage inplant succession for a given sitewhere the vegetation has reacheda highly stable condi t ion (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

climax forest (also see “climax”) acommunity that represents the cul-minating stage of a natural forestsuccession for a particular si.te(Ford-Robertson 1971).

community a group of one or morepopulations of plants and animalsin a common spatial arrangement;an ecological term used in a broadsense to include groups of varioussizes and degrees of integration(Hanson 1962) .

climax vegetation (also see “climax”)plants occurring in the climax suc-cessional stage.

community type a generalized cate-gory comprising a number of simi-lar units or stands of vegetationand including animal life (Hanson1962) .

closed canopy the condition thatexists when the canopy created bytrees or shrubs or both is denseenough to exclude most of thedirect sunl ight f rom the forestfloor.

computer code see “species code.”

configuration the shape or outlineof forest stands or plant communi-ties; the degree of irregularity inthe edge between stands or com-munities; varying from simple tomosa i c .

clumping of snags the occurrenceof snags in patches or groups.

conifer the most important order ofthe Gymnospermae, comprising awide range of trees, mostly ever-greens that bear cones and haveneedle-shaped or scalelike leaves;timber commercially identified assoftwood (Ford-Robertson 1971).

coniferous forest (also see “conifer”)a forest dominated by cone-bearingtrees.

connectors st r ips or patches ofvegetat ion used by wi ldl i fe tomove between habitats.

constraint the state, quali ty, orsense of be ing rest r ic ted to agiven course of action or inaction;something that restricts, limits, orregulates (Morris 1976).

contour line an imaginary line, orits representation on a contourmap, joining points of equal eleva-tion (Morris 1976).

contrast in wildlife management,the degree of difference in vegeta-tive structure along edges whereplant communities meet or wheresuccessional stages or vegetativeconditions within plant communi-ties meet.

control in wildlife management, theprocess of managing populationsof a species to accomplish an ob-jective; usually used in the senseof depressing population numbersof a pest species to prevent or de-crease the impact of that species.

control line (also see “fireline”) aninclusive term for constructed ornatural fire barriers; a fire edgetreated to control a fire (USDA For-est Service 1956).

coordinated timber-wildlife manage-ment the melding of timber andwildlife management planning andaction into one plan so that goalsof both timber and wildlife are met.

coring a small piece of wood re-moved from a tree by means of anincrement borer; the number ofgrowth rings in a tree can be deter-mined from such corings.

472 Glossa ry

correlation coefficient an indexnumber indicating the degree ofinfluence of two or more variableson each other; a coefficient of 1.0or - 1.0 indicates perfect correla-tion-i.e., the change in one vari-able can be totally explained by achange in the other.

ortex the primary tissue of a stemor root that lies between the epi-dermis or the phellem and the vas-cular system (Ford-Robertson1971) .

over vegetat ion used by wildl i fefor protection from predators, or toameliorate conditions of weather,or in which to reproduce; also ashortened vers ion of “crowncover.”

over patch a discrete area coveredby vegetation that meets either thedef in i t ion of h id ing or thermalcover.

over-forage area ratio the ratio, inpercent, of the amount of area inforage condition to that area incover condit ion; the cr i ter ia bywhich potential deer and elk useof an area is judged.

*itical habitat component one o fthe three general habitat require-ments of all wildlife-food, cover,and water.

crop the vegetation growing on aforest area, more particularly themajor woody growth forming theforest crop-anything harvestable(Ford-Robertson 1971).

crop basal area (also see “basal area”and “stand basal area”) the totalbasal area per unit area (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

crop tree any tree forming, orselected to form, part of the finalcrop; generally a tree selected in ayoung stand for that purpose (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

crown the upper part of a tree orother woody plant, carrying themain branch system and foliage,and surmounting at the crown basea more or less clean stem (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

crown class any grouping intowhich t rees forming a crop orstand may be identified on thebasis of crown development andcrown position relative to crownsof adjacent trees and the generalcanopy; also trees falling into suchgroupings (Ford-Robertson 1971).

crown closure see “canopy clo-sure.”

crown cover the amount of canopyprovided by branches and foliageof trees, shrubs, and herbs in aplant community. May be specifiedby species, kind of plant, or col-lectively.

cubic volume a measure of wood inwhich the expression is the cubeof a linear measure-usually feetcubed (1 ft by 1 ft by 1 ft) or meterscubed (1 m by 1 m by 1 m).

culls any item of production (e.g.,trees, logs, lumber) relegated orrejected because it did not meetcerta in speci f icat ions (Ford-Robertson 1971).

culmination of mean annual incre-ment the stand age at whichmean annual increment cu lmi-nates; mean annual increment istotal increment up to a given agedivided by that age (Ford-Robertson1971) .

cut material removed during roadconstruction to reach the forma-t ion level or the excavat ion soformed (Ford-Robertson 1971); theremoval of timber from a stand.

cutting the act of cutting or fellinga standing tree (Ford-Robertson1971) .

cutting series an area of forestidentified as a sustained-yield unitand forming all or part of a workingcircle; the purpose is to distributefelling and regeneration operationsto suit local administrative or mar-ket conditions and to maintain orcreate a suitable distribution ofage classes (Ford-Robertson 1971).

cutting unit an area on which thetrees have been, are being, or areto be cut, commonly forming oneof an annual succession (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

cycling to occur in or pass througha cycle; to move in, or as if in, acircle (Morris 1976).

d.b.h. see “diameter breast high.”

dead and down woody material allwoody material , f rom whateversource, that is dead and lying onthe forest floor.

debris the scat tered remains ofsomething broken or destroyed;ruins; rubble; fragments (Morris1976) .

decadent deteriorating; when usedin reference to stand conditionthere are inferences of the loss oftrees from the overstory and of thepresence of disease, or indicationsof loss of vigor in dominant treesso that the mean annual incre-ment is negative.

decay in wood, the decompositionby fungi and other micro-organismsresulting in softening, progressiveloss of strength and weight, andchanges in texture and color (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

decay model a model representingthe decline in wood density withresidence time.

deciduous pertaining to any plantorgan or group of organs that isshed naturally; perennial plantsthat are leafless for some timeduring the year (Ford-Robertson1971).

decked logs logs stacked in a man-ner to facilitate handling for haul-ing or milling.

decompose to separate into com-ponent parts or elements; to decayor putrefy (Morris 1976).

Glossary 473

decomposition class any of fivestages of decomposition of logsleft in the forest; stages rangefrom essentially sound to almosttotal decomposition.

decomposition model (also see“model”) a model of the rate ofdecomposition of dead and downmaterial as related to a number ofvariables, such as tree species,microclimate, temperature, age,etc.

deer fawning habitat (also see “fawn-ing area”) areas used regularlyby female deer for fawning; opti-mum fawning habitat includes lowshrubs or small trees under a treeoverstory of about 50-percent clo-sure, usually located on slopes ofless than 15 percent where vegeta-tion is succulent and plentiful inJune and potable water is availablewithin 183 meters (600 ft).

Delphi Technique the process ofcombining expert opinions into aconsensus (Gordon and Helmer-Hirschberg 1964); a method ofmaking predictions.

denning site a place of shelter foran animal; also where an animalgives birth and raises young.

dense canopy (also see “closed can-opy”) a condition where the for-est canopy is essentially closedand the foliage is particularly thickor luxuriant.

dependent variable the variable in arelationship that is influenced bythe independent variable.

deteriorated stand see “decadent.”

deviation the di f ference betweenany particular observation in a setof observations and the arithmeti-cal mean of the set (Ford-Robertson1971) .

DI see “diversity index.”

diameter breast high (d.b.h.) thestandard diameter measurementfor standing trees, including bark,taken at 1.37 meters (4.5 ft) abovethe ground (Ford-Robertson 1971).

4 7 4 Glossary

diplopod any species of millipede;an order or class of Arthropoda

duff (also see “litter”) the combina-tion of litter and the less decom-

(Abercrombie et al. 1964). posed humus on the forest floor.

direct habitat improvement habitatmanipulations primarily for thebenefit of wildlife.

dusting the process of ro l l ing orexercising vigorously in dust orduff; in birds, has the function ofalining barbules and maintainingfeathers.directional felling the fe l l ing of

trees in a prescribed direction toaccomplish a management objec-tive.

dispersion (also see “law of disper-sion”) the pattern of distributionof individuals in an animal popula-tion; in the mathematical sense,dispersion describes the probabili-ty of occurrence of such individ-uals in particular places.

diversity the relat ive degree ofabundance of wi ld l i fe species,plant species, communities, habi-tats, or habitat features per unit ofarea.

diversity index a number that indi-cates the relative degree of diver-sity in habitat per unit area. It isexpressed mathematically:

Dl = TP ;2qxz-

where TP is the total perimeter ofan area plus any edge within thearea in meters or feet, A is the areain square meters or square feet,and n is 3.1416.

dominant plant species or speciesgroups which, by means of theirnumbers, coverage, or size, influ-ence or control the existence ofassociated species. Also, individ-ual animals which determine thebehavior of one or more other ani-mals, resulting in the establish-ment of a social hierarchy (Koth-mann 1974) .

dominant tree see “dominant.”

drainage see “catchment.”

drum to make a reverberating soundby beating the wings rapidly asgrouse do or by tapping on a suit-able surface as woodpeckers do.

dynamic characterized by or tend-ing to produce continuous changeor advance (Morris 1976).

ecological niche the role a particu-lar organism plays in the environ-ment (Hanson 1962) .

ecological role the part or influenceof an organism in an ecoystem.

ecology the study of the interrela-tionships of organisms with oneanother and with the environment(Hanson 1962) .

ecosystem an interacting naturalsystem including all the compo-nent organisms together with theabiotic environment (Hanson 1962).

ecotone the area influenced by thetransition between plant communi-t ies or between success ionalstages or vegetative conditionswithin a plant community.

ectomycorrhiza fungi which form asymbiot ic re lat ionship wi th theroots of plants where the fungusmantles the host rootlet surfacewith mycelial tissue and grows be-tween the cells of the rootlet cor-tex.

edaphic pertaining to the soil, par-ticularly the influence of soil on or-ganisms (American Geological In-stitute 1962).

edge the place where plant com-munities meet or where succes-sional stages or vegetative condi-t ions wi th in p lant communi t iescome together.

edge effect the increased richnessof flora and fauna resulting fromthe mixing of two communit ieswhere they join.

elk calving habitat (also see “calvingarea”) a habitat used by elk forcalving; usually located on spring-

fall range in areas of gentle slope;contains forage areas and hidingand thermal cover close to water.

endangered species a wildlife spe-cies officially designated by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ashaving i ts cont inued existencethreatened over its entire range because its habitat is threatenedwith destruction, drastic modifica-tion, or severe curtailment, or be-cause of overexploitation, disease,predation, or other factors.

endemic nat ive or conf ined to acertain region; having a compara-tively restricted distribution (Mor-ris 1976).

environment the sum total of all theexternal conditions that may influ-ence organisms (Hanson 1962).

Environmental Analysis Report areport on environmental effects ofproposed Federal actions whichrequire an Environmental ImpactStatement under section 102 ofthe National Environmental PolicyAct (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.Public Law 91-190, 1970); an “in-house” document which becomesthe final document on projectswhose effects are so minor as notto require a formal EnvironmentalImpact Statement; though not for-mally required by the Act, thisdocument is commonly used todetermine if section 102 applies tothe contemplated action (Schwarzet al. 1976).

environmental factor any influenceon the combined plant and animalcommunity.

Environmental Impact Statementthe final version of the statementrequired under section 102 of theNational Environmental Policy Act

, (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. PublicLaw 91-190, 1970) fo r major Federa lactions affecting the environment;a revision of the draft statementwhich includes public and govern-mental agency comments; a formaldocument meeting legal require-ments and used as the basis forjudicial decisions concerning com-pliance with the Act; also refers tosimilar statements required byState and local laws patternedafter the Act (Schwarz et al. 1976).

enzyme a catalyst, generally a spe-cific protein joined to some simplesubstance produced by cellularaction that is essential to biologi-cal processes (Ford-Robertson1971).

ephemeral streams streams thatcontain running water only forbrief periods.

epidermis the outermost layer(s) ofcells of a plant; often with stronglythickened and cuticularized outerwal ls (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

escape cover (also see “hiding coverfor deer” and “hiding cover forelk”) usually vegetation denseenough to hide an animal; used byanimals to escape from potentialenemies .

even-aged management a systemof forest management in whichstands are produced or maintainedwith relatively minor differences inage (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

exponential expressed in terms ofa designated power of E, the baseof natural logarithms (Morris 1976).

extended rotation carrying a timberstand beyond the time when eco-nomic return is greatest or thewood production objectives arebest met; a longer rotation than isnormal for the majority of standsin the forest.

extended rotation age any rotationage for a stand or stands that islonger than the optimum age for‘maximized wood production or op-timum age for a particular desiredclass or form of wood product.

external succession the changes inthe plant community over time thatsurround a snag or dead and downlog.

Fagaceae a family of plants; spe-cifically, the beech family.

fawning area (also see “deer fawninghabitat”) an area, usual ly onspring-fall range, where does givebirth to fawns and maintain themin their first few days or weeks.

featured species management (alsosee “indicator species manage-ment”) a wi ld l i fe managementstrategy to produce relatively highnumbers of selected wildlife spe-cies in particular places for partic-ular purposes.

fecal material material dischargedfrom the bowels (W. B. SaundersCompany 1968); more generally,any discharge from the digestivetract of an organism.

feeding substrate the surface onwhich an animal finds its food.

felling see “cutting.”

fill material placed during road con-struction to complete the forma-tion up to its required level (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

final crop the portion of the grow-ing stock (crop trees) kept to ma-turity; i.e., in regular crops roughlyuntil the end of the rotation, form-ing the final yield (Ford-Robertson1971) . I .

Glossary 475

final cut generally, removal of thelast trees left in a stand; more par-ticularly, removal of the last seedbearers or shelter trees after re-generation is considered to beestablished under a shelterwoodsystem.

final harvest cut see “final cut” and“harvest cutting.”

financial maturity the age of a tree,crop, or stand, beyond which in-crease in value is insufficient toearn a specified rate of interest ob-ta inable f rom other sources;synonymous with financial rota-tion (Ford-Robertson 1971).

fine fuels grass, leaves, tree nee-dles, fern, tree moss, and somekinds of slash which ignite readilyand are consumed rapidly whendry (USDA Forest Service 1956).

fire hazard any condition in the for-est stand that appreciably in-creases the danger of fire.

fireline (also see “control line”) partof a control line that is scraped ordug to mineral soil; sometimescalled a fire trail (USDA ForestService 1956).

fire retardant a substance that bychemical or physical action re-duces flammability of combusti-bles (USDA Forest Service 1956).

fire succession a particular plantsuccession that occurs on a sitefollowing burning of the previousvegetation.

firing technique the manner inwhich a prescribed burn is ignited.

flashy fuel combust ib le mater ia lthat has a low kindling tempera-ture and burns with high intensityfor a comparatively short time.

flora the plant population of a par-ticular area; a list of plant species(with descriptions) of a particulararea arranged in families and gen-era, together with a key to aididentification (Abercrombie et al.1964) .

476 Glossary

forage vegetation used for food bywildlife, particularly ungulate wild-life and domestic livestock.

forage areas forest stands that donot qualify as either hiding or ther-mal cover and all natural and man-made openings.

forage medium the environment inwhich feeding by a wildlife speciesoccurs.

foraging substrate see “ feedingsubstrate.”

forb any herbaceous plant speciesother than those in the Gramineae,Cyperaceae, and Juncaceae fami-lies (Kothmann 1974); fleshy leavedplants.

forced trailing trails that compelanimals, particularly big game anddomestic livestock, to take a par-ticular route of travel.

forest generally, an ecosystem char-acterized by tree cover; more partic-ularly, a plant community predomi-nantly of trees and other woodyvegetation, growing closely togeth-er; an area managed for the produc-tion of timber and other forest pro-duce; or maintained in forest coverfor such indirect benefits as protec-tion of catchment areas or recrea-tion; an area of land proclaimed tobe a forest under a forest act or or-dinance (Ford-Robertson 1971).

forest estate an area, whatever itsownership, used for forestry pur-poses (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

forest floor the surface layer of asoil supporting forest vegetation(Ford-Robertson 1971).

forest inventory (also see “inventory”)a list or estimate of the speciesand sizes of trees within an area.

forest management the applicationof scientific, economic, and socialprinciples to the management of aforest estate for specified objec-tives; the branch of forestry con-cerned with its overall administra-tive, economic, legal, social, scien-tific, and technical aspects-espe-cially silviculture, protection, andforest regulation (Ford-Robertson1971).

forest manager a person who makesdecisions concerning managementof forest land.

forest-opening edge an edge andassociated ecotone that existswhere an opening and a stand oftrees join.

form class any of the intervals intowhich a numerical expression ofthe taper of a tree stem or log maybe classified-commonly a rangeof form factors, form quotients, orform point heights; the actualt rees or logs fa l l ing in to suchclasses (Ford-Robertson 1971).

formation geologically, somethingnaturally formed, commonly differ-ing conspicuously from adjacentobjects or material, or being note-worthy for some other reason(American Geological Inst i tute1962)-for example, a cliff; in roadworks, the surface of the groundon which the road base is laidafter excavation, filling, and shap-ing are completed (Ford-Robertson1971) .

fragile soils soils that are especiallysubject to damage by human activi-ties, particularly roadbuilding andimpacts by machinery used instandard logging operations.

free water water that is not boundto any surface, particularly soilparticles, and is available for trans-piration by plants.

fructification the product ion off ru i t ; a seed- or spore-bear ingstructure (Morris 1976).

Fuel any substance that will, whenburned, produce energy or heat inuseful amounts; more precisely,anything susceptible to ignition

: and combustion (Ford-Robertson1971); in forestry, usually used todescribe dead and down woodymaterial on the forest floor.

fuel break a lane through the forestor range land from which most

1

combustible material, includingt rees and shrubs, has been re-moved or markedly reduced to pre-vent spread of fire.

fuel class an identifiable associa-tion of fuel elements of distinctivespecies, form, size, arrangement,or other characteristics that will

1 result in a predictable rate of firespread or difficulty of control un-der specified weather conditions;also called fuel type (USDA ForestService 1956).

fuel loading the amount of combus-tible material present per unit ofarea.

fuel management the manipulationof fuels to accomplish objectivesof management, usually to reducethe risk of damage from wildfire.

fuel management standard a condi-tion of size, arrangement, and den-sity of fuel created to meet man-agement requirements in terms offire hazard and susceptibility ofpotential fire to control.

fuel moisture content the quantityof moisture in fuel expressed as apercentage of the weight whenthoroughly dried at 100°C (212°F)(USDA Forest Service 1956).

fuel type see “fuel class.”

full stocking that stocking level ofa forest stand that yields maxi-mum biologically possible growthrates; synonymous with optimumstocking.

fungal (also see “fungi”) caused byor associated with fungi.

fungal conk a fruct i f icat ion of awood-destroying fungus whichprojects beyond the substrate(Ford-Robertson 1971).

fungal hyphae see “ fungi ” and” hyphae.”

fungi mushrooms, molds, yeast,rusts, etc.; subdivision of Thallo-phyta; simply organized plants,unicellular or made of cellular fila-ments called hyphae, lacking chlor-ophyll; reproduce sexually andasexually with the formation ofspores; many are microscopic,though some fruiting bodies reacha larger size; saprophytes or para-sites of other plants and animals;take part with other soil organismsin decomposition of plant and ani-mal residues; important as agentsof many plant and some animaldiseases (Abercrombie et al. 1964).

game species of vertebrate wildlifehunted by man for sport.

gametophyte a phase of the plantl i fe cycle, characterized by thepresence of haploid nuclei, duringwhich sex cel ls are produced(Abercrombie et al. 1964).

gene pool narrowly, the genie mate-rial of a localized interbreedingpopulation; broadly, the genie re-sources or materials of a speciesthroughout its entire range (Han-son 1962) .

genus one or a group of re latedspecies used in the classificationof organisms (Hanson 1962); thefirst word in a binomial or scienti-fic name.

geomorphic of or like the earth orthe configuration or shape of theearth’s surface (Morris 1976).

function the natural or proper ac-tion for which an organism or habi-tat or behavioral action is fitted oremployed.

girdling making more or less con-tinuous incisions around a livingstem which cut through at leastthe bark and cambium; a methodof killing woody vegetation (Forcf-Robertson 1971).

gleaning a process of feeding, par-ticularly by birds, in which fooditems are gathered from the sur-face of the foraging substrate-usually plant parts.

gradient the rise or fall of a groundsurface expressed in degrees ofslope (Ford-Robertson 1971).

grass any plant spectes that is amember of the family Gramineae(Kothmann 1974).

grassforb stage (also see “successional stage”) one of six succes-sional stages in the coniferous for-ests of the Blue Mountains; a suc-cess iona l s tage dominated bygrasses and forbs.

greater than l,OOO-hour fuel timelagclass (>i,OOO-hour) all dead fuelslarger than 20.3 centimeters (8 in)in diameter or more than 30.5 centi-meters (12 in) betow surface of theforest floor (no fuel classes are de-fined beyond the l,OOO-hour fueltimelag c lass) (Deeming e t a l .1978) .

group selection (also see “selectionsystem”) a modif icat ion of theselection system in which treesare removed in small groups ratherthan individually (Ford-Robertson1971) .

growing layer (also see “increment”)a layer of wood or bark apparentlyproduced dur ing one growingperiod (Ford-Robertson 1971); incross section the rings may bereadily discerned.

growing stock all the trees growingin a forest or a specified part of it;generally expressed in numbers orvolume (Ford-Robertson 1971).

growth increment (also see “volumeincrement”) a measurab le in -crease in growth of a stand; usual-ly expressed as an increase inwood volume.

Glossary 477

growth ring see “growing layer.”

Gymnospermae a group of woodyplants having naked seed; i.e.,seeds not enclosed in an ovary(Mason 1975) .

habitat the sum total of environ-mental conditions of a specificplace occupied by a wildlife spe-cies or a population of such spe-c i e s .

habitat block an area of land cov-ered by a relatively homogeneousplant community in essentially asingle successional stage or con-dition.

habitat component a simple part, ora relatively complex entity regardedas a part, of an area or type of en-vironment in which an organism orb io logica l populat ion normal lylives or occurs.

habitat niche the peculiar arrange-ment of food, cover, and water thatmeets the requirements of a par-ticular species (Hanson 1962).

habitat richness the relative degreeof ability of a habitat to producenumbers of species of either plantsor animals; the more species pro-duced the richer the habitat.

habitat type (also see “site type” and“plant community type”) the ag-gregate of all areas that support,or can support, the same primaryvegetative climax; a classificationof environmental settings charac-terized by a single plant associa-tion; the expression through theplants present of the sum of theenvironmental factors that influ-ence the nature of the climax (Dau-benmire 1976).

hand-piling (also see “machine-piling”) the p i l ing of s lash byhand labor; causes less impact onthe site and is more selective thanmachine piling but usually costsmore.

hang up the act of bats attachingthemselves to the ceiling of a caveor other structure and resting in anupside down position.

4 7 8 Glossary

hard snag a snag composed pri-marily of sound wood, particularlysound sapwood; general ly mer-chantable.

hardwood the wood of broad-leavedtrees, and the trees themselves,belonging to the botanical groupAngiospermae; distinguished fromsoftwoods by the presence of ves-se ls (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

harvest cutting the felling of thefinal crop of trees; either a singlecutting or a series of regenerationcuttings; also a general term forthe removal of financially or physi-cally mature trees as contrasted tocut t ings that remove immaturetrees (Ford-Robertson 1971).

harvesting in forestry, a loose termfor the removal of wood from theforest for utilization; comprised ofcutting and, sometimes, initial pro-cessing and extraction of treesfrom the forest (Ford-Robertson1971); in wildlife management, theremoval, usually by sport huntingor trapping, of all or part of thesurplus of a wildlife species.

harvesting techniques a means ofremoving all or part of a stand forcommercial purposes.

hawking the feeding behavior ofbirds wherein they catch insects inflight.

hazard reduction a managementaction designed to reduce riskfrom a recognized combination offactors that may lead to injury oreconomic loss.

heart rot any rot in a tree confinedto the heartwood, associated withfung i such as Fomes and Poly-porus species; generally originat-ing in a living tree (Ford-Robertson1971) .

heartwood the inner layers of woodwhich, in a growing tree, haveceased to contain living cells andin which the reserve materials(e.g., starch) have been removed orconverted into more durable sub-stances (Ford-Robertson 1971).

heavy fuels see “larger diameterfuels.”

herbicide a chemica l substanceused for killing plants (Hanson1962) .

herd behavior the col lect ive be-havior exhibited by social groupsof ungulates.

hibernacula habitat niches wherecertain animals overwinter (Han-son 1962) .

hiding cover see “hiding cover fordeer” and “hiding cover for elk.”

hiding cover for deer (also see “cov-er”) vegetation capable of hiding90 percent of a standing adult deerfrom the view of a human at a dis-tance equal to or less than 61meters (200 ft); generally, any veg-etation used by deer for securityor to escape from danger.

hiding cover for elk (also see “cover”)vegetation capable of hiding 90percent of a standing adult elkfrom the view of a human at a dis-tance equal to or less than 61meters (200 ft); generally, any veg-etation used by elk for security orescape from danger.

high density fuel a large or heavyaccumulation of fuel per unit ofarea.

holding crew personnel active infire management whose job it is tocontain a fire within prescribedboundaries.

hole nesters wildlife species thatnest in cavities.

holistic emphasiz ing the impor-tance of the whole and the inter-dependence of its parts (Morris1976) .

home range the area which an ani-mal traverses in the scope of nor-mal activities; not to be confusedwith territory.

homoiotherm an animal which is incidental association the acciden-able to maintain the temperature tal, unpredictable, or noncompel-of the body at an approximately ling association of a wildlife spe-constant level independent of the cies with a habitat as opposed tosurrounding medium; “warm- an association that is strong, pre-blooded” (Hanson 1962). dictable, and mandatory.

homoiothermic animals see “homo-iotherm.”

horizontal diversity the diversity inan area that results from the num-ber of plant communities or suc-cessional stages or both; the great-er their number the greater thehorizontal diversity; also, the great-er the amount of edge the higherthe degree of horizontal diversity.

increment (also see “growing layer”)the increase in girth, diameter,basal area, height, volume, quality,or value of individual trees or cropsover a specified time, usually an-nually (Ford-Robertson 7971).

humidity see “relative humidity.”

humus a general term for the moreor less decomposed plant andanimal residues in the soil, littertherefore being excluded (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

increment borer (also see “incrementcore”) an augerlike instrumentwith a hollow bit and an extractor,used to extract radial cylinders ofwood or corings from trees withannual growth rings; the growthrings are used to determine incre-ment and age (Ford-Robertson1971).

humus layer the surface soil layercomposed of or dominated by or-ganic material, whether or not in-corporated with mineral soil (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

increment core (also see “incrementborer”) the wood section removedby an increment borer; this sectionis examined for annual growthrings to determine increment andage (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

hyphae filament of a fungus thallusthat is composed of one or morecyl indr ical cel ls ; increases bygrowth at its tip; gives rise to newhyphae by lateral branching (Aber-crombie et al. 1964).

independent variable the variable ina relationship that is judged for itseffect on the dependent variable.

indicator species management (alsosee “featured species manage-ment”) a wi ld l i fe managementscheme in which the welfare of aselected species is presumed toindicate the welfare of other spe-c i e s .

igneous rocks evolving from moltenmaterial and of two types: (1) thosecooled from molten masses be-neath the earth’s surface (intrusiverocks) and (2) those cooled frommolten masses flowing or forciblyextruded upon the earth’s surface(extrusive rocks) (Baldwin 1964).

imperfect fungi a fungi group thatlacks a sexual reproduction stage;mostly asexual Ascomycetes inwhich the sexual stage has beenlost during evolution or has not yetbeen identified (Abercrombie et al.1964) .

indicator species system in wildlife,analogous to “featured speciesmanagement”; in plant ecology,plant species used to indicate spe-cial environmental factors or plantcommunity types (Daubenmire1976).

indirect habitat improvement habi-tat manipulation done for purposesother than wildlife habitat improve-ment but exploited to accomplishwildlife management objectives.

induced diversity index a numberthat indicates the relative degreeof induced diversity in habitat peruqit area produced by edgesformed by the junction of succes-sional stages or vegetative condi-tions within plant communities;expressed mathematically:

T EInduced DI = -.--A.- ;

2vxz

where TE, is the total length ofedges between successionalstages or conditions within plantcommunities, in meters or feet; Ais the area expressed in squaremeters or square feet and TI .is3.1416.

induced edge an edge that resultsfrom the meeting of two succes-sional stages or vegetative condi-tions within a plant community;can be controlled by managementaction.

inherent edge (also see “edge”) anedge that results from the meetingof two plant community types.

inherent diversity index a numberthat indicates the relative degreeof inherent diversity in habitat perunit area produced by plant com-munity to plant community edges;expressed mathematically:

Inherent DI = TEc ;2qiix

where TE, is the total edge betweenplant communities within or on theperimeter of the area; A is the areaand n is 3.1416.

in-house inside or internal to an or-ganization, agency, or bureau.

inoculation introduction of an or-ganism into a new environment.

inorganic involving neither organiclife nor the products of organic life;not composed of organic matter;mineral (Morris 1976).

Glossary 4 7 9

insectivorous an animal that eatsinsects (Hanson 1962); in commonusage, includes animals that eatinsects and, somet imes, o therselected invertebrates.

integrator an attribute that ex-presses the combined influence ofa number of interacting variables.

integrity the state of being unim-paired; soundness; completeness;unity (Morris 1976).

intensive forestry the practice offorestry to obtain a high level ofvolume and quality of wood pro-ducts per uni t of area; accom-plished through the application ofthe best techniques of silvicultureand management (F.ord-Robertson1971) .

intensive timber management see“intensive forestry.”

interface a surface forming a com-mon boundary between two re-gions (Morris 1976) or between twothings.

intermittent stream a stream thatordinarily goes dry at one or moretimes during the year but sustainsflows for some period.

internal succession the process ofchange stimulated primarily by de-cay and deterioration in a snag ordead and down log.

interspersion (also see “law of inter-spersion”) the intermixing ofplant species and plant communi-ties that provide habitat for animalsin a defined area.

intersuccessional link (also see “rel-ic”) something that persists fromone successional stage to one ormore later successional stages.

inventory (also see “forest inventory”)a detailed list of things in posses-sion; especially, a periodic surveyof goods and materials in stock;the process of survey; the itemsand the quantity of goods and ma-terials listed (Morris 1976).

invertebrate an animal lacking aspinal column (Hanson 1962).

480 Glossa ry

juxtapose to situate side by side;to place together (Morris 1976).

juxtaposition (also see “juxtapose”)the act of arranging stands inspace.

kerf the slot cut by a saw movingthrough wood (Ford-Robertson1971).

key-species management in wild-life, analogous to “featured spe-cies management;” in range man-agement, the most palatable andcommon plant species used bylivestock; the plants on whosestatus livestock management deci-sions are based (Kothmann 1974).

land base the amount of land withwhich the land manager has towork.

landscape the aspect of the landthat is characteristic of a particularregion (Morris 1976).

landscape foreground areas man-aged particularly for their impacton the visual attributes of an areaas viewed from a specified point.

land-type particular combinationsof land features and plant com-munity types used by USDA For-est Service land-use planners inthe Blue Mountains to predict re-sponses to timber managementpractices.

land-use planning the process ofcategorizing land units for variouskinds and intensities of use andmanagement; theoretically basedon public demands, land use capa-bility, cost/benefit analyses, publicwelfare, sociological considera-tions, and specifications or con-straints of applicable law.

large diameter fuels fuels of largediameter-such as snags, logs,and large limbwood-which igniteand are consumed more slowlythan small diameter fuels.

law of dispersion (also see “disper-sion”) an ecological theory; thepotential density of wildlife spe-cies with small home ranges thatrequire two or more types of habi-tat is roughly proportional to thesum of the peripheries of thosetypes (Kelker 1964).

law of interspersion (also see “inter-spersion”) the number of residentwildlife species that require two ormore types of habitat depends onthe degree of interspersion of nu-merous blocks of such types (Leo-pold 1933, Dice 1931).

lek a s i te where b i rds (pr imar i lygrouse) traditionally gather for sex-ual display and courtship.

letter code see “species code.”

life form a group of wildlife specieswhose requirements for habitat aresatisfied by similar successionalstages within given plant communi-ties.

lighting pattern the arrangement ofignition points and the timing ofthe ignition of those points in aprescribed burn.

limiting factor the environmentalinfluence through which the tolera-tion limit of an organism is firstreached, which acts, therefore, asthe immediate restriction in one ormore of its functions or activitiesor in its geographic distribution(Hanson 1962) .

litter the uppermost layer of organicdebris on a forest floor; essentiallythe freshly fallen or slightly decom-posed vegetable material, mainlyfoliate or leaf litter, but also barkfragments, f lowers, and frui ts(Ford-Robertson 1971).

litter fall see “litter.”

live burning progressive burning ofgreen slash as it is cut (USDA For-est Service 1956).

livestock domestic animals, usuallyungulates, raised for use, profit, orpleasure (Ford-Robertson 1971).

locally distributed the occurrenceof wildlife species in discrete lo-calized areas as opposed to a gen-eral d ist r ibut ion throughout anarea of seemingly similar habitat.

log (also see “dead and down woodymaterial”) any section of the boleor thicker branches of a felled treeafter trimming and cross-cutting(Ford-Robertson 1971); also, anysection of the bole or of the thickerbranches of a dead and down tree.

log accumulation the total of logson the forest floor at any giventime.

log class the identification of logsby groups based on their state ofdecomposition,

log decomposition class see “logclass.”

log value the economic or marketvalue of a dead and down log onthe forest floor.

logging debris (also see “debris”)woody material left on the forestfloor as a result of logging.

long-range planning planning for afuture more than 5 years distant(Schwarz et al. 1976).

lookout site a structure used bywildlife for a better vantage point.

lopping after felling, the choppingof small trees and branches andtops of large trees so that the re-sultant slash will lie close to theground and decay more rapidly(Ford-Robertson 1971).

lopping and scattering lopping theslash created by logging andspreading it more or less evenlyover the ground without burning(Ford-Robertson 1971); a method ofslash disposal.

machine-piling (also see “hand-piling”) the p i l ing of s lash .bymachine; creates more soil impactsthan hand-piling but is cheaper.

main crop in regular crops or stands,the portion of the growing stockretained after an intermediate cut-ting (Ford-Robertson 1971).

main road a forest road, 1 Vi ormore lanes wide, in good condi-tion; main route of travel, havingconstant maintenance (Perry andOverly 1977).

managed forest a forest that hasbeen brought under managementto accomplish specified objectives.

managed stand a stand subject tosilvicultural manipulation plannedto give a desired result-usuallyincreased wood production.

managed yield table a table thatshows the growth pattern for oneor more tree species in a managed,even-aged stand; derived frommeasurements at regular intervalscovering the stand’s useful life;inc ludes mean d.b.h. and t reeheight , number of s tems, andstanding wood volume per unitarea; may include volume of thin-nings or main crop or total volume(Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

management constraint see “con-straint.”

management for species richness awildlife management strategy toproduce a relatively high number ofspecies per unit area.

mast the fruit of trees suitable asfood for l ivestock and wi ldl i fe(Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

mature stage (also see “successionalstage” and “maturity”) one of sixrecognized successional stages inthe coniferous forests of the BlueMountains in which the stand isprimarily composed of ordominatedby mature trees in vigorous condi-tion.

mature tree see “maturity.”

maturity in physiology, the stage atwhich a tree or other plant has at-tained full development and is infull seed production; in forest man-agement, the stage at which a treeor stand best fulfills the purposefor which it was managed (Ford-Robertson 1971).

maximum population level thegreatest number of a wildlife spe-cies that can occur i f the con-straints of food, cover, and waterare removed; the greatest numberthat can exist wi thout lossescaused by social strife.

mean average; the total of a seriesof measurements divided by thenumber of measurements.

mean annual increment (also see “in-crement” and “culmination ofmean annual increment”) thetotal increment up to a certain agedivided by that age (Ford-Robertson1971) .

Mendelian population a group of in-dividuals that share in a commongene pool through reproduction; aspec ies (Hanson 1962) .

merchantable snag a snag contain-ing enough sound wood that itsvalue at the mill exceeds the costof cutting and transporting it tothat location.

merchantable trees trees that canbe marketed.

meristem a plant tissue that dividesto form new cells; located in suchplaces as root tips, stem tips, andbuds (Hanson 1962) .

metabolic rate (also see “basal me-,tabolism”) the rate of expenditureof energy compared to basal me-tabolism.

metamorphic a rock formed fromany existing rock which has beenaltered by additionalheat and pres-sure (Baldwin 1964); for example,slate.

microarthropod (also see “arthropod”and “microscopic”) an arthropodthat is microscopic.

Glossary 481

microbe microscop ic organ ism(Hanson 1962) .

microbial community (also see “mi-crobe” and “community”) a com-munity of microbes of one or morespec ies .

mixed conifer community a forestcommunity of the Blue Mountainsdominated by two or more conifer-ous spec ies-ponderosa p ine ,Douglas-fir, white fir, lodgepolepine, and larch.

microclimate the c l imat ic condi-tions within a small or local habitatthat is well defined (Hanson 1962).

mixed-species stand a stand com-posed of two or more species.

microenvironment (also see “environ-ment”) a small environment.

micro-organism see “microbe.”

microscopic too small to be seenby the unaided eye; large enoughto be seen with the aid of a micro-scope; exceedingly small; minute(Morris 1976).

MM standard the type and amountof fuel that would allow a mediumrate of fire spread and be of medi-um resistance to control based ontree cover and type, understorytype and density, and the amountof fuel on the ground (USDA ForestService 1956).

model a formalized expression of atheory or of the causal situationthat generated observed data (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

migration corridor (also see “travelcorridor”) a belt, band, or stringerof vegetation that provides a com-pletely or partially suitable habitatand which animals follow duringmigrations.

moisture regime the amount ofmoisture available at specific timesin a particular area.

migration route a travel route usedroutinely by wildlife in their sea-sonal movement from one habitatto another.

mopup the act of making a fire safeafter it has been controlled; extin-guish ing or removing burn ingmaterial along or near the controlline, felling snags, or trenchinglogs to prevent rolling(USDA For-est Service 1956).

mineral cycling (also see “cycling”and “ecosystem”) the cycling ofminerals throughout an ecosystem.

mineral soil soil composed mainlyof inorganic materials and with arelatively low amount of organicmaterial (Hanson 1962).

mortality in wildlife management,the loss in a population from anycause, including hunter kill, poach-ing, predation, accident, and dis-ease (Ford-Robertson 1971); in for-estry, the trees in a stand that dieof natural causes.

minimally stocked (also see “stock- mosaic the intermingling of planting”) the smal les t number o f communities and their succes-trees in an area that will allow ac- sional stages in such a manner ascomplishment of the timber man- to give the impression of an inter-agement goal. woven design.

minimum size snag the smallestd.b.h. snag that can be excavatedby a particular species of primaryexcavator for a nest or roost cavity.

mosaic edge an edge betweenstands or communi t ies that ishighly irregular, leading to a rela-tively large amount of edge perunit area.

mixed age stand a stand composedof trees of two or more ages. mulch any loose covering on the

surface of the soil, such as litteror deliberately applied organicmaterial; residues or artificial covermay be used in this manner(Ford-Rober tson 1971)

multiple use a concept of landmanagement in which a number ofproducts are deliberately producedfrom the same land base; in Na-tional Forests, the simultaneousprovision of water, wood, recrea-tion, wildlife, and recreation is re-quired by the Multiple-Use Sus-tained Yield Act (U. S. Laws, Stat-utes, etc. Public Law 86-517, 1960).

multiple use constraint a restric-tion placed on the forest managerbecause of requirements of theMultiple-Use Sustained Yield Act(U. S. Laws, Statutes, etc. PublicLaw 86-517, 1960) .

multiple use planning (also see “mul-tiple use”) the planning of man-agement activities for a definedarea to simultaneously accomplishgoals for several distinct purposes,such as production of wood, water,wildlife, recreation, and grazing(U. S. Laws, Statutes, etc. PublicLaw 86-517, 1960) .

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act(U. S. Laws, Statutes, etc. PublicLaw 86-517, 1960) authorizes anddirects that the National Forestsbe managed for outdoor recreation,range, timber, watershed, and wild-life and fish purposes, and to pro-duce a sustained yield of productsand services, and for other pur-poses (Schwarz et al. 1976).

multistoried stands see “multi-tiered stands.”

multitiered stands stands with twoor more distinct tree layers in thecanopy; synonymous with multi-storied stands.

mycelial tissue see “mycelium.”

mycelium the vegetative part of afungus, composed of hyphae, asdistinct from fructification (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

mycorrhiza the symbiotic relation-ship of a fungus with the roots ofCertain plants (Hanson 1962).

4 8 2 Glossary

National Environmental Policy Act(U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. PublicLaw 91-190, 1970) declares a na-tional policy encouraging produc-tive and enjoyable harmony be-tween man and environment, topromote prevention or eliminationof damage to the environment andbiosphere and st imulate heal thand welfare of people, to enrichunderstanding of ecological sys-tems and natural resources of theUnited States and to establish aCouncil of Environmental Quality(Schwarz et al. 1976).

N a t i o n a l F o r e s t i n t h e U n i t e dStates, a Federal reservation, offorest, range, or other wild landadministered by the Forest Serviceof the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture under a program of multipleuse and susta ined y ie ld (Ford-Robertson 1971).

natural regulation (also see “regu-late”) the regulation of a standthrough naturally occurring biologi-cal processes as opposed to regu-lation through silvicultural prac-tices.

nematode an an imal in the c lassNematoda and the phylum Nema-thelminthes (Hanson 1962); like athread; roundworms (W. B. Saun-ders Company 1968).

nest box see “bird box.”

nesting population level the num-ber of individuals or pairs of a spe-cies in an area during the breedingseason.

new soil profile the soil profile thatexists after a management actionor a rapidly occurring natural pro-c e s s .

niche see “habitat niche.”

nitrogen fixation the conversion ofelemental nitrogen (NJ from theatmosphere to organic combina-tions or to forms readily utilizablein b io log ica l processes (Ford-Robertson 1971).

node a point on the stem fromwhich a leaf arises (Mason 1975).

nongame wildlife (also see “game”and “wildlife”) all wild terrestrialvertebrates not subject to sporthunting.

normal distribution a continuousfrequency distribution symmetricalabout the random variable havingthe greatest frequency and con-forming to a particular mathemati-cal formula; this distribution ap-pears to be a good approximationof many naturally occurring distri-butions; the basis of many methodsof statistical analysis (Ford-Robert-son 1971) .

nurse log a dead and down log thatfosters tree seedlings by protect-ing them from such environmentalfactors as wind, insolation! or frost,or by providing appropriate so i land microclimate.

nursery colonies a congregating ofbats for the purpose of giving birthand nurturing their young.

nutrient cycling the circulation ofelements, such as nitrogen andcarbon, via specific pathways fromabiotic to biotic portions of the en-vironment and back again; a l lmineral and nutrient cycles involv-ing man, animals, and plants-such as the carbon cycle, phos-phorous cycle, and nitrogen cycle(Schwarz et al. 7976).

nutrient immobilization the tyingup of nutrients in some form sothat they are temporarily restrainedfrom cycling in the ecosystem.

obligate a plant or animal that oc-curs in a narrowly defined habitat.

old-growth stand a stand that ispast fu l l matur i ty and showingdecadence; the last stage in forestsuccession; the USDA Forest Serv-ice’s working def in i t ion for old-growth stands in the Blue Moun-tains is 37 live trees or more perhectare (15lacre) over 53-centimeter(21-in) d.b.h., 1.2 or more snags perhectare (0.5 snag/acre) over 53-cent imeter (21-in) d.b.h., two ormore canopy levels, heart rot andother signs of stand decadencepresent and obvious, overstorycanopy closure of IO-40 percent,usuallywithadefiniteshrub-saplinglayer with a canopy closure of over40 percent, with understory andoverstory canopy combined ex-ceeding 70 percent, and logs obvi-ous on the ground.

l-hour fuel timelag class dead her-baceous and woody fuels less than0.6 centimeter (0.25 in) in diameterand the uppermost 0.6 centimeter(0.25 in) of needles and leaves onthe forest floor (Deeming et al.1978, Furman 1975) .

loo-hour fuel timelag class deadfuels from 2.5 to 7.6 centimeters (1to 3 in) in diameter and litter from2.5 to 10.2 centimeters (1 to 4 in)below surface of the forest floor(Deeming et al. 1978, Furman 1975).

l,OOO-hour fuel timelag class deadfuels from 7.6 to 20.3 centimeters(3 to 8 in) in diameter and litter 10.2t0 30.5 centimeters (4 to 12 in) be-low surface of forest floor (Deem-ing et al. 1978).

on-grade strictly, timber free fromdefect; more generally, timber freefrom any defect not acceptable inthe grade or for the particular useintended (Ford-Robertson 1971).

Glossa ry 4 8 3

open canopy a canopy condit ionwhich a l lows large amounts o fdirect sunlight to reach the ground.

opening a break in the forest can-opy; the existence of an area of es-sentially bare soil, grasses, forbs,or shrubs in an area dominated bytrees.

openstocked stand a stand of treesin which the trees are located rela-tively far apart.

opportunity curve a curve on agraph that displays the expectedyield of a product under the possi-ble combinations of two or morefactors bearing on the productionof that product.

optimum habitat amounts and ar-rangement of cover and forageareas that result in the greatestpossible proper use of the greatestpossible area by deer and elk.

optimum stocking see “full stock-ing.”

organ a distinct part of a plant oranimal that has one or more par-ticular functions (Hanson 1962).

organic matter in soil materials de-rived from plants or animals, muchof it in an advanced state of de-composition (Hanson 1962).

organism any l iv ing individual ofany plant or animal species (Mor-r is 1976) .

overgrazing a continued overuse,usually by ungulates, that createsa deter iorated range condi t ion(Kothmann 1974).

overmature (also see “old-growthstand”) the condition that existsafter an even-aged stand reachesmaturi ty and decl ine in vigor,h e a l t h a n d soundness(Ford-Robertson 1971).

overstocked (also see “stocking”) asituation in which so many treesexist in a stand that it is impossi-ble to achieve maximum wood pro-duction.

484 Glossary

overstory the portion of the treesthat form the uppermost canopylayer in a forest of more than onestory (Ford-Robertson 1971).

overstory removal the removal ,usually for silvicultural purposes,of overstory trees from a stand.

overuse use by ungulates of an ex-cessive amount of the currentyear’s growth of forage plantswhich, if continued, will result inovergrazing and range deteriora-tion (Kothmann 1974).

parameter any variable or arbitraryconstant appearing in a mathema-t ical expression, the values ofwhich restrict or determine thespecific form of the expression(Morris 1976).

phellem a tissue produced exter-nally; i.e., on the bark side, by thephellogen in a stem or root(Ford-Robertson 1971).

photosynthesis the buildup of or-ganic compounds, particularly car-bohydrates, in green cells (Ford-Robertson 1971).

partial cuts any timber harvest thatleaves live trees standing for somemanagement purpose.

phylogenetic order species listedin sequence as to evolut ionarydevelopment.

pathogen any agent that causes dis-ease, especially micro-organisms,such as bacteria or fungi (Morris1976) .

phylogenetic sequence see “phylo-genetic order.”

p a t h o l o g i c a l p e r t a i n i n g t o o rcaused by disease (Morris 1976).

piling and burning the stacking ofslash from logging and the subse-quent burning of the indiv idualstacks (USDA Forest Service 1956).

pathology the anatomic or func-tional manifestations of disease(Morris 1976).

Pinaceae a family of plants; speci-fically, the pine family.

perennial stream a stream that or- planning area the area encom-dinarily has running water on a passed by a particular forest man-year-round basis. agement plan.

perfect simplicity (also see “diversityindex”) an area in which no edgesoccur either on or within the perim-eter; i.e., where the diversity indexis equal to zero.

permanent stream see “perennialstream.”

plant community a vegetative com-plex unique in its combination ofplants; occurs in particular loca-tions under particular influences; areflection or integration of the en-vironmental influences on the site-such as soils, temperature, ele-vation, solar radiation, slope, as-pect, and rainfall; denotes a gen-eral k ind of c l imax vegetat ion,such as ponderosa pine or bunch-grass, from which several plantcommunity types may be derivedon the basis of character is t iclesser vegetation.

pest an organism causing or capa-ble of causing damage to the for-est (Ford-Robertson 1971).

pesticide a substance that destroyspests; e.g., a fungicide or an in-secticide (Hanson 1962).

pH a notat ion designat ing acid i tyand alkalinity, and standing for thenegative logarithm to base 10 of theH-ion concentration in a solution;a pH of 7 indicates neutral i ty;higher values indicate alkalinityand lower values indicate acidity(Ford-Robertson 1971).

plant community structure see“vegetative structure.”

plant community type (also see “habi-tat type” and “plant community”)a classification unit for vegetationus ing p lant assoc ia t ions whichcharacterize a type of plant com-munity in a manner part icular lyuseful to forest managers; classi-fication is based on (1) floristicsimilarity in climax or other stablestate, (2) similarity in biomass pro-duction, and (3) differences fromother plant community types interms of management actions ac-ceptable or required; must be iden-tifiable in any state of disturbance.

pole a young tree, from the time itslower branches begin to die untilthe time the rate of crown growthbegins to slow and crown expan-sion is noticeable (Ford-Robertson1971) .

pole-sapling stage (also see “succes-sional stage,” “pole,” and “sap-ling”) one of six recognized suc-cessional stages in the coniferousforests of the Blue Mountains inwhich the dominant vegetation istrees that qualify as poles or sap-lings or both.

population in statistics, the aggre-gate of all units forming the sub-ject of study; otherwise, a commu-nity of individuals that share a com-mon gene pool (Ford-Robertson1971) .

population dynamics the totality ofchanges in number, sex, and agethat take place during the life of apopulation (Hanson 1962).

potential maximum population see“maximum population level.“

precommercial thinning (also see“thinning”) any type of thinningthat takes place in a stand beforethe size or condition of the materialcut or killed makes it of sufficientvalue to meet the costs of theactivity (Ford-Robertson 1971).

predator any animal that kills andfeeds on other an imals (Ford-Robertson 1971).

prescribed burning skillful applica-tion of fire to natural fuels underconditions of weather, fuel mois-ture, soil moisture, etc., that allowsconfinement of the fire to a prede-termined area and produces the in-tensity of heat and rate of spreadto accomplish planned benefits toone or more objectives of silvicul-ture, wildlife management, grazing,or hazard reduction (USDA ForestService 1956).

prescribed fire fire used as a man-agement tool under specified con-ditions for burning a defined area(Kothmann 1974).

prescription in silvicultural terms,the formal written plan of action tocarry out a silvicultural treatmentof a forest stand to achieve speci-fic objectives.

primary association the relationshipbetween a wildlife species and ahabitat condition that reflects adependence on such habitat; a re-lationship that is strong and pre-d i c t a b l e .

primary cavity nesters wildlife spe-cies that excavate cavit ies insnags .

primary climax the climax vegeta-tive stage toward and to which thevegetation evolves without inter-ference of fire or other catastrophicevent (Daubenmire 1968).

primary conversion the first stagein converting trees to products;the cutting and removal of treesfrom the forest.

primary excavator a species thatdigs or chips out cavities in woodto provide itself or its mate with asite for nesting or roosting.

primitive road a one-lane unim-proved forest road in fair to poorcondition that is seldom or nevermaintained (Perry and Overly 1977).

probability the frequency, expressedas a proportion or percent of thetotal occurrences, which will, overa long series of trials, produce aspecified value for the variable inquestion (F,ord-Robertson 1971).

program a p lanned sequence oflogical instructions and routinesperformed by a computer to solvea problem (Ford-Robertson 1971);any organized list of procedures orschedule (Morris 1976).

programed (also see “program”) toinclude or schedule in a program(Morris 7976).

proper use a degree and time of useby ungulates of the current year’sforage production which, if con-tinued, will either maintain or im-prove the range condition (Koth-mann 1974) .

prosenchyma cells elongated cellswith tapering ends (Ford-Robertson1971) .

public forest any forest in publicownership; in the Blue Mountainssuch forests are primarily in Na-t ional Forests managed by theUSDA Forest Service.

public involvement the inclusion ofthe general public in the processof planning the goals and activi-ties to occur on public forest landover a specified time period.

public land (also see “public forest”)any land, including public forestland, held in Government owner-ship in trust for the citizens of theState or Nation; in the Blue Moun-tains, lands under the control ofthe USDA Forest Service and theU.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management.

quantify (also see “quantity”) todetermine or express the numberof some item (Morris 1976).

quantity a number or amount o fanything, either specific or indefi-nite (Morris 1976).

Glossary 485

radiation the emission and trans-mission of energy from any source(Hanson 1962) .

radiation loss the heat loss from ananimal by radiation to the surround-ing environment.

radio-collar a col lar conta in ing aradio transmitter that is fastenedon an an imal ; s ignals f rom thetransmitter are received and usedby wildlife biologists to gain infor-mation, usually about the positionof the animal.

range in statistics, an elementarymeasure of the dispersion of a setof random variables, equal to thelargest minus the smallest; in landclassification, all land, includingforest land, that pr.oduces nativeforage in contrast to land cultivatedfor agricultural crops or carryingdense forest (Ford-Robertson 1971);in wildlife management, the gen-eral area occupied by a particularanimal, often on a seasonal basis,such as elk winter range.

raptor any predatory bird-such asa falcon, hawk, eagle, or owl-thathas feet with sharp talons or clawsadapted for seiz ing prey and ahooked beak for tearing flesh.

recoverable wood volume the woodproduced in a growing stand thatcan be commercial ly harvestedover a specified period.

recruitment of logs (also see “deadand down woody material”) newlogs accumulating on the forestfloor.

reforestation reestablishment of atree crop on forest s i tes (Ford-Robertson 1971).

regenerate to renew a tree cropthrough artificial or natural meansor both (Ford-Robertson 1971).

regeneration the renewal of thetree crop by natural or artificialmeans; also, the young crop (Ford-Robertson 1971).

regeneration area (also see “regener-ate”) the area selected for regen-eration; generally, with a statedspecified period for accomplish-ment (Ford-Robertson 1971).

regeneration cut any removal oftrees intended to assist regen-eration already present or to makeregenerat ion poss ib le (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

regeneration unit see “regenerationarea.”

regulate to control or direct by rule,principle, or method; to adjust tosome standard or requirement; toput in desired order.

relative humidity the ratio of theamount of water vapor in the air ata specific temperature to the maxi-mum capacity of the air to containwater vapor at that temperature(Morris 1976).

relic a surviving memorial of some-thing past: an object having inter-est by reason of its age or associa-t ion with the past; a survivingtrace of something; remainingparts or fragments.

residence time the amount of timesomething has been in place; theamount of time a log has lain onthe forest floor.

resident species the wildlife spe-cies commonly found in a specificarea.

response curve a curve describingthe response in potential use byelk or deer on a land-type tochanges in the cover-forage arearatio.

rhizoid a filamentous organ, onecell thick, found in mosses, ferns,Gametophytes, and other plants;used for attachment and probablyfor absorption of water and nutrientsa l t s (Hanson 1962) .

rhizome a stem, generally modifiedfor stor ing food mater ia ls, thatgrows along and below the groundsurface and produces adventitiousroots, scale leaves, and suckers ir-regularly along its length, not justat nodes (Ford-Robertson 1971).

rhizomorph a compact s t rand offungus hyphae, capable of increasein length by apical growth, thattransports food materials from onethallus part to another and assistsin spreading fungi through or oversubstratum (Abercrombie et a l .1964).

richness (also see “species richnessmanagement”) a measure of therelative degree or number of plantor wildlife species or both associ-ated with particular habitat condi-tions.

ring see “growing layer.”

riparian zone an area identified bythe presence of vegetation that re-quires free or unbound water orconditions more moist than nor-mally found in the area(Franklinand Dyrness 1973, Minore andSmith 1971).

road hunter a hunter who seeksgame by cruising roads in vehicleswhich is illegal as a means of tak-ing game in the Blue Mountains.

roadtess area in the Blue Moun-tains, the USDA Forest Service’sworking definition is any area of2 023 contiguous hectares (5,000acres) that contains no developedroads; areas temporarily withdrawnfrom management until their suit-ability for wilderness classificationis determined; also, any area to bemanaged without construction ofroads .

root wad the mass of roots, soil,and rocks that remains intactwhen a tree, shrub, or stump is up-rooted.

rotation the p lanned number ofyears between the regeneration ofa stand and its final cutting at aspecified stage (Ford-Robertson1971) .

486 Glossary

rotation age the age of the foreststand when the final harvest cut ismade (Ford-Robertson 1971).

rotation cycle see “rotation.”

roundwood any wood products pre-pared in the round state-fromfelled trees to material trimmed,barked, and cross-cut; examples ofsuch products are unsplit fuelwood,poles, and posts (Ford-Robertson1971) .

runoff precipitation that is not re-tained on the site where it fell;natural drainage away from an area(Ford-Robertson 1971).

runway a path so frequently fol-lowed by wildlife that a definitetrail is formed, characterized bydenuding of the land or creation ofa depression on the ground.

sale area the area in which a timbersale has been made or is planned;often refers to the area in whichtimber will be, is being, or hasbeen harvested.

salvage (also see “salvage cutting”)the dead, dying, or deterioratingwoody material removed from thestand and sold.

salvage cutting the removal andsale of trees that are dead, dying,or deteriorating (Ford-Robertson1971) .

salvage logging see “salvage cut-ting.”

sanitation cutting the removal ofdead or damaged trees or treessusceptible to death or damage-usually to prevent the spread ofpests or pathogens and so promoteforest hygiene (Ford-Robertson1971) .

sanitation harvest see “sanitationcutting.”

sapling a young tree that is nolonger a seedling but not yet apole; a tree more than a few feethigh and an inch or so in d.b.h.,growing v igorously and wi thoutdead bark or more than an occa-sional dead branch (Ford-Robertson1971) .

secondary cavity user see “second-ary cavity nester.”

secondary occupier see “secon-dary cavity nester.”

saprophytes a plant incapable ofsynthesizing its nutrient require-ments from inorganic sources thatfeeds on dead organic material,commonly assisting decay (Ford-Robertson 1971).

secondary road a forest road of 1 l/zlanes or less, somewhat improved,in good to fair condition, irregularlymaintained (Perry and Overly 1977).

secondary wind maxima the airmovement at ground level underdense canopied stands.

sap stain (also see “stain”) anystain that predominantly affectssapwood; stain resulting from thegrowth of fungi that derive theirnourishment from the ceil contentsbut do not cause decomposition ofthe timber (Ford-Robertson 1971).

sediment mater ia l suspended inliquid or air; the deposition of thatmaterial onto the surface under-lying this liquid or air (Morris 1976);usually the deposition of organicand inorganic so i l mater ia ls bywater.

sapwood the outer layer of wood inthe growing tree which containsliving cells and reserve materials;e.g., starch (Ford-Robertson 1971).

sedimentary rocks rocks formed bythe accumulation of sediment inwater (aqueous deposits) or fromair (eol ian deposi ts) (Amer icanGeological institute 1962).

saw log a log suitable in size and seed bearer any tree retained toquality to produce sawn timber provide seed for natural regenera-(Ford-Robertson 1971). tion (Ford-Robertson 1971).

sawtimber t rees f i t to y ield sawlogs or logs that will yield sawntimber (Ford-Robertson 1971).

scheduling the selection of timesto institute silvicultural treatmentsto accomplish management objec-tives.

seedling a young tree grown fromseed from the time of germinationuntil it becomes a sapling; the divi-sion between seedlings and sap-lings is indefinite and may be arbi-trarily fixed (Ford-Robertson 1971).

seed tree see “seed bearer.”

scientific name (also see “genus,”“species,” and “binomial”) thebinomial or two-word lat in izedname of an organism; the firstword describes the genus, thesecond the species.

seed-tree cutting removal in onecut of the mature timber crop froman area, except for a small numberof seed bearers left singly or insmal l groups (Ford-Rober tson1971) .

Scribner rule one of the oldest dia-gram log rules in existence; therule assumes l-inch boards and a%-inch kerf; makes a liberal allow-ance for s labs and d isregardstaper (Ford-Robertson 1971).

seed-tree regeneration regenerationof the stand by the intent ionalleaving of selected seed trees dur-ing the final harvest cut; once thenew stand has sprouted, thesetrees are commonly removed orkilled.

secondary cavity nester wildl i fethat occupies a cavity in a snagthat was excavated by anotherspec ies .

Glossary 4 8 7

selection cutting the annual orperiodic removal of trees, individu-ally or in small groups, from anuneven-aged forest in order to rea-lize the yield and establish a newtree crop (Ford-Robertson 1971).

selection system an uneven-agedsilvicultural system; trees are re-moved indiv idual ly or in smal lgroups, here and there, f rom alarge area each year; regenerationis mainly natural and the stand isideally composed of many ages(Ford-Robertson 1971).

self-sustaining population a wildlifepopulat ion of suff ic ient ly largesize to assure its continued exis-tence within the area of concernwithout introduction of other indi-viduals from outside the area.

semiaquatic species wildlife spe-cies that spend part of their liveson land and part in water.

sere the stages that fo l low oneanother in an ecologic succession(Hanson 1962) .

shaded fuel break a lane throughforest or rangeland f rom whichmost combust ib le mater ia l hasbeen removed; some shade-formingvegetation is left to provide shadeto retard growth of understoryvegetat ion and to maintain acooler, more moist environment.

shade-intolerant plants plant spe-cies that do not germinate or growwell in shade.

shade-tolerant plants plants thatgrow well in shade.

sheet erosion loss or movement ofsoil in thin layers.

shelterwoo# see “shelterwood cut-ting.”

shelterwood cutting any regenera-tion cutting designed to establisha new tree crop under the protec-tion of remnants of the old stand(Ford-Robertson 1971).

Shigometer an instrument used todetect the presence of wood decay.

488 Glossary

short-range planning planning for a single-storied stand a stand of treesfuture less than 5 years distant in which the canopy is contained(Schwarz et al. 1976). in one layer.

shrub a plant with persistent woodystems and relatively low growthform; usual ly produces severalbasal shoots as opposed to a sin-gle bole; differs from a tree by itslow stature and nonarborescentform (Kothmann 1974).

single-tiered stand see “single-storied stand.”

single tree selection a method ofharvesting under an uneven-agedforest management system inwhich trees are individually se-lected for harvest.

shrub-seedling stage (also see “suc-cessional stage,” “shrub,” and“seedling”) one of six recognizedsuccessional stages in the conifer-ous forests of the Blue Mountains;the vegetation of the stand is dom-inated by shrubs or tree seedlingsor both.

single-tree selection cutting singletrees are removed from an uneven-aged forest in order to realize theyield and establish a new crop ofirregular constitution.

sight barrier any object that servesto block the vision of an observer.

single use a concept of manage-ment in which a single manage-ment objective is paramount.

sight distance the distance at which90 percent or more of an adult elkor deer is hidden from the view ofa human.

site an area considered in terms ofits environment, particularly as thisdetermines the type, quality, andgrowth rate of the potential vegeta-tion.

silvics the study of the life historyand general characteristics of for-est trees and stands, with particu-lar reference to site factors, in or-der to provide a basis for the prac-tice of silviculture (Ford-Robertson1971) .

site class a measure of the relativeproductive capacity of a forest sitebased on volume or height of thetrees or the maximum mean an-nual increment that is attained orattainable at a given age (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

silvicultural prescription the deci-sion to use one or more of a seriesof silvicultural treatments to pro-duce a desired result in terms ofstand composition and condition.

site index a measure of forest siteclass based on the height of thedominant trees in a stand at an arbi-trarily chosen age (Ford-Robertson1971); in the Blue Mountains theage is 100 years.

silvicultural system a processwhich fo l lows accepted silvicul-tural principles, whereby the treecrops are tended to produce cropsof a desired form, harvested, andreplaced (Ford-Robertson 1971).

site potential see “site index.”

silviculture generally, the scienceand art of cultivating forest crops,based on a knowledge of silvics;more particularly, the theory andpractice of controlling establish-ment, composition, constitution,a n d g r o w t h o f f o r e s t s (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

site type (also see “plant communitytype” and “habitat type”) classifi-cation of an area considered quanti-tatively in terms of how its environ-ment determines the type, quality,and growth rate of the potentialvegetation (Ford-Robertson 1971).

single-species stand a stand com-posed essentially of a single spe-c i e s .

slabs any exterior portion of a logthat is removed by the saw in theprocess of ripping; one side of thisoff-cut is the natural curve of thelog and the other is the sawn sur-face (Ford-Robertson 1971).

slash the residue left on the groundafter trees are felled or accumu-lated there as a result of storm,fire, or silvicultural treatment (Ford-Robertson 1971).

slash disposal (also see “loppingand scattering”) the treatment orhandling of slash to reduce fire orinsect hazard; main treatments arebroadcast burning, live burning,pi l ing and burning, progressiveburning, spot burning, chipping,and strip burning; the main meth-ods of handling are lopping andscattering and pulling tops (Ford-Robertson 1971).

slash treatment see“slash disposal.”

slope the incl ine of the land sur-face measured in degrees from thehorizontal or in percent as deter-mined by the number of uni tschange in elevation per 100 of thesame measurement units; also,character ized by the compassdirection in which it faces (Koth-mann 1974) .

small diameter fuel woody fuels ofsmall diameter that ignite and areconsumed much more rapidly thanlarge diameter fuels; usually com-posed of small diameter limbs,twigs, and stems.

snag (also see “stub”) a standingdead tree from which the leavesand most of the limbs have fallen;such a t ree broken of f but st i l lmore than 6.1 meters (20 ft) tail isa snag; less than 6.1 meters (20 ft)ta l l , i t is cal led a stub (Ford-Robertson 1971); in the Blue Moun-tains, a snag is defined for man-agement purposes as any dead orpart ly dead tree at least 10.2-centimeter (4-in) d.b.h. and at least1.8 meters (6 ft) tall.

snag-dependent wildlife wildl i fespecies that are dependent onsnags for nesting or roosting habi-tat or for food.

snag life the length of time a treestands after it dies.

snag management level the numberof snags per unit of area by d.b.h.class selected as a managementgoal; the level is predicated on thetheoretical number of snags perunit of area by d.b.h. class neededto support nesting populations ofwoodpeckers at a selected density.

snag substitutability in snag man-agement, larger snags can be sub-stituted for smaller snags.

snag volume (also see “snags”) thecubic volume of wood contained insnags .

snag year one snag standing for 1year is equal to 1 snag year.

soaker hose a hose with holes orper forat ions a long i ts length;stretched out and filled with waterunder pressure, the hose deliverswater a long i ts length; usual lyused to soak a strip of soil withwater.

social strife conflict between ani-mals of the same species; usuallyassociated with overcrowding.

soft snag a snag composed pri-marily of wood in advanced stagesof decay and deterioration, particu-larly in the sapwood portions; gen-erally not merchantable.

softwood excavators cavity exca-vating birds that can excavate onlyin soft snags.

soil earth material so modified byphysical, chemical, and biologicalagents that it will support rootedplants (American Geological Insti-tute 1962).

soil erosion the displacement ofsoil from one place to another byany means, including water, wind,logging, and roadbuilding.

soil profile (also see “soil”) a verti-cal section of the soil through allits horizons and extending intothe parent material (Soil ScienceSociety of America 1973).

soil structure (also see “soil”) theform which individual soil particlesassume when they cling togetheror aggregate as natural units ofthe soil mass; structures vary inshape, size, and degree of aggre-gation.

solid wastes any material regardedas worthless or useless that is in asolid state as opposed to gaseousor liquid; often a byproduct of aprocess.

sound wood wood free from decayor marked deterioration.

special habitat a habitat which hasa special function not provided byplant communities and succes-sional stages; includes riparianzones, snags, dead and downwoody material, and edges; biolog-ical in nature; can be created or al-tered by management.

species a unit of classification ofplants and animals consisting ofthe largest and most inclusive ar-ray of sexually reproducing andcross-fertilizing individuals whichshare a common gene pool; themost inclusive Mendelian popula-tion (Hanson 1962).

species-area curve a relationshipdescribing the increasing numberof plant or animal species per unitincrease in area or vice versa.

species-area phenomenon a rela-tionship revealing that the numberof p lant or wi ld l i fe species in-creases with the size of the area.

species code a code of four to sixletters for the binomial (see “bino-mial”) of each vertebrate; the firsttwo letters of the code are the firsttwo letters of its genus and thenext two to four letters of the codeare the first letters of its species(e.g., Cervus elaphus or CEEL).

species composition the speciesthat occur on a site or in a succes-sional or vegetat ive stage of aplant community.

Glossary 4 8 9

species richness a measurement orexpression of the number of spe-cies of plants or animals presentin an area; the more species pres-ent, the higher the degree of spe-cies richness.

species richness management awi ld l i fe management s t rategywhose goal is to produce a rela-tively high number of species perunit area.

spore a single- or several-celled re-productive body that becomes de-tached from the parent and givesrise to a new individual; occurs inall groups of plants but particularlyin fungi, bacteria, and protozoa(Abercrombie et al. 1964).

sporocarp a multicellular structurein which spores are formed (Morris1976) .

spot burning a modi f ied form ofbroadcast slash burning in whichonly the greater accumulations arefired and the fire is confined tothese spots (USDA Forest Service1956) .

spring-fall range an area betweensummer range at high elevationand winter range at low elevationthat is used by deer and elk duringspring and fail as they move be-tween summer and winter range.

stability the abi l i ty of an ecosys-tem, when changed from a steadystate, to develop forces that tendto restore it to its original condi-tion (Margalef 1969).

stagnated stand a stand in whichthe growth of individual trees ismuch below potential because ofcrowding or high density of thetrees.

stagnation the process of the less-ening of the growth rate of individ-ual trees in a stand because ofovercrowding.

stain (also see “blue stain” and “sapstain”) in wood, any alteration innatural color caused by fungus at-tack.

490 Glossa ry

stand plant communities, particu- standard error a statistical term;larly of trees, sufficiently uniform the standard deviation of a distri-in composition, constitution, age, bution of means or of any otherspatial arrangement, or condition statistic determined from samples;to be distinguishable from adja- determined by dividing the stand-cent communities; also, may delin- ard deviation by the square root ofeate a silvicultural or management the number of observations (Ford-entity (Ford-Robertson 1971). Robertson 1971).

stand age the age of a stand undereven-aged management at any par-ticular time; stand age 1 occurswhen trees sprout and the finalage occurs when the stand is sub-jected to final harvest or regenera-tion cutting.

stem the principal axis of a plant,from which buds and shoots de-velop; with woody species, theterm applies to all ages and thick-nesses (Ford-Robertson 1971); inforestry, synonymous with a stand-ing tree.

stand basal area (also see “basalarea” and “crop basal area”) thetotal basal area in a stand (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

stand condition the descript ivemeasurement of a stand by the cri-teria of composition, health, age,size, volume, or spatial arrange-ment.

stocking a loose term for theamount of anything in a given area,particularly in relation to the opti-mum; more precisely, a measure ofthe proportion of an area actuallyoccupied by t rees, in terms ofstocked quadrats or percent can-opy closure (Ford-Robertson 1971).

stand mortality t rees in a s tandthat die from natural causes, usu-ally low vigor, inferior crown posi-tion, or crowding, or a combinationof these factors; also, loss from in-sects, disease, or blowdown.

stocking density (also see “stock-ing”) a measure of the proportionof the area actually occupied bytrees (Ford-Robertson 1971); syno-nymous with stocking rate.

stocking rate see “stocking den-sity.”

stand regulation (also see “regulate”)to bring stand conditions into adesired state.

stand structure (also see “stand”)the conf igurat ion of e lements,parts, or constituents of a stand.

story a horizontal stratum or layerof vegetation formed by a plantcommunity; in forests they areformed essentially by canopy lay-ers (Ford-Robertson 1971).

stand type a classification for silvi-cultural or management purposesmade on the basis of composition,size, density, and age (Ford-Rober tson 1971) .

strata see “vegetative strata.”

stream management unit a man-agement zone alongside a streamwhere the management objectiveis the protection of the riparianzone or of water quality or quantityor both.

standard aerial Photograph a photo-graph of the landscape taken froman aircraft with the camera at abouta 90” angle to the earth’s surface.

standard deviation a stat is t icalterm; a measure of the dispersionabout the mean of a population;i.e., the positive square root of thevariance (Ford-Robertson 1971).

stream protection zone a zone inwhich management activity is ex-cluded or modified to protect theriparian zone or quality and quan-tity of water or both.

stringer vegetation arranged in along, thin, linear fashion.

strip burning setting fire to a nar.row strip of fuel adjacent to a cen-tral line and then burning succes-sively wider adjacent strips insideas the preceding strip burns out;or, burning only a relatively narrowstrip or strips of slash through acutt ing unit and leaving the re-mainder (USDA Forest Service1956) .

structural diversity divers i ty in aforest stand that results from lay-ering or tiering of the canopy; anincrease in layering or tiering leadsto an increase in structural di-versi ty.

structure see “stand structure.”

stub (also see “snag”) a standingdead tree broken off at a height of6.1 meters (20 f t ) or less f romwhich the leaves and most of thelimbs have fallen (Ford-Robertson1971) .

stump the woody base of a tree leftin the ground after felling (Ford-Robertson 1971).

substitutable area an area that mayserve in the place of another areafor a particular purpose selectedby the forest manager.

succession the changes in vegeta-tion and in animal life that takeplace as the p lant communi tyevolves from bare ground to climax.

successional stage a stage or rec-ognizable condi t ion of a p lantcommunity which occurs duringits development from bare groundto climax; coniferous forests in theBlue Mountains progress throughsix recognized stages: grass-forb-+ shrub-seedling .+ pole-sapling-+ young + mature -+ old growth.

sucker a shoot arising from belowground level, either from a rhizomeor from a root (Ford-Robertson1971) .

summer range a range, usually athigher elevation, used by deer andelk during the summer; a summerrange is usually much more exten-sive than a winter range.

sunning the process of an animalmethodical ly exposing i tsel f todirect sunlight; also called sun-bathing.

surface sediment (also see “sedi-ment”) sediment originating onthe soil surface.

surface-water runoff runoff fromprecipitation that does not soakinto the soil but moves over thesoil surface.

suspended sediment soil and othermaterial suspended in water, usu-ally disturbed or moving water;this material drops out of suspen-sion when water movement slowsor ceases .

sustained yield the yield that a for-est can produce continuously froma given intensity of management;implies continuous production; aprime goal is to achieve, at theearliest practical time, a balancebetween increment and cut t ing(Ford-Robertson 1971).

symbiosis a relationship betweentwo or more kinds of living organ-isms wherein all benefit; some-times obligatory to one or more ofthe organisms in the relationship(Ford-Robertson 1971).

talus the accumulation of brokenrocks that occurs at the base ofcliffs or other steep slopes.

taper the decrease in diameter of atree stem or log from the base up-ward (Ford-Robertson 1971).

temperate forest (also see “temperatezone”) a forest occurring in thetemperate zone.

temperate zone the portions of theearth in the northern and southernhemispheres that lie between thetropics and the polar circles 23”27’from the poles (Hanson 1962).

IO-hour fuel timelag class deadfuels from 0.6 to 2.5 centimeters(0.25 to 7 in) in diameter and litterfrom 0.6 to 2.5 centimeters (0.25 to1 in) below the surface of the for-est floor (fuel moisture sticks 1.25centimeters (0.5 in) in diameter areused to estimate moisture contentof this fuel timelag class) (Deeminget al. 1978, Furman 1975).

terrestrial vertebrates animals withbackbones that dwell primarily onland.

terrestrial wildlife wildlife speciesthat dwell primarily on land.

territorial requirement (also see “ter-ritory”) the area necessary to sat-isfy an animal’s need for space.

territory the area which an animaldefends, usually during breedingseason, against intruders of itsown species (Hanson 1962).

thallophyte a plant in any one ofthe phyla of algae and fungi (Han-son 1962) .

thallus a plant body that is not dif-ferentiated into leaves, stems, androots; one- to many-celled, e.g.thallophytes (Hanson 1962).

thermal cover (also see “cover” and“cover patch”) cover used by ani-mals to amel iorate ef fects ofweather; for elk, a stand of conifer-ous trees 12 meters (40 ft) or moretall with an average crown closureof 70 percent or more; for deer,c o v e r m a y inc lude sap l ings ,shrubs, or trees at least 1.5 meters(5 ft) tal l with 75-percent crownclosure.

thermal-neutral zone an area wherethe ambient conditions do not trig-ger a metabolic response on thepart of the occupying animal.

thinning felling of part of an imma-ture crop or stand to accelerategrowth in the remaining trees; bysuitable selection, to improve theform of the trees that remain (Ford-Robertson 1971).

G l o s s a r y 491

thinning regime (also see “thinning”)the silviculturally prescribed sched-ule and intensities of thinningsthroughout the life of a stand.

threatened species a wildlife spe-cies officially designated by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ashaving its existence threatened ina localized area, such as State orprovince or lesser area, becauseits habitat is threatened with des-truction, drastic modification, orsevere curtailment, or because ofoverexploitation, disease, preda-tion, or other factors.

timber a general term for forestcrops and stands containing tim-ber; also, for any lesser aggrega-tion of such trees (Ford-Robertson1971) .

timber management the manage-ment of the forest to enhance pro-duction of wood products for com-mercial use.

timber management system theoveral l process fo l lowed in themanagement of a forest to pro-duce timber; the two primary typesare even-aged and uneven-agedmanagement.

Timber Resource Allocation Model(Timber RAM) a computer modeldeveloped by the USDA ForestService (Navon 1971) that projectsdata on timber stands and is usedin calculating timber harvest levelsover the rotation period; acceptsconstra ints imposed by y ie ldtables, area by timber class or type,and law or management decision.

timber sale the process of sellingtimber to a buyer.

timber type a c lass i f ica t ion o f aplant communi ty based on thenaturally occurring dominant treespecies in the climax.

timelag (TL) the time required for afuel particle to lose 63 percent ofthe moisture it can potentially loseunder a particular set of environmental conditions.

492 Glossary

total diversity (also see “total diversi-ty index”) the sum total of diver-sity within an area; the sum of in-duced and inherent diversity.

total diversity index a number thatindicates the relative degrees oftotal diversity (induced diversity +inherent diversity) in habitat perunit area produced by all edgeswithin or on the periphery of thearea. Expressed mathematically:

TE,+,Total DI = ----.--;2G

where TE,, s is the total length, inmeters or feet, of all inherent andinduced edges, A is the area insquare meters or square feet, andn is 3.1416; or

Total DI = tnherent DI + Induced DI

trade-off an exchange of one thingin return for another; especially agiving up of something desirable,as a benef i t or advantage, forsomething regarded as more desir-able (Morris 1976).

transition zone (also see “ecotone”)an area on which two or more plantcommunities or success iona lstages within plant communitiesmerge and which shows character-istics of all involved communitiesor stages.

travel corridor (also see “migrationcorridor”) a route fo l lowed byanimals along a belt or band ofsuitable cover or habitat.

travel lanes (also see “travel corri-dor”) areas of cover commonlyused by animals moving from onelocation to another.

treat to subject to some process,action, or change (Morris 1976).

treatment in experimentat ion, astimulus applied in order to ob-serve its effect on an experimentalsituation or to compare its effectwith the effects of other treat-ments; in practice, may refer toanything capable of controlled ap-plication according to experimen-tal requirements (Ford-Robertson1971); the act or manner of treatingsomething (Morris 1976).

treatment scheduling the t imeschosen to institute various silvicul-tural practices.

tree form woody vegetat ion thatpresents the shape and structureof trees.

tropical forest a forest occurring inthe tropics.

tropics the region between theTropic of Cancer at 23”27’ northlatitude and the Tropic of Capri-corn at 23”27’ south latitude(Han-son 1962) .

two-storied stand a stand of treeswhose crown structure is dividedinto two distinct canopy layers.

type (also see “site type,” “habitattype,” and “plant community type”)a site classified qualitatively by itsclimate, soil, or vegetation (Ford-Robertson 1971); in forestry, usu-ally based on the dominant treespecies.

unbound water see “free water.”

underburning (also see “prescribedfire”) the prescribed use of fireto burn vegetation under a forestcanopy but without burning thecanopy.

understory in si lv icul ture, treesgrowing under the canopy formedby taller trees; in range manage-ment, herbaceous and shrub vege-tation under a brushwood or treecanopy (Ford-Robertson 1971).

uneven-aged stand a forest stand variance a statistical term; a mea-managed to mainta in an inter- sure of variabi l i ty within a f initemingling of trees that differ mark- population or sample; the total ofedly in age (Ford-Robertson 1971); the squared deviations of each ob-

? stands continuously or periodically servat ion from the ar i thmet icalregenerated, tended, and harvested mean divided by one less than thewith no real beginning or end (Al- total number of observations (Ford-exander and Edminster 1977). Rober tson 1971) .

ungulate a mammal wi th hooves(Hanson 1962).

unique habitats (also see “specialhabitat”) wildl i fe habitats ( i .e. ,cliffs, caves, and talus) of specialfunction not included within plantcommuni t ies and success iona lstages or special habitats; geo-morphic in nature.

vascular containing or concerningvessels which contain fluid; in ani-mals, the fluid is usually blood; inplants, water with mineral saltsand synthesized food materials(Abercrombie et al. 1964).

vascular plants plants containingv e s s e l s .

vector a carrieri unit area control see “area control.”

unmanaged forest (also see “man-aged forest”) a forest in whichno management is presently oc-curring; an unmanaged forest mayhave been managed in the past ormay be managed in the future.

vegetation complex the admixtureof plant species that occupy a site.

vegetation condition the results ofa silvicultural treatment imposedon a successional stage of a for-est plant community.

unsalvaged mortality (also see “salSvage” and “mortality”) any deador dying trees in the stand thathave not been or will not be sal-vaged.

vegetation strata the layers of vege-tation that may be discerned in aplant community.

unstacked a forest s i te on whichthere are no trees.

vegetation structure the form or ap-pearance of a stand; the arrange-ment of the canopy; the volume ofvegetation in tiers or layers.

upper slope a location on the upperone-third of a slope.

use potential the amount of use bydeer and elk that may be expectedon a land-type as cover-forage arearatios are changed when judgedagainst base use potential.

variable generally, any quantity thatvaries; more precisely, a quantitythat may take any one of a set ofvalues (Ford-Robertson 1971); asingle influence or one of severalmeasurable influences acting on aparticular process.

versatile capable of or adapted forsurvival in several plant communi-ties or successional stages orboth.

versatility index a figure indicatingrelative degrees of versatility be-tween species in terms of thenumber of plant communities andsuccessional stages used by theindividual species for feeding andreproduction; the more communi-ties and successional stages used,the more versatile the species.

versatility rating (also see “versatilityindex”) the posi t ion, in rankorder, assigned to a wildlife spe-cies on the basis of its versatilityindex number.

vertical diversity the diversity in anarea that results from the com-plexity of the aboveground struc-ture of the vegetation; the moretiers of vegetation or the more di-verse the species makeup or both,the higher the degree of vertical di-versity.

viable population a wildlife popula-tion of sufficient size to maintainits existence over time in spite ofnormal fluctuations in populationleve ls .

visual management zone an area inwhich the overriding managementconcern is for an esthet ical lypleasing appearance; in most for-ested areas, such zones are man-aged to give the impression of ma-ture and relatively unbroken for-e s t .

visual resource management areasee “visual management zone.“

volume control see “volume regula-tion.”

volume increment (also see “growthincrement”) a measurab le in -crease in wood volume in a tree orstand of trees.

volume regulation a direct methodof determining and controlling theamount of timber to be cut, an-nually or periodically, through cai-culations based on growing stockvolume and increment and disre-garding area (Ford-Robertson 1971).

V score see “versatility index.”

vulnerability the relative probabilityof timber management activitieshaving an adverse effect on thenumbers of a wildlife species; vui-nerability can be measured by theinverse of the versatility index.

Glossa ry 493

water-holding capacity a measureof the ability of soil to soak up andhold water.

water quality determined by a seriesof standard parameters: turbidity,temperature, bacterial content, pH,and dissolved oxygen.

water quantity the amount of watercoming from a watershed or drain-age.

watershed see “catchment.”

wilderness lands designated by lawas wilderness; no roadbuilding ortimber management is allowed onsuch lands; they are intentionallymanaged to maintain their primitivecharacter.

wildfire an unplanned fire requiringsuppression action, as contrastedwith a prescribed fire burning with-in p repared l ines enc los ing adesignated area under prescribedconditions; a free-burning fire un-affected by fire suppression mea-sures (USDA Forest Service 1956).

wildlife all nondomesticated verte-brates.

wildlife habitat management themanipulation or maintenance ofvegetation to yield desired resultsin terms of habi tat sui table fordes ignated wi ld l i fe spec ies orgroups of species.

wildlife logs logs left in place onthe forest floor for wildlife habitat.

wildlife management the scientifi-cally based art of manipulatinghabitats to produce some level ofa desired species or manipulatinganimal populations to achieve adesired end.

wiridrow slash, brushwood, etc.,concentrated along a line, so as toclear the intervening ground be-tween such lines (Ford-Robertson1971) .

windthrow (also see “blowdown”) atree or trees uprooted or felled bythe wind (Ford-Robertson 1971).

winter range a range, usually atlower elevation, used by migratorydeer and elk dur ing the wintermonths; usually better defined andsmaller than summer ranges.

woody debris (also see “dead anddown woody material”) the woodyremains of something scattered ordestroyed-ruins, rubble, f rag-ments; the accumulation of deadwoody material on the forest floor.

working circle (see also “workingplan” and “working plan area”) aforest area that forms all or part ofa working plan area, organized toaccomplish a particular objectiveand operated under one set ofworking plan prescriptions thatembodies one silvicultural systemor a designed combination of suchsystems (Ford-Robertson 1971).

working definition a definition usedin management even though thedefinition is recognized as interimand subject to revision.

working plan a plan for forest man-agement; more particularly a writ-ten plan aimed at achieving a con-tinuity of policy and action; pre-scribes and controls basic opera-tions in a forest over an extendedperiod (Ford-Robertson 1971).

working plan area the area coveredby a single working plan; the larg-est forest management unit (Ford-Robertson 1971).

yarding t ransport ing t imber f romthe point of felling to a yard orlanding (Ford-Robertson 1971).

yield in forestry, the wood productsthat are harvested.

yield table see “managed y ie ldtable.”

young stage (also see “successionalstage”) one of six successionalstages in the coniferous forests ofthe Blue Mountains in which astand of trees is dominated bytrees that are no longer poles buthave not yet reached maturity.

494 Glossa ry

Index

This index is comprehensive for theten chapters and the glossary. Bold-face page numbers pertain to glos-sary definitions. Scientific names foranimal, plant, and insect species arenot indexed; for these see appen-dices 1, 2, and 5. The appendixmaterial is not indexed.

abiot ic 470abiot ic environment 14abrupt edge 50, 55, 59, 470absence of nesting sites 60accountability of managers 13accounting for impacts of forestry on

wildlife 22-23accumulation, log 81, 481activity of humans, impact on deer and

elk 104-105adaptation, wildlife 128adapted 470adjunct 470adventitious foot 470aerate 4 7 0aerial photographs 118, 144, 470age: mixed 482; rotation 487; stand 131,

4 9 0age classes 470age class distribution 158, 160-161agency interpretation of law 11agricultural land 53agriculture, impact on deer and elk

habitat 105a i r cu r ren ts 9 7airflow 43, 45, 96: inside thermal cover 113air temperature: as influenced by canopy

113; as influenced by thermal cover 113alder 82: thinleaf 24Aldrich mountain range 18Allocation Model, Timber Resource 492allocation of forage, deer and elk 107alpine ecosystem 24alpine fescue, plant community type 24alpine fleeceflower, plant community

type 24alpine meadows and barren ecosystem 20alpine meadows and barren (K 521,

potential natural vegetation 24, 106alpine meadow plant community 24, 28, 30alpine sagebrush, plant community type

2 4alpine sedge, plant community type 24alteration of forest ecosystems 104ambient 470American goldfinch 27American kestrel 27, 39, 63, 68, 98, 100American robin 27amount of edge 52amphibians 46analysis reports, environmental 39Anderson, Ralph G. 22, 60, 78

andesite 99angiosperm 470animal community 11, 14-15, 23, 470animal complex 470animal damage, tree seedlings 90animal diversity by successional stage 26animal habitat 14-15, 470annual increment, mean 481anticipated tree mortality 153ants: carpenter 86, 137, 139; wood 65apical growth 470aquatic habitat 47, 470aquatic zone 44-46, 470architects, landscape 15area: basal 470; by stand type 149, 152;

calving 471; control 470; fawning 475;forage 478; of ecotone 52, 59; planning484; regeneration 488; regulation 160,470; roadless 486; sale 487;substitutable 491

arithmetical mean 470arrangement and juxtaposition of

vegetation, effect on deer and elk 107arrangement of stands 129, 131, 135, 138,

1 4 2 - 1 4 4arrangement, silvicultural treatments

1 3 5 - 1 3 6arthropod 470artificial nesting cavities 63ascomycetes 470asexual 470Asotin County, Washington 18aspect 26,40, 107, 134, 470aspen 69, 75,83: quaking 24,67association: incidental 479; primary 485Audubon “blue list” 147avalanches 25average snag life 470avian predators 64

backgrounds, resource managementprofessionals 15

badger 98, 100Baird’s sandpiper 100Baker County, Oregon 18banks, stream 45bank swallow 27bark 79, 85, 88: loose 60-61, 63, 65; spaces

under 61-62barn owl 67, 98, 100, 102barn swallow 78barred owl 67barrier, sight 488basal area 470: crop 473; stand 490basal metabolism 470basalt 99, 470base, land 480base use potential 470basis, species-by-species 53

bats 43, 61, 65, 99, 102-103: big brown 98,100, 102; hoary 27; pallid 98, 102;spotted 98; western big-eared 98, 100,1 0 2

Bavarian forests 63bear, black 89, 98, 100bearer, seed 487bedding 470beetle 61-62: Engelmann spruce 62;

western pine 62behavior, herd 478: to conserve energy,

deer and elk 112best estimate 470best prediction 53best-prediction equation 470Betulaceae 470big brown bat 98. 100, 102big game 104-127, 470big-horned sheep 98, 100big huckleberry 24, 106, 134-136big sagebrush 24big sagebrushlbunchgrass, plant

community type 24binomial 470biological control 62-63, 470: insects 64biological data by species 26, 33-36biological potential 141, 147, 471biologists, wildlife 11-13, 15, 26, 33, 39,

1 1 8 , 1 5 2biomass 41-42, 471biopolitics 59biotic 471biotic diversity 15biotrophic levels 471bird boxes 77, 471birds 53, 61, 65, 97, 102: cavity nesting 77;

hole-nesting 61, 63-64; insect control61; insectivorous 63-65; related toinsect populations 62

biscuit scabland, plant community type 24bitterbrush 24bitterbrush/bunchgrass, plant community

type 24black-backed three-toed woodpecker

30-31, 34-38, 77, 146-147black bear 84, 98, 100black-billed magpie 98, 100black-capped chickadee 63, 67-68Black, Hugh, Jr. 104black rosy finch 98, 100black swift 98, 100blacktail jackrabbit 58block, habitat 52, 478block size, habitat 52blowdown 128, 471bluebirds 65: mountain 89, 98, 100;

western 89, 98, 100bluegrass 24, 106bluegrass scabland, plant community

type 24, 106, 108blue grouse 87, 89: courtship display 94“blue list,” Audubon 147

Index 495

Blue Mountain province 19blue stain 471blue stain fungi 471blue wildrye 24board foot 471boa, rubber 27, 85, 88, 100bobcat 89, 98, 100, 102body temperature control, deer and elk

1 1 2bogs 41, 46bole 471book, purposes 10border vegetation 48borer, increment 67, 479borers, southern hardwood 62box: bird 471; nest 63, 77, 483branches, stubs of 66break, fuel 477broadcast burning 92, 471broken top snag 65, 75-76browse 131: production, related to

successional stage 26brushblade 471brush control 23brush form 471budgets 54budworm, spruce 62buffer strip 471bufflehead 63, 68Bull, Evelyn L. 60bullfrog 27bunchgrass 24,108, 134-136bunchgrass on deep soil and gentle

slopes, plant community type 24, 106,1 3 4 - 1 3 6

bunchgrass on deep soil and steepslopes, plant community type 24, 106,1 3 4 - 1 3 6

bunchgrass on shallow soil and gentleslopes, plant community type 24, 106,1 3 4 - 1 3 6

bunchgrass on shallow soil and steepslopes, plant community type 24, 106,1 3 4 - 1 3 6

burned areas 69,128: use by deer and elk1 1 6

burning 69: broadcast 92, 471; live 480;piling and 484; prescribed 485; slash89, 91; spot 490; strip 491

burrow 27, 79, 84-85, 88, 471burrowing owl 27, 100bushy-tailed woodrat 87, 89, 98, 100, 102

cable assisted felling 471calculating impacts of habitat

management 148-150,152calculation, timber harvest level 148California myot is 102calving area 471: elk 120cambium 471campground 45

4 9 6 index

C a n a d a g o o s ecanopy 471: closed 472; cover 44, 46;

dense 474; impact on air temperature113; open 484; single-tiered 18; volumeby successional stage 26

canopy closure 137,471: by successionalstage 26; effect on thermal cover fordeer and elk 110; related toeffectiveness of thermal cover 115;related to ground vegetation 116;related to thermal cover effectiveness113,115

canyon mouse 98-100, 102canyon wren, 98, 100capacity: carrying 471; water-holding 494carpenter ants 86, 137carrying capacity 471: deer and elk 105;

elk 135136Carter, Bernie E. 22case-harden 471catastrophic events 471catchment 471cattle 41, 90: grazing or browsing 29caves 96-103, 141, 144, 471: as unique

habitats 31-32, 35cavities 60-62, 65, 471: artificial nesting

63; created by decay 61, 63; excavated27,62, 471; excavated per year bywoodpeckers 70; excavator 471; natural62-63; nest 79; primary excavators of67-68; secondary user 63; type of 63;users of 61, 63; woodpecker 67

cavity nesters 66, 89, 93, 140, 149, 471:birds 77; minimum d.b.h. for 63;requirements of 70; secondary 77; treessuitable for 66; vulnerability of 77

cavity users, secondary 67-68, 70, 75ceanothus 25cedar waxwing 27cells, prosenchyma 485chaparral-mountain shrub ecosystem 24-25char 471characteristics: edges 52; logs 80; snags

6 5charcoal 471charred logs 85chat, yellow-breasted 27chemical control of insects 65chemical treatment, protection of woody

debris 90-91chickadee 65: black-capped 63, 67-68;

chestnut-backed 67; mountain 63,67-68chickaree 87, 89Chief of the Forest Service 54chill factor 471chipmunk: least 98, 100; yellow pine 63,

8 7 - 8 8 , 9 8 , 1 0 0 , 1 4 1chipper 472chipping 472chipping sparrow 27chlorophyll 472chloroplast 472

chukar 98, 100circle, working 494circumference 54Clark’s nutcracker 98class: age 470; area 155; crown 473;

decomposition 474; form 476; fuel 477;log 481; site 488; snag 60

classification: fuel 91, 93; land-type134; of plant communities, relationshipbetween systems 24-25

clearcuts 23, 29, 32-33, 46-47, 51, 55, 7.5,90-91, 130-131, 140-144, 472: use bydeer and elk 116

clearcutting 18, 472cliffs 68, 96-103, 141, 144, 472: as unique

habitat 31-32, 35cliff swallow 98, 100climax 15, 472: forest 472; primary 485;

vegetation 472closed canopy 472closure: canopy 471; crown 473clumping of snags 77, 472code, species 489coefficient, correlation 473colonies, nursery 483colonization 472colony 472: nursery 102Columbia County, Washington 18Columbian ground squirrel 27, 89, 98, 100commercial forest base 472commercial forest land 472: in National

Forests, Blue Mountains 19; in the BlueMountains 19

commercial harvest 472commercial thinning 472commercial timber production 472Commoner’s “laws” of ecology 12, 161common flicker 2.7, 30-31, 34-38, 61, 69-72,

1 4 6 - 1 4 7 , 1 5 0common garter snake 27common goldeneye 63,68common ground for considering wildlife

by resource professionals 11common merganser 67common nighthawk 27, 98, 100common raven 27, 98-100common snipe 45community 472: animal 11, 14-15, 23, 470;

forest 67-69; microbial 481; plant 11, 14,15, 40, 44, 48-50, 54, 56-59, 67, 69, 96,103, 149, 484; structure 42, 45, 91; type4 7 2 , 4 8 5

compaction, soil 45compatibility of timber and wildlife

management 11competition, tree 136, 144, 152complex: animal 470; plant 42; unique

animal 103; vegetative 40, 44-45, 493component, habitat 53, 66, 89, 95, 478composition, species 489computer: code 472; program 148concentration of nitrogen 82

concepts and principles, generallyapplicable 13

conceptual framework for planning 12condition: stand 129.$33, 138-140,

’ 742-144, 490; vegetative 493conductance, electrical 47configuration 472: of edge 52, 59conflicts between resources 21conflicts, land management 22Congress of the United States 7 1conifer 472: mixed 18, 50, 67, 69, 84, 9 4 ,

134, 139, 143-144, 146-147, 482coniferous 43coniferous forest 42-43, 472coniferous trees 43-44conk, fungal 477conks 66connectors 472: forested 44consequences of timber management

decisions 148conservationists 12constraints 472: multiple-use 142, 144,

482; on management 136, 146, 148-149,152,155,481

construction, road 45contact, human-wildlife 45content, mineral 47contour line 472contrast 472: degree of 52, 129; edge 52,

59, 142-144control 472: area 470; biological 62-63,

470; body temperature, deer and elk112; brush 23; community structure 91;forest insect 61; insect 62-63; insects,chemical 65; line 472; species,composition 91; unit area 493; volume4 9 3

controlled burn: cold 29; hot 29conversion, primary 485cooperation, State and Federal 11, 16coordinated timber-wildlife management

4 7 2coordination: management 104; of timber

and wildlife management 13core, increment 479coring 472correlation coefficient 473corridor: migration 482; travel 43, 492cortex 473costs of meeting wildlife objectives 142costs of obtaining wildlife goals 148cottonwood 25, 67, 75, 83cottonwood-alder plant community 69court opinions 22courtship display, blue grouse 94courtship ritual 63courts, interpretation of law 11

cover 42, 44, 49, 61, 144, 473: canopy 44,46; configuration related to edge effect110; crown 473; deer and elk 18, 104,107-109, 125, 131; effectiveness retatedto stand size, for deer and elk 125;escape 475; hiding 85-88, 129-137,139-141, 478; limiting factor for deerand elk 118; logs as 84, 86, 90;maximizing use by deer and elk 123;nesting 79; optimum sizes 111; patch473; potential-related to forest sites118; resting 61; size of cover areas fordeer and elk 110-111; spacing, for deerand elk 117; thermal 43, 79, 87-88,129-137, 139-141, 491; winter range, fordeer and elk 114

cover-forage area ratio 131, 133, 136, 473:deriving the optimum for deer and elk125; affected by timber management117; related to emphasis on deer andelk habitat 123; response by deer andelk 104, 117-119

cover types, optimum mix for deer andelk 121

coyote 98, 100, 102, 143crew, holding 478critical habitat component 473criticism of land use plans 12Cromack, Kermit C., Jr. 78Crook County, Oregon 18crop 473: final 475; main 481crop basal area 473crop trees 121,473crown 473: class 473; closure 134, 473;

cover 473cubic volume 473culls 473culmination of mean annual increment

1 2 9 , 1 6 0 , 4 7 3curlleaf mountainmahogany 24, 25: plant

community 24-25, 28, 30, 35; /grass,plant community type 24

currents, air 97curves: opportunity 484; response 486curves, species area 53, 489cut.473: final 476; harvest 139; intensity

of 136; partial 484; regeneration 46,129, 131, 135, 142-143, 486; sanitation1 4 2

cutting 473: harvest 478; reserved from155; salvage 487; sanitation 487; seed-tree 487; selection 488; series 473;shelterwood 488; single-tree selection488; unit 473

cycle, rotation 487cycling 473: mineral 79: 482; nutrient 79,

82, 90, 483

damage: insect 69; to tree seedlings,animal 90; to trees, mechanical 66

dark-eyed junco 27darkness 102d.b.h. 473dead and down woody material 75, 78-95,

105, 128, 137, 141, 143-144, 147, 473;management tips 94-95

dead trees 62debris 46, 473: logging 84, 481; logging

impact 85; management techniques 90;woody 79-81, 84, 90, 494

decadence158decadent 473decay 75, 473: creation of cavities 63; in

logs, rate 83; in snags 65; model 473;of wood, characteristics of stages 81;wood 61, 67, 76-79

deciduous 43, 473: trees 42-43, 75decision making 148decked logs 473decompose 473decomposition: class 474; class, logs in

old-growth al; classes, logs 80, 481;titter 81; logs 82, 88; model 474; rate,woody material 81, 83-84

deer 43, 79, 89-90, 104-127, 130, 140:fawning area 120; fawning habitat 474;fawning habitat, optimum 120; fawninghabitat, succulent forage as part of120; fawning habitat, water as part of120; grazing and browsing 29; habitat,related to stand size 144; hiding coverfor 478; optimum size of thermal cover1 1 5

deer and elk 18,21: access as influencedby slash 105; agriculture, impact of105; area, related to size and shape of107; behavior to conserve energy 112;burned areas, use of 116; carryingcapacity 105; clearcuts, use of 116;competition with livestock 107; cover104, 107-109; cover as a limiting factor118; cover effectiveness related tostand size 114; cover-forage area ratios,response to changes in 117-119, 123;cover, maximizing use 125; cover onwinter range 114; cover patch size,optimum 110, 114; cover types,optimum mix 121; deriving optimumcover-forage area arrangement 125;effect of juxtaposition andarrangement of vegetation 107; forage104; forage allocation 107; forage area,maximum size 117; forage areas116-l 17; forage area, size andarrangement 109-117; forage as alimiting factor 107; forest edges, use of109-110, 117; fuel breaks, minimizingadverse impacts 124; habitat change,response to 108; habitat components105; habitat, optimum 108-110, 117-118;

index 4 9 7

habitat selection to conserve energy112; habitat use, optimum 108; heatproduction adjustment 112; hidingcover 18, 108110; hiding cover, size of110; hiding cover, slash to provide127; hunting 105; land management,response to 107; land-types, related to107-109; livestock grazing, effect of105; logging, effect of 110; metabolicrate, adjustments in 112; metabolism112; mobility 117; openings, use of 116;opportunity curves 118; planning for104-105; plant community type, relatedto 108; predicting effects of timbermanagement 104, 108; riparian habitat109; roads and habitat effectiveness105, 107, 122-123; roads minimizingadverse impacts 126; rotation length,effect of 123; security 109; sightbarriers 110; sight distance 109;silvicultural treatment, effect of 107,123; site potential, related to 107;slash, effect of 117; slash piles ascover 110; slash treatment to minimizeadverse impacts 124; social group size110; soils features, related to 107;spacing of cover pat,ches 117; spring-fall range 108, 113-l 15; stand condition,response to 107; summer range 105,109, 114, 116; thermal cover 18, 107,112-115; thermal cover, influence ofcanopy closure 110; thermal coverrequirements on winter range 115;thermal cover to reduce radiationalheat loss 113; thermoregulatoryrequirements 113; timber management,minimizing adverse impacts 124; timbersales, impact of 104-105; topography,realted to 107, 110; traffic, influence of122-123; travel lanes 107; travel lanes,maximizing effectiveness 125; water asa limiting factor 118; water as part ofoptimum habitat 109; water, need for104; wet meadows, use of 109; winterrange 105, 108, 113, 115116

deer, elk and timber, simultaneousproduction of 104

deer mouse 79, 88-89, 98, loo-102definition, working 494degree of contrast between stages and

communities 52delayed harvest 158delayed regeneration 140, 144Delphi Technique 117, 474demands for resources, balancing 12demands for timber harvest, wildlife,

recreation and grazing 21denning 61, 89, 143: site 474dense canopy 474density: of logs 83-84, 86; potential 48;

snags 75; stocking 490dependent variable 474

4 9 8 index

deteriorated stand 474deviation 474: standard 490D I 5 5 , 4 7 4diameter breast high 474diameter classes in managed stands,

distribution 153diameter of snags 66: for nesting by

cavity nesting birds 68diplopod 474direct habitat improvement 474directional felling 474disaster, ecosystems’ ability to withstand

5 3discolored wood 67disease, tree 18, 51, 128-129, 136dispersal, animal 44dispersion 48, 474: law of 48-49, 480disposal, slash 84, 489distance, sight 488distributed, locally 481distribution: age class 158, 160-161;

diameter classes, managed stand 153;log class 84; normal 483; snag 77;species 33

disturbance, human 45, 102.103diversity 14-15, 17, 41-42, 44, 52-54, 56,

5 8 - 5 9 , 9 6 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 2 , 4 7 4 : a n dstability of the forest ecosystem-affected by timber management 17;biotic 15; forest ecosystem, protectionof 16; goals for 59; habitat 51, 143, 149;horizontal 17-18, 479; index 54-56, 474;index, induced 479; index, inherent 479;index, total 492; indicators of 52;induced 54, 56, 58; inherent 54, 56;management for 53; measured by edge53; related to timber managementsystem 17; species 52; species, impactof timber management 33; structural17, 42, 491; the Blue Mountains 18;total 54, 58, 492; trends in habitat 54;vertical 17-18, 493; wildlife 53-54, 96,1 2 9 , 1 4 3 - 1 4 4

downy woodpecker 30-31, 34-38, 63, 67-68drainage 474drum 474drumming sites 89drying rates, fuel 92dry meadow plant community 24, 28, 30,

3 5duck, wood 27,63duff 474dusky flycatcher 27dusky shrew 87-88dusting 79, 89, 474

dominant 474; activity, timber 144dominant tree 474Douglas-fir 24-25, 80-83, 88, 106, 134-136,

138: forest ecosystem 20, 24-25; forest[interior] (K-12) potential naturalvegetation 24, 106, 134

dove, rock 98

dynamic 474dynamics: insect population 62;

population 485

eagle, golden 98, 100ecoclass 106, 134ecological niche 14-15, 474ecological role 474: small vertebrates 86ecologist 12, 15, 93ecology 474: Commoner’s “laws” of 161economic conditions, influence on forest

management 11economic loss, snags 76economics: “laws” of 161; local 19ecosystem 474: ability to withstand

disaster 53; alpine 24; chaparral-mountain shrub 25; Douglas-fir 24-25;forest 15; forest, alteration of 104;Garrison et al.‘s 23-25; insurance 53;KUchler’s 23-25; Kiichler’s forest andrange 18, 20; larch 21, 25; lodgepolepine 24; mountain grassland 24;mountain meadow 24; pinyon-juniper24; ponderosa pine 24; sagebrush 25;spruce-fir 25

ecotone 14-15, 18, 48-59, 144, 147, 474:area of 52, 59; shrub-forest 56; grass-shrub 58

ectomycorrhiza 474ectomycorrhizal fungi 82edaphic 474edge 14-15, 18, 41-42, 44, 48-59, 96, 141,

143-144, 146-147, 474: abrupt 50, 55, 59,470; amount 52; characteristics of 52;configuration 52, 59; contrast of 52, 59,142-144; diversity, measure of 53;ecotones, special habitat 31-32, 35;effect 14-15, 18, 44, 48-49, 53, 474, 475;effect related to cover patchconfiguration 110; forest-opening 476;forest, use by deer and elk 117; habitat52; increase in 110; induced 50-51, 54,57, 59, 479; inherent 50-51, 54, 57, 59,479; length of 52, 59; mosaic 50, 55, 59,482; sagebrush-juniper 58; simple 52,55; total 55-56; total length 57; width5 2 , 5 9

elk 18, 27, 43, 79, 89-90, 104-127, 129-130,132, 139-141: calving areas 120; calvinghabitat 475; carrying capacity 135136;changes in potential use 134; deer andtimber, simultaneous production of104; grazing and browsing 29; habitat,related to stand size 144; hiding coverfor 478; impact of timber sales 134;maximum rotation length for 132-133;minimum rotation length for 132;optimum calving habitat 120; optimumhabitat 130, 133, 136; response curves

electrical conductance 47elevation 26, 134

134-136; response to cover-forage arearatios 118; sedge 24, 106, 134; use,

elk and deer (see “deer and elk”): carryingcapacity 105; habitat, as influenced by

potential 136

slash treatment 127; winter range 105Elkhorn mountain range 18endangered habitat, snags 77endangered or threatened species 22,31,

3 9endangered species 59, 475Endangered Species Act 11endemic 475: levels, insects 63Engelmann spruce beetle 62engineers, forest 15England 81: Hampshire 78; Wytham 79environment 14, 475environmental: analysis report 11, 39, 475;

factor 475; impact 46-47; impactstatement 11-12, 39, 475; Policy Act,National 483

enzyme 475ephemeral streams 475epidermis 475equation, best-prediction 470erosion 50-51: sheet 488; soil 45-46, 489error, standard 490escape cover 475establishment, tree 82estate, forest 476esthetics 53estimate, best 470European forest managers 63evaluating trade-offs 148evaluation of habitat change 141evaluation of management 54evolution, wildlife 128even-aged management 17-18, 109, 141,

146, 475: objective of 17even-aged stands 18even- and uneven-aged management,

differences 18evening grosbeak 27events, catastrophic 471excavated cavities 27, 62excavation 27, 60-63: cavity 471; pileated

woodpecker 130; type of 63;woodpeckers 138

excavators: cavity 471; in soft wood 63;in sound wood 63; primary 60, 67-68,75, 140, 485; soft wood 489

existing cavities, occupancy of 61exponential 475extended rotation 153, 158-160, 475: age

475; impact on wood production 159external characteristics, snags 65external succession 475

factor: chill 471; environmental 475;limiting 60, 480

Fagaceae 475

falcon, peregrine 39

fawning area 475: deer 120

falcon, prairie 39, 98-100

featured species 59, 104featured species management 17, 23, 30,

fall, litter 480

59, 129-131, 141-142, 147, 475: goals of16; objectives of 16; process of 16

features, geomorphic 50fecal material 475Federal and State cooperation 11, 16Federal funds 12Federal law 10, 61: regarding wildlife 11Federal payments, in lieu of taxes 19Federal responsibility for wildlife 11, 16feeding 61, 65, 98, 100, 102, 128, 144-147:

sites 79, 87feeding substrate 61, 475: pileated

woodpeckers 136-139felling 475: cable assisted 471; directional

4 7 4ferruginous hawk 98, 100fertilization 29fescue 24fill 475final crop 475final cut 476final harvest cut 476financial maturity 476finch, black rosy 98, 100finch, gray-crowned rosy 98, 100finch, house 27fine fuels 476Finland 27fir 75: Douglas- 24-25, 80-83, 88, 106,

134-136, 138; grand 24, 67; subalpine24-25, 69, 106, 147; true 82; white 24-25,69, 106, 134-139, 147

fire 25, 29, 50-51, 66, 79, 83, 90, 142:hazard 66, 78, 476; hazard, snags 77;lightning 128; logs, effect on 85, 90;prescribed 485; prevention 77;prevention, felling snags to enhance77; retardant 476; specialists 91;succession 476

firel ine 476firewood 77firing technique 476Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 11fisher 67, 98, 100fishery biologist 45, 47fixation, nitrogen 79, 483flammulated owl 76flashy fuel 78, 476fleeceflower 24flexibility: forest management 13, 18;

management 16flicker, common 27, 30-31, 34-38, 61,

6 9 - 7 2 , 1 4 6 - 1 4 7 , 1 5 0flooding 50-51floods 79floor, forest 128, 476

flora 476flycatcher 79: dusky 27; gray 98, 100flying squirrel 61food 42,44, 86, 97, 103, 144; storage 79, 89foot, board 471forage 134, 476: allocation, deer and elk

107; deer and elk 104; limiting for deerand elk 107; medium 476; productionby successional stage 26; succulent-as part of deer fawning habitat 120

forage area 130-131, 133-136, 139-140, 476:contained in elk calving areas 120;/cover ratio 476; deer and elk 116-117;maximum size 117; natural and man-made openings 116; ratio, cover to 473;size 130; size and arrangement relatedto deer and elk use 109; sizes, use bydeer and elk 117

foraging substrate 476: pileatedwoodpeckers 147

forb 134, 476forced trailing 476: ungulates 94forgoing salvage to provide snags 76-77foreground, landscape 480forest 476: area impacted by management

12; base, commercial 472; Bavarian 63;climax 472; communities 67-69;coniferous 42-43, 472; ecosystem 15;ecosystems, alteration by forestmanagement 104,123; edges, use bydeer and elk 109-110; engineers, 15;environment, manipulation of 11;estate 476; floor 79, 128, 476; hygiene65; insect control 61; insect pests 61;intensivety managed 75; inventory476; land base 103; land, commercial472; land managment goals 54;managed 481; managers 10-13, 18, 22,27, 29, 32-33, 39, 59, 61, 64, 68, 70, 75,77, 104, 115117, 123, 127-128, 133, 143,148-149, 153, 160, 476; managers,European 63; mature 18; National 483;opening edge 476; Practices Act,Oregon 11; public 485; Spanish 63;structure 23, 25, 128; successionalaround snags 64-65; supervisors, USDAForest Service 13; temperate 491;tropical 492; unmanaged 493; wildlifemanagement systems 16-17

forest and range ecosystems, Kijchler’s1 8

forest and range ecosystems, map,Kiichler’s 20

Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act 11

forested connectors 44foresters 11, 13, 15, 78, 147

index 499

forest management 476: economicconditions, influence on 11; flexibilityin 13; intensified 13; land capability,influence of 11; legislation, influenceof 11; objectives 59; production ofwildlife 11-12; public demand, influenceon 11; strategy 148; uneven-aged 109

forestry impacts on wildlife, accountingfor 22-23

forestry, intensive 62, 480Forest Service, Chief of 54Forest Service, USDA 13shrub-forest ecotone 56forest sites as potential cover 118form: brush 471; class 476; life 480; tree

4 9 2formation 476fox: gray 102; red, 98, 100fragile soils 476Franklin’s grouse 87, 89free water 40, 476frog 101: Pacific tree- 27, 41; tailed 87fructification 476fuel 477: break 477; break, minimizing

adverse impacts on deer and elk 124;break, shaded 488; class 477;classification 91, 93; drying rates 92;fine 476; flashy 78, 476; heavy 478;high density 478; large diameter 480;loading 477; management 477;management standard 477; moisturecontent 92, 477; l-hour 483; loo-hour483; l,OOO-hour 483; reduction 91; smalldiameter 489; IO-hour t imelag class491; type 477

full stocking 477function 477funds, Federal 12fungal 477: conk 477; hyphae 82, 477;

spore 90fungi 61, 67, 82, 477: blue stain 471;

ecotomycorrhizal 82; imperfect 479;mycorrhizal 90

game 59, 477: big 470gametophyte 477Garfield County, Washington 18Garrison et at’s ecosystems 23-25gene pool 477genus 477geomorphic 96, 477: features 50girdling 477gleaning 477goals 129, 142-144, 146-147: diversity 59;

forest land management 54;management 91,93; timbermanagement 148; wildlife 11, 16, 54, 155

goats: grazing and browsing 29; mountain39, 98,100

golden-crowned kinglet 27golden eagle 98, 100

5 0 0 index

goldeneye, common 63, 68goldfinch: American 27; lesser 98, 100goose, Canada 98gopher snake 87-88,98, 100goshawk 27,87,98, 100government, local 19gradient 40, 477grand fir 24, 67grand fir-Douglas-fir forest ecosystem 20grand fir-Douglas-fir forest (K 14)

potential natural vegetation 24, 134Grant County, Oregon 18grass 88, 477: planting 23, 29, 143; sod-

forming 144grass-forb stage 477grass-forb successional stage 23, 26,

2 8 - 2 9 , 3 1 - 3 3 , 5 2 , 6 5 , 8 3 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 1 ,1 4 3 - l 4 5

grass-shrub ecotone 58gray-crowned rosy finch 98, 100gray flycatcher 98, 100gray fox 102grazing 45, 47, 50-51: demand for 21grazing and browsing: cattle 29; deer 29;

elk 29; goats 29Great Basin pocket mouse 100Great Basin sagebrush ecosystem 20great blue heron 27greater than l,OOO-hour fuel t imelag class

4 7 7great gray owl 65great horned owl 27,98-100grebe, western 42Greenhorn mountain range 18green-tailed towhee 98grosbeak, evening 27ground vegetation related to canopy

closure 116group selection 17, 46, 477grouse 79: blue 87, 89; Franklin’s 87, 89;

ruffed 87, 89grouse huckleberry 24, 106, 134growing layer 477growing stock 477growth: apical 470; increment 477; ring

478; substrate 61; tree volume 153guidelines for protecting wildlife habitat

1 3Gymnospermae 478

habitat 49, 478: animal 14-15, 470; aquatic47, 470; arrangement, optimum fordeer and elk 117; block 478; block size52; change, evaluation of 141; change,deer and elk response 108; component53, 66, 89, 95, 478; components, critical473; components, deer and elk 105;condition, a predictor of wildlifewelfare 21; condition, measure of 59;deer fawning 474; diversity 51, 143,149; diversity, trends in 54; edge 52;elk calving 475; homogeneity of 52;improvement, direct 474; improvement,indirect 479; juxtaposition of 129;lent ic 41; lo t ic 41; management,impacts on wood production 148-150,152; management, wildlife 16;manipulation, vulnerability to 26;niches 14-15, 17-18, 478; optimum 484;optimum-deer and elk 118; potential,snag dependent species 73;prescription 144; pristine 53; requiredper pair 34; richness 14-15, 52, 478;riparian 40-47; selection to conserveenergy, deer and elk 112; size 52-53;size requirements, minimum 53; snag74; snag dependent species 73; special96, 489; type 478; unique 96, 103, 495

habits of species 33hairy woodpecker 30-31, 34-38, 63, 67-72,

1 4 6 - 1 4 7 , 1 5 0Hall, Frederick C. 128Hall’s plant community types 24-25, 106Hampshire, England 78hand-piling 478hang up 102,478hard snag 60-61, 65-66, 478hardwood 478hardwood borer, southern 62hare, snowshoe 79,87,89Harvey County, Oregon 18harvest: commercial 472; cut 139; cut,

final 476; cutting 478; delayed 158;related to mean annual increment 160;sanitation 487; scheduling, impact onwood production 159; single treeselection 29; timber 50, 136; timber, byownership 19

harvested, tree volume 153harvesting 478: techniques 478hawks 68: ferruginous 98, 100; red-tailed

27, 68, 98, 100; Swainson’s 98, 100hawking 478hazard: fire 66, 78, 476; reduction 478;

safety 66heart rot 61, 66-67, 136-139, 142, 478heartwood 478: softened 66heat production adjustment, deer and elk

1 1 2heavy fuels 478height of snags 66: for nesting 68hemlock 82, 91

herbaceous vegetation 101herbicides 21, 91, 478: shrub control 29herd behavior 478heron, great blue 27heterogeneity 59hibernacula 478hibernate 63hibernation 101-102hiding cover 85-88, 129-137, 139-141, 478:

elk calving areas, in 120; deer 478; deerand elk 18, 108-110; deer and elk,provided by slash 127; elk 478;effectiveness, as influenced bytopography 110; size 110

high density fuel 478hoary bat 27holding crew 478hole nesters 478hole-nesting birds 61, 63-64holes, woodpecker 67holistic 478: planning 12hollow logs 87-88home range 34, 48-49,478homogeneity 59: habitat 52homoiotherm 479homoiothermic animals 479homoiothermy 112, 115hooded merganser 63,68horizontal diversity 17-18, 479hose, soaker 489house finch 27house sparrow 63house wren 65, 89huckleberry 24: big 24, 106, 134-136;

grouse 24, 106, 134human: activity, impact on deer and elk

102-105; waste 46human-wildlife contact 45humidity 102, 479: relative 488humus 479: layer 479hunters, road 486hunting 21: deer and elk 105hygiene, forest 65hyphae 479: fungal 477

identification of trade-offs 161igneous 479: rock 97,102immobilization, nutrient 79, 483impact: environmental 46-47; forestry

practices on wildlife, prediction of 10;statements, environmental 39; wildlifehabitat, on wood production 148-161

imperfect fungi 479incidental association 479increasing: distribution of woodpeckers

74; probability of woodpeckeroccurrence 74; welfare of woodpeckers7 4

increment 479: borer 67, 479; core 479;growth 477; volume 493

independent variable 479

index: diversity 54-56, 474; induceddiversity 57-58; inherent diversity 56,58; site 488; total diversity 58;versatility 37-39, 493

indicator, diversity 52indicator-species management 16, 479indicator species system 479indirect habitat improvement 479induced diversity 54, 56, 58: index 57-58,

4 7 9induced edge 50-51, 54, 57, 59, 479industry, timber 19influences, integrator of 50information of management significance,

by species 36inherent diversity 54, 56: index 56, 58, 479inherent edge 50-51,54,57,59,479in-house 479inoculation 479inorganic 479insect 18, 85, 128-129, 142: biological

control of 64; chemical control of 65;control 6165; control by birds 61;damage 69; endemic levels 63;epidemic, prevention 64; infestation 29;outbreak 51, 63; outbreak suppression64; pests, forest 61, 65; populationdynamics 62; population, regulation 61

insectivorous 480: birds 63-65; species 61;vertebrates 62

insurance for the ecosystem 53integrator 480: of influences 50integrity 480: forest ecosystem,

protection of 16intensified forest management 13intensity of cut 136intensive: forestry 62, 480; managed forest

75; timber management 77,138,480interface 480intermittent stream 43, 480internal characteristics of snags 65internal succession 480interspersion 14-15, 49, 54, 480: law of

4 8 - 4 9 , 4 8 0interspersion of forage, water and cover

-deer and elk habitat 104intersuccessional link 480intrusions by man 53inventory 480: forest 476invertebrates 61, 88, 480involvement, public 485island 50, 59

jay, Steller’s 98, 100jumping mice 89junco 79, 88: dark-eyed 27juniper 69, 83, 87juniper/big sagebrush, plant community

type 24juniperlbunchgrass, plant community

type 24

juniper/low sagebrush, plant communitytype 24

juniper-sagebrush edge 58juniper steppe woodland ecosystem 20juniper steppe woodland (K 24) potential

natural vegetation 24juniper/stiff sage scabland, plant

community type 24juniper, western 24, 67juxtapose 480juxtaposition 480: and arrangement of

vegetation, effect on deer and elk 107;of habitats 129; of stands 18

kerf 480kestrel, American 27, 39, 63, 68, 98, 100key-species management 16, 480kil ldeer 2 7killing trees to provide snags 75-76kinglet, golden-crowned 27Kiichler’s ecosystems 18, 20, 23-25106,

1 3 5

lake 41: special habitat 31-32, 35land: agricultural 53; base 96, 480; base,

forest 103; capability, influence onforest management 11; management56; management conflicts 22;management coordinationrequirements 11; manager 45-47, 56;public 485

landscape 50-51, 480: architects 15;foreground 480

landslides 50land-type 129-130, 134-137, 139, 142.144,

146, 480: classification 134;description of 106; related to deer andelk 107-109; related to logging costs107; silvicultural options 134-137

land-use planning 13, 25, 27, 31, 39, 56,59, 90, 480: criticism of 12; documents11; process 12

lanes, travel 492larch 25, 75, 82: ecosystem 24-25; sawfly

6 2large diameter fuels 480large snags, production of 75larvae, moth 62law(s) 89, 95, 147-148: Endangered

Species Act 11; Endangered SpeciesConservation Act 11; Federal 10, 61;Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 11;Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act 11; interpretedby agencies and courts 11; Mul t ip le-Use Sustained Yield Act 11; NationalEnvironmental Policy Act 11; NationalForest Management Act 12; ofdispersion 48-49, 480; of ecology,Commoner’s 12, 161; of economics

Index 501

161; of interspersion 48-49, 480;regarding wildlife, State and Federal11; Sikes Act 11

layer: growing 477; humus 479; vegetative4 3

least chipmunk 98, 100ledge, nest 99legal challenges to management

activities 22legislation, influence on forest

management 11lek 480length of edge 52,59lent ic habitat 41lesser goldfinch 98, 100letter code 480levels: biotrophic 471; snag management

72, 74-75Lewis’ woodpecker 30-31, 34-38, 65, 69,

71-72, 146-147, 150lichens 61life form 26, 30, 34, 39, 130, 146, 480:

associated with successional stage144-145; descriptions 27; related toplant communities and successionalstages 26-29; relative degree of use ofplant communities and successionalstages 28; response to succession 141;versatility rating 147

life, snag 489lightning 66: fires 128lighting pattern 480limbs 79

Lincoln’s sparrow 27line: contour 472; control 472link, intersuccessional 480litter 480: decomposition 81; fall 80-81, 480little brown myot is 98, 100live burning 480

limiting factor 16, 60, 69, 72-73, 480limnologist 54

livestock 480: competition with deer andelk 107; grazing, impact on deer andelk habitat 105; production of 11

live trees 62lizard 101: side-blotched 27, 98, 100;

western fence 27, 87, 89, 98, 100loading, fuel 477local economics 19locally distributed 481lodgepolelbig huckleberry, plant

community type 24, 106lodgepolelgrouse huckleberry, plant

community type 24, 106lodgepole pine 24-25, 32, 67, 69, 84, 86,

106, 134, 147: ecosystem 24; plantcommunity 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 67, 134,1 4 7

lodgepolelpinegrass-grouse huckleberry,plant community type 24, 106

log(s) 79, 101, 481: accumulation 81,

lopping and scattering 481

481; bridges 89; characteristics 80;charred 85; class 481; cover 84, 90, 96;

lo t ic habitat 41

decked 473; decomposition 82,88:class, related to snag condition 80;

low sagebrush 24

classes 80, 481; density 83-84, 86;distribution 84; external succession

low sagebrushlbunchgrass, plant

82-83; features important to wildlife 79;feeding sites for wildlife 84, 86, 88;

community type 24

fire, effect of 85, 90; hollow 87, 89;influence on ungulates 84, 94; in o ld-

lynx 98,100

growth by decomposition class 81;internal succession 82-83; in water 89;management for wildlife 89-90; nitrogenconcentration 82; number retained onforest floor 95; nurse 82, 483;recruitment 81, 486; relics 84;reproductive sites for wildlife 84, 86,88; residence time 83, 86; saw 487; size84, 86; soil under 85; special habitat31-32, 35; use by wildlife 86-89; value481; water content 82; wildlife 494;wildlife habitat 82-84, 91

loggerhead shrike 98,100logging 25, 46, 51: costs related to land-

type 107; debris 84-85, 481; deer and elkhabitat, effect on 110; salvage 76, 487;slash 105; thermal cover, effect on 115

long-range planning 481long rotations, effect on snags 75long-tailed weasel 98, 100, 102long-toed salamander 27, 100lookout site 79, 89, 481loose bark 60-61, 63, 65lopping 481

machine-piling 481magpie, black-billed 98, 100mahogany, curlleaf mountain. 24-25main crop 481main road 481Malheur County, Oregon 18Malheur National Forest 19, 106-107, 118,

1 3 4mammals 61, 97, 101: small 65, 102managed forest 481: intensively 75managed stands 148,481managed yield tables 148-149, 152-155,

1 6 0 , 4 8 1

management: activity, alteration ofsuccessional stage 29; area, visualresource 493; constraint 136, 146,148-149, 152, 155, 481; coordination104; diversity 53; evaluation of 54;even-aged 141, 146, 475; featuredspecies 23, 30, 59, 129-131, 141-142,147, 475; forest 61, 64, 476; fuel 477;goals 91,93; indicator species 479;intensive timber 77; land 56; land, deerand elk response to 107; levels, snags69,74-75,489; logs for wildlife 89-90;objectives 59, 90, 95, 128-129, 136, 144,147; public access 104; requirementsfor snags 72; snags, modifications toprovide 154; species richness 23, 59,141-142, 144, 146-147, 481, 490;systems, forest wildlife 16-17; systems,timber 17-18, 492; techniques, woodydebris 90; timber 46, 104, 492; tips,dead and down woody material 94-95;uneven-aged 141; unit, stream 490;visual 91; visual resource 155; wildlife494; wildlife habitat 59, 494; wildlife,responsibility for 11, 16; zone, visual4 9 3

manager: forest 10-12, 18, 22, 27, 29,32-33, 39, 59, 68, 70, 75, 77, 104, 115,1 1 7 - 1 1 8 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 8 - 1 2 9 , 1 3 3 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 - 1 4 9 ,153, 160, 476; land 56; wildlife 49 -

managerial: accountability 13; flexibility1 6

manipulation: forest environment 11;silvicultural 128; vegetation 50-51

mantled ground squirrel 89, 98, 100manual manipulation, woody debris 90-91marginal populations, woodpeckers 74marketable snag 60marmot 101: yellow-bellied 89, 98, 100marsh 45: special habitat 31-32, 35marten 61, 89, 98, 100Martin, Robert E. 78Maser, Chris 22, 40, 60, 78, 96mast 481material, fecal 475mating rituals, woodpeckers 77mature: forest 18; forest successional

stage 23, 26, 28-29, 31-33, 83, 128, 138,141-142, 144-147; stage 481; tree 481

maturity 481: financial 476Maury mountain range 18maximum population level 481maximum wood production 142meadow 41,45mean 481: arithmetical 470mean annual increment 481: culmination

of 129, 160, 473; formula for computingpercent reduction between rotationlengths 159; formula to compute 159;formula to compute percent reductiondue to wildlife habitat 159; reduction in159; related to harvest 160

5 0 2 Index

mechanical: damage to trees 66;manipulation, woody debris 90-91;shrub cant rol 29

medium, forage 47fiMendelian population 481merchantable snag 481; trees 481merganser: common 67; hooded 63,68meristem 481merlin 39metabolic rate 481: adjustment by deer

and elk 112metabolism: basal 470; deer and elk 112metamorphic 481: rock 102microarthropod 481microbe 482microbial community 482microclimate 26, 43-46, 50, 482microenvironment 482micro-organism 482microscopic 482migration corridor 482migration route 43, 482Miller, Rodney J. 22mineral: content 47; cycling 79, 482; soil

4 8 2mineshafts 102minimally stocked 482minimum d.b.h.: for cavity nesters 63; of

snags for nesting by woodpeckers 70minimum habitat size requirements 53minimum size snag 482mink 89mixed age stand 482mixed conifer 18, 44, 50, 67, 69, 84, 94,

130, 132, 134, 139, 143-144, 146-147:plant community 24-25, 28-30, 32-33, 35,50,67, 136, 147, 482

mixed coniferlpinegrass-ash soil, plantcommunity type 24, 134

mixed coniferlpinegrass-residual soil,plant community type 24, 134

mixed-species stand 482MM standard 482: for slash management

1 0 5mobility of deer and elk ll7model 482: decay 473; decomposition

4 7 4moist meadow, plant community 24, 28,

30,35moisture content, fuel 92, 477moisture regime 26, 482mopup 482Morrow County, Oregon 18mortality 482: anticipated tree 153;

natural tree 152; stand 490; unsalvaged78,493

mosaic 482: edge 50, 55, 59, 482;vegetation 135

mosses 61moths 61

mountain: bluebird 89, 98, 100; chickadee63, 67.68; ecosystem 24; goat 39, 98,100; grassland 44; meadows ecosystem24; vole 100; grasslands ecosystem 24

mountainmahogany-oak scrubecosystem 20

mountainmahogany-oak scrub (K 37)potential natural vegetation 24

mouse 88: canyon 98s99,100,102; deer79, 88-89, 98, 100-102; Great Basinpocket 100; northern grasshopper 100;pinyon 98-99, 102; western harvest 100;western jumping 27

movement, air 43mulch 482mule deer, Rocky Mountain (see “deer

and elk”)multiple use 10, 13, 148, 167, 482:

constraints 142, 144, 482; planning 482Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act 11, 482multistoried stands 482; effectiveness as

thermal cover 115multitiered stands 482muskrats 27, 89mycelial tissue 482mycelium 482mycorrhiza 482mycorrhizal fungi 90myotis: California 102; little brown 98,

100; small-footed 98, 100, 102

name, scientific 487National Environmental Policy Act 11, 483National Forest 54, 483: Malheur 134;

Ochoco 134; Umatilla 134, 152, 160;Wallowa-Whitman 134

National Forest Management Act 12natural: cavity 62-63; mortality, trees 152;

openings 130; regulation 483nematode 483nest 61, 63: box 63, 77, 483; cavities 79;

ledge 99; sites 65nester: cavity 471; hole 478; primary

cavity 485; secondary cavity 487nesting 60-61, 79, 87: cavities, artificial

63; cover 79; minimum d.b.h. of snagsfor use by woodpeckers 70; populationlevel 483; sites, absence of 60; snags 66

new forest 78New Jersey 53new soil profile 483niche 23, 26, 128, 483: ecological 14-15,

474; habitat 14-15, 17-18, 478nighthawk, common 27, 98, 100night roost 102night snake 98, 100ninebark 24-25, 106, 134-136ninebark shrubland, plant community

type 24, 106, 134nitrogen concentration 62: logs 82nitrogen fixation 79, 483node 483

nongame wildlife 483nonviable populations, woodpeckers 74normal distribution 483northern: flying squirrel 27, 56, 87, 89;

grasshopper mouse 100; oriole 27;three-toed woodpecker 30-31, 34-38, 77;water shrew 87

numbers of snags 68-69nurse logs 82,483nursery colonies 102, 483nutcracker, Clark’s 98nuthatch: pygmy 30-31, 34-38, 61, 146-147;

red-breasted 27, 30-31, 34-38, 146147;white-breasted 30-31, 34-38, 146-147

nutrient 47, 82: cycling 79, 82, 90, 483;immobilization 79, 483; loss 84

oak 24,82objectives: forest management 59;

management 59,90,95, 128-129, 136,144, 147, 158; wildlife 149

obligate 483occupier, secondary 487oceanspray 24-25Ochoco: mountains 18; National Forest

19, 106-107, 118, 134old growth 75, 81-82, 128, 130-131,

137-139, 141-142, 144, 146-147, 149, 155,158, 160-161, 483: habitat, providing155-159; in managed forests 158; logsby decomposition class 81; rotation139, 141, 143; silvicultural productionof 158; successional stage 23, 26,28-29, 31, 33, 50, 52, 83

l-hour fuel t imelag class 483lOO-hour fuel t imelag class 483l,OOO-hour fuel t imelag class 483on-grade 483open canopy484opening(s) 10, 17, 135, 137, 144, 484:

adjusting yield tables for 154; as forageareas 116; deer and elk use 116; natural130; to forest site ratio 144.

open-stocked stand 484opossum 67opportunity curve 484: deer and elk 118optimum: calving habitat, elk 120; cover

patches for deer and elk 114; stocking484; timber production 128; use ofhabitat, deer and elk 108

optimum habitat 484: deer and elk108-109, 118; for elk 130, 133, 136;pileated woodpecker 130, 137-139

options, silvicultural 128-147order, phylogenetic 484Oregon: Department of Fish and Wildlife

13; Forest Practices Act 11; map of 19,2 0

organ 484organic matter in soil 484organism 484oriole, northern 27

Index 5 0 3

osprey 39other grasses, plant community 24-25,

28,30, 144other shrubs, plant community 24-25, 28,

30, 35otter, river 27, 89outbreak: insect 51, 63; prevention of

insect 64; suppression of insect 64overgrazing 25,484overmature 484overstocked 484overstory 484: removal 153, 155, 484;

trees 18overuse 484overwinter 63owl 102: barn 67, 98, 100, 102; barred 67;

burrowing 27, 100; flammulated 76;great gray 65; great horned 27, 98-100;pygmy 100; saw-whet 62; screech 63,68,98,100, 102

Pacific treefrog 27, 41, 79, 87-88, 98, 100painted turtle 87pallid bat 98, 102parameter 484parasites 65partial cuts 484partial snag requirements 71partly dead trees 62patch, cover 473patches of snags 77pathogen 484pathological 484pathology 484pattern, lighting 480pectoral sandpiper 100Pedersen, Richard J. 104peninsula 50perches 65, 103perching 61, 79peregrine falcon 39, 98, 100perennial stream 484perfect simplicity 56, 484perimeter 55-56: total 54permanent stream 43, 484pest(s) 484: impede reforestation 86, 90;

insect 65; vertebrate 78pesticide 91, 484pH 484phellem 484phenomenon, species-area 489phoebe, Say’s 96,100photograph: aerial 118, 144; aerial oblique

470; standard aerial 490photosynthesis 484phylogenetic: order 484; sequence 464physical stability 15pika 27, 100-101, 103

pileated woodpecker 18, 27, 30-31, 34-38,6 0 - 6 1 , 6 5 , 6 7 , 6 9 - 7 2 , 7 5 , 7 7 , 7 9 , 8 6 , 1 2 8 ,130, 136, 140, 146-147, 150: excavation139; feeding substrate 136-139;foraging substrate 147; optimumhabitat 130, 137-739; reproduction 138;territorial requirement 138-139

piled slash 84piling and burning 484Pinaceae 484pine 82: beetle, western 62; lodgepole

2 4 - 2 5 , 3 2 , 6 7 , 6 9 , 8 4 , 8 6 , 1 0 6 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 7 ;ponderosa 18, 24-25, 32, 44, 50, 59, 67,6 9 , 7 0 - 7 2 , 7 6 , 9 4 , 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 5 , 1 3 3 ,147, 151-157, 160-161; siskin 98, 100;whitebark 24, fO6

pinegrass 24, 106, 134pinyon-juniper ecosystem 24pinyon mouse 98-99, 102pipistrelle, western 98-100plan: area, working 494; working 494planning 22-23, 25, 47, 103: area 484; area

size 155; conceptual framework for 12;deer and elk 104-105; holistic 12; land-use 13, 25, 27, 31, 39, 56, 59, 90, 480;long-range 481; multiple use 482;requirements 11; short-range 488

plant community 11, 14-15, 17, 21, 40, 44,4 8 - 5 0 , 5 4 , 5 7 - 5 9 , 6 7 , 6 9 , 8 4 , 9 6 , 1 0 3 ,134-137, 1 3 9 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 - 1 4 7 , 1 4 9 ,484: alpine meadow 24, 28, 30;classification systems, relationshipbetween 24-25; curlleaf mounta in-mahogany 24-25,‘28, 30, 35; description23-25; development, dynamic aspects17; dry meadow 24, 28, 30, 35;integrator of site factors 26; lodgepolep i n e 2 4 , 2 8 , 3 0 , 3 2 , 3 5 , 6 7 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 7 ;mixed conifer 24, 28-30, 32-33, 35, 50,67, 136, 147; moist meadow 24, 28, 30,35; orientation of species to 30, 32, 35;other grasses 24-25, 28,30; othershrubs 24-25, 28, 30, 35; ponderosap i n e 2 4 , 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 , 3 5 , 5 0 , 5 9 , 6 7 , 6 9 , 7 2 ,75, 147, 150, 155; quaking aspen 24-25,28, 30; riparian 24-25, 28, 30; sagebrush-bitterbrush 24, 26, 30, 35; snagrequirements by 74; structure 485;subalpine fir 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 67;successional stages, a commonground for timber-wildlife planning 23;successional stages related to wildlifehabitat 22-39; western juniper 24, 28,30, 35, 67; white fir 24-25, 28, 30, 32,35,67, 134, 147

plant community type 15, 26, 485: alpinefescue 24; alpine fleeceflower 24;alpine sagebrush 24; alpine sedge 24;big sagebrushlbunchgrass 24; biscuitscabland 24; bitterbrushlbunchgrass24; bluegrass scabland 24, 106, 108;bunchgrass on deep soil and gentleslopes 24, 134-136; bunchgrass ondeep soil and steep slopes 24, 134-136;bunchgrass on shallow soil and gentleslopes 24, 134-136; bunchgrass onshallow soils and steep slopes 24,134-136; curlleaf mountainmahoganylgrass 24; Hall’s 24-25, 106; juniper/bigsagebrush 24; juniper/bunchgrass 24;juniper/low sagebrush 24; juniperlstiffsage scabland 24; lodgepolelbighuckleberry 24, 106; lodgepolelgrousehuckleberry 24, 106; lodgepole lpinegrass-grouse huckleberry 24, 106;low sagebrushlbunchgrass 24; mixedconiferlpinegrass-ash soil 24, 134;mixed conifer/pinegrass-residual soil24, 134; ninebark shrubland 24, 106,134; ponderosa pinelbitterbrush/Rosssedge 24; ponderosa pine/blue wildrye24; ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir/elksedge 24, 106, 134; ponderosa pine-Douglas-firlninebark 24, 106, 134-136;ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir/snowberry-oceanspray 24; ponderosa pine/fescue24, 106; ponderosa pinelwheatgrass 24,106; quaking aspen meadow 24; relatedto deer and elk 108; snowberryshrubland 24; stiff sage scabland 24;subalpine fir/big huckleberry 24, 106;subalpine fir/grouse huckleberry 24,106; subalpine fir-whitebark pine/sedge24, 106; thinleaf alder snowslides 24;wet meadow 24; white fir/grousehuckleberry 24, 106, 134; white fir/huckleberry 24, 106, 134-136; white fir/twinflower 24, 134

plant complex 42plant diversity by successional stage 26planting 50-51, 133: grass 23, 29, 143;

shrubs 29; trees 23, 29, 144plants: shade-tolerant 488; vascular 493plant species richness 14p o l e 4 8 5pole-sapling: stage 485; successional

stage 26, 28-29, 31, 33, 50, 52, 83, 128,1 3 1 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 - 1 4 6

policy 148pond 41: special habitat 31-32, 35ponderosa pine 18, 24-25, 32, 44, 50, 59,

6 7 , 6 9 - 7 2 , 7 5 - 7 6 , 9 4 , 1 3 3 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 1 - 1 5 5 ,160-161: ecosystem 24; plantcommunity 24, 28-30, 32, 35, 50, 59, 67,6 9 , 7 2 , 7 5 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 5

ponderosa pinelbitterbrush/Ross sedge,plant community type 24

5 0 4 index

ponderosa pine/blue wildrye, plantcommunity type 24

ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir/elk sedge,plant community type 24, 106, 134

ponderosa pine-Douglas-firlninebark,plant community type 24, 106, 134-136

ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir/snowberry-ocean spray, plant community type 24

ponderosa pine/fescue, plant communitytype 24, 106

ponderosa pinelwheatgrass, plantcommunity type 24, 106

ponderosa shrub forest ecosystem 20ponderosa shrub forest (K lo), potential

natural vegetation 24pool, gene 477poorwil l 98, 100population 485: dynamics 485; level,

maximum 481; level, nesting 483;management, wildlife 16; Mendelian481; potential maximum 485; self-sustaining 72, 101, 488; viable 493

porcupine 27, 84, 87-88, 98, 102, 147potential: base use 470; biological 147,

471; density 48; elk use 136; maximumpopulation 485; maximum population,woodpeckers 69; site 488; use 493

potential natural vegetation: alpinemeadows and barren (K 52) 24, 106;Douglas-fir forest [interior] (K 12) 24,134; grand fir-Douglas-fir forest (K 14)24, 106, 134; juniper steppe woodland(K 24) 24; mountainmahogany-oakscrub (K 37) 24; ponderosa shrub forest(K 10) 24; sagebrush steppe (K 55) 24;western ponderosa forest (K 11) 24,106; western spruce-fir forest (K 15) 24,106; wheatgrass-bluegrass (K 51) 24,1 0 6 , 1 3 4

prairie falcon 39, 96100precipitation, related to prescribed

burning 91precommercial thinning 485predator 88, 99, 102, 435: avian 64predicting effects of timber management

on deer and elk 104, 106predicting wildlife welfare from habitat

conditions 21prediction: best 53; impacts of timber

management on wildlife habitat 12-13preening 89prescribed burning 485: related to

precipitation 91prescribed fire 485: woody debris 90-93prescription 485: habitat 144; silvicultural

133,137, 143, 488prevention: fire 77; insect outbreak 64primary: cavity excavator 60, 67-68, 75,

140, 485; cavity nesters 485; climax485; conversion 485

primary association 485orimitive road 485

process, land-use planning 12

principles: and concepts, generally

production: goals, wildlife 11, 16; timber10, 140, 143; wood 129

applicable 13; forest-wildlife

profile, soil 489program 485

management 15; substitutability 71

programed 485proper use 485

priorities, resource 90

prosenchyma cells 485protection zone, stream 490

pristine habitat 53

providing: old-growth habitat 155159;

probability 485

snag habitat 151province, Blue Mountain 19pseudoscorpian 61ptarmigan, white-tailed 100public: access, management of 104;

demand, influence on forestmanagement 11; forest 485;involvement 485; lands 147, 485;ownership of land 10; policy 11

puma 102purpose of the book 10py:;;;;;thatch 30-31, 34-38, 61, 146-147;

quaking aspen 24, 67: plant community24-25, 28, 30

quaking aspen meadow plant communitytype 24

quality, water 494quantify 485quantity 485: water 45-47, 494

rabbit, blacktail jack- 58raccoon 47, 67‘89racer, yellow-bellied 100radiation 486: intensity, solar 112;

intensity, thermal 112; loss 486; solar 46radio-collar 486railroad tunnel 96raising young 63RAM, Timber 148, 152,155, 160-161range 486: home 48-49, 478; spring-fall

490; summer 43,491; winter 43,494range and forest ecosystems: KUchler’s

18; map, Kijchler’s 20raptors 97, 99, 486rate: decay, in logs 83; metabolic 481;

stocking 490rating, versatility 493: life forms 38;

species 37-38ratio of openings to forest sites 144rattlesnake, western 98, 100raven, common 27, 98-100recoverable wood volume 486

recreation 18, 21, 41, 46-47, 103: demand21; production 7 I

recruitment: log 81, 486; snags 77

red squirrel 27, 86-69red-tailed hawk 27, 68, 98, 100

red-backed voles 65, 88

reduction: hazard 478; in wood yield,

red-breasted nuthatch 27, 30-31, 34-38, 146

formula 155

red fox 98, 100

reforestation 78, 486: impeded by pests86,90

regenerate 139, 142, 144, 486regeneration 18, 29, 136, 158, 160, 486;

area 486; cut 46, 129, 131, 135, 142, 146,486; cut, clearcut 29; cut, seed tree 29;cut, shelterwood 29; cuts, effects onwildlife 18; delayed 140, 144; failure of144; schedule 161; seed-tree 487;technique 129; unit 486; unit, size 129,1 3 6

regime: moisture 482; thinning 492regulate 486regulation: area 160, 470; insect

populations 61; natural 483; stand 160,490; volume 160-161, 493

relationship between plant communityclassification systems 24-25

relative degree of use of plantcommunities and successional stagesby life form 28

relative humidity 486relic 486: logs 84removal: of existing snags 77; overstory

4 6 4replacement snags 75Report, Environmental Analysis 475reproduction 98, 100, 102, 128, 137,

144-147: capacity 34; pileatedwoodpecker 138

reptiles 46, 97requirement: snag 68; territorial 491research 12Research Natural Area “yellow book” 147reserved from cutting 155reservoir, special habitat 31, 32, 35residence time 83, 86, 94, 486resident species 486resource management professionals,

backgrounds of 15resource priorities 90response curve 486: elk 134-136responsibility for wildlife management

1 1 , 1 6resources, conflicts between 21resting cover 61retardant, fire 476retention of snags 75-76rhizoid 486rhizome 486rhizomorphs 82, 486

index 5 0 5

richness 48, 51, 486: habitat 14-15, 52,478; plant species 14; wildlife species14, 51-53, 129, 141-144, 146, 490

ring 486: growth 478ringneck snake 88riparian 69: habitat, deer and elk use of

109; plant community 24-25, 28, 30;zone 17, 40-47, 141, 144, 147, 486

ritual, courtship 63river 41, 44: special habitat 31-32, 35river otter 27, 89road(s) 41, 45, 103: alteration of habitat

12; bed 103; construction 45; density,impact on deer and elk 122; effect onwildlife 10; habitat effectiveness fordeer and elk 105, 107, 122; hunter486; main 481; minimizing adverseimpact on deer and elk 126; primitive485; secondary 487

roadless area 486robin, American 27rock: dove 98; igneous 97, 102;

metamorphic 102; sedimentary 97, 99,102, 487; wren 98, 100

Rocky Mountain: elk (see “deer and elk”)104-127; mute deer (see “deer and elk”)1 0 4 - 1 2 7

Rodiek, Jon E. 40, 96role, ecological 474roosting 61, 63, 65: night 102; under loose

bark 65root: adventitious 470; wads 79, 94, 486Ross sedge 24rotation 139-141, 143, 146, 152-153, 155,

486: age 487; age, extended 475;extended 153, 158-160,475; cycle 487;for snags 75; impact on elk habitat131-133; length 138, 161; length, effecton deer and elk habitat 123, 132-133;old growth 139, 141, 143

rot, heart 61, 66-67, 478roundwood 487route, migration 43, 482rubber boa 27,85, 88, 100ruffed grouse 87,89rule, Scribner 487running water, special habitat 31, 32, 35runoff 487: surface-water 491runways 88,487

safety: feiiing snags 77; hazard 66;hazard, snags 77

sage: sparrow 98, 100; stiff 24; thrasher98, 100

sagebrush 24, 44: big 24; ecosystem 24;low 24; vole 100

sagebrush-bitterbrush plant Community24, 28, 30, 35

sagebrush steppe ecosystem 29sagebrush steppe (K 5% Potential natural

vegetation 24

5 0 6 index

salamander, long-toed 27, 100sale: area 487; timber 492salvage 29, 487: cutting 487; forgone to

provide snags 76, 77; logging 76, 487sandpiper: Baird’s 100; pectoral 100;

western 100sanitation: cut 142; cutting 487; harvest

4 8 7sapling 487: successional stage 50, 52saprophytes 487sap stain 487sapsucker: Williamson’s 30-31, 34-38, 69,

71-72, 146-147, 150; yellow-bellied30-31, 34-38, 63, 67-68

sapwood 487sawfly, larch 62saw log 487sawtimber 128, 132, 138, 487saw-whet owl 62Say’s phoebe 98, 100scabland 106, 108scars, trees 66scattering, lopping and 481scenic values 41scheduling 487: harvest, impact on wood

production 159; silvicultural treatment1 2 9 - 1 3 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 , 1 4 9 ;treatment 492; treatment, impact onwood production 160-161

Scherzinger, Richard J. 104scientific name 487screech owl 63,68,98,100,102Scribner rule 487season of occurrence, species 34secondary: cavity nesters 77, 487; cavity

user 63, 67-68, 70, 75, 487; occupier487; road 487; wind maxima 113, 487

security, deer and elk 109sedge 24: elk 24, 106, 134; Ross 24sediment 487: surface 491; suspended 491sedimentary rock 97,99, 102, 487sedimentation 45seed bearer 487seedlings 50-51, 82, 137, 487seed tree 18, 29, 46, 487seed-tree: cutting 487; regeneration 487seeps 41,42selected references for each species 26,

3 7selection: cutting 488; group 17, 46, 477;

single tree 17, 46-47; system 488self-sustaining population 72, 101, 488semiaquatic species 46, 488sequence, phylogenetic 484sere 488series, cutting 473shade 43shaded fuel break 488shade-intolerant plants 17, 488shade-tolerant plants 488shape: stands 18, 143; timber harvest

areas 54

sheep, big-horned 98, 100sheet erosion 488shelter 60shelterwood 18, 29, 46-47, 153-154,488:

cutting 488Shigometer 67, 488short-range planning 488short-tailed weasel 98, 100, 102shrew 85, 88: dusky 87-88; vagrant 87, 100shrike, loggerhead 98, 100shrub 488: control, herbicides 29; control,

mechanical 29; planting 29shrub-seedling: stage 488; successional

stage 23, 26, 28-29, 31, 33, 50, 52,65,83, 128, 131, 138, 141, 143-145

side-blotched lizard 27, 98, 100sight barrier 488: deer and elk 110sight distance 131-132, 488: deer and elk

1 0 9Sikes Act 11silvics 488silvicultural options 128-147: and land-

type 134-137; effects on deer and elkhabitat 123

silvicultural treatment 15, 135137, 154:arrangement 135136; effect on deerand elk habitat 107; scheduling1 2 9 - 1 3 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 , 1 4 9 ;size 129-130, 135136, 144; timing of1 2 9 , 1 4 0

silviculture 11, 128, 149, 488: decision,consequences for wildlife 18;manipulation 128; prescription 15, 133,137, 143, 488; production of old-growth158; system 129, 136, 488

silviculturist 129, 133, 141, 143-144,1 4 6 - 1 4 7

simple, edge 52, 55simplicity, perfect 56, 484single-species stand 488single-storied stand 488: effectiveness as

thermal cover 115single-tiered: canopy 18; stand 488single tree selection 17, 46-47, 488:

cutting 488; harvest 29single use 488siskin, pine 98, 100site 26, 42, 50, 488; classes 15, 488;

denning 474; factors influencing 14-15;index 151-152, 154, 160, 488; lookout481; potential 488; potential, related todeer and elk 107; preparation 91; types1 4 - 1 5 , 4 8 8

size: area, related to deer and elk 107;class, snags 75; cover areas 131; forageareas 130; habitat 52-53; logs 84, 86;planning area 155; regeneration unit129, 136; silvicultural treatment 129-130,135136, 144; stand 18, 53, 129, 131,135136, 138, 144; tree 129, 138, 142

skink, western 87-88, 100

skunk 89: spotted 67, 98, 100, 102; striped98,100

slabs 488slash 84-85, 94, 489: burning 89, 91;

disposal 84, 489; effect on deer and elk105, 110, 117; hiding cover for deer andelk 127; logging 105; management, MMstandards 105; piles 84, 94

slash treatment 489: impact on wildlife86, 90; influence on deer and elkhabitat 124, 127

slope 26, 134, 489: upper 493small diameter fuel 489small-footed myot is 98, 100, 102small mammals 65, 102snag(s) 60-77, 80, 91, 93-94, 128-130, 137,

139, 141-142, 146-147, 149, 160, 489:broken top 65, 7576; classification 60;clumping 77, 472; computation of woodforgone to produce 156-157; conditionrelated to log decomposition class 80;densities 75; diameter 66; diameter fornesting 68; diameter related tolongevity 152; distribution 77;economic loss, associated withproviding 76; endangered habitats 77;external characteristics 65; felling toenhance safety 77; felling to reducefire hazard 77; fire hazard 77; forestsuccession around 64; from forgonesalvage 76-77; habitat 74, 151; hard60-61, 65-66, 478; height for nesting 66,68; internal characteristics 65; killingtrees to provide 75-76; largesubstituted for small 70; level 75,152-153, 155; life 151-152, 489; life,average 470; loss 62; managementlevels 69, 72, 74-75, 484; managementrequirements 72; many-limbed 76;marketable 60; merchantable 481;minimum d.b.h. for nesting ofwoodpeckers 70; minimum size 482;nesting in 66; numbers 68; overall needof primary excavators 71; patches 77;potential 152; production of large 75;provided by modified management 154;providing over time 76; recruitment 77;removal 77; replacement 75; retention75-76; safety hazards 77; size class 75;soft 60-61, 6566, 489; special habitat3-f-32, 35; stages in succession 64;substitutability 489; successionalchanges 64; succession around 64;twisted 76; types 60; volume 489;volume, formula for 154; vulnerability77; year 489

snag-dependent: species 66; species,habitat potential 73; wildlife 60, 68,489; wildlife, viable populations 72;wildlife, vulnerability of 77

snag requirement 68, 154: by plantcommunities 74; meeting over time 75;partial 71; per nesting pair ofwoodpeckers 69; per unit area 69;ponderosa pine community 150

snake 101: common garter 27; gopher87-88, 98, 100; night 98, 100; ringneck88; western terrestrial garter 100

snipe, common 45snow 101snowberry 24snowberry shrubland, plant community

type 24snowshoe hare 79,87, 89snowslides 25, 79soaker hose 489social group size, deer and elk 110social strife 489sod-forming grasses 144softened heartwood 66soft snag 60-61, 65-66, 489softwood 65, 67: excavator 63; 489soil 40, 58, 489: compaction 4546;

erosion 45-46, 489; features, related todeer and elk 107; fragile 476; mineral482; organic matter in 484; profile489; profile, new 483; structure 469;type 26,50; under logs 85

solar radiation 46, 112: intensity 112solid wastes 489solitaire, Townsend’s 98solitude 53, 102sound wood 489: excavator 63southern hardwood borers 62spaces under bark 61-62Spanish forests 63sparrow: chipping 27; house 63; Lincoln’s

27; sage 98, 100special and unique habitats 46-103, 141,

144: dead and down woody material78-95; edges 4859; orientation ofspecies to 31, 35; riparian zones 40-47;snags 60-77

special habitat 96, 489: edges andecotones 31-32, 35, 48-59; lake 31-32,35; logs 31-32, 35, 78-95; marsh 31-32,35; pond 31-32, 35; reservoir 31-32, 35;river 31-32, 35; running water 31-32, 35;snags 31-32, 35, 60-77; stream 31-32, 35

special interest species 39species 489: code 489; composition 489;

composition, control of 91; dependenton snags 66; distribution 33; diversity52; diversity, impact of timbermanagement 33; endangered 59, 475;featured 59, 104; habits 33; informationof management significance 36;management, key 480; of specialinterest 39; related to plantcommunities and successional stages26, 30-33; resident 486; season of

occurrence 34; semiaquatic 46, 488;threatened 59, 492; wide-ranging 43

species-area: curves 53, 489;phenomenon 489

species orientation: plant communities30, 32, 35; special and unique habitats31, 35; successional stage 31, 33

species richness 51-53, 129, 141-144, 146,490: response to succession 141

species richness management 17, 23, 59,129, 141-142, 144, 146-147, 481, 490:goals 16; objectives 16; process 16

spore 490: fungal 90sporocarps 82, 490spot burning 490spotted bat 98spotted skunk 67, 98, 100, 102spring 41spring-fall range 490: deer and elk 108,

1 1 3 - 1 1 5spruce 82: beetle, Engelmann 62;budworm 62spruce-fir ecosystem 24-25squirrel 79: Columbia ground 27, 89, 98,

100; flying 61; mantled ground 89, 98,100; northern flying 27, 56, 87, 89; red27, 86-89

stability 14-15, 490: and diversity of forestecosystems, effect of timbermanagement 17; forest ecosystem,protection 16; physical 15

stage: grass-forb 477; mature 481; pole-sapling 485; shrub-seedling 488;successional 48, 50-51, 56, 65, 75, 128,141-147, 491; wood decay,characteristics 81; young 494

stagnated stands 133, 137-139, 490stagnation 490stain 490: blue 471; sap 487stand(s) 14-15, 53, 134, 490: age 131, 138,

490; arrangement 129, 131, 135, 138,142, 144; basal area 490; condition14.15, 17, 23, 129-133, 138-140, 142-144,148, 490; condition, related to deer andelk 107; deteriorated 474; even-aged 18;juxtaposition of 18; managed 148, 481;mixed-species 482; mortality 490;multistoried 482; multitiered 482; open-stocked 484; regulation 160, 490; shape18, 143; single-species 488; single-storied 488; single-tiered 488; size17-18, 53, 129, 131, 135-136, 138, 144;stagnated 133, 137-139, 490; structure1 2 8 - 1 2 9 , 1 3 6 - 1 3 9 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 4 , 4 9 0structure, related to thermal covereffectiveness 115; two-storied 492; type23, 151, 490; type, area 149, 156

standing timber volume, by ownership19,21

standard: aerial photograph 490;deviation 490; error 490; fuelmanagement 477; MM 482

/n&x 5 0 7

starling 98State: Federal cooperation 11, 16; laws

regarding wildlife 11; responsibility fowildlife 11, 16

Statement, Environmental Impact 475state, steady 53steady state 53Steller’s jay 98, 100stem 490: volume, cubic 151stiff sage 24stiff sage scabland, plant community

type 24stocked minimally 462stock, growing 477stocking 128, 138, 490: density 490; full

477; optimum 484; rate 490storage, food 79, 89story 490strata 41-43, 490: vegetative 493strategies, forest management 148Strawberry mountain range 18stream 25, 41, 44-45, 135: banks 45;

ephemeral 475; intermittent 43, 480;management unit 490; perennial 464;permanent 43,484; protection zone490; special habitat 31-32, 35;temperature 46; woody material in 95

strife, social 469stringers 135, 144 490strip: buffer 471; burning 491striped skunk 98, 100striped whipsnake 98, 100structural diversity 491: by successional

stage 26structure 42, 44-45, 491: community 42,

45; control of 91; diversity 17, 42;forest 23, 25, 128; soil 469; stand128-129, 136-139, 142, 144, 490;vegetative 52, 56, 493

stub 60, 491: of broken branches 66stumps 79, 101,491subalpine fir 24.25, 44, 67, 69, 106, 147:

plant community 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 67subalpine fir/big huckleberry, plant

community type 24, 106subalpine fir/grouse huckleberry, plant

community type 24, 106substitutability: principle of 71; snag 70,

489substitutable areas 155, 158, 491substrate: feeding 61, 475; foraging 476;

growth 61succession 14-15, 491: external 475;

influence on species richness 141;internal 480; logs 82-83; response bylife forms 141

successional changes, snags 64

successional stage 14-15, 17-18, 21, 48,50-51, 54, 56-59, 6465, 75, 84, 128, 131,141, 144-147, 149, 491: altered bymanagement activity 29; and plantcommunity related to wildlife habitat22-39; and related environmentalconditions 26; grass-forb 23, 26, 28-29,31-33, 52, 65, 83, 128, 141, 143-145; insnags 64; mature 23, 26, 28-29, 31-33,52, 128, 138, 141-142, 144-147; matureforest 83; old growth 23, 26, 28-29,31-33, 50, 52, 83; orientation of species31, 33; orientation of species andimpact of intensive timbermanagement 33; pole 50, 52; pole-sapling 26, 28-29, 3!, 33, 83, 128, 131,138, 141, 143, 147; related to animaldiversity 26; related to browseproduction 26; related to canopyclosure 26; related to canopy volume26; related to forage production 26;related to plant diversity 26; related tostructural diversity 26; related tovegetation height 26; sapling 50, 52;shrub-seedling 23, 26, 28-29, 31, 33, 50,5 2 , 6 5 , 8 3 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 - 1 4 5 ;young 26, 28-29, 31, 33; young forest 83

succession around snags 64sucker 491summer range 43, 130, 135, 491: deer and

elk 105, 109, 114, 116sunning 89, 491sun-scald 18supervisors, forest 13suppression, insect outbreak 64surface sediment 491surface-water runoff 491suspended sediment 491suspended solids 47sustained yield 12, 491Sustained Yield Act, Multiple-Use 462Swainson’s hawk 98, 100Swainson’s thrush 27swallow: bank 27; barn 98; cliff 98, 100swift 99: black 98, 100; Vaux’s 67, 98,

100; white-throated 98-100symbiosis 491system: for management of forest wildlife

16-17; indicator species 479; of timbermanagement 17-18; selection 466;silvicultural 129, 136, 488

table, yield 494tailed frog 87talus 96-103, 141, 144, 491: unique

habitat 31-32, 35taper 491technique: Delphi 474; firing 476;

harvesting 476; regeneration 129temperate: forest 491; zone 491

temperature 26, 102: deer and elk 112;influence by canopy 113; stream 46;water 47

IO-hour fuel t imelag class 491terms used in wildlife and forestry work,

interrelationships 14-15terrestrial vertebrates 491terrestrial wildlife 491territorial requirement 17, 491: pileated

woodpecker 138-139territory 34, 68, 144, 491: woodpeckers

6 8 - 7 1 , 7 7thallophyte 491thallus 491thermal 97, 99: radiation 112; radiation

intensity 112thermal cover 43, 79, 87-88, 129-137,

139-141, 491: air movement inside 113;contained in elk calving areas 120;deer and elk 18, 107, 112-115;effectiveness of multistoried stands115; effectiveness of single-storiedstands 115; effectiveness, related tocanopy closure 113, 115; effectiveness,related to stand structure 115; effectof logging 115; effect on airtemperature 113; optimum size fordeer 115; requirements of deer and elkon winter range 115; use by deer andelk to reduce insolation 113; use bydeer and elk to reduce radiational heatloss 113

thermal-neutral zone 112-l 13, 491thermoregulatory requirements, deer and

elk 113thinleaf alder 24thinleaf alder snowslides, plant

community type 24thinning 23, 29, 90, 129, 131-133, 135136,

138-142, 144, 148, 155, 491: commercial472; precommercial 485; regime 492

Thomas, Jack Ward 10, 22, 40, 60, 96,1 0 4 , 1 2 8

thrasher, sage 98, 100threatened and endangered species 16,

2 2 , 3 1 , 3 9threatened species 59, 492thrush, Swainson’s 27timber 47, 492: and deer and elk,

simultaneous production of 104; andwildlife management, compatibility of11; and wildlife management,coordination of 13; dominant landmanagement activity 144; industry 19;RAM 148, 152, 155, 160-161, 492; saw-487; type 155, 492; volume, standing,by ownership 19, 21

timbered stringers as travel lanes for deerand elk 113

5 0 8 Index

timber harvest 50, 76, 136: activities,influence on habitat 23; alteration ofhabitat 12; areas, shape of 54; byownership 19; demand for 21;

? ecological impact 15; effect on wildlife10; level, calculation of 148

limber management 46,104,492:alteration of forest ecosystems 127; asa way to achieve wildlife goals 13;decisions, consequences of 148;dominant activity 13; effect on cover-forage area ratios 117; effects on deerand elk 104-105; goals 148; impact onspecies diversity 33; impacts onwildlife, prediction of 12-13; intensive77, 138, 480; is wildlife management13; operations, adverse impacts ondeer and elk minimized 124-126;predicting effects on deer and elk 104,108; systems 17-18, 492

J timber production 10, 140, 143:commercial 472; optimum 128

Timber Resource Allocation Model 492timber sale 492: impact on deer and elk

104-105; impact on elk 134timber-wildlife: coordinated 472; planning

23,39time: providing snags over 76; residence

4 8 6t imelag 91, 492timing of silvicultural treatment 129, 140tissue, mycel ia l 482tits 62toad 101: western 27,87-88,100;

Woodhouse 98,100topography 10,40, 50: deer and elk 110;

effect on deer and elk 107; influence oneffectiveness of hiding cover 110;related to deer and elk 107

total: diversity 54, 58, 492; diversity index58, 492; edge 55-56; induced edge 57;inherent edge 57; length, edge 57;perimeter 54

towhee, green-tailed 98Townsend’s solitaire 98trade-offs 133-134, 136, 142-143, 147-148,

492: between resource uses 12-13;evaluating 148; identification 161

traffic volume, impact on deer and elkhabitat 122-123

trailing, forced 476trails 46, 103trampling 45transition 48: zone 492transportation 43travel corridor 43, 492travel lane 492: deer and elk 107, 113;

maximizing effectiveness for deer andelk 125

treat 492treatment 492: of understory 129;

scheduling 492; slash 489

tree(s): competition 152; coniferous 43-44;cover, manipulation of 13; crop 131,473; dead 62; deciduous 42-43, 75;dominant 474; establishment 82; form492; killing to provide snags 76; live62; mature 481; mechanical damage to66; mortality, anticipated 153; mortality,natural 152; partly dead 62; planting 23,29, 144; scars or wounds 66; seed 46,487; seedlings 82, 84; seedlings, animaldamage 90; selection, single 468; size129, 138, 142; suitable for cavitynesters 66; volume growth 153; volumeharvested 153

treefrog, Pacific 79, 87-88, 98, 100trends in habitat diversity 54tropical forest 492tropics 492trout 44true fir 82tunnels 102turkey 100turkey vulture 98, 100-101turtle 89: painted 87twinflower 24, 134twisted snag 76two-storied stand 492type 492: cavity 63; community 472;

excavation 63; fuel 477; habitat 478;site 488; snags 60; soil 50; stand 490;timber 492; vegetation 55

Umatilla County, Oregon 18Umatilla National Forest 13, 19, 106-107,

118,134,152,160unbound water 40, 492underburning 492understory 492: treatment 129uneven-aged: different from even-aged 18;

forest management 109; management17-18, 141; stand 493

uneven distribution of age classes,impact on wood production 160

ungulates 84, 493: forced trailing 94;influenced by logs 84,94

Union County, Oregon 18unique and special habitats 46-103, 141,

144: dead and down woody material78-95; edges 48-59; orientation ofspecies to 31, 35; riparian zones 40-47;snags 60-77; species orientation to 31,3 5

unique animal complex 103unique habitats 96, 103, 493: caves 31-32,

35; cliffs 31-32, 35; talus 31-32, 35unit: area control 17, 493; cutting 473;

regeneration 486unmanaged forest 493unsalvaged mortality 78, 493unstacked 493upper slope 493

use(s): cavities 63; multiple 482; potential493; proper 485; single 488

user, secondary cavity 487

vagrant shrew 87, 100value, log 481variable 493: dependent 474; independent

4 7 9variance 493vascular 493: plants 493Vaux’s swift 67, 98, 100vector 493vegetation: at ground level related to

canopy closure 116; border 48;classification, KUchler’s 106; climax472; complex 40, 44-45, 493; condition493; height by successional stage 26;herbaceous 101; layer 43; manipulationof 5051; mosaic 135; response totreatment 108; strata 493; structure 52,56, 493; types 55; volume 43

vehicles 107versatile 493versatility index 37-39, 493versatility rating 34, 493: life form 38, 147;

species 37-38; wildlife 147vertebrate(s): ecological role of small 86;

insectivorous 62; pests 78; terrestrial4 9 1

vertical diversity 17-18, 493viable population 493: snag dependent

wildlife 72; woodpeckers 74visual management 91: zone 493visual resource management 155: area 493vole 88: mountain 100; red-backed 85, 88;

sagebrush 100; yellow pine 87volume: control 493; cubic 473; growth,

trees 153; increment 493; of trees,harvested 153; regulation 160-161, 493;snag 489; vegetative 43; water 47

V score 37, 39, 493vulnerability 493: of cavity nesters 77; of

snag-dependent wildlife 77; of snags77; to habitat manipulation 26

vulture, turkey 98, 100-101

wad, root 486Walla Walla, Washington 18Wallowa County, Oregon 18Wallowa Mountains 18Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 13, 19,

1 0 6 - 1 0 7 , 1 1 8 , 1 3 4warbler, yellow-rumped 27Washington, map of 19-20Washington State Department of Game 13waste: human 46; solid 489

Index 5 0 9

water 42, 44, 47, 97, 144: as a limitingfactor, deer and elk 118; as part of deerfawning habitat 120; content, logs 82;deer and elk 104, 109; free 40, 476;quality 44-47, 494; quantity 45-47, 494;related to optimum habitat for deer andelk 109, shrew, northern 87; source 95;source, type 41; temperature 47;unbound 40,492; volume 47

waterfowl 89water-holding capacity 494watershed 494waxwing, cedar 27weasel 88-89: long-tailed 98, 100, 102;

short-tailed 98, 100, 102western big-eared bat 98, 100, 102western bluebird 98, 100western fence lizard 27, 87, 89, 98, 100western harvest mouse 100western jumping mouse 27western juniper 24, 67western juniper, plant community 24, 28,

30, 35, 67western pine beetle 62western pipistrelle 98-100western ponderosa forest ecosystem 20western ponderosa forest (K 1 l), potential

natural vegetation 24, 106western rattlesnake 98, 100western sandpiper 100western skink 87-88, 100western spruce-fir forest ecosystem 20western spruce-fir forest (K 15) 24, 106western terrestrial garter snake 100western toad 27, 87-88, 100western whiptail 100wet meadow: plant community type 24;

use by deer and elk 109wheatgrass 24wheatgrass-bluegrass ecosystem 20wheatgrass-bluegrass (K 51) potential

natural vegetation 24, 106, 134Wheeler County, Oregon 18whipsnake, striped 98, 100whiptail, western 100whitebark pine 24, 106white-breasted nuthatch 30-31, 34-38,

146-147white fir 24-25, 69, 106, 134-139, 147white fir/grouse huckleberry, plant

community type 24, 106, 134white fir/huckleberry, plant community

type 24,106,134-136white fir plant community 24, 28, 30, 32,

35,67,134,147white firltwinflower, plant community

type 24,134white-headed woodpecker 30-31, 34-38,

69, 71-72, 146-147, 150white-tailed ptarmigan 100white-throated swift 98-100wide-ranging species 43

5 1 0 Index

width of edge 52,59wilderness II, 21, 494: system 21wildfire 494wildlife 494: and timber management,

compatibility of 11; and timbermanagement, coordination of 13; aproduct of forest management 1 l-12; arequired product of National Forests11; as impacted by forestry, accountingfor 22-23; biologist 11-13, 15, 26, 33,39, 45, 47, 95, 118, 146-147, 152;demand for 21; diversity 53-54, 96, 129,143-144; goals 54, 155; goalsaccomplished through timbermanagement 13; goals, costs ofattaining 148; impacts from timbermanagement-prediction of 12;influenced by slash treatment 86, SO;logs 494; manager 49; nongame 483;objectives 149; objectives, cost ofmeeting 142; population management16; production goals 11, 16; richness51; snag dependent 60,68,469 speciesadapted to plant communities andsuccessional stages 26,30-33; speciesrichness 14; terrestrial 491; use of logs86-89; welfare, predicted from habitatconditions 21

wildlife habitat: a by-product of timbermanagement 11; impacts on woodproduction 148-161; management 16,59, 494; related to plant communitiesand successional stages 22-39;relationships 26

wildlife management 494: defined 16;responsibility for 11, 16; systems 16-17;the art of 16

wildlife-timber planning 23, 39wildrye, blue 24Williams, Jerry T. 78Williamson’s sapsucker 30-31, 34-38, 69,

71-72, 146-147, 150wil low 25, 75wind maxima, secondary 113,467windrows 94, 494windstorms 29, 79windthrow 18, 494winter range 43, 494: deer and elk 105,

108, 113, 115116wolver ine 98 , 100 , 102wood: decay 61,67,78, 79; decay,

characteristics of stages 81; discolored67; fiber, production of 11; soft 65, 67;sound 469; volume, recoverable 466;yield reduction, formula 155

wood ants 65wood duck 27,63,68Woodhouse toad 98, 100

woodpecker(s) 62, 65, 68, 79, 85: black-backed three-toed 30-31, 34-38,77,146-147; cavities 67; cavities excavatedper year 70; downy 30-31, 34-38,63,67-68; hairy 30-31, 34-38, 63, 67-72,146-147, 150; holes 67; increasingdistribution 74; increasing probabilityof occurrence 74; increasing welfare74; Lewis’ 30-31, 34-38, 65, 69, 71-72,146-147, 150; marginal populations 74;mating rituals 77; maximum density ofnesting pairs 70; nonviable 74;northern three-toed 30-31, 34-38, 77;pileated 18, 27-28, 30-31, 34-38, 60-61,65, 67, 69-72, 75, 77, 79, 86, 130, 136,140, 146-147, 150; potential maximumpopulation 69; snag requirement pernesting pair 69; territory 68-71; viablepopulation 74; white-headed 30-31,34-38, 69, 71-72, 146-147

wood production 129: forgone to providesnags 156-157; impact of extendedrotation 159; impact of scheduling oftreatment 160-161; impact of unevendistribution of age classes 160;impacts of wildlife habitat 148-161;maximum 142

wood products, flow of 18wood rat 101: bushy-tailed 87, 89, 98, 100,

102woody debris 79-81, 84, 494; chemical

treatment 90-91; managementtechniques 90; manual manipulation90-91; mechnaical manipulation 90-91;prescribed fire SOS3

woody material: dead and down 75, 78-95,103, 128, 137, 141, 143-144, 147, 473:decomposition rate 81, 83-84; instreams 95

working circle 155, 161, 494working definition 494working plan 494: area 494wounds, tree 66wren: canyon 98, 100; house 89; rock 98,

100; winter 88Wytham, England 79

yarding 494year, snag 469yellow-bellied marmot 89, 98, 100yellow-bellied racer 100yellow-bellied sapsucker 30-31, 34-38, 63,

67-68“yellow book,” Research Natural Area 147yellow-breasted chat 27yellow pine chipmunk 63, 87-88, 98, loo,

1 4 1yellow pine voles 87yellow-rumped warbler 27

i

yield 494: sustained 491; table 494; tables,adjustment for openings 154; tables,managed 148-149, 152-155,160,481

young forest, successional stage 83young stage 494young successional stage 26, 28-29, 31, 3 3

zone: aquatic 470; riparian 486; temperate491; thermal-neutral 491; transition 492

index 511

The photographs are used courtesy of thefollowing organizations and individuals:

introduction Pages 10, 12-USDA ForestService. 17-USDA Forest Service, photo byFrederick C. Hall. 18-Gerald S. Strickler.

Plant Communities and SuccessionalStages Page 23-(left) Oregon State De-partment of Fish and Wildlife, photo byRon Rohweder; (right) USDA Forest Serv-ice, photo by Frederick C. Hall. 2%(topleft and right) Gerald S. Strickler; (bottom)Gary Martin. 27-Ralph G. Anderson. 30,37-USDA Forest Service, photos by EvelynL. Bull. 39-8111 Lewis.

Riparian Zones Page 41-Chris Maser.42-Gary Martin. 43-Marijane Anderson.46-(top) Gerald S. Strickler. 46 (bottom),47-Gary Martin.

Edges P a g e 51-USDA Forest Serv ice,photos by Paul J. Edgerton. %-OregonState Department of Fish and Wildlife,photo by Richard J. Pedersen. 56-USDAForest Service, photo by Evelyn L. Bull.58-(top) Oregon State Department of Fishand Wildlife, photo by Donavin A. Lecken-by; (bottom) Chris Maser. 59-USDA For-est Service, photo by J. Louise Parker.

Snags P a g e 60-USDA Forest Serv ice,photo by Evelyn L. Bull. 62-Gary Martin.65, 68-Ralph G. Anderson. 7l-USDA For-est Service, photo by Evelyn L. Bull. 75USDA Forest Service, photo by J. LouiseParker. 76-(top) Ralph B. Anderson; (bot-tom) Ralph G. Anderson.

Dead and Down Woody Material Page78-D. D. Bradshaw. 79-Oregon State De-partment of Fish and Wildlife, photo byRon Rohweder . 82Ralph G. Anderson.85(top left) Chris Maser; (top right) USDAForest Service, photo by J. Louise Parker;(bottom left) USDA Forest Service, photoby John Dell. 86, 87, 88-Chris Maser. 89-(top) USDA Forest Service, photo by Wil-liam R. Meehan; (bottom) Gary Martin. 90-USDA Forest Service, photo by John Dell.Sl-USDA Forest Service, photo by WayneG. Maxwel l . 92-USDA Fores t Serv ice ,photo by John Dell. 94, 95-C. D. Cannon.

Cliffs, Talus, and Caves Pages 99, 101(left)-USDI Bureau of Land Management,pho tos by A . R . Bammann. lOl-(right)Gary Martin. 102-Drawing by Ellen Blon-der from a photo in Orr (1954), with per-mission of the author.

Deer and Elk Page 104-Gary Martin.105USDA Forest Service, photo by GeraldS. Strickler. 107-Ralph G. Anderson. 109-Gary Martin. 112~(top) Ralph G. Anderson;(bottom) USDA Forest Service, photo byFrederick C. Hall. 113-Garv Martin. 114.116 (top)-Oregon State department ofF i sh and Wi ld l i f e , pho to by Ron Roh-weder. 116-(bottom) Ralph G. Anderson.120-(top) Oregon S ta te Depar tmen t o fF i sh and Wi ld l i f e , pho to by Ron Roh-weder; (bottom) Gary Martin. 121, 127( top) -Gary Mar t in . 127 (bot tom)-USDAForest Service, photo by J. Louise Parker.

Silvicultural Options Pages 128, 129,130-USDA Forest Serv ice, photos byFrederick C. Hall. 131-C. D. Cannon. 133-USDA Forest Service, photos by FrederickC. Hall. 137-(top) USDA Forest Service;(bottom) USDA Forest Service, photo byFrederick C. Hall. 140-D. D. Bradshaw.142-USDA Forest Serv ice, photos byFrederick C. Hall. 143, 146, 147-D. D. Brad-shaw.

512 Photo Credits

the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington - Southern ...

Documents

Transcript of the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington - Southern ...