Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:21:08.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing for Mature Habitat in Production Forests of Western Oregon and Washington

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Elizabeth C. Cole
Elizabeth C. Cole*
Affiliation:
For. Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Standard timber management practices in the Pacific Northwest result in stands which often vary from unmanaged stands in structure and composition. Forest and wildlife managers have identified a deficit of stands in the mature (> 100-yr-old) age class that contain certain desirable wildlife habitat features. Techniques are being developed that would increase the likelihood that managed stands can produce these characteristics. The key desirable components in these stands include large (> 75 cm diam breast height) conifer trees, snags, coarse woody debris, and understory structure, including regeneration. Vegetation management techniques can facilitate development of these components within stands. Thinning the overstory, underplanting shade-tolerant species, and creating snags and coarse woody debris can be accomplished within a production forest. Maintaining shade-intolerant species requires a higher level of disturbance and canopy opening than needed for shade-tolerant species. Treatments which remove competition from shrubs and herbaceous plants may be necessary to insure growth and survival of understory regeneration. Injection of different herbicides into low-grade conifers may yield different types of snags in comparison to girdling or topping. Although much of the understory may be eliminated during future thinnings and final harvest, some of the structure will remain and could be carried over into the next rotation along with snags and large coarse woody debris. These treatments are expected to enhance mature habitats in present and future cycles with minimum impact on yield.

Keywords

Forest managementhabitat managementunderstory development
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 422 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Alaback, P. B. and Herman, F. R. 1988. Long-term response of understory vegetation to stand density in Picea-Tsuga forests. Can. J. For. Res. 18:1522–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Berg, A. B., 1971. Field trip to Black Rock Unit, George T. Gerlinger State Experimental Forest. p. 111–127 in Berg, A. B., ed. Proc. Management of Young Growth Douglas-fir and Western Hemlock. School of Forestry, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.Google Scholar
3. Brower, J. E., Zar, J. H., and Von Eende, C. N. 1990. Field and laboratory methods for general ecology, Ed. 3. W. C. Brown, Publ., Dubuque, IA. 237 p.Google Scholar
4. Brown, E. R., ed. 1985. Management of fish and wildlife habitats of western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service PNW Report R6-F&WL-192-1985. 332 p.Google Scholar
5. Cimon, N., 1983. A simple model to predict snag levels in managed forests. p. 200–204 in Davis, J. W., Goodwin, G. A., and Ockenfels, R. A., eds. Snag habitat management: Proceedings of a symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-99. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
6. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. USDA Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Park Service. Portland, OR. 1000 p.Google Scholar
7. Forsman, E. D., Meslow, E. C., and Wight, H. M. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl. Wildl. Monogr. 87. 64 p.Google Scholar
8. Franklin, J. F., Spies, T., Perry, D., Harmon, M., and McKee, A. 1986. Modifying Douglas-fir management regimes for nontimber objectives. p. 373–379 in Oliver, C. D., Hanley, D. P., and Johnson, J. A., eds. Douglas-fir: stand management for the future: Proceedings of a symposium; 1985 June 18–20; Seattle, WA. Contribution no. 55. College of Forest Resources, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
9. Greber, B. J., Johnson, K. N., and Lettman, G. 1990. Conservation plans for the northern spotted owl and other forest management proposals in Oregon: the economics of changing timber availability. Papers in Forest Policy 1. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 50 p.Google Scholar
10. Hann, D. W., Hester, A. S., and Olsen, C. L. 1995. ORGANON user's manual edition 5.0 incorporating: southwest Oregon version and the western Willamette Valley version. Dept. of Forest Resources, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 127 p.Google Scholar
11. Harmon, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Swanson, F. J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S. V., Lattin, J. D., Anderson, N. H., Cline, S. P., Aumen, N. G., Sedell, J. R., Lienkaemper, G. W., Cromack, K. Jr., and Cummins, K.W. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. p. 133–302 in MacFadyen, A. and Ford, E. D., eds. Advances in Ecological Research, Vol. 15. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
12. Hopmans, P. and Chappell, H. N. 1994. Growth response of young, thinned Douglas-fir stands to nitrogen fertilizer in relation to soil properties and tree nutrition. Can. J. For. Res. 24:1684–1688.Google Scholar
13. Jozsa, L. A., and Brix, H. 1989. The effects of fertilization and thinning on wood quality of a 24-year-old Douglas-fir stand. Can. J. For. Res. 19:1137–1145.Google Scholar
14. Kellogg, L. D., Pilkerton, S. J., and Edwards, R. M. 1991. Logging requirements to meet new forestry prescriptions. p. 43–49 in McNeel, J. F., and Andersson, B., eds. Proceedings of the 1991 COFE Annual Meeting. Council on Forest Engineering, Nanaimo, BC.Google Scholar
15. Lippke, B., and Oliver, C. D. 1993. Managing for multiple values. J. For. 91:14–18.Google Scholar
16. Loucks, O. L., Ek, A. K., Johnson, W. C., and Monserud, R. A. 1981. Growth, aging, and succession. p. 37–86 in Reichle, D. E., ed. Dynamic Properties of Forest Ecosystems. International Biological Programme, Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
17. Marshall, D. D., Bell, J. F., and Tappeiner, J. C. 1992. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 10—The Hoskins Study 1963–1983. Research Paper PNW-RP-448. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 65 p.Google Scholar
18. McComb, W. C., Spies, T. A., and Emmingham, W. H. 1993. Douglas-fir forests managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. J. For. 91:31–42.Google Scholar
19. Morrison, M. L., Dedon, M. F., Raphael, M. G., and Yoder-Williams, M. 1986. Snag requirements of cavity-nesting birds: are USDA Forest Service guidelines being met? West. J. Appl. For. 1:38–40.Google Scholar
20. Newton, M., 1986. Residues from organic arsenical herbicides in chemically thinned forests. J. Environ. Qual. 15:388–394.Google Scholar
21. Newton, M., and Cole, E. C. 1987. A sustained-yield scheme for old-growth Douglas-fir. West. J. Appl. For. 2:22–25.Google Scholar
22. Newton, M., and Holt, H. A. 1971. Scolytid and buprestid mortality in ponderosa pines injected with organical arsenicals. J. Econ. Entomol. 64:952–958.Google Scholar
23. Newton, M., Roberts, F., Allen, A., Kelpsas, B., White, D., and Boyd, P. 1990. Deposition and dissipation of three herbicides in foliage, litter, and soil of brushfields of southwest Oregon. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38:574–583.Google Scholar
24. Odum, E.P., 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–269.Google Scholar
25. Old-Growth Definition Task Group. 1986. Interim definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. Research Note PNW 447. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 7 p.Google Scholar
26. Oliver, C. D., 1992. A landscape approach: achieving and maintaining biodiversity and economic productivity. J. For. 90:20–25.Google Scholar
27. Oliver, C. D., Harrington, C., Bickford, M., Gara, R., Knapp, W., Lightner, G., and Hicks, L. 1994. Maintaining and creating old growth structural features in previously disturbed stands typical of the eastern Washington Cascades. J. Sustainable For. 2:353–387.Google Scholar
28. Oliver, C. D., and Larson, B. C. 1990. Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 467 p.Google Scholar
29. Omule, S.A.Y., 1988. Growth and yield 35 years after commercially thinning 50-year-old Douglas-fir. FRDA Report 021. Canadian Forestry Service and British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands, Victoria, BC. 15 p.Google Scholar
30. Omule, S.A.Y., 1988. Growth and yield 32 years after commercially thinning 56-year-old western hemlock. FRDA Report 029. Canadian Forestry Service and British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands, Victoria, BC. 16 p.Google Scholar
31. Perez-Garcia, J., 1993. Global forestry impacts of reducing softwood supplies from North America. Work. Pap. 43. Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 35 p.Google Scholar
32. Ruggiero, L. F., Jones, L. C., and Aubry, K. B. 1991. Plant and animal associations in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest. p. 447–462 in Ruggiero, L. F., Aubry, K. A., Carey, A. B., and Huff, M. H., eds. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. 285.Google Scholar
33. Sessions, J., 1990. Timber for Oregon's tomorrow, the 1989 update. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 183 p.Google Scholar
34. Singer, S. W., Naslund, N. L., Singer, S. A., and Ralph, C. J. 1991. Discovery and observations of two tree nests of marbled murrlet. Condor 93:330–339.Google Scholar
35. Stegemoeller, K. A., and Chappell, H. N. 1991. Effects of fertilization and thinning on 8-year growth responses of second-growth Douglas-fir stands. Can. J. For. Res. 21:516–521.Google Scholar
36. Thomas, J. W., 1994. Trends in forest management in the United States. For. Chron. 70:546–549.Google Scholar
37. Thomas, J. W., Anderson, R. G., Maser, C., and Bull, E. L. 1979. Snags. p. 60–77 in Thomas, J. W., ed. Wildlife habitats in managed forests—the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Handbook No. 553. US Govt. Print. Off. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
38. Thomas, J. W., Forsman, E. D., Lint, J. B., Meslow, E. C., Noon, B. R., and Verner, J. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: report or the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. US Govt. Print. Off. Portland, Oregon. Doc. 1990–791–171/20026. 427 p.Google Scholar
39. Toth, E., 1982. The use of silviculture in wildlife habitat management. p. 16–22 in Proc. 4th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Nov. 3–4, 1982. Eureka, CA.Google Scholar
40. US Dep. of the Interior. 1992. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl—draft. USDI, Washington, DC. 662 p.Google Scholar
41. Weigand, J. F., and Burditt, A. L. 1992. Economic implications for management of structural retention on harvest units at the Blue River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest, Oregon. Research Note PNW-RN-510. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 17 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar