Optimizing Early Successional Habitat to Support

Biodiversity in the Acadian Forest Region

by

Michael Speelman

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation

Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto

© Copyright by Michael Speelman, 2018

i

Optimizing early successional habitat to support biodiversity in the

Acadian forest region

Michael Speelman

Master of Forest Conservation

Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto

2018

Abstract

Early successional forest area a critical habitat for many forest species. They are a

natural part of forest ecosystems resulting from disturbances like wind storms and fires.

Unique early successional forest features like dense, low vegetation and high fruit

production attract a variety of generalist and early successional specialist species.

Particularly, many bird species nest and feed in these habitat types. Early successional

forest habitats are slowly declining throughout the province of Prince Edward Island

largely due to the reforestation of agricultural lands. Due to this decline in available

habitat, some species dependant on early successional forest are now of concern. To

address this problem, a review of literature was conducted to inform management

recommendations on how to best create and maintain early successional habitat to

support the wildlife that relies on it for the Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project,

which manages 2000 acres of public land.

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my academic supervisor, Dr. John Caspersen, for his guidance and

help throughout my capstone. I would also like to thank my external examiner, Gary

Schneider, for helping me to develop a capstone topic stemming from my internship, for

mentoring me during my time at Macphail Woods and this project, and for introducing

me to the field of forestry in the first place. Finally, I would like to thank my fiancée,

Cadence, for supporting me through each step of this process.

iii

Table of Contents

Page Number Introduction……………………………………………… 1-5 Methods…………………………………………………. 5 Results…………………………………………………… 5-12 Recommendations……………………………………… 12 Bibliography……………………………………………… 13-16

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Historical forest of Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in Canada (5660 km2), is located in the Gulf of St.

Lawrence and its native forests are often referred to as the Acadian forest type (Weighs, 1995;

Catling et al, 1985; McAskill, 1987). The Acadian forest originally found in the province was

primarily composed of sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red

spruce (Pincea rubens), white pine (Pinus strobus), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and

eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), along with balsam fir (Abies balsamea) and a variety of

other species in lower densities (Catling et al, 1985; McAskill, 1987). After centuries of

European settlement in the province, over 70% of the Acadian forest had been harvested and

much of it repurposed for agricultural land (PEI Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 1997).

The 30% that had remained was largely degraded and fragmented by road networks, agricultural

land, and logging (Sobey and Glen, 1999; Sobey, 2002; McAskill, 1987). Over time, largely due

to the abandonment of farmland and efforts of the provincial government, the forest cover of the

province increased to 50%, but less than half of that forest cover is considered to representative

of the natural Acadian forest type and much of that is degraded to varying degrees (PEI

Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 1997; Sobey and Glen, 1999; Sobey, 2002).

In December of 2005, the Department of Environment, Energy, and Forestry turned over

management of 2000 acres of public forest land to the Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry

Project to restore the native Acadian forest and to demonstrate sustainable forest management

(Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project, 2017). The Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry

Project is an environmental non-profit that aims to combine protection of natural areas with

environmental education, watershed protection, wildlife enhancement, forest stewardship, and

ecological research (Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project, 2017). Throughout these

managed forests almost all of the stands, whether old growth forest, reforested agricultural land,

second-growth forest, or softwood plantation, are in the age range of 20-100 years (Macphail

Woods Ecological Forestry Project, 2017). Typically, about 15 years after a disturbance (clearcut,

fire, etc) a forest canopy establishes, beginning the elimination of the characteristics of early

2

successional forest and the habitat that early successional species rely on (Aber, 1979; Latham,

2003; Schlossberg and King, 2009). Less than three percent of the managed forest stands have

been clearcut in the past 15 years and there has been essentially no forests clearcut in the last ten

years due to the management practices of Macphail Woods, which generally only harvests timber

through single-tree selection or very small patch cuts (<30 m diameter) and there have been no

stands consumed by fire along with little wind throw disturbance (Macphail Woods Ecological

Forestry Project, 2017). A similar trend can be seen across the province, as early successional

habitats are slowly becoming less common, primarily due to the reforestation of agricultural land

and old, abandoned fields returning to forests (Environment Canada, 2013).

1.2 Early successional/shrub dominated forest types

An early successional forest type is a site where the dominating vegetative species are

herbaceous, shrubs, and/or trees in the seedling/sapling stage, starting after a disturbance and

continuing until canopy closure, typically about 15 years later (Litvaitis, 2003; Lormier and

White, 2003; Aber, 1979). An alternative, more common term used to describe this forest type is

a ‘thicket’ (Litvaitis, 2003). Early successional forest occurs throughout forest landscapes

because of natural disturbances such as fire, windthrow, and insect outbreaks (Lormier and

White, 2003). While it is difficult to establish a baseline of the amount of natural early

successional forest that should be present on a landscape due to several historical factors, such as

First Nations land management practices and European agricultural land usage, it is estimated

that between 2.4% and 7.1% of forest land would typically have been disturbed within the last 15

years, ‘restarting’ the successional process (Lormier and White, 2003). The largest historical

driver of forest disturbances was windthrow, with disturbances ranging from <1 to 700 hectares

in size, but less windthrow disturbance than the historical average is experienced in the modern

forest (Lormier and White, 2003). This is principally because windthrow disturbance is less

common in younger stands and the age of stands in Macphail Woods and Prince Edward Island

are relatively young due to historical management practices (Lormier and White, 2003; Macphail

Woods, 2017; Rich et al, 2007; Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 2010). While the

percentage of early successional forest in Macphail Woods managed forests still falls within this

range (2.8%), this number will likely fall below the 2.4% threshold, as the managed forests have

3

almost no large disturbances within the last decade (Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry

Project, 2017).

Shrub dominated areas can sometimes persist for long periods of time in a single location instead

of following the typical successional stages of the surrounding forest (Latham, 2003). This can

often be attributed to environmental factors that favor the shrubby plants rather than mature

forest trees, such as the presence of a ‘frost pocket’, poor soils, or regularly occurring fires

(Latham, 2003). More recently, researchers have also begun to suspect some persistent dominant

shrub species of creating positive feedback loops that favors shrubland, such as shrubs that

acidify soil over time and are also tolerant of acidified soil (Latham, 2003).

The early successional and/or shrub dominated forest type plays an important role in forest

ecosystems, providing conditions that support a variety of both floral and faunal species (Howard

and Lee, 2003; King et al., 2001; Litvaitis, 2001; Schlossberg and King, 2009). While often

species associated with early successional habitats were thought of as generalist species, research

has begun to show that the converse is more accurate: most of the early successional species are

specialists in their requirements for the specific habitat type and focus has been turning to many

of these species as concern grows with the loss early successional habitat throughout much of

north-eastern North America (De Graaf and Yamasaki, 2003). Many bird species are only found

in early successional habitats due to needs for nesting or feeding. Trends in populations show

significant changes shortly after disturbances, with many species of bird completely disappearing

from an area less than 20 years following a disturbance, some beginning to decline as soon as

three years post-disturbance (Schlossberg and King, 2009).

Many plant species occur in early successional habitat that aren’t found in later successional

stages of forest. Species richness of tree, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation is highest in sites

less than fifteen years after a disturbance, with a large part of these species tending to propagate

using animal-dispersed fleshy fruits (Howard and Lee, 2003). This vegetative species richness in

early successional forests is related to the amount of sunlight available near the ground, which

tends to decrease with time as forest canopies shade out the ground below and correlates with the

reduction in species richness (Howard and Lee, 2003).

Many faunal species also rely on early successional and/or shrub dominated forest land. Avian

species richness peaks approximately ten years after a disturbance and decreases over time as

4

succession towards a closed canopy forest continues (Schlossberg and King, 2009). A significant

factor in the decrease of avian species richness with the progression of succession is that many of

these species tend to build their nests on or near the ground and many often rely on the shrub

layer to forage for insects (Schlossberg and King, 2009). There are eleven bird species that rely

on shrublands that are listed as priority species in Environment Canada’s Bird Conservation

Strategy: American redstart, American woodcock, black-billed cuckoo, brown-headed cowbird,

eastern kingbird, mourning warbler, rose-breasted grosbeak, veery, white-throated sparrow,

common nighthawk, and short-eared owl, with the latter two species being considered species at

risk (Environment Canada, 2013). The primary threat to these species is listed as loss of habitat,

largely due to forest succession without adequate amounts of forest disturbance to replace the

lost habitat (Environment Canada, 2013).

While mammals do not tend to rely as heavily on early successional habitats as avian species,

several small mammal species use these habitats seasonally, if not daily, often to capitalize on

food availability (Litvaitis, 2001). A prime example of this is Myotis lucifugus (little brown bat),

a native of the Acadian forest, which does not roost in early successional habitats, but often visits

these sites daily for feeding purposes (Litvaitis, 2001). Many amphibious, reptilian, and insect

species also rely on early successional/shrub dominated forest types to various extents (Litvaitis,

2003).

Due to the low levels of early successional/shrub dominated forest in the public forests managed

by the Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project and the decreasing amount of this habitat

type throughout the province of Prince Edward Island, it is valuable to create and maintain early

successional habitats to support the species that depend upon or are supported by them. This

makes it important to understand how to optimize early successional/shrub dominated habitat to

support wildlife in the Acadian forest region.

This paper is a best practices manual for creating and managing early successional habitat in the

forests managed by the Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project. The recommendations of

this manual primarily focus on providing habitat that supports early successional faunal species.

Other considerations include the cost-efficiency of management plans, as well as providing area

where Macphail Woods can plant and maintain rare, uncommon, and high fruit producing plants

and shrubs.

5

2 Methods

The project was a review of pertinent literature, which was then synthesized into a best

practices manual for use by the Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project. The review of

literature consisted chiefly of a search of peer-reviewed journals using a variety of online

databases, such as Web of Science and Google Scholar. The reference section of articles found

were also searched to locate additional pertinent research. When the review of peer-reviewed

literature did not contain information needed, the grey literature was consulted. The results of

this review were then compiled into a comprehensive document that establishes the best

practices for optimizing early successional habitat for wildlife.

3 Results

3.1 Establishment of early successional habitat

It is becoming increasingly common for forest managers to consider emulating natural

disturbance regimes in the forest landscape (Long, 2008). The driving principal behind emulating

natural disturbance regimes is that traditional timber harvesting approaches (clearcuts, etc.) may

not resemble the disturbances that typically shape the forest, and as a result may not be suitable

for all the organisms that have adapted to the natural disturbance regime (Long, 2008). For

example, while both a clearcut and windthrow result in early successional forest, the disturbed

areas have many key differences. First, while a clearcut harvests the bulk of the stems in a stand

for timber or other uses, forest disturbed by wind often leaves many standing structures and the

trees felled by the wind remain on the ground to decompose over time (Lormier and White,

2003; Long, 2008). Another key difference between the two is the creation of pit and mound

topography resulting from windthrow, which covers as much as 50% of the forest floor in north

eastern North America and is not created from clearcut or other timber harvesting activities

(Schaetzl et al., 1989). In both these cases there are several legacies from windthrow (number of

standing trees, large amounts of large woody debris, and creation of pit and mound topography)

that are not present in the typical clearcut. However, there are several concerns surrounding

natural disturbance emulation, such as the extent to which attempts to emulate the disturbances

are representative of the natural disturbance and the difficulty of understanding the complex

6

relationships in natural disturbances and of mimicking these complex relationships (Long, 2008;

Lormier and White, 2003; Schaetzl et al, 1989). As a result of these concerns, the present project

has a heavier focus on creation of conditions that support early successional species rather

focussing on accurately mimicking a natural disturbance.

Partial retention harvests have been investigated and implemented to harvest timber while

leaving standing structures as an attempt to more closely mimic natural disturbances. Partial

retention harvests support higher richness and abundance of species than clear cuts and more

early successional species than un-harvested forests, and thus are worth investigating as an

option (Fedrowitz, 2014; Vanderwel et al., 2007). However, early successional species

(mammals, birds, plants, etc.), when examined as a group, show a trend toward increased

abundance and diversity with the intensity of harvest, reaching peak abundances with clearcuts

(Fedrowitz, 2014). The same trend holds true when focussing on examining the abundance of

early successional bird species (Baker and Lacki, 1997, Vanderwel et al., 2007). This suggests

that clearcuts (or a least large patch cuts) should be used rather than partial retention harvesting

and similar silvicultural systems to meet the objective of best supporting early successional

species. However, the Macphail Woods properties as a whole are managed for many ecological

values, not just supporting early successional species, and the gains of retaining small amounts of

standing live trees and snags for forest organisms in general outweighs the possible small

difference in efficacy as early successional habitat (Swanson, 2011; Macphail Woods Ecological

Forestry Project, 2017). Best estimates of a minimum retention of standing trees and snags is 5%

to 10% to achieve a positive ecological response (Gustafsson et al, 2012). Additionally, there are

many positive ecological effects from retaining of large woody debris (which also more closely

resembles a natural disturbance from wind) suggesting that whatever felled trees not needed for

harvest should be left on site (Schaetzl et al., 1989; Swanson et al., 2011)

3.2 Methods for maintaining levels of early successional habitat

The primary method for maintaining man-made early successional habitat is practicing even-

aged silviculture throughout a landscape. The silvicultural method is the most commonly used

and preferred by forest managers, as it uses constant timber harvests to create a shifting mosaic

of early successional habitat throughout the managed landscape (De Graaf and Yamasaki, 2003).

The benefits here are two-fold: money can be made from the harvest of timber and habitat is

7

provided for early successional species (De Graaf and Yamasaki, 2003; Smetzer et al., 2014).

Through this type of management ‘new’ early successional habitat is constantly being created to

replace that lost as other stands age. Often, industrial forest managers use herbicides to supress

competition for regenerating hardwoods as part of their silvicultural operations, but hardwoods

can show a resistance to the herbicides and help to provide early successional habitat (De Graaf

and Yamasaki, 2003). Also, untreated ‘skip’ areas, where herbicides are not applied following

clear cuts, tend to result in dense shrub patches that persist for several years (De Graaf and

Yamasaki, 2003). Ideally, the use of precommercial thinnings would extend this stage (De Graaf

and Yamasaki, 2003). In many cases throughout New England, where even-aged silvicultural

practices area not acceptable to the general public, group cuts have also been used to maintain

both a steady supply of timber and a steady level of early successional habitat, though the

effectiveness of that habitat for many species is dependent on the size of the cuts (King et al.,

2001).

While maintaining a shifting mosaic of early successional habitat through silvicultural practices

is perhaps the most cost-effective method of maintaining this type of habitat in the long term, due

to the management objectives in the properties managed by Macphail Woods this will not be a

viable option. Most of the stands managed by Macphail Woods are plantations, reforested

farmland, or second growth and the species composition and age typically does not reflect that of

an old-growth Acadian forest (Macphail Woods, 2017). Macphail Woods has therefore decided

that continually shifting the remaining degraded forests on their managed properties towards an

old-growth Acadian forest takes precedence over the ‘shifting mosaic’ approach for maintaining

early successional habitat (Macphail Woods, 2017). Instead, Macphail Woods wishes to maintain

early successional habitat in set areas indefinitely (Macphail Woods, 2017). The decision to

avoid maintaining early successional forest through silvicultural means will also likely have a

positive effect on the abundance of avian species present, as in order to maintain the same

abundance of birds in a silviculturally managed early successional forest as an indefinitely

maintained early successional forest, the area openings would have to be increased 50-300%, and

thus would need to take up a significantly larger portion of the landscape to achieve the same

results (Smetzer et al., 2014; King et al., 2009). The silviculturally managed openings were also

found to have fewer forbs and graminoids (Smetzer et al., 2014). As a result, this approach will

8

not be considered further and the focus will turn to managing an area indefinitely as early

successional forest.

Powerline corridors provide an example of managing early successional habitat in an area

indefinitely. Typically managed with mechanical methods, the use of herbicidal sprays that

hinder growth of broadleaf vegetation, or both, the general idea of managing vegetation in

powerline corridors is to keep the trees and shrubs relatively low so as not to interfere with the

powerlines (Luken et al., 1991). Though not primarily created or managed to be early

successional habitat, powerline corridors tend to provide suitable conditions for many early

successional plant and wildlife species (Peterson, 2015; King and Beyers, 2017). However, there

are many differences in goals, values, and restraints between power line management and

Macphail Woods. Largely, for powerline management the creation of early successional habitat is

essentially a side effect, as opposed to the main objective of the area (Luken et al., 1991).

Furthermore, powerline corridor maintenance often involves the use of herbicides, which do not

fit with the management objectives of Macphail Woods as the use of herbicides raises several

environmental concerns (Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project, 2017).

Prescribed burns and mechanical methods are often used to maintain early successional habitats

indefinitely (Chandler et al., 2009). Both methods have a relatively similar effect on avian

richness and abundance (Chandler et al., 2009; Smetzer et al., 2014). Maintenance by prescribed

burning involves using fire to ‘reset’ the successional progression of an area (Chandler et al.,

2009). Fires would have to be used at regular intervals to keep the area in an early successional

state. One downside to the use of prescribed burns is that a certain amount of area needs to be

dedicated as a firebreak, which ideally should be three times wider than the expected height of

the flames (Department of Natural Resources, 2017). Another drawback to using this method is

that it will make it difficult for the early successional space to meet one of Macphail Woods other

goals for the area: providing habitat for rare, uncommon, and high fruit producing plant and

shrub species, as species that do not regenerate well after a fire disturbance will likely not fare

well in this type of management regime.

Mechanical methods typically involve the use of mechanical mowing or manual cutting of

woody growth (Luken et al, 1991). Mechanical methods are often used to manage powerline

corridors (which need to maintain low vegetation as not to interfere with the infrastructure) to

9

varying success (Luken et al., 1991). The primary difficulty in using this method is that many

hardwood species tend to simply resprout when cut, often resulting in increased stem densities

that make can make site access difficult (Luken et al, 1991). This method, over multiple cutting

rotations, tends to favor stump or root sprouting species and shifts the species composition in the

area (Luken et al, 1991). This may be viewed as a positive in the case however, as increasing

hardwood stem density is positively related with bird density (Labbe, 2011). One strength this

method has over the prescribed burn method is that rare plants and shrubs can be cut around

relatively easily and be left where they are. Overall, this method seems to balance the objectives

of Macphail Woods better than the previous two methods, and therefore is the recommended

method of site maintenance.

3.3 Frequency of artificial disturbance

To maintain the chosen site(s) in an early successional state in perpetuity, disturbances will need

to happen in such a manner that they continually provide for the species that rely on them. On a

typical forest site, disturbances should occur approximately every 14 years to maintain suitable

habitat for early successional species (Schlossberg and King, 2009). After this point, the canopy

tends to become concentrated several meters above the ground and moves upwards, shading out

the foliage below that make up the habitat the early successional species depend on and

decreasing plant diversity (Aber, 1979; Howard and Lee, 2003). In areas where succession is

slowed disturbances may be required much less often to maintain early successional habitat

(Latham, 2003). In these cases, disturbances will only need to take place when a dense canopy

begins to form, which may not occur until some trees have reached 10 m in height (Swanson et

al., 2011; Aber, 1979).

An added layer of complexity is that early successional bird species tend to fall in to one of two

categories: ‘decreasers’, species that peak in density in the first years following disturbance, with

woody vegetation generally below two meters, and sharply decrease in abundance in the

following years; and ‘modal species’, which peak in density approximately 10 years after

disturbance, with woody vegetation typically between two and five meters, and disappear

completely from the site within 20 years of the disturbance as the overstory canopy develops

(Labbe, 2011; Schlossberg and King, 2009; Chandler, 2009; Aber, 1979). Due to these trends, it

is important to maintain levels of ‘young’ and ‘old’ early successional habitat within a landscape

10

to provide habitat for as many early successional species as possible, which a manager could

accomplish by disturbing the early successional site(s) approximately every seven years, but only

disturbing half of the total early successional habitat each disturbance cycle. For example, if the

forest manager has two early successional sites then site ‘1’ should be disturbed in 2018, 2032,

and 2046 and site ‘2’ should be disturbed in 2025, 2039, and 2053.

3.4 Site location

There are many factors to consider when selecting a site for the creation of an early successional

ecosystem. To reduce costs of maintaining the site over a long period of time, priority sites

should be those that are poorly stocked, as this likely reflects an environment in which tree

species do not grow as easily, and thus will presumably need less maintenance over time and

reduce costs (Latham, 2003; De Graaf and Yamasaki, 2003). Under the right conditions, early-

successional/shrub-dominated habitat can persist for hundreds of years as opposed to less than

twenty in normal conditions (Latham, 2003; Aber, 1979). Several environmental factors, such as

the presence of a frost pocket, poor soil conditions, and high winds can result in poorly stocked

stands that many shrubs and plants can survive in (Latham, 2003). These long-lasting early

successional sites also tend to produce more fruit than a ‘normal’ early successional site

(Swanson, 2011). However, it is important to consider that plant species diversity is often

relatively low in these sites and may run counter to the objective of supporting rare or

uncommon plants (Latham, 2003).

A site with poor soil conditions that may be an ideal choice for establishing an early successional

habitat on is a forested site on abandoned farmland, which is present throughout many of

Macphail Woods’ managed forests (Macphail Woods, 2017). Many forest species struggle to

establish on former agricultural land, which may provide a competitive edge to shrub species and

decrease the costs of site maintenance (Cavallin and Vasseur, 2008; Latham, 2003; De Graaf and

Yamasaki, 2003).

Areas where sheep-laurel (K. angustifolia) is present may also provide an opportunity for a long-

lasting early successional/shrub land habitat. Sheep-laurel is suspected of creating its own

positive feedback loop that can slow succession for decades. Sheep-laurel, along with other

members of the Ericaceae family, has a strong acidifying effect on the soil while at the same time

11

being highly tolerant of soil acidity (Read 1984; Griffiths et al., 1992; Marschner, 1992). This

feedback loop continues to acidify the soil over time, favoring sheep-laurel over tree species less

tolerant of soil acidity, increasing the dominance of the sheep-laurel, which continues in turn to

increase soil acidity (Read 1984; Griffiths et al., 1992; Marschner, 1992). One downside of this

approach is that it may eliminate the possibility of keeping populations of rare or uncommon

plants in the area, as they may not be tolerant of high soil acidity. Therefore, choosing to use this

method may rely on whether or not its cost-efficiency is more valuable to the forest manager

than providing habitat for priority plant species.

3.5 Site Size

An important consideration when creating an early successional habitat is what size the site

should be. Economically speaking, the less area dedicated to these long term early successional

habitats there is, the less money it will cost. While bird nesting success is not impacted by the

size of the site, avian and mammal species diversity and abundance is (King et al., 2001;

Chandler, 2009; Roberts and King, 2017; Litvaitis, 2003). Both species diversity and abundance

have a positive relationship with increasing disturbance size, with the relationship starting to

level off shortly after 1 ha in size (Roberts and King, 2017; Chandler, 2009; King and De Graaf,

2004). Many shrubland birds are completely absent from openings less than 1 ha in size, possibly

due to vegetation composition and structure or necessary territory sizes for species (Rodewald

and Smith, 1998; Costello et al., 2000; Roberts and King, 2017). The minimum recommended

size for early successional habitat sites in Macphail Woods’ properties is therefore 1 ha, as

suggested by other management documents (Roberts and King, 2017; Chandler 2009; De Graaf

and Yamasaki, 2003). While benefits do not increase as drastically with size after the first

hectare, larger sites continue to provide increasing benefits for both small mammal and bird

species diversity, suggesting that early successional habitat sites should be as large as costs and

other forest property constraints allow (De Graaf and Yamasaki, 2003). However, due to the

degraded nature of the forests on the properties and the forest restoration goals of Macphail

Woods, large clearcuts are not recommended regardless of impacts on early successional species

(Macphail Woods, 2017). By making 1 ha patch cuts, sites will balance the desire to support

early successional species, while at the same time remain relatively small, reduce costs, and

disrupt less of the forested land.

12

3.6 Landscape considerations

It’s also important to consider the landscape context and the spatial distribution of early

successional site(s). The proximity of shrubland patches to other large shrubland sites and

landscapes that have higher proportions of early successional sites in general tend to allow the

site to support higher avian species abundance per hectare (Roberts and King, 2017). For forest

management purposes, this suggests that it could be beneficial to a) concentrate early

successional sites on one or a few properties rather than trying to spread the sites out throughout

the managed properties; and b) to establish the early successional sites in areas where the

landscape contains higher proportions of early successional habitat, such as near power line right

of ways, blueberry fields, or recently abandoned agricultural land.

4 Recommendations

As a result of the review of the literature, the following recommendations have been

made:

Select poorly stocked stands to increase the length of the early

successional period and to reduce maintenance costs;

Creates sites using approximately 1 ha patch cuts;

Locate sites near other early successional habitats, especially those larger

than 5 ha;

If creating multiple sites, congregate them in one area as opposed to

spreading them out across properties;

Leave 5%-10% of trees standing minimum, including snags;

Leave as much large woody debris (felled stems) as possible;

Maintain site using mechanical methods;

Offset disturbance schedule, with half of the total area being disturbed

every seven years.

13

Bibliography

Aber, J. D. (1979). Foliage-height profiles and succession in northern hardwood forests. Ecology, 60(1), 18-23. doi:10.2307/1936462

Baker, M. D., & Lacki, M. J. (1997). Short-term changes in bird communities in response to silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management, 96(1-2), 27-36. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(97)00052-2

Catling, P, Erskine, D., & MacLaren, R. (1985). The plants of Prince Edward Island with new records, nomenclatural changes and corrections and deletions. Agric. Can. Res. Branch Rep.

Cavallin, N., & Vasseur, L. (2009). Red spruce forest regeneration dynamics across a gradient from Acadian forest to old field in Greenwich, Prince Edward Island National Park, Canada. Plant Ecology, 201(1), 169-180. doi:10.1007/s11258-008-9497-8

Chandler, R. B., King, D. I., & Chandler, C. C. (2009). Effects of management regime on the abundance and nest survival of shrubland birds in wildlife openings in northern New England, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(7), 1669-1676. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.025

Costello, C., Yamasaki, M., Jenkins, P., Leak, W., & Neefus, C. (2000) Songbird response to group selection harvests in clearcuts in a New Hampshire northern hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 127(1-3), 41-54

DeGraaf, R. M., & Yamasaki, M. (2003). Options for managing early-successional forest and shrubland bird habitats in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 185(1-2), 179-191. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00254-8

Environment Canada. (2013) Bird conservation strategy for bird conservation region 14 in Prince Edward Island and marine biogeographic unit 12: Atlantic Northern Forest and Gulf of St. Lawrence. Retrieved from https://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc-com/default.asp?lang=En&n=F3CB3594-1

Fedrowitz, K., Koricheva, J., Baker, S. C., Lindenmayer, D. B., Palik, B., Rosenvald, R., … Gustafsson, L. (2014), REVIEW: Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1669–1679. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12289

Griffiths, R.P., Caldwell, B.A., & Baham, J.E., (1992) Soil solution chemistry of ectomycorrhizal mat soils. In: Mycorrhizas in Ecosystems. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 380–381

14

Gustafsson, L., Baker, S., Bauhus, J., Beese, W., Brodie, A., Kouki, J., … Franklin, J. (2012) Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. Bioscience, 62(7), 633-645

Howard, L. F., & Lee, T. D. (2003). Temporal patterns of vascular plant diversity in southeastern New Hampshire forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 185(1-2), 5-20. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00243-3

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (2017) Early Successional Habitat Management. Retrieved from https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/conservation/CSP/Documents/ EarlySuccessionalHabitat.pdf

King, D. I, & Byers, B. (2002) An evaluation of powerline rights-of-way as habitat for earlv-successional shrubland birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30

King, D. I., Chandler, R. B., Schlossberg, S., & Chandler, C. C. (2009). Habitat use and nest success of scrub-shrub birds in wildlife and silvicultural openings in western Massachusetts, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(2), 421-426. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.014

King, D. I., Degraaf, R. M., & Griffin, C. R. (2001). Productivity of early successional shrubland birds in clearcuts and groupcuts in an eastern deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65(2), 345-350. doi:10.2307/3802914

Labbe, M. (2011) Habitat use, productivity, and fruit selection of birds in early successional habitats in Western Massachusetts. Department of Environmental Conservation.

Latham, R. E. (2003). Shrubland longevity and rare plant species in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 185(1-2), 21-39. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00244-5

Litvaitis, J. A. (2001). Importance of early successional habitats to mammals in eastern forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(2), 466-473.

Litvaitis, J. A. (2003). Preface - Shrublands and early-successional forests: critical habitats dependent on disturbance in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 185(1-2), 1-4. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00242-1

Long, J. N. (2009a). Emulating natural disturbance regimes as a basis for forest management: A North American view. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(9), 1868-1873. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.12.019

Lorimer, C. G., & White, A. S. (2003). Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and

15

regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and Management, 185(1-2), 41-64. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00245-7

Luken, J. O., Hinton, A. C., & Baker, D. G. (1991). Assessment of frequent cutting as a plant-community management technique in power-line corridors. Environmental Management, 15(3), 381-388. doi:10.1007/bf02393884

Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project. (2017) 2000 Acres. Retrieved from http://macphailwoods.org/forestry/public-land-management/2000-acres/

Marschner, H., 1992. Nutrient dynamics of the soil–root interface (rhizosphere). In: Read, D.J., Lewis, D.H., Fitter, A.H.,

McAskill, J.D. (1987) The people’s forest. Island Mag. 22, 20–28.

P.E.I. Department of Agriculture and Forestry. (1997). Map of Prince Edward Island forest area circa 1900. Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Charlottetown, P.E.I.

Peterson, C. (2015) Habitat use by early successional bird species along powerline rights of way: making connections across private lands. Graduate college dissertations and theses

Read, D.J., 1984. Interactions between ericaceous plants and their competitors with special reference to soil toxicity. Aspects of Applied Biology, 5, 195–209

Roberts, H. P., & King, D. I. (2017). Area requirements and landscape-level factors influencing shrubland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(7), 1298-1307. doi:10.1002/jwmg.21286

Rodewald, P., & Smith, K. (1998). Short-Term Effects of Understory and Overstory Management on Breeding Birds in Arkansas Oak-Hickory Forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 62(4), 1411-1417. doi:10.2307/3802007

Schaetzl, R.J., Burns, S.F., Johnson, D.L., & Small, T.W. (1989) Tree uprooting: review of impact on forest ecology. Vegetation, 79, 1165–1176.

Schlossberg, S., & King, D. I. (2009). Postlogging Succession and Habitat Usage of Shrubland Birds. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(2), 226-231. doi:10.2193/2007-518

Smetzer, J., King, I., & Schlossberg, S. (2014). Management Regime Influences Shrubland Birds and Habitat Conditions in the Northern Appalachians, USA. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(2), 314-324

Sobey, D. (2002). Early descriptions of the forests of Prince Edward Island: A source-book. I. The French period (1534–1758). Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Charlottetown, P.E.I

16

Sobey, D., & Glen, W. (1999). Analysis of the ground flora and other data collected during the 1990– 92 Prince Edward Island forest biomass inventory. IV — The distribution of forest types. P.E.I. Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Forestry Division, Charlottetown, P.E.I.

Department of Agriculture and Forestry (2010) State of the Forest Report 2010. Retrieved from https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/publications/2010_state_of_the_forest_report.pdf

Swanson, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Beschta, R. L., Crisafulli, C. M., DellaSala, D. A., Hutto, R. L., . . . Swanson, F. J. (2011). The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(2), 117-125. doi:10.1890/090157

Weighs, J., (1995). Facts About Canada, Its Provinces, and Territories. H.W. Wilson, New York.

Vanderwel, M. C., Maicolm, J. R., & Mills, S. C. (2007). A meta-analysis of bird responses to uniform partial harvesting across North America. Conservation Biology, 21(5), 1230-1240. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00756.x