iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Wildlife vs. most land planted in one tree species

Started by livemusic, February 18, 2024, 06:31:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

livemusic

In my area, it's the southern pine. Not many hardwoods left and what was here, over the past ten years or so, hardwood logging sure seems to have increased quite a bit. But, there just aren't many hardwood tracts around and hardly anyone does anything but clearcut. So, once those hardwoods tracts are gone, they are replanted in pine.

So, my question is... in areas, counties, multi-county regions where one species (southern pine in particular if you know only about that) dominates in a big way... how has wildlife done? There are bound to be some areas where over a broad region, a monoculture is the norm. In the USA, I am thinking of the southern pine. In my area, I suppose there will always be SOME hardwoods due to terrain and access, limited by water/bottoms, but in those areas where pine or other species has about taken over, what's up with wildlife? I suppose deer thrive but what about everything else? I would think a lot would disappear.

Do you know of any studies that been done on this for these large areas dominated by plantation forestry?

Not trying to start a fight, just curious. As time goes on, especially, for southern pine, it would seem that plantations have/will increase but I am not a forester.
~~~
Bill

Magicman

I dislike Pine plantations because there is virtually no wildlife support.

My property is ~90% hardwood and probably 60% Oak.  I regret planting any SYP back in 2005.  Timber companies leave 100' corridors along waterways actually for erosion control but these do contain some Oak trees.

I share your concerns.
Knothole Sawmill, LLC     '98 Wood-Mizer LT40SuperHydraulic   WM Million BF Club Member   WM Pro Sawyer Network

It's Weird being the Same Age as Old People

Never allow your "need" to make money to exceed your "desire" to provide quality service.....The Magicman

livemusic

Magicman, I have a 50-acre tract that is probably 98% hardwood. My older cousin owned it before me, I bought it from his daughter, and he logged the commercial pine out 25-30 years ago and I thank goodness he did not cut the hardwood! It's very nice, a lot of big trees, and rare in these parts. And it's not a bottomland. It does have a spring running through part of it that really isn't much more than a seep but some uncommon hardwoods grow there.

I have never understood why this tract is not loaded with squirrels. Although, it's mostly/largely surrounded by pine. Lots of deer. I see some turkeys now and then.
~~~
Bill

TroyC

I have 100 acres in central Georgia, and as you said, most people clearcut and plant pine plantations. i did a timber cut last year and had the cutter leave everything and only take the 35 yr old pines off of about 35 or so acres. There was a lot of cherry, oak, and sweetgum with a small amount of maple and poplar left after the cut, just enough cover for the wildlife to utilize.  Since I manage for wildlife, I particularly wanted to leave the 30+yr oaks as many are producing. There were a lot of natural regen pines after the cut and I just planted 5000 more pine seedlings on the 35 acres. I'm primarily doing this to maintain the wildlife but obviously want to benefit from the growth of the pines. There are plenty of deer, turkey, squirrels, raccoons, turtles, armadillos, woodpeckers, hawks, and about everything else. I prefer not to support the coyotes and they usually do not let me see them.

There is a creekbed that cuts the property that did not get harvested. I left about 60 yards of undisturbed growth along the harvested side of the creekbed and the other side is all natural growth for about 100-150 yards up or so with some old longleaf pines scattered in the creekbed.

I understand income from timber but primarily I would prefer to support the wildlife. Big timber companies and other people simply want to maximize profitability, but when I see all the animals benefiting and I can enjoy something also it is a win-win.

I have lots of grey and fox squirrels. I've been told fox squirrels like pines but I don't know about that. I did see a couple of pine snakes a few years ago, what a treat!

I see lots of land clearcut and planted in pines. I also wonder about how the loss of the hardwoods will affect nature in the long run. In Georgia, pines are like money in the bank.

livemusic

Ya know, what's funny (or really, not funny) about clearcutting... seems to me... I would have to think really hard to think of anyone I know who clearcuts a tract who really NEEDS the money. As opposed to the amount of profit they would reap by using some other harvesting arrangement where hardwoods or acres here and there are not taken. If they could find a logger who would do it. It seems that most anyone who owns land is not destitute these days.

I am just thinking that there are probably some parts of the country where you go for dozens of miles and don't see a thing except pine.
~~~
Bill

TroyC

Between Waycross and the Florida border pines are about all you see except for lawn shrubbery and asphalt. Thousands upon thousands of acres of pine plantations.

On my cut, I was planning on replanting with USDA help. They have landowner programs contribute to pine replanting ($) and required that I spray and burn for their program. I did not spray and burn (did not want to loose my wildlife cover) and chose to plant the 5000 trees on my own. Only cost about 500.00 so I feel I did good. I could afford the time since I did it myself. On a commercial basis, clearcut, spray, burn, replant is what happens to maximize profitability. Most people won't invest the time and want maximum profit.

The harvester I used did a good job managing my cut. He asked me what I was looking for and we discussed my objectives. He was careful to leave as much as he could and I was pleased with the job.

WV Sawmiller

  When I studied Wildlife Biology back in the stone age the basic precept was you managed the habitat for the target species. Since most people can't afford or have enough land or time to do that they manage the species that survives in the land use program. Wildlife does best in an edge effect. Clear cuts and planted pines have real value for some wildlife for nesting areas and early seral stage plants for grazing, berries, etc. If you mix in some patches or strips of hardwood  and other species of plants more wildlife can survive and even thrive. Animals like quail and rabbits like the open areas as do turkeys as long as they have nearby cover for protection and such. Even deer and bears like the open areas if they have cover nearby.

    One of the biggest reasons people plant crops like pines or other short duration monocultures is they want/need to see a return on their investment in their lifetime. Few of us would ever live long enough to be able to buy sizeable amounts of land - think middle age at best before most of us and make such an investment - then plant it in hardwoods and live to ever see it mature to the point they can see an income from it. 

  I envy the people who can inherit large piece of land but I spent my youth and middle age raising my kids and such and was well into middle age before I was able to buy any land and even then because I worked some high paying, dangerous assignments in some sketchy parts of the world. Now I that I am old and have a sawmill when somebody comes by and wants some oak or cherry or walnut lumber I am able to tell them "I'm sorry but my hardwoods are more valuable to me for my wildlife than the value of the lumber I'd get from them." I'll harvest some poplar or spruce or salvage a fallen, dead or dying tree for them if available.
Howard Green
WM LT35HDG25(2015) , 2011 4WD F150 Ford Lariat PU, Kawasaki 650 ATV, Stihl 440 Chainsaw, homemade logging arch (w/custom built rear log dolly), JD 750 w/4' wide Bushhog brand FEL

Dad always said "You can shear a sheep a bunch of times but you can only skin him once

twar

How has the wildlife done? The short answer is "poorly". The diversity of animals is directly connected to the diversity of primary producers (i.e. plants). Take away the oaks, for example, and you take away the acorns, which is an important (or even essential) food for several mammals, large and small. Take away the tulip tree and the locust and you get fewer bees and butterflies, and the examples go on and on.

Clear cutting and re-planting also creates structural uniformity; a stand with all seedlings, then all saplings, all poles, all mature trees (and all old growth if it ever got that far). Even if there were more than one species of tree, animal diversity would suffer because there is is only one form of tree. There are no snags in a stand of saplings, few openings in a stand of same-age mature forest and no large logs rotting on the ground.

All this said, evey stand does not need to be a grand mix of everything, as long as there is some mix some places, and these are inter-dispersed and preferrably inter-connected in some way.

Just my $.02...

beenthere

I hope this thread isn't going to be one where we want to tell someone else how they should manage their land and business because we think we know better. 
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

twar

Quote from: WV Sawmiller on February 18, 2024, 08:51:56 PMIf you mix in some patches or strips of hardwood  and other species of plants more wildlife can survive and even thrive.
Exactly...what he said  :wink_2:

twar

Quote from: beenthere on February 18, 2024, 09:00:03 PMI hope this thread isn't going to be one where we want to tell someone else how they should manage their land and business because we think we know better.
No sir, not at all. I attempted to answer his question about how monocultures affect widlife diversity.

WV Sawmiller

BT,

  To be successful champions for the wildlife we need to be able to show the landowner, private or corporation, ways they can manage their land and wildlife to improve their profits and be constructive in our presentation. Maybe we offer to help plant or tend crops that help wildlife without adversely affecting his/their bottom line. Private landowners have expenses and needs and they must be met. Corporations answer to stock holders and must show them they are making a reasonable return. There is value to being able to show increases in some wildlife species and the associated public relations benefits.

  I spent a lot of time working and vacationing in Africa and other remote areas. The local tribesmen saw the wildlife as pests or a source of income for bushmeat. They nearly wiped out the game in the area. In some cases the headmen with help from NGOs and such were able to see how they could make more money from the wildlife through the tourist trade than the immediate small return for bushmeat. They proved jobs could be had as guides, trackers, sale of local crafts, and in the hospitality industry as drivers, cooks, maids, security, etc. if they left the wildlife alone.  They set up conservancies where they got together and agreed to protect the wildlife from their area from themselves and their neighbors until lodges and shops and such could be built. Sometimes this required temporary outside funding. There was a movie/documentary done called "Game On" when the folks in part of Namibia set up a conservancy to protect Giraffes in their area Once this was set up other groups donated excess giraffes that were overpopulating their areas. Eventually tourists began to come and the people in the area began to see the monetary gains from their efforts but it was a long time coming.

  I saw and understand the challenges. A starving farmer sees a Gorilla and realizes he might make $50 in bushmeat immediately from him. His neighbor says "leave him alone and in a few years you can make $500 from tourists to come photograph that gorilla." But the farmer says "But I'm starving now. I can't wait a few years." How do you reply to that? That is the challenge on a smaller or larger scale for all of us who own or want to own land and love wildlife.
Howard Green
WM LT35HDG25(2015) , 2011 4WD F150 Ford Lariat PU, Kawasaki 650 ATV, Stihl 440 Chainsaw, homemade logging arch (w/custom built rear log dolly), JD 750 w/4' wide Bushhog brand FEL

Dad always said "You can shear a sheep a bunch of times but you can only skin him once

Ron Scott

A forest's vegetative diversity is best for both game and nongame wildlife species. Large acreages of pine monoculture are not preferred for wildlife and usually are devoid of most wildlife species.

Fire fuel concerns provided by large pine acreages should also be considered and pine monocultures should be broken up with hardwood fuel breaks to benefit wildlife game and nongame species and decrease the associated forest fire fuel loads.

Integrated resource management is preferred.
~Ron

Magicman

My property has never been clearcut nor has it ever been timber harvested simply for the $$.  The Pine Beetle infestation that I am now experiencing has proven that the open pasture planting that I did in 2005 should have been entirely various species of Oaks.  Thankfully I did plant 15 acres in Oaks and they are doing quite well.

I have not accepted any "government" planting programs so whatever harvesting that happens will be our decision not someone else's.
Knothole Sawmill, LLC     '98 Wood-Mizer LT40SuperHydraulic   WM Million BF Club Member   WM Pro Sawyer Network

It's Weird being the Same Age as Old People

Never allow your "need" to make money to exceed your "desire" to provide quality service.....The Magicman

Ianab

It makes sense that if you change the makeup of a forest, that it's going to change the types of wildlife that it supports. Something generally moves in to occupy any free niche, so areas that are naturally pine or other conifers aren't devoid of life, but it will be different wildlife, compared to a mixed age / species forest. 

Plantation forestry is just another type of land use. The environment would be changed even more if the land was cleared and used for crops or grazing, or especially if converted to housing or factories. 

NZ has a LOT of plantation pine, and of course it's VERY different to the local natural forest. But the way it's looked at here is the fast growing pines supply plenty of wood for local, and export use. The remaining natural forest is pretty much all legally protected, and that is only practical because of the managed forest "crops".

If you look up Kaingaroa on Google maps and get the Sat view you will see it looks like a patchwork, like crop fields, as different stands are harvested and replanted. It's over 1,000 square miles of pine trees. But there is always open sections , and add in the roads, rivers and fire breaks, and it supports a surprising amount of wildlife (much of it  "undesirable" (pigs and goats etc). But also a surprising amount of native birds that have adapted to the different conditions. 
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

livemusic

Quote from: Ron Scott on February 18, 2024, 10:07:57 PMA forest's vegetative diversity is best for both game and nongame wildlife species. Large acreages of pine monoculture are not preferred for wildlife and usually are devoid of most wildlife species.

Fire fuel concerns provided by large pine acreages should also be considered and pine monocultures should be broken up with hardwood fuel breaks to benefit wildlife game and nongame species and decrease the associated forest fire fuel loads.

Integrated resource management is preferred.
That sounds like a good plan, Ron, but do large timber companies do this? I am not aware of any doing it around here but again, I'm not a forester. The only landowners that I am aware of that are concerned enough about this (primarily the wildlife concerns) are individuals. I will add, though, that around here, timber companies do not own vastly large tracts where a monoculture would be at its worst. I mean, if a timber company here has a big, contiguous tract here, it's generally not more than, say, 2-3 square miles wide at any points. Let's say they own a 6,000 acre tract, more or less. Nice chunk of land! If they owned 9 sections square, 3 mi x 3 mi and 5,760 acres, that shape of a tract would create a pretty large area devoid of many species of wildlife if it's 100% pine. Which is what I see. But even though contiguous (in this example) it will usually be oddly shaped, not a square. I don't know if that lessens their concerns, if they have any. Which beggars the question... do wildlife diversity concerns affect land use for large timber companies?
~~~
Bill

WV Sawmiller

   I would hazard a guess large timber companies have as a member a wildlife biologist on their staff or on contract they consult with but unless he can show them how the wildlife can be a paying asset they likely do not have much concern on his recommendations.

   One way to make a profit from the wildlife would be to lease the land to hunting clubs and such with strict restrictions on how they care for the property (restricted access, no trash dumping, no fires, no cutting of trees, no driving off the roads, no building or nails in the trees, etc) which would damage the timber. Such clubs typically have to obtain property and liability insurance for the property.

   In such cases the timber companies may be able to leave strips of hardwoods and brush and such to help encourage the wildlife which increases the rent value to such clubs. 

   Individuals and groups can discuss such options with the timber companies but to be fair they need to come prepared to show how managing for wildlife can be profitable, at least cost neutral or have significant PR which has value.

   You might approach your state representatives and have them encourage the timber companies to consult with the state DNR, Fish and Game, or equivalent. The state may be able to offer tax breaks and other incentives. It still gets back to profit for the company. 

   You can't blame the companies for wanting/needing to make money.
Howard Green
WM LT35HDG25(2015) , 2011 4WD F150 Ford Lariat PU, Kawasaki 650 ATV, Stihl 440 Chainsaw, homemade logging arch (w/custom built rear log dolly), JD 750 w/4' wide Bushhog brand FEL

Dad always said "You can shear a sheep a bunch of times but you can only skin him once

Ron Scott

Commercial forest lands are usually managed for their highest monetary value which is provided by their marketable timber resource. Large acreages continue to be reforested to the more rapid growing softwood pine species for maximum profit and the public's product's needs.

However, most company forest lands and their foresters recognize that multiple-use management where the non-market resources of soil, air, water, wildlife, recreation, wilderness, etc. are integrated into their timber resource management which is measured in the marketplace. The integrated non-market resources are recognized as being priceless by many forests' users.
~Ron

Thank You Sponsors!