File:An analysis of Pennsylvania's forest resources (1982) (17983461369).jpg

Title: An analysis of Pennsylvania's forest resources
Identifier: analysisofpennsy69powe (find matches)
Year: 1982 (1980s)
Authors: Powell, Douglas S; Considine, Thomas J
Subjects: Forests and forestry Pennsylvania; Forest management Pennsylvania
Publisher: [Broomall, Pa.  : United States Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station]
Contributing Library: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library
Digitizing Sponsor: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
can be compatible with wildlife habi- tat management (Roach 1974). The landowner could receive income by managing for timber and at the same time enhance the necessary food and shelter requirements for a variety of wildlife species. This dual approach may be particularly appealing to the many hunting and fishing clubs that own approximately 556,000 acres of forest land in Pennsylvania (Dennis and Birch 1980). This is not to say that all timber cutting is necessarily good for wild- life. The landowner or forest manager concerned with both timber and wild- life needs to be aware of the impacts of timber management on wildlife, and may need to make certain modifi- cations in the usual timber manage- ment practices. For example, timber management practices usually are carried out on blocks of forest land or stands, some of which may be too large to maximize habitat diversity. While one 15-acre clearcut may mean low administration costs and good regeneration of desirable shade-intol- erant tree species, five 3-acre open- ings in the forest will do much more to create diversified conditions and more edge for a wide assortment of animal species. Another possible conflict be- tween timber and wildlife manage- ment, and one that has received greater attention with the recent in- crease in cutting trees for firewood, is the removal of cull or dead trees. From a strict wood production view- point, all cull trees should be re- moved as they are unproductive and take up valuable space that could be used by healthy and rapidly growing trees. Firewood cutters, seeking to assist timber growers, normally use cull and dead trees if they are not too rotten. From the wildlife viewpoint, such trees often provide cavities that are used for nesting, escape, winter cover, and food seeking and storage. Rather than removing these trees, certain actions can be taken to im- prove and expand this particularly valuable wildlife habitat (Evans and Conner 1979). The trade-offs and val- ues involved in managing woodland for wildlife and firewood were dis- cussed by Carey and Gill (1980). Rotten cull trees often are good den trees for cavity nesting wildlife. An average acre of Pennsylvania for- est land contains about six rotten trees over 5 inches in diameter: the range is four in the Southeastern Unit to nine in the Allegheny Unit. Red ma- ple makes up the greatest proportion of the state's rotten trees with 19 per- cent, followed by oaks with 16 per- cent, beech with 10, black locust with 8. sugar maple with 7. and black cherry and sweet birch with 6 each. There are fewer cull trees now than in 1965. but there are still more At a time when other food may be scarce, browse from the tops of trees harvested in late fall or winter is especially beneficial to deer.
Text Appearing After Image:
Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry 78

Note About Images