Kellum, James E.

Lockhart, Brian Roy

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 60 Article 312006Complex Stand on the White River NationalWildlife Refuge: Implications for BottomlandHardwood Old GrowthBrian Roy LockhartU.S. Forest Service, blockhart@fs.fed.usJames E. KellumU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu.Recommended CitationLockhart, Brian Roy and Kellum, James E. (2006) "Complex Stand on the White River National Wildlife Refuge: Implications forBottomland Hardwood Old Growth," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 60 , Article 31.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/31181mImplications for Bottomland Hardwood Old GrowthBrian Roy Lockhart'and Jamie E. KellumiU.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Center forBottomland Hardwoods Research, P.O. Box 227, Stoneville, MS 38776U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, White River National WildlifeRefuge, P.O. Box 205, St. Charles, AR 721402Correspondence: blockhart@fs.fed.usWith the possible re-discovery of the ivory-billedwoodpecker (Campephilus principalis), interest has increased inthe habitat requirements for the species and the current state ofthese habitats (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005). Tanner (1942) indicatedthat the ivory-billed woodpecker needs large, decadent treesfor foraging. Trees in such decline provide habitat for wood-boring beetles, whose grubs are a primary food-source for theivory-billed woodpecker. Old trees invarious states of declineare an integral part of old-growth forests (Davis 1996, Oliverand Larson 1996). Unfortunately, we have little information onthe species composition and structure of bottomland hardwoodold-growth forests, especially in the Lower MississippiAlluvial Valley. Therefore, the objective of this study was todetermine the species composition of a potential old-growthbottomland hardwood stand located in east-central Arkansasnear the possible sightings and recordings of the ivory-billedwoodpecker.Location.—The study site is located on about 50 ha withinthe 280-ha Sugarberry Research Natural Area in the WhiteRiver National Wildlife Refuge in Desha County, AR withinthe unprotected lands along Scrubgrass Bayou and the WhiteRiver in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (34°06' north,91°05' west). The site is characterized by ridge and swaletopography due to channel migration of the White River (Mitschand Gosselink 1986). Soils vary but are primarily composedofCommerce silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid,thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) and Robinsonville veryfine sandy loam (coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, nonacid,thermic Typic Udifluvents) on the ridge tops to Sharkey clay(very-fine, smectitic, thermic Chromic Epiaquerts) inthe swales.Climatically, the site has hot, humid summers and mild winters(SCS 1972). The average monthly high temperature is 24.5° Cand peaks inJuly and August (34.9° C) and the average monthlylow temperature is 11.1°C with the low occurring inJanuary (1.6°C, SCS 1972). Precipitation averages 1,321 mm per year withthe greatest monthly average inMarch (144 mm) and the lowestmonthly average inOctober (68 mm) (SCS 1972). Past activitiesin the stand may have included light cutting for firewood around1900 when paddle boats used Scrubgrass Bayou for travelingfrom the White River to the Mississippi and Arkansas rivers.Measurements and Analyses.— Twenty north-southtransects were installed on the eastern and southern portionsof the Sugarberry Research Natural Area beginning 50 m fromthe edge of Scrubgrass Bayou. Transects were located 100 mapart and points were established at 50 m intervals along eachtransect. Most transects contained only four or fewer pointsbefore reaching a large beaver pond. No points were taken in thewater impounded area. Twenty points were randomly selectedfrom the 93 total to establish 0.1-ha circular tree plots. Alltreesgreater than 10 cm DBH(diameter at breast height, 1.4 mabovethe ground) were tallied by species, DBH, and crown class(dominant, codominant, intermediate, or suppressed; Smith etal. 1997). Importance values, the sum of relative density andrelative dominance, were calculated for each plot and averagedacross allplots (Curtis and Mclntosh 1991, Skeen 1973).Six-hundred and twenty three trees greater than 10 cmDBH was tallied from 19 species in this study. The two mostprominent species were sugarberry (Celtis laevigata Willd.)and sweet pecan (Carya illinoensis (Wang.) K. Koch; Table 1).Other important species included overcup oak (Quercus lyrataWalt.),Nuttall oak (Q. nuttalliiPalmer), and green ash (Fraxinuspennsylvanica Marsh.), all withimportance values greater than10 (Table 1).A key characteristic of most bottomland hardwood old-growth stands is large tree diameters (Lynch 1996). Noteworthyin the Sugarberry Research Natural Area were 3 trees greaterthan 100 cm DBH - a 143 cm American sycamore {Platanusoccidentalis L.),a 119 cm Nuttall oak and a 102 cm overcup oak.Three additional trees not located on the tree plots but measuredwere a 185 cm eastern cottonwood (Populos deltoides Bartr. exMarsh.), a 145 cm American elm {Ulmus americana L.),and a76 cm common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana L.; a largeDBH for this species).Mean number of trees per hectare was 311.5 (standarderror = 28.4) and mean basal area was 30.4 m2 ha 1 (standarderror = 2.5). The trees-per-hectare value is within the range ofold-growth attributes as described by Meadows and Nowacki(1996) for eastern riverfront forests. The basal area value islow relative to Meadows and Nowacki (1996), probably due tothe number of canopy gaps located throughout the SugarberryResearch Natural Area, but is within the values reported forother bottomland hardwood old-growth forests (Jackson 1969,Phillippe and Ebinger 1973, Ramp 1990, Devall and Ramp1992, Roovers and Shirley 1997).Nineteen percent of the sampled trees in the study areawere classified in dominant or codominant crown classes, thatis, with a majority of their crowns in the upper canopy (Table2). Species with at least 25 percent of their crowns classed asdominant or codominant included American sycamore, greenash, honey-locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.), cedar elm (U.Journal of the Arkansas Academy ofScience, Vol.60, 2006181Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 31Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2006182Table 1. Relative density, relative dominance, and importance values for trees located on the Sugarberry Research Natural Area, DeshtCounty, AR.Species Relative Density Relative Dominance Importance Valueboxelder (Acer negundo L.) 0.48 0.20 0.68silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.) 0.32 0.24 0.56water hickory (Carya aquatica (Michx. f.)Nutt.) 1.28 1.15 2.43sweet pecan (Carya illinoensis (Wang.) K.Koch) 20.55 19.19 39.74sugarberry (Celtis laevigata Willd.) 30.39 33.82 64.21hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) 0.16 0.01 0.17common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana L.) 4.17 2.58 6.75swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata (Michx.)Poir) 1.28 0.15 1.43green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.) 5.46 9.98 15.44honey-locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.) 0.48 0.44 0.92deciduous holly (Ilex decidua Walt.) 1.12 0.11 1.23red mulberry (Moms rubra L.) 1.12 0.13 1.25American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis L.) 0.16 2.64 2.80overcup oak (Quercus lyrata Walt.) 14.45 17.36 31.81Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii Palmer) 11.24 6.88 18.12winged elm (Ulmus alata Michx.) 0.16 0.09 0.25American elm (Ulmus americana L.) 4.94 3.99 8.93cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia Nutt.) 1.12 0.85 1.97slippery elm (Ulmus rubra Muhl.) 1.12 0.19 1.31crassifolia Nutt.), water hickory (C. aquatica (Michx. f.) Nutt.),and overcup oak. Species which were completely overtopped bythe overstory included boxelder (Acer negunda L.),hawthorns(Crataegous spp.), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua Walt.), redmulberry (Morus rubra L.), and slippery elm (U. rubra Muhl.),all shade-tolerant, understory species.Oliver (1981) described four stages of stand developmentfollowing a major disturbance. The stand initiation stageimmediately follows the disturbance when regeneration of thesite begins. The stem exclusion stage begins when regenerationcan no longer become established due to the intense competitionamong trees for available growing space. The understoryreinitiation stage begins following a relatively long periodof growth and mortality during the stem exclusion stage.Mortality of a few overstory trees releases growing space,thereby allowing tree regeneration to become established in theunderstory. The final stage of stand development, old growth,occurs when continued mortality in the overstory allowsregeneration to eventually grow into the overstory canopy.These stages ofstand development progress from an even-agedstand structure to an uneven-aged stand structure with trees ofvarious ages and diameters occupying different canopy strata.Old-growth stands are further characterized as containingcanopy gaps of different ages and sizes, depending on thenumber of trees that have died or fallen in a disturbance. Theold-growth stage of stand development has also been called thesteady-state stage ofecosystem development where total standbiomass and nutrient cycling fluctuate around a consistent mean(Bormann and Likens 1979). Oliver (1981), Meadows (1994),and Oliver and Larson (1996) state that the old-growth stage ofstand development is rarely achieved due to the long time periodnecessary to reach these stand structures and the likelihood thata major disturbance willset the stand back to an earlier stage ofdevelopment.We hypothesize that the stand at the Sugarberry ResearchNatural Area is in the old-growth stage of stand development.In addition to the large tree diameters, many snags occurthroughout the stand and large coarse woody debris exists onthe forest floor. Snags and coarse woody debris are importantstructural components in many old-growth forests (Maserand Trappe 1983, Spetich et al. 1999, Fan et al. 2003). Furtherstudy is needed to quantify these structural characteristics andrelate them to other studies ofold-growth in eastern hardwoodforests.Acknowledgments. —We thank the Arkansas ForestResources Center and Arkansas Agricultural ExperimentStation for their financial support in the development of theSugarberry Research Natural Area Project. We also thankMarlene Lockhart, Steve Meadows, 2 anonymous reviewers,and the Associate Editor for their constructive reviews of thismanuscript.Journal of the Arkansas Academy ofScience, Vol. 60, 2006182Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 31http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/31183Table 2. Percent of trees by crown class within each species located on the Sugarberry Research Natural Area, Desha County, AR.Species n Dominant Co-Dominant Intermediate Overtoppedpercentboxelder 3 0 0 0 100silver maple 2 0 0 50 50water hickory 8 25 0 13 62sweet pecan 128 13 9 12 66sugarberry 192 7 11 32 50hawthorn 1 0 0 0 100common persimmon 26 8 4 31 57swamp privet 8 0 0 13 87green ash 34 21 26 41 12honey-locust 3 33 0 0 67deciduous holly 7 0 0 0 100red mulberry 7 0 0 0 100American sycamore 1 100 0 0 0overcupoak 90 11 14 26 49Nuttalloak 70 1 7 30 62winged elm 1 0 0 100 0American elm 28 7 0 18 75cedar elm 7 14 14 0 72slippery elm 7 0 0 0 100Literature CitedBormann FH and GE Likens. 1979. Pattern and process in aforested ecosystem. New York,NY:Springer-Verlag. 253 p.Curtis JT and RP Mclntosh. 1951.Anupland forest continuumin the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology32:476-496.Davis MB,editor. 1996. Eastern old-growth forests: prospectsfor rediscovery and recovery. Washington, DC: IslandPress. 383 p.Devall MS and PF Ramp. 1992. U.S. Forest Service researchnatural areas and protection of old growth in the South.Natural Areas Journal 12:75-85.Fan Z,SR Shifley, MASpetich, FR Thompson, III,and DRLarsen. 2003. Distribution of cavity trees in midwesternold-growth and second-growth forests. Canadian JournalofForest Research 33:1481-1494.Fitzpatrick JW, MLammertink, MD Luneau, Jr., TWGallagher, BRHarrison, GMSparling, KVRosenburg,RW Rohrbaugh, ECH Swarthout, PH Wrege, SBSwarthout, MS Dantzker, RA Charif, TR Barksdale,JV Remsen, Jr., SD Simon, and D Zollner. 2005. Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists incontinental North America. Science 308:1460-1462.Jackson MT. 1969. Hemmer Woods: an outstanding old-growth lowland forest remnant in Gibson County, Indiana.Proceedings Indiana Academy ofScience 78:245-254.Lynch JM. 1996. Old growth in southeastern wetlands. In:Davis MB,editor. Eastern Old-Growth Forests: Prospectsfor Rediscovery and Recovery. Washington, DC: IslandPress, p 199-209.Maser CM and JM Trappe. 1983. The fallen tree-a sourceofdiversity. In: Proceedings of the 1983 Convention of theSociety of American Foresters. Bethesda,MD: Society ofAmerican Foresters, p 335-339.Meadows JS. 1994. Stand development and silviculture inbottomland hardwoods. In: Smith WP, Pahley, DN, editors.A Workshop to Resolve Conflicts in the Conservation ofMigratory Landbirds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests.USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-114.New Orleans,LA: Southern Forest Experiment Station. 37P-Meadows JS and GJ Nowacki. 1996. Anold-growth definitionfor eastern riverfront forests. USDA Forest Service GeneralTechnical Report SRS-4. Asheville,NC: Southern ResearchStation. 7 p.Mitsch WJ and JG Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. New York,NY:Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 539 p.OliverCD. 1981. Forest development inNorthAmerica followingmajor disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management 3:153-168.Oliver CD and BC Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics.Journal of the Arkansas Academy ofScience, Vol. 60, 2006183Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 31Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2006184Brian RoyLockhart and Jamie E. KellumUpdate edition. New York,NY: John Wiley &Sons. 520 p.PhillippePE and JE Ebinger. 1973. Vegetation survey of somelowland forests along the Wabash River. Castanea 38:339-349.Ramp PF. 1990. Ecological assessment of the Red Gum,Overcup Oak and Green Ash Research Natural Areas in theDelta National Forest, Mississippi. Unpublished manuscriptfor the USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest ExperimentStation, New Orleans, LA.Roovers LMand SR Shifley. 1997. Composition and dynamicsof Spitler Woods, and old-growth remnant forest inIllinois(USA). Natural Areas Journal 17:219-232.Skeen JN. 1973. An extension of the concept of importancevalue in analyzing forest communities. Ecology 54:655-656.Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1972. Soil survey of DeshaCounty, Arkansas. USDA Soil Conservation Service (nowthe Natural Resource Conservation Service) incooperationwith the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station.Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service. 48 p.Smith DM,BC Larson, MJ Kelty, and PMS Ashton. 1997.The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. NewYork,NY: John Wiley &Sons. 537 p.Spetich MA, SR Shifley, and GR Parker. 1999. Regionaldistribution and dynamics of coarse woody debris inmidwestern old-growth forests. Forest Science 45:302-313.Tanner JT. 1942. The ivory-billedwoodpecker. Research ReportNo. 1 of the National Audubon Society, New York,NY:National Audubon Society. 111p.Journal ofthe Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.60I, 2006184Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 31http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/31

Complex Stand on the White River National Wildlife Refuge: Implications for Bottomland Hardwood Old Growth

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK