a b s t r a c tAlthough intensively managed pine forests are common in the southeastern US, few studies describe how combinations of mechanical (MSP) and chemical site preparation (CSP) and herbaceous weed control (HWC) techniques affect bird communities that use early successional habitats within young pine forests. Therefore, we examined effects of six treatments of increasing management intensity via combinations of MSP (strip-shear and wide spacing or roller chop and narrow spacing) and CSP (application or no application) treatments with banded or broadcast HWC on bird communities in six loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, USA, for 8 years following site preparation. Wide pine spacing and strip-shear MSP increased bird abundance and species richness over narrow spacing and chopped MSP for 6 years after planting. Chemical SP reduced bird abundance in year 2, increased bird abundance in year 6, had no effect on abundance after year 7, and did not affect species richness in any year. Total bird abundance and species richness were similar between banded and broadcast HWC. Site preparation and HWC had no effect on bird diversity and bird communities were most similar in treatments of similar intensity. Site preparation and HWC had few or no effects on birds based upon migratory status, habitat association, or conservation value. The addition of chemical site preparation or HWC had little effect on birds beyond pine spacing, and bird abundance was not proportional to management intensity. Although we observed treatment effects, all treatments provided habitat used by a variety of bird species, and pine plantations may play an increasingly important role in bird conservation as forests become fragmented and converted to other land uses and as natural processes that create early successional habitat, such as fire, are suppressed.

No abstract

Avian bycatch, a common and undesired occurrence in small mammal studies, should be minimized by researchers. We examined effects of trap covering, treadle color (copper or yellow plastic), trap size (mouse or rat), and trap weathering (traps <1 yr or ≥ 1 yr old) on avian bycatch during 3 years. We found that covered traps caught 81% fewer birds and 70% fewer small mammals than did uncovered traps, that mouse traps caught 30% more birds and 38% more small mammals than did rat traps, and no capture differences for treadle color or trap weathering. Covered traps effectively reduced avian bycatch and should be used when reduced small‐mammal capture rates are acceptable.

No abstract

<p class="emsd"><span lang="EN-GB">We measured 328 sites in northern, central, and southern Montana and northern Wyoming during 2003 to test the competitive relationship of herbaceous cover in the interspaces to Wyoming big sagebrush (<em>Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis)</em> cover. Long term annual precipitation at all sites was approximately 31 cm. Sagebrush and total herbaceous cover varied from 5 to 45 percent and 3.5 to 55 percent, respectively. Simple linear regression was the best fit model for predicting herbaceous cover from sagebrush cover using the highest R_{<span>a</span>}^{<span>2</span>} values as the model selection criteria. In northern Montana, herbaceous vegetation was predicted by sagebrush cover with the following model:  Y = 37.4 – 0.61X (<a name="OLE_LINK2"></a><a name="OLE_LINK1"></a>R_{<span>a</span>}^{<span>2</span>}  = 0.16, P &lt; 0.001, n = 87). In central Montana, the model was Y = 14.0 – 0.00X (R_{<span>a</span>}^{<span>2</span>}  = 0.00, P = 1.0, n = 155). In southern Montana, the model was Y = 35.9 – 0.39X (R_{<span>a</span>}^{<span>2</span>}  = 0.14, P &lt; 0.001, n = 86). When all sites were combined, the best fit model was Y = 23.7 – 0.15X (R_{<span>a</span>}^{<span>2</span>}= 0.01, P &lt; 0.061, n = 328). This analysis determined that only 1 percent of the variation in herbaceous vegetation cover was associated with Wyoming big sagebrush cover. Management suggestions to reduce Wyoming big sagebrush in order to increase long-term herbaceous production for greater sage-grouse (<em>Centrocercus urophasianus</em>) would not be recommended.</span></p>