Breeding bird community response to establishing intercropped switchgrass in intensively-managed pine stands

Loman, Zachary G.; Riffell, Samuel K.; Wheat, Bradley R.; Miller, Darren A.; Martin, James A.; Vilella, Francisco J.

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.05.001

Cited by 19 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a forestry setting, bird abundances initially declined when switchgrass was planted in an intercropping system, probably due to loss of snags from disturbance during site preparation and when planting switchgrass (Loman et al, 2014(Loman et al, , 2013. The bird community changed in monocrop, intercrop, and control treatments between the year switchgrass was planted and the year after planting switchgrass (Loman et al, 2014), but by the third year after planting switchgrass, intercrop and control plots had similar avian community assemblages. However, there is a potential for further change as forest succession continues in the intercrop and control treatment plots (Loman et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…We averaged results from control plots within stands to reduce potential bias from increased sampling effort. Our study plots were the same as the pine control, intercropped switchgrass, and switchgrass monocrop plots described by Loman et al (2014).…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is a potential for further change as forest succession continues in the intercrop and control treatment plots (Loman et al, 2014). There is a need for research on effects of planting switchgrass on biodiversity, particularly in intercropped stands (Riffell et al, 2012), because most studies that have examined effects of switchgrass on biodiversity have both compared switchgrass to row crops and native grasslands (Fletcher et al, 2010) and investigated effects on grassland birds and herpetofauna Loman et al, 2014) rather than mammals (but see Briones et al, 2013;Homyack et al, 2014;King et al, 2014;Marshall et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of habitat modification on cotton rat population dynamics and rodent community structure

Larsen

Homyack

Wigley

et al. 2016

Forest Ecology and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of habitat modification on cotton rat population dynamics and rodent community structure

Larsen

Homyack

Wigley

et al. 2016

Forest Ecology and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Biodiversity studies covered plants, herpetofauna, and large and small mammals [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]. Soil quality, GHG, and carbon life cycle analyses were conducted.…”

Section: Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Production of Bioenergy Feedstock from the Industrial Forest: Potential and Challenges of Operational Scale Implementation

Nettles

Birks

Sucre

et al. 2015

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing interest in energy from woody biomass as fossil fuel replacement, yet environmental and economic limitations have reduced feedstock available for bioenergy. Supply could likely be substantially increased with intensive forest management for productivity and utilization as well as forest-based dedicated energy crops. This paper discusses the role of industrial forests in sustainable bioenergy feedstock production and the lessons learned in an operational scale project. Catchlight Energy, LLC, a Chevron|Weyerhaeuser joint venture, evaluated intercropping switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) in loblolly pine plantations for liquid transportation fuel, with the goal of full-scale production. Within Weyerhaeuser, sustainability and operational research were conducted simultaneously. While the environmental research is non-proprietary and being published as it is completed, operational trials were internal. To understand lessons learned, staff responsible for management, planning, logistics, and field operations were interviewed, and perceived and actual barriers to production described. Ongoing environmental research is showing that carefully planned field operations can be conducted sustainably, but energy crop production fell below levels needed for economic feasibility.

show abstract

“…Although sustainability of intercropping has been examined, including effects on vertebrate [23,24,25] communities, little is known about how biofuel feedstock intercropping could affect biodiversity [22] of bees in a managed forest system. Therefore, we examined potential effects of intercropping switchgrass in intensively managed loblolly pine plantations on bee communities by testing whether stand age and intercropping influenced bee abundance and diversity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Intercropping within Managed Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Does Not Affect Wild Bee Communities

Campbell

Miller

Martin

2016

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensively-managed pine (Pinus spp.) have been shown to support diverse vertebrate communities, but their ability to support invertebrate communities, such as wild bees, has not been well-studied. Recently, researchers have examined intercropping switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), a native perennial, within intensively managed loblolly pine (P. taeda) plantations as a potential source for cellulosic biofuels. To better understand potential effects of intercropping on bee communities, we investigated visitation of bees within three replicates of four treatments of loblolly pine in Mississippi, U.S.A.: 3–4 year old pine plantations and 9–10 year old pine plantations with and without intercropped switchgrass. We used colored pan traps to capture bees during the growing seasons of 2013 and 2014. We captured 2507 bees comprised of 18 different genera during the two-year study, with Lasioglossum and Ceratina being the most common genera captured. Overall, bee abundances were dependent on plantation age and not presence of intercropping. Our data suggests that switchgrass does not negatively impact or promote bee communities within intensively-managed loblolly pine plantations.

show abstract

Breeding bird community response to establishing intercropped switchgrass in intensively-managed pine stands

Cited by 19 publications

References 55 publications

Effects of habitat modification on cotton rat population dynamics and rodent community structure

Effects of habitat modification on cotton rat population dynamics and rodent community structure

Sustainable Production of Bioenergy Feedstock from the Industrial Forest: Potential and Challenges of Operational Scale Implementation

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Intercropping within Managed Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Does Not Affect Wild Bee Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About