4.7 Article

Nocturnal insect availability in bottomland hardwood forests managed for wildlife in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 391, 期 -, 页码 127-134

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.009

关键词

Bats; Bottomland hardwood forest; Desired forest conditions; Insect availability; Mississippi Alluvial Valley; Wildlife forestry

类别

资金

  1. US Fish and Wildlife Service Inventory and Monitoring Program for Region 4
  2. Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture at Stephen F. Austin State University
  3. USDA McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silviculture used to alter forest structure and thereby enhance wildlife habitat has been advocated for bottomland hardwood forest management on public conservation lands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Although some songbirds respond positively to these management actions to attain desired forest conditions for wildlife, the response of other species, is largely unknown. Nocturnal insects are a primary prey base for bats, thereby influencing trophic interactions within hardwood forests. To better understand how silviculture influences insect availability for bats, we conducted vegetation surveys and sampled insect biomass within silviculturally treated bottomland hardwood forest stands. We used passive blacklight traps to capture nocturnal flying insects in 64 treated and 64 untreated reference stands, located on 15 public conservation areas in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Dead wood and silvicultural treatments were positively associated with greater biomass of macro-Lepidoptera, macro-Coleoptera, and all insect taxa combined. Biomass of micro-Lepidoptera was negatively associated with silvicultural treatment but comprised only a small proportion of total biomass. Understanding the response of nocturnal insects to wildlife-forestry silviculture provides insight for prescribed silvicultural management affecting bat species. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据