Aller au contenu principal

page search

Bibliothèque State efforts to promote early-successional habitats on public and private lands in the northeastern United States

State efforts to promote early-successional habitats on public and private lands in the northeastern United States

State efforts to promote early-successional habitats on public and private lands in the northeastern United States

Resource information

Date of publication
Décembre 2003
Resource Language
ISBN / Resource ID
AGRIS:US201400063430

Early-successional habitats (e.g. grasslands, shrublands, and early-successional forests) and their associated wildlife are declining throughout the northeastern United States. State wildlife agencies are generally charged with conserving all native wildlife and their habitats within their respective state. However, some have suggested that state wildlife agencies in the region are not addressing the decline of early-successional wildlife and habitats sufficiently. I investigated the extent to which 11 state agencies in this region are creating and maintaining early-successional habitats on public and private lands. The middle Atlantic subregion (five states: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) generally affected a greater proportion of state wildlife lands than the New England subregion (six states: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont): proportions range from 0.96 to 8.34, and 0.02 to 1.68%, respectively. Mowing was the most commonly used technique throughout the northeast. Only five state agencies in the northeast performed habitat management on private lands and no state affected more than 113 ha per year. Timber harvesting was infrequently used to create early-successional habitats and did not exceed 1.5% of eligible harvest area in nine of 11 states surveyed. A lack of sufficient resources was the most frequent explanation for little activity. Given that commonly used management techniques may be expensive (e.g. up to US$ 486 ha−1 for mechanical clearing to reclaim abandoned fields), state agencies will need to develop new funding sources, and use alternative and more cost-effect management tools. Additionally, agencies should consider expanding technical assistance to private landowners.

Share on RLBI navigator
NO

Authors and Publishers

Author(s), editor(s), contributor(s)

Oehler, James D.

Data Provider
Geographical focus