Abigail Gormley and Heather Sampey

ENVL 3121 Wildlife Management

Issue Analysis: Effects of
Forest Management Practices
on Birds and Small Mammals
April 23, 2018
 Forests play a major role in the lives of humans. They provide fuel, wood,
protection and food (Baker et al. 2011). Forests are also home to about 80% of the
world’s terrestrial biodiversity (Forest Habitat). There are several different types of
forests in the world, they differ between climates and they all have different species
wildlife living in them. While forests are home to so much wildlife, they are rapidly
decreasing. From the year 1900-2000, the world’s population has jumped from 1.5 to
6.1 billion (Roser, Ortiz-Ospina, 2017). Rising human populations led to forest
resources being heavily exploited. This forced humans to find a way to utilize these
resources in a sustainable manner, and so silviculture methods arose. Over the last
century, there have been many advancements in silviculture technology. Silviculture is
defined as “the theory and practice of controlling forest establishment, composition,
structure, and growth” (Baker et al. 2011). A few different methods of forest
management include clear-cuts, thinning, prescribed burns, harvesting, and shelter
wood. These management practices affect different species of wildlife in various ways.
Forest management needs to actively enhance elements of the forest to improve
health and productivity. Harvesting trees can be done to improve the health of the
forest, controlling the types of trees that grow there, attracting certain wildlife, providing
income, or producing items such as lumber and paper (Forest Management Basics).
The greater the population of trees in an area, the greater the competition is for
resources. Thinning the trees mat be done to trees in the early stages to create less
competition (Forest Management Basics). The remaining trees will grow faster,
stronger, and larger. Thinning trees also improves the growth of the forest’s understory
which provides more food and cover for certain species of wildlife. Clearcutting harvests
remove all the trees in an area (Forest Management Basics). Clear cuts help remove
unhealthy to allow for healthy and productive stands. Clearcutting is also an effective
way to create habitat for many different species. Turkeys, quails, bears, and deer are all
examples of species that thrive in clear cuts. Clearcutting creates edges, which are
areas where two habitat types or two ages of the same habitat meet. These areas have
more diverse wildlife communities than large areas of a single habitat (Forest
Management Basics).
Shelter wood cuts are harvests that remove mature trees over a period of 10 to
15 years (Forest Management Basics). By doing this, it allows for regeneration of
medium to low shade-tolerant species because there is shelter left to protect them.
These cuts provide cover and early successional food sources for wildlife. Seed tree
harvests are similar to clear cuts except five or more trees are left scattered per acre to
provide seeds for new forests (Forest Management Basics). Wildlife benefit from seed
tree harvests in the same way as clear cuts and also benefit from the seed trees. These
trees eventually become snags, which are important for many species. They are also
good food sources and nesting sites for birds. Group selection harvesting is a small-
scale clear cut (Forest Management Basics). A group of trees in an area are harvested
over x amount of years so that within fifty years time, the entire stand has been cut. This
method of harvesting is mainly used on bottomland hardwood stands that allow for
harvests of high quality logs. Group selections creates ideal pockets of young
vegetation for wildlife such as grouse, deer, and song birds. Single-tree selection
harvests remove select individual trees that are ready to be harvest (Forest
Management Basics). In these forests, they are constantly producing timber and has
seedlings that emerge to take the place of harvested trees. This harvest maintains a
late succession forest that benefits many wildlife species such as squirrels and turkeys.
Prescribed burning is another type of a forest management practice. It benefits
certain forests by decreasing the fuel on the forest floor that could lead to a forest fire
(Forest Management Basics). Removing this leaf litter from the forest floor promotes the
growth of new forage plants which are important food sources for many species. There
is also an increase in insects and seeds after a prescribed burn, which is good for many
nongame species. Reforestation is the process of growing trees on an areas that has
been harvested or cleared before (Forest Management Basics). There are two types of
reforestation, natural regeneration and artificial regeneration. Natural generation relies
on nature to create forests after trees are harvested (Forest Management Basics). New
trees grow from seeds that are carried by the wind, transported by animals, or dropped
on site by mature trees. Artificial regeneration is when humans are involved with sowing
seeds or planting seedlings. By doing so, they can have better control over tree
spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, and a higher rate of
tree survival (Forest Management Basics). Each stage of forest succession provides
different benefits for different species of wildlife. For example, rodents and rabbits tend
to prefer early successional forest where there are plenty of grasses and shrubs for food
and shelter (Forest Management Basics). Deer also need early successional forests for
food, but also need denser cover of middle and late succession for shelter and escaping
danger. Birds of prey nest in mature forests and feed on rodents and snakes in early
successional forests (Forest Management Basics).
Forests are the most important habitat for birds, they support 77% of all species
(Birds, 2017). Bird species who depend on the forests are declining. 74% of eastern
forest bird species that rely on early successional habitat are declining (Kellner et al.
2016). 51% of breeding Neotropical migrant bird species in the Midwest rely on young
forest habitats during breeding and migration seasons (Kellner et al. 2016). Because
different groups of bird species rely on different types of forests, they need to be
managed effectively.
Throughout recent years, studies have shown that slight disturbance in habitat
causing fragmented landscapes is more than likely to positively influence species
occurrence, species diversity and population size (Fahrig, 2003). However, wildlife
responds to forest management in different ways. Birds will respond different than small
mammals, with even more variation between the species as well. Several types of bird
species depend on small mammals as a food source. Moles, voles, shrews and mice
are sometimes considered bioindicator species for monitoring the different effects of
forest management on the forest’s wildlife (Pearce & Venier, 2005). In a study published
in the Journal of Forest Ecology and Management, small mammal populations were
studied in areas where clear cut and harvest forest management techniques were being
used. They found that utilizing the slash created by the clear cut helped maintain
abundance and diversity of forest mammals and that some small mammal populations
were about 3.3–4.8 times greater in these areas (Sullivan, et. al, 2017).
The overexploitation of the forests in the 1800s and 1900s has caused
researchers to come up with new ways to manage what is left of those forests over the
years. Managers have been actively trying to come up with innovative ways for years
and while there has been signs of increases in forests, they need to be actively
managed to ensure the continued success of wildlife. Most areas focus solely on
threatened and endangered species but if all species are protected, it will help prevent
listing new species. Professionals and researchers in forestry are able to effectively
manage forests and wildlife professionals know how to manage wildlife populations.
They need to learn to work together to sustainably utilize these resources and protect
our wildlife.
There are a few major challenges and complexities with birds and managing
forests. While the federal and state governments can pass laws to protect forested land
for the birds and other wildlife, the tracts of forest that are privately owned are the
hardest to manage. These owners have no background in forest management and are
not able to make management decisions. This is a major issue because in the northeast
44% of forests are privately owned, 73% is privately owned in the southeast, and only
21% in the west. I think that these private landowners need to be educated on how to
actively manage these lands for the wildlife that inhabit them. The most difficult part is
getting people to actually do this, a lot just do not care.
The biggest issue in my opinion is getting around the timber companies and
commercial development. One of the case studies from class greatly reflects this
challenge. The northern spotted owl lives in the old-growth forests of the Pacific
Northwest (Andre and Velasquez, 1991). These forests are also a main source of timber
for the logging industry. Of the original forest, only about 10% remains that is mostly
federally-owned land (Andre and Velasquez, 1991. In 1990 the species was declared
threatened, which caused the timber companies to leave at least 40% of the old-growth
forests intact within a 1.3 miles radius of any spotted owl nest or activity site (Andre and
Velasquez, 1991). This was greatly opposed by the timber companies. This debate
became popular across the country. The timber industry believed that saving the
spotted owl would cause a great deal of harm (Andre and Velasquez, 1991). They
believe the amount of wood accessible would decrease tremendously, and that the
thousands of jobs lost would lead to "increased rates of domestic disputes, divorce, acts
of violence, delinquency, vandalism, suicide, alcoholism, and other problems" (Andre
and Velasquez, 1991). The point I am trying to make is that these companies who are
using all forests, not just the ones out west, are more concerned with their profits than
saving a threatened species, let alone a species that is not listed. This serves as just
one example of how forests have degraded so much over the last century and how
birds are losing their habitats.
One major step towards the solution between timer companies, commercial
development and the public are organizations such as sustainable forestry initiative.
This organization is dedicated to sustainable forest management (Forest Management
Standard). The American Bird Conservancy promotes the SFI, saying it is one of the
most promising partnerships it has (Fenwick, 2015). They have a forest certification
standard that is based on principles that promote sustainable forest management
(Forest Management Standard). Their principles includes measures to protect water
quality, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, species at risk, and Forests with Exceptional
Conservation Value. Their standard is used across North America and globally, this way
they can deliver wood and paper products from legal and responsible sources (Forest
Management Standard). There are more than 250 million acres across the US and
Canada are certified by SFI standards.
The North Carolina Audubon society is leading the way in better management
practices to better birds directly at the management level. In the summer of 2016, about
fifty professional foresters attended a workshop at Cherokee Scout Reservation in
Yanceyville to learn how small changes in forest management could make a big
difference for birds (NC Audubon, 2016). The North Carolina Audubon Society was
aiming to teach foresters how to incorporate birds into forest management plan. The
USFWS helped the Audubon develop a booklet of information to aid foresters in bird
conservation planning for landowners that they work with (NC Audubon, 2016). The
North Carolina Audubon has created a model for others states to use for forest
management concerning birds (NC Audubon, 2016).
Ohio is another state that has adopted a plan for managing forests for birds. The
Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative has outlined priority species, and most rely on forests
(OCBI). The OBCI works with local and regional partners to help educate land
managers of public and private property to improve bird habitat (OCBI). The OBCI
partnered with several other organizations and government entities to produce a guide
that outlines how to manage forest birds as a guide for land managers. This guide gives
clear recommendations for different habitats and different species of birds (OCBI).
These three examples are working towards a solution to the challenges of
managing forests for birds. Organizations such as this are helping to create a more
sustainable future that is protecting the environment. If the sustainable forest initiative
became standard practice across the globe, it would help conserve forests and protect
the wildlife that inhabit them. The plans that are already in place in Ohio and North
Carolina can serve as models for the rest of the United States, for what they should be
doing manage the forests correctly. If there are a few states that are already successful
in managing the forests for birds, than the rest of the country as well as across the
globe should be able to do so. These plans are a step in the right direction.
This issue of how to manage forests while protecting birds is an extremely
important topic, especially in New Jersey. The Pinelands forestry advisory committee
released a document on the recommended forestry management practices for New
Jersey in 2006. This document highlights different areas of silviculture and the best
ways to go about them (Pinelands Forestry, 2006). There is a section on endangered
animals and how to deal with them while managing forests. The red-headed
woodpecker is a state threatened bird. Clear cutting their habitats have a negative
impact on them, while planting pines and oaks can have long-term beneficial effects by
re-establishing their habitats (Pinelands Forestry, 2006). These birds also require
snags. Practices to benefit the red-headed woodpecker include thinning, cleaning, and
prescribed burns which create and maintain a suitable habitat for them. Harvesting trees
is not beneficial to them (Pinelands Forestry, 2006). This document also outlines
suggestions for the barred owl, another state-threatened bird. In New Jersey, larger
populations of barred owls live in mature forests. So management practices for them
should promote preservation and protection of the existing forests (Pinelands Forestry,
2006). Thinning in young stands may eventually benefit barred owls by promoting
growth of larger trees. Clear-cutting and harvesting can have a negative impact on
these birds. If clear-cuts are needed, the size of them should be small (Pinelands
Forestry, 2006). This topic is important to me because it outlines how to properly
manage forests where I live. Birds are a major part of any ecosystem and they need to
take into consideration.
In the Stockton’s forest management plan, there are several bird species of
concern that are taken into account in the management plan (Williams and
Zimmermann, 2011). These species are the barred owl, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered
hawk, osprey, and the bald eagle. They conducted surveys to see if the barred owl was
breeding on campus but they are not. They decided that the barred owl roosts and
forages on campus and would plan silviculture to provide suitable foraging habitat
(Williams and Zimmermann, 2011). They also found that the red-shouldered hawk is not
breeding on campus. Cooper’s hawk was found to be nesting in the Delaware Ave area.
They will not conduct any forest management activity within 600 feet of the nest area
except for prescribed burns (Williams and Zimmermann, 2011). Ospreys and bald
eagles have been seen foraging on Lake Fred, so they will sustain a mature healthy
forest to benefit them. It was important to Dr. Zimmermann and the rest of Stockton to
protect all of these threatened and endangered species, including the birds (Williams
and Zimmermann, 2011). By knowing how these forest management practices will
affect them, we can actively plan to give the species suitable habitat for their needs.
 These two plans are examples of steps being taken right in this area for
managing the forests for birds. Managers in New Jersey are facing the same issues as
the rest of the country, how to get landowners and other commercial groups to actively
manage their forests for birds in the right ways. The NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife
issued a guide called Managing Grasslands, Shrub lands, and Young Forest Habitats
for Wildlife, A Guide for the Northeast (NJDEP, 2011). This guide is a reference for
landowners to use to help enhance their property for wildlife. The guide goes over how
to manage for regenerating and young forest habitat and managing small forest
openings (NJDEP, 2011). It also includes habitat management tools and case studies.
With trying to manage for so many different species, it is near impossible to make the
right choice for each species. That is why most management plans focus on threatened
and endangered species. Those species become first priority when managing an area.
In Stockton’s forest management plan, they outlined all species of concerns ad stated
how they were going to work with those animals. I think they also have more say
because of the laws that come with the threatened species. These species have much
more say in areas because they are protected under the Endangered Species Act, while
other species are not as protected. I also believe that species with a very large
population in an area are also managed for because there are so many of them.
Managers in New Jersey have to prioritize the birds to figure out what management plan
is best. If there is only a really small population of a nongame species that is not of
concern, the manager is most likely not going to manage for that species.
Another group of animals that are sometimes managed for in forests are small
mammals. For the purpose of this paper, the small mammals that will be in reference
are those such as voles, moles, shrews, rats and mice. These mammals are vital to the
survival of healthy forest ecosystems. They have the ability to influence vegetation
growth, soils, and the other animals in that forest ecosystem (Sieg, 1987). They affect
the rate of decomposition, amount of primary productivity, and small mammals even
help to determine the plant species composition. They can affect the soil chemistry and
structure of forest stand, and will even determine the amount of predators in a forest as
well as which predators will inhabit the area (Sieg, 1987).
Managing forests and understanding small mammal behaviors can be difficult as
well. Small mammals move a lot and they can inhabit many different kinds of habitats.
Some species have burrowing tendencies, some live in open fields, and some live in
trees (bio.edu.ee). Because they can inhabit so many different habitat types, it makes it
is difficult to manage a forest for one species without indirectly affecting another. For
example, if a wildlife manager is trying to manage for a ground mammal species and by
doing so he cuts down trees in an area to create more usable habitat for that ground
mammal, he will also be taking away valuable habitat in the trees for the arboreal
mammal species. Because small mammals are usually quite responsive to disturbance,
it is relatively easy to determine how they will be affected by different forest
management techniques.
Another problem that arises when dealing with forest management for small
mammals is understanding exactly what part of the environment you are managing for.
Resource availability and utilization forms the basis of how communities are structured
(Fellers, 1994). This is also highly dependent on seasonal and spatial variation. In a
study done in Sweden on a species of vole, Clethrionomys glareolus, scientists proved
that heterogeneity of habitat was much more beneficial for the voles rather than the
assumed single-aged forest stand. The study focused on how the clear-cutting of
forests to create these homogeneous forest stands contributes to poor overall habitat
conditions for the voles (Ecke,F., et. Al., 2002).They wanted to look at the different
effects of forest age, cover of tree layers, cover of tall vegetation, and forest floor cover
structure on the voles behavior to be able to explain their overall population decline
(Ecke,F., et. Al., 2002). They found that the species really depended on the structure
and abundance tall vegetation and that the voles were pretty dependent on younger
forests. However they also realized that many individuals did not survive through winter
in these younger successional forests. They realized that the vole’s behaviors displayed
a kind of source-sink scenario. Source-sink dynamics uses differences in habitat quality
to understand the dispersal and success of different populations of a species (Heinrichs
et al. 2019). They predicted that this is because the voles that are born in the older
growth forests will move to the younger forests to reproduce even though they probably
will not be able to withstand the extreme winters in those areas (Ecke et al. 2002).
Even though some small mammals are generalist species like raccoons and
shrews, most mammal species are known to be site selective. In a recent study done
published in the journal Oikos, the level of competition for habitat selection of three
small mammal species Peromyscus leucopus (white-footed mouse), Ochrotomys nuttalli
(golden mouse) and Tamias striatus (eastern chipmunk) was studied (Dueser, D. &
Hallett, J., 1980). They looked at the influence of understory tree dispersion,
evergreeness of the over story, Vertical herbaceous foliage density, Litter-soil
compatibility, tree stump size, tree stump density, index of shrub-level vegetation
density, and Vertical woody foliage density. They concluded that these three mammals
do compete for the same habitat through each season they studied and proposed that
habitat selectivity increases in the order: Peromyscus- Tamias- Ochrotomys (Dueser, D.
& Hallett, J., 1980). These small mammals disperse to the areas that are most useful to
them, and those not competitively superior will be forced to use habitat and resources
that are not exceptionally suitable for them. So when managing for wildlife populations,
it can be a difficult task to keep in mind this idea of site selectivity and competition
between similar mammal species. This makes managing for one species of small
mammals over a large area of study very complex.
 One of the biggest issues surrounding forest management and small mammals is
public opinion. For some people, there tends to be a stigma around the idea of any sort
of forest management. Specifically, forest fires. Throughout history, the use of forest
fires has been more widely accepted in managing forests for wildlife. In a survey that I
conducted on Stockton University students, about 20% of those students sampled
believe that when faced with fire, wildlife will always get caught and die. In reality wildlife
is usually able to escape the fire in seek of shelter, and the rest of those surveyed
understood this. This just shows that while people have been more understanding
accepting of fire, not everyone is on the same page yet.
Another stigma around forest management is the idea that cutting down trees or
causing ‘harm’ to the trees in any way will cause deforestation. Deforestation is a huge
problem globally for wildlife species, but in terms of forest management they are not in
the same spectrum. According to National Geographic, habitat loss is the most dramatic
result of deforestation (National Geographic, 2018). But generally the main purpose of
implementing a forest management plan is to sustainably harvest the timber while also
taking into account the wildlife that is affected. Once more people become educated
about the benefits of forest management, hopefully this stigma surrounding them will be
diminished.
Stockton’s Forest management plan does aim to increase the biodiversity on
campus but it does not directly aim to manage for any small mammal species of wildlife,
however it will indirectly affect the small mammal populations. It manages for many
birds of prey such as the barred owl, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, osprey, and
the bald eagle (Williams and Zimmerman, 2011). In order for these species populations
to be high, there has to be habitat manipulated and created but also there has to be
prey for these predatory birds. These birds rely heavily on having healthy small mammal
populations so that their populations can in turn increase accordingly.

Further Research:

Question: How do the prescribed burns on Stockton’s campus affect the birds and small
mammals on campus?

Hypotheses: Birds and small mammals that live in areas where a prescribed burn are
scheduled will leave the area during and after the burn.

Methods: I will trap and mark small mammals using Sherman live traps within the area
of the prescribed burn. In late December to mid-February, before the prescribed burn on
campus, I can set up a 15 X 15m area to trap the small mammals. The traps would be
set up directly where the area is going to be burned, under vegetation. Once trapping
them, I can mark them with a temporary mark and then release them back into the area.
After the prescribed burn is conducted, I will go back out to Delaware Avenue and trap
the same 15 X 15m area. We could also trap in the area outside of the prescribed burn.
If we trap a lot of the marked mammals, then we can assume that they are seeking
shelter right outside the burn, possibly temporarily.
To test the effects of prescribed burns on bird species on campus, bird surveys
must be conducted. Artman et al. (2001) and Greenberg et al. (2007) studied the short-
term effects on bird populations in prescribed burn forest areas. In the Delaware Ave
area I would set up two treatment areas, one control and the other to be burned. In the
season prior to the burn, bird surveys would need to be conducted in order to see what
species are there and the population sizes. The bird surveys would be conducted from
early February to late March, this is usually the time that the burn is done on campus.
The areas could be surveyed once per week to avoid bias toward early or late-season
birds (Artman et al. 2001). The surveys would have to done by avid birders because
they would need to recognize birds by what they saw and heard. We could seek
assistance from the group at Forysthe Wildlife Refuge in order to have someone
correctly identify them. After the birds are record over that time span in the time prior to
the burn, it can then be done right after the burn again to see how the population has
shifted.

Implications: This study will provide information on how the populations of birds and
small mammals are being affected on Stockton’s campus. If the animals have moved to
the area next to the burn, we know that they seek refuge and could potentially move
back into that area. Not only will the study tell us how the bird populations have
changed, but if the bird surveys are done several weeks after the fire as well, it could
also tell us how long it is taking certain species to return to the disturbed area. Some
species may return faster to a disturbed area than others.

Often time’s people think of wildlife as something that lives in a forest, but in
reality they are intertwined. Without the forest there cannot be wildlife and vice-versa.
Forest management is needed to preserve what is left on earth. Each forest will need a
different approach to actively manage for the different species of wildlife within. Some
management may enhance species richness while another will be directed towards a
specific species. Regardless of how managers go about managing the forests, there are
going to be problems between stakeholders. Lots of continued research needs to be
done in order to conserve these different species while also protecting our forests and
allowing for increased recreational uses.
References

Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (1991). The Spotted Owl Controversy. Issues in Ethics,
4(1). Retrieved April 15, 2018.

Artman, V.L., E.K. Sutherland, and J.F. Downhower. 2001. Prescribed Burning to
Restore Mixed-Oak Communities in Southern Ohio: Effects on Breeding-Bird
Populations. Conservation Biology 15(5): 1423-1434

Baker, P. J., J.S.Wilson, & R.I. Gara. 2011. Silviculture around the world: Past, Present,
And Future Trends. Management of Agricultural, Forestry, and Fisheries
Enterprises 2.

Birds occur in all major habitat types, with forest being particularly important. (2017).
Retrieved April 15, 2018, from http://datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/birds-
occur-in-all-major-habitat-types-with-forest-being-particularly-important

Deforestation and Its Effect on the Planet. Facts, Information, and Effects | National
Geographic, 25 July 2017. Nationalgeographic.com.

Dueser, R., & Hallett, J. (1980). Competition and Habitat Selection in a Forest-Floor
Small Mammal fauna. Oikos, 35(3), 293-297. Doi: 10.2307/3544642

Ecke, F., Löfgren, O. and Sörlin, D. (2002), Population dynamics of small mammals in
Relation to forest age and structural habitat factors in northern Sweden. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 39: 781-792. Doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00759.x

Fellers, G. 1994. Species Diversity, Selectivity, and Habitat Associations of Small

Mammals from Coastal California. The Southwestern Naturalist. 39: 128-136.

Fenwick, G. (2015, October 13). Working Forests at Work for Birds. Retrieved April 22,
2018, from https://abcbirds.org/working-forests-at-work-for-birds/

Forest Habitat. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from

https://www.worldwildlife.org/habitats/forest-habitat

Forest Management Basics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2018, from

https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/
Greenberg, C.H., A.L. Tomcho, J.D. Lanham, and T.A. Waldrop. 2007. Short-Term
Effects of Fire and Other Fuel Reduction Treatments on Breeding Birds in a
Southern Appalachian Upland Hardwood Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management
71(6): 1906-1916.

Heinrichs, J. A., Lawler, J. J., & Schumaker, N. H. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic drivers
Of source–sink dynamics. Ecology and Evolution, 6(4), 892–904.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2029

Kellner, K.F., P.J. Ruhl, J.B. Dunning, J.K. Riegel, & R.K. Swihart. 2016. Multi-scale
Responses of breeding birds to experimental forest management in Indiana,
USA. Forest Ecology and Management 382: 64-75.

NC Audubon. (2016, July 13). With Small Changes, Forest Management Benefits Birds.
Retrieved from http://nc.audubon.org/news/small-changes-forest-management-
benefits-birds

NJDEP. (2011, December 14). Managing Grasslands, Scrublands, and Young Forest
Habitats for Wildlife A Guide for the Northeast. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/managing_for_wildlife_guide.htm

OBCI. (n.d.). Healthy Forest Management. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from
http://obcinet.org/healthy-forest-management/

Orrock, J.L., J.F. Pagels, W.J. McShea, and E.K. Harper. 2000. Predicting presence
And abundance of a small mammal species: the effect of scale and resolution.
Ecological Applications 10(5):1356-1366.

Pearce J., L. Venier. 2005. Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable boreal forest
management. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management. 208:153-175.

Sullivan T.P., D.S. Sullivan, J.H. Sullivan. 2017. Mammalian responses to windrows of
Woody debris on clear-cuts: Abundance and diversity of forest-floor small
mammals and presence of small mustelids. Journal of Forest Ecology and
Management. 399:143-154.

Roser M., E. Ortiz-Ospina. 2017. World Population Growth. Ourworldindata.org.

Sieg, C. H. (1987). Small Mammals: Pests or Vital Components of the

Ecosystem. Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings.
Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/97/
USA, Pinelands Forestry Advisory Committee. (2006, March). Retrieved from
http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/appli/tools/new forms/Recommended Forestry
Management Practices Report.pdf

Williams, R., & Zimmermann, G. (2011, April 26). Stockton Forest Management Plan.