Habitat Restoration - Forests
Clear-Cutting Gets a Bad Rep
Proper forest management, especially where wildlife habitat improvement is in an objective, often involves tree-cutting and can be controversial. When clear-cutting—the practice of harvesting or otherwise removing all (or nearly all) trees from an area—is proposed, the debates can get heated. Many citizens view clear-cutting as destructive, citing the "plundering of the landscape" by the timber barons of a hundred years ago, or "ugly" over-cut areas in modern commercial forest lands. While there remain some drawbacks to clear-cutting, related practices have been greatly improved in the last 20 years, and clear-cutting can yield some unique ecological benefits. A better public understanding of clear-cutting's role in management of Michigan's forest resources is needed if we are to meet important forestry and wildlife objectives.
Michigan forests include vast areas dominated by tree species which reproduce best by regenerating from the roots or stump of a parent tree in at least partial sunlight. For example, the widespread and important aspens (poplars) form dense stands as thousands of "root suckers" grow from a single parent tree which has been cut or burned. Growth of the root suckers is much faster than for aspens produced by seed. However, even the root-suckers require full sunlight for rapid growth.
Clear-cutting or prescribed burning provides the conditions to ensure vigorous aspen stands. In contrast, "letting nature take its course" or selective cutting dooms aspen. Trees which die naturally from old-age (aspens start to deteriorate at about 40 years and seldom exceed 70 years) generate few root suckers and most of those that do sprout fail to survive because of browsing by deer. The land then tends to revert to an open, grassy condition, or is taken over by other woody species. Shoots produced by selective cutting, which leaves partial or complete shade, grow slowly and are also subject to detrimental browsing by deer. Aspen survival in Michigan's woodlands is maximized by removing as much of the forest canopy as possible and reducing post-logging slash and debris. This increases exposure of root suckers to full sunlight.
Michigan's aspens, which include two species—trembling aspen (Populus temuloides) and bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata)—found throughout the state, were once considered "weeds" by lumbermen. Foresters used to routinely recommend they be replaced with pines or other tree species of higher value. But as demand for packaging paper increased after World War II, aspen wood became a valuable commodity.
Wildlife biologists have also learned to appreciate the fast-growing upland trees. A variety of mammals including mice, voles, rabbits, porcupines, beavers, deer, elk, and bears feed on aspen twigs, buds, leaves, and bark. Birds, especially ruffed grouse, also feed on aspen plant parts. Grouse are very dependent on aspen in Michigan, and seldom found were aspen is scarce. And dense aspen stands provide important escape cover for a variety of forest wildlife species.
Good management of aspen for deer involves providing dense, vigorous stands near cedar swamps and other preferred wintering areas. Prescriptions for ruffed grouse habitat include aspen in three age classes. Dense sucker stands less than 10 years old are necessary to protect grouse broods from predators. Pole-sized aspens 10-25 years old provide adult grouse with wintering, nesting and breeding cover. Older aspen stands are used by grouse for wintering, nesting, and feeding. Such habitat patches cannot be produced economically without clear-cutting.
Aspen management—through clear-cutting—is sorely needed in northern Michigan. The logging and fires which occurred in the early 1900s gave aspen a big advantage over other tree species and resulted in large, relatively pure, even-aged stands. Many of those stands, especially on private-owned lands, have not since been harvested, and are well past their prime. Many landowners have been reluctant to aggressively manage their aspen stands because of aesthetic concerns or misinformation about clear-cutting. They are wasting a renewable resource and source of income, and allowing wildlife habitat to diminish when careful planning could moderate undesirable effects of clear-cutting.
Clear-cutting is also important in management of jack pine, which like aspen, requires much sun. Habitat management for the endangered Kirtland's' warbler in Michigan often involves clear-cutting jack pine-dominated blocks of 80 or more acres, then replanting to produce the dense 10-20 year-old jack pine stands the tiny song birds use for reproduction. The only alternative technique, prescribed burning, can't be used in some Kirtland's warbler management units because of safety concerns.
The most-often cited detrimental aspects of clear-cutting include ugliness, erosion, stream sedimentation, reduction in forest diversity, and immediate loss of wildlife habitat. There are many loggers willing to clear-cut aspen and other tree species in small (3-10 acre) blocs or strip patterns to meet landowner needs and desires. Some also have the capability of on-site chipping of residual slash. This, along with retaining buffer strips near homes, summer cabins, and roads, goes a long way toward reducing undesirable impacts on aesthetics. Many people do not object to the actual loss of a stand of trees from the visual landscape as much as to the messy appearance of downed tree tops and other debris. "Whole tree harvesting" which utilizes the tops as well as the stems of trees, gives the land a more "cleaned-up" look, and is more tolerable to most people. Particularly choice or colorful clumps of paper birch, maples, oaks, or pines can be left scattered to further reduce aesthetic impacts and increase forest diversity.
Controlling erosion and avoiding stream sedimentation associated with clear-cutting are now part of the modern forester's basic responsibilities. Un-cut buffer strips are maintained along streams and care is taken during construction of logging roads to minimize impacts on water resources.
Clear-cutting has long-endured a bad rap, which modern foresters and wildlife managers are working hard to overcome. Hopefully, better understanding of clear-cutting's role in natural resources management will soon result in better habitat for deer, ruffed grouse, and other forest wildlife.
[Return to Habitat Restoration Page]
Proper forest management, especially where wildlife habitat improvement is in an objective, often involves tree-cutting and can be controversial. When clear-cutting—the practice of harvesting or otherwise removing all (or nearly all) trees from an area—is proposed, the debates can get heated. Many citizens view clear-cutting as destructive, citing the "plundering of the landscape" by the timber barons of a hundred years ago, or "ugly" over-cut areas in modern commercial forest lands. While there remain some drawbacks to clear-cutting, related practices have been greatly improved in the last 20 years, and clear-cutting can yield some unique ecological benefits. A better public understanding of clear-cutting's role in management of Michigan's forest resources is needed if we are to meet important forestry and wildlife objectives.
Michigan forests include vast areas dominated by tree species which reproduce best by regenerating from the roots or stump of a parent tree in at least partial sunlight. For example, the widespread and important aspens (poplars) form dense stands as thousands of "root suckers" grow from a single parent tree which has been cut or burned. Growth of the root suckers is much faster than for aspens produced by seed. However, even the root-suckers require full sunlight for rapid growth.
Clear-cutting or prescribed burning provides the conditions to ensure vigorous aspen stands. In contrast, "letting nature take its course" or selective cutting dooms aspen. Trees which die naturally from old-age (aspens start to deteriorate at about 40 years and seldom exceed 70 years) generate few root suckers and most of those that do sprout fail to survive because of browsing by deer. The land then tends to revert to an open, grassy condition, or is taken over by other woody species. Shoots produced by selective cutting, which leaves partial or complete shade, grow slowly and are also subject to detrimental browsing by deer. Aspen survival in Michigan's woodlands is maximized by removing as much of the forest canopy as possible and reducing post-logging slash and debris. This increases exposure of root suckers to full sunlight.
Michigan's aspens, which include two species—trembling aspen (Populus temuloides) and bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata)—found throughout the state, were once considered "weeds" by lumbermen. Foresters used to routinely recommend they be replaced with pines or other tree species of higher value. But as demand for packaging paper increased after World War II, aspen wood became a valuable commodity.
Wildlife biologists have also learned to appreciate the fast-growing upland trees. A variety of mammals including mice, voles, rabbits, porcupines, beavers, deer, elk, and bears feed on aspen twigs, buds, leaves, and bark. Birds, especially ruffed grouse, also feed on aspen plant parts. Grouse are very dependent on aspen in Michigan, and seldom found were aspen is scarce. And dense aspen stands provide important escape cover for a variety of forest wildlife species.
Good management of aspen for deer involves providing dense, vigorous stands near cedar swamps and other preferred wintering areas. Prescriptions for ruffed grouse habitat include aspen in three age classes. Dense sucker stands less than 10 years old are necessary to protect grouse broods from predators. Pole-sized aspens 10-25 years old provide adult grouse with wintering, nesting and breeding cover. Older aspen stands are used by grouse for wintering, nesting, and feeding. Such habitat patches cannot be produced economically without clear-cutting.
Aspen management—through clear-cutting—is sorely needed in northern Michigan. The logging and fires which occurred in the early 1900s gave aspen a big advantage over other tree species and resulted in large, relatively pure, even-aged stands. Many of those stands, especially on private-owned lands, have not since been harvested, and are well past their prime. Many landowners have been reluctant to aggressively manage their aspen stands because of aesthetic concerns or misinformation about clear-cutting. They are wasting a renewable resource and source of income, and allowing wildlife habitat to diminish when careful planning could moderate undesirable effects of clear-cutting.
Clear-cutting is also important in management of jack pine, which like aspen, requires much sun. Habitat management for the endangered Kirtland's' warbler in Michigan often involves clear-cutting jack pine-dominated blocks of 80 or more acres, then replanting to produce the dense 10-20 year-old jack pine stands the tiny song birds use for reproduction. The only alternative technique, prescribed burning, can't be used in some Kirtland's warbler management units because of safety concerns.
The most-often cited detrimental aspects of clear-cutting include ugliness, erosion, stream sedimentation, reduction in forest diversity, and immediate loss of wildlife habitat. There are many loggers willing to clear-cut aspen and other tree species in small (3-10 acre) blocs or strip patterns to meet landowner needs and desires. Some also have the capability of on-site chipping of residual slash. This, along with retaining buffer strips near homes, summer cabins, and roads, goes a long way toward reducing undesirable impacts on aesthetics. Many people do not object to the actual loss of a stand of trees from the visual landscape as much as to the messy appearance of downed tree tops and other debris. "Whole tree harvesting" which utilizes the tops as well as the stems of trees, gives the land a more "cleaned-up" look, and is more tolerable to most people. Particularly choice or colorful clumps of paper birch, maples, oaks, or pines can be left scattered to further reduce aesthetic impacts and increase forest diversity.
Controlling erosion and avoiding stream sedimentation associated with clear-cutting are now part of the modern forester's basic responsibilities. Un-cut buffer strips are maintained along streams and care is taken during construction of logging roads to minimize impacts on water resources.
Clear-cutting has long-endured a bad rap, which modern foresters and wildlife managers are working hard to overcome. Hopefully, better understanding of clear-cutting's role in natural resources management will soon result in better habitat for deer, ruffed grouse, and other forest wildlife.
[Return to Habitat Restoration Page]