Habitat Stressors in the National Wildlife Refuge
This habitat faces a number of different stressors but the most common stressors that are taking place is the depletion of the hard wood forest within the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV). The loss of 20 million acres of bottomland forest, forest fragmentation, and the effects of timber harvesting practices have the biggest impact on this habitat type and is in need of extensive management (Connor, 2012). 
(Oswalt, 2013) (Elliott; et al., 2020)
As you can see from the picture on the left most of the forest percent is not as low as it could possibly be but is not as high as it could be without the deforestation from agriculture. On the right you can see on the east portion of the state the sliver of green and some parts of yellow that are tightly grouped running north to south. This group is along the refuge and you can also see that in the northern parts of where the refuge is there are larger amounts of yellow which is reforestation priority. The timber in these locations has been either clear cut for agriculture uses or harvested for timber (Elliott; et al., 2020). From the species in the three locations identified in the previous post we can definitely see this deforestation to be affecting the whitetail deer, Johnson grass, and waterfowl. The deer and waterfowl definitely do not benefit from the deforestation due to the decrease in available food and cover. The Johnson grass would actually benefit from the harvest of the timber as long as the land is not converted into farmland because the prairie land could expand and cover more land area. The deforestation causes harm to many other species not mentioned as well and provide amounts of carbon from leaf litter and woody derbies into the river or the flood prove area. Because the grassland does not have trees and almost acts as its own ecosystem the animal species (rabbits) would only be affected if they migrate between grassland and the wooded areas (Oswalt, 2013).
Climate change effects
As we all know the climate is changing due to human interaction with the environment and causing bad effects that have hurt many ecosystems tremendously since the industrial revolution. In the White River refuge, we have seen a larger fluctuation of temperature and increased rainfall amounts in the past 10 years. With a lot of this location being flood prone areas we can expect to see more disturbances such as floods and tornadoes to pass through the area and effect the environment. The annual temperatures would go from about 68 to approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit in the year of 2050 (Climate Explorer, 2021). Which would cause a dramatic change in the ecosystem. The most vulnerable species to climate change from each of the three locations is going to be the muscles, hard wood forest (oak trees), and the Johnson grass in the grassland area. The muscles will be sensitive to the climate change due to the higher fluctuation of the river causing movement of the species into areas they would not inhabit from flooding. The hard wood forest will most likely die due to more flooding and change in the pH of the soils. The rabbits in the grasslands will be affected due to the increasing temperature that will cause a shift in plant regimes (Mullinex, 2021).
Conservation plan
Wet/ Moist Bottomland Forest
For both of these habitats the management process that should be done is mostly the prevention of clearing the hardwood forest. As mentioned earlier the most common stressor in the refuge is the deforestation in the refuge. This has effects on the entire ecosystem from different organisms, soil composition, and the water quality in the river. The best thing that could be done is to prevent the cutting of trees in the refuge. Many different rules are put into place that protect the health of the trees such as preventing the cutting of trees and installing tree hooks that hunter use often for hunting are prevented from use (Connor, et al., 2021). By applying these laws, we can help to rebuild the forest that have be harvested in the past and bring the ecosystem back to the productivity it was once at. For the Forest that have already been harvested planting juvenile trees would help to rebuild the forest at a faster rate. The moist bottomland area is the most vulnerable of the three types from harvesting of trees. This is because the wet areas are harder to get to during flood waters and the upland area doesn't have trees so there is little threat for deforestation in these areas.
Upland
In this area there should be research done in order to manage the habitat the best way possible. One possible practice that could help the habitat out is prescribed burns at specific times of the year in order to restore nutrients to the soil (Mullinex, et al., 2021). This practice would have to be investigated in order to determine the best time of the year to burn the land to prevent negative effects on pollinators and organisms that live in this area (Mullinex, et al., 2021). This habitat is not the most vulnerable to deforestation in the location but is still important for different species in the area.
Sources
Climate Explorer. (2021). Location data for Arkansas County, AR. Climate Explorer. https://crt-climate-explorer.nemac.org/cardshome/county=Arkansas%2BCounty&city=Tichnor%2C+AR&fips=05001&lat=34.1403051&lon=-91.2705787&zoom=7&nav=undefined.
Connor, Matt, et al. “Comprehensive Conservation Planning - Dale Bumpers White River - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, June 2012, www.fws.gov/refuge/White_River/what_we_do/planning.html.
Elliott, A. B., Mini, A. E., McKnight, S. K., & Twedt, D. J. (2020). Conservation–Protection of Forests for Wildlife in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Forests, 11(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010075
Mullinex, Kim, et al. “Johnsongrass: Frequently Asked Questions.” Alabama Cooperative Extension System, 8 Mar. 2021, www.aces.edu/blog/topics/farming/johnsongrass-frequently-asked-questions/.
Oswalt, S. N. (2013). Forest Resources of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Forest Resources of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. https://doi.org/10.2737/srs-gtr-177
Comments
Post a Comment