Citation
Integrated natural resource management

Material Information

Title:
Integrated natural resource management
Series Title:
Bulletin - Florida Cooperative Extension Service - 109
Creator:
Hunter, Dennis H.
Harris, L. D.
Jensen, A. S.
Affiliation:
University of Florida -- Florida Cooperative Extension Service -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture ( LCSH )
Farm life ( LCSH )
Farming ( LCSH )
University of Florida. ( LCSH )
Agriculture -- Florida ( LCSH )
Farm life -- Florida ( LCSH )
South Florida ( local )
City of Live Oak ( local )
Wildlife ( jstor )
Wildlife management ( jstor )
Cattle ( jstor )
Spatial Coverage:
North America -- United States of America -- Florida

Notes

Funding:
Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life

Record Information

Source Institution:
Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location:
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text




















. ,*. <1 .
tv
\ ^*^
1 lr t l


'ka

Ia r.., 4-
i*.r *
km^". 7K.< V '


INTEGRATED NATURAL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Timber, Range and Wildlife


Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


i

[fe;ji~


University of Florida, Gainesville
John T. Woeste, Dean for Extension









Table of Contents

Integrated Natural Resource Management ............................. 5
Basic Concepts .............................................. 5
Changing Times in Natural Resources ............................. 7

Florida Forest Range and Wildlife Resources .......................... 11
Forests ................. ...................................... 11
Range ............ .......................................... 12
W wildlife .................. ....... ............... ............... 14
Natural Ecosystem Types and Management Potential .................. 16

Resource Interactions ................... .......................... 24
Forest Management Impacts on Range .............................. 24
Range Management Impacts of Florida Forests ....................... 26
Forest and Range Management Impacts on Wildlife .................... 29

S Integrated Management Practices .................................... 31
Use and Abuse of Fire in the South ................................ 35
Rotation Grazing Management ..................................... 36
Multiple Use and Priorities .............. ..................... 37

Economics and Related Amenities of Multiple Use Management ............ 40
Designing Multiple Use Systems ............... ............... 40
Investments and Related Costs ............... .. ............. 43
Benefits to the Landowner .................. ..................... 45
Integrated Timber, Livestock and Wildlife Management Programs ........ 48

Suggested Readings ............................................ 49








INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT


D. H. HUNTER, L. D. HARRIS AND A. S. JENSEN.


Basic Concepts
The concepts of multiple-use resource management and integrated re-
source management gain their primary strength from simple logic, common
sense and respect for the environment. Variation in nature is a fact of life, and
as long as variation occurs in climate and land, a diversity of slopes, soil types,
vegetation and animal life will occur. This natural biological diversity is as
valuable as the land itself. The multiple use philosophy attempts to utilize and
profit from this natural diversity and its inherent stability, rather than using
expensive mechanical and chemical techniques to suppress it.
Multiple-use management is only slightly different from integrated man-
agement. Strictly speaking, multiple use refers to utilizing the same tract of
land for the production of two or more products. Integrated management
goes somewhat further to assure that the multiple products are derived in a
non-competitive, perhaps mutually beneficial manner. A simple example will
illustrate the point. The use of a woodlot for production of firewood, winter
cattle grazing and squirrel hunting would definitely be multiple use. But if all
activities were carried out on opening day of hunting season the outcome
could be tragic. Integrated management attempts to design the product man-
agement activities and uses in time and space so as to maximize the combined
production for the benefit of the landowner.
It is also important to emphasize that integrated management schemes
must be directed at the specific needs of the user. For example, the 1960 Fed-
eral Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act specifies that the management of na-
tional forests be directed at best meeting the needs of the American people,
not necessarily the greatest dollar profit. Profit calculations are largely irrel-
evant to landowners who manage their small acreage for weekend escape and
enjoyment, and harvest wood for heating and fencing. Multiple use of large
acreages for profit may also be viewed quite differently. Three distinctly dif-
ferent professional interpretations are given below:

The accommodation of a maximum of other compatible uses with the
highest single use of the land. On private commercial forest land
the highest primary use is the production of successive timber
crops.

*Dr. Hunter was formerly Assistant Professor, Range Ecology, Dr. Harris is Associate Profes-
sor, Wildlife Ecology, and Mr. Jensen is Associate Professor, Extension Forestry-Wildlife,
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Uni-
versity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.








INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT


D. H. HUNTER, L. D. HARRIS AND A. S. JENSEN.


Basic Concepts
The concepts of multiple-use resource management and integrated re-
source management gain their primary strength from simple logic, common
sense and respect for the environment. Variation in nature is a fact of life, and
as long as variation occurs in climate and land, a diversity of slopes, soil types,
vegetation and animal life will occur. This natural biological diversity is as
valuable as the land itself. The multiple use philosophy attempts to utilize and
profit from this natural diversity and its inherent stability, rather than using
expensive mechanical and chemical techniques to suppress it.
Multiple-use management is only slightly different from integrated man-
agement. Strictly speaking, multiple use refers to utilizing the same tract of
land for the production of two or more products. Integrated management
goes somewhat further to assure that the multiple products are derived in a
non-competitive, perhaps mutually beneficial manner. A simple example will
illustrate the point. The use of a woodlot for production of firewood, winter
cattle grazing and squirrel hunting would definitely be multiple use. But if all
activities were carried out on opening day of hunting season the outcome
could be tragic. Integrated management attempts to design the product man-
agement activities and uses in time and space so as to maximize the combined
production for the benefit of the landowner.
It is also important to emphasize that integrated management schemes
must be directed at the specific needs of the user. For example, the 1960 Fed-
eral Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act specifies that the management of na-
tional forests be directed at best meeting the needs of the American people,
not necessarily the greatest dollar profit. Profit calculations are largely irrel-
evant to landowners who manage their small acreage for weekend escape and
enjoyment, and harvest wood for heating and fencing. Multiple use of large
acreages for profit may also be viewed quite differently. Three distinctly dif-
ferent professional interpretations are given below:

The accommodation of a maximum of other compatible uses with the
highest single use of the land. On private commercial forest land
the highest primary use is the production of successive timber
crops.

*Dr. Hunter was formerly Assistant Professor, Range Ecology, Dr. Harris is Associate Profes-
sor, Wildlife Ecology, and Mr. Jensen is Associate Professor, Extension Forestry-Wildlife,
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Uni-
versity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.








Harmonious use of range for more than one purpose, not necessar-
ily the combination that yields the highest economic return.
The management of the various surface and subsurface resources
so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the
present and future needs of the American people.

Generally speaking, the landowner has a primary product goal in mind
and as many additional secondary products will be developed as are reason-
able.
A final point of clarification needs to be made. The above discussion re-
lates to the multiple use of land area or an acreage. An equal case can be made
for a single resource such as water or vegetation. Trees and associated vege-
tation can be used for pole or saw timber, pulpwood, Christmas trees, noise
abatement, visual screening, cattle forage, wildlife habitat, watershed stabi-
lization, water and air quality improvement or scenery. The degree of utility
deriving from integrated management depends totally on how well the same
land area, adjacent land areas, or resources can be used for multiple benefits.
Various approaches to this problem have been devised and will be discussed
in a later section.


Fig. 1. An illustration of how three forces of society (economics, environmental quality and
product demand) integrate with three products, (forestry, wildlife and range) to support inte-
grated resource management.








Changing Times in Natural Resources
For centuries the native Indians of Florida lived in harmony with the land if
not with each other. There were four major groups of aboriginal inhabitants.
The Calusa and Tegesta occupied the lower west and east coasts of Florida,
respectively. These south Florida Indians were the most primitive, depending
on hunting and fishing and gathering roots and berries. The Timucua Indians
held the land to the north.West of the Aucilla River was Apalache Country.
These two groups depended largely on agriculture for their food. The staple
crop was corn, but pumpkins, squash, beans and native fruits such as plums
and persimmons were also cultivated. Fire was used as a means of "scaring up"
game for hunting.
Land Use
Early Spanish explorers of Florida were led on by tales of gold and
pearls-always to be found in the next province. It was not until these tales
were proven false that the explorers and early settlers took a realistic look at
the natural resources of our state. What they encountered were vast areas of
longleaf-slash pine flatwoods; great swamps containing giant cypress; hard-
wood hammocks full of huge live oak, hickory, magnolia and red cedar trees;
and prairies full of wildlife. Realizing the grazing potential of the vast ex-
panses of grasslands and forests with grazable plants, the Spanish first
brought cattle to the New World, landing them on the west coast of Florida in
the 1500s.
During the Spanish period (1597-1704) the vast areas of virgin forest and
rich natural grazing lands were virtually untouched. Limited quantities of
timber were shipped from St. Augustine, and several cattle ranches were es-
tablished on rich native grassland areas such as Paynes Prairie in Alachua
County. Indians too began to obtain herds of Spanish cattle, and the age of the
Florida woods now had its beginning.
The British were the first to realize the great value of Florida timber.
From 1763-1783 great quantities of live oak for ship timbers were shipped
from Florida ports. Live oak remained a valuable resource until the age of
iron ships. It has been said that almost all merchantable live oak within haul-
ing distance (a couple of miles) of a navigable stream in Florida was cut by
1823. Quantities of longleaf pine, cypress and red cedar were also shipped
from Florida during British rule.
Naval stores and lumber remained important forest products through
several historical eras until 1930 when the first pulp mill was built in Florida.
Today the emphasis has changed. There are still 125 saw mills but over 70% of
all Florida timber cut today goes into pulp production.
In the early days (through the 1920's) most of Florida's timber volume
consisted of scattered virgin longleaf pine growing on millions of acres of
burned over pine flatwoods. The average stand of old-growth longleaf proba-
bly contained only 2-3 thousand board feet per acre.








Today most pine timber volume is slash pine usually planted. Peak years
of planting were 1957-1960 when over 200,000 acres per year were replanted
(soil bank incentive payments were the cause of this).
Recently the annual acreage planted in Florida has been less than 100.000
acres. Presently about 4.5 million acres of commercial forest-land in Florida is
planted in pine and an increasing share of the cut will come from the thinning
and harvesting of pine plantations.
For more than 25 years, Florida land in wood production has slowly been
declining. For example, in 1952, 18 million acres were classified as forest
land. By 1977 forested lands had slipped to 15.3 million acres.
Projections of a further decrease to about 13 million acres over the next
two decades are caused mainly by Florida's population growth. Forest acre-
age has given way to urban uses such as subdivisions, roads and to intensive
food production. Output of forest products in Florida varies considerably
from year to year. Lumber production has shown a healthy rise from 337 mil-
lion board feet in 1961 to 467 million feet in 1977. Today over 3.2 million cords
of pulpwood are also harvested annually.
Range
In former times approximately 70% of Florida woodlands burned annu-
ally. The sight and smell of woods fire smoke was as much a part of the Florida
scene as pine trees and thunderstorms. Greening up the woods by annual
burning in late winter and early spring was a standard range management
practice. Today, such annual burning is not recommended because it favors
poorer quality range species such as wiregrass.
In the days of open range, any man owning enough land to live on could
run his cattle over all the unfenced range in Florida. If one wanted cows kept
off one's property one had to fence them out. Since cows frequently bedded
down in the roads at night, and the automobile replaced the horse and wagon,
many accidents occurred. Not until 1948 under Governor Fuller Warren did
the state legislature pass the "no fence law" that required that livestock
owners fence in their own cattle to prevent them from wandering onto an-
other person's land. Only two counties near Osceola National Forest are cur-
rently exempt from this law.
Rangeland acreages in Florida have decreased mainly due to establish-
ment of improved pastures, vegetable crops, and urban growth. However,
the combination of extensive rangelands and improved pastures has enabled
Florida to become the second largest beef cow producer in the southeast.

Wildlife Populations
Change is a law of nature and certainly a law of wild animal population
biology. The wildlife populations of Florida are no exception and the last sev-
eral decades have brought dramatic change to our wildlife community. The
large and continuing shift from wetlands to drained uplands has caused a sig-








nificant reduction in wetlands species such as furbearers, waterfowl and re-
lated aquatic birds. Examples of this trend are the otter and everglades kite.
Along with the losses of wetlands wildlife there have been increases in certain
species of upland wildlife. White-tailed deer are no doubt more abundant now
than at most times in the past.
* Another major type of environmental change involves urbanization and
the intensification of land management. Clearly, a greater proportion of the
Florida landscape is now under human influence than before. An
ever-decreasing proportion of the land falls into the "wildland" category.
These overall land use patterns have resulted in decreases in the abundance
of wilderness species such as Florida panthers, black bears, and turkeys.
Needless to say, the numbers of house sparrows, pigeons, starlings,
mockingbirds and similar species have increased in response to the same
change in land use.
Several of the species mentioned above are not native to the Florida land-
scape. One of the most significant changes over the last few decades involves
the introduction of exotic species from foreign countries. These can be pur-
poseful releases such as the armadillo, the grass carp and the white-winged
dove or natural range expansions of species such as the cattle egret and the
beaver. In most cases, the increase in abundance of exotics causes reductions
in native species with closely related food or nesting habits.
A final trend in Florida wildlife involves both sociological and biological
considerations. Specifically, we refer to the changing legal status of different
wildlife species. For example, the lower proportion of wildlife species that is
considered to be game is a clear indication of overall wildlife status in the
state. The black bear was formerly considered to be a game animal statewide
but is now legal game in very restricted areas. Its status is listed as "threat-
ened" throughout most of the state.
Research
Research on the integration of timber, wildlife and grazing has been lim-
ited except for a few studies in north Florida. An estimated 2Y2 tons per acre
(dry weight) of understory vegetation existed on a six year old stand of Flor-
ida flatwoods and indicated under-utilization of this resource. Grazing cattle
alone might reduce the weight by 50%, and prescribed burning and grazing
together might reduce it 60-80%, thus greatly reducing the potential for large
uncontrolled wildfires. McCully recommended 50 acres per cow on poor qual-
ity, unimproved woodlands. Even on the best, older, forested rangelands the
maximum recommended stocking of cattle is 20 acres per head per year.
As early as 1938 Mr. Louis Nieland (Cooperative Extension Service, Ex-
tension Forester, retired) began studying a practical method of combining
timber production, grazing and wildlife on Florida woodlands. In simple
terms the program advocated wide strips of improved pasture grass running
through the forest. The strips, when closely grazed by cattle, acted as fire-
breaks to prevent great resource losses by wildfire, a serious problem in early
days.








On small blocks of farm timber, these pasture strip fire barriers need not
be over 50-60 feet wide. But on larger forest holdings of over 500 acres, espe-
cially if the fire risk is great, fire barriers 100-200 feet wide are usually neces-
sary. When sodded to such perennial grasses as carpetgrass or bahia grass,
which cattle graze closely, an effective fire barrier is maintained. Frequently
wide, shallow, grassy depressions meander for miles through natural forest.
By connecting these grassy lands at strategic intervals with strips of pasture,
a system of wide fire barriers provides protection for the blocks of timber
they surround. It was recommended that in flatwoods areas of longleaf/slash
pine forest type where fire hazard was greatest, as much as 20% of forest area
might need to be improved pasture.
The Nieland Timber-Grazing-Game Plan allowed for:
(1) An effective protection against fire.
(2) A fire protection method that yielded an annual profit through cattle graz-
ing values rather than an expense.
(3) A larger money return from the land.
(4) An early return from the land which helped meet carrying charges while
depleted timber stands were being restored.
(5) The retention and expansion of the range cattle industry even on land used
primarily for timber growing.
(6) The conservation of the state's soil and water resources.
(7) A constructive, feasible, profitable and practical method that can be insti-
tuted gradually according to the means and inclinations of the landowner.
(8) Application to both farm woodland and extensive forest holdings.
(9) The production of game, fish and other forms of wildlife, which may be an
attractive and profitable feature of such well-managed timber and grazing
operations.
Much of Nieland's professional career was spent promoting the above
program. But as with many men, his ideas were ahead of his time. A few pro-
gressive Florida landowners followed his teaching, but even today few forest
operations have pasture strips running through their woods in the manner
Mr. Nieland advocated. However, with modifications in the form of proper
range management of native species, his system is currently finding favor.
Because of resource scarcity and environmental awareness, more em-
phasis is currently placed on natural resource management than was for-
merly the case. This is due, in part, to the increasing mobility and the envi-
ronmental awareness of the general public and increasing user demands for
natural resource areas and the products generated from them pulpwoodd,
lumber, beef, recreation, and hunting). As Florida's population grows, the
demand for these resources increases at an alarming rate. This is especially
true considering the larger tracts of agricultural areas and wildlands that are
being permanently converted to urban developments. Thus, demands for
Florida's natural resources are increasing at the same time that the areas of
wildlands and agricultural lands left to supply renewable resources are de-








creasing. The requirement for resource managers is to improve management
so as to increase production from each area of land and satisfy public demands
while maintaining environmental quality.
Integrated management of these natural resource lands allows man-
agers to produce multiple products from the same land areas. This promotes
better utilization of all available resources to meet product demands instead
of concentrating on only one resource without utilizing other available re-
sources (wood production without livestock or wildlife utilization in pine plan-
tations). Proper integrated management minimizes possible conflicts be-
tween competing resource uses, thus increasing total product output. Much
current research emphasizes the need for proper integrated management to
meet these product demands and environmental quality criteria while
minimizing conflicts of interest.




FLORIDA FOREST RANGE AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Forests
Of the total land area of Florida (35,179,400 acres) there are approxi-
mately 15 million acres classified as commercial forest land (1970) capable of
growing crops of timber for harvesting. Most of this forest land is north of
Ocala in the central part of the state.
In years past, there was much logging of pine, cypress and large hard-
woods in south Florida. However, little forest management has ever taken
place there and much of the timber harvested today is cut so the land can be
used for something other than timber production.
Moving into north and west Florida we find vast areas of pine flatwoods,
hardwood hammocks, river swamps and sandhills forested with longleaf pine
and turkey oak being managed for timber. Forest industries own over five
million acres of managed forests in this area that help to "wood the pulpmills."
Many small and medium-sized forest landowners practice at least some forest
management on their holdings.
Forest management in this area consists mainly of growing pines for pulp-
wood. Planted pines are usually cut before 25 years of age since, until re-
cently, few markets existed for long wood. The picture is changing rapidly as
plywood mills and modern sawmills move into the area.
On large forest holdings of several hundred acres the standard forest man-
agement practices include clearcutting all merchantable timber in blocks, and
site preparation for planting another crop of pine. Chopping with a rolling
chopper, discing, burning, root-raking and bedding (on wet sites) are all com-
mon forest management practices used separately or in combination depend-
ing on the site.








creasing. The requirement for resource managers is to improve management
so as to increase production from each area of land and satisfy public demands
while maintaining environmental quality.
Integrated management of these natural resource lands allows man-
agers to produce multiple products from the same land areas. This promotes
better utilization of all available resources to meet product demands instead
of concentrating on only one resource without utilizing other available re-
sources (wood production without livestock or wildlife utilization in pine plan-
tations). Proper integrated management minimizes possible conflicts be-
tween competing resource uses, thus increasing total product output. Much
current research emphasizes the need for proper integrated management to
meet these product demands and environmental quality criteria while
minimizing conflicts of interest.




FLORIDA FOREST RANGE AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Forests
Of the total land area of Florida (35,179,400 acres) there are approxi-
mately 15 million acres classified as commercial forest land (1970) capable of
growing crops of timber for harvesting. Most of this forest land is north of
Ocala in the central part of the state.
In years past, there was much logging of pine, cypress and large hard-
woods in south Florida. However, little forest management has ever taken
place there and much of the timber harvested today is cut so the land can be
used for something other than timber production.
Moving into north and west Florida we find vast areas of pine flatwoods,
hardwood hammocks, river swamps and sandhills forested with longleaf pine
and turkey oak being managed for timber. Forest industries own over five
million acres of managed forests in this area that help to "wood the pulpmills."
Many small and medium-sized forest landowners practice at least some forest
management on their holdings.
Forest management in this area consists mainly of growing pines for pulp-
wood. Planted pines are usually cut before 25 years of age since, until re-
cently, few markets existed for long wood. The picture is changing rapidly as
plywood mills and modern sawmills move into the area.
On large forest holdings of several hundred acres the standard forest man-
agement practices include clearcutting all merchantable timber in blocks, and
site preparation for planting another crop of pine. Chopping with a rolling
chopper, discing, burning, root-raking and bedding (on wet sites) are all com-
mon forest management practices used separately or in combination depend-
ing on the site.










Often small forest landowners wishing to plant cut-over lands have trou-
ble finding a contractor to do the job or else they refuse to spend money to
reforest the land. Once their timber is cut, these landowners leave the land
idle. Leaving enough seed trees to naturally re-seed the area might be one
answer to this problem.
Hardwood management is rarely practiced in Florida. Most large. valu-
able hardwoods were cut many years ago. Continued removal of species such
as cypress has occurred until the present with little effort toward regenera-
tion. Remaining trees in hardwood swamps and hammocks are low grade
with little value for wood products. Until Florida hardwood prices rise, prob-
ably little, if any, hardwood forest management will take place in the state.
In the future, managing exotic trees such as melaleuca, eucalyptus. Aus-
tralian pine and perhaps Brazilian pepper in south Florida for fuel wood pro-
duction and timber may become a reality. All but eucalyptus have already
become naturalized to such an extent that they are rapidly changing the land-
scape of large sections of that part of Florida.
Range
Range is uncultivated land that supports native herbaceous or shrubby
vegetation, and land that is revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a
forage cover managed like native vegetation. Because forages are the
dominant plant type of most ranges, these areas are commonly called
prairies, savannahs, or marshes. However, many rangelands of Florida have
an overstory of trees, such as slash pine, longleaf pine, or loblolly pine. Such
areas are commonly referred to as "forested rangelands" or "grazable wood-
lands."
Most prominent native grasses are "bunchgrasses" because one plant will
grow in tight clusters scattered through an area, as opposed to a uniform sod-
type of grass. Range grass species desirable for livestock grazing include
blue maidencane, bluestems, indiangrass, paspalums and panicums. Intro-
duced grasses that have become "naturalized" and do not require intensive
agricultural management include carpetgrass and bahia grass. Both of these
grow well in open or pine forest locations that do not have complete canopy
closure. Less desirable native species include wiregrass and shrubs such as
saw palmetto, wax myrtle, and gallberry. Proper range management for live-
stock or wildlife can reduce many of these undesirable species for replace-
ment by more desirable species.
Florida has approximately 8.5 million acres of both open and forested
rangelands. Southern Florida is typified by open ranges where the major em-
phasis is beef production via ranching operations. Many of these southern
rangelands have been converted to costly improved pasture for faster animal
weight gains. North Florida, including the panhandle, is dominated by forest-
rangelands. In these areas, growing trees for pulpwood production is empha-
sized. However, many of these areas have adequate understory forage to
support wildlife and the expanding livestock industry.








The historical use of range has been for forage production, livestock and
wildlife habitat. The only potential food production for human benefit on
rangelands is through the conversion of plant tissue to animal tissue via large
herbivores such as cattle and deer. Florida's rangelands have been closely as-
sociated with cattle for 450 years since Ponce de Leon brought the first cattle
to the United States and set them ashore in Florida. Today, these rangelands
still provide a primary economic resource to the beef cattle industry when
utilized alone or in conjunction with improved pasture. An estimated 45 per-
cent of the livestock operations in Florida use rangelands to at least some de-
gree.
Range also serves an ecological role as wildlife habitat. Many savannahs,
marshes, and prairies of Florida are being reserved as endangered land and
state parks in order to provide feeding and breeding grounds for rare and en-
dangered species of plants and wildlife. Proper management of these areas
provides an environment in which these species of flora and wildlife can in-
crease in numbers. In addition, recreation opportunities on rangelands are
increasing. Such opportunities include sightseeing, bird watching, fishing,
hunting, hiking, and camping. The recent attention given to water quality has
emphasized the function of rangelands as watershed units and natural filters
for water runoff and seepage
Management of rangelands depends upon their soils, environment and
plant species composition as well as the objectives of the landowner. The
management practices vary with the product (i.e. wildlife, recreation, live-
stock) to be obtained from the area. However, in general, the practices are
not as intensive as those found in agriculturally oriented systems, such as im-
proved pastures. Range management is based upon the ecological principles
that explain the functions of biological systems and the basic knowledge of
why plant communities exist where they do. The range manager must under-
stand the interactions among components of the range ecosystem. Proper
range management results in a sustained yield of desirable forage and animal
products without substantial input of fossil fuel, fertilizer, and inputs from
outside sources.
Native grasses and forbs must be allowed to maintain their vigor in order
to grow green leaves and roots and produce seed for the next year's life cycle.
Therefore, grazing must be regulated to allow removal of only 50 percent of
each year's production. Extremely heavy grazing will cause the disappear-
ance of plants desirable to animals because of plant stress, reduced vigor and
a lack of seed production. Maidencane is a prime example of a highly desirable
species that can be easily overgrazed. After its disappearance from the com-
munity a much lower quality stand of forage remains. Less desirable species
such as wiregrass and saw palmetto encroach on the habitat. This area then
has to be totally rested from grazing and possibly rehabilitated via roller
chopping and reseeding with native grasses.
On the other hand, rangelands with no grazing can become choked with
undesirable shrubs and litter (dead plant material) which causes a similar de-








crease in plant vigor. Once again, poor vigor allows invasion by less desirable
plant species, resulting in poorer grazing and habitat. Management through
proper livestock grazing and/or periodic prescribed burning will remove ex-
cessive litter and shrubs to allow desirable plants to increase vigor and com-
pete adequately with other species. Care must be taken so that burned
ranges are not immediately grazed, but allowed to "rest" and regrow desir-
able forages for a period of at least three months before grazing. The end
result is a more uniform stand and a sustained yield of forage for wildlife and
livestock for years to come.
Wildlife
In the broadest sense, the term wildlife refers to all non-domesticated
and/or free ranging organisms. A more common interpretation is that it in-
cludes only wild animals. A more workable definition limits the term to wild
vertebrates. This paper discusses only the terrestrial vertebrates; amphib-
ians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Florida is blessed with abundant species of wildlife, but the diversity is
not as great as our subtropical latitude and climate might suggest. For exam-
ple, only about 44 terrestrial mammals are native to Florida although intro-
ductions of exotic species have increased this number by 50 percent. About
500, or nearly ten times as many, bird species reside in the state at one time of
the year or another, but only half this number breed within the state. The
number of native reptiles and amphibians falls between the mammals and
birds at 150.
All wildlife species are not game species. Game animals are species of ter-
restrial wildlife which possess qualities that challenge the skill of the hunter
and are designated as game by statute. In Florida ten mammals and 45 bird
species are designated as game animals. This is only about ten percent of the
total bird and mammal species and only eight percent of the total terrestrial
vertebrate species in the state.
Needless to say, the game species list changes with time, cultural setting
and the abundance of a species. Early in our history birds such as cranes and
plovers were important game species. This is not true today. The species pre-
sently dominating the statewide Florida gamebag are dove, quail, squirrel,
deer, hog, turkey, and waterfowl. The amount of hunting effort directed at
each in descending order is: deer, squirrel, dove, quail and hog. A curious as-
pect of modern wildlife management is that certain species can go from one
designated extreme to the other in a very short period of time. Thus alligators
were kept on the endangered species list until 1977 at which time control op-
erations had to be initiated due to overpopulation in areas of human habita-
tion. The black bear trend is just the opposite. In a period of only five years its
status changed from a game species to one of very low numbers requiring ac-
tive protection.
The pattern should be clear. Species which are larger, wide ranging, or
high on the food chain are being threatened or reduced by severe habitat re-








striction. Species which are favored by human domination of the landscape
are coming to dominate the wildlife of the state. This trend provides the ex-
planation for most changes in wildlife status in the past and provides predic-
tions for the future. Presently, over 90 percent of the annual harvest of game
animals derives from species which profit from human management of the
landscape (e.g. quail, doves, deer).
Forest wildlife species are those which predominantly inhabit the forest
environment. Other groupings of wildlife include wetlands, grasslands, and
urban wildlife. Forest wildlife includes such important game species as deer,
turkey, squirrels, quail and wild hog and other species such as panthers,
bears, woodpeckers and dozens of smaller song birds. Species such as rac-
coon, wood duck, eagle, otter and beaver depend on the interface of forest
with an aquatic environment.
Unlike most other renewable natural resources, wildlife is owned by no
one, produced by the private landowner and managed and regulated by state
and federal agencies. This three-way arrangement largely removes wildlife
management from the profit-motivated spheres of forestry or range
management. As long as the landowner cannot actually own the wildlife on his
property, total control is impossible. Without ownership and control, the
landowner has somewhat less interest in the well being of wildlife and less
incentive for its management. Conversely, the agencies responsible for man-
agement can only perform habitat alterations in accordance with the
landowner's permission and the public's wishes. The public can only imple-
ment changes through the relatively sluggish legislative process.
Wildlife management consists of the principles and practices of regulating
and utilizing wildlife populations. Populations can be too low and require an
increase, they can be too high and require regulation or they might be at an
acceptable level and simply require stabilizing. Wilderness-oriented wildlife
management may prevent any activity directed specifically at the wildlife
populations or their habitat. In such cases management may simply involve
the scheduling of viewers and photographers to maximize benefits while
minimizing negative impacts.
The basic activities of wildlife management are therefore divided into
three categories. The first category is directed at habitat manipulation. All
wildlife populations require food and water, and different kinds of cover
throughout the entire life cycle. The population level is usually proportional
to habitat quality. Planning and conducting habitat management activities is
difficult due to several factors:
(1) We do not know the requirements for all species.
(2) Different species may have contradictory requirements.
(3) In most cases the habitat is not under our control.
Another reason for habitat manipulations derives strictly from the utiliza-
tion problem: High numbers of a species such as quail would be valueless as
game if they were inaccessible. Similar habitat manipulation is frequently di-








rected at the viewing of rare and endangered species. For example, a wildlife
refuge might purposely manipulate water levels or vegetation characteristics
to facilitate wildlife usage and visibility. Viewing trails would be placed to
maximize the diversity of species seen.
The secondary category is directed at the wildlife populations themselves.
An example is restocking. Some of the most dramatic wildlife conservation
successes involve capturing, breeding, introducing, restocking and manipu-
lating individuals and populations. Because such activities are closely regu-
lated by state and federal law they are not feasible on a small scale or on an
individual basis.
The third category of wildlife management involves the scheduling of uti-
lization. This not only involves such things as setting seasons, bag limits, size
limits and hunting quotas but many new aspects from economics and sociolog-
ical research. Many studies have demonstrated that the number of animals
killed or the size of the trophy or even seeing a game animal may be relatively
unimportant compared to the multiple factors that contribute to a successful
hunt. Similarly, the success of a wildlife viewing or photographic trip depends
in very large measure on the social atmosphere and interpretative abilities of
those participating. No doubt the hunting lease rate of a forest or range tract
is as dependent upon rustic facilities and overall site characteristics as it is on
wildlife populations.
Wildlife must be viewed from a total resource production and utilization
standpoint. Its recreational and esthetic value is usually lost when a specimen
is captured and/or transported from the site. In addition to being non-
transportable, wildlife is non-storable. A high population of wildlife one year
can not be stored or held over for better market or viewing conditions the
next year. Life is ephemeral and most wildlife species live and die annually.
Even for potentially long-lived species such as white-tailed deer the average
life spans only one and one-half years.
Finally, one should bear in mind that man can not produce wildlife; only
nature can do this. When we breed and pen-raise a species such as quail, we
are no longer dealing with wildlife but only another species of semi-
domesticated animal. The landowner or land manager has the sole capacity to
produce more or less wildlife by determining the nature of the environment in
which wildlife resides. For this reason habitat management represents one of
the most powerful tools at the wildlife, range, or timber managers' disposal.

Natural Ecosystem Types and Management Potential
Two major underlying forces cause Florida's natural ecosystems to span
an extremely diverse array. The climate ranges from subtropical oceanic in
the south to a typical low-altitude, continental frontal pattern in the north.
Similarly, the soils span the extremes from clean, freshly-washed beach sand
to 100 percent organic peat to highly structured soils formed by outwash from
the Applachian foothills. Because of these primary forces the ecosystem









types and vegetation species are extremely diverse in Florida. The late John
H. Davis recognized seventeen major vegetation types in his 1967 Map of
Natural Vegetation of Florida. An abbreviated summary including com-
ments on vegetation, wildlife and current uses follows. Since most wildlife
species are mobile and may require several vegetation types, it would be in-
A appropriate to imply that they segregate into the same neat communities.
(1) Coastal Strand. Zoned vegetation on sand dunes and rock consists of
pioneer herbs, grasses, and shrubs near the shore with scrub and forest zones
more interior. The Florida Keys have many tropical forests and scrublands
along their coastlines. No forest management, as such, exists and little if any
grazing occurs in this vegetation type. Since it occurs on the Florida Keys,
this is the only community to support the Key deer and the Key Largo wood
rat.
Major efforts including legislative actions are being taken to preserve our
coastal zone and its vegetation, for example the endangered species, sea oats.
These are the areas of Florida where greatest urban development and beach
recreation are taking place. Most of our nine million population live on or near
the coastal stand.
(2) Pine Flatwoods. This is the most extensive ecosystem type in Florida,
and most timber production occurs on this type. Open woodland consists pre-
dominantly of one to three species of pines: longleaf, slash and pond pines.
Understory produces many grasses such as chalky bluestem, broomsedge,
paspalums, wiregrass, indiangrass and panicums. Associated forbs include
grassleaf gold aster, partridgepea, deertongue, beggarweed and rabbit to-
S bacco. Shrubs are predominantly saw palmetto, wax myrtle, fetterbush,
blackberry, dwarf huckleberry, and gallberry.
Amidst the flatwoods areas are small hardwood forests, many cypress
ponds, prairies, marshes and bay tree swamps which have usually been
drained if located in plantations. The wet areas support very desirable for-
ages such as forbs, maidencane, and little blue maidencane. Because of the
understory, many flatwoods are grazed by livestock and inhabited by large
vertebrate wildlife species such as deer and hogs. Longleaf pine usually
grows on the drier sites while slash pine grows mostly on the poorly drained
areas. Wild fire played a dominant role in the original distribution of slash
pine. Long leaf pine, being fire resistant, maintained itself on the drier sites
that burned more frequently. The less fire-resistant slash pine was confined
to more moist situations where fire was less prevalent. With modern fire pro-
tection, slash pine is either seeded naturally, or artificially, or planted on
many areas that formerly supported only longleaf.
Because the flatwoods are intermediate between the wetter bottomlands
and drier uplands, the wildlife reflects characteristics of both. The piney
woods tree frog, flatwoods salamander, Florida pine snake, chameleon and
box turtle are representative amphibians and reptiles. The pine warbler,
parula warbler, Bachman's sparrow and brown-headed nuthatch are repre-









sentative birds. Cotton mice and cotton rats abound here but may also be
found in related communities. This is the most important community type in
Florida for hunting since game species such as deer, quail, gray squirrels and
turkeys occur here.
(3) Southern Slash Pine Forests. These are open woodlands of south Flor- A
ida slash pine. Some understory trees, grasses and shrubs are tropical. Desir-
able grasses include creeping bluestem, little blue maidencane, indiangrass
and chalky bluestem. Shrubs consist mainly of saw palmetto, wax myrtle,
dwarf huckleberry, and gallberry. Perennial legumes, grassleaf gold aster.
and gayfeather dominate the forbs. Little management of south Florida slash
pine forests has been attempted to date. Most mature stands have been cut,
and the native range is used for cattle production and wildlife habitat on
larger ranches. Much of this rangeland has been converted to improved pas-
ture for intensified beef and dairy production. In a few cases north Florida
slash has been planted on former south Florida slash sites. In general. pines
grow more slowly in south Florida than in north Florida, therefore South
Florida will probably not be a major timber producing area again, but will
remain in livestock production. Open canopies make for high forage produc-
tion of good quality where overgrazing has not occurred.
Despite its name, the mangrove or everglades fox squirrel is perhaps
more common in this community than any other. When cypress strands or
hardwood islands are interspersed through these pinelands, ideal squirrel
habitat may be created. The ranchlands located in this vegetation community
are also extremely important producers of quail, turkey and white-tailed
deer.
(4) Sand Pine Scrub Forests. This ecosystem type consists of sands, with
sand pine as the dominant tree. Ocala National Forest east of Ocala is the
world's largest area of sand pine. This ecosystem type is also found along the
coasts behind or instead of the coastal strand type. The small amount of her-
baceous material is dominated by wiregrass and broomsedge: hence little
livestock grazing occurs here. Shrubs are predominantly vines, saw
palmetto, pricklypear and blackberry. Sand pine is a short-lived tree that
matures at 50 years or younger. Most sand pine management consists of
clearcutting in blocks, site preparation (chopping and burning) and aerial
reseeding.
Because of the dry, hot conditions prevailing in these communities many
of the wildlife species have adapted to below-ground ways of life. An excellent
example illustrating how wildlife species reflect the environmental conditions
around them is the Florida gopher tortoise. The tortoise (known in Florida as
the gopher) is largely restricted to this environment because of its habit of
living in holes which it digs in the friable soil. Two additional species often
occupy the same holes. These are the gopher frog and the rattlesnake. Be-
cause the pocket gopher (a mammal known in Florida as the salamander) also
depends upon dry, easily excavated tunnel systems, it prefers to inhabit








ridgetops and cleared upland pastures. Finally, a small plant known as go-
pher apple primarily grows on these sites and produces berries that are a pre-
ferred food of the gopher tortoise. The true gopher, the gopher frog and the
rattlesnake all find abundant foods in this habitat as well. Since reptiles are
favored by hotter and drier environments, it is to be expected that snakes and
S lizards would be abundant here. Equally indicative of the sandhills and scrub
are the scrub jay, scrub lizard and the six-lined racerunner.

(5) Longleaf-Turkey Oak Forests. These are well drained uplands where
turkey oak and wiregrass are dominant species. Most of the mature longleaf
pine was cut many years ago; in central Florida most of this type is planted to
citrus whereas much of it in north and west Florida is planted to slash pine.
Estabishment of citrus groves in suitable areas of south and central Florida
has long ago made both longleaf and turkey oak trees uncommon on this type
today. Many early slash pine plantations have shown poor growth on these
dry sites and in recent years reforestation has returned to using sand pine.
The understory is comprised of creeping bluestem, indiangrass, low
panicums, and dropseeds. Greenbriar is the major shrub, and forbs include
annuals and grassleaf gold aster. Limited livestock grazing occurs here;
adjacent low-lying areas with poor drainage called "cutthroat seeps" produce
excellent cattle forage in the form of cutthroat grass, and creeping and chalky
bluestems.
Only forty years ago 45 percent of the forested land in Florida was domi-
nated by longleaf pine; now it comprises less than ten percent. In addition to
its very broad extent, the longleaf-turkey oak community seems particularly
good for wildlife. Bird species abundance is directly related to the vertical
distribution of the tree canopy. One reason why this community supports so
many bird species is that the tree branches are almost equally abundant from
the low oaks at ten feet all the way to the tops of the pines. A second reason is
that the longleaf seeds are nearly three times as large as those of other south-
eastern pines. This rewards seed eaters such as the fox squirrel, which
strongly prefers this community type.
One of Florida's bird species has been reduced to critically low levels be-
cause of the reduction of old growth pine, especially in this community type.
The red-cockaded woodpecker seems to prefer to excavate its holes in mature
longleaf because the heartwood is frequently infected with red heart disease.
The live outer layer of sapwood is not as thick as in other pines, and the resin
has special characteristics the birds prefer. The status of this endangered
woodpecker would be greatly improved if more land were returned to mature
longleaf.
(6) Cypress Swamp Forest. These ecosystems occur statewide in depres-
sions bordering lakes and rivers. Some are dome-shaped, whereas others are
long strands. The areas support large numbers of forbs for wildlife food, as
well as cover from predators. Most larger cypress have been harvested. A








few large hollow specimens remain standing in many areas and are impres-
sive relics of a past age. Little or no management has taken place in cypress
swamp forests to date. The common practice has been to harvest all usable
trees when water levels are low and then leave the area or perhaps clear up
the edges to plant pine. However, today there is a good market for smaller
second growth cypress.
Cypress dome borders may provide ideal livestock grazing, since maiden-
cane, an excellent cattle forage, prefers wetter soils and thus grows well near
domes. The ponds may also serve as watering and shelter areas for livestock.
Studies underway at the University of Florida indicate that cypress domes
may also serve a unique function to wildlife populations by serving as insect
control mechanisms. It is well known that amphibians require water during
their reproductive phase. For this reason cypress ponds are particularly good
habitat for many species of frogs. As the tadpoles mature into adult frogs the
pond areas provide a constant supply of insect-eating frogs to the surround-
ing flatwoods. Several species of tree frogs may be particularly important in
controlling the population of pest insects.

(7) Hardwood Swamp Forests. Such ecosystems usually border river ba-
sins and are dominated by bay, gum, and titi swamp with occasional cypress.
Many wildlife species utilize such areas for food and cover, and cattle also feed
in these areas, largely during the winter and dry periods. Sedges, vines, and
forbs form the understory. These areas have received little or no manage-
ment in past years. "High grading" has resulted in many low-value cull hard-
woods remaining. The generally low price for hardwood pulp and hardwood
saw timber in Florida, has done little to stimulate hardwood forest manage-
ment.
Just as the fauna of the sandhills is adapted to an arid environment, the
fauna of the hardwood swamps is adapted to aquatic conditions. Mammals
such as the beaver, otter, rice rat and flying squirrel predominate since they
prefer aquatic or arboreal habitats. The reptiles and amphibians include mud
turtles, mud snakes, water moccasins, sirens, lungless salamanders, bull and
pig frogs and the very quaint amphiuma, an eel-like amphibian with tiny legs.
Bird species include wood ducks, limpkins, Carolina wrens and Acadian fly-
catchers.

(8) Mangrove Swamp and Coastal Marshes. Tidal water makes these
areas saline to brackish. Tropical mangrove forests dominate these ecosys-
tems in the southern areas, but the grass, sedge and rush marshes further
north support no forests. Southern Florida mangrove forests have never re-
ceived any real forest management. In past years, plans to utilize this re-
source for shuttle blocks, urban development or as a tannin source have been
explored. Today the valuable roles of mangroves as natural coastal land
stablizers and rich wildlife habitat are known and respected; thus there is lit-
tle chance that a mangrove logging industry will develop in the near future.








Salt marshes never supported enough timber to be considered commercial
forest land. However, in early days the pines, live oak and red cedar in coastal
hammocks and highlands adjoining the marshes were a valuable source of
timber to the early settlers. Today some of these saltwater marshes are uti-
lized for grazing livestock. Prescribed burning is practiced in winter to
produce fresh, nutritious spring forage, particularly cordgrass, rushes, and
saltgrass.
(9) Hardwood Forests. The ecosystems located on rich uplands of central
Florida support mixed evergreen hardwoods (oaks, magnolias, etc.). Such
hardwood "hammocks" support little understory vegetation due to the dense
shade. Thinner hammocks provide desirable grazing grasses such as indian-
grass and switchgrass, in addition to rabbit tobacco and perennial legumes.
The hardwood hammocks of north and central Florida have long supplied
great quantities of veneer and furniture stock; thus magnolia, hickory, ash,
gum, maple and other species found a ready market. However, "high grad-
ing" and a lack of forest management have resulted in low grade, small, cull
stands remaining. Once again, low hardwood pulp prices have done little to
stimulate hardwood forest management on this type.
The vertical and horizontal diversity of structure provides more living
spaces and opportunities for wildlife than is found in most communities. For
this reason, many more species of wildlife are found here. Since most of the
green vegetation and fruit and berry production occurs high in the canopy,
the fauna is more concentrated in the upper zones (e.g., more song birds and
species such as flying squirrels and tree frogs).
Short-tailed shrews, golden mice, rice rats and eastern flying squirrels
tend to replace the small mammals of other communities. Coral snakes and
true salamanders represent the reptiles and amphibians. Hummingbirds,
broadwinged hawks, yellow-throated warblers and blue-gray gnatcatchers
clearly prefer this community over others and may serve as diagnostic spe-
cies.
(10) Forests of Mixed Hardwoods and Pines. Often called oak-pine for-
ests, these are located mostly on heavier clay soils of northwest Florida. Ma-
ture forests consist of magnolia, hickory, sweetgum, water oak, and live oak.
This area's understory is dominated by bluestems and shrubs with numerous
low-lying forbs. As the density of the tree overstory increases, herbaceous
understory species decrease due to poor sunlight infiltration. Usually, hard-
woods (mostly oaks) make up over one-half the stand, with loblolly and
shortleaf pine scattered throughout. Oak-pine ecosystems left undisturbed
will develop into upland hardwood forests. Shade-tolerant hardwoods com-
pete with pines for growing room, and when the pines are harvested, oaks
and other hardwoods take over.
The silvicultural objective for timber production in this type usually cen-
ters on pine. Harvest cuttings must be accompanied by vigorous methods of
hardwood control such as prescribed fire, herbicides or mechanical site prep-
aration.








(11) Prairie Type Grasslands. Wet prairies flood during the rainy season,
whereas dry prairies do not.'Many former prairies are now improved pas-
tures for intensive beef and dairy production. Trees are scattered or not
present at all. Grasses include creeping bluestem, maidencane, little blue
maidencane, cutgrass, and chalky bluestem which are all considered desir-
able forages. Many areas have been invaded by carpetgrass, an older intro-
duced species which is now naturalized. Some stands of native south Florida
slash pine have been cut in past years, but this type is not classified as com-
mercial forest. Very high grass, pickerelweed and sedge production supports
large numbers of cattle and wildlife. The round-tailed water rat which occurs
only in Florida lives primarily in these communities and in fresh water
marshes. Our largest wetland bird, the sandhill crane, greatly prefers these
same two habitat types, the wet and the dry prairie. Two bird species occupy-
ing the drier prairies of south Florida are the small, ground-nesting bur-
rowing owl and the large, grassland raptor, Audubon's caracara.

(12) Scrub Cypress. Usually flooded, this ecosystem is located on rock and
marsh soils of south Florida. Included in this type are some hardwood and
palm hammocks. The south Florida type remains largely undisturbed except
for draining and urban development in some areas. Today the small cypress
trees in some of the cypress heads of this type are being harvested, but no
forest management has taken place. Its main usage by animals is as wildlife
habitat, although the fringes support sedges and bluestem, which are grazed
by livestock.

(13) Cabbage Palm Forests. The density of cabbage palms in this type
varies from low to that of typical forests. Many live oaks are often present.
The palms in these areas have long been exploited as ornamentals or har-
vested for pilings, swamp cabbage or Palm Sunday crosses. They have re-
ceived no forest management. Public law currently prohibits the cutting of
cabbage palms. Scattered groves adjacent to pastures and prairies are used
by livestock and wildlife for forage and protection from the sun and wind. Un-
derstory herbage species are bountiful and include bluestems, panicums, pas-
palums, carpetgrass, cut grass and blue maidencane.

(14) Fresh Water Marshes. These wet areas support many kinds of herbs
and shrubs with no stands of trees. Sawgrass is often the dominant plant, but
these areas also produce extensive stands of maidencane, little blue maiden-
cane, and cutgrass which are highly nutritious and preferred by cattle. Tim-
ber stands adjoining marshes are often swamp forest or hardwood ham-
mocks. The marshes themselves contain no merchantable timber. Periodic
flooding during the rainy season prevents close grazing by cattle and allows
the maidencane to thrive. Organic soils also support extensive amounts of
pickerelweed. Many forbs such as smartweed, water hyssop, and waterlilies.
as well as grasslikes (rushes and sedges), are found on both organic and sandy








soils and produce much food for waterfowl. St. Johnswort usually rims the
shallow areas of the marsh, followed by saw palmetto on even drier areas.
Along with the drained marshes that now compose many of the wet prai-
ries, these communities are the main wintering areas for thousands of migrat-
ing waterbirds. One of Florida's two resident nesting duck species, the Flor-
ida duck, depends almost totally on this community type, as does the round-
tailed water rat mentioned above. Since its comeback in the late '60s and early
'70s, the alligator has regained its role as a dominant species of the marsh.

(15) Everglades Region Saw Grass Marshes. These extensive areas are
predominantly sawgrass with a few tree islands and sloughs. Many volumes
have been written and much study given to the drainage of sawgrass marshes
and custard apple sloughs of the Everglades. Most animal usage is wildlife
habitat; however, some cattle grazing exists in the sloughs, which are pre-
dominantly maidencane, blue maidencane, cutgrass, and carpetgrass. Ironi-
cally, the abundant sawgrass is not a grass at all, but a sedge. This means that
it has little grazing potential for either wild or domestic animals.
This highly productive life-support system seems to be powered by the
minute phytoplankton and periphyton which are in turn consumed by minute
animals. The primary reason why the diversity of wildlife is so great and why
the food webs are so complex is that the food chain base is minute yet highly
productive. This means that almost all vertebrates in the Everglades occupy
positions high on the food chain.

(16) Everglades Region Marshes, Sloughs, Wet Prairies and Tree Is-
lands. This is a changing region of bay trees, tropical hardwoods and marshes
with large amounts of grass and sedge production. Sawgrass is usually domi-
nant. There is no commercial timber remaining except for a few mahogany
trees on certain tree islands. The cypress sloughs and the Big Cypress
Swamp have been harvested over the years. The dominant grasses are the
same as above (under 15). It is these communities that produce the spatial
diversity so important to the glades. Whereas wide expanses of dense saw-
grass would contain little wildlife, breaking it up with the different communi-
ties produces a rich mosaic containing the habitat for many species. The tree
islands and hardwood swamp areas are especially important as roosting and
nesting areas for the flocks of wading birds resident to the area. Because little
wild land remains in south Florida other than these areas, they are of prime
importance to hunters and preservationists alike.

(17) Wet to Dry Prairie Marshes on Marl and Rockland Located in ex-
treme south Florida, these ecosystems are thin stands of sawgrass, shrubs,
sedges, forbs and grasses. Grasses are similar to those described in areas 15
and 16 above. Wildlife includes aquatic species such as wading birds, water-
fowl, mink and otter.








RESOURCE INTERACTIONS

Forest Management Impacts on Range
There are three general means by which forest management practices can
affect forage production on ranges timber harvesting, site preparation,
and canopy closure during tree growth.
The most cost-efficient timber harvesting operation on Florida's pine
plantations is clearcutting. This method entails the removal of virtually all
trees in a stand during one cutting operation. Sudden exposure of the range
or forest understory to intense sunlight due to removal of the overstory, and
soil disturbance due to skidding logs and slash, tend to promote increases in
forage production. Coincident with this increase in forage production range-
lands is an increase in numbers of herbivores, domestic and wild, that feed in
such areas.
Management of longleaf or slash pine plantations in Florida is usually on a
"sustained-yield" basis in order to increase wood yield. This management ob-
jective has resulted in an additional manipulation of the ecosystem following
clearcutting, called "site preparation." This site preparation includes various
intensities of such practices as draining, burning, chopping, disking, wind-
rowing, bedding, fertilizing, and planting pine seedlings in order to increase
tree seedling survival and, thus, wood production.
In general, production of herbaceous plants and shrubs decreases as site
preparation practices increase in intensity from burned site preparation to
intense bedding requiring mechanical disturbance. The major decrease is due
to the loss of grass production. Disking increases shrub production, however
bedding tends to reduce shrub production (i.e. gallberry and saw palmetto),
as does prescribed burning. These mechanical soil disturbance practices are
considered detrimental to herbaceous species having bulbs, such as the lily,
and undesirable bunchgrasses, such as pineland threeawn. However, disking
is very beneficial for increasing production of rhyzomaceous grasses such as
blue maidencane, maidencane, and creeping bluestem, and species found on
poorer sites such as broomsedge bluestem.
Application of fertilizers on site prepared areas generally favors tree
growth over understory species such as grasses and shrubs. However,
grasses and shrubs do respond somewhat to applications of nitrogen or
phosphorus, applied alone or together. In general, fertilization increases pro-
duction of bunchgrasses, except when this is practiced in conjunction with
bedding, in which case bunchgrass production is reduced. Fertilization does
not enhance the nutritive quality of these forages except on the most nutri-
ent-deficient sites.
Soil disturbance and shade greatly reduce total ground forage and availa-
ble cover of grasses and forbs while increasing shrubs. Reduced biomass
closer to ground is due to less herbaceous and leaf material of grasses and
forbs, whereas, greater biomass in the mid-story indicates an increase in








RESOURCE INTERACTIONS

Forest Management Impacts on Range
There are three general means by which forest management practices can
affect forage production on ranges timber harvesting, site preparation,
and canopy closure during tree growth.
The most cost-efficient timber harvesting operation on Florida's pine
plantations is clearcutting. This method entails the removal of virtually all
trees in a stand during one cutting operation. Sudden exposure of the range
or forest understory to intense sunlight due to removal of the overstory, and
soil disturbance due to skidding logs and slash, tend to promote increases in
forage production. Coincident with this increase in forage production range-
lands is an increase in numbers of herbivores, domestic and wild, that feed in
such areas.
Management of longleaf or slash pine plantations in Florida is usually on a
"sustained-yield" basis in order to increase wood yield. This management ob-
jective has resulted in an additional manipulation of the ecosystem following
clearcutting, called "site preparation." This site preparation includes various
intensities of such practices as draining, burning, chopping, disking, wind-
rowing, bedding, fertilizing, and planting pine seedlings in order to increase
tree seedling survival and, thus, wood production.
In general, production of herbaceous plants and shrubs decreases as site
preparation practices increase in intensity from burned site preparation to
intense bedding requiring mechanical disturbance. The major decrease is due
to the loss of grass production. Disking increases shrub production, however
bedding tends to reduce shrub production (i.e. gallberry and saw palmetto),
as does prescribed burning. These mechanical soil disturbance practices are
considered detrimental to herbaceous species having bulbs, such as the lily,
and undesirable bunchgrasses, such as pineland threeawn. However, disking
is very beneficial for increasing production of rhyzomaceous grasses such as
blue maidencane, maidencane, and creeping bluestem, and species found on
poorer sites such as broomsedge bluestem.
Application of fertilizers on site prepared areas generally favors tree
growth over understory species such as grasses and shrubs. However,
grasses and shrubs do respond somewhat to applications of nitrogen or
phosphorus, applied alone or together. In general, fertilization increases pro-
duction of bunchgrasses, except when this is practiced in conjunction with
bedding, in which case bunchgrass production is reduced. Fertilization does
not enhance the nutritive quality of these forages except on the most nutri-
ent-deficient sites.
Soil disturbance and shade greatly reduce total ground forage and availa-
ble cover of grasses and forbs while increasing shrubs. Reduced biomass
closer to ground is due to less herbaceous and leaf material of grasses and
forbs, whereas, greater biomass in the mid-story indicates an increase in









woody material or shrubs such as gallberry and wax myrtle. Greater availa-
bility of low growing herbaceous vegetation on low to medium intensity
prepared sites appears to provide a more favorable foraging habitat for
white-tailed deer, cotton-tail rabbits, nine-banded armadillo, and ground
arthropods.
The accelerated development of trees and other successional changes
associated with increased site preparation result in a reduction of sunlight
penetrating to the understory when trees are eight to 12 years old. This
phenomenon, accompanied by dead pine needle accumulation at the ground
floor, causes forbs and grasses to decrease as the canopy closes with
increased age of the stand. The result is a reduction in available food and
cover for wildlife and domestic herbivores. Such rapid successional changes
caused by intense site preparation favor growth and development of slash
pine overstories at the expense of long-term understory wildlife habitat and
domestic livestock grazing in Florida flatwoods.
Prescribed burning in established' pine plantations is used to reduce po-
tential wildfire hazards by removing large accumulations of litter (dead plant
materials) and shrubs. Properly managed, these prescribed burns can en-
hance production of grasses by releasing nutrients in the ashes and opening
the shrub canopy, thus allowing more sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor.
The end result is an increase in grazable materials for a longer period of time
through the rotation (Fig. 1).


4000'

SI -- no burning
S--- prescribed burning
S3000




| 2000-


LL \
1000-




0 5 10 15 20 25
Years since site preparation
Fig. 2. The general relationship between the amount of forage production and pine plantation
age under north Florida conditions. Prescribed burning increases forage quality and usually in-
creases the quantity of forage production. Most Florida sites must be burned at intervals of
three to five years to maintain an open understory.









Range Management Impacts on Florida Forests
Forage has long been an important product of Florida woodlands. Overall,
timber is still the main crop on most commercial forest areas, but cattle graz-
ing, in many cases, can contribute substantially to the Florida economy.
In the early days, timber growing and range cattle were not considered
compatible on the same area. After the commercial timber was cut, the woods
cow inherited the land. Annual burning prevented any natural reproduction
of the trees
Since the late 1940s when modern forest management began to restore
stands of timber on millions of acres of cut over, burned over, grazed over
forest land, the trend has been to eliminate the woods cow and woods hog
from Florida forests. The primary reasons cited are that cattle seriously dam-
age seedlings and young trees by rubbing, browsing, trampling and bedding.
All too often this is true, solely due to poor management.
Cattle are especially prone to congregate in areas where the hardwoods
have been eliminated by mechanical or chemical means. Unless fenced out,
the cattle frequently destroy most hardwood seedlings by browsing them.
Usually these areas are being replanted to pine which is less susceptible to
cattle damage. Common range management practices include prescribed
burning, mechanical chopping and rotation grazing. The narrow spacings be-
tween trees eliminates chopping from any forested areas, and prescribed
burning in forested rangeland must be timed so as to minimize damage to
seedlings or trees. Rotation grazing or movement of livestock to and from
separate grazing areas minimizes chances of overutilization of forage re-
sources. This is a wise management practice whether the rangeland is for-
ested or not.
With proper cattle management, including good fencing, prescribed burn-
ing, and grazing scheduled according to available forage, most of these prob-
lems can be overcome. Researchers are currently investigating a "wide row"
planting configuration of pines to allow more understory forage production
for improved cattle grazing and wildlife habitat.
Cattle/Tree Production Relations
The philosophies of timber managers and cattle managers are basically
the same that of sustained yield. Sustained yield is defined as the
achievement and maintenance of a high-level annual or periodic output of
renewable resources without impairment of the productivity of the land.
Conflict can arise when these two resource management regimes, cattle and
tree production, are integrated without proper management on one or both
sides. When integrated or multiple use management is enacted, managers
must realize that trade-offs between production levels of both resources will
occur. That is, the amount of each respective product will be less than if the
two resources were managed separately. However, the total benefits from
both resources on the same land area can be better than those associated with
a single product.








Of particular interest to managers are the potential costs or damages that
can occur to resources when multiple use management is attempted. The time
when damage inflicted to trees by cattle is most detrimental is during the first
few years of seedling establishment. The type of damage depends to a great
extent upon the age of the tree. One to two year old trees are subject to fo-
liage removal and shoot removal by grazing or stem bending via trampling.
Trees three years old or more can suffer losses by foliage removal, broken
limbs, and partial girdling caused through rubbing by cattle.
Intensive research has been done concerning the ability of slash pine seed-
lings to withstand damage by cattle. Simulated damages include foliage re-
moval (0-100%), shoot removal (0-100%), stem bending (bent 90" or not bent),
and girdling (0-100%). All combinations of treatments were applied at various
intensities immediately following rapid spring growth.
Removal of all the needles is a more intense treatment than ever expected
of cattle, and the results of less severe treatments (less than 75% removal)
had only nominal effects on mortality with over 90% of the seedlings still sur-
viving six years after treatment. Older seedlings tend to have a longer recov-
ery period from needle removal than younger seedlings, but they also have
the highest survival rate (98%).
Wild and domestic animals rarely eat pine needles when other green
forage is available. However, if animals are restricted to areas where there is
little green forage, they will consume pine foliage. In such situations,
permanent damage can result, especially if repeated defoliation occurs. When
animal stocking is based on available forage, little or no damage to seedlings
results.
Some seedling injury can be expected from trampling or browsing on
shoots. Trampling can cause partial girdling of the stem by the rubbing pres-
sure of the hoof. Shoot removal can slow seedling growth by forcing alternate
shoots to compete for dominance with the terminal shoot. Rubbing and par-
tial girdling have no effect on growth rate or mortality of older slash pine
seedlings. However, 1 year old seedlings tend to suffer higher mortality rates
(26%) than do older seedlings (7%) when shoot removal and stem bending oc-
cur together. Thus, seedlings greater than 1 year old appear to be able to sur-
vive the severest of injuries caused by livestock or wildlife.
Potential losses of growth rates and tree height are of biological and
economic importance to the manager. Shoot removal causes the greatest re-
duction in growth rates and thus greatest loss in height. Severe shoot re-
moval of 1 year old seedlings can result in a two foot loss in height six years
after treatment. Three year old seedlings lose less than one foot in height dur-
ing the same period. Normal growth rates return within three years after the
damage is inflicted. No apparent damage occurs to tree shape or form, there-
fore, the quality of the tree is not detrimentally affected. This fact indicates
that only quantity of tree products can be affected. Therefore, if inflicted
damage results in a 5% loss of trees, the loss per acre at the end of 25 years










(site index of 70) is less than 2 cords (Fig. 2). This result is due to the increased
growth of individual trees, caused by fewer trees competing for available nu-
trients and water. At $20 per cord, this represents a maximum loss of $40 per
acre over 25 years which can be more than compensated for by the revenue
from cattle over the entire rotation period.
The major impact that trees exert upon cattle production is through the
reduction of desirable forages. As the density of the tree canopy increases
with the age of the stand, less sunlight penetrates to ground level. Competi-
tion for available nutrients increases because nutrients are locked in the
woody biomass and are not available for annual recycling as in grasses. This
results in a reduction of grasses and forage desirable for livestock and wildlife
grazing. In addition, intense site preparation of pine plantations reduces the
vigor of desirable bunch grasses and stimulates shrub and tree production,
which further reduces light penetration.
The end result is a reduction in animal weight gains and physical condition
because of the small amount and poor quality of grazable materials. This indi-
cates that stocking rates (animals per acre) must decrease accordingly and
the necessity for managers to supplement cattle diets will increase. If trees
are planted at 800 per acre, by mid-rotation (year 15) cattle grazing becomes
economically infeasible unless management actions (e.g. prescribed burning)
are undertaken to increase forage production (Fig. 3). Forested rangelands
under proper management will provide adequate nutrition for livestock dur-
ing the forage growing season but feed supplements are necessary during the
rest of the year. Supplementation with salt licks and molasses will maintain
the physical condition of mature animals and help produce weaned calves of
good quality and size (400 to 500 pounds) in six to seven months.

x 200 tree/ocre
400 tree/ocre
60 0 600 tree/acre
800 tree/acre
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years
Fig. 3. Typical pine plantation production curves as a function of seedling planting density and
age. Higher seedling density causes greater pulpwood production but greatly reduces forage and
wildlife values.








Forest and Range Management Impacts on Wildlife
Two primary issues dominate any discussion of forest management and
wildlife. First, the techniques of forest management must be considered sep-
arately since each may have greatly different effects. Second, different
groupings of wildlife must also be considered since what is good for one spe-
cies can be bad for another.
The single most important principle involved is that the effects on wildlife
will probably be in proportion to the intensity of the site disturbance. This
does not imply that all forestry operations have negative effects. Indeed, cer-
tain wildlife management practices derive directly from forestry. Since cut-
tingis both the beginning and terminal phase of forest management, we begin
our discussion with this practice.
Cutting the timber or fiber may mean anything from a simple thinning op-
eration associated with Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) to clearcutting a
large tract. Since all intensities facilitate light penetration to the ground, al-
most all cutting encourages the production of grasses and forbs. This is good
for grazing and browsing species such as cattle and white-tailed deer. When
cutting is done in conjunction with burning, many seed-producing legumes
are encouraged; these are ideal for turkey and quail. Other game species such
as rabbits and doves may also be favored by cutting. But at this point it is
essential to take stock of what is being sacrificed and what is being gained.
Even simple TSI cutting aimed at improving stand quality has impacts on cer-
tain wildlife. Dead and dying trees offer abundant insect larva for birds such
as woodpeckers and nuthatches. Crooked stems and broken and hollow limbs
provide cavities for hole nesting birds as well as squirrels, raccoons and opos-
sums. Decaying logs provide an ideal source of grubs for burrowing species
and black bears. Therefore, cutting and all other management practices such
as litter removal must be viewed as tradeoffs. When the decision involves
large capital gains such as clearcutting an entire site, the tradeoff is obvious;
virtually all of the former habitat is being replaced by a new habitat type. The
wildlife inhabitants will be equally different. No single statement about the
effects of cutting will hold for all intensities of cut and all groups of wildlife.
Site preparation These techniques aimed at reducing competition and
increasing survivorship and growth rates of the new seedlings are generally
bad for wildlife. The negative effect is proportional to the intensity of site
preparation and therefore wildlife populations are generally very low on
highly site-prepared lands. There is some evidence that chemical site prepa-
ration has fewer negative effects and more positive effects than mechanical
site preparation.
Site conversion This technique refers to the process of cutting a rela-
tively natural stand and replacing it with trees of a different species. Site con-
version is considered to be generally bad for wildlife and foresters seem to be
moving away from this practice. Unless highly amended, the site is most
likely ideal for the native species, not for the newly planted species.









Forest fertilization Just like most other agricultural crops, forests re-
spond dramatically to appropriate fertilization. If fertilization is applied at
the time of planting it can have beneficial effects on wildlife because of the
increased food quality. If it is applied to older plantations nearing maturity it
may have negative effects since it helps the pine trees increase their domin-
ance over the competitive native plants.
Windrowing of debris An initial stage of site preparation frequently in-
volves pushing slash and debris from the previous stand into long windows.
As part of the overall site preparation process this has negative effects, but
the actual windows themselves are beneficial to many species of wildlife.
The dead and decaying wood provides habitat for many small wildlife species
while several invading plant species are excellent deer forage.
Drainage Almost all drainage is regarded as bad for wildlife. The loss of
wetland species is generally more serious than the addition of a few dry land
species likely to invade the site after draining. Naturally occurring cypress
domes, bayheads, etc., provide important habitat refuge during periods of
stress. It also happens that most sites being considered for drainage are dom-
inated by hardwoods. These forests, comprised of dozens of different species,
produce seeds and fruits of vital importance to many wildlife species.
The ideal situation results when sufficient planning goes into the forest
management operation to reap as many positive benefits as absolutely possi-
ble. Under such conditions, the positive aspects of fertilizing, burning, cut-
ting and windrowing can be achieved as the negative impacts are minimized.
If sufficient mature forest is left standing, the different types may have multi-
plying effects on each other. For example, species such as turkey prefer ma-
ture hardwoods interspersed with openings of various sizes.
wood production
----cattle production












5 10 15 20 25
Years since planting

Fig. 4. Generalized relationship between plantation wood production and cattle production po-
tentials on any given site. As the volume of cord wood increases the cattle production capacity
is greatly reduced.








The major conflict between range cattle operations and wildlife occurs due
to diet competition. When improper range management results in overgraz-
ing (i. e., more than 50 to 60% of total grazable forage removed), livestock will
consume deer forages, thus forcing the deer to search elsewhere for food.
Planning for timber, cattle and wildlife accentuates the positive and mini-
mizes the negative.


INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Harvesting Systems
Timber harvesting equipment and techniques have developed rapidly in
the past 20 years. Today, professional loggers have a much larger choice in
selecting logging systems.
Landowners also have a larger choice of loggers to harvest their timber.
Before signing a timber contract, it is most important for a forest landowner
to know his forest management objectives. The size of the area, amount and
type of timber for sale, and time frame are all important points to consider.
Logging may be defined as moving raw materials -- trees -- from where they
grew in the woods to the mill. In general, logging falls into three stages: Prep-
aration cutting the stem from the stump, and topping and limbing unwanted
materials; Skidding getting the logs from the stump to the truck used for
transporting; Loading and Hauling loading the logs on the truck and tran-
sporting them to the mill.
The best suited cutting system for the small landowner is a man with a
chain saw and a one ton truck. Trees are felled, limbed, bucked and hand
loaded at the stump. Using this system, a minimum amount of damage is done
to the forest site and the remaining trees. Unfortunately this system is labor
intensive and costly.
The next-larger-sized timber harvesting operation is getting scarce in
Florida. This involves a 2Y2 ton truck with a winch and boom loader. It is also
labor-intensive and can only handle small timber even with a power winch and
boom. There is, however, a definite need for these small loggers on smaller
tracts of forested land. Many small landowners would rather not harvest
their trees than submit their land to the damage and expense of a typical large
scale logging operation. Small, less mechanized operators can selectively thin
a small stand and leave it in good growing condition while keeping it aestheti-
cally pleasing.
The common timber harvesting system of today is oriented to large scale
operations. Equipment includes one or more rubber-tired skidders, hydraulic
knuckleboom loaders, tree felling shears, and large trucks for hauling. Often
whole trees are hauled to the mill to be sorted for the best product.
There are several harvesting systems used to manage pine forests in the
South. The systems and their uses include:








Selective Cutting was formerly a common harvesting method in Florida,
especially on smaller tracts. This could be defined as a method in which
crooked, diseased or poorly formed trees are removed from a stand to leave
the better trees with more growing space. This usually leads to a mixture of
age and size classes on a forest.
Another form of selection is Group Selection. Here trees are harvested
periodically in small groups resulting in openings of only a few acres in size.
This leads to the formation of a mosaic of age class groups in the same forest.
Such mosaic patterns create more border areas between different age classes
of trees. This benefits many wildlife species by creating diversity of habitat.
Similarly, selection harvest methods can be beneficial for livestock grazing by
allowing more understory forage growth in areas that have been cut from
older stands.
Seedtree Harvesting Systems remove all the mature or merchantable
timber on an area except for a small number of genetically superior trees left
singly or in small groups to produce seed for reproduction. This harvest sys-
tem will produce perching sites in the seed trees for large birds, and increase
rodent populations along the periphery of the cut area. The exposure to sun-
light will cause large increases in forage production in the cleared area, but
cattle grazing should be limited or closely monitored so that seeds can germi-
nate and seedlings grow. After seedlings are two years of age, cattle stocking
rates can be determined by available forage, without undue concern about
damage to seedlings.
t Shelterwood Systems are even-aged harvesting systems in which a new
stand is established under the protection of a partial canopy of trees. The old
stand is removed in a series of two or more cuts, the last of which removes the
shelterwood when the new even-aged stand is well established. The resulting
release from the canopy shade produces increased amounts of forage for live-
stock and wildlife consumption whi4e also maintaining habitat "cover" for
wildlife. Large concentrations of animals are to be avoided until seedlings are
established.
Clearcutting Systems harvest all the trees of merchantable size. Someti-
mes the area clearcut may be several hundred acres. Pine forestry in Florida
is based on a system of clearcutting, site preparation and planting. Southern
pines are especially suited to be managed in large even-aged stands. Clear-
cutting systems can be beneficial to certain types of wildlife because when the
habitat for mature forest species is destroyed, habitat for species such as
quail, rabbit, deer and certain songbirds is created. In addition, clearcutting
systems benefit livestock grazing by allowing cattle to graze on forage in the
cleared area, and seek shelter from climatic elements in the nearby timber
stands.
"Clearcutting, site preparation and planting represents a production sys-
tem that provides the necessary efficiency for the American forest industry
to be competitive," wrote Mason Carter, Head of the Forestry and Natural








Resources Department at Purdue University. This is southeastern pine for-
est management clearly stated. Carter goes on to state that this system is
efficient because it is simple and also approximates the natural forces such as
fires, storm and pestilence that perpetuated our southern pine forests prior
to forest management.
Site Preparation
Following tree harvesting, the land must be prepared for regeneration by
seed or seedlings. Fire, chemicals and mechanical equipment are all used to
prepare cutover areas for planting. Sometimes these methods are used sin-
gly; more often they are used in combination to produce more surviving seed-
lings. Each forest tract should be considered on an individual basis, and the
advice of an experienced forester obtained before using either fire or chemi-
cals in site preparation. Many factors should be considered before deciding on
the best method.
Fire is often simplest and cheapest to use. It is inexpensive but often diffi-
cult to control and ideal prescribed burning days are scarce. Pollution control
legislation has also further restricted the use of fire. Fire is not considered
detrimental for livestock or wildlife; in fact, it is beneficial for grazing animals
because it produces new, lush forage through regrowth after the fire.
Chemicals such as 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D plus picloram applied by tree injec-
tors, mist blowers or aerial application have been used for eliminating com-
peting vegetation. Care must be taken when using these chemicals because
many are not plant specific and hence will eliminate all vegetation, desirable
or not, that they contact. Also, these chemicals can be carried into the food
chain through livestock and wildlife or in the water, which affects down-
stream communities and fish populations. Note: Use of these chemicals has
been suspended, pending review of their environmental effects.
Mechanical Site Preparation involves the use of heavy equipment to
break or crush existing vegetation and leave it on the ground or remove it to
windows. Rolling brush choppers crush and chop the vegetation and disturb
the soil. Various blades and root rakes mounted on tractors and bulldozers
pile it in windows. Mechanical preparation temporarily destroys all above-
ground vegetation and habitat, but creates an ideal setting for prompt seed or
seedling regeneration by eliminating all vegetative competition for nutrients
and water. Less intense site preparation reduces the density of the habitat
without eliminating all vegetation.
Planting
Most commercial forest operations today plant seedlings rather than rely-
ing on seed for regeneration. This improves chances of survival and increases
wood yield. Selecting the right tree species for the site is of prime impor-
tance. Seedlings are usually obtained from Florida Division of Forestry nur-
series at cost. Trees are ordered after July 1 of every year for planting during
the winter months.








Tr !,..,-I 'iL. handling, and storing are critical processes in the life of a
seedling. The best survival results if seedlings can be planted as soon as possi-
ble after they have been lifted from nurseries. Seedlings from the Division of
Forestry, packed in polyethylene seedling bags, can be stored for three or
four weeks before planting. In cold storage they are sometimes kept for up to
12 weeks.
No one spacing fits all sites or species. Spacings between trees of 6' x 10':
7' x 9'; 7' x 10' or 8' x 8' are all used. Usually about 600-700 seedlings per acre
are planted. Regardless of spacing, some rows should be spaced 10' x 12' apart
to allow for access of fire fighting and timber harvesting equipment. Wider
row spacings such as these can also increase understory forage production
which is beneficial for both cattle and wildlife. New tree planting configura-
tions being researched consist of two rows planted close together with 30 to
40 feet between rows, resulting in the same number of trees per acre with
more understory production for livestock and wildlife.


Fig. 5. Idealized landscape layout drawing upon the simple notions of drainage and fire protec-
tion. The lower, wetter areas along natural drainages are ideal forage production areas and also
serve as natural fire breaks. By interconnecting these areas a complete system of wildlife travel
corridors, cattle movement routes and forest management units is created.








Planting methods include hand planting with a planting bar, also called a
dibble, or more commonly with a tractor drawn mechanical tree planter. By
hand, one man can plant 800-2,000 trees per eight hour day in Florida. Using a
planting machine a two man crew can plant about 1000 trees per hour.

The Use and Abuse of Fire in the South
Fire is and, as far as we know, always has been an integral part of the
southern ecosystem. Without it most sites quickly develop into hardwood for-
ests with a dense growth of ground level vegetation including numerous
shrubs. The vegetation and animal life of sites where fire was natural and fre-
quent are adapted to it. Many factors such as ground water prevented natural
fires from burning deep into the hardwood stands where susceptible species
prevail.
Two dramatically different fire types were formerly common in Florida.
The flatwoods and upper ridges were frequently burned by cool fires. Long-
leaf pine is highly adapted to this form of fire and to a large extent is depen-
dent upon it. The second natural fire type in Florida was the highly infrequent
crown fire which dominated the sand pine communities. In this case the ma-
ture trees were almost totally destroyed but, ironically, this species is totally
dependent upon these scorching hot fires for seed release and natural regen-
eration.
The two natural fire types have now been replaced by two artificial fire
types. The first of these is wildfire. Modern day wildfires are distinct from
natural fire in their origin, timing and effect. Most natural wildfires were
started by lightning during the spring and summer thunderstorms. This is
very significant since it largely tied the fire season to the rainy season, thus
preventing many holocausts. Modern wildfires caused by man occur predomi-
nantly during peak dry periods. An even more important distinction is that
fire was so common in the natural southern forest that huge understory fuel
supplies did not have time to build up, and thus the fires rarely became crown
fires. This is not the case today, as fire suppression has allowed prolific
growth of understory vegetation which quickly carries the flames to the
crown. Very destructive crown fires often result.
The second kind of modern fire is prescribed burning. Annually, about
two million acres of southern forest are burned over by man-prescribed and
man-controlled fires. These fires usually occur during the winter months and
serve the primary purpose of wildfire insurance, hazard reduction or improv-
ment of range condition.
Fire is the single most important and instrumental tool in integrated mul-
tiple-use management of the Southern softwood forest. It is virtually essen-
tial.
The primary arguments for its use are: Without prescribed burning the
threat of wildfire is severe. In addition, without its use the buildup of invad-
ing hardwoods will seriously hamper wood harvesting operations and dictate








the use of expensive mechanical and chemical control measures before re-
planting. Most wildlife species and domestic stock depend on a relatively open
understory for their existence. A dense growth of hardwood invaders such as
wax myrtle, gallberry and eventually bay and various oaks not only dimin-
ishes wildlife but shades out ground-level herbage. The site will be of little
value to wildlife or cattle.
On the other hand, fire is very effective at directly controlling diseases
such as brown spot of longleaf pine. It can indirectly limit diseases such as
fusiform rust by excluding the necessary alternate host, water oak. As the
midstory hardwoods and litter are removed several direct effects favor wild-
life and cattle. The residual seeds of the ground layer are made accessible to
quail and similar foraging species. Legumes, grasses and sedges are fre-
quently stimulated to increased levels of seed production. Both the quantity
of production and the protein levels of forage species may be doubled by burn-
ing while phosphorus, calcium and most nutrients are increased. Other re-
search has shown that cattle greatly prefer to graze burned rather than un-
burned range. Weight gains of cattle on burned-over range may be two to
three times those of gains from similar unburned range.

Rotation Grazing Management
Specialized grazing systems are not a "cure-all" for solving all livestock
problems that face the manager. Systems that work well under certain condi-
tions and locations may not necessarily succeed in another. Each grazing sys-
tem must be custom-fit to climate, soils, and vegetation as well as manage-
ment objectives and capabilities.
Flexibility and simplicity are necessary qualities of good grazing systems.
Regardless of the system used, any grazing program must emphasize proper
utilization of forage, uniform distribution of grazing activities, and economic
practicality.
Let us first define some terms:
Grazing system is a specialization of livestock management that regulates
length and timing of grazing periods in order to obtain specific objectives of
livestock and forage production. In multiple use areas involving trees, these
objectives are expanded to include protection of young seedlings.
Continuous grazing allows unrestricted livestock access. Continuous
heavy grazing on any land unit eliminates desirable forages thus causing a
deteriorating range trend.
Rotation grazing means that livestock are moved from one grazing area
to another on a regular schedule based on vegetation condition and timing.
Rotation grazing is required in forested rangelands, just as it is also
necessary on open ranges or improved pastures. The most commonly stated
benefits of specialized grazing systems are improved condition of the range,
resulting from increased plant vigor and seed production, and the
establishment of desirable grass species, including tree seedlings if desired.








Land areas that have been recently site-prepared and planted with seed-
lings should be eliminated from livestock grazing for a minimum period of one
full growing season or until seedlings and new forage are well established.
This allows a maximum amount of plant growth and vigor without pressures
of trampling or grazing. Cattle must be on a rotation grazing system no mat-
ter what the age of the pine plantation. This is necessary to achieve adequate
protection for the forage and tree resources as well as for high livestock pro-
duction and quality. Boundary fences and cross fences, a necessary part of
grazing systems, should follow boundaries of cutting blocks in the forest and
not cross cutting blocks. Such practices allow forestry equipment to have full
access to cutting block areas without interference from fences. Thus, inter-
ference and conflicts between resource users (forestry and range managers)
are minimized.
Uniform forage grazing can be enhanced to avoid "patchiness" of under-
grazed areas and overgrazed areas by the use of salt licks, lick wheels, and
water tanks. Placement of these materials in strategic locations in or near un-
dergrazed areas has proven beneficial for drawing cattle into the area and
away from overgrazed ranges. Proper management of range forages also re-
quires that freshly burned areas be excluded from grazing pressures until
forages have adequate growth and vigor to withstand grazing pressures.
Since most prescribed burning is carried out in the winter months, such
burned areas require a minimum of three to four months rest from grazing for
proper spring growth of desirable grasses.
The operation of grazing systems must be economically feasible in the long
run because the ultimate purpose is to manage range resources profitably
and properly. High initial investments are often used as an excuse for not
changing current management practices. Economic analysis will determine
whether return from increased forage and livestock production will be
greater than costs.

Multiple Use and Priorities
The finite land masses of Florida are currently under greater pressure
and demand for their renewable resources than ever before. Much of this de-
mand is direct, through increasing rates of urban sprawl which take wildland
acreages from production of natural resources and agricultural products. Un-
fortunately, much of this land claimed for urban purposes is prime agricul-
tural land. The net result is a decrease in rangelands, grazable woodlands,
and commercial forestlands. This decrease in production acreage places
higher production demands on the remaining wildland areas for range, forest
and wildlife products. Therefore, land managers must be able to allocate
scarce resources among competing uses in an efficient manner so as to eco-
nomically meet production requirements and demands. It is in this light that
multiple use management and priorities of decision making require careful
consideration.








With multiple use management, there are three somewhat different ideas
involved:
1) Different uses of adjacent subareas which together form a composite
multiple-use area.
2) Alternation of different uses of the same areas in time.
3) More than one use of an area at one time.
In the first two cases, direct confrontation or competition between uses is
avoided by altering their enactment in (1) space or (2) time. The third idea
involves simultaneous use of one area; therefore, management must concern
itself with complementary versus conflicting activities or compatible versus
incompatible uses.
When simultaneous uses are involved on the same area, conflicts between
resource uses will always occur, and the concept of multiple use should be re-
alistically interpreted through priorities of dominant uses, with secondary
uses integrated with the first only when they are compatible.
In public land agencies, priorities of resource use must be established ac-
cording to the values of consumer public demands. Under this concept the
main use of resources allocation is to maximize the social well-being of the
public, promoting general social and economic prosperity. Social needs are
not necessarily best served by maximizing the production of a single resource
or several resources, but by providing the best overall mix of resource uses
that results in the great social and economic benefits.
In private enterprises, multiple use incompatibilities relate directly to the
economics of productivity. If the economics of resource use can readily justify
reduced production of a dominant resource via trade-offs and the production
of secondary products, then multiple use management will be enacted in such
a manner as to reduce incompatibility. This allows the land manager to take
advantage of favorable market conditions for the various products. Such a
choice of products allows the manager a decided advantage over other com-
petitors who feature only one product during high and depressed market situ-
ations. For example, when beef prices drop, the manager can elect to hold
weaned calves on native range at minimum costs until market conditions im-
prove.
Another distinct possibility for an opportunistic manager whose top prior-
ity is wood-product oriented could involve extending his rotation period and
allowing compatible secondary uses. For instance, if the pulpwood market
were depressed, the manager might opt to only thin his stand at rotation age.
thereby holding onto part of his wood resource for a higher-priced saw timber
market. With a thinned stand, more understory native forages can be pro-
duced at no cost and support a cattle operation while simultaneously provid-
ing a better wildlife habitat. Thus, while the remaining trees are maturing for
the saw timber market, thinned pulpwood trees, cattle, and hunting leases
more than compensate for land taxes and operational costs, thus netting a
higher profit with diversified market products.









While many more pressures, uncertainties, and risks face the land man-
ager of today, new decision-aiding tools are available for use in order to ease
the burden. Such tools as computer-based simulation models can provide
much-needed information concerning ecological responses to management
activities. Furthermore, decision-aiding tools such as linear programming
and goal programming allow the manager to specify management goals or ob-
jectives, the desired levels of product output, allowable management prac-
tices, and possible environmental or managerial constraints as inputs to the
decision-making process. Responses for such programs give information to
the manager concerning optimal levels and timing of management activities,
product outputs, and monetary returns for specified environmental and mar-
ket conditions. Such information for decision-aiding tools can be used by man-
agers as guidelines for making management decisions.


Fig. 6. When designing pulpwood production schemes it is desirable to divide the acreage into
several smaller cutting units. This generates a more steady flow of sales every few years (for ex-
ample cut one tenth of the acreage every three years), and provides flexibility in arranging the
cut units throughout the property. This will also stabilize the amount of grazable acreage and
minimize the necessary changes in herd size.








ECONOMICS AND RELATED AMENITIES OF MULTIPLE
USE MANAGEMENT

Designing Multiple Use Systems
Given a cold winter day, most of us would consider it more comfortable in
the open sun than in the shade of dense cover. But as the sun recedes and the
evening winds blow we might quickly choose the comfort of dense cover
rather than the open space. This is an example of how time and space interact
to dictate the lives of wildlife species. A similar interaction involves tree
growth and the level of the water table. Drainage of low flatwood sites may be
an effective way to increase seedling survival and growth but it may seriously
stress the stand 10 to 15 years later if water becomes limited or if a drought
occurs, as in the summer of 1977.


Fig. 7. Saw timber requires more time to grow than pulpwood and therefore the rotation time
is longer. This cuts down on the amount of open land grazing in any one lifetime but it increases
the opportunity for producing all of the multiple products within a single stand.








ECONOMICS AND RELATED AMENITIES OF MULTIPLE
USE MANAGEMENT

Designing Multiple Use Systems
Given a cold winter day, most of us would consider it more comfortable in
the open sun than in the shade of dense cover. But as the sun recedes and the
evening winds blow we might quickly choose the comfort of dense cover
rather than the open space. This is an example of how time and space interact
to dictate the lives of wildlife species. A similar interaction involves tree
growth and the level of the water table. Drainage of low flatwood sites may be
an effective way to increase seedling survival and growth but it may seriously
stress the stand 10 to 15 years later if water becomes limited or if a drought
occurs, as in the summer of 1977.


Fig. 7. Saw timber requires more time to grow than pulpwood and therefore the rotation time
is longer. This cuts down on the amount of open land grazing in any one lifetime but it increases
the opportunity for producing all of the multiple products within a single stand.








To be effective, multiple use management must integrate the use of each
specific site through different seasons and years while integrating nearby
sites spatially. Increased land, machinery and fuel costs may no longer allow
drainage and bedding of all wet sites, fertilizer amendments to all deficient
sites, hardwood suppression on upland sites and improved pasture on grazing
sites. The answer is surely not how many uses we can make of a single site.
Rather, it depends on the wisest use of each site a design with nature.
A topographic map of the management area is the most basic starting
point to effective design. If available, soils maps should be used in conjunction
with topographic maps to clearly delineate sites of different nature. Rather
than being drained, lowland sites might better be reserved for hardwood pro-
duction, cattle wintering areas or mast production for wildlife. Dry upland
sites should be treated similarly so as to match tree species requirements
with site characteristics. This has the obvious effect of maximizing growth
potential while minimizing site amendment costs. If significant amounts of
natural vegetation exist on the management unit, it should be mapped and
considered as a potential buffer or alternate use site. The combination of topo-
graphic and soils maps should serve to designate the individual management
units. These might be a few hundred acres in size on corporate land holdings
or only ten to twenty acres on small private ownerships.
Once the management units have been designated, the management sys-
tem must be chosen. To date, southeastern management has favored pine,
grown almost totally under even-aged management. This should not blur our
vision of the future as several hardwoods show great promise and all-aged
stands offer considerable advantage to many landowners. Once a silvicultural
and management practice plan has been assigned to each management unit
we must look at the entire management area to check for spatial integration.
Several design principles should be considered.
Functional Diversity. A diversity of stand types (including clearcut or fal-
low areas) and ages should always occur within a few hundred yards of any
given point. This not only ensures a diversity of habitats and food resources
for wildlife species but also offers maximum potential for the biological con-
trol of forest diseases and pests. Domestic stock can draw upon this same di-
versity for grazing, bedding and watering. In addition to grazing and wildlife
benefits, a diversity of vegetation communities will serve to stabilize water
runoff quantity and quality over a period of decades.
An aspect of diversity frequently overlooked is that the proportion of
acreage in each management phase is just as important as the number of com-
munity types. In other words, if 90 percent of an area were in a single age
class of pine plantation, the area would not be made highly diverse by adding
ten additional communities of one percent each. In order to gain high func-
tional diversity the various communities should occur in about equal propor-
tion.
Ecotones. When two vegetation communities blend together, there is
generally a mixture of species between them. This transition zone is referred









to as an ecotone. A considerable amount of research suggests that ecotones
are ideal for most species of wildlife because abundance of both species and
individuals seems to be greatest in these areas. Circular shaped management
units have the least ecotone per acre while long, slender, curving
management units have the most. If the management units follow natural soil
distributions, abundant ecotone will result. If not, care should be taken to
increase the abundance of the ecotone.
Coverts. When three vegetation communities come together at a single
point they form a more complex edge than when two communities adjoin. The
areas created by the intersection of three or more management units are re-
ferred to as coverts. These areas are believed to be of greater value to wildlife
than simple edges because it is more probable that all of the food and cover
requirements will be met within a short distance. The value of the total man-
agement area to wildlife seems proportional to the number of coverts availa-
ble.
Edge Drama. If a clearcut were positioned next to a pasture the edge
between the two would not be dramatic. When a clearcut occurs next to a
mature hardwood hammock the edge is highly dramatic. The amount of
difference between adjacent management units appears to be important in
designing whole management areas. In order to gain the benefit from the
time-space interaction described earlier, the arrangement of management
units should maximize the amount of edge difference between units.
Interspersion. With few exceptions, animal species are normally confined
within relatively small home ranges. A bobwhite quail may never leave a 10
acre range and most whitetail deer spend their entire lives within 500 acre
ranges. Unless the various habitat requirements can be reached within a few
hundred yards the needs of any single individual will not be met. For this rea-
son, the various stand types and ages should be interspersed to a large de-
gree. The home range of each wildlife species is different, though. Therefore,
what represents ideal interspersion for deer and turkeys may not be ideal for
rabbits and quail. Planning must take these differences into consideration.

Management Unit Size. Considerable debate about the appropriate size
of management units has derived from the policy of even-age forestry. If
management units followed simple shapes such as circles or squares, unit size
would be very important. While clearcuts of 400 acres would be too large to
provide maximum wildlife use, even-age stands of the same size would be
domineering. Much smaller sizes would be recommended for aesthetic pur-
poses, watershed yield and wildlife abundance. But if simple-shaped manage-
ment units are avoided where possible, the issue of size may not surface. A
500-acre clearcut consisting of curves, meanders and narrow straights would
not be detrimental. The use of naturally convoluted management unit shapes
will most likely suppress the issue of size.









Transition Low Land


a Road-cattle access ways
, ~ Prairie
.* Hardwood

/ Pine


Fig. 8. If the site has a reasonable amount of topographic relief then more flexibility may be re-
quired to take full advantage of site ptoential. The inclusion of hardwood production areas, fish
ponds, camp grounds, etc. may be desirable. Because soil associations frequently run parallel to
the contour of the land the management units may appear long and narrow.



Investments and Related Costs

As with any enterprise, investments must be made in natural resource
management so as to produce products for market. Investments and main-
tenance costs will obviously vary with the objectives of the manager, the site
potential and condition, and the type of management operation. More inten-
sive operations require more labor, fuel and equipment and normally result in
a larger quantity or better quality of marketable product. However, close


Upland








economic analysis is needed to see if increased costs pay for themselves in
increased marginal returns to the manager. County and forestry extension
personnel from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida (IFAS) are willing and able to assist landowners and resource man-
agers in developing conservation plans. The U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service and Florida State Division of Forestry also aid in such tasks.
To establish and maintain a Florida woodland in a productive capacity
costs money. Yet, often a timber harvest can be made on an unmanaged for-
est that will at least partially pay for putting the land in full production. On
bare land or land with no merchantable timber this may not be possible.
The costs of various forestry practices given in Table 1 are low today.
However, they do give an indication of what to expect when you practice for-
est management in the southeastern coastal plain.




Table 1. Expected Costs of Pine Forest Management in
Florida1

Prescribed burning ...................... $1.50 2.50 per acre
Mechanical Site Preparation ................. $40 100 per acre
Planting by hand ......................... 3V 5v per seedling
Machine Planting......................... 2V 4 per seedling
Cutting to release young growth .............. $15 20 per acre
Marking timber .............................. $3 6 per acre
Mechanical seed-bed preparation (disking)...... $20 25 per acre
Fire protection ............................ 16 20 per acre
Seedling cost ............................. $10/1000 seedlings
Harvest ................................... $20 30 per cord
.................................... $45 75mbf
Transportation cost ....................... 5 7V per ton mile









'These figures were taken from a 1974 study by Moak and Kucera. The aver-
age rates of increase in costs from 1967 1974 was 8.7% per year. To get more
realistic costs figures for today use this factor.








For rangeland the following information provides estimates for livestock
management.
Table 2. Initial Investments
Fencing
Barbed wire .................... $17.00 $21.00/quarter mile
Posts .................................. $.65 $1.65/post
Gates ................ ............... $17.00 $32.00/gate
Staples ........................... $20.00 $23.00/50 lb. box
Leases
Grazing lease (pine plantations) $2.00 to $3.50/animal unit/year
Hunting lease ................. ...... $.16 $2.00/acre year

Maintenance of rangelands
Prescribed burning .............. $.50 $2.00/acre (open range)
Chopping (Tandem roller chopper) .......... $5.00 $15.00/acre
Disking .............................. .. $7.00- $9.50/acre

Livestock Care
Molasses ............................. $58.00 $65.00/ton
Salt Lick .................................. $::. 24 .1 lb. block
Veterinarian ............................. $.75 $2.00/hd.
Cattle
Cows.................... ............ $225 -$275
Replacement heifers ................... .. .... $200 $290

Benefits to the Landowner
Returns to the landowner can be classified into three major categories: 1)
economic returns, 2) visual, aesthetic or landscape beauty, and 3) personal
satisfaction. Although economic benefits appear simple to calculate, this is far
from the truth. Since the benefits range from ad valorem and government
incentives programs (e.g., forestry incentives programs) the dollar value of
particular courses of action cannot be easily calculated.

Economic Returns
Probably the greatest advantage of integrated management is the poten-
tially higher, more stable economic return to the landowner. Single-resource-
oriented enterprises in timber, cattle, or wildlife can be profitable when good
market conditions exist. However, when poor market conditions for one
product dictate a low economic return to the single resource manager, the
integrated resource manager fares better due to diversification of products.

2 $.20 to $.50/acre/year stocking rates vary according to available forage
and range condition.








Integration of cattle, timber, pulpwood, naval stores and wildlife hunting
leases provides the landowner with a profitable operation under good man-
agement because other resources bring in income even during times when
one product is not in demand. Such market conditions have existed recently in
both the cattle and pulpwood markets at different times, and generally for
wildlife in the past.
Despite wide market fluctuations, both the cattle and wood product busi-
nesses are profitable operations. However, increasing operational costs in
fuel, labor, and equipment, and initial investments can greatly cut into profit
margins; therefore diversification of products is important to stay atop the
market. Recent research by Pearson (1974), Anderson and Hipp (1974) and
Faircloth (1976) indicate that range cattle operations in the south can be prof-
itable, even for pine timber businesses. Therefore, the available forage re-
source found in pine timberlands provides a profitable opportunity and many
livestock producers appear anxious to utilize this resource. Some current ex-
pected returns for products from these southern forests are given in Table 3.
Ranchers realize the benefits of growing trees, particularly in the warm
climates of Florida. Beef yields from herds of European breeds are increased
when shade reduces heat stress from direct solar rays. Conversely, pine for-
ests can be very important grazing resources during periodic adverse
weather. During extremely cold winters, such as we have experienced lately.
forest range vegetation can be used to carry animals over to better times
when improved pastures or roughage supplements are not available or are
too expensive. Likewise, native forage yields much better production than
improved pastures during prolonged summer droughts.

Table 3. Expected returns for wildland resources in Florida,
1979

Cattle lease ................... $1.60 3.50/Animal Unit Year'
Cows sold at auction ............................ $.40 .60/lb?
Calves sold at auction ...................... $.65 1.60/lb
Hunting lease .................................. $2.00/acre3
Pulpwood ................................ $21.50/cord pine
Sawtimber: southern yellow pine ................... $1.50/mbf
poplar ............................... $50.00/mbf
oak ...................................$35/mbf

1 Animal Unit Year available forage to support a mature cow with calf acre-
age for a AUY varies with forage production and range condition.
2 Average price, depending upon weight and condition of animal and market
demand.
3 Applicable for large tracts of land.








Forested wildlands that produce wood, cattle or both can also sustain
huntable wildlife populations of deer, turkey, dove and quail and hence, pro-
vide additional income to the landowner through hunting leases. Local hunt-
ing clubs or individual hunters are often willing to work cooperatively with
landowners to improve wildlife habitat in order to increase game populations.
SIf these hunters are local to the particular tract of land that they hunt, they
also have proven, in many cases, helpful in controlling poachers, trespassers,
and vandals.

Visual and Aesthetic Returns

Florida is world renowned for its unique landscape beauty. This is not due
solely to natural ecosystem characteristics, but, in large part, to man's influ-
ence in designing, creating and managing the landscape. Beauty and esthetic
value are highly intangible qualities that not only create market value, but
more importantly, pride and the spirit of fulfillment. On the one extreme,
these qualities can be created by planting trees in rows or laying out roads,
fields and management units in rectangular forms. In the other extreme,
maximum esthetic beauty derives from the incorporation of natural ecosys-
tem characteristics. The design and management of forest landscapes will ho-
pefully represent a combination of productive, man-dominated management
units and abundant use of natural landscape features. The aesthetic value will
then depend upon the way the subunits are blended together.

Personal Satisfaction
In many cases landowners derive immense personal satisfaction and pride
from their land stewardship. Knowing that you have preserved the life of a
colony of endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers or preserved the hardwood
nesting hole bearing a clutch of baby wood ducks may adequately compensate
for the wood you didn't sell. Knowing that no storm runoff from your tract is
contributing to the pollution of a local watercourse may create a pride worth
more than money. Knowing that at least some can do what is right without
the heavy fist of government is what the free enterprise system depends
upon. Much forage of the southern piney woods can be used for cattle grazing.
As world population rapidly increases and a general protein shortage
worsens, consideration for mankind makes it appear unreasonable to allow
viable grazing resources to go unused, since foraging animals are the only
practical method of harvesting this resource. Grazing these woodlands of
Florida would produce more red meat for the protein-hungry world.
These are but examples of the personal returns cited by many responsible
landowners. Responsible land management cannot only provide a productive
living but an enjoyable life.
This alludes to Aldo Leopold's "conservation ethics" in which he argues:
"A system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly








lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate, many elements
in the land community that lack commercial value, but that are (as far as we
know) essential to its healthy functioning."

Integrated Timber, Livestock, and Wildlife Management
Programs
With the increased pressure on natural resource managers to produce
more resources, many firms and public agencies have integrated manage-
ment activities to get more use from the resources on their lands. For in-
stance, the National Forests of Florida are required by law to be managed for
the best product mix to meet public demands. This has resulted in the Apa-
lachicola, Ocala, and Osceola National Forests each providing wood fiber.
livestock, wildlife, and recreational uses on a sustained yield basis. All areas
are not used for all purposes at the same time. For instance, a high density
recreation area would eliminate all other uses. But, acreage that produces
timber can simultaneously produce livestock and provide wildlife habitat and
recreation, such as hunting. Obviously, for good management, cattle are ex-
cluded from areas with newly planted pine seedlings until both forage and
seedlings are established (approximately one year from site preparation). In
addition, rotation grazing systems are used to ensure proper forage utiliza-
tion and maintain the range in good condition for livestock and wildlife habi-
tat. Prescribed burning is regularly practiced to reduce dense understory
shrubs, reduce chances of wildfire, increase forage utilization and enhance
visual esthetics.
Numerous pulpwood firms with land holdings also practice similar inte-
grated management although public access is usually more restricted. For in-
stance, pine plantations owned by Container Corporation of America produce
pulpwood on a twenty-five year rotation system, and are leased to cattlemen
for cow-calf operations, and to private hunting clubs for hunting privileges.
The cattle stocking rate and lease prices vary according to available forage
and hunting lease prices vary with the number of game. No other hunting
parties have access to the areas.
Other pulpwood firms have similar operations, but the priorities of use for
timber, livestock, wildlife, and recreation differ between areas according to
management objectives. Some wildlife management areas use pulpwood
revenues for wildlife habitat management as well as for wood production. In
these areas, as for all wildlands, proper integrated management requires ex-
pert knowledge in each resource discipline, cooperation, and coordination
among disciplines in order to meet management objectives. These efforts al-
low for a better utilization and conservation of all the land's resources com-
bined with profitable economic return and good public relations.
The schematic diagrams located between sections of this publication give
an indication of how multiple use programs are a natural for the diverse
cutover lands of Florida.








SUGGESTED READINGS


Anderson, C. L. and T. S. Hipp (1974) Requirements and returns for 1000
cow beef herds on flatwoods soils in Florida. Circular 385. Cooperative Ex-
tension Service. IFAS. University of Florida. 27 pages.
Byrd, N. A. and C. E. Lewis. (1976) Managing southern pine forests to
produce forage for beef cattle. Forest Management Bulletin. Southeast
Area, State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service.
Duvall, V. L. (1969) Grazing systems for pine forest ranges in the south In
Abstract Paper of the 22nd Annual Meeting, American Society of Range
Managers, page 23.
Duval, V. L. and L. B. Whitaker. (1964) Rotation burning: a forage manage-
ment system for longleaf pine bluesten ranges. Journal of Range Manage-
ment 17: 322-326.
Faircloth, V. L., Jr. (1976) Costs and returns for beef cattle enterprises on
southern pine timberlands. Masters Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institu-
tion and State University. 89 pages.
Florida Division of Forestry. How to Order Seedlings. Current Issue.
Forest Farmers Association (1977) Forest Farmer Manual. $10.00. 140
pages.
Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station. (1974) Range Resources of the
South. Bulletin N.5.9.
Halls, L. K., R. H. Hughes, R. S. Rummel, B. L. Southwell (1964) Forage
and Cattle Management in Longleaf-Slash Forests. USDA Forest Bulletin
2199. 25 pages.
Hunter, D. H. Range rotation grazing systems. FRC-2. School of Forest
Resources and Conservation. IFAS. University of Florida. 4 pages.
Lewis, C. E. (1973) Integrating management of forest and range resources.
In Range Resources of the Southeastern United States. American Society
of Agronomy and the Crop Science Society of America.
Mark, G. G., R. S. Dimmick (1962) Managing the Family Forest. USDA For-
est Bulletin 2187.61 pages.
Pearson, H. A. (1974) Utilization of Forest Grasslands in Southern United
States. Proceedings, International Grasslands Congress 12: 543-547.
USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 1974
Proceedings, symposium on management of young pines. 352 pages.
USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Region. (1976) Publications for the For-
est Land Manager and User of Forest Resources in the South. 26 pages. A
listing of 175 publications for forest land managers.









USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Region (1978) Supplement Publications
for the Forest Land Manager and User of Forest Resources in the South.
145 publications listed.
Both catalogs available free from USDA Forest Service Information Cen-
ter, 1720 Peachtree Road N.W., Room 816, Atlanta, GA 30309.
White, L. D. (1977) Forest management impact on range resources. Range
Report 2, School of Forest Resources and Conservation. IFAS. Univer-
sity of Florida. 3 pages.
White, L. D. (1977) Importance of Florida's forested rangelands. Range Re-
port 1. School of Forest Resources and Conservation. IFAS. University of
Florida. 3 pages.


















a-























































This publication was printed at a cost of $593.68, or 59.3 cents per
copy, to provide information on management of forest and related
resources to extension agents, landowners and land managers.
2-1M-80




COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF FLOR-
IDA, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
K. R. Tefertlller, director, in cooperation with the United States
Department of Agriculture, publishes this information to further the
purpose of the May 8 and June 30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and is
authorized to provide research, educational information and other
services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color,
sex or national origin. Single copies of Extension publications (excluding4-H and Youth
publications) are available free to Florida residents from County Extension Offices.
Information on bulk rates or copies for out-of-state purchasers Is available from C. M.
Hinton, Publications Distribution Center, IFAS Building 664, University of Florida,
Gainesvllle, Florida 32611. Before publicizing this publication, editors should contact
this address to determine availability.