Report of the American Ornithologists'Union Committee for the
Conservationof the Red-cockadedWoodpecker
J. David Ligon,PeterB. Stacey,RichardN. Conner,Carl E. Bock,and CurtisS. Adkisson
The AmericanOrnithologists'Union'sCommitteefor the Conservationof the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
was formed in late 1983by Dr. ThomasR. Howell, then presidentof the A.O.U., at the requestof Warren B.
Kingof the UnitedStatesSectionof the International
Councilfor BirdPreservation.
The Committee's
charge
wasto reviewthe statusof the federallyendangeredRed-cockaded
Woodpecker(Picoides
borealis),
to evaluate
the conservationand managementpracticesimpinging on the welfare of this species,and to further the
A.O.U.'sinterestin providingscientificadviceand suggestions
to managersof threatenedand endangered
speciesof birds.
SUMMARY
The Red-cockadedWoodpecker(Picoides
borealis)
in
the southeastern
United
States has become
endan-
gered asa resultof dependenceon mature,open pine
woodlands.This habitat, maintained in the pastonly
by recurringfire, hasbecomevery scarcebecauseof
both the cutting of the pine forestsfor timber and
the exclusion of fire. Moreover, modern timber man-
agement practicesfocus almost exclusivelyon the
productionandharvestof youngtreeson privateland
andmiddle-agedtreeson publicland. Although RedcockadedWoodpeckersare legally protectedby the
EndangeredSpeciesAct, managementpracticesdetrimental to the birds continue. Enough is known
aboutthe habitatrequirementsof thesewoodpeckers
that further
declines in numbers
on the national
for-
est and other public lands could probably be prevented by the maintenance of suitable habitat. The
new Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1985) makesmany important recommendations for the conservationof this species,but in our
view
it should
be more
restrictive.
The fate of an
endangeredspecieshangsin the balance.
of the most challengingand controversialissuesin
applied ornithology. The woodpecker'sspecialized
habitat requirementsfor mature pine forestsconflict
with forestry practicesin the southeasternUnited
States.Thesepracticesemphasizeclear-cuttingof the
woodpecker'sprime habitat.As a result,prospects
for
long-term survival of the speciesare not encouraging.
Since 1970, when it was officially designatedan
endangeredspecies,and during the 13 yearssince
passageof the EndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973,the
Red-cockaded
Woodpeckerhascontinuedto decline,
and local extirpationshave been numerous.Indeed,
becauseof its formallegalstatus,the presenceof the
woodpeckerhasbeen perceivedasa seriouseconomic burden by the timber industry and as a problem
by thosechargedwith managingnationalforestlands
for multiple uses.Despiteincreasedattention(seebelow), many studies,and extensivediscussion
and debate,no managementprogramto datehasled to increasednumbersof Red-cockadedWoodpeckers.
In this report, we review the statusof the RedcockadedWoodpeckerand evaluateconservationand
managementpracticesthat impinge on its welfare.
Specifically,we point out factorsthat threatenrequires multiple approaches,including (1) accurate mainingpopulations;
we evaluatethe RecoveryPlan•
Conservation of Red-cockadedWoodpeckers re-
populationcensuses,
(2) enforcementof legally man(USFWS 1985) and offer recommendationsfor mandated management procedures, (3) experimental
agingthe species
moreeffectively.
studiesof the productionof cavity trees, (4) designation of at least one national forest primarily for
II. STATUS OF THE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
studiesof the woodpeckers,(5) evaluation of Recovery Plan recommendations
concerningforaginghabA. Ecological
Specialization
andtheSpecies'
Increasing
itat in different geographicregions,and (6) evalua- Rarity
tion of the currently accepted replacement/
The Red-cockaded
Woodpeckeris restrictedto the
recruitmentstand concept,as describedin "The Forpine forestsof the southeasternUnited States.Once
est Service Wildlife Habitat Management Handcommonor even abundant,the specieshas declined
book." In addition, individuals can contribute sigdrasticallyin numbersand distribution.The follownificantly to the future of this speciesby working ing factsaboutitsbiologyarerelevantto understandwith conservationorganizationsto develop habitat ing this decline.
corridorsand by monitoring clans of Red-cockaded
1. The preferredhabitatis openand parklike,lackWoodpeckers.
I. INTRODUCTION
•U.S.
Fish
andWildlife
Service.
1985.
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
RecoveryPlan. Atlanta, Georgia,U.S. Fishand WildL Serv.Copiescan
Theconservation
of theged-cockaded
Woodpeck- bepurchased
from:
Informatics
General
Corp.,
6011
Executive
Bouleer, a federally designatedendangeredspecies,is one
848
yard,
Rockville,
Maryland
20852
USA.
The Auk 103: 848-855. October 1986
October1986]
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
ing substantialhardwood under- or midstory. Such
conditionsare maintained only by recurring fire. Exclusion of fire eventually leads to disappearanceof
the birds, because of encroachment of hardwoods,
even if the pine trees remain. This once geographically widespreadhabitat type is referred to as a firemaintained subclimaxcommunity (Oosting 1956).
2. Although a variety of pine speciesare used,
longleafpine (Pinuspalustris)
appearsto be preferred.
Longleaf pine habitat has disappearedeven more
rapidly than other types of pine forest.
3. Nest and roost cavities are virtually always excavatedin living, mature pines (80-120 yr of age)
whose heartwood has been destroyedby a fungus
(Phellinuspini). The use of large living trees means
that cavity excavationis a slow process,sometimes
requiringmorethan a year.Thus,cavitiesin live trees
appear to be very valuable and limiting resources.
Somecavity treesare known to have been used by
several generationsof birds over several decades.
Coloniesmay have from 1 to 30 cavity trees,usually
within a relatively small area.(The colony is the sum
of all cavity treesowned by the clan.) Becauseof the
time and effort involved in their excavation, the cav-
849
tically during this period, and probablyhas continued to decline ever since.Throughout the southonly
about 2.5% of the current pine acreageis considered
to representsuitablenestinghabitat (USFWS 1985).
Even where old pines still exist, suppressionof the
natural fire regime frequently has allowed hardwoods
to become
established.
Under
these
condi-
tions, other cavity dwellers,particularly flying squirrels (Glaucomys
volans)and Pileated and Red-bellied
woodpeckers(Dryocopus
pileatusand Melanerpescarolinus),become more abundant and displace Redcockadeds
from
their
roosts and nests.
B. CurrentEstimatesof PopulationSizeand Trends
Wahlenberg(1960)estimatedthat by the mid- 1900's
the area occupiedby southernpine forestat the time
of Europeanimmigration had been reducedby 5065%.The lossprobably is even more seriousfor the
Red-cockadedWoodpecker than this estimate suggestsbecausethe acreageof longleaf woodland, considered to be the preferred habitat for Red-cockadeds, has declined three times more rapidly than that
of loblolly-shortleafforest (Lennartz et al. 1983b).
Furthermore, about 75% of all suitable Red-cockaded
nesting habitat is on private land (USFWS 1985),
where the birds have inadequate legal protection
birds are reluctant to abandon.
(Freeman 1984). The speciesmay eventually be re4. The dependenceof Red-cockadedWoodpeckers strictedto stateand national forestsand other public
on mature living pines is related both to their avail- lands (USFWS 1985). Some military basescurrently
ability and safety in a fire-maintained ecological have significant numbers of Red-cockadedWoodcommunityand to the protectionfrom predatorsthat peckers.We feel that it is unwise to depend on such
they afford. Resin wells are excavatedaround the sitesfor conservationof endangeredspeciesbecause
cavity entrance,as well as aboveand below it. The they are subjectto overriding national security constickyresin almostcertainly deterscertain predators, siderations.
such as the gray rat snake (Elapheobsoleta
spiloides; Jackson(1978b) estimateda total population of beJackson1974).
tween 4,800and 10,000woodpeckers.Lennartz et al.
5. The Red-cockadedWoodpecker is a cooperative- (1983a) conducted censuses of selected federal land
ly breeding species.Like mostsuchspecies,it is sed- in the south (17 national forests,9 military bases,11
entary and occupiesterritories year-round. Within
nationalwildlife refuges)and concludedthat about
the groupor clan,only one pair of birdsbreeds.Oth- 3,000 active colonies (6,000 breeding birds) were
er mature group membersserve as nest helpers. De- present on federal lands.
The abandonment of known colonies does not necpending on the time of year, immature birds also
may be present.
essarilydocumenta populationdecline,becausebirds
6. Establishment
of colonies and territories
de novo
could be colonizing new areas.There is no evidence,
is presentlyso rare as to be virtually undocumented, however, that they are doing so (USFWS 1985).
despiteintensiveobservationsof severalpopulations Thompson (1971) reported lossesof 13.1%of 312 acfor over a decade.Becausethis speciesis highly ter- tive coloniesin 10 statesover a 4-yr period, and Baker
ritorial and requiresspecializedcavity treesfor nest- (1983) recorded a 34% lossof 141 active colonies. Neiing, thereis no evidencethat populationscanexpand ther author reported any new colonies. Intensive
rapidly into previous unused habitats. Each forest studies at specific localities revealed similar demanagementdecisionthereforemay have far-reach- creases.For example, at the Savannah River Plant
ing consequences
for the populationin that forest.
near Aiken, South Carolina, 16 colonieswere present
Unlike the situation with someother endangered in 1977;sevenyearslater,2 breedingpairsand 2 lone
species,there is virtually no debate about the cause males remained. Most abandonments could be attribof the decline of the Red-cockadedWoodpecker:its uted to ForestServicemanagementpractices(Jackson
habitat hasbeen and continuesto be destroyed,both 1984). At the Tall Timbers Research Station in northby commerciallogging and by the exclusionof fire. western Florida, about 40 adult birds were presentin
Much of the virgin southern pine forest was cut 1970. The pines at Tall Timbers are old, and underaround the turn of the century. The number of Red- growth was burned annually; nevertheless,the birds
cockadedWoodpeckersalmostsurely decreaseddras- slowly but steadily disappearedand were gone by
ities represent a substantialinvestment, which the
850
LIGONETAL.
1981(Baker1983).Thus, not every decline of a local
population can be attributed to habitat alterations.
C. Fragmentation
of Populations
The few thousand Red-cockadedWoodpeckers
currently in existence occupy the area from the
southern
Atlantic
coast to eastern
Oklahoma
and
[Auk, VoL 103
compatible with the continued existence of the
woodpeckers.
lll. CURRENT CONSERVATION EFFORTS
A. Symposiaand StudiesDevotedto the Red-cockaded
Texas.Within this area,suitablehabitatis now highWoodpecker
ly fragmented.Remainingpopulationsare becoming
Since 1970,when the Red-cockadedWoodpecker
smaller and increasinglyisolatedas suitable habitat was placed on the United Stateslist of endangered
continues to disappear.
species,it hasbeenthe subjectof two majorsymposia
The isolationof small populationshas led to two
(Thompson1971, Wood 1983), two recovery plans
recognizable problems. Immature, unmated female
(USFWS 1979, 1985), and many individual studies
Red-cockadedstypically leave their natal territories dealing with its ecologicalrequirements(e.g. homeduring their first autumn, presumablyin searchof
rangesizes,foraginghabitat,characteristics
of cavity
breeding sites.J. H. Carter III, P. D. Doerr, and J. R.
trees) and demography.In addition, several imporWaiters (MS, pers. comm.) found that 73% (91/124)
of the young females that dispersedand obtained a
breeding slot moved more than 1 mile (i.e. into terrain probably unfamiliar to them). Moreover, 26%
(14/53) of the femalesfrom relatively poorer habitat
movedmore than 5 miles,whereasonly 9% (3/33) of
those from better habitat moved that far. Females seem
to move in a straight line, and those produced in
low-qualityhabitator in sitesisolatedfrom otherareas
of suitable habitat probably have an increasedprobability of dispersal-relatedmortality. The presumed
high mortality of femalesasa result of their dispersal
behavior may limit the reproductive potential of
populationsin areas of suitable habitat. Territoryholding male Red-cockadedsthat do not have mates
have been reported in Mississippi,South Carolina,
and North Carolina, where 13% of social units are
solitary males(J. R. Walters pers. comm.).
Another possibleproblem related to habitat fragmentation and the isolation of small populations of
Red-cockadedWoodpeckersis reduction of genetic
variability via inbreeding. The questionof how few
animals are required to maintain sufficientgenetic
variability for a population to persist in perpetuity,
other things being equal, is a difficult one that we
tant unpublished thesesand at least one dissertation
exist.An important result of this attention is recognition that the bird is declining rapidly in numbers
in many areas.Also, our understandingof the basic
habitat requirements of the Red-cockaded Wood-
peckerhasbeen significantlyimproved.
B. The 1985Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
RecoveryPlan:
An Evaluationof Its Major Aspects
The secondrecovery plan (USFWS 1985) was prepared by M. R. Lennartz of the U.S. Forest Service
SoutheasternForestExperiment Station. The Recovery Plan accuratelypresentsthe factorsresponsible
for the decline of Red-cockadeds
and points out the
sole solution:
"The survivalof the Red-cockaded
Woodpeckerultimately depends
on haltingthe lossof nestinghabitatand providingadequateacreage
in old-growthpinesin perpetuity.Merely protectingexistingcolonies
will delay extinctionbut not prevent it. A continuingsupplyof oldgrowth habitatsis required to replace colonieslost or abandonedand
to provide for populationexpansion"(USFWS1985:52-53).
With respectto management,the plan can be divided into five major parts, each of which we comment on below.
1. Nestingandforaginghabitat.--Recommendations
concerninghabitat requirementshave produceda sedo not attempt to answer.
ries of specificmanagementpracticesand guidelines
D. TimberProduction
and the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker for forest managers (i.e. USFWS 1985: ch. 420). AlBecause of the economic value of timber and the
though we agree with many of them, the habitat
management recommendations suffer from two delack of incentivesto maintain mature forestson private lands, the federal lands in the southeast,partic- ficiencies, either of which could affect the survival
of the species.
ularly the national forestsand possibly various dea. The RecoveryPlan's recommendationof an avfense installations, will play a central role in the
continued survival of the Red-cockadedWoodpecker erageof 125acres/clanapparentlyreflectsbreeding(USFWS 1985).The national forestsare designatedas seasonterritory size rather than year-round homemultiple-use areas. They are managed for various range requirements.Hooper et al. (1982) reported an
purposes,including recreation and conservationas averageannual home range of 86.9 ha (214.6 acres).
well as timber production. We believe that Red-cock- This point is important because,as Skorupa and
McFarlane (1976) pointed out, "... the increased
aded Woodpeckerscan exist in managedforests,including thoseusedfor timber production,if there are winter foraging requirements of this speciesmust be
lengthened rotations(80 yr or more) and if suitable consideredby forest managersattempting to reconmature habitat is always maintained. Present forest cile the dictatesof timber production with the conmanagement practices designed to maximize timber
servation measures necessary to insure the future
yield via short rotation schedulesand replacement survival of these birds."
The 125-acre recommendation
is based on the reof longleaf pine with faster-growingspeciesare not
October
1986]
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
productivesuccess
of the woodpeckersas well as the
mean acreageof 17 home rangeswith territorial constraintsin a single population at the FrancisMarion
Forest in South Carolina. This midpoint or average
recommendation,while perhaps adequate in superior habitat (but see above), has been incorporated
into the Wildlife Habitat Management Handbook.
Becausemany other studiessuggestthat larger areas
are required, our concernis that the RecoveryPlan
and Handbook recommendationswill be inadequately modified for other areas. This is one danger of
recommending a specific average value for a geographicallywidespreadspecies.Recommendations
for
endangeredspeciesshould risk error on the side of
conservation(Conner 1979b),especiallywhen many
variablesinfluence habitat quality.
b. The recommendation
that 60% of 125 acres of
foraginghabitatbe in trees"30 yearsof ageor older"
is questionable.This value is basedon a studyin the
FrancisMarion National Forestby R. G. Hooper and
R. F. Harlow. Hooper and Harlow examined the extent to which stands of different age classeswere
used during foraging by individual clans as compared with their relative occurrencewithin the home
ranges.They found that preferencefor stands,asexpressedby the ratio of the useof a standto its availability within the home range, "increasedsharply
851
cordingto the plan, down-listingthe entire species
from endangeredto threatenedrequires6 recovered
populations
distributedoverthe species'
range.
Seriousquestionsremain as to how a population
is to be delimited and how accuratethe population
estimatesshould be required to be. Six recovered
populations
equalonly3,000breedingbirds.Thus,it
is conceivable that the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
could be down-listed to "threatened" with only 0.30.5 the number of birds currently estimated to exist.
Thisapproach
extendsto "recovered"
statusaswell.
If there were 15 viable populationsof 500 breeding
birds,the specieswouldbe considered
"recovered."
The speciescouldbe delistedaltogether,with even
fewer birds than now occur. Finally, 500 birds of
breedingstatusdo not equalan effectivepopulation
size of 500 (contra USFWS 1985: 37) becausesome
percentageof them will be reproductivelyunsuccessful. Because total numbers
of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers
probablywill continueto decrease
for
the foreseeablefuture (USFWS 1985:33), designation
of an untestedminimal valueasrepresentinga viable
populationis not justified.
The 15-populations
approachcouldjeopardizethe
speciesin other ways.The emphasison 15 widely
separated
populations
couldincreasethe rate of disappearance
of smaller,connectingpopulationsif in-
dividual forest managersinfer that all other popubut appearedto graduallyincreasewith age" (Recov- lationsarenot critical.Thisperception,togetherwith
eryPlan,draftcopy,p. 11).Theythenconcluded
that the emphasison timber production,may lead manstands30 yearsor older were preferred habitat and agerswith small populationsto minimize their rewere therefore suitablefor the species.In their study, sponsibilityto the birds.
4. Potentialcarryingcapacity.--TheRecoveryPlan
it wasnot possibleto ensureequalrepresentations
of
all standageclasses
within eachhomerangeor other states that under ideal habitat conditions clan denunit of analysis.For example,if a home range con- sities in the Francis Marion National Forest are 1/112
tainedequal proportionsof 10-, 20-, and 30-yr-old acres.In areaswhere managementis not intense,but
stands, but none in the 40-, 50-, 60-, or older classes, where the habitat is good, densitiesof 1 clan/200the 30-yr-oldstandsin that homerangewould inev- 250 acresare attainable. Overall, the average in the
itablyhavea preferenceratiomuchgreaterthanone. Francis Marion National Forest is 1 clan/400 acres of
If older standshad been available to the birds, they habitat.The plan suggestsas a realisticobjectiveon
mighthavebeenpreferred,and the preferenceratio managedforeststhat densitiesrangefrom 1 clan/200
for the 30-yr-oldstandswould then fall. Use/avail- to 1 clan/400 acres. If such densities were attained
ability ratiosfor individual homerangescannotpro- and maintained on all national forest lands where
occuror have occurred,it shouldbe
vide informationon truly preferredor even adequate woodpeckers
habitat.
sufficientto safeguardthe species.
5. Recovery
activities.--Thisis an extremelyimpor2. Current status.--The data presented in the Rewith stand age up to 30 among 10-year age groups,
coveorPlan(USFWS1985:table1) showthatthe cur-
tant componentof the RecoveryPlan and one with
rent statusof the Red-cockadedWoodpecker is poor-
which we have no disagreement.However, the estimatedcostfor 3 yearsis $5,556,000,a sumunlikely
ly known. Confidencelimits in many casesare so
largethattheyrendera specific
estimatemeaningless
(e.g. OcalaNationalForest:41 + 76 colonies).We
to be obtained.
believe that accuratecensusesof all populationsare
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
essential.
A. Management
Programs
Devotedto Increasing
the
3. Recovery
objectives.--On
the basisof theoretical
of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers
considerations
concerninginbreeding(Franklin1980, Numbers
Perhapsthe foremostneed is initiation of one or
Frankel and Soul• 1981), the plan suggeststhat a
specifically
devotedto increasing
the
minimum viable populationsize is 250 clans,or 500 moreprograms
breeding birds. Thus, any populationof this size numbers of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. No inwould,by definition,beconsidered
"recovered."
Ac- creaseshave been documentedanywhere in its range;
852
LIGONETAL.
[Auk,Vol. 103
thus, a demonstrationof population increaseis need-
we advocate.Largetractsof old growth would allow
the Red-cockadedWoodpeckerto exist in managed
be designatedasexperimentalrecoverysitesfor Red- forestsand would obviatethe necessityof managing
cockadedWoodpeckers,
with the firstpriority in such the woodpeckerson a clan-by-clanbasis.
foreststo be expansionof the local woodpeckerpop2. Alternativemanagement
of cavitytrees.--It is often
ulation. Demonstration that woodpeckers can inassumedthat if pines are permitted to grow old
creasein managedforests,especiallywhere the local enough,they will eventuallybecomesuitablefor expopulationis unarguablyin decline,would be a sig- cavation by Red-cockadedWoodpeckers.Few studnificant contribution toward the preservationof the
ies, however, have investigatedthe specificcharacspecies.
teristicsof cavity trees.A comparisonof trees used
B. CurrentManagementPractices
andAccountability by the woodpeckerswith randomly selectedmature
As the RecoveryPlan points out:
pinessuggeststhat the woodpeckersselecttreesthat
have undergonestress(suppression)for 50-100 years
"The species'prospectsfor survival depend solely on whetherand
in the form of competitionfor light. The subsequent
when[emphasisadded]forestland managersimplementprogramsto
provide for the red~cockaded'shabitat requirements" (USFWS 1985:
vigor of the cavitytreesindicatesthat they were "re34).
leased"from this competitionthrough someform of
The absence of a demonstrated
increase of Redthinning, either natural or managed (Conner and
cockadedWoodpeckerson national forest lands, to- O'Halloran MS, J. R. Walters pers. comm.).
Thesefindingssuggestthat an alternativemanagegether with the ongoing declinesin many forests,
ment strategyshould be tested,particularly in areas
suggeststhat current managementpracticesare inadequatefor the species'recovery.Current manage- where woodpeckerpopulationsare low, decreasing,
ment of many forestsdoes not provide fire, control or both. A timber harvest system that creates
of hardwoods, or the thinning prescribed by the suppressionof growth followed by releasemay be
Handbook.As of early 1985only one nationalforest necessaryto grow suitable cavity trees (see Conner
employed a managementprogram judged acceptable and O'Halloran MS for detailed recommendations).
by the Fish and Wildlife Service,and only two had The high economiclossof pine timber to southern
implemented monitoring programs(M. R. Lennartz pine beetlesthroughoutnational forestlands in the
southalsosuggests
that creationof moreopen stands
in litt0. Programsin mostnational forestshave fallen
of longleaf pines should alsobe consideredfor pine
short of their legal requirements.
forests outside
areas where
Red-cockaded
WoodThe problem is the conflict between timber interestsand habitat for the woodpecker.National forest peckerspresently exist.
3. Foraginghabitat.--Until adequately controlled
managersoften are evaluatedon the basisof timber
quotas,rather than on conservationprograms.It is studiesindicateotherwise,foraging-habitatmanagenot surprising that most managersemphasize tree ment shouldbe more conservativethan suggestedby
the RecoveryPlan. Specifically,the assertionthat 30production and harvest.However, a legal meansfor
enforcingcompliancewith the EndangeredSpecies yr-old pine stands are adequate to provide "preAct (ESA) exists.The Section 7 interagency consul- ferred" foraging habitat is misleading.BecauseRedtation procedure of the ESA provides the legal re- cockadedWoodpeckersare birds of the mature pine
forest,we suggestthat all treeswithin a 125-acreforsponsibility for the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensurethat otherfederalagencies,e.g.the ForestService, aging habitat area be 60 years old or older, rather
provide adequatemanagementprogramsfor endan- than the 40%suggestedin the plan. This percentage
for a clan
gered species.They must alsoobtain approvalfrom shouldprovidesufficientforagingsubstrate
the Fish and Wildlife Service for changesin agreed- throughoutits home range.
ed. We recommend
that one or more national
forests
upon practices.
C. Habitat Management
1. Mature forest.--We recommend that the RedcockadedWoodpecker and the mature pine forest
upon which it dependsbe managedasa unit. A combination of lengthened rotations between timber
harvests(>-80 yr) and controlledburning couldprovide suitablehabitatfor the woodpeckerand the other plant and animal speciescharacteristicof this ecosystem.If the decisionwere made to do so, the Forest
Servicecould alsoprovide what commercialforestry
cannot: high-quality old-growth timber. National
forests should
not be under
the same constraints
as
commercialforeststo produceas much wood as possible as quickly as possible. Development of oldgrowth production is consistentwith the approach
We recommend that, for at least 10 active colonies
in each national forest, annual censusesbe conducted
to determine the number of adult birds present per
colony before the young have fledged.If the adult
population in the sample colonies declines in two
consecutiveyears, and the decline cannot be attributed to changesin the number or quality of cavity
trees,then we recommendcareful monitoring of reproductive success(number of eggs laid, number
hatched, number of young fledged) to determine
whether the foraginghabitatis adequatefor the rearing of normal broods. As other investigatorshave
pointed out, an indicator of the "health" of a population, and thus of the quality of the home ranges
occupiedby that population,is group size.
4. Recruitment
stands.--The
recruitment-stand
con-
October
1986]
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
853
cept as describedin the Wildlife Habitat Management Handbook is that the specieswill expand into
new patchesof appropriate habitat. Despite a number of long-term studies,we are aware of only one
observationof the establishmentof a new colony in
habitat that was not previously occupiedby a clan.
In this case,the colonywasabandonedafter a single
breeding season,when the sole cavity was usurped
by Red-bellied Woodpeckers(J. A. Jacksonpers.
and copiespresentedto highway maintenanceper-
primarily by the expansionand eventualbuddingof
previouslyestablishedterritories.There is no current
indicationthat the specieswill colonizeisolatedhabitats. Most present coloniesare in remnant patches
of forest (M. R. Lennartz pers. comm.).Although replacementtreessuitablefor the constructionof new
cavitiesand areasof unoccupiedbut suitablehabitat
for the development of new clans will be required
populations.Loss of genetic diversity in isolated
populations may have an important effect on the
species'long-term survival. Transferof eggsor small
nestlingsfrom one population to another may be an
effectiveand relatively inexpensiveway to increase
genetic diversity. Egg transfer has been used successfullyto establisha secondpopulationof the en-
sonnel. We envision
an effort similar
to the nest-box
constructionand placementprojectsthat have proved
to be beneficialto somepopulationsof EasternBluebirds (Sialia sialis).
2. Relocations.--A
few
relocations
of adult
Red-
cockadedshave been attempted (Odom et al. 1982,
Odom 1983), but successhas been poor. In view of
the sedentarynature of the species,its dependence
comm.). The available evidence indicates that, like
on cavities in living pines, and its social structure,
thoseof other cooperativelybreedingspeciesthat de- including strong territoriality, this result is not surpend on specializedself-constructedresources,new prising. We do not recommendrelocationasa means
Red-cockadedWoodpecker coloniesare established of promoting exchange of genetic material among
for long-term survival of the woodpeckers,the cur-
dangered Whooping Crane (Grusamericana),and the
required methodology is well understood. Because
the presenceof only one or two males in a colony
rent recommendationof at least10 acresof 60-yr-old
trees is probably insufficientto support woodpeck- with apparentlysuitablecavitiesand foraginghabitat is not uncommol•,
D. Alleviationof Problems
Associated
with Smallor
FragmentedPopulations
Even assuminghighly successfulmanagementof
woodpeckerson public lands, suitable habitat will
continueto declineon privately owned land and will
lead to the increasedfrequencyof local extirpations.
It is unlikely that this pattern will be reversed.We
offer two suggestions
to addressthis problem.
1. Thecorridorconcept.--Tocounteractthe problem
of increasingfragmentation and isolation of populations, Jackson(1976) suggestedthat the rights-ofway of interstatehighway systemsin the southeast
be managed for use as habitat corridors to connect
isolated
"islands"
of suitable
habitat.
Red-cockaded
Woodpeckershave no aversionto roadsor to traffic.
The requirement would be to plant and maintain pine
trees with long rotationsand low or sparseground
cover.Suchcorridorscould prove to be an important
contributionto the welfare of this species.Long, narrow strips of mature open pine woodland might or
might not be adequatefor the establishmentof permanent colonies, depending on adjacent habitat.
However, development of even limited amounts of
high-quality habitatalong major highwayscould be
beneficial to emigrating or displaced woodpeckers
and at the least would provide individuals with a
suitable foraging and roosting environment.
We propose that state and local conservationorganizations, such as state ornithological societies,
Sierra Club chapters,Audubon chapters,and others,
contacttheir respectivehighway maintenance offices
for approval to plan and maintain appropriatespecies
of pine. Pine treesalreadyexistingon highway rightsof-wayshouldbe mappedby the conservation
groups
artificial
introduction
of fe-
males into territories occupiedby only one or two
malesmay alsobe feasible(J.A. Jacksonpers.comm.).
We emphasize that providing sufficient habitat
clearly is the key to preservingthis speciesand that
artificialtechniquesshouldbe usedonly in extreme
circumstances.
E. Public Involvement
We suggest that local chapters of conservation
groupsdevelop a cooperativesystemfor monitoring
Red-cockaded
Woodpeckerpopulationson a state-bystate or forest-by-forestbasis.These groups should
become familiar with woodpecker populations in
their areasand with the legal responsibilitiesof forest managerson public lands. They should become
familiar with the new RecoveryPlan and with the
Forest Service's management scheme for the Redcockaded Woodpecker as described in the Wildlife
Habitat Management Handbook. Yaffee (1982) providesa readableguide to the EndangeredSpeciesAct.
Any improper, apparently illegal habitat alterations should be documented, as should all losses of
cavity trees, from whatever source.When problems
appear,as they will, the Fish and Wildlife Service
should be notified. It has the legal responsibilityto
uphold the Endangered Species Act. In addition,
communicationconcerningthe Red-cockadedWoodpeckershould be establishedand maintained among
state and national conservationorganizations.The
National Wildlife Federation,for example,currently
is actively monitoring programsaffecting the woodpeckers.
It is our hope that managersof the national forests
of the southeast
will
come to view
the forests less as
sitesfor growing timber for forestindustry and more
854
LIGON
ETAL.
[Auk,Vol. 103
1983. Estimating number of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckercolonies.Wildl. Soc.Bull. 11: 360ecosystems
of the region.The first statedpurposeof
363.
the EndangeredSpeciesAct is "to providea means
whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered HOOPER,R. G., •r M. R. LENNARTZ.1983. Roosting
behaviorof Red-cockaded
Woodpeckerclanswith
speciesand threatened speciesdepend may be con-
as stewards charged with maintaining the natural
served .... "Until
insufficient cavities. J. Field Ornithol. 54: 72-76.
this is done, the Red-cockaded
ß L. J. NILES,R. F. H^RLOw,& G. W. Woor•s.
1982. Home rangesof Red-cockaded
Woodpeck-
Woodpecker'sfuture asa specieswill remain precarious.
ers in coastal South Carolina. Auk 99: 675-682.
V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Among thosewho generouslyaided us are: D. S.
JACKSON,
J.A. 1971. The evolution, taxonomy,distributionßpastpopulationsand currentstatusof
the Red-cockadedWoodpecker.Pp. 4-29 in Ecol-
Carter, Jr., J. H. Carter III, P. D. Doerr, R. T. Engs-
ogy and managementof the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
(R. L. Thompsonß
Ed.).Tallahasseeß
Florida,Bur.SportFish.andWildl. andTall Tim-
trom, D. S. Farner, M. K. Fuller III, J. F. Hallß G. L.
Halvorson, R. G. HooperßJ. R. Jehl, Jr., J. A. Jacksonß
F. C. Jamesß
D. W. Lay, M. R. Lennartz, B. G. Murrayß
Jr., J. M. Sheppard,L. L. Short,Jr., J. R. Walters,and
D. A. Wood. W. B. King of the ICBP and the National
Audubon Societyprovided funds that allowed us to
visit most of these workers
bers Res. Sta.
ß 1974. Gray rat snakesversusRed-cockaded
Woodpeckers:
predator-preyadaptations.
Auk 91:
342-347.
and to observe the wood-
ß 1976. Rights-of-waymanagementfor an endangered species--the Red-cockadedWoodpecker. Pp. 247-252 in Proc. 1st Natl. Symp. on
EnvironmentalConcernsin Rights-of-wayManagement(R. Tillman, Ed.).MississippiStateßMis-
peckersand their habitat in the FrancisMarion National
Forestß
VI. LITERATURE CITED AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
sissippi State Univ.
BAKERß
W. W. 1983ß Decline and extirpation of a
population of Red-cockadedWoodpeckersin
northwest FloridaßPp. 44-45 in Red-cockaded
WoodpeckerSymp. II Proc. (D. A. WoodßEd.).
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commßß UßSß
Fish Wildl. Serv., and U.S. Forest Serv.
CARTER,
J. H., III, R. T. STAMPS,
& P. D. DOERR.1983ß
Statusof the Red-cockadedWoodpeckerin the
1978a. Competition for cavities and RedcockadedWoodpeckermanagementß
Pp. 103-112
in Endangeredbirds:managementtechniquesfor
threatenedspecies(S. A. Temple,Ed.). Madison,
Univ.
--.
North CarolinasandhillsßPp. 24-29 in Red-cockaded WoodpeckerSymp. II Proc. (D. A. Wood,
Bull. W44.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., and UßS. Forest Serv.
1981. An annotatedbibliographyof the Red-
CONNER,R. N. 1979a. Effects of a prescribed burn
cockadedWoodpecker.SavannahRiver Natl. En-
on cavity trees of Red-cockadedWoodpeckersß
--.
--,
viron. Res. Park. Aiken, South Carolina, Savan-
Soc. Bull. 7: 291-293ß
1979b. Minimum
nah River EcologyLab.
standards and forest wild-
1984. Red-cockaded
Woodpeckerstudiesat
life managementß
Wildl. Soc.Bull. 7: 293-296ß
& B. A. LOCKE. 1982. Fungi and Red-cockaded Woodpeckercavity trees.Wilson Bull. 94:
the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina: 1976-
1984. Final Technical Summary Rept. Prepared
for U.S. Dept. Energy.
64-70ß
FIELDß
R., & B. K. WILLIAMSß1985ßAge of cavity trees
and colony stands selected by Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers.
Wildl. Soc.Bull. 13:92-96.
FRANKELß
O. H., & M. E. SOULfl. 1981ß Conservation
and evolutionßCambridge,England,Cambridge
Univ.
Pressß
FRANKLIN,
I. R. 1980ßEvolutionarychangein small
populationsß
Pp. 135-149in Conservationbiology, an evolutionary-ecological
perspective
(M. E.
Soulb and B. A. Wilcox, Eds.). SunderlandßMassachusettsß Sinauer Assocß Inc.
FREEMAN,
J. T. 1984. Woodsman,spare that woodpecker!Defenders6: 5-13.
HARLOW, R. F., R. G. HOOPERß•r M. R. LENNARTZ.
Press.
Syrup.(R. R. OdomandL. Landersß
Eds.).Georgia Dept.Nat. Res.,Gameand FishDiv., Tech.
Ed.). Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Comm.,
Wildl.
Wisconsin
1978b. Analysisof the distributionand population statusof the Red-cockadedWoodpecker.
Pp. 101-110in Proc.Rareand EndangeredWildl.
1986. Why do Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers
need old trees? Wildl.
--,
Soc. Bull. 14: 318-322.
M. R. LENNARTZ, •r R. G. HOOPERß 1979. Tree
ageand cavityinitiation by Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers.J. For. 77: 102-103.
ß& R. L. THOMPSON.1971. A glossaryof terms
used in association
with
the
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker.Pp. 187-188 in Ecologyand managementof the Red-cockadedWoodpecker(R. L.
Thompson,Ed.). Tallahassee,FloridaßBur. Sport
Fish. and Wildl.
and Tall Timbers Res. Sta.
LABISKY,R. F., & M. L. PORTER. 1984. Home range
and foraging habitat of Red-cockadedWoodpeckers in north Florida. Unpublished Rept.,
October1986]
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
Dept. Wildl. Range Sci., Sch. Forest Resources
and Conservation. Gainesville, Univ. Florida.
LANYON,W. E., & V. H. LANYON. 1969. A technique
for rearing passefinebirds from the egg. Living
Bird
8: 81-93.
855
variation in foraging territory of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers.Wilson Bull. 88: 662-665.
THOMPSON,
R. L. (Ed.). 1971. The ecologyand management of the Red-cockadedWoodpecker.Tallahassee,
Florida,Bur.SportFish.and Wildl. and
Tall Timbers Res. Sta.
LENNARTZ,M. R. 1983. Sociality and cooperative
breedingof Red-cockadedWoodpeckers(Picoides U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1979. Red-cockaded WoodpeckerRecoveryPlan. Atlanta, Georgia,
borealis).Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Clem-
--,
son, South Carolina, Clemson Univ.
P. H. GEISSLER,
R. F. HARLOW, R. C. LONG, K.
M. CHITWOOD,& J. A. JACKSON.1983a. Status of
Red-cockadedWoodpecker populations on federal lands in the south.Pp. 7-12 in Red-cockaded
WoodpeckerSymp. II Proc. (D. A. Wood, Ed.).
Florida Game and Freshwater
--,
Fish Comm., U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv., and U.S. Forest Serv.
H. A. KNIGHT, J.P. McCLURE, & V. A. RUDIS.
1983b. Status of Red-cockaded Woodpecker
nesting habitat in the south. Pp. 13-19 in RedcockadedWoodpecker Symp. II Proc. (D. A.
Wood, Ed.). Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Comm., U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., and U.S. Forest
Serv.
1984.
Serv.
Technical
draft
comments
and
re-
sponsesto the revisedRed-cockadedWoodpecker recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
1985. Red-cockadedWoodpeckerRecovery
Plan. Atlanta, Georgia,U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
U.S. FOREST
SERVICE.1985. Wildlife habitat management handbook.Ch. 400--Managementby wildlife species: 420--Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
Atlanta, Georgia,U.S. Dept. Agr., ForestServ.
WAHLENBERG,
W. G. 1946. Longleaf pine--its use,
ecology, regeneration, protection, growth, and
management.Washington,D.C., C. Lathtop Pack.
For. Found.
LIGON,J. D. 1970. Behavior and breeding biology
of the Red-cockadedWoodpecker.Auk 87: 255278.
1960. Loblolly pine--its use, ecology, regeneration, protection, growth, and management. Durham, North Carolina, Sch. For., Duke
ODOM,R. R. 1983. Georgia'sRed-cockadedWoodpecker relocation experiment: a 1983 update. Pp.
106-108 in Red-cockadedWoodpeckerSymp. II
Proc. (D. A. Wood, Ed.). Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Comm., U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., and
U.S. Forest Serv.
--,
U.S. Fish Wildl.
J. RAPPOLE,J. EVANS, D. CHARBONNEAU,& D.
PALMER.1982. Red-cockadedWoodpecker relocation experiment in coastalGeorgia. Wildl.
Soc. Bull.
OOSTING,H.J.
10: 179-203.
1956. The study of plant communi-
ties. San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Co.
SKORUPA,J.P., & R. W. MCFARLANE. 1976. Seasonal
Univ.
WOOD,D. A. (Ed.). 1983. Red-cockadedWoodpecker
Symp.II Proc.Florida Gameand FreshwaterFish
Comm., U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., and U.S. Forest
Serv.
WOOD, G. W., L. J. NILES,R. M. HINDRICK, J. R. DAVIS,
& T. L. GRIMES. 1985. Compatibility of evenaged timber management and Red-cockaded
Woodpecker conservation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:
5-17.
YAFFEE,
S. L. 1982. Prohibitive Policy: Implementing the Federal EndangeredSpeciesAct. Cambridge, Massachusetts,
MIT Press.