i would agree with your friend that more than likely your woodland is second growth and or young growth.

most woodlands in the plains states are not forests and historically would have been a thinner stand of trees with lots of understory growth. plains woodlands historically were thinned of trees due to periodic fires that swept the landscape. riverine wooded areas were somewhat protected from these fires, they were able to maintain a denser stand of trees due to the natural fire break and increased moisture levels. however this is assumed not knowing your exact area, as there are exceptions to every generalization.

you might want to do some research as to the ecological history of your area. some places to check would be a local nature center/nature preserve, the local department of natural resources, a north dakota native plant society or a state natural history survey office. generally the people in those place should be most helpful to teach/share/point you in the right direction.

i think you may be more willing to selectively remove trees when you understand which trees are native and which trees would have been predominate based on the natural history of your area.

and eventually you may even learn to burn your woodland - pyromaniacs gotta love woodland restoration work!!!!!

This looks like moist bottomlandy stuff, and is definitely second-growth forest. I don't know North Dakota, but in the eastern half to two-thirds of the US true primary growth is nearly non-existent... The closest thing to this kind of ecotype I know is in Indiana, where moist bottomland is supposed to have fairly dense (though not as dense as yours) cover of large, but not particularly wide, trees. Thinning out yours a bit would probably help quicken the process of the remaining trees approaching the density and size that I'd think of as good in an Indiana bottomland. You'd basically be speeding up succession, so the gist is the trees you want to remove would be the early-successional ones. That's where knowing the forests in the area comes in... in Indiana, good bottomland forests seem to be dominated by oak (though I don't recall what kind), sycamore, silver maple, and sugar maple. I don't know how things work in North Dakota, if I were you I'd try visiting a few low-lying areas that are clearly disturbed and with newly emerging trees, visit some areas with as old and mature bottomland forest as you can find, figure out what trees are in the early-successional disturbed stuff but not the late-successional mature forest, and thin out some of those. That's about all I'd do for trees, though. Unless something really drastic is going on, trees pretty much take care of themselves. I wouldn't worry much about some treefall, and dead branches washing in is a good thing. In a wet area where it'll get broken down nicely by fungi, dead wood is free fertilizer.

The main thing I'd focus on if I were you is the shrubs and herbaceous stuff. In Indiana invasive shrubs and herbaceous plants are the main threat to the still extant bottomland forests, so I'd learn what the major invasives are in your area and try to get rid of any that are on your land. In Indiana garlic mustard, purple loosestrife, Japanese honeysuckle, several different bush honeysuckles, mutliflora rose, and Torilis (can't remember the common name offhand) are the main invasives in bottomland that I'd worry about; I think most of those are up there, too, but maybe different ones are prominent.

Patrick Alexander

I think the short answer is, you probably don't need to do much, unless you have a specific managment goal.

1. You don't want to log the area, so I don't see any great advantage to the sort of thinning (timber stand improvement) that some have recommended. As you have noticed, the trees will naturally thin themselves as they forest matures.

2. It's probably true that even bottomland forests in your area were subjected to occasional fires, but introducting controlled burnds would be pretty ambitious.

3. Control of invasive exotic species is probably the one active management activity that will be desirable. It seems that no place is free of these pests, so you just need to become educated about what to watch for. In western Wisconsin (the closest area I am familiar with) non-native buckthorn can invade woodlands and suppresses native understory and forest-floor species. Garlic mustard is certainly a possibility.

Enjoy your beautiful woodland!

"1. You don't want to log the area, so I don't see any great advantage to the sort of thinning (timber stand improvement) that some have recommended. As you have noticed, the trees will naturally thin themselves as they forest matures."

FWIW, I agree to some extent. Thinning could speed up the successional process a fair amount, but isn't really necessary. The main reason for mentioning it is that the original post was very tree-oriented, and that's just about the only useful thing I can think of to do on the tree front...

On burns--bottomland forest isn't a fire-dependent ecosystem anywhere I know of, so even if it used to have fire occasionally I can't think of a compelling reason to try to do controlled burns.

Patrick Alexander

joepyeweed, thank you for the suggestions for where to go for help. Yes, you are right that I am reluctant to remove any trees without knowing what is native. Burning! OMG, I can't even bring myself to burn the prairie I'm trying to develop (I know, I know - don't even bother to tell me the benefits, I'm just scared of fire!) Actually, the main reason I won't burn the prairie area is because I am afraid of setting the woods on fire! Ironic.

Patrick, I wouldn't worry much about some treefall, and dead branches washing in is a good thing. In a wet area where it'll get broken down nicely by fungi, dead wood is free fertilizer.
We're talking a LOT of branches washing up. I will try to get a picture. We had an early summer flood this year (lost most of the undergrowth for this summer) and the amount that washed up is enormous.

John_MO, and Patrick, you're right that I need to learn the invasive species. I have not found buckthorn, or garlic mustard, or even thyrum. We do have honeysuckle - I have no idea if it is native or not. An occassional rose, that I thought was wild prairie rose but may have to check more carefully. Yes, I was tree-oriented in teh original post and in retrospect should not have been. It's just that I know what trees we have much better than I know the undergrowth.

I think you all got to the real question, which I didn't word well at all - should we do anything or do nothing? The answer I am hearing is to find out what species are native and which are not and try to control the non-natives, and, if we wish, to thin trees near natives that we wish to promote. Otherwise to let it take care of itself. That's actually extremely helpful to me because I have wondered if we should be more pro-active. Sounds like yes (for controlling non-natives) and no (for most anything else).

thanks so much for the input.

Ann

you could do nothing or you could do something - it depends upon your goals.

do you want to maintain your woodland in the survival of the fittest/ nature takes care of itself philosophy...if so then you do nothing and enjoy what you have.

or do you want to control invasives, attempt to mimic a native ecosystem to maximize wild life habitat. if so then you need to do an inventory of what you have and compare that to what natural history/ wildlife biologists believe was there. and then you work from there. once you know what you have, and you have researched what you want to have, then what to do, becomes fairly evident.

The second. I want to try to creat the "best" most native habitat for wildlife, I want to recreate what "we" think was once there.

So, tell me if I am misinterpreting ... my primary goal should be to identify and "control" (which I interpret to mean eradicate) invasives. My secondary goal should be to learn the natural history of the area and try to recreate what that was. Am I hearing you correctly? Please tell me if not, because I do want to hear what you are saying.

Ann

Regarding 'goal one', above, I think your current forest is probably a good approximation of the natural riparian forest for your region, with the possible exception of some exotic species.

IMHO, removal of aggressive exotics would make it closer to your geal. Fire is not necessary (though it was likely part of the natural order for your region in pre-European times). Thinning, removing dead wood, etc., is just busy work that will not make your area more 'natural'.

i would tend to lean the other way, in my experience i doubt any stand of trees in the plains states is close to its natural riparian state. due to the lack of disturbance many plains/riparian woodlands have way too many maples and too dense of a canopy...

"Lack of disturbance" is an interesting way to describe the cause of weedy second-growth forests in the midwest. Lack of fire is certainly a problem in upland woods, but otherwise current forests can be attributed almost entirely to too much disturbance...

Although I do agree entirely that most current forests in the area are overly dense and have too many maples, from lack of fire. I don't think this is as applicable an assessment when talking about bottomland woods, though.

Patrick Alexander

the best advice i can give is not to thin out too much of your undergrowth and shrubbery along the riverbank, or you will lose some bank to erosion, try planting buttercup along the bank if you dont want shrubbery there. i would be happy to send you buttercup tubers

We own 14 acres of meadow and woods in sourtheastern PA. Have been here 9 years. I have some of the same questions Ann raises.

One question I would ask Ann is how the property was maintained in the past 10 - 20 years. This would give some information about what recent practices have left the woods as they currently are. If you like the way they are, you could just keep doing the same.

Controlling invasives in woods is a big problem for us, especially multiflora and honeysuckle. I would recommend getting on invasives as soon as they appear. I fear we let them go too long. I would be interested in advice or sites that could help us controlling these invasives.

Anita

bottom land woodlands had two types of disturbance fire and flooding . and although flooding still occurs its pattern has been changed by how man has changed drainage. this has had an effect on bottom land forests.

distrubance ecology is an important factor in assessing the condition of a natural area. i think many people have the false notion that wooded areas are in their natural condition, when they are not.

I thought buttercups were an exotic weed

One question I would ask Ann is how the property was maintained in the past 10 - 20 years. This would give some information about what recent practices have left the woods as they currently are. If you like the way they are, you could just keep doing the same.

To my mind it's more complicated than that. Yes, I like the woods the way they are (and I don't know much about what's been done in the past years except I think relatively nothing). However, even though I 'like' the woods now, I do not know if their current condition and if doing nothing is best for the long term health of the woods. I truly feel that we are the stewards of this land, not the owners, and I asked this question to try to find out how best to care for the land and return it as much as possible to its native state.

One thing that is obvious to me from the discussion above is that I need to learn more. You all use terms that I am not sure of, and differentiate between bottom land woodlands andother woodlands, and talk about disturbance ecology...I need to learn more. I assume you call my area bottom land because its along the river? For what its worth, someone mentioned an overabundance of maples - that is not the problem here. Maples don't grow on our side of the river, too alkaline. Box elders do, and we do have some box elders, but my impression (which may be wrong) is that those are native. There are not a lot of them.

Do any of you have suggestions for good informative books that would help me learn about forest ecology? Or is this such a huge topic that I would need to go back to school :) ?

We do get erosion of the bank. We also get flooding pertty much every spring (and sometimes, such as this year, during the summer too). If the flooding is only spring thaw flooding, it doesn't seem to affect the plants too much. However if it is a summer flood, essentially all of the undergrowth is killed. It will be back next year, but for now there is not that beautiful green understory that the pictures above show.

This discussion is interesting to me. As I say, I need to learn more, but you are giving me ideas of WHAT I need to learn.

Ann

Fledgeling wrote:

"I thought buttercups were an exotic weed."

Depends on the buttercup. "Buttercup" is a pretty vague term, usually used to refer to anything in the genus Ranunculus, which includes more than 250 species worldwide, about 30 in the northeastern US. The buttercup best known as an invasive weed is Ranunculus acris, but there are many others that are native and innocuous.

Ann wrote:

"I assume you call my area bottom land because its along the river?"

Yeah, bottomland is just a name for low-lying areas that flood frequently.

"For what its worth, someone mentioned an overabundance of maples - that is not the problem here. Maples don't grow on our side of the river, too alkaline. Box elders do, and we do have some box elders, but my impression (which may be wrong) is that those are native. There are not a lot of them."

Well... box elders are maples, and indeed are native. The other maples often viewed as weeds (black maple, red maple, silver maple...) are also native. The reason they're often frowned on is that in areas people have disturbed they can grow quickly and densely, shading out everything else. If there aren't many I wouldn't worry about them--they're certainly not trees I'd try to get rid of, just trees it might help to keep in check under some circumstances.

Patrick Alexander

Ann,

If you don't get an answer to your question about a book on forest ecology, maybe you'll have better luck posting it on another GardenWeb forum--maybe 'Botany' or 'Trees'. BTW, looks like you have a great property there.

Good luck. -- Lori

Well as I remember it the eastern portion of ND is known as the Eastern Decidious Forests or Eastern Woodlands...

Here is a site you may like :)

Vera (ND girl :) )

Here is a link that might be useful: ND Forest Health Highlights