Current Status of Range Ecology in the Southeast 
J. B. HILMON? 
Ecology is a special challenge to range and 
wildlife scientists in the Southeast. We know, 
from limited probing, that ample opportunities 
are available to modify communities economi- 
cally, and that rapid, often radical plant re- 
sponse to treatments can be achieved. This chal- 
lenge has intensified in recent years as empha- 
sis has increased on multiresource planning 
and on concurrent demand for cost/benefit in- 
formation. We can no longer be content with 
understanding the response of succession to a 
few natural disturbances in a narrow range of 
conditions during a short period. 
Timber researchers are already developing 
multiple-product yield tables (Bennett and 
Clutter 1968). Multiresource model builders 
are asking us for response curves and coeffi- 
cients for range and wildlife habitat over a 
broader area than that for which we can cur- 
rently provide answers. 
In the past, wildlife and range managers 
have accepted the secondary role of their prod- 
ucts in relation to timber. Much of our past re- 
search and some of our present research is 
based on this role. In most management situa- 
tions, range and wildlife will continue to play 
such a secondary role, and we should recognize 
this restriction in our ecological studies. How- 
ever, there is growing recognition that consid- 
erable acreage exists where timber should be 
of secondary importance. Have we the ecologi- 
cal base to maximize range or wildlife habitat 
on such sites if we are given the opportunity? 
There is the dual challenge, then, to optimize 
individual resources as well as multiple re- 
sources. Such planning requires a broader eco- 
logical base than we have provided in the past. 
AN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT 
APPROACH 
Where do our current research programs 
stand in relation to this challenge? Our range 
project in the pine-wiregrass type has been 
reorganized into an integrated range-timber- 
wildlife project (Duvall and Hilmon 1965). We 
were in fair condition in relation to under- 
standing response of range—from a cattle- 
grazing standpoint—to major disturbance fac- 
tors: Fire, cattle, timber etc. However, even 
here, the breadth of our knowledge is inade- 
quate. For example, we had studied fire effects 
1 Assistant Director, Watershed, Range, Recreation, 
and Wildlife Habitat Research, Southeastern Forest 
Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C., Forest Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
intensively where fire was applied in the late 
fall or winter (Hilmon and Hughes 1966). We 
have little information on community response 
to burning at other times of the year. Our pri- 
mary emphasis now is to provide some knowl- 
edge of community response to a wide range of 
alternative treatments. Our knowledge of wild- 
life habitat response to even the major factors 
over a narrow range is limited or inadequate. 
We have increased emphasis on habitat re- 
search, especially of the interrelations of habi- 
tat research with range and timber. We are in 
the very early stages of developing models to 
optimize forest range productivity in this type. 
AUTECOLOGICAL STUDIES 
Research to define the ecological amplitudes 
of key species has been accelerated. Initial au- 
tecological studies of the principal shrub, Ser- 
enoa repens (Hilmon 1968), and the principal 
wiregrass, Aristida stricta (Parrott 1967), 
have been completed. Studies of key wildlife 
food plants Cassia fasciculata (Cushwa et al. 
1968) and Vitis aestivalis have been started. 
Southern Forest Experiment Station range sci- 
entists are studying autecology of pinehill 
bluestem (Andropogon divergens) and of long- 
leaf uniola (Uniola_ sessiliflora). Intensive 
study of the phenology of principal deer 
browse plants is also underway. 
We are expanding cooperative research 
started at Tifton, Ga., in order to better define 
tree and understory response to intensive man- 
agement (Hughes et al. 1966). Species adapta- 
bility and community ecology in response to 
fertilization, cultivation, and other intensive 
culture is a special challenge of range ecology 
and one we have neglected in the past. 
WILDLIFE HABITAT 
Our wildlife habitat research in the south- 
ern Appalachians is about where coastal range 
ecology was 20 to 25 years ago. Specific habi- 
tats used by the principal game species, sea- 
sonal use of forage plants, nutritive content of 
plants, and similar data generally are lacking 
for the mountains. Meanwhile, biologists are 
under pressure to (1) predict impacts of vari- 
ous land management treatments on habitat 
and (2) to improve habitat capacity. Wildlife 
habitat research is just passing from the phase 
where it closely followed current management 
problems to where it is beginning to develop an 
ecological base on which to prescribe optimum 
management. Current management problems 
207 
