1. State Wildlife Grants (SWG) were created with the intent of protecting and managing wildlife species in greatest conservation need. With 80 percent of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) original forest cover lost, breeding birds of the MAV warrant our conservation efforts. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries commissioned Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) on the state’s wildlife management areas to look at how forest management techniques in the MAV impact bird populations. At Boeuf Wildlife Management Area (WMA) species richness and diversity were compared across treatments. A list of confirmed breeding birds on the WMA is being generated as well as a checklist of all avian species encountered to include those detected outside the constraints of the BBS.  Boeuf WMA is 51,000 + acres of bottomland hardwoods and wetland habitat in northeast Louisiana. The land is owned by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.  Point count locations were randomly selected using a map of Boeuf WMA, projected with ArcView software. Locations were chosen for comparisons of different silvicultural practices. Accessibility and spatial concerns were considered.  Multiple point counts (Hamel et al. 1996) were conducted within each compartment on the WMA. Each point count was sampled approximately once monthly during April, May, and June. Point counts were conducted between 0.5 hours before sunrise and 3.0 hours after sunrise. Point counts were not conducted during periods of high wind or rain.  All birds seen or heard within 100m of the observer were recorded. Distances from the observer to all birds detected were broken down between three categories; less then 25m, 25m to 50m, and greater then 50m.  Each count was conducted for 10 minutes. The point count was subdivided into three intervals: 1-3 min, 2-5 min, and 5-10 min. Literature shows that a diversity of habitats is most beneficial to the avian community and the environment as a whole. Future management should seek to find a sustainable balance between conservation and preservation when making decisions concerning bottomland hardwoods and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). At Boeuf Wildlife Management Area (WMA), further monitoring is necessary to determine reasons for low numbers of HOWA, KEWA, WOTH, and EAPW. Low abundance may be due to the factors within the WMA, but may also be part of the larger trend in the declining population of neo-tropical migrants throughout the MAV. A greater understanding of the dynamics of new plantations will also improve the success of future forest regeneration efforts. Protecting and managing wildlife species of greatest conservation need will become more necessary as natural habitats are pressured by the expansion of agriculture and exurban areas. Boeuf WMA hosts a diverse range of habitats and is a valuable refuge in which to protect threatened species in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Avian response to silviculture practices in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: A breeding bird survey of Boeuf Wildlife Management Area JOHN QUINN and KIM MARIE TOLSON, Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Monroe To effectively manage southern forests in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, a thorough understanding of the impacts of various silviculture techniques is needed. Wilson et al. (1996) have identified the need to survey biological resources as the first step in developing effective management strategies. The first step in a biological resource survey is an estimation of diversity at one time and location. For this study, we are looking to estimate the total number of breeding species in each community within the WMA. We will examine the difference between managed and unmanaged forests and how age and structure of a plantation influences the avian population. To increase use of Boeuf WMA by the general public and the birding community, we will develop an avian species list for the WMA, providing the community and birders with species present. A complete species list and a copy of the poster can be found at: http://www.ulm.edu/~tolson/johnqiv.htm Unmanaged Introduction Methods Aim Results Conclusion Further Information Acknowledgements We thank Elbert Rachal for advice and helpful discussions, Buddy Dupris, David Breithaupt, Tommy Tuma, and Fred Hagaman for field data about Boeuf WMA. Funding for this project was provided by the LDWF & USFWS, Division of Federal Aid through the State Wildlife Grants Program. Photos by Mike Baranski T09Managed Timber Cut/Individual T15Managed Timber Cut/Individual T18Managed Timber Cut/Individual T10Unmanaged T12Unmanaged T13Unmanaged/Tornado T16Unmanaged/Greentree T17Unmanaged T21Unmanaged T22Unmanaged T25Unmanaged T31Unmanaged/Flooded T06Managed Timber Cut/Group T06BManaged Timber Cut/Group Works Cited Hamel, P.B., W.P. Smith, D.J. Twedt, J.R. Woehr, E. Morris, R.B. Hamilton, and R.J. Cooper. 1996. A land manger’s guide to point counts of birds in the southeast. U.S.D.A Forest Service, Report SO-120 Wilson, D.E., F.R. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R. Rudran, M.S. Foster 1996. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Smithsonian Institution Press A total of 198 point counts were conducted on 22 transects in plantations, managed and unmanaged forests. A total of 38 species were counted during the 2005 BBS season. Total species richness for the management area currently stands at 171 species. T01Replantation High/Low T32Replantation/Moist Soil/WRP T33Replantation High/Low T36Replantation High/Low T37Replantation WRP T38Replantation WRP T63Replantation High/Low T05Natural Area/Flooded T07Natural Area Description of Transects ManagedReforested Species RichnessS =23 Simpson's Index (D)D =0.113 Simpson's Index of Diversity1-D =0. 88 7 Shannon's Index (H‘)H'=3.629 Simpson's Evenness 1/D E =0.377 Managed Species RichnessS =29 Simpson's Index (D)D =0.074 Simpson's Index of Diversity1-D =0.926 Shannon's Index (H‘)H'=4.163 Simpson's Evenness 1/D E =0.451 Unmanaged Species RichnessS =32 Simpson's Index (D)D =0.067 Simpson's Index of Diversity1-D =0.933 Shannon's Index (H‘)H'=4.243 Simpson's Evenness 1/D E =0.463 Percent Similarity of Relative Abundance UnmanagedReforested Managed 83.4231.25 Reforested 34.43