Focus on Pheaseants Habitat Tour - Nebraska Game and Parks ...

1
Photo Taken by: Jeff Kurrus

Habitat upgrades in
progress!!!!!!
2

The <strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasants Areas ............................................................. 4
The <strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasants Partnership .................................................... 5
Statewide Pheasants Trend Data ........................................................... 6
Southwest Pheasants Trend Data ………………………………………….8
Southwest <strong>Focus</strong> Area ……………………………………………………...10
Southwest Tour agenda………………………………………………….11-12
Southwest <strong>Focus</strong> on Pheasants practices and payments…………….13
Southwest survey data ………………………………………………….15-16
Mid Contract Management…………………………………………………..17
Research Results .................................................................................. 24
3

<strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasants
<strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasants is a partnership effort formed in 2002 that brings together a
unique combination of Federal, State and Local government agencies, conservation
groups, private industry and landowners.
This combination of groups has come together in an effort to improve mature grass stands throughout
the state and provide better pheasant habitat. The average CRP field in Nebraska is now 17+ years
old and has had little or no management performed on it during the life of its contract.
The primary focus of this partnership has been to increase the wildlife habitat quality and diversity of
grass stands using the following management tools:
• Controlled burns
• Interseeding legumes
• Disking
• Chemical herbaceous vegetation control
• Haying
• Grazing
The <strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasants Partnership
5

Southwest <strong>Focus</strong> on Pheasants – Habitat Tour
Wednesday, June 8th, 2011
Trenton USDA Office
36465 US Highway 34
9:30 AM Introduction of resource professionals available to assist
landowners with conservation programs and habitat work.
9:35 AM Southwest Nebraska <strong>Focus</strong> on Pheasants <strong>Focus</strong> Area
What area is included
Why was it selected
Goals of FOP in the area
More and better habitat for pheasants
50% increase in pheasant population
More access opportunities and better hunting!
9:45 AM Begin field tour
9:55 AM Site 1 – N of Trenton on Hwy 25, W on Road 715, ¼ mile N on DR 364
CRP (CP25) field planted in 2005
Discussion of pheasant habitat needs
Discussion of goals and benefits of CP25 seedings
Cedar shelterbelts – good or bad for pheasants
Practices and payment rates for landowners:
CRP/CREP sign-up bonuses
CRP/CREP habitat management incentives
Other grassland/rangeland management
Trees and shrubs – cut some down, plant others.
“Pheasant Friendly” agricultural practices
Access Payments
11

11:00 AM Site 2 – 5 miles N of Trenton on Hwy 25, 1 mile W on Road 719, 3 mile N on DR363.
CRP fields with MCM activities
Discussion of goals, options and benefits Mid Contract Management
Discussion on the Mid Contract Management options
11:30 AM Site 3 – just SW of the Hwy 25/Hwy 6 intersection
CREP (CP2) field planted in 2005
Discussion of goals and benefits of CP2
Discussion on Management actives
Banding Results and Hunter Survey Results
12:00 PM Lunch at Krotter Park in Palisade (will reload and restart tour by 1:15PM)
1:45 PM Site 4 – Swanson Wildlife Management Area
Cropland/food plot rotations
Roadside field buffers
Early Successional Management
Tree removal projects
Grasslands
Croplands
Restoration of a riparian corridor (NGPC, NWTF,
FOP) Grassland management actives
Prescribed Burns
Grazing
Grassland Renovations
2:45PM
Site 5– Swanson Wildlife Management Area
Introduction to Habitat share Program 2.0
Future Projects (completed in 2011)
3:30 PM Head back to USDA office – end of tour.
NOTE: Anyone joining the tour late or that happens to “get lost”
during the tour can call Jake Holt at 308-370-1750 for current
location of the group.
12

Practices and Payment Rates for <strong>Focus</strong> Area
FOCUS AREA OBJECTIVES
Increase pheasant numbers by at least 50%
Demonstrate results that can be transported to other areas.
How to increase pheasant populations;
That we can increase hunter use & economic benefits.
Increase access opportunities—CRP-MAP, OFW, Etc.
NEW VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT PROGRAMS
• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Continuous CRP
(CCRP)
ο Signup Incentive Payment equivalent to one year of rental payments
on the CRP or CCRP contract with USDA (up to $50.00/acre)
ο Incentive payment for planting of more diverse seed mixtures that will provide longer term
benefits to upland gamebirds (up to $50.00/acre)
ο Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
ο Signup Incentive Payment equivalent to one year of dryland rental payments for CRP for
the soil type and location (up to $50.00/acre)
ο Incentive payment for seed mixes and MCM cost share as above.
ο Other Programs/Practices
EQIP, WHIP, NSWCA or other programs or practices for establishment of new grassland
without government programs – cost share for seed mixes and other appropriate
costs, similar to those listed above.
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT ON ESTABLISHED CRP, CCRP AND
CREP
Incentive payment on MCM activities on existing CRP, CCRP or CREP (estimated at $10.00 up to $60.00/acre) – disking,
interseeding, prescribed fire, etc.
CROPLAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
• Incentive payment for leaving taller wheat stubble (at least 14 inches tall on average) – (up to $15.00/acre not to exceed 320
acres)
• Incentive payment for not spraying weeds in wheat stubble post harvest (regardless of stubble height) - (up to $15.00/acre not
to exceed 320 acres)
Incentive payment for leaving milo stubble (at least 14 inches tall on average) -(up to $15.00/acre not to exceed 320 acres)
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
• Deferment payment for not grazing rangeland, odd areas, etc (up to $15.00/acre not to exceed 160 acres)
• Incentive Payments on prescribed fire.(up to $25/acre not to exceed 160 acres)
• Incentive Payments for early successional habitat management on ungrazed grassland areas not enrolled in conservation programs
(up to$50.00/acre not to exceed 160 acres)
• Incentive Payments for fencing materials to exclude livestock from small grassland areas that are usually grazed (up to $2.25/
linear foot)
• Incentive Payments for tree removal if deemed necessary ( up to $250/ac)
• Incentive Payments for establishment of native shrub thickets in ungrazed grassland areas (up to $425/ thicket)
Incentive Payment for managing established shrub thickets if deemed necessary ( up to $25/ac)
ACCESS PAYMENTS (based upon OFW rates)
• $10.00/acre for “excellent” CRP, CCRP, CREP
• $8.00/acre for “good” CRP, CCRP, CREP
• $4.00/acre for “moderate to good” CRP, CCRP, CREP
• $3.00/acre for “good to excellent” Wheat and Milo Stubble
13
• $1.50/acre for “moderate to Low” other habitats and CRP

2010 Southwest Pheasants Banding and Hunter survey
Results
In October, a trapping program was initiated to trap and band rooster pheasants within
the Southwest focus area. In addition to determining the efficacy of night-lighting pheasants
for future research, we also sought to measure harvest rate and movement patterns during the
hunting season. We captured and banded 155 pheasants before the start of the hunting season,
and 27 had been reported as harvested by the end of the hunting season in January. An additional
3 roosters were known to have been harvested, but were not reported. Therefore, the
recovery rate was 17.4% and the estimated reporting rate was 90%, giving an estimated harvest
rate of 19.3% over the 2010-2011 pheasant season. However, there were likely more
bands that were recovered and not reported, so this estimate of harvest rate is biased low and
the actual harvest rate is likely higher. In 2011, we will be conducting a reward band study to
more accurately estimate reporting rate and, therefore, harvest rate.
Several of the property owners on whose land we trapped pheasants kept records of harvest on
their land. We used these data to estimate a Lincoln-Peterson estimate of population size for
these properties. These estimates assume that the populations on these areas were closed,
which was supported by information on the location of harvest of banded birds. For the three properties for which
data were available, rooster population sizes were estimated to be 239
(+/-=106), 176 (+/-=50), and 90 (+/-=45).
In addition to band return data, we also surveyed hunter satisfaction within the focus area. By the end of the season,
we received 59 survey cards, and 57 respondents reported hunting within the focus area. Of the respondents who
hunted within the focus area, 48 hunted public land (84.2%). The focus area was divided into quadrants (Figure 1),
and hunters were asked to indicate which quadrant they hunted (Table 1). Some respondents indicated that they had
hunted in multiple quadrants during their hunting trip, so the total number of hunters over all quadrants is greater
than the number of respondents.
Photo Taken by: Doug Carroll
TABLE 1. Number of hunters per quadrant in the Southwest FOP <strong>Focus</strong> Area and the percent of use based on number
of respondents (n = 57).
Quadrant Number of Hunters Using Percent of Use
1 18 31.6
2 13 22.8
3 13 22.8
4 30 52.6
FIGURE 1. Map of the Southwest <strong>Focus</strong> on Pheasants <strong>Focus</strong> Area showing the division into quadrants.
15

A mean of 6.9 hours were spent afield in the focus area by respondents. The mean hunting party size was 4.3 hunters, who harvested
an average of 9.5 pheasants (2.2 pheasants harvested per hunter in the average hunting party). Respondents reported seeing
an average of 82 pheasants while hunting and an average of 17 hunters not associated with their party. Average hunter satisfaction
was 4.2 (5 = Very Satisfied), and the majority of hunters were satisfied with their hunt (Table 2).
CRP was the cover type most hunted by respondents (52, 91.2%), followed by milo stubble (16, 28.1%), wheat stubble (14,
24.6%), and other cover types including corn, weeds, and pasture (13, 22.8%).
TABLE 2. Hunter satisfaction with the hunting experience within in the Southwest FOP <strong>Focus</strong> Area (n = 57).
16

Grass Stand Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~
Disking and Interseeding
• Two passes minimum is required in stands of smooth bromegrass or switchgrass. In some
cases, our efforts have reached as high as five passes with a disk. Even aggressive disking in
this fashion does not make fields susceptible to erosion. It is far easier to disk “too little” than it
is to disk “too much”.
• Haying or burning the grass stand prior to disking reduces litter and improves the ease of
disking, but is not critical to achieving good results. Removal of litter may decrease the number
of disking passes necessary to achieve the desired impact and results.
• Smooth bromegrass typically returns aggressively in the 3 rd growing season following this type
of management. While the smooth bromegrass comes back aggressively, the grass stand can
still provide good structure and nesting cover at that point.
• Disking prior to September 15 th on smooth bromegrass does not sufficiently set the grass stand
back. Regrowth occurs within months and significantly reduces the effective length of the
treatment by at least one season.
• Disking smooth bromegrass in the spring is the most effective treatment, but the ability to
accomplish field work prior to May 1 st is very weather dependent.
• Care should be taken to stay out of waterways and away from the field borders when selecting
areas for disking.
• Care should be taken to identify areas of known noxious weed infestations and then design work
around these areas. If the area had a history of noxious weeds prior to enrollment in CRP, it will
certainly have noxious weed situation following disking if that is your management technique.
• Frank discussions with landowners about early successional plants (weeds) need to be discussed
prior to initiation of work. The landowners tolerance to early successional plants and desire for
more wildlife will help guide your management technique application.
• Effective communication with USDA field office, local weed superintendent, landowners, and
media can greatly increase support for habitat improvements such as this. This partnership has
been enhanced by substantial support from the media, partners and landowners.
• The legume and forb seeding mixtures used (see www.nebraskapf.com) produced desirable
plant composition and structure.
• Annual plant responses varied from site to site. Generally speaking, common sunflower and
annual foxtail are the primary annuals that show up in the first growing season. Common
sunflowers are significantly reduced from the site after the first year.
18

Grass Stand Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~
Prescribed fire and haying
• Prescribed fire on warm-season CRP grass stands can be effective in reducing cool-season grass
encroachment and for certain tree control if timed correctly. It also reduces grass litter and
invigorates regrowth. Some annual plants also respond favorably to the increased sunlight
penetration.
• To reduce the encroachment of cool-season grasses, mid to late April in CRP and May 25 in
rangeland burns are recommended.
• The reduction of litter following a burn provides an excellent opportunity to:
♦ Disk and interseed a mixture of legumes.
♦ Increase disturbance on the site.
♦ Use a no-till drill to interseed legumes into the existing grass stand.
• Prescribed fire on an established cool-season grass stand does very little to improve the grass
stand composition or diversity. It will reduce the litter and can be effective in controlling some
woody plants.
• Haying can also reduce litter and provide an opportunity to either disk and interseed or to apply
other management techniques. Interseeding a legume mixture directly into a hayed cool-season
grass stand without another form of disturbance produced minimal benefits that will last for a short
period of time.
• Haying that is performed on a site 3 to 5 years after an initial upgrade has provided positive wildlife
benefits. Even on sites where the cool-season grasses have returned aggressively, haying the site
has brought back a flush of legume growth.
• Haying activities are restricted from being used during the primary nesting season dates of May 1 st
to July 15 th .
• Combining prescribed fire with high intensity, short duration grazing can be an excellent
combination of management techniques. Combining the two treatments can help control coolseason
grass grasses and stimulate both warm-season grasses and broadleaf forbs.
19

Grass Stand Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~
Herbicide application and interseeding
• Where disking is not feasible, chemical burn back using a Glyphosate herbicide may provide the
best management alternative.
• Situations where the use of herbicide might be preferred include areas with known noxious weed
infestations, lack of tillage equipment, or hayed cool-season grass stands.
• The use of Select ® herbicide or other non-broadleaf herbicides offers additional alternatives for
reducing the regrowth of cool-season grasses and encouraging broadleaved forbs in upgraded
areas.
• Experience has found that when controlling smooth bromegrass with a Glyphosate, an application
of 28+ ounces per acre with an AMS applied between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm on a warm day
produces the best results.
20
Haying and Spraying recommendations developed for use in the <strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasants partnership by Jim Brown,
Natural Resource Specialist, US Army Corps of Engineers Republican City, NE.

Grass Stand Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~
Final Thoughts
• CRP cost share rates, generally speaking, are too low. Even for landowners that seriously desire
to see habitat improvement and for those that are only conducting this work as a requirement
of CRP, this will be viewed as a financial burden or will result in sub par results due to
lack of awareness.
• There are very few certainties in life…...two that can be applied to CRP Mid Contract Management
are:
1). You can’t ever kill off smooth bromegrass with any amount of disking.
2). If you had noxious weeds before enrollment in CRP, they will show up
again following disking.
• While USDA technical guides are pretty complete at describing maximum management efforts
(how deep to disk, how many passes, percent reside, etc.), they are generally weak on outlining the
minimum management efforts required to accomplish the desired results.
• Our experience showed that minimum management efforts
21
typically produced minimum, if any, results.

This site was hayed in late
summer followed by chemical
treatment in the fall. It was
then interseeded with
legumes in the spring.
22

Grass Stand Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~
Noxious Weeds
• Noxious weeds were identified as an issue to be addressed in the planning of <strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasant
activities. The plants on Nebraska’s noxious weed list that were anticipated to be of concern
included musk, plumeless, and Canada thistles.
• CRP tracts with a history of thistle problems and where thistle seeds were present in the seed
bank were more problematic than tracts with limited thistle history. When thistle problems
occurred on CRP tracts that had been disked and interseeded with legumes as part of the <strong>Focus</strong>
On Pheasants project, appropriate treatments were applied.
• Those treatments included hand chopping, spot shredding, and spot spraying with appropriate
herbicides. If thistle problems were widespread over a large area, then a blanket application of
appropriate herbicide that was labeled for legumes and/or shredding of affected areas were
treatments that provided acceptable results.
• Communication and cooperation among all involved entities were the key to resolving noxious
weed problems on CRP tracts while still developing and maintaining desired vegetative diversity
provided by the interseeded legumes.
• The key message here is that if an area had a known history of noxious weeds prior to its
enrollment in CRP, Mid Contract Management activities will bring those noxious weeds out again.
Any activities that disturb the soil will allow those early successional stage plants to reappear.
23

From landscapes to land management:
Improving gamebird populations by understanding the neighborhood
Across Nebraska there is considerable effort to improve pheasant and quail
populations by enhancing habitat conditions on public and private lands. Given the
limited resources, yet considerable effort necessary to achieve this goal there is a need
to assure that management actions meet conservation objectives. Unfortunately despite
the best of intentions, management efforts can fail, even when actions are widely
seen as beneficial. Pheasants and quail are important game species, thus understanding
why management efforts fail is not only necessary to successfully manage gamebirds,
but also to ensure economic stability in the surrounding farmland communities. Chris
Jorgensen, a graduate student with the University of Nebraska, and Joseph Fontaine,
Assistant Unit Leader with the Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
are working in a collaborative effort with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission,
Pheasants Forever, and numerous private land owners to address this issue by exploring
how habitat conditions across the landscape may influence local habitat suitability
for upland gamebirds. They are testing the notion, that like ourselves, upland gamebirds
may be unable or unwilling to occupy ‘bad neighborhoods’, no matter how great
the ‘house’.
Over the last two years, and continuing into 2012, they have conducted bird surveys
at locations scattered across southern Nebraska. Including 24 State and Federal
Wildlife Management Areas, 19 private properties enrolled in the CRP-MAP program,
and 23 additional sites located on private lands. Thus far they have recorded >7,000
birds representing >100 species including quail, pheasants, and even prairie-chickens.
By looking at habitat conditions using field
measurements and satellite imagery, their initial
findings suggest that some species are
particularly sensitive to conditions in the
‘neighborhood’. For example, pheasants appear
to be less common in landscapes with as
little as 20% tree coverage, even when local
habitat conditions are otherwise ideal. This
may be because they perceive trees as the
wrong habitat or because wooded areas
house more predators. In either case, understanding
how landscape conditions limit local
habitat suitability can explain why management
actions sometimes fail and help
guide future management efforts in Nebraska and beyond.
For more information please visit the Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit home page http://snr.unl.edu/necoopunit/.
25

Greater Prairie Chicken Habitat Selection and Productivity in
Southeast Nebraska Landscapes
The Greater Prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cuipdo pinnatus) has potential to benefit from
conversion of crop ground to grassland through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
CRP grasslands may provide nesting and brood rearing habitat, an important component of
population persistence. Managers and policy makers lack evidence of CRP’s relative
contribution to populations of Greater Prairie-chicken. We radio-collared 100 hens in 2006-2007
in Johnson County to quantify the effect CRP has on habitat selection and nest and brood
survival.
Ty Mathews, Larkin Powell
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and Jeff Lusk; NGPC
Nesting hens selected nest sites in both warm- and cool-season CRP over other habitat
types (Fig. 1). Nest success was also twice as high in CRP fields compared to other types of
grassland. Nesting hens also selected and survived better in areas with higher amounts of forbs
like alfalfa and red clover. Prairie-chicken hens selected cool-season CRP, along with and increase
in forbs and bare ground while raising their young.
Nest Habitat Selection
0.6
0.5
Proportion
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Available
Used
0
Range Crop Coolseason
CRP
Warmseason
CRP
Pasture
26

Insect and Vegetation Responses to Disking and Interseeding Legumes on
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Fields in Eastern Nebraska
Scott Taylor, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
Background
In the spring of 2000, the Wildlife Division of Nebraska Game and Parks recognized the need for information regarding the effects of
light disking and interseeding with regard to pheasant brood habitat components on CRP fields. These management actions are required
on CRP fields enrolled in the Commission’s CRP-Management Access Program (CRP-MAP). The goal of management is to improve
nesting and brood rearing habitat on portions of these fields. The most important desired improvement was an increase in insect
abundance. Pheasants and many other grassland birds depend heavily upon insects in their diets during the summer. Desired vegetative
improvements included increases in visual obstruction, plant diversity, and canopy coverage measurements. We sampled insects
and vegetation in portions of CRP fields with and without the disking and interseeding treatment to determine the effects of this management
technique.
Methods
We sampled 4 different field types. 1) CRP fields planted to cool season grasses, with a portion of the field disked and interseeded with
legumes (alfalfa, yellow sweetclover, and/or red clover), 2) CRP fields planted to warm season grasses, with a portion of the field disked
and interseeded with legumes, 3) either cool or warm season CRP fields with a portion of the field planted to a high diversity seed mixture
(CP-25), and 4) native prairie hay fields. Transects were located > 20 m from field borders and ran parallel to the edge. We used
sweep nets to collect insects. We made 50 sweeps along each transect.
Highlights of Results
We acquired samples from 22 fields. In CRP fields, insect abundance was higher in treatment portions of both cool season and warm
season fields. Insect abundance in CP-25 plantings was similar to those in control portions of the fields.
Line to line variability in insect abundance was relatively high but field to field variability was relatively low. This suggested an uneven
distribution of insects within fields. If future sampling is done, an increased number of sample lines per field is suggested to reduce variability
of mean abundance measurements.
Significant increases in both visual obstruction (height and density) and forb (broad-leafed plants) to grass ratios were observed on both
cool season and warm season CRP fields that were disked and interseeded with legumes. Litter (dead plant material) decreased significantly
after treatment.
This technique quickly improved nesting habitat (structurally) for pheasants and many other grassland dependent bird species. The
reduction in litter and increase in insect abundance appears to have made these tracts more attractive for foraging and brood rearing as
well. As such, this technique shows promise for improving wildlife habitat on older CRP stands that have lost vegetative diversity.
27

Table 1. Mean biomass (g) of invertebrates sampled in several herbaceous community types in Nebraska during summer,
2000. Measurements represent the total biomass collected along 3 50-m transects per field; sample sizes are the
number of fields.
Untreated Portion of Field
Interseeded or High
Diversity Portion of Field
Field Type n Mean SE Mean SE
Cool-season CRP 6 3.94 0.81 9.07 1.53
Warm-season CRP 6 2.66 0.97 9.31 1.71
CP-25 and adjacent CRP 5 5.74 1.76 4.85 2.90
Native prairie 5 8.21 2.48
Light disking and interseeding to improve brood habitat
Ron Leathers
Pheasants Forever, Inc.
Pheasants are early-successional species, relying heavily on a combination of grasses and weedy
forbs to produce seed and insect food sources. In particular, pheasant hens and chicks are heavily
dependant on insects as a primary food source during spring nesting and summer broodrearing.
Hens must eat insect foods to meet their needs for high levels of calcium and protein to
produce eggs. Pheasant chicks are almost solely dependant on insects throughout their first summer
to meet their needs for high calorie, high protein foods to reach maturity by winter. As
grasses grow, they tend to choke out these weedy forb species and can become nearly pure
stands of a single grass species, leaving pheasants and other birds without the food sources and
diversity they need to fully reach their population potential.
Nebraska’s CRP-Management Access Program is a joint program of Pheasants Forever and the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission that promotes management of aging CRP grasslands to
set back grass growth and encourage reestablishment of forb species. The specific management
practice that is used for this program is light disking and interseeding legumes (typically alfalfa,
sweetclover, and red clover).
Some of the highlights of a 2001 & 2002 study on the CRP-MAP program’s management practices
are presented below.
Invertebrates:
Managed fields had a much higher availability of insects and invertebrates than idle fields. The
increase was particularly pronounced in the native grass stands. Idle native grasses had the lowest
overall availability of invertebrates, translating into the least available food source for pheasant
chicks. However, managed native grasses had the highest availability of invertebrates and the
most food sources for chicks. Although less pronounced than in the natives, brome fields also
had more invertebrates when managed than when left idle.
28

Available invertebrates
Biomass (mg)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Brome
Native
Idle 1918.9 531.6
Managed 2334.3 2757.7
Idle
Managed
Vegetation changes:
Managed fields had more legume cover than idle fields. Without
management, the average percent cover of legumes was less than
2% in brome fields and 0.5% in native grasses. After management,
legumes accounted for roughly 1/3 rd of the total cover in brome fields
and 1/6 th of the cover in native grasses.
Managed fields also had more forb cover (including the planted legumes
and any volunteer weedy forbs) than idle fields. Planted legumes
accounted for the majority of the forb cover in managed fields.
Again, the percentage of forbs in idle fields was extremely low (

Insect Response to Disking and Interseeding Legumes on
Conservation Reserve Program Lands in Northeast Nebraska
Jamie Bachmann, Oklahoma State University, Scott Taylor, Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission and Lucas Negus, Oklahoma State University.
Insects are important food resources for many grassland birds. A survey was conducted in 2004 to determine
insect abundance, biomass and diversity in treated vs. untreated fields as part of the Grassland Bird
Study in the Stanton County <strong>Focus</strong> On Pheasants study area.
Eight of the sixteen fields used for the grassland bird study were chosen randomly for insect sampling. Of
those eight, four were disked and interseeded with yellow sweet clover, alfalfa, and red clover; and four
were control fields that received no treatment. Using a sweep net, three sub-samples of twenty sweeps
each were taken along 200 meter transects within each field. Samples were preserved sorted, identified,
dried, and weighed for biomass over the fall and winter of 2004-2005.
Preliminary statistics have been preformed to compare insect samples between treated and untreated
fields. Previous research has shown grasshoppers, butterflies, caterpillars, beetles, and spiders as being
the main food resource for grassland bird hatchlings. Graph 1 compares the total abundance of these insects
for July samples between treated and non-treated fields. Treated fields had an insect abundance of
2,951 and non-treated fields had an abundance of 1,021. Graph 2 compares the biomass, or dry weight,
of the same insects. Treated fields have nearly three times more biomass than non-treated fields.
Insect Abundance
Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields
Insect Biomas
Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields
Abundance
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Treated
Not Treated
Biom ass (m g)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Treated
Not Treated
Graph 1. Abundance of insects favored by grassland birds
in treated (disked/interseeded) and unmanaged fields.
Graph 2. Biomass (dry weight) of insects favored 30 by
grassland birds in treated (disked/interseeded) and unmanaged
fields.

Ring-neck Pheasant Habitat Selection and Productivity in
Landscapes Containing Disked and Interseeded CRP in
Northeast Nebraska
Ty Mathews and Larkin Powell
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
A decline in the quality and quantity of ring-necked pheasant nesting and brood-rearing habitat has
been hypothesized as a major factor limiting population growth in the Great Plains. Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) was thought to reestablish this valuable habitat, but population response
was smaller than anticipated. Pheasant populations in Nebraska rose in the first 5-6 years of CRP
then declined thereafter. This decline is thought to be due to the change of vegetation composition
in these fields. Newly planted CRP fields (≤5 to 6 years) contain a high diversity of grasses, forbs, legumes,
and annual weeds with an abundance of bare ground needed by nesting pheasant hens and
their broods. Older fields (>6 years) are characterized by dense monoculture of grass with little bare
ground and thick litter. Disking and interseeding forbs into older CRP fields re-create the conditions
found in the newly planted fields.
Objectives
• Compare habitat use of pheasant hens and their broods in CRP fields that have been disked and
interseeded to unmanaged CRP fields and other grasslands
• Compare chick survival in CRP fields that have been disked and interseeded to unmanaged CRP
fields and other grasslands
• Determine the insect diet of pheasant chicks in all field types
CRP Nest Success
2005
Interseeded
Non-interseeded
53.3% (n=15)
37.5% (n=16)
2006
Interseeded 60.0% (n=10)
Non-interseeded 33.3% (n=18)
31

Brood Survival
Int model
% Time in
Interseeded
0.05
0.1
0.1946
0.2
0.25
Survival
0.971
0.977
0.984
0.985
0.987
21-day
0.544
0.610
0.716
0.721
0.767
Nest Survival
Raw Nest Success
Interseeded: 65%
Non-interseeded: 55%
Other: 42%
(n=20)
(n=20)
(n=7)
Daily Nest Survival
Interseeded: 0.982 (95% CI= 0.963-.0992)
Non-interseeded: 0.977 (95% CI= 0.956-0.987)
Other: 0.964 (95% CI= 0.909-0.987)
Conclusions
• Interseeding CRP provides reproductive
benefits
• Hens select interseeded CRP for nesting
• Nest survival tends to be higher in
interseeded areas
• Hens with broods tend to prefer
interseeded CRP
32
• Hens with broods selected areas with high
forb content

Grassland bird response to disking/interseeding of
legumes in Conservation Reserve Program lands
in Northeast Nebraska
Lucas Negus and Craig A. Davis
Oklahoma State University
Grassland bird populations are declining faster than any other group of birds. These declines have
been attributed to the loss of prairie habitat. With the tremendous losses of native prairie throughout
the Midwest, surrogate grasslands such as CRP have become increasingly more important to grassland
wildlife. While game birds are most commonly thought of as being the main beneficiaries, nongame
grassland songbirds also benefit from CRP. Recently, several studies have attributed population
increases, or at least stable trends, in specific grassland bird species to CRP.
In May of 2002, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and Pheasants Forever, Inc. initiated a
program to curb declining ring-necked pheasant populations in the state. The program, entitled
“<strong>Focus</strong> on Pheasants,” placed an emphasis on creating nesting and brood-rearing habitat in the aging
CRP fields by disking and interseeding legumes. Although improving pheasant habitat is the primary
objective, grassland birds will likely benefit from the habitat manipulations as well. These habitat
upgrades provide an excellent opportunity to evaluate grassland bird population response to this
management practice. Funding for this study was provided through the Nebraska State Wildlife
Grant program. State Wildlife Grants provide funding for management practices and research that
benefit at-risk wildlife species.
Objectives:
• To compare grassland bird richness and abundance in CRP fields disked/interseeded to CRP
fields unmanaged.
• To compare grassland bird nest productivity in CRP fields disked/interseeded to CRP fields unmanaged.
• To evaluate differences in vegetation structure, composition, and cover between CRP fields
disked/interseeded and CRP fields unmanaged.
Beginning in May 2004, grassland bird abundance and nest productivity were sampled in 16 fields
throughout the Stanton County focus area. Eight fields were disked and interseeded and served as
experimental fields. Eight fields in which no disking and interseeding was performed serve as control
fields. Surveys were conducted May through July, 2004, and will continue May through July, 2005.
33

Results - 2004:
Grassland bird species observed during surveys include eastern and western meadowlarks, grasshopper
sparrows, Henslow’s sparrows, Dickcissels, sedge wrens, bobolinks, field sparrows, common
yellowthroats, brown-headed cowbirds, and northern harriers. Other bird species using the
CRP include redwing blackbirds, barn swallows, rough-winged swallows, eastern kingbirds, mallards,
blue-winged teal, ring-necked pheasants, northern bobwhite, and mourning doves.
Bird surveys from the 2004 field season indicate some important differences. Several grassland
bird species, including Dickcissels and grasshopper sparrows, were more abundant in experimental
fields than control fields. Dickcissels were 3 times more abundant in experimental fields. Experimental
fields had a species richness of 24, compared to a richness of 18 in control fields. Several
differences between treatments were also seen in nesting behavior. Of 100 nests found throughout
the field season, 88 were in experimental fields. Additionally, nest densities were 3 times greater in
experimental fields. Nest success was 37-40% in both experimental and control fields.
Differences in vegetation characteristics were also observed. The control field vegetation was composed
of only 1.5% forbs and 2% bare ground. Conversely, experimental fields were composed of
25% forbs and 25% bare ground. Litter (dead material in contact with the ground) was two times deeper in
control fields than experimental. Finally, vegetation height was relatively uniform in control fields,
ranging from 34 to 71 cm throughout the summer. Vegetation height in experimental fields varied
greatly, from 24 to 90 cm, indicating a diversity of heights throughout the field.
Bird surveys and nest searches resumed in May of this summer, with some slight modifications.
Nest searches have been intensified to achieve the goal of finding 200 nests. Following this summers
field season, results from the two field seasons will be compiled, analyzed, interpreted, and
reported.
Grassland Bird Conclusions
• Disked/interseeded fields supported higher
abundances and more species than undisked
fields
• Disking/interseeding created vegetation
response that attracted diverse assemblage of
grassland birds
• Nest densities appeared to be higher in
disked/interseeded fields, but no difference in
nest success
• Mature brome stands were still important,
particularly to Henslow’s Sparrows and
Bobolinks
Overall Conclusions
• Planted grasslands are important for wildlife
species
• Mid-contract management is important in
grass dominated, aged CRP fields
• Disking and interseeding legumes is an effective
management technique
• A wide array of wildlife (both game and nongame)
and organisms benefit from
management
• Management is needed in the future to
maintain/enhance the wildlife habitat CRP
fields provide as they progress through the life
of their contract
34

Notes:
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________ 36

Notes:
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________ 37

A grass stand that has been dominated by smooth bromegrass
and lost its productivity for upland wildlife. An area that was
excellent wildlife habitat in the past has now naturally moved
through succession to a more mature grass stand in need of
management.
On April 7, 2004, the grass stand is disked with three passes
and then interseeded with a legume mixture. A minimum of
three passes with a disk was necessary with a mature stand
of bromegrass but still leaves more than 50% residue.
On July 29, 2004, the area now has a wide diversity of plant
species, has an open understory, supports plants that attract
insects, and is once again a diverse grassland. The legumes
that were interseeded into the disked area are already present
and providing brood-rearing habitat for pheasants as well as a
diverse habitat for all types of grassland birds.
38
On May 30, 2005, the area now shows the true value of
performing upgrades on mature grass stand. The area is
providing excellent nesting and brood-rearing cover for a
wide range of wildlife, especially pheasant, quail, waterfowl
and grassland songbirds with 22” of undisturbed
grass and forb cover.