2007 Tour Booklet-Website Version-2

8/8/2019 2007 Tour Booklet-Website Version-2

1/43


2/43

A CRP warm-season grass stand responds well to prescribed fires by removingthe litter buildup, increasing the diversity, creating open area on the ground andenhancing plants that attract insects.


3/43

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

The Study Area and what weve learned................................................

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership..................................................1

CRP Mid Contract Management ............................................................1

Focus Area Research .............................................................................1

Notes ........................................................................................................3


4/43

The CRP Mid Contract Management Tours conducted in 2004 and 2005 are just some of many effortsfocused on improving the wildlife benefits associated with CRP grass stands. Sharing informationwith landowners and biologists is an important part of Focus On Pheasants, CRP-MAP and CRP MidContract Management.

2


5/433


6/434

This photo shows the location of the Focus On Pheasants - Focus Area locatedwithin Stanton County, Nebraska. This 32-square mile area was selected as a fo-cus area in the state based on the amount of CRP tracts in the area (shown in goldand purple), CRP tracts enrolled into the CRP-MAP program, interest in the arealandowners in participating in the program and the historical number of pheasantsin the area.

Those tracts highlighted in gold have had some form of Mid Contract Manage-ment performed on them since the spring of 2003. The tracts highlighted in pur-ple have not had management performed on them due to the presence of a his-torical noxious weed problem, the need for control areas with the research pro-

jects being conducted or landowners not wanting to participate in the program.


7/43

F o c u s A r e a T i m e l i n e

2002 Written in collaboration among NGPC, PF and NRCS biologists, the Focus On Pheasan

plan was approved by the NGPC Board of Commissioners in May.

Selected Focus Areas (See page 16 for a complete list of all Focus Areas in the state).

Discuss objectives and coordinate efforts between NGPC, PF, FSA (local staff, county commitand state office staff), NRCS (local and state office staff) and area landowners.

Hired one full-time biologist position (1-year contract) to implement the plan.

Designed evaluation procedures.

Began making landowner contacts.

2003 Disked and interseeded 1,000 acres on 37 different tracts of land owned by 24 different lan

owners.

Conducted spring pheasant crowing surveys.

Initiated pilot study on the grassland bird response to disking and interseeding. Conducted August roadside pheasant brood surveys.

Conducted habitat tours of the focus area for NGPC, PF, local FSA and NRCS and area lanowners. Discussed the results and landowner satisfaction.

Monitored noxious weed response and spot treated by spraying 1,000 acres some landowers did this themselves.

Applied for and received a State Wildlife Grant to initiate a Grassland Bird Study. The stuwill be conducted through Oklahoma State University to monitor response to habitat work.

Enrolled 780 acres of CRP in the focus area into the CRP-MAP access program.

2004 Disk and interseeded additional 1,100 acres on 44 tracts of land owned by 26 landowners. Conducted spring pheasant crowing counts.

Began Grassland Bird Study.

Initiated pilot pheasant telemetry study to determine nesting and brood rearing habitat prefences.

Initiated insect study to measure response to uniform management treatments.

Hosted the 1st CRP Mid Contract Management Tour in August.

Conducted August roadside pheasant brood surveys.

Monitored noxious weed response and spot treated by spraying 2,100 acres.

Enrolled additional 240 acres of CRP into the CRP-MAP walk-in access program.

5


8/43

F o c u s A r e a T i m e l i n e

2005 Disked and interseeded 100 additional acres.

Initiated a demonstration of Glyphosate herbicide application and interseeding legumes.

Initiated a demonstration of Select herbicide on brome that had been disked and interseededin previous years.

Initiated a demonstration prescribed burn and interseeding legumes.

Conducted spring crow counts.

Began Pheasant Telemetry Project to monitor response by radio collaring 50 pheasant hens.The study is conducted through the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

Second year of Grassland Bird Study.

Conduct August roadside pheasant brood survey.

Monitor noxious weeds and spot treat by spraying and chopping 2,300 acres.

Conduct 2nd Mid-Contract Management Tour in June.

Conduct 2nd Twilight Habitat Tour in July.

2 Stanton County Landowners Dale Clark and Al Platt receive recognition for FOP efforts atPheasant Fest in Omaha.

Expanded individual field demonstrations to most counties in northeast Nebraska.

Presented Grassland Bird and Pheasant Telemetry preliminary results at annual meeting ofThe Wildlife Society.

2006 Continue monitoring the management techniques being applied in the study area.

Completed 2nd year of pheasant telemetry study.

Conduct additional demonstrations of different mid-contract management techniques.

Conduct field tours and presentations of data.

Presented Grassland Songbird study results at the Perdix meeting.

Presented Grassland Songbird and Pheasant Telemetry study results at annual State HabitatMeeting.

6


9/43

Disk ing and In t erseeding 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 inthis fashion does not make fields susceptible to erosion. It is far easier to disk too little than itis to disk too much.

Haying or burning the grass stand prior to disking reduces litter and improves the ease of disk-ing, but is not crucial to achieving good results. Removal of litter may decrease the number ofdisking passes necessary to achieve the desired impact and results.

Smooth bromegrass typically returns aggressively in the 3rd growing season following manage-ment. While the smooth bromegrass comes back aggressively, the grass stand can still providegood structure and nesting cover at that point.

Disking prior to September 15

th

on smooth bromegrass does not sufficiently set the grass standback. Regrowth occurs within months and significantly reduces the effective length of the treat-ment by at least one season.

Disking smooth bromegrass in the spring is the most effective treatment, but the ability to ac-complish field work prior to May 1st is often determined by weather.

Care should be taken to stay out of waterways and away from the field borders when selectingareas for disking.

Care should be taken to identify areas of known noxious weed infestations and then design workaround these areas. If the area had a history of noxious weeds prior to enrollment in CRP, it will

have noxious weeds following a disking. 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 formore wildlife will help guide your management technique application.

Effective communication with USDA field office, local weed superintendent, landowners, andmedia can greatly increase support for habitat improvements such as this. This partnership hasbeen enhanced by substantial support from the media, partners and landowners.

The legume seeding mixtures used (see page 57 for a list of mixtures) produced desirable plant com-position and structure. The addition of white sweetclover to mixtures may be desirable due toits later maturation date.

Annual plant responses varied from site to site. Generally speaking, common sunflower and an-nual foxtail are the primary annuals that show up in the first growing season. Common sunflow-ers virtually disappears from the site after the first year.

C R P M i d C o n t r a c t M a n a g e m e n t

~ O b s e r v a t i o n s a n d O p i n i o n s ~

7


10/43

Presc r ibed f i re and hay ing 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 invigo-rates regrowth. Some annual plants also respond favorably to the increased sunlight penetration.

To reduce the encroachment of cool-season grasses, late April 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 grassstand 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 applyother management techniques. Interseeding a legume mixture directly into a hayed cool-seasongrass stand without another form of disturbance produced minimal benefits that will last for a shortperiod of time.

Haying that is performed on a site 3 to 5 years after an initial upgrade has provided positive wildlifebenefits. Even on sites where the cool-season grasses have returned aggressively, haying the sitehas brought back a flush of legume growth.

Haying activities are restricted from being used during the primary nesting season dates of May 1st

to July 15th

.



8


11/43



Noxi ous Weeds

Noxious weeds were identified as an issue to be addressed in the planning of Focus On Pheasactivities. The plants on Nebraskas noxious weed list that were anticipated to be of concerncluded musk, plumeless, and Canada thistles.

CRP tracts with a history of thistle problems and where thistle seeds were present in the sebank were more problematic than tracts with limited thistle history. When thistle problems curred on CRP tracts that had been disked and interseeded with legumes as part of the Focus Pheasantsproject, appropriate treatments were applied.

Those treatments included hand chopping, spot shredding, and spot spraying with appropriate hbicides. If thistle problems were widespread over a large area, then a blanket application of apppriate herbicide that was labeled for legumes and/or shredding of affected areas were treatmethat provided acceptable results.

Communication and cooperation among all involved entities were the key to resolving noxioweed problems on CRP tracts while still developing and maintaining desired vegetative diversprovided by the interseeded legumes.

The key message here is that if an area had a known history of noxious weeds prior to its enrment in CRP, Mid Contract Management activities will bring those noxious weeds out again. Aactivities that disturb the soil will allow those early successional stage plants to reappear.

9


12/43

Chemic a l burn back and int e rseed ing Where disking is not feasible, chemical burn back using a Glyphosate herbicide may provide a

good alternative.

Situations where the use of herbicide might be preferred include areas with known noxious weedinfestations, lack of tillage equipment, or hayed cool-season grass stands.

The use of Select herbicide or other non-broadleaf herbicides may offer some hope for reducingthe regrowth of cool-season grasses in upgraded areas.

Our experience has found that when controlling smooth bromegrass with a Glyphosate, an appli-cation of 28+ ounces per acre with an AMS applied between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm on a warmday works best.



Haying and Spraying recommendations developed for use in the Focus On Pheasants partnership by Jim Brown,Natural Resource Specialis t, US Army Corps of Engineers Republ ican City, NE.

10


13/43



Fina l Thought s 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 ofCRP, this will be viewed as a financial burden or will result in sub par results due to lack ofawareness.

There are very few certainties in life...two that can be applied to CRP Mid Contract Manage-ment are:

1). You can t ever k i l l o f f smooth bromegrass w i t h any amount o f d isk ing.

2) . I f you had noxious weeds before enrol lment in CRP, they wi l l show up

again fo l low ing d isk ing.

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 theminimum management efforts required to accomplish the desired results.

Our exper ience showed tha t m in imum management e f fo r t s

typ ic a l ly produced m in imum , i f any, resu l ts .

11


14/43


15/43

Focus On Pheasants is a partnership effort formed in 2002 that brings to-gether a unique combination of Federal, State and Local government agen-cies, conservation groups, private industry and landowners.

This combination of groups have come together in an effort to improve mature grass standsthroughout the state and provide better pheasant habitat. The average CRP field in Nebraska isnow 16 years old and has had little or no management performed on it during the life of its con-tract.

The primary focus of this partnership has been to increase the wildlife habitat quality and diversityof CRP grass stands using the following management tools: Controlled burns Interseeding legumes Disking

Chemical herbaceous vegetation control Haying

F o c u s O n P h e a s a n t s

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership

13


16/43

D

ixonCounty

StantonCounty

HarlanCounty

ReservoirWMA

ShermanReservoir

BranchedOak

WMA

NebraskaO

neBox

Founda

tion

F

ocus

O

nP

heas

ants

L

ocation

ofFocu

sAreasw

ithin

Nebraska

14

KimballCounty


17/43


18/4316

Is This Good or Bad?

The interpretation of the results from Mid Contract Management activities is ofteleft to the eye of the beholder. Wildlife Biologists will look at this field and see anabundance of broad-leaved forbs, open areas on the ground, no noxious weedspresent, plants that attract insects for young chicks and lots of diversity.justwhat we are looking for from CRP Mid Contract Management activities!

A landowner or neighbor that is unprepared for these results may have an entiredifferent opinion of the management activity results. Taking the time to determinlandowner goals and objectives and the history of the site will add to the wildlifebenefits created above by preparing landowners for the expected results.

Very few things related to wildlife management happen overnight. Conductingproper CRP Mid Contract Management activities is one of the few managementpractices that can produce a wildlife response in a short timeline.


19/43


20/43

In the Focus On Pheasant Focus Area located in Stanton County, several research projects hbeen started in the last few years to begin to document the wildlife and vegetative responses to Cgrass stand treatments.

Some of the investigations conducted include:1. Invertebrate abundance in CRP fields. Three different efforts have been conducted from 200

2005, that looked at the effects of disking and interseeding legumes on key brood habitat comnents in CRP fields.

2. Evaluation of Ring-necked Pheasant Response to Disking and Interseeding Legumes on Cservation Reserve Program Fields in Northeast Nebraska. Initiated in 2004 by the NebraGame & Parks Commission and expanded as a University of Nebraska - Lincoln graduate projevaluating the response of ring-necked pheasants to landscape scale habitat manipulations.

3. Spring Pheasant Crowing Counts and August Roadside Surveys. Conducted from 2002007, the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission is conducting surveys in focus areas and conareas to determine the influence of habitat improvements on pheasant abundance.

4. Grassland bird response to Disking/Interseeding of legumes in Conservation Reserve Pgram lands in Northeast Nebraska. Initiated in 2004, a graduate research study from OklahoState University is looking at grassland songbird responses to habitat improvement efforts on C

fields.

The results of these studies are summarized in this booklet today and will be expanded upothroughout the tour by the researchers. These efforts are documenting the results of CRP Mid Cotract Management efforts on a landscape scale and providing early information about what management techniques are most effective.

18


21/43

Insect and Vegetation Responses to Disking and Interseeding Legumes onConservation Reserve Program (CRP) Fields in Eastern Nebraska

Scott Taylor, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

Background

n the spring of 2000, the Wildlife Division of Nebraska Game and Parks recognized the need for information regarding the effects of

ight disking and interseeding with regard to pheasant brood habitat components on CRP fields. These management actions are re-quired on CRP fields enrolled in the Commissions CRP-Management Access Program (CRP-MAP). The goal of management is to im-prove nesting and brood rearing habitat on portions of these fields. The most important desired improvement was an increase in insectabundance. Pheasants and many other grassland birds depend heavily upon insects in their diets during the summer. Desired vegeta-tive improvements included increases in visual obstruction, plant diversity, and canopy coverage measurements. We sampled insectsand vegetation in portions of CRP fields with and without the disking and interseeding treatment to determine the effects of this manage-ment technique.

MethodsWe sampled 4 different field types. 1) CRP fields planted to cool season grasses, with a portion of the field disked and interseeded withegumes (alfalfa, yellow sweetclover, and/or red clover), 2) CRP fields planted to warm season grasses, with a portion of the field diskedand interseeded with legumes, 3) either cool or warm season CRP fields with a portion of the field planted to a high diversity seed mix-

ture (CP-25), and 4) native prairie hay fields. Transects were located > 20 m from field borders and ran parallel to the edge. We usedsweep nets to collect insects. We made 50 sweeps along each transect.

Highlights of ResultsWe acquired samples from 22 fields. In CRP fields, insect abundance was higher in treatment portions of both cool season and warmseason 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 unevendistribution of insects within fields. If future sampling is done, an increased number of sample lines per field is suggested to reduce vari-ability 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 signifi-cantly after treatment.

This technique quickly improved nesting habitat (structurally) for pheasants and many other grassland dependent bird species. The re-duction in litter and increase in insect abundance appears to have made these tracts more attractive for foraging and brood rearing aswell. As such, this technique shows promise for improving wildlife habitat on older CRP stands that have lost vegetative diversity.

19


22/43

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

Table 1. Mean biomass (g) of invertebrates sampled in several herbaceous community types in Nebraska during summ2000. Measurements represent the total biomass collected along 3 50-m transects per field; sample sizes are tnumber of fields.

Light disking and interseeding to improve brood habitat

Ron LeathersPheasants Forever, Inc.

Pheasants are early-successional species, relying heavily on a combination of grasses and weedforbs 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 t

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. Agrasses grow, they tend to choke out these weedy forb species and can become nearly purstands of a single grass species, leaving pheasants and other birds without the food sources andiversity they need to fully reach their population potential.

Nebraskas CRP-Management Access Program is a joint program of Pheasants Forever and thNebraska Game and Parks Commission that promotes management of aging CRP grasslands tset back grass growth and encourage reestablishment of forb species. The specific managemepractice that is used for this program is light disking and interseeding legumes (typically alfalfasweetclover, and red clover).

Some of the highlights of a 2001 & 2002 study on the CRP-MAP programs management practices are presented below.

Invertebrates:Managed fields had a much higher availability of insects and invertebrates than idle fields. Thincrease 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 pheasanchicks. However, managed native grasses had the highest availability of invertebrates and thmost food sources for chicks. Although less pronounced than in the natives, brome fields alshad more invertebrates when managed than when left idle.

20


23/43

Available invertebrates

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

B

iomass(mg)

Idle

Managed

Idle 1918.9 531.6

Managed 2334.3 2757.7

Brome Native

Vegetation changes:Managed fields had more legume cover than idle fields. Without

management, the average percent cover of legumes was less than2% in brome fields and 0.5% in native grasses. After management,legumes accounted for roughly 1/3rd of the total cover in brome fieldsand 1/6th of the cover in native grasses.

Managed fields also had more forb cover (including the planted leg-umes and any volunteer weedy forbs) than idle fields. Planted leg-umes accounted for the majority of the forb cover in managed fields.Again, the percentage of forbs in idle fields was extremely low (


24/43

Insect Response to Disking and Interseeding Legumes onConservation Reserve Program Lands in Northeast Nebraska

Insects are important food resources for many grassland birds. A survey was conducted in 2004 to deter-mine insect abundance, biomass and diversity in treated vs. untreated fields as part of the Grassland BirdStudy in the Stanton County Focus On Pheasants study area.

Eight of the sixteen fields used for the grassland bird study were chosen randomly for insect sampling. Ofthose eight, four were disked and interseeded with yellow sweet clover, alfalfa, and red clover; and fourwere control fields that received no treatment. Using a sweep net, three sub-samples of twenty sweepseach 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 untreatedfields. Previous research has shown grasshoppers, butterflies, caterpillars, beetles, and spiders as beingthe main food resource for grassland bird hatchlings. Graph 1 compares the total abundance of these in-sects for July samples between treated and non-treated fields. Treated fields had an insect abundance of2,951 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

0

500

10001500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Treated Not Treated

A

b

u

n

d

an

ce

Insect Biomas

Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields

0

5

10

15

20

25

Treated Not Treated

B

iom

ass

(m

g)

Graph 1. Abundance of insects favored by grassland birdsin treated (disked/interseeded) and unmanaged fields.

Graph 2. Biomass (dry weight) of insects favored bygrassland birds in treated (disked/interseeded) and un-managed fields.

Jamie Bachmann, Oklahoma State Univers ity, Scot t Taylor, Nebraska Game and ParksCommission and Lucas Negus, Oklahoma State University.

22


25/43

Ring-neck Pheasant Habitat Selection and Productivity inLandscapes Containing Disked and Interseeded CRP in

Northeast Nebraska

Ty Mathews and Larkin PowellUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln

A decline in the quality and quantity of ring-necked pheasant nesting and brood-rearing habitat hasbeen hypothesized as a major factor limiting population growth in the Great Plains. ConservationReserve Program (CRP) was thought to reestablish this valuable habitat, but population responsewas smaller than anticipated. Pheasant populations in Nebraska rose in the first 5-6 years of CRPthen declined thereafter. This decline is thought to be due to the change of vegetation compositionn these fields. Newly planted CRP fields (5 to 6 years) contain a high diversity of grasses, forbs, leg-umes, and annual weeds with an abundance of bare ground needed by nesting pheasant hens andtheir broods. Older fields (>6 years) are characterized by dense monoculture of grass with little bareground and thick litter. Disking and interseeding forbs into older CRP fields re-create the conditionsfound 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

23


26/4324

Nest Survival

In te rs e e d e d O th e r

DailyNestSurvival

0 . 90

0 . 92

0 . 94

0 . 96

0 . 98

1 . 00

2 0 0 52 0 0 6P o o le d Y e a r s

CRP Nest Success2005

Int erseeded 53.3% (n=15)

Non-int erseeded 37.5% (n=16)

2006Int erseeded 60.0% (n=10)

Non-int erseeded 33.3% (n=18)


27/43

Available Habitat in

Focus Area

Habitat Type

CRP Crop Other Grassland Other

Hectacre

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

IS

C R P In terseeded O ther

Percent

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

Ava ilable H abi tatNes t

Nest Site Preference2005 Chi-square

= 28.07

P


28/4326

Hen Survival

3/1/2005 4/1/2005 5/1/2005 6/1/2005 7/1/2005 8/1/2005

Survival

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Nest Survival

Raw Nest Succ ess

Interseeded: 65% (n=20)

Non-interseeded: 55% (n=20)

Other: 42% (n=7)

Dai ly Nest Surviva l

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)


29/4327

2005 Nest Site Preference

Chi-square

= 28.07

P < 0.0001

Interseeded CRP OG Other

Percent

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Nest

Available Habitat

2006 Nest Site Preference

Chi-square

= 39.31

P < 0.0001

Interseeded CRP OG Other

Percent

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

NestAvailable Habitat


30/4328

2005 Nest Microhabitat

CSG WSG IF OF BG VOR

PercentCover

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Density(dm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Nest

Random t-test: *** denotes p < 0.001

2006 Nest Microhabitat

***

***

***

***

CSG WSG IF OF BG VOR

PercentCover

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

De

nsity(dm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Nest

Random

***

***

t-test: *** denotes p < 0.001


31/4329

Brood Survival

20.044.5241.17year

20.053.8140.46alf

10.063.4140.06

No difference in

Survival

50.141.7938.44year * int * alf

20.161.538.15int

30.171.3638.01int * alf

30.34036.65year * int

kA I CWe i g h tA ICICo d e l

Brood Survival

0.7670.9870.25

0.7210.9850.2

0.7160.9840.1946

0.6100.9770.1

0.5440.9710.05

21-daySurvival

% Time in

In terseeded

Int model


32/4330

Brood Microhabitat

Selection

CS W S IF OF BG VOR

PercentHabitat

0

20

40

60

80

Density(dm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Brood Location

Random Location

*** denotes p < 0.001

* denotes p < 0.005

*

***

***

***

*

T-test:

Conclusions In terseeding CRP prov ides reproduct ive

benef i t s

Hens se lec t in t erseeded CRP for nest ing

Nest su rv i va l t ends t o be h igher i n

in t erseeded areas

Hens w i th broods tend to pre fer int erseed ed CRP

Hens w i th broods se lec ted areas w i th h ighforb c ontent


33/4331

Stanton County Focus Area Pheasant IndexSurvey Information

Scott WesselWildlife Biologist, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

Year Total Crows Crows/Stop2007 n/a n/a2006 630 21.02005 653 21.82004 624 20.82003 389 12.92002 374 12.5

Spring Rooster Crowing Counts1, 2

1 Habitat work began in the fall of 2002.2 Route conducted in April with 2 minute stops.

Year # ofbroods # ofyoung BroodSize Young/mile2007 3 32 162 5.06 5.42006 15 63 4.2 2.12005 36 193 5.36 6.432004 49 278 5.67 5.562003 37 255 6.89 4.252002 7 45 6.42 0.75

Miles ofRoute30

30

30

50

60

60

1 Habitat work began in the fall of 2002.2 Route run on days with a heavy dew. Miles traveled varies due to road conditions and staffing.3 Includes 1 prairie chicken brood wi th 8 chicks.

August Roadside Brood Survey 1, 2


34/4332


35/4333


36/43

Grassland bird response to disking/interseeding oflegumes in Conservation Reserve Program lands

in Northeast Nebraska

Lucas Negus and Craig A. DavisOklahoma State University

Grassland bird populations are declining faster than any other group of birds. These declines habeen attributed to the loss of prairie habitat. With the tremendous losses of native prairie throughthe Midwest, surrogate grasslands such as CRP have become increasingly more important to graland wildlife. While game birds are most commonly thought of as being the main beneficiaries, ngame grassland songbirds also benefit from CRP. Recently, several studies have attributed popution 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. initiatedprogram to curb declining ring-necked pheasant populations in the state. The program, entitFocus on Pheasants, placed an emphasis on creating nesting and brood-rearing habitat in the aing CRP fields by disking and interseeding legumes. Although improving pheasant habitat is the

mary objective, grassland birds will likely benefit from the habitat manipulations as well. These hatat upgrades provide an excellent opportunity to evaluate grassland bird population response to tmanagement practice. Funding for this study was provided through the Nebraska State WildGrant program. State Wildlife Grants provide funding for management practices and research tbenefit at-risk wildlife species.

Objectives: To compare grassland bird richness and abundance in CRP fields disked/interseeded to C

fields unmanaged. To compare grassland bird nest productivity in CRP fields disked/interseeded to CRP fields

managed.

To evaluate differences in vegetation structure, composition, and cover between CRP fiedisked/interseeded and CRP fields unmanaged.

Beginning in May 2004, grassland bird abundance and nest productivity were sampled in 16 fiethroughout the Stanton County focus area. Eight fields were disked and interseeded and servedexperimental fields. Eight fields in which no disking and interseeding was performed serve as con

34


37/4335

Results - 2004:Grassland bird species observed during surveys include eastern and western meadowlarks, grass-hopper sparrows, Henslows sparrows, Dickcissels, sedge wrens, bobolinks, field sparrows, com-mon yellowthroats, brown-headed cowbirds, and northern harriers. Other bird species using theCRP include redwing blackbirds, barn swallows, rough-winged swallows, eastern kingbirds, mal-lards, blue-winged teal, ring-necked pheasants, northern bobwhite, and mourning doves.

Bird surveys from the 2004 field season indicate some important differences. Several grasslandbird species, including Dickcissels and grasshopper sparrows, were more abundant in experimental

fields than control fields. Dickcissels were 3 times more abundant in experimental fields. Experi-mental fields had a species richness of 24, compared to a richness of 18 in control fields. Severaldifferences between treatments were also seen in nesting behavior. Of 100 nests found throughoutthe field season, 88 were in experimental fields. Additionally, nest densities were 3 times greater inexperimental fields. Nest success was 37-40% in both experimental and control fields.

Differences in vegetation characteristics were also observed. The control field vegetation was com-posed of only 1.5% forbs and 2% bare ground. Conversely, experimental fields were composed of25% forbs and 25% bare ground. Litter (dead material in contact with the ground) was two times deeper incontrol 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 sum-mers field season, results from the two field seasons will be compiled, analyzed, interpreted, andreported.


38/4336

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2004 2005

Reference

Treatment

Overall Abundance Diversity

Species Richness*

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

Treatment Reference Treatment Reference

**

Nest Densities

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2004 2005

N

ests/Hectare

Reference

Treatment

n = 112 n = 135


39/4337

Overall Conclusions

Planted grasslands are important for wildlifespecies

Mid-contract management is important ingrass dominated, aged CRP fields

Disking and interseeding legumes is an effectivemanagement technique

A wide array of wildlife (both game and non-

game) and organisms benefit frommanagement

Management is needed in the future tomaintain/enhance the wildlife habitat CRPfields provide as they progress through the lifeof their contract

Grassland Bird Conclusions

Disked/interseeded fields supported higherabundances and more species than undiskedfields

Disking/interseeding created vegetationresponse that attracted diverse assemblage ofgrassland birds

Nest densities appeared to be higher indisked/interseeded fields, but no difference innest success

Mature brome stands were still important,

particularly to Henslows Sparrows andBobolinks


40/43

CRP Upgrade Mixtures

These legume mixtures have been designed to use in CRP grass standimprovements throughout Nebraska. The cost of the mixtures rangefrom $10 to $20 per acre.

38

Legume Mixture #1

5.0 lbs PLS/acre (26.2 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa...............................3.0Red Clover .......................1.5Sweet Clover....................0.5

$11.20 per Acre

Legume Mixture #2

5.0 lbs PLS/acre (25.7 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa ..........................3.0Sweet Clover...............2.0

$10.74 per Acre

Legume Mixture #3

5.0 lbs PLS/acre (26.4 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa ............................ 3.0Red Clover .................... 2.0

$11.35 per Acre

Legume Mixture #4

4.0 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ............................. 2.5Crimson Clover............... 0.5Red Clover ..................... 0.5Black-eyed Susan......... 0.05Illinois Bundleflower........ 0.2Lemon Mint................... 0.05Showy Partridgepea ....... 0.2

$16.45 per Acre

Legume Mixture #5

3.61 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ..........................2.5Sweet Clover...............1.0Black-eyed Susan .....0.05Cudweed Sagewort ...0.01Roundhead Lespedeza....0.04Stiff Goldenrod ..........0.01

$15.73 per Acre

Legume Mixture #6

3.45 lbs PLS/acre (17.7 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa ........................... 2.0Red Clover ................... 1.0Black-eyed Susan....... 0.05Illinois Bundleflower...... 0.2Showy Partridgepea ..... 0.2

$14.42 per Acre

Legume Mixture #7

3.45 lbs PLS/acre (20.0 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa .............................. 2.0Red Clover ...................... 0.8Black-eyed Susan ......... 0.05Illinois Bundleflower ........ 0.2Lemon Mint ..................... 0.1Showy Partridgepea........ 0.2White Prairie Clover ........ 0.1

$20.14 per Acre

Legume Mixture #8

3.86 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ............................3.0Sweet Clover.................0.5Black-eyed Susan .......0.05Cicer Milkvetch..............0.3Stiff Goldenrod ............0.01

$12.14 per Acre

Legume Mixture #9

2.96 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ............................. 2.0Sweet Clover.................. 0.5Black-eyed Susan ........ 0.05Cudweed Sagewort...... 0.01Illinois Bundleflower ....... 0.2Showy Partridgepea....... 0.2

$14.41 per Acre


41/43

N o t e s :

________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

39


42/43

The same field was disked and interseeded with legumes to increase the diversity of the grass stand throuthe CRP-MAP program. It now has a diversity o f cover that provides nesting, brood-rearing and winter cofor a variety of wild life including grassland songbirds, pheasants and quail.

This photo is of a 13-year old CRP field that is over 1,000 acres in size and has had no management pformed on it dur ing its contract. It was originally established to a mixture of Brome grass and alfalfa and

now a monoculture of Brome grass that provides minimal wildlife benefits.


43/43

A grass stand that has been dominated by smooth bromegrass

and lost its productivity for upland wildlife. An area that wasexcellent wildlife habitat in the past has now naturally movedthrough succession to a more mature grass stand in need ofmanagement.

On April 7, 2004, the grass stand is disked with three pass

and then interseeded with a legume mixture. A minimum three passes with a disk was necessary with a mature staof bromegrass but still leaves more than 50% residue.

On July 29, 2004, the area now has a wide diversity of plantspecies, has an open understory, supports plants that attractinsects, and is once again a diverse grassland. The legumesthatwere interseededinto thediskedareaarealreadypresent

On May 30, 2005, the area now shows the true value ofperforming upgrades on mature grass stand. The area providing excellent nesting and brood-rearing cover for awide range of wildlife especially pheasant quail water

2007 Tour Booklet-Website Version-2

Documents

Transcript of 2007 Tour Booklet-Website Version-2