TEAM HABITAT

TEAM HABITAT

The Mission of TEAM HABITAT is to direct the creation, enhancement, and maintenance of habitat for all wildlife species that live in or migrate through New Jersey. TEAM HABITAT will be extremely conscious of the historic nature of the New Jersey environment and work to restore its cultural resources through scientific and practical methods. TEAM HABITAT will use wildlife and natural resource professionals to direct a paid and volunteer work force in performing habitat projects.

TEAM HABITAT is comprised of individuals representing the local chapters of Quail Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society, Pheasants Forever, and their parent organizations as well as Bear Creek Conservancy (a nonprofit organization), NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife, US Department of Fish and Wildlife, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cape-Atlantic Soil Conservation District, Land Dimensions Engineering, Lenape Farms, First State RC&D Council, and various private citizens. The South Jersey RC&D Council, Inc., (a nonprofit organization) leads TEAM HABITAT.

The following report set in motion TEAM HABITAT in New Jersey.

THE NORTHERN BOBWHITE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

A Report on the Status of the Northern Bobwhite

And a Plan for Recovery of the Species

Submitted by the

Southeast Quail Study Group Technical Committee

to the

State Wildlife Agency Directors of the

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin, and D.F. McKenzie. 2002. The northern bobwhite conservation initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina. 96 pp.

The range of the northern bobwhite included in the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI) incorporates nearly 787 million acres. From 1980 to 1999, the autumn bobwhite population declined from 58,857,000 to 20,141,000 birds (65.8%). The Breeding Bird Survey showed a decline in bobwhite breeding numbers averaging 3.8% per year from 1982 to 1999. For some individual states and Bird Conservation Regions, the decline is sharply greater. Breeding Bird Survey and harvest statistics suggest that in some states the northern bobwhite could be approaching extirpation by the end of this decade.

The following is an abridged version of the NBCI.

THE NORTHERN BOBWHITE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

INTRODUCTION

The northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) has endured a severe decline in its population status in the United States for at least three decades. As we enter the 21^st century, the bobwhite faces a distinct and imminent threat of extirpation in significant portions of its range. The boundaries of the present range of northern bobwhites in the U.S. incorporate 786,820,800 acres (1,229,408 square miles), little changed from the land occupied during pre-Colonial times. However, the relatively stable range border does not reflect the uneven distribution within this border, nor the sharp decline in population density throughout most of its range. In 1980, the autumn population of bobwhites was estimated to be 58,857,000. By 1999, it had declined 65.8% to 20,141,000. The breeding population was estimated to be 19,619,000 in 1980, and 6,714,000 in 1999. The Breeding Bird Survey showed a decline in bobwhites averaging 3.8% per year from 1982 to 1999. Projecting this trend to 2020 indicates an additional loss of 53.9% over the next 2 decades, leaving a breeding population of only 3,095,000. Assuming a male:female ratio of 1:1, we would be faced with a maximum of 1,547,000 breeding pairs (less than 1.3 pairs per square mile). While this rate of decline is devastating, there is clear indication that in recent years the rate of decline has increased range wide. For some individual states and Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs), the decline is sharply higher. Breeding Bird Survey data suggest that in some states the northern bobwhite could be approaching extirpation by the end of this decade.

The recovery of the northern bobwhite will be made increasingly difficult by the continuing loss of the land base needed for implementing the habitat changes necessary for this recovery. Each 100,000 increase in the human population in the U.S. is accompanied by a conversion of 150,000 acres of rural land to urban uses, rendering it largely unfit for bobwhite management. The U.S. Census Bureau projects the U.S. population will grow by about 43 million by 2020. This will result in the conversion of nearly 65 million acres to urban uses nationwide. A significant portion of this will occur throughout the bobwhite's range.

Clearly, circumstances call for immediate and dramatic action. This report is a response by biologists, managers, and researchers of the Southeast Quail Study Group Technical Committee (SEQSG) to a request from the Directors of the member states of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) to prepare a plan for the recovery of the northern bobwhite.

The GOAL for this plan is to restore northern bobwhite populations range wide to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in the baseline year of 1980. The SEAFWA directors endorsed the selection of the 1980 population density as the goal for restoring northern bobwhites. The following considerations influencing the choice of 1980 by the SEQSG were: 1) population densities and hunting opportunities were significantly greater in 1980 than exist today, 2) the current landscape, if properly managed, would support densities equivalent to those existing in 1980, and 3) important data bases utilized in this Initiative have comparable beginning points on or near 1980. The specific charge was to identify the types and amounts of habitats and habitat management efforts needed to achieve this goal.

HABITAT OBJECTIVES:

Increase the amount and enhance the quality of the agricultural lands for nesting, brood-rearing, and roosting by bobwhites and other grassland species of wildlife by adding native warm season grasses and other conservation plantings such as shrubs and forbs.
Enhance the management practices on pinelands and mixed pine-hardwoods by thinning, controlled burning, and site preparation in a fashion that benefits bobwhites and other wildlife, and increase acreage devoted to longleaf pine where it is ecologically feasible.
Preserve and enhance the quality of rangelands by utilizing vegetation management practices and grazing regimes that favor the retention and improvement of native plant communities beneficial to bobwhites and other wildlife.

In this plan, we have apportioned the responsibility for achieving these objectives to the individual states within each BCR. This apportionment was based on the decline in northern bobwhites in each state and BCR, and the amount and types of habitat improvements that would be needed to restore bobwhites to the desired density in that region.

Assumptions, Data Bases, and Methods

Projecting the habitat improvements needed to accomplish the restoration of bobwhites required developing assumptions about quail biology and demographics, delineating the current status of land use and habitat characteristics, and applying this information to develop an effective management strategy.

ASSUMPTIONS

Bobwhite Population Demographics

The following assumptions were derived from published literature, unpublished data sets, and the personal knowledge of experienced biologists:

Mean clutch size is 12 eggs.

Mean covey size in autumn is 12 bobwhites.

Nest success rate for all nests over the life of a nest including egg-laying and incubation = 25%

Nest density in good nesting habitat is 1 nest per acre over a nesting season.

Successful nests should occur at a rate of 1 nest per 4 acres of good nesting habitat, but some authors elected to use different assumptions. These are noted in the text.

Legal bobwhite harvest removes 33.3% of the autumn pre-hunt population.

All other mortality factors remove an additional 33.4 % of the autumn population.

The breeding population will be 33.3% of the preceding autumn pre-harvest population.

Habitat

A lack of nesting and brood-rearing cover is the major limiting factor over much of the range of the northern bobwhite. This is a result of the long-term practice of replacing native warm season grasses with exotic cool season and warm season grasses, and of completely eliminating nesting habitat in intensive cropland and dense pine forests. A lack of desirable grassland habitats not only limits bobwhites, but also limits the abundance of unexploited wildlife species as well, such as the loggerhead shrike and several other grassland and shrubland neotropical migrant bird species. The declines of bobwhites and loggerhead shrikes are strikingly similar (Figure 1). Where nesting habitat is adequate, other habitat components may be identified as requiring management efforts, e.g. winter cover, winter food, etc.

Properly managed native warm season grasses with an adequate component of forbs provide good to excellent nesting and brood-rearing habitat.

Four acres of properly managed native warm season grasses/forbs should produce 1 covey of 12 bobwhites per year.

Southern pines, particularly longleaf, loblolly, shortleaf, and slash pines, can be enhanced by site preparation techniques that permit and/or encourage the development of bobwhite-friendly herbaceous understory during the early years of stand establishment, periodic thinning, and regular prescribed burning. Applying all or some of these techniques can add 1 to 7 or more coveys of bobwhites for each 1,000 acres properly managed.

Hardwood forests provide an important habitat component for winter protection for bobwhites, particularly in northern portions of its range, but these hardwoods offer little opportunity to enhance productivity (nesting, brood-rearing) in most of the Bird Conservation Regions.

In some portions of the bobwhite’s range, hardwood savanna restoration and/or management offer opportunities for enhancing bobwhite productivity and survival.

Figure 1. USFWS Region 4 BBS Indices for Northern Bobwhite and Loggerhead Shrike,

1966-2000.

DATA BASES

Population Density and Trends. Two sets of data were used to establish past and present population densities and trends by state and BCR. Harvest records maintained by 22 individual state conservation agencies were employed to assess the change in bobwhite harvests from 1980 to 1999 (Appendices A and B). These data were also used to estimate the densities of bobwhites in the autumn population prior to the hunting season and the breeding densities at the initiation of the breeding season. An independent data set, the Breeding Bird Survey conducted annually by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1982-1999, was used to observe and forecast trends in the status of bobwhites by state, BCR, and over its U.S. range (Appendix C). The Breeding Bird Survey data will be used to monitor the success of the NBCI.

Land Use Acreages and Trends. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provided detailed land use data at 5-year intervals. Those data were used to evaluate the current and past status of bobwhite habitat, and to serve as a basis for developing habitat management objectives. Data from the 1982 and 1997 National Resources Inventory were the source of information for this report (Appendices D and E).

METHODS

This report is designed to provide conservation and management needs of the northern bobwhite and to facilitate integration and collaboration with other species management plans, such as Partners In Flight, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and others. The Bird Conservation Regions are those described in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI).

We chose to set a goal of restoring bobwhites to 1980 regional and national population densities rather than attempting to achieve numerical parity with 1980. The rapidly shrinking land base of acres available for management would make the latter goal unachievable. The method for estimating the amount of current land suitable for management is described in detail in Appendix F.

A person(s) knowledgeable about the specific management techniques described, or about bobwhite management in the particular Bird Conservation Region, wrote each chapter in this Conservation Initiative. The general assumptions listed above were open to modification by the chapter authors as described in the individual chapters.

BIRD CONSERVATION REGIONS

The portion of the range of the northern bobwhite in the United States included in the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative occupies all or part of 15 Bird Conservation Regions(BCR) and 22 states (Figure 2). Some of the BCRs, e.g., Tamaulipan Brushland, Edwards Plateau, and Peninsular Florida, occupy only portions of a single state, whereas others, e.g., Southeastern Coastal Plain and Central Hardwoods, occupy parts of 2 to 10 states. An important component of this plan is identifying the number of coveys to be added in each BCR to achieve the goal of restoring bobwhites to their 1980 regional and national densities.

Figure 2. The range of the northern bobwhite in the U.S.

OPPORTUNITIES AND NEEDS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Many years, or even decades, will be required to implement this ambitious plan sufficiently to stabilize and recover bobwhite populations across their range. More than nine-tenths of the needed management actions are on private lands that are being cropped, grazed or managed for timber. Achieving the habitat objectives will depend on the collective efforts of thousands of individual landowners--including farmers and ranchers, non-industrial and industrial forest owners, and recreational landowners--in cooperation with state wildlife agency biologists; federal land management agency personnel; USDA personnel at the county, area, state, regional and national levels; non-government organizations; and sportsmen’s clubs. That is, bobwhite restoration will require nothing less than a virtual populist movement across much of the country.

Seize Immediate Major Opportunities

Such an immense task certainly will need substantial money. However, the amount of new, dedicated money needed for bobwhites, above and beyond that already available and potentially applicable to bobwhite habitat restoration, is less than initially apparent. It is possible that the majority of money and programmatic authority needed to restore bobwhite habitat could originate outside traditional state and federal wildlife agency revenue sources, such as USDA farm bill conservation programs. The most immediate, meaningful gains in bobwhite habitat likely will be achieved by (1) tweaking implementation of ongoing federal private land conservation programs; (2) increasing appropriations to current federal programs that have sound authority but are under funded; and (3) creating new and improved authorities that place higher consideration upon early successional wildlife habitat opportunities.

Refine and Adapt Existing Authorities

Many of the habitat restorations and improvements needed are possible to achieve merely by making refinements to current programs or updating existing technical assistance. For example, the ongoing whole-field enrollments in the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Conservation Reserve Program can be much more beneficial to bobwhites simply by continuing the emphasis on planting suitable cover types, while establishing and enforcing required management practices for which annual maintenance fees already are paid. The partial-field practices of the Continuous CRP could provide excellent bobwhite habitat by allowing wildlife field borders and requiring wildlife-friendly cover plantings on all enrollments. Ongoing Cooperative Extension Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) technical assistance activities could be updated to provide more effective guidance to landowners interested in quail management. Water quality efforts such as the NRCS Buffer Initiative and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program could perform dual functions by consistently using wildlife-friendly plantings to filter and slow runoff. Finally, FSA’s Pasture Recovery Program could benefit grassland wildlife and livestock producers by establishing drought-impacted pastures to drought-tolerant native warm season grasses instead of replanting more of the same cool season exotic grasses such as fescue.

Increase Appropriations for Existing Authorities

In other cases, existing federal conservation programs can provide many habitat needs with only increased appropriations. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program of the 1996 Farm Bill, if reauthorized and adequately funded by the 2002 Farm Bill, can be directly applied to promote quail habitat. Likewise, the USDA Forest Service’s (USFS) State and Private Forestry programs--especially the Forest Stewardship Program and Stewardship Incentive Program--need only enhanced appropriations to be up to the bobwhite restoration task on a significant scale. On national forests, increased appropriations are needed for the USFS’s prescribed burning activities, and for pine savanna and oak woodland ecosystem restoration projects.

Pursue Grants

The NBCI provides a sound basis for bobwhite grant proposals of unprecedented scope and magnitude, even on multi-state, regional scales. Substantial, and continually growing, grant monies from federal, state and private agencies and foundations are available currently that could be applied to bobwhite restoration immediately. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation likely would be interested and receptive to major grant applications for restoring habitat for bobwhites and other early successional species. Funds available through Title VIII of the federal "CARA Light" legislation passed in the year 2000, and assorted other pots of federal money that pop up occasionally, are prime for bobwhite habitat proposals.

Create New or Improved Authorities

Improve Authorities

In still other cases, substantially new or redirected federal and state authorities will be needed. With the simple addition of wildlife habitat as a purpose, the USFS’s Forestry Incentives Program (or a substitute that could result from the ongoing 2002 Farm Bill) could provide meaningful benefits for early successional wildlife. Similarly, state wildlife agency programs that long have promoted inefficient quail habitat practices such as food plots could be re-directed to more beneficial management actions. The 1996 Farm Bill’s Conservation on Private Grazing Lands (CPGL) program is the only federal program designed specifically to address conservation needs on pasture, rangeland and hay land. Although wildlife habitat is a major purpose of CPGL, only education and technical assistance currently are authorized. With the possible addition in the 2002 Farm Bill of significant cost-share and incentive components, CPGL could be a potent program to help restore grasslands to native, warm-season grasses and forbs suitable to bobwhites.

Create New Money

Certainly, however, some new money ultimately will be needed, for example to hire additional biological staff among agencies, to fund specific projects and educational campaigns, and to provide incentives not adequately covered by existing government programs. Entirely new federal or state funds might eventually be secured, similar to the North American Wetland Conservation Act’s primary purpose of funding implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Alternatively, new funds may be dedicated for a larger set of habitat conservation plans that could include bobwhites along with migratory birds and other species. Such potential new sources as the long-sought federal Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would provide major new funding to state wildlife agencies, Georgia’s state legislature-funded quail initiative, and other as-yet-unthought-of new state and federal initiatives will have to be explored, pursued and capitalized upon eventually.

Establish Working Partnerships

It is likely that much of the habitat restoration that benefits bobwhites will be conducted on behalf of other species that share its habitats. Partners in Flight (PIF) is an international alliance of federal, state, local and non-government groups that cooperates in planning and implementing projects to benefit migratory landbirds. Because numerous migratory landbird species that share the bobwhite’s habitats also are declining and are PIF priorities, myriad fruitful opportunities are present for bobwhite and PIF advocates to combine efforts for mutual benefit.

The Southeast Quail Study Group anticipates that this recovery plan will provide the foundation, the unity of purpose, the catalyst and the motivation to quail advocates across the country to seize the numerous opportunities already before us, to secure major new funding, and to establish working partnerships that can turn these dreams into reality.

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

AGRICULTURAL CROPLAND

Terry Sharpe, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Sandhills Wildlife Depot, P.O. Box 149, Hamlet, NC 28347

David Howell, Quail Unlimited, 10364 South 950 E., Stendal, IN 47585

Mark J. Gudlin, Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency, PO Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204

Ecology and Status

Inefficient row crop agriculture, characterized by small weedy crop fields interspersed with fallow fields and frequently disturbed open canopy woodlands, once created an environment productive of bobwhites and early succession wildlife across the region. Technological advances during the 20^th century increased productivity and yields of farm commodities, but the value of cropland to wildlife has steadily decreased. Farming intensity continues to increase, with double cropping becoming more prevalent, and at the regional level land use for agricultural crops has been consolidated on the more productive soils. Field consolidation, surface and subsurface drainage, and hedgerow removal have reduced habitat interspersion and complexity at the field level. On an even smaller scale, plant community structure, and plant and insect diversity, have been reduced by chemical pesticides, faster growing crops, and increased efficiency of harvest equipment. In contrast to the interspersion of complex plant communities characteristic of early agriculture, today’s crop fields are for the most part true monocultures. Bobwhites persist, but at lower densities, in landscapes dominated by cropland.

Cropland Types

Cropland is devoted to the annual planting and harvesting of grains and other commodities. In certain instances, an annual rotation of different crops occurs on the same acreage, but continuous cropping of the same plant (e.g. corn) may take place for several successive years. One positive development is increased use of minimal till and no-till planting for certain crops in recent years. Major crops of concern are corn, soybeans, [cotton, peanuts, rice, sorghum, tobacco] and small grain (wheat, rye, barley, etc.).

Agriculture has shifted geographically. Smaller fields and those on less fertile soils, characteristic of the Piedmont and Mountain regions, have been abandoned to forestry and cropland has been consolidated on more fertile soils of the Coastal Plains and Mississippi Alluvial Valley. The shift has been accelerated by federal farm policy, that provided landowners an opportunity to retire smaller and less fertile fields.

Cropland as Bobwhite Habitat

Resources provided by commercial commodity crops sometimes provide important life requisites for bobwhites (Table 1). However, natural early succession habitat associated with field edges and fallow areas are essential habitat.

Table 1. Value of current commercial commodity crops as bobwhite habitat.

CROP	NESTING HABITAT	BROOD HABITAT	WINTER COVER¹	WINTER FOOD¹
No-till Soybeans	Fair	Good	Poor	Good
No-till Sorghum	Fair	Fair	Good	Good
Conventional tilled Soybeans	Poor	Fair	Poor	Good
Small grain (wheat, rye, barley,etc.)	Good²	Good	Poor	Fair
Conventional tilled Sorghum	Poor	Poor	Good	Good
No-till Corn	Fair	Fair	Fair	Poor
Conventional tilled Corn	Poor	Poor	Poor	Poor

^{1
Where crop residue remains over winter.

^{2Good structure.
Harvest may disrupt nests.

Problems Identified

The trend toward larger field size through farm consolidation has decreased
the value of cropland as quail habitat. Larger and more intensively cropped
landscapes have contributed to lower densities of bobwhites in intensively
cropped areas because of reduced nesting and brood rearing cover.

Cropland areas help maintain an open quality to the landscape that appears to
be an important element in maintaining the suitability of an area for quail.
Where cropland occupies from 30 to 65% in a landscape, that area offers the best
opportunity for implementing landscape level habitat quail management practices
(Dailey 1989, Roseberry and Sudkamp 1998). Where less than 30% or more than 65%
of a landscape is in crops, the upside potential for quail density and abundance
of many other early succession species diminishes.

The quality of nesting cover adjacent to or in association with cropped
fields has declined drastically in recent years. The widespread use of
introduced, aggressive grasses (e.g. fescue, bahia, and Bermuda grass) that form
dominant monocultures, frequent mowing, and forestry practices that result in
closed canopy stands has aggravated this situation.

Brood habitat quality in cropland and remaining field borders has declined
because of greater use of herbicides, changes in annual set-aside programs and
changing crop rotation patterns. However, use of no-till and in some instances,
double cropping (e.g. soybeans planted into grain stubble) has resulted in
improved conditions for quail broods (Palmer, 1996).

Loss of cropland to long-term land retirement (CRP) that is not maintained in
early succession habitat, especially conversion to loblolly pine plantations has
dramatically reduced quail habitat at the landscape level in several
physiographic areas. However, recent increases in the promotion and acceptance
of native warm season grass in mid-South States (Kentucky, North Carolina,
Virginia and Tennessee) and conversion of CRP fields from fescue to native warm
season grass may be improving the quality of this habitat for bobwhite.

Consolidation of cropland by species, farmland leasing, social stigma against
brushy field borders, excessive maintenance mowing, and double cropping have
lowered habitat quality and quantity.

Cropland Implementation Recommendations and Opportunities

While the quality of quail habitat provided by cropland acres has changed
dramatically in the past, cropland’s role as quail habitat can and will continue
to be important in attempts to manage and maintain quail numbers. Following are
recommendations that benefit bobwhite quail and early successional wildlife in
farm landscapes where cropland acres occur.

Identify Opportunities – Develop state and physiographic region
data on percent of cropland acres that offer good, moderate or little potential
for improvement (Roseberry and Sudkamp 1998). In some parts of the Southeast
this will show dramatic declines in cropland because of conversion to pine,
grass monocultures and other uses. This information will guide selection of
focus areas for habitat improvements.

Promote No-Till Farming – Work with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service to promote no-till farming practices which are currently
recognized for their water quality benefits and economic advantages. No-till
offers young broods critical food and cover resources not afforded by
conventional cultivation. Farming systems comprised of no-till fields with
field borders of native grasses or natural vegetation provide optimum bobwhite
nesting and brood habitat.

Establish Conservation Buffers - A major initiative,
launched in the late 1990’s, included cooperative efforts of state, federal
and NGO natural resource organizations, business and industry and private
landowners. Various programs and incentives (Continuous CRP, CREP, standard
CRP) involving both federal, state and private monies have been used to take
cropland out of production and establish cover along streams and field
drainage systems. These practices should reduce soil erosion and improve water
quality and wildlife habitat. By September 2001, almost 4,000,000 acres of
conservation buffers (waterways, filter strips, riparian buffers, field
margins) had been established nationwide. Unfortunately much of this acreage
is either outside the bobwhite range or is allowed to develop into late
succession vegetation communities that do not provide habitat conducive to
early succession wildlife. More work is needed in this effort to maximize the
benefits for quail and other early successional wildlife.

Encourage Edge Management

Wildlife Field Borders – Field borders of volunteer natural
or planted vegetation can offer multiple benefits including improved water
quality, habitat for a variety of wildlife, and in some cases economic
benefits to landowners. Characteristics of field borders productive of
bobwhite include sufficient width to conceal nests (usually over 15 feet and
optimally 30 feet), and vegetation of sufficient height and density to provide
screening from aerial and ground predators, but open enough at the ground to
allow bobwhites to travel through it. Field borders require periodic
disturbance to control trees, which shade out groundcover, remove the litter
from the soil surface, and manage vegetation density.

Fencerows/Hedgerows – One currently overlooked area is the
edge where cropland meets timber and/or fencerows. In many instances a current
"soft" edge is lacking, either because of an over mature woods edge or
fencerow/hedgerow being too large, with not enough brushy cover at ground
level. A program to promote fencerow and field edge thinning and management to
maintain early succession plant communities would be beneficial.

Establish a Set-aside (flex fallow) Program - Habitat availability
on cropland is dynamic. Usable space-time (Guthrey 1997) grows as crops reach
sufficient size to promote overhead cover and shrinks as fields are harvested
and prepared for the next crop. The exception to this rule is when no-till crops
are planted into standing small grain stubble. A strategy to provide a
significant acreage of fallow lands across landscapes dominated by cropland
would provide refuges allowing birds to more efficiently exploit cropfields as
they become available. Retiring cropland acreage for a two or three year period
will provide quality nest and brood habitat. Cover could be a light seeding of
oats, wheat, lespedeza or natural revegetation which remains undisturbed from
one to three years.

Designate Focus Areas - Bobwhites are one of numerous bird species
to exhibit "area sensitivity". Resources provided by isolated habitat patches in
a landscape dominated by expanses of low quality or non-habitat are seldom
available to bobwhites (e.g. isolated crop fields in a landscape dominated by
closed canopy forestland). Focus areas should be prioritized and efforts
concentrated in those regions offering the best opportunity for increasing
habitat on a significant scale. Factors considered in selection of priority
areas should include focus area size, cropland acres, crop types, field sizes,
farmer/landowner interest, and opportunities for networking. Guthrey (2000)
speculates that a minimum of 2,000 to 4,000 acres of useable habitat is required
to maintain a viable bobwhite population based on models which include weather
and harvest variables. Focus areas should be implemented with an adaptive
resource management perspective to allow refinement of acreage, habitat, and
population goals.

Discourage Summer Mowing – Implement a media campaign to encourage
alternatives (e.g. spot herbicide treatments, late winter mowing, etc.) to
summer maintenance mowing during the critical nesting and brooding season.

Increase Interaction with the Farm Community – To be successful in
making significant changes in farming practices (e.g. No-till, summer mowing,
and field borders) we must work closely with farmers, landowners, farm agencies,
and lawmakers at the local, state, and national level. Developing an effective
working relationship with all these groups will be critical to success of the
plan.

Evaluation of Assumptions

Develop remote sensing capability to identify coarse habitat changes over
time.

LITERATURE CITED

Dailey, T.V. 1989. Modeling bobwhite quail habitat relationships on 4
central Missouri wildlife management areas. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-13-R-43, Final
Report.
Guthrey, F.S. 2000. Viability of northern bobwhite populations. J. Wildl.
Manage. 64(3): 646-662.
Guthrey, F.S. 1997. A philosophy of habitat management for northern
bobwhites. J. Wildl. Manage. 61:291-301.
Palmer, W.E., J.R. Anderson Jr., P. T. Bromley, and K. M. Puckett. 1996.
Crop production impacts to bobwhite quail. 1996. American Society of
Agronomy - Crop Science Society of America Annual Meeting, Indianapolis.
Roseberry, J.L., and S.D. Sudkamp. 1988. Assessing the suitability of
landscapes for northern bobwhite. J. Wildl. Manage. 62(3):895-902.

Figure 1. Northern bobwhite range and grassland regions.

GRASSLANDS AS BOBWHITE HABITAT

Broomsedge Meadows—perhaps the premier quail nesting cover over the years

Grasslands in the southeastern portion of bobwhite range in the first half of
the 20^th century were mostly broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus)
meadow horse and dairy pastures and hay meadows. These were the primary bobwhite
nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Quail hens had quality nesting habitat any
direction they turned.
During the last half of the century the majority of broomsedge meadows were
converted to loblolly pine plantations, were plowed and added to adjacent
cropland acres or were converted to or invaded by exotic forages.
Where they still exist, broomsedge hay meadows can still be fine quail
habitat. However, a high percentage of broomsedge pastures and meadows have been
invaded by tall fescue, which has filled in the bare ground between broomsedge
plants. This has rendered these formerly high quality habitats almost useless to
quail. Quail have difficulty moving through this dense vegetation. Leading
chicks to good brood habitat takes a toll as young chicks struggle through this
dense vegetation. As a consequence, hens typically select alternate nesting
habitats, resulting in reduced nest success.
Tallgrass Prairies

In the more eastern oak-tallgrass mosaic prairie, woodland peninsulas
frequently dissect the prairies, placing the entire mix of quail habitat needs
in close proximity. As the prairies become more extensive to the west, the
distance between woody draws increases, and quail populations are
proportionately somewhat lower on a per acre density.
Native grasslands in the majority of bobwhite range today are found west of
the Mississippi River. In the higher rainfall regions, these are tallgrass
prairies characterized by big (Andropogon gerardi) and little bluestem,
indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum),
and eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides) with a rich array of
complimentary forbs, including perennial sunflowers (Helianthus spp.),
coneflowers (Ratibida spp.), gayfeathers (Liatris spp.),
Aster spp, Silphium spp., prairieclovers (Petalostemum spp.)
and other forbs. Tallgrass prairie offers quail excellent nesting and
brood-rearing cover with overhead protective cover, while remaining open at
ground level. Broods can readily move through this cover and capture the
abundant insects supported by the diverse plant community. Loafing and escape
cover was usually confined to the shrubby and woody draws, thus confining quail
to the grasslands close to these coverts.

Specific Problems

The plow has been the greatest enemy of tallgrass prairies. The rich,
black soils of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois producing bumper crops of corn and
beans attest to that--almost all of these crops are grown on former tallgrass
prairie sites. Intensive efforts to protect remaining prairies in these
regions will definitely benefit bobwhites.
The removal of fire from the landscape has been a major factor in the
declining health of tallgrass prairies, especially in eastern prairie
"islands" and remnants, where succession progresses rapidly in the absence of
fire. Brush and cool season grasses have invaded these once luxurious
prairies. The larger expanses of tallgrass prairie that remain today in
overall good shape (Flint Hills and Osage Prairie) are areas where the
tradition of annual spring burning has been continued by local ranchers
through the years. However, in the last decade in the Flint Hills and Osage
Prairie there has been a shift toward annually burning extensive areas of
prairie resulting in the elimination of residual nesting cover.
Fencing that permitted more intensive, year around grazing has
dramatically reduced the condition of these pastures as increaser and invader
species have replaced the typical tallgrass plant community. Bluegrass (Poa
spp.), three-awn, dropseed (Sporobolis spp.),
ironweed (Vernonia spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.),
and numerous other increaser species now dominate expanses of grasslands that
were formerly tallgrass prairie. The vigorous tall grasses that characterized
these prairies are gone or depressed, and their quality as quail habitat is
equally depressed.

Tall fescue came on the scene in the 1940s, and became the "cure-all" for
many farmers. Rough, eroding cropland was seeded to fescue. Broomsedge horse
pastures were converted to tall fescue. Tall fescue was relied on by
conservation agencies as the cure-all reseeding species. Unfortunately, tall
fescue forms a dense sod, and quail, especially newly hatched chicks, find it
difficult to travel through. It also supports low insect numbers which chicks
rely on. Tall fescue also has an invasive habit that reduces the quality of
many remaining grasslands, especially old broomsedge fields. Fescue tends to
fill in the bare ground between broomsedge clumps. In the Flint Hills, and
especially the Osage Prairie, tall fescue was interseeded into native bluestem
prairie. In these areas the fescue dominates the pasture because it is less
preferred forage than bluestems. Other exotic forages such as bermudagrass,
bahia (Paspalum notatum) and Caucasian bluestem exhibit the same
characteristics as tall fescue.
Prescribed burning that once maintained extensive savanna sites in the
Coastal Plain has been vastly curtailed. As a consequence, timber stand
densities in the woodlands today are much higher, reducing sunlight reaching
the forest floor. This has virtually eliminated the herbaceous layer from
existing Coastal Plain forests, changing savannas to densely stocked woodlands
uninhabited by quail. It also permitted the trees to invade the grassy
openings.
In recent years, concerns for smoke management have reduced the use of
prescribed burning.
Restrictive burning laws make use of prescribed burning to maintain
grasslands needlessly difficult.
Haying dates for tame forages such as tall fescue, orchardgrass (Dactylis
glomerata), smooth brome and others fall in May and early June. First
nesting attempts in these cover types are almost universally destroyed during
the haying operations. Native prairies are advantageous because they are
typically hayed in July, after the peak of hatch, allowing a much greater
chance of successful hatch and chick survival.
Grassland restoration is hampered by a lack of native grass planting
equipment. In many states, the only such equipment is housed at experiment
stations or research facilities. Native grass/forb seed is often expensive and
short in supply. Harvesting equipment for seed is also expensive and difficult
to obtain. These create difficulties with obtaining sufficient appropriate
native seed to meet the demands for CRP, grassed terraces, field/riparian
borders, etc.
Native grass restoration in the East has been hampered by a lack of
reliable techniques. This has tended to give native grasses a poor reputation
among farmers and conservationists in the Southeast.
There is so little original native range or savanna remaining in the
southeast that knowledge of proper management is lacking in the land
management community. Remaining native grasslands in Missouri, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Oklahoma are becoming scarce and highly fragmented. East of the
Mississippi River there is a lack of appreciation for the quality of forage
and the place of native forages in livestock operations and appropriate
stocking rates or rotations that enhance quail cover.
Federal farm programs have typically and traditionally mandated
clipping/mowing during the height of the nesting season for weed control. This
has the identical impact on quail nesting as does haying tame grasses--a
guaranteed disruption in the nesting effort.
Brush control operations tend to reduce the value of the grasslands to
quail by placing escape cover at excessive distances. Studies in Kansas have
shown that brush or old field type cover is crucial to enhancing winter
survival of quail. Brush control in Texas has had mixed impacts on bobwhites,
depending on the approach taken.

Grassland Recommendations and Opportunities

Grasslands were once a bastion of quail populations, either as extensive
prairies or as understory savannas. European land management techniques did not
fit well with the ecology of North American grasslands, and grasslands have been
declining in condition and acreage ever since settlement. The pendulum has now
swung too far, and there is now an over-reliance on tame forages. This presents
an opportunity to promote native forages and educate landowners in their
management. Adding native forages back into the mix presents an economically
viable approach. There is an opportunity to make inroads in pasture and range
management, especially in the mid-South (Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia) using native grasses to improve summer grazing performance.

Burning

Encourage state legislatures to adopt "right-to-burn" and Certified
Prescribed Burn Manager laws.
Education is a major factor in regaining the ground lost due to recent
mishaps in prescribed burning in the West. Smoky the Bear is as dominant now
as in the past, yet some areas of the Great Plains are experiencing overuse of
prescribed burning.
Some selective herbicides have come on the market in recent years that
offer viable alternatives to the use of prescribed burning for some
applications. For example, Plateau® and Roundup® can remove tall fescue
from broomsedge meadows. Careful evaluation of new herbicides and their impact
may point to alternatives to fire in some situations.
Prescribed burning of grasslands generally does not produce the volume of
smoke that other prescribed burning does, e.g. site prep burns (Southern
Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook. 1976. USFS General Tech. Report SE-10).
This fact needs to be emphasized in any discussions of smoke management and
smoke problems.
Prescribed burning old fields in the upper South often reveals latent
prairie that responds dramatically to the fire. This is just one example of
the use of fire in quail habitat restoration.
In the ideal world, all tall and midgrass prairies would be burned at
least once every three years. In areas, such as the Flint Hills, where
extensive annual burning is eliminating nesting cover, alternate
burning/grazing systems need to be developed and tested.
Fire frequency needs to be better understood. Excessive (annual) fire
frequency can be as bad as infrequent fire or elimination of fire. The best
nesting cover is residual grass, which is eliminated by annual burning.
Nesting cover is reduced or eliminated as fire frequency increases.

Native Warm Season Grass Planting

Specialized equipment needs to be readily available to landowners if
native forages are to be planted widely. Since an individual landowner may
only plant these species once or very occasionally, public entities are
probably the best way to assure that such equipment is available to them.
Partnerships between federal, state and local agencies, private conservation
groups such as Quail Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey
Federation, and others can spread the cost of these expensive drills over a
broader constituency.
In order to increase the percentage of livestock operators utilizing
native grasses in their operation, a major educational effort should be
conducted. This should demonstrate their value in drought-proofing an
operation, and increasing productivity and palatability. The Southeast is not
immune to drought. USDA has repeatedly provided drought emergency funding for
Southeast livestock producers when USDA could have achieved the same result by
encouraging the adoption of native grasses in the pasture "mix." This includes
providing a 2 year "rent" while the native grasses are being established.
Conservation agencies should be encouraged to utilize native grasses in
place of exotics in conservation programs and their practices such as CRP,
Wetlands Reserve Program, filter strips, field borders, riparian buffers,
circle irrigation corners, etc.
Recent research and advances in developing more selective herbicides has
improved native grass establishment success. Use of Plateau® or Roundup®
followed by a prescribed burn to remove competition and provide a suitable
seedbed has greatly improved stand establishment.
Provide incentives (cost-share) for conversion of cool season pastures and
hay meadows to native warm season grasses. Especially support such provisions
in the federal farm programs. Landowners still lose one to two years of
grazing while the conversion takes place. The loss in something that most can
not endure.
Encourage use of native grass mixtures in the establishment of new or
renovation of existing hay meadows. Most native grass haying dates are in
July, after first nesting efforts have been completed. The forage quality of
native grass mixtures is equal to or exceeds that of exotics as well and
should be emphasized.
Availability of native seed stocks needs improvement. If necessary,
state/federal/private partnerships could invest in harvesting equipment for
supplying additional seed at-cost.
Promote incentives in the 2002 Farm Bill that will allow landowners to
convert fescue to native grass pastures using the technique studied at Kansas
State University (unpublished data) that calls for withdrawal of fertilizer
and grazing, followed by spring burning, and return of light-moderate cattle
stocking. This eliminates the need to purchase herbicides and native plant
seeds in this particular setting. This technique is applicable where the
fescue pastures were established by overseeding weakened native range (tallgrass
prairie-woodland interface).

Grassland Conversion

Discourage the conversion of existing grasslands/rangelands to cropland
and non-agricultural uses.
Encourage regulations for participation in such programs as CRP that do
NOT create an incentive to bring native range into production only long enough
to establish a cropping history or base.
Support the Grassland Reserve Program as proposed for inclusion in the
Farm Bill legislation. Pursue a CRP program change to eliminate or modify the
"51% rule" so a greater percentage of grassland would have to be improved for
wildlife for CP10 re-enrollments.
Promote restoration of fescue pastures utilizing newer, selective
herbicides and prescribed burning.

Grassland Aspects To Consider In Bobwhite Management

Blocks of grasses tend to be less predation prone than strips.
Inclusion of forbs in a native grass mix improves food (seed and insect)
availability.
Livestock forage planting rates (7-8# PLS/Acre) are higher than rates
where wildlife is the primary consideration (5# PLS/Acre is fine).
Quail nesting in residual grasses need adequate bare ground for movement.
Grazing pressure should leave at least 300 nest sites/acre to reduce
predation exposure.
Stubble heights (grazed or hayed) should be a minimum of 9".
A native grass stand is most likely inadequate if invaded by exotics.
Burn frequency varies, but in most of bobwhite range, once every 3 years
is a reasonable frequency.
Where annual rainfall is less than 25 inches, the lack of bare ground is
rarely a factor in quail management.
In the Southeast, a 25% of forage base in native grasses is a reasonable
balance.

LITERATURE CITED
Abrahamson, W.G., and D.C. Hartnett. 1990. Pine flatwoods and dry prairies.
Pages 103-149

in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, eds., Ecosystems of Florida. Univ. of
Central Florida Press. Orlando, FL. 765 pp.}}