harlan fop tours small- 2009

8/8/2019 Harlan FOP Tours Small- 2009

1/42


2/42

2


3/42

3

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

The Focus On Pheasants Areas .............................................................4

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership....................................................5

Habitat Tour route and sites ............................8Harlan Reservoir survey data................................................................22

Mid-Contract Management( observations and opinions) ...................23

Focus Area Research .............................................................................29

Notes........................................................................................................39


4/42

4

D

ixonCounty

HarlanCoun

tyReservoirWMA

Sherm

anReservoirWM

ABranchedOak

WMA

F

ocus

On

P

heas

ants

F

ocus

On

P

heasants

Fo

cusAreaswithinNe

braska

Fo

cusAreaswithinNe

braska

One-BoxPheasantHuntJo

hnson

County

HickoryRi

dge

WMA

Perk

in

Coun

ty

Bord

eaux

Creek

WMA

Swans

onReservoirWMA

KimballCounty

StantonCounty

--High

High--UseP

rivateLandsFocusAreas

UseP

rivateLandsFocusAreas

--WheatStub

bleManagementProgram

WheatStub

bleManagementProgram

--PublicLand

FocusAreas

PublicLand

FocusAreas

--

Community

Community

--DrivenFocusA

reas

DrivenFocusA

reas

--

SatelliteFocusOnPheasantsefforts

SatelliteFocusOnPheasantsefforts


5/42

5

Focus On Pheasants is a partnership effort formed in 2002 that brings together aunique combination of Federal, State and Local government agencies, conserva-tion groups, private industry and landowners.

This combination of groups has come together in an effort to improve mature grass stands throughoutthe state and provide better pheasant habitat. The average CRP field in Nebraska is now 17+ yearsold 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 ofgrass stands using the following management tools: Controlled burns Interseeding legumes Disking Chemical herbaceous vegetation control

Haying Grazing

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

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership


6/42

6

0 2 4 6 8 10

12

14

16

18

20

1951

1956

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

Year

Birds/100miles

Birds/10

0miles

2007.


7/42

7

020

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

195

51960

1965

197

01975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

Hunters (thousands)

0 200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Harvest (thousands)

Hunters

Har

vest

g

p

N

ebraska,1955-2006.


8/42

8


9/42

9


10/42

10


11/42

11


12/42

12


13/42

13


14/42

14


15/42

15


16/42

16


17/42

17


18/42

18


19/42


20/42

20


21/42

21


22/42


23/42

23


24/42

24

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 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 ofdisking, but is not critical to achieving good results. Removal of litter may decrease the numberof disking passes necessary to achieve the desired impact and results.

Smooth bromegrass typically returns aggressively in the 3rd growing season following this typeof management. While the smooth bromegrass comes back aggressively, the grass stand canstill provide good structure and nesting cover at that point.

Disking prior to September 15th on smooth bromegrass does not sufficiently set the grass standback. Regrowth occurs within months and significantly reduces the effective length of thetreatment by at least one season.

Disking smooth bromegrass in the spring is the most effective treatment, but the ability toaccomplish field work prior to May 1st is very weather dependent.

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

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 discussedprior 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 www.nebraskapf.com) produced desirable plantcomposition and structure. The addition of white sweetclover to mixtures may be desirable due

to its later maturation date.

Annual plant responses varied from site to site. Generally speaking, common sunflower andannual foxtail are the primary annuals that show up in the first growing season. Commonsunflowers are significantly reduced from the site after the first year.

G r a s s S t a n d 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 ~


25/42

25

Prescribed fire and haying Prescribed fire on warm-season CRP grass stands can be effective in reducing cool-season gra

encroachment and for certain tree control if timed correctly. It also reduces grass litter ainvigorates regrowth. Some annual plants also respond favorably to the increased sunligpenetration.

To reduce the encroachment of cool-season grasses, late April to mid-May burns arecommended.

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 grastand composition or diversity. It will reduce the litter and can be effective in controlling sowoody plants.

Haying can also reduce litter and provide an opportunity to either disk and interseed or to apother management techniques. Interseeding a legume mixture directly into a hayed cool-seasgrass stand without another form of disturbance produced minimal benefits that will last for a shperiod of time.

Haying that is performed on a site 3 to 5 years after an initial upgrade has provided positive wildlbenefits. Even on sites where the cool-season grasses have returned aggressively, haying the s

has brought back a flush of legume growth.

Haying activities are restricted from being used during the primary nesting season dates of May to July 15th.

Combining prescribed fire with high intensity, short duration grazing can be an excellecombination of management techniques. Combining the two treatments can help control coseason grass grasses and stimulate both warm-season grasses and broadleaf forbs.




26/42


27/42

27



Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds were identified as an issue to be addressed in the planning ofFocus On Pheasan

activities. The plants on Nebraskas noxious weed list that were anticipated to be of concerincluded musk, plumeless, and Canada thistles.

CRP tracts with a history of thistle problems and where thistle seeds were present in the see

bank were more problematic than tracts with limited thistle history. When thistle problemoccurred on CRP tracts that had been disked and interseeded with legumes as part of the FocuOn Pheasants project, appropriate treatments were applied.

Those treatments included hand chopping, spot shredding, and spot spraying with appropriat

herbicides. If thistle problems were widespread over a large area, then a blanket application appropriate herbicide that was labeled for legumes and/or shredding of affected areas wer

treatments that provided acceptable results. Communication and cooperation among all involved entities were the key to resolving noxiou

weed problems on CRP tracts while still developing and maintaining desired vegetative diversiprovided by the interseeded legumes.

The key message here is that if an area had a known history of noxious weeds prior to i

enrollment in CRP, Mid Contract Management activities will bring those noxious weeds out againAny activities that disturb the soil will allow those early successional stage plants to reappear.


28/42

28



Final Thoughts CRP cost share rates, generally speaking, are too low. Even for landowners that seriously de-

sire to see habitat improvement and for those that are only conducting this work as a require-ment of CRP, this will be viewed as a financial burden or will result in sub par results due tolack of awareness.

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

1). You cant ever kill off smooth bromegrass with any amount of disking.

2). If you had noxious weeds before enrollment in CRP, theres a good

chance 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 theminimum management efforts required to accomplish the desired results.

Our experience showed that minimum management efforts

typically produced minimum, if any, results.


29/42

29


30/42

30

Insect and Vegetation Responses to Disking and Interseeding Legumes onConservation 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 oflight 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.

Methods

We sampled 4 different field types. 1) CRP fields planted to cool season grasses, with a portion of the field disked and interseeded withlegumes (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 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 bothcool 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.


31/42

31

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 summer,2000. Measurements represent the total biomass collected along 3 50-m transects per field; sample sizes are thenumber 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 weedyforbs to produce seed and insect food sources. In particular, pheasant hens and chicks are heav-ily dependant on insects as a primary food source during spring nesting and summer brood-rearing. 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 sum-mer to meet their needs for high calorie, high protein foods to reach maturity by winter. Asgrasses grow, they tend to choke out these weedy forb species and can become nearly purestands of a single grass species, leaving pheasants and other birds without the food sources anddiversity they need to fully reach their population potential.

Nebraskas CRP-Management Access Program is a joint program of Pheasants Forever and theNebraska Game and Parks Commission that promotes management of aging CRP grasslands toset back grass growth and encourage reestablishment of forb species. The specific managementpractice 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 programs management prac-tices are presented below.

Invertebrates:Managed fields had a much higher availability of insects and invertebrates than idle fields. Theincrease was particularly pronounced in the native grass stands. Idle native grasses had the low-est overall availability of invertebrates, translating into the least available food source for pheasantchicks. However, managed native grasses had the highest availability of invertebrates and themost food sources for chicks. Although less pronounced than in the natives, brome fields alsohad more invertebrates when managed than when left idle.


32/42


33/42

33

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 being

the 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

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Treated Not Treated

A

bundance

Insect Biomas

Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields

0

5

10

15

20

25

Treate d Not Treated

Biom

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 University, Scott Taylor, Nebraska Game and ParksCommission and Lucas Negus, Oklahoma State University.


34/42

34

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 compositionin 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

CRP Nest Success

2005

Interseeded 53.3% (n=15)

Non-interseeded 37.5% (n=16)

2006

Interseeded 60.0% (n=10)

Non-interseeded 33.3% (n=18)


35/42


36/42

36

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 havebeen attributed to the loss of prairie habitat. With the tremendous losses of native prairie throughoutthe Midwest, surrogate grasslands such as CRP have become increasingly more important to grass-land wildlife. While game birds are most commonly thought of as being the main beneficiaries, non-game grassland songbirds also benefit from CRP. Recently, several studies have attributed popula-tion 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 aprogram to curb declining ring-necked pheasant populations in the state. The program, entitledFocus on Pheasants, placed an emphasis on creating nesting and brood-rearing habitat in the ag-ing CRP fields by disking and interseeding legumes. Although improving pheasant habitat is the pri-

mary objective, grassland birds will likely benefit from the habitat manipulations as well. These habi-tat upgrades provide an excellent opportunity to evaluate grassland bird population response to thismanagement practice. Funding for this study was provided through the Nebraska State WildlifeGrant program. State Wildlife Grants provide funding for management practices and research thatbenefit 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 un-

managed.

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

Beginning in May 2004, grassland bird abundance and nest productivity were sampled in 16 fieldsthroughout the Stanton County focus area. Eight fields were disked and interseeded and served asexperimental fields. Eight fields in which no disking and interseeding was performed serve as controlfields. Surveys were conducted May through July, 2004, and will continue May through July, 2005.


37/42

37

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.

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


38/42

38


39/42

39

N o t e s :

________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________


40/42

40

N o t e s :

________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________


41/42

41


42/42

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 passe

and then interseeded with a legume mixture. A minimum ofthree passes with a disk was necessary with a mature standof 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 attractnsects, and is once again a diverse grassland. The legumesthat were interseeded into the disked area are already present

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

harlan fop tours small- 2009

Documents