A CRP warm-season grass stand responds well to prescribed fires by removing

the litter buildup, increasing the diversity, creating open area on the ground and
enhancing plants that attract insects.
 Table of Contents

The Study Area and what we’ve learned.................................................3

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership ..................................................12

CRP Mid Contract Management ............................................................15

Focus Area Research .............................................................................17

Notes ........................................................................................................39
The CRP Mid Contract Management Tours conducted in 2004 and 2005 are just some of many efforts
focused on improving the wildlife benefits associated with CRP grass stands. Sharing information
with landowners and biologists is an important part of Focus On Pheasants, CRP-MAP and CRP Mid
Contract Management.

2
3
This photo shows the location of the Focus On Pheasants - Focus Area located
within 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 gold
and purple), CRP tracts enrolled into the CRP-MAP program, interest in the area
landowners in participating in the program and the historical number of pheasants
in 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.

4
 Focus Area Timeline
2002
• Written in collaboration among NGPC, PF and NRCS biologists, the Focus On Pheasants
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 committee,
and 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 land-
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 land-
owners. Discussed the results and landowner satisfaction.
• Monitored noxious weed response and spot treated by spraying 1,000 acres – some landown-
ers did this themselves.
• Applied for and received a State Wildlife Grant to initiate a Grassland Bird Study. The study
will 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 prefer-
ences.
• 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
 Focus Area Timeline
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 interseeded
in 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 at
Pheasant Fest in Omaha.
• Expanded individual field demonstrations to most counties in northeast Nebraska.
• Presented Grassland Bird and Pheasant Telemetry preliminary results at annual meeting of
The 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 Habitat
Meeting.

6
 CRP Mid Contract Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~

Disking and Interseeding

• Two passes minimum is required in stands of smooth bromegrass or switchgrass. In some
cases, our efforts have reached as high as five passes with a disk. Even aggressive disking in
this fashion does not make fields susceptible to erosion. It is far easier to disk “too little” than it
is to disk “too much”.
• Haying or burning the grass stand prior to disking reduces litter and improves the ease of disk-
ing, but is not crucial to achieving good results. Removal of litter may decrease the number of
disking passes necessary to achieve the desired impact and results.
• Smooth bromegrass typically returns aggressively in the 3rd growing season following manage-
ment. While the smooth bromegrass comes back aggressively, the grass stand can still provide
good structure and nesting cover at that point.
• Disking prior to September 15th on smooth bromegrass does not sufficiently set the grass stand
back. 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 selecting
areas for disking.
• Care should be taken to identify areas of known noxious weed infestations and then design work
around these areas. If the area had a history of noxious weeds prior to enrollment in CRP, it will
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 for
more wildlife will help guide your management technique application.
• Effective communication with USDA field office, local weed superintendent, landowners, and
media can greatly increase support for habitat improvements such as this. This partnership has
been enhanced by substantial support from the media, partners and landowners.
• The legume 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 to
it’s 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.

7
 CRP Mid Contract Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~

Prescribed fire and haying

• Prescribed fire on warm-season CRP grass stands can be effective in reducing cool-season grass
encroachment and for certain tree control if timed correctly. It also reduces grass litter and 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 grass
stand composition or diversity. It will reduce the litter and can be effective in controlling some
woody plants.
• Haying can also reduce litter and provide an opportunity to either disk and interseed or to apply
other management techniques. Interseeding a legume mixture directly into a hayed cool-season
grass stand without another form of disturbance produced minimal benefits that will last for a short
period of time.
• Haying that is performed on a site 3 to 5 years after an initial upgrade has provided positive wildlife
benefits. Even on sites where the cool-season grasses have returned aggressively, haying the site
has brought back a flush of legume growth.
• Haying activities are restricted from being used during the primary nesting season dates of May 1st
to July 15th.

8
 CRP Mid Contract Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~

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

9
CRP Mid Contract Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~

Chemical burn back and interseeding

• 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 weed
infestations, 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 reducing
the 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 warm
day works best.

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

10
 CRP Mid Contract Management
~ Observations and Opinions ~

Final Thoughts
• Cost share rates, generally speaking, are too low. Even for landowners that seriously desire to
see habitat improvement and for those that are only conducting this work as a requirement of
CRP, this will be viewed as a financial burden or will result in sub par results due to lack of
awareness.
• There are very few certainties in life…...two that can be applied to CRP Mid Contract Manage-
ment are:

1). You can’t ever kill off smooth bromegrass with any amount of disking.
2). If you had noxious weeds before enrollment in CRP, they will show up
again following disking.
• While USDA technical guides are pretty complete at describing maximum management efforts
(how deep to disk, how many passes, percent reside, etc.), they are generally weak on outlining the
minimum management efforts required to accomplish the desired results.

• Our experience showed that minimum management efforts

typically produced minimum, if any, results.

11
 Focus On Pheasants
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 stands
throughout the state and provide better pheasant habitat. The average CRP field in Nebraska is
now 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 diversity
of CRP grass stands using the following management tools:
• Controlled burns
• Interseeding legumes
• Disking
• Chemical herbaceous vegetation control
• Haying

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership

13
 Focus On Pheasants

Dixon County

Stanton County

14
Kimball County

Harlan County Branched Oak

Nebraska One Box Sherman Reservoir
Reservoir WMA WMA
Foundation

Location of Focus Areas within Nebraska

 Is This Good or Bad?
The interpretation of the results from Mid Contract Management activities is often
left to the eye of the beholder. Wildlife Biologists will look at this field and see an
abundance of broad-leaved forbs, open areas on the ground, no noxious weeds
present, plants that attract insects for young chicks and lots of diversity…….just
what we are looking for from CRP Mid Contract Management activities!

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

Very few things related to wildlife management happen overnight. Conducting

proper CRP Mid Contract Management activities is one of the few management
practices that can produce a wildlife response in a short timeline.

16
In the Focus On Pheasant “Focus Area” located in Stanton County, several research projects have
been started in the last few years to begin to document the wildlife and vegetative responses to CRP
grass stand treatments.

Some of the investigations conducted include:

1. Invertebrate abundance in CRP fields. Three different efforts have been conducted from 2000 to
2005, that looked at the effects of disking and interseeding legumes on key brood habitat compo-
nents in CRP fields.
2. Evaluation of Ring-necked Pheasant Response to Disking and Interseeding Legumes on Con-
servation Reserve Program Fields in Northeast Nebraska. Initiated in 2004 by the Nebraska
Game & Parks Commission and expanded as a University of Nebraska - Lincoln graduate project,
evaluating the response of ring-necked pheasants to landscape scale habitat manipulations.
3. Spring Pheasant Crowing Counts and August Roadside Surveys. Conducted from 2003 to
2007, the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission is conducting surveys in focus areas and control
areas to determine the influence of habitat improvements on pheasant abundance.
4. Grassland bird response to Disking/Interseeding of legumes in Conservation Reserve Pro-
gram lands in Northeast Nebraska. Initiated in 2004, a graduate research study from Oklahoma
State University is looking at grassland songbird responses to habitat improvement efforts on CRP
fields.
The results of these studies are summarized in this booklet today and will be expanded upon
throughout the tour by the researchers. These efforts are documenting the results of CRP Mid Con-
tract Management efforts on a landscape scale and providing early information about what manage-
ment techniques are most effective.

18
 Insect and Vegetation Responses to Disking and Interseeding Legumes on
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Fields in Eastern Nebraska

Scott Taylor, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

Background
In the spring of 2000, the Wildlife Division of Nebraska Game and Parks recognized the need for information regarding the effects of
light disking and interseeding with regard to pheasant brood habitat components on CRP fields. These management actions are re-
quired on CRP fields enrolled in the Commission’s 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 insect
abundance. 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 insects
and 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 with
legumes (alfalfa, yellow sweetclover, and/or red clover), 2) CRP fields planted to warm season grasses, with a portion of the field disked
and interseeded with legumes, 3) either cool or warm season CRP fields with a portion of the field planted to a high diversity seed 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 used
sweep nets to collect insects. We made 50 sweeps along each transect.

Highlights of Results
We acquired samples from 22 fields. In CRP fields, insect abundance was higher in treatment portions of both cool season and warm
season fields. Insect abundance in CP-25 plantings was similar to those in control portions of the fields.

Line to line variability in insect abundance was relatively high but field to field variability was relatively low. This suggested an uneven
distribution of insects within fields. If future sampling is done, an increased number of sample lines per field is suggested to reduce 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 as
well. As such, this technique shows promise for improving wildlife habitat on older CRP stands that have lost vegetative diversity.

19
Table 1. Mean biomass (g) of invertebrates sampled in several herbaceous community types in Nebraska during summer,
2000. Measurements represent the total biomass collected along 3 50-m transects per field; sample sizes are the
number of fields.

Interseeded or High
Untreated Portion of Field Diversity Portion of Field

Field Type n Mean SE Mean SE

Cool-season CRP 6 3.94 0.81 9.07 1.53

Warm-season CRP 6 2.66 0.97 9.31 1.71

CP-25 and adjacent CRP 5 5.74 1.76 4.85 2.90

Native prairie 5 8.21 2.48

Light disking and interseeding to improve brood habitat

Ron Leathers
Pheasants Forever, Inc.

Pheasants are early-successional species, relying heavily on a combination of grasses and weedy
forbs to produce seed and insect food sources. In particular, pheasant hens and chicks are 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. As
grasses grow, they tend to choke out these weedy forb species and can become nearly pure
stands of a single grass species, leaving pheasants and other birds without the food sources and
diversity they need to fully reach their population potential.

Nebraska’s CRP-Management Access Program is a joint program of Pheasants Forever and the
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission that promotes management of aging CRP grasslands to
set back grass growth and encourage reestablishment of forb species. The specific management
practice that is used for this program is light disking and interseeding legumes (typically alfalfa,
sweetclover, and red clover).

Some of the highlights of a 2001 & 2002 study on the CRP-MAP program’s management prac-
tices are presented below.

Invertebrates:
Managed fields had a much higher availability of insects and invertebrates than idle fields. The
increase was particularly pronounced in the native grass stands. Idle native grasses had the low-
est overall availability of invertebrates, translating into the least available food source for pheasant
chicks. However, managed native grasses had the highest availability of invertebrates and the
most food sources for chicks. Although less pronounced than in the natives, brome fields also
had more invertebrates when managed than when left idle.
20
 Available invertebrates

3000
2500

Biomass (mg)
2000
Idle
1500
Managed
1000
500
0
Brome Native
Idle 1918.9 531.6
Managed 2334.3 2757.7

Vegetation changes: Planted legume cover

Managed fields had more legume cover than idle fields. Without 35
management, the average percent cover of legumes was less than 30
2% in brome fields and 0.5% in native grasses. After management, 25
legumes accounted for roughly 1/3rd of the total cover in brome fields Mean % 20 Idle
and 1/6th of the cover in native grasses. 15 Managed
10
Managed fields also had more forb cover (including the planted leg- 5
umes and any volunteer weedy forbs) than idle fields. Planted leg- 0
umes accounted for the majority of the forb cover in managed fields. Brome Native

Again, the percentage of forbs in idle fields was extremely low (<5%
in brome and <10% in natives) compared to the percentage in man-
aged fields (36% in brome and 28% in natives). Total % forb cover

One major concern of landowners is that disturbance of the soil sur- 40

face by light disking and interseeding could lead to increased nox- 35

ious weed growth. I found no evidence to suggest that the disking 30

25
Mean %

and interseeding activity promoted any more growth of noxious 20

Idle

weeds than would occur naturally in idle fields. The average in all 15
Managed

fields was less than 0.25% on all our study sites. 10

5

These concerns are not unfounded, however, as I have seen fields 0

Brome Native
with major histories of noxious weed problems that got much worse
when disked and I suggest not conducting management activities on
those portions of fields with a history of noxious weed problems to
avoid any possibility of future problems. Percent cover noxious weeds
Brome Natives
Idle Managed Idle Managed
2001 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1
2002 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 0.2
Summary:
Light disking and interseeding legumes as a management practice for aging CRP fields tends to produce more diverse cover with a
higher proportion of legumes and forbs. Subsequently, invertebrate biomass is also higher in managed fields. The result is better brood
rearing cover for pheasants and other grassland nesting birds with more diverse vegetation and a greater amount of spring and summer
food resources for nesting hens and chicks.

21
 Insect Response to Disking and Interseeding Legumes on
Conservation Reserve Program Lands in Northeast Nebraska

Jamie Bachmann, Oklahoma State University, Scott Taylor, Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission and Lucas Negus, Oklahoma State University.

Insects are important food resources for many grassland birds. A survey was conducted in 2004 to deter-
mine insect abundance, biomass and diversity in treated vs. untreated fields as part of the Grassland Bird
Study 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. Of
those eight, four were disked and interseeded with yellow sweet clover, alfalfa, and red clover; and four
were control fields that received no treatment. Using a sweep net, three sub-samples of twenty sweeps
each were taken along 200 meter transects within each field. Samples were preserved sorted, identified,
dried, and weighed for biomass over the fall and winter of 2004-2005.

Preliminary statistics have been preformed to compare insect samples between treated and untreated
fields. Previous research has shown grasshoppers, butterflies, caterpillars, beetles, and spiders as being
the main food resource for grassland bird hatchlings. Graph 1 compares the total abundance of these in-
sects for July samples between treated and non-treated fields. Treated fields had an insect abundance of
2,951 and non-treated fields had an abundance of 1,021. Graph 2 compares the biomass, or dry weight,
of the same insects. Treated fields have nearly three times more biomass than non-treated fields.

Insect Abundance Insect Biomas

Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields

3500 25
3000
20
B io m a s s ( m g )
Abun dance

2500
2000 15
1500
10
1000
500 5
0
0
Treated Not Treated
Treated Not Treated

Graph 1. Abundance of insects favored by grassland birds Graph 2. Biomass (dry weight) of insects favored by
in treated (disked/interseeded) and unmanaged fields. grassland birds in treated (disked/interseeded) and un-
managed fields.

22
 Ring-neck Pheasant Habitat Selection and Productivity in
Landscapes Containing Disked and Interseeded CRP in
Northeast Nebraska
Ty Mathews and Larkin Powell
University of Nebraska - Lincoln

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

Objectives
• Compare habitat use of pheasant hens and their broods in CRP fields that have been disked and
interseeded to unmanaged CRP fields and other grasslands
• Compare chick survival in CRP fields that have been disked and interseeded to unmanaged CRP
fields and other grasslands
• Determine the insect diet of pheasant chicks in all field types

23
 Nest Survival
1 .0 0

0 .9 8
Daily Nest Survival
0 .9 6

0 .9 4

0 .9 2

0 .9 0
In t e r s e e d e d O th e r

2005
2006
P o o le d Y e a r s

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)

24
 Available Habitat in
Focus Area
5000

4000

IS
Hectacre

3000

2000

1000

0
CRP Crop Other Grassland Other

Habitat Type

Nest Site Preference

0 .7

2005 Chi-square
0 .6 = 28.07
P <.0001
0 .5
Percent

0 .4

0 .3

0 .2

0 .1

0 .0

CRP In te rs e e d e d O th e r
A v a ila b le H a b ita t
N est

25
 Hen Survival

1.0

0.8
Survival

0.6

0.4
3/1/2005 4/1/2005 5/1/2005 6/1/2005 7/1/2005 8/1/2005

Nest Survival
Raw Nest Success
Interseeded: 65% (n=20)
Non-interseeded: 55% (n=20)
Other: 42% (n=7)

Daily Nest Survival

Interseeded: 0.982 (95% CI= 0.963-.0992)
Non-interseeded: 0.977 (95% CI= 0.956-0.987)
Other: 0.964 (95% CI= 0.909-0.987)

26
2005 Nest Site Preference
0.5
Chi-square
= 28.07
0.4
P < 0.0001
Percent

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
Interseeded CRP OG Other

Nest
Available Habitat

2006 Nest Site Preference

0.5
Chi-square
= 39.31
0.4
P < 0.0001
Percent

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
Interseeded CRP OG Other

Nest
Available Habitat

27
2005 Nest Microhabitat
70 6

60 5
Percent Cover
50

Density (dm)
4
40
3
30
2
20

10 1

0 0
CSG W SG IF OF BG VOR
Nest
Random t-test: *** denotes p < 0.001

2006 Nest Microhabitat

60 5
******
***
50
4
Percent Cover

***
Density (dm)

40 ****** 3
30
2
20

1
10

0 0
CSG W SG IF OF BG VO R

N est
R andom
t-test: *** denotes p < 0.001

28
 Brood Survival
AIC
Model AIC ∆AIC Weight k
year * int 36.65 0 0.34 3
int * alf 38.01 1.36 0.17 3
int 38.15 1.5 0.16 2
year * int * alf 38.44 1.79 0.14 5
No difference in
Survival 40.06 3.41 0.06 1
alf 40.46 3.81 0.05 2
year 41.17 4.52 0.04 2

Brood Survival
Int model
% Time in
Interseeded Survival 21-day
0.05 0.971 0.544
0.1 0.977 0.610
0.1946 0.984 0.716
0.2 0.985 0.721
0.25 0.987 0.767

29
 Brood Microhabitat
Selection
80 5
* ***
4
60
Percent Habitat

Density (dm)
*** 3
40 *
2

20 ***
1

0 0
CS WS IF OF BG VOR

B ro o d L o ca tio n
*** denotes p < 0.001
R a n d o m L o c a tio n
T-test: * denotes p < 0.005

Conclusions
„ Interseeding CRP provides reproductive
benefits
„ Hens select interseeded CRP for nesting
„ Nest survival tends to be higher in
interseeded areas

„ Hens with broods tend to prefer

interseeded CRP

„ Hens with broods selected areas with high

forb content

30
 Stanton County Focus Area Pheasant Index
Survey Information
Scott Wessel
Wildlife Biologist, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

Spring Rooster Crowing Counts 1, 2

Year Total Crows Crows/Stop

2007 n/a n/a
2006 630 21.0
2005 653 21.8
2004 624 20.8
2003 389 12.9
2002 374 12.5
1 Habitat work began in the fall of 2002.
2 Route conducted in April with 2 minute stops.

August Roadside Brood Survey 1, 2

Year # of # of Brood Young/ Miles of

broods young Size mile Route
2007 3 32 162 5.06 5.4 30
2006 15 63 4.2 2.1 30

2005 36 193 5.36 6.43 30

2004 49 278 5.67 5.56 50

2003 37 255 6.89 4.25 60

2002 7 45 6.42 0.75 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 with 8 chicks.

31
32
33
 Grassland bird response to disking/interseeding of
legumes in Conservation Reserve Program lands
in Northeast Nebraska
Lucas Negus and Craig A. Davis
Oklahoma State University

Grassland bird populations are declining faster than any other group of birds. These declines have
been attributed to the loss of prairie habitat. With the tremendous losses of native prairie throughout
the Midwest, surrogate grasslands such as CRP have become increasingly more important to 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 a
program to curb declining ring-necked pheasant populations in the state. The program, entitled
“Focus 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 this
management practice. Funding for this study was provided through the Nebraska State Wildlife
Grant program. State Wildlife Grants provide funding for management practices and research that
benefit at-risk wildlife species.

Objectives:
• To compare grassland bird richness and abundance in CRP fields disked/interseeded to CRP
fields unmanaged.
• To compare grassland bird nest productivity in CRP fields disked/interseeded to CRP fields un-
managed.
• To evaluate differences in vegetation structure, composition, and cover between CRP fields
disked/interseeded and CRP fields unmanaged.

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

34
Results - 2004:
Grassland bird species observed during surveys include eastern and western meadowlarks, grass-
hopper sparrows, Henslow’s sparrows, Dickcissels, sedge wrens, bobolinks, field sparrows, com-
mon yellowthroats, brown-headed cowbirds, and northern harriers. Other bird species using the
CRP 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 grassland
bird species, including Dickcissels and grasshopper sparrows, were more abundant in experimental
fields than control fields. Dickcissels were 3 times more abundant in experimental fields. Experi-
mental fields had a species richness of 24, compared to a richness of 18 in control fields. Several
differences between treatments were also seen in nesting behavior. Of 100 nests found throughout
the field season, 88 were in experimental fields. Additionally, nest densities were 3 times greater in
experimental fields. Nest success was 37-40% in both experimental and control fields.

Differences in vegetation characteristics were also observed. The control field vegetation was com-
posed of only 1.5% forbs and 2% bare ground. Conversely, experimental fields were composed of
25% forbs and 25% bare ground. Litter (dead material in contact with the ground) was two times deeper in
control fields than experimental. Finally, vegetation height was relatively uniform in control fields,
ranging from 34 to 71 cm throughout the summer. Vegetation height in experimental fields varied
greatly, from 24 to 90 cm, indicating a diversity of heights throughout the field.

Bird surveys and nest searches resumed in May of this summer, with some slight modifications.
Nest searches have been intensified to achieve the goal of finding 200 nests. Following this sum-
mers field season, results from the two field seasons will be compiled, analyzed, interpreted, and
reported.

35
5
Overall Abundance 1.75
Diversity
*
4
1.5 *
1.25
3
1

2 0.75

0.5
1
0.25

0 0
Treatment Reference Treatment Reference
Species Richness
12
* Ref erence
10 Treatment

8
6

4
2

0
2004 2005

Nest Densities
5
4.5 Reference
4 Treatment

3.5
Nests/Hectare

n = 112 n = 135
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2004 2005

36
Grassland Bird Conclusions
• Disked/interseeded fields supported higher
abundances and more species than undisked
fields
• Disking/interseeding created vegetation
response that attracted diverse assemblage of
grassland birds
• Nest densities appeared to be higher in
disked/interseeded fields, but no difference in
nest success
• Mature brome stands were still important,
particularly to Henslow’s Sparrows and
Bobolinks

Overall Conclusions
• Planted grasslands are important for wildlife
species
• Mid-contract management is important in
grass dominated, aged CRP fields
• Disking and interseeding legumes is an effective
management technique
• A wide array of wildlife (both game and non-
game) and organisms benefit from
management
• Management is needed in the future to
maintain/enhance the wildlife habitat CRP
fields provide as they progress through the life
of their contract

37
 CRP Upgrade Mixtures
These legume mixtures have been designed to use in CRP grass stand
improvements throughout Nebraska. The cost of the mixtures range
from $10 to $20 per acre.
Legume Mixture #1
5.0 lbs PLS/acre (26.2 PLS/ft2)
Alfalfa ...............................3.0
Red Clover .......................1.5
Sweet Clover....................0.5
$11.20 per Acre
Legume Mixture #4
4.0 lbs PLS/acre
Alfalfa ............................. 2.5
Crimson Clover............... 0.5
Red Clover ..................... 0.5
Black-eyed Susan......... 0.05
Illinois Bundleflower........ 0.2
Lemon Mint................... 0.05
Showy Partridgepea ....... 0.2
$16.45 per Acre
Legume Mixture #7
3.45 lbs PLS/acre (20.0 PLS/ft2)
Alfalfa .............................. 2.0
Red Clover ...................... 0.8
Black-eyed Susan ......... 0.05
Illinois Bundleflower ........ 0.2
Lemon Mint ..................... 0.1
Showy Partridgepea........ 0.2
White Prairie Clover ........ 0.1
$20.14 per Acre
Legume Mixture #2
5.0 lbs PLS/acre (25.7 PLS/ft2)
Alfalfa .......................... 3.0
Sweet Clover ...............2.0
$10.74 per Acre
Legume Mixture #5
3.61 lbs PLS/acre
Alfalfa .......................... 2.5
Sweet Clover ............... 1.0
Black-eyed Susan ..... 0.05
Cudweed Sagewort ... 0.01
Roundhead Lespedeza .... 0.04
Stiff Goldenrod .......... 0.01
$15.73 per Acre
Legume Mixture #8
3.86 lbs PLS/acre
Alfalfa ............................ 3.0
Sweet Clover................. 0.5
Black-eyed Susan ....... 0.05
Cicer Milkvetch.............. 0.3
Stiff Goldenrod ............ 0.01
$12.14 per Acre
38
Legume Mixture #3
5.0 lbs PLS/acre (26.4 PLS/ft2)
Alfalfa ............................ 3.0
Red Clover .................... 2.0
$11.35 per Acre
Legume Mixture #6
3.45 lbs PLS/acre (17.7 PLS/ft2)
Alfalfa ........................... 2.0
Red Clover ................... 1.0
Black-eyed Susan....... 0.05
Illinois Bundleflower...... 0.2
Showy Partridgepea ..... 0.2
$14.42 per Acre
Legume Mixture #9
2.96 lbs PLS/acre
Alfalfa ............................. 2.0
Sweet Clover.................. 0.5
Black-eyed Susan ........ 0.05
Cudweed Sagewort...... 0.01
Illinois Bundleflower ....... 0.2
Showy Partridgepea ....... 0.2
$14.41 per Acre
 Notes:

________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
39
This photo is of a 13-year old CRP field that is over 1,000 acres in size and has had no management per-
formed on it during its contract. It was originally established to a mixture of Brome grass and alfalfa and is
now a monoculture of Brome grass that provides minimal wildlife benefits.

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