Habitat diversity as related to pheasant use on a game management area in Northwestern Montana
by Raymond Richard Austin
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Montana State University
© Copyright by Raymond Richard Austin (1973)
Abstract:
The habitat use of the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) was studied in northwestern
Montana during the summers of 1970 and 1971 and during the winter of 1971. Detailed vegetation
maps were made of each of the three separate sections which comprised the study area.
Summer pheasant observations were plotted on these maps and the vegetation within a nine-acre block
around them was analyzed. An index of diversity was calculated, as was the frequency of occurrence
and average percent of area or each cover type within the nine-acre blocks. The results from the 631
observations of both summers were compared with the results of 200 randomly selected sites in each
section, which were analyzed in the same manner as the observation sites. The average indices of
diversity for pheasant observation sites were significantly higher than those of the random sites in the
two sections where food, cover, and open areas were available throughout the section. Hen pheasant
observations generally had the highest average index of diversity, followed by cocks, dusting sites, then
roosting sites. A greater association than expected (if pheasants were randomly distributed) was shown
for the following cover types: sweetclover-II, spring barley, winter wheat, cul- tivated grass, alfalfa,
rush, summer fallow, pasture-hay, and county roads. An association index was calculated for each plant
species on the study area, which compared the coverage provided by each species with its occurrence
near pheasant observations. A positive association was generally shown for the grasses of the cultivated
grass type and for the grasses and the plants of mesic sites. Roosting sites were generally located in the
more open vegetation with lower canopy coverage, and dusting sites were associated with taller
vegetation providing denser cover, At both the species and cover type level, barley was utilized to a
greater extent than wheat, and the second year stage of sweetclover was apparently selected the most
for use as cover. Average brood sizes were found to be 4.87 and 7.25 in 1970 and 1971, respectively,
and the estimated peak of hatching in 1971 occurred around June 16, Wheat and barley occurred in 67
and 23 percent, respectively, of the crops which were collected during both falls, and made up 77
percent of the volume of all crop contents. Areas of winter concentrations of pheasants occurred mainly
in cattails which were within 500 feet of a grain field. Sightings of the pheasants marked during the
winter period indicated that the pheasants on the study area did not disperse very far from the wintering
areas. HABITAT DIVERSITY AS RELATED TO PHEASANT USE QN A GAME MANAGEMENT
AREA IN NORTHWESTERN MONTANA
by
RAYMOND RICHARD AUSTIN
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
fulfillment of the requirements, for the degree
of
.MASTER OF SCIENCE
to
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Graduate ^Dean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman9 Montana
March, 1973
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the require­
ments for an advanced degree at Montana State University, I agree that
the library shall make it freely available for inspection.
I further
agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly
purposes may be granted by my major professor, or, in his absence, by
the Director of libraries.
It is understood that any copying or publi­
cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without
my written permission.
Signature:
Date:
7
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To the following8 among others, I wish to express my sincere appre­
ciation for their contributions to this studyi
Dr, Robert L, Eng, Monr-
tana State University, for technical supervision and guidance in prepar­
ation of the manuscript; Mr, Gerald Salinas, Montana Fish and Game De­
partment, for initial project planning, use of facilities, and assistance;
Mr. Robert Greene and Mr. Donald Sheppard, Montana Fish and Game Depart­
ment, for advise and field assistance; Dr. Richard Mackie and Dr. William
Gould, Montana State University, for critical reading of the manuscript;
Mr. Harlen Hames and Mr. William. Moore, Montana State University Comput­
ing Center, for computer programming and assistance in the analysis of
field data; Mr. Kenneth Greer, Montana Fish and Game Department, for aid
and use of facilities in the analysis of the pheasant crop contents; Dr.
W. E. Booth, Montana State University, for verification of plant speci­
mens; Mr. John Wiegand, Montana Fish and Game Department, and Mr. Marvin
Kaschke, Manager of the Moiese National Bison range, for assistance in
various phases of the study; Dr. Richard Lund, Montana State University,
for assistance with the statistical analysis of the data; and to my wife,
Sharon, for encouragement and assistance.
During this study I was
supported by the Montana Fish and Game Department under Federal Aid
Project W-120-R-2 & 3°
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
£age
VITA
i e e e e e o o e e o e e o p ^ o ^ o e e e e o e e e o p o e o o e o e e e o e e e o e e e e e e o e o e e e o o o e
A CKNOWLEDGEMM T
e e o e e o e o e e e e e e e e e e o e e o e o c e » e e e e e e e e o o o o e » e e e e e e e e
TABL&i OF CONTEN TS e****o*ooo@*eaooapo*o***p*o**oooo*@*oo**oeoeooo
LIST OF TABLES
iii
iv
e o o o o o o o e o o o o o o p o e o o o e o o o e e o p o o o o o o e o o o o e o e o o o o e o ^
v
o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o e o o e o o o o o o o o
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT
11
e o o o o o o o e o e e o o o o o o o e o e o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o c o o
viii .
INTRODUCTION 0p00000©0000000©090000p0p000«06000000000000000000«00
1
DESCRIPTION OF AREA
2
© © © e o e e e e o e' o © o © © o © © e o o © e d e o o © o e e e e o e © o © e e e » o e
METHODS
e e e e e e e e e o o e e e e e e e e © d e o o o © e d e e » e e d © e o e d e e o e e e e e o o e d e o e e e e
RESULTS
o d d d O d d d O d d d d d d d d d O d d d d d d. d d d d d d d d d p d d d d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d d d d e
■
V SgStSfblOH
P h G
Q o o o d d o o o o o o e d o o d d o d d d d o o d d d d o d d d p o o o o o o o o o o d o o o o
3 . S 3 Xl."b
S © l 6 C 1L lL lO I l
o o o d d d o d oo o o o o o o o o o o d o o o d e o o o d o o o
DjeV©rsi*Ly «00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
. 4
12
12
19
20
Associations with individual plant species oooooooooooo
23
31
Density of Crowing Cocks ©‘oooooooooooooooeoooooooooooooooooo
36
BrOOd Production
37
U S 6
O f
•C O V
637
1L ^ p S S
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o e o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crop Analysis oooooooooooo000000000000000000000000000000000«
38
Areas of Winter Use ««ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooeooo
38
Trapping, Tagging, and Movements eooeooooooooooooocooooooooo
42
o o o o o o d o o o o o o e o o o e o o o o o d o o e o o d o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
44
o e o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
LITERATURE CITED
o o o o e e o o o o o o d o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o e o o e
63
V
.LIST OF TABLES
Table
I0
2.
3o
THE ACREAGE AHD PERCENTAGE OF EACH COVER TYPE IN EACH
SECTION (INCLUDING THE VEGETATION WHICH BORDERS AND
LIES WITHIN 209 FEET OF EACH SECTI(E) ..... ...........
13
SUMMER OBSERVATIONS OF PHEASANTS AND PHEASANT-USE
SITES MADE IN 1970 AND 1971 eooeeooooeoeeeoooeoooocoeeoeeo
20
AVERAGE VALUES OF THE INDEX OF DIVERSITY FOR SECTIONS
If IIg AND III oooooooocoocoooooooooooooooooocooooooooooci
21
ho
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT OF AREA
OF EACH COVER TYPE WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND
OBSERVATION SITES AND RANDOMLY SELECTED SITES .........2h
5o
THE ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENCE OF EACH PLANT SPECIES
IN THE NEAREST AND SECOND NEAREST VEGETATION TO
PHEASANT OBSERVATIONS o...................................
32
THE NUMBER AND DENSITY OF GROWING COCKS ON THE STUDY
AREA IN MAY^ 1971 o-ocooooooeeoooooooooocoooooooooooooooooo
37
AVERAGE SIZES OF BROODS OBSERVED ON THE NINEPIPE GAME
MANAGEMENT AREA AND VICINITY 0000000000000.0000ooooeoeooo.
38
CONTENTS OF PHEASANT CROPS COLLECTED GN THE STUDY
AREA IN THE FALL OF 197® AND 1971 ooooooooooooooooooooo...
AO
PHEASANTS OBSERVED ON A DRIVE COUNT OF THE STUDY AREA
ON JANUARY 23y 1971 00000000000000000000000000.00000000000
A2
COVER INDEX OF PLANTS FOUND ON THE STUDY AREA (PERCENT
OF COVER PROVIDED BY EACH PLANT) .........................
$0
DISTRIBUTION OF THE INDICES OF DIVERSITY FOR THE ACTUAL
OBSERVATIONS AND RANDOMLY SELECTED SITES IN EACH
SECTION 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000090.0
54-
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT OF AREA OF
THE COVER TYPES WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND THE
FOUR CLASSES OF OBSERVATIONS H SECTION I ........ .
5'6
60
7®
80
9.
IOo
Ho
12.
■p
vi ■
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table
Page
13. ' FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT. OF AREA OF
THE COVER TYPES WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND
■ THE FOUR CLASSES OF OBSERVATIONS IN SECTION II .......... ..
14.
15.
'I60
57
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT OF AREA
OF THE COVER TYPES WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND
THE FOUR CLASSES OF OBSERVATIONS IN SECTION III.......... ..
58
MEASUREMENTS AND COVER VALUES OF THE NEAREST AND
SECOND NEAREST VEGETATION TO PHEASANT OBSERVATIONS'
WHEN DOMINATED BY EACH SPECIES , e o e o e o o e o 0 0 e o o e o e o c e e e o o o e ..
59
PLANTS' PRESENT ON .THE STUDY AREA9 BUT NOT OCCURRING
IN THE NEAREST OR SECOND NEAREST VEGETATION TO
PHEASANT OBSERVATIONS o O i O o e o » e e o o e o e e o o o o » o o ' e e o @ o e o c o 6
6l
o.eo -O.
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Section I (some cover units were present only in
1970 or 1971) O O O O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f f l O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
5
2.
Section II p northern SQ--acre division
6
3.
Section II, except for northern 80-acre division c.......
7
4c
Section Ill (some cover units were present only in
1970 or 197l) c o o o e o o o e o o e o o o o e e e e o o e o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o
8
I.
o o o . e e o e e o o e o o o o © e e o
$o
Cattail type, adjacent to winter wheat in Section I .6...
16
6o
Old shelter belt in Section I with bluegrass type'
between the rows o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o c e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
16
Computer printout of the calculation of the index of
diversity and summarization of the cover types present
around one observation, with portion of map considered.o o
22
Estimated hatching dates of pheasant broods on the .
study area and vicinityj 1971 o oo «o o ®o e o o o e o e o o o e o o o o »»»o
39
Hen pheasant with poncho type neck tag and metal
leg band p p o e o e e e o e o o o o o o e o e o o d p o o o o o o e e e o o o o p o o e p o o e e o e o
43
7c
■ Sc
9.
viii
ABSTRACT
The habitat use of the ring-necked pheasant (Fhasianus colchicus)
was studied in northwestern Montana during the summers of 1970 and 1971
and during the winter of 1971« Detailed vegetation maps were made of
each of the three separate sections which comprised the study area*
Summer pheasant observations were plotted on these maps and the vegeta­
tion within a nine-acre block around them was analyzed* An index of
diversity was calculated, as was the frequency of occurrence and average
percent of area or each cover type within the nine-acre blocks* The
results from the 631 observations of both summers were compared with the
results of 200 randomly selected sites in each section, which were
analyzed in the same manner as the observation sites* The average indices
of diversity for pheasant observation sites were significantly higher
than those of the random sites in the two sections where food, cover,
and open areas were available throughout the section* Hen pheasant ob­
servations generally had the highest average index of diversity, followed
by cocks, dusting sites, then roosting sites* A greater association than
expected (if pheasants were randomly distributed) was shown for the fol­
lowing cover types: swe etcloven-II, spring barley, winter wheat, cul­
tivated grass, alfalfa, rush, summer fallow, pasture-hay, and county
roads* An association index was calculated for each plant species on
the study area, which compared the coverage provided by each species with
its occurrence near pheasant observations* A positive association was
generally shown for the grasses of the cultivated grass type and for the
grasses and the plants of mesic sites« Roosting sites were generally
located in the more open vegetation with lower canopy coverage, and
dusting sites were associated with taller vegetation providing denser
cover, At both the species and cover type level, barley was utilized to
a greater extent than wheat, and the second year stage of sweetclover
was apparently selected the most for use as cover. Average brood sizes
were found to be 4=87 and 7 «25 in 1970 and 1971, respectively, and the
estimated peak of hatching in 1971 occurred around June 16, Wheat and
barley occurred in 67 and 23 percent, respectively, of the crops which
were collected during both falls, and made up 77 percent of the volume
of all crop contents * Areas of winter concentrations of pheasants
occurred mainly in cattails which were within 500 feet of a "grain field*
Sightings, of the pheasants marked during the winter period indicated
that the pheasants on the study area did not disperse very far from
the wintering areas*
INTRODUCTION
The ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) in the United States
has largely been associated with agricultural lands (Hiatt 1946).
Many
irrigated areas in the West have held high pheasant densities when prop­
er interspersion of food and cover has been available (Yeager, et al.
1951).
During the past few decades, land use changes and more efficient
farming practices have led to decreasing amounts of pheasant habitat.
This is noticeably true in many of the irrigated areas of Montana.
Many
state and federally owned wildlife areas are managed to provide cover
for game animals.
My study was conducted on the Ninepipe Game Manage­
ment Area, Lake County, Montana, where extensive farming is carried out
for the production of food and cover for game birds.
This area has been
administered by the Montana Fish and Game Department since land acquisi­
tion began in 1953.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
pheasant use of the cultivated, native* and wetland vegetation on the
managed area.
The study included the summer periods (June-September) of
1970 and 1971, and the winter period (January-March) of 1971» ..
DESCRIPTION OF AREA.
The study area was located in northwestern Montana near the town
of Charlo.
This region, lying west of the Mission Mountain Range, has
been farmed intensively for many years.
The land is relatively level
but contains a considerable number of natural potholes, especially on
and around the study area.
Average summer precipitation was I.41 inches above and 0.35 inches
below the normal (3»2? inches) in 1970 and 1971, respectively, at Saint
Ignatius (U. S. Department of Commerce Weather Station), 11 miles south
of the study area.
Average temperatures during both summers were slight­
ly below the normal of 63.5 degrees F.
The average winter temperature
of 31.7 degrees F for 1971 was 1.8 degrees above normal.
A total of
29.6 inches of snow fell with a maximum depth on the ground of 5 inches.
Much of the study area was cultivated for the production of food
and cover crops which were largely unharvested.
Wheat (Triticum aesti-
vum) and barley (Hordeum spp.) were the major food crops.
Alfalfa (Medi-
cago sativa), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), orchard grass
(Dactvlis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and tall wheatgrass
(Agronvron intermedium) were commonly seeded for cover.
Shelter belts
comprised of willow (Salix spp.), caragana (Caragana spp.), buffaloberry
(Shepherdia argentea), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and a
variety of other shrubs were also established on the area.
Quack grass (Agronvron repehs). bluegrass (Poa spp.), and brome
(Bromus spp.) were common native grasses.
The major forbs were Canada
3
thistle (Cirsium arvense), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), alsake
clover (Trifolium hybridum), goosefoot (Chenopodium spp»), and willowherb (Epilobium spp.).
Wetland vegetation was characterized by cattails
(Typha latifolia), rushes (Juncus spp.), climbing nightshade (Solanum
dulcamara), and foxtail barley (Hordeum .iubatum).
METHODS
The study area was divided into three separate sections.
Section I
(Figure I) is north of Ninepipe Reservoir, Section TI (Figures 2 and 3)
is west of the reservoir, and Section H I
reservoir.
(Figure 4) is south of the
A detailed vegetation map of each section was made using .
aerial photographs and ground measurements.
Each distinct cover unit
was given a number-letter designation for specific identification.
A
cover unit may be described as any distinct field, strip, or plot of
vegetation which is usually homogeneously one cover type and bordered by
one or more other distinct units of vegetation of another cover type.
The area of each of these cover units was determined with the use of a
planimeter.
During the summers of 1970 .and 1971, a list was made of the plant
species present in each cover unit. The general cover type of each unit
was also noted.
Canopy coverage of each species in the cover units was
visually estimated in 1971•
The estimates were based on the coverage
classes used by Daubenmire (1959);
class I = Or5 percent; class 2 = 5 -
25 percent; class 3 = 25-50 percent; class 4 = 50-75 percent; class 5 =
75-95 percent; and class 6 = 95-100 percent.
classes were used in the analysis of data.
The midpoints of these
Plant nomenclature follows
that of Booth (1950) and Booth and Wright (1959).
Pheasant observations were made while on established routes, and
incidental to other field activities.
In 1970, five vehicle routes
ranging from 1.7 to 7.0 miles in length were used.
In 1971, three vehicle
____I
1
3
A
I/.
--
",Wc^!
\\
-> -.
y-'-'-c
\
i <5
r^x
/7
/
u
5
Jill
6
5
G
-4 \ :
B
<p\V
.\
}f\ f
.. - •'
\
S
.
..... - -vN
v
x Z aX
Xx
Figure I.
Jfcwia
rm
^Xfy<i
T X Xgf-XX;
9
'Al n f l
8
i(
A
0.
LEGEND
1
I
4
a
O
4
_ x
5
sT ^
i!
—
- , W :
W'
46':
I/
- Q
xXx
4
o 7/o
"A.
\
L/
c
J-'
%
//
V
n
/i
L
county road
---------------unimproved road
-zzs------ irrigation ditch
-------------- intermittent ditch
numbers cultivated fields
I
I pothole
SCALE
264
rX
Section I (some cover units were present only in 1970 or 1971)
792 ft.
1/g
mi.
6
Hwy 212
Ninepipe
Reservoir
LEGEND
.... ........... : county road
---------------unimproved road
ZSZZ-— - irrigation ditch
...... .......... intermittent ditch
numbers cultivated fields
I
I pothole
Figure 2.
SCALE
264
792 ft.
1/0
mi.
Section IIf northern 80-acre division
— unimproved road
irrigation ditch
................. Intermittent ditch
numbera cultivated fields
pothole
3= : s - - - -
Figure 3 »
Section II, except for northern 80-acre division
III
LEGEND
......
- county road
-------------- unimproved road
zzzz------ irrigation ditch
-------------- intermittent ditch
numbers cultivated fields
I'
I pothole
N
I
E
Ninepipe
Reservoir
D
US
93
C
Figure 4.
Section III (some cover units were present only in 1970 or 1971)
OJ
.9
routes and four walking routes were used.
Vehicle routes were run only
during the morning activity period, whereas walking routes were covered
during any period of the day.
Routes were established to include all
of the representative vegetation (cover types) in an area, and to traverse
the area as thoroughly as possible.
Basic weather data were recorded at the beginning of each route.
The routes were, then driven or walked.slowly, with any open areas being
checked with the aid of binoculars (7 X $0) and/or a spotting scope (15
X 60 variable).
The number, sex, activity, and location,of the pheasants
present were recorded for each observation.
After the route was completed, it was retraced in order to charac­
terize the vegetation at each observation site;
From the point at which
birds were first observed, I recorded the distance to, species composi­
tion, average height, and general cover, value of the nearest and second
nearest vegetation.
If the birds were observed bn an area devoid of
vegetation (i.e., road, plowed field, etc.), the distance was paced off
to the nearest vegetation, and everything within 10 feet of that closest
point was considered.
The dominant plant present was recorded first.
If a. second or third species was present and made up over '10 percent of
the canopy cover, they were recorded as subdominants. .A cover value was
assigned as follows:
poor = little or no cover; fair = provides cover
at ground level; good =. provides cover from ground and air; and very
good = provides a heavy canopy of cover.
These same data were also
10
recorded for the next closest and distinctly different, vegetation,,
Broods were flushed, if necessary, to get an accurate count, and in 1971,
estimates of weekly age classes were made on the basis of plumage char- .
acteristicse
Data collected from incidental observations were essen­
tially the same.as those collected on the observation routes0
Data on any pheasant dusting or roosting sites or nests observed
were also recorded.
These consisted of the date, location, adjacent
vegetation, and description.
Adjacent vegetation was recorded in the
same manner as at observation sites.
Areas of winter pheasant use were determined by walking the various
sections of the study area from one to three days following a snow fall
and'recording any signs of activity.
and noted as follows:
Intensity of use was estimated
light = 1-3 birds; moderate = 4-9 birds, and
heavy = 10 or more birds.
It was not possible to check all sections
after a fresh snow fall, due to the short duration of snow cover.
Trapping and tagging operations were also carried out during the
winter period.
Funnel traps (baited with grain and grit) were used.
Various sites were baited throughout the winter and traps were moved and
operated according to snow conditions and pheasant activity at these
sites.
Poncho type neck tags (Pyrah 1971) and metal leg bands were
placed on pheasants captured.
In May 1971 crowing cocks were located and their position plotted
on.field maps by triangulation.
This.method, described by Robertson
.11
.(1958), involved driving along' the periphery of the sections, listening
at perdetermined points and plotting the direction to crowing cocks.
■ Pheasant crops were collected on the study area through hunter
contact during the opening weekend, and throughout the pheasant season
in 1970 and .1971» respectively.
These crops were later processed at
the Fish and Game Department Research Laboratory in Bozeman.
The con­
tents were identified, then, measured volumetrically by the displacement
of water (Martin, et ala 1946).
RESULTS
Vegetation
The acreage and percentage of each cover type in each of the three
sections is given in Table I (this also includes the vegetation within
209 feet of the border of each section)„
A general description of each cover type, as it occurred on the
study area, is as follows:
Bluegrass type - This type was dominated by a sod-forming bluegrasS0
In addition, Canada thistle, yarrow (Achillea millefolium)„ Deptford pink
(Dianthus armeria), black medic (Medicago lunulina), aster (Aster falcatus), quackgrass, and alsake clover were usually present,
Quackgrass type - This type was dominated by quackgrass, with
Canada thistle usually common.
Prickly lettuce, bluegrass, curl dock
(Rumex crisnus), and sweetclover were often present.
Cultivated grass type - Areas of this type were usually planted
(drilled) with a mixture of grasses, but sometimes occurred naturally.
Smooth brome or orchard grass usually dominated with some tall wheatgrass
meadow fescue (Festuca eleator), crested wheatgrass (Agroovron cristatum)
and Canada thistle also present.
These grasses were usually planted
with sweetclover and dominated by the third growing season.
Chess type - This type was dominated by chess (Bromus .Iaoonicus,
Bromus mollis, or Bromus racemosus) and/or cheatgrass
(Bromus tectorum)
with Canada thistle, narrow-leaf willow-herb (Epilobium leptophyllum),
and yarrow usually common.
TABLE I.
THE ACREAGE AND PERCENTAGE OF EACH COVER TYPE IN EACH SECTION (INCLUDING THE VEGETATION WHICH BORDERS AND LIES WITHIN 209 FEET
OF EACH SECTION).
SECTION II
SECTION I
Average
Acres
Percent
of
Section
1 1 .1 8
Acres
1970
1971
SECTION III
Average
Acres
Percent
of
Section
71.62
11.22
141.83
39.50
Average
Acres
Percent
of
Section
141.83
141.83
31.89
Cover Type
Acres
1970
1971
Bluegrass type
5 6 .6 6
5 6 .6 6
5 6 .6 6
.U6
28.46
28.46
5 .6 1
29.49
2 9 .5 3
29.51
4.62
39.31
39.41
8.86
17-37
3.43
40.46
26.48
33.47
5.25
11.92
12.41
12.17
2.74
2.43
0.48
3.95
1.12
2.54
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.36
47.12
49.74
7.79
0.00
7.97
3.98
0.90
Quackgrass type
Cultivated grass type
Chess type
28
17.37
2.1*3
17.37
2 .4 3
71.59
7 1 .6 5
Acres
1970
1971
Spring barley
20.97
17.53
19.25
3 .8 0
Winter wheat
7 6 .2 0
79.81
78.01
15.39
113.18
89.65
101.41
15.89
45.39
42.87
44.13
9-92
1 UU . 8 3
115.46
130.14
25.67
133.30
146.46
139.88
21.92
57.79
52.56
55.18
12.40
Barley with cover type
0.00
28.88
14.44
0.00
0.27
0.13
0.02
0.00
5.67
2.83
0.64
Harvested alfalfa type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2 3 .0 9
23.09
23.09
3 .6 2
7.36
7.36
7.36
1.66
Unharvested alfalfa type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.28
14.28
14.28
2.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.97
0.00
15.49
3 .0 5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.49
15.25
3.01
0.00
2.93
1.47
0.23
0 .8 1
0.55
0.68
0.15
Cattail type
27.05
27.10
27.08
5.34
8 .8 3
8 .8 9
8.86
1.39
14.02
14.02
14.02
3.15
Pothole with cover type
11.1*9
11.45
11.47
2 .2 6
23.31
23.08
23.20
3.63
35.65
35.65
35.65
8.01
0.67
Summer fallow
Sweetclover— I type
Sweetclover— II type
2 .8 5
I*.09
4.09
4.09
0.8l
5.29
5-29
5.29
0.83
2.99
2.99
2.99
Rush type
3.1*1
3.41
3.41
0.67
1.50
1.45
1.47
0.23
2.02
1.87
1.94
0.44
Sedge type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.15
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.12
Low marsh type
2 .5 0
2.40
2.45
0.48
2 .0 8
1-93
2.00
0.31
2.79
2.03
2.4l
0.54
Young shelter belt
3 .7 6
1.50
2.63
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.33
5.07
6.20
1.39
Old shelter belt
4.28
4.28
4.28
0.85
0 .2 3
0.23
0.23
0.04
5-31
5.31
5.31
1.19
Residential site
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5 .9 6
5.96
5.96
0.93
2.49
2.49
2.49
0.56
Weed type
2.86
6.01
4.44
0.88
3 .6 0
20.19
11.89
1.86
6.30
6.34
6.32
1.42
62.34
62.34
62.34
12.30
9 2 .1 8
1 0 6 .1 6
99.17
15-51*
45.87
45.87
45.37
10.31
7.34
7.34
7.34
1.45
1 1 .5 3
11.53
11.53
1.8l
12.17
12.17
12.17
2.74
Pothole
Pasture-hay type
County road
14
Spring barley - These were cultivated fields which had been drilled
with spring barley»
Oats (Avena spp0)» fanweed (Thlaspl arvense).
Canada thistle, Iamb1S quarter (Chenopodium album), and tumblemustard
(Sisymbrium altissimum) were frequently presente
Winter wheat - These were cultivated fields drilled with winter
wheat in the fall of the year®
Canada thistle, corncockle (Agrostemma
githago), falseflax (Camelina sativa), clasping pepperweed (Lepidium
perfoliatum), and chess were often present®
Summer fallow - These fields were usually plowed several times from
spring until early fall and kept relatively weed free.
Barley with cover type - This was the same as spring barley except
that sweetclover and a grass mixture was drilled with it to be left to
dominate the following summer®
Harvested alfalfa type - These alfalfa hay fields were dominated by
alfalfa but often had some bluegrass, Canada thistle, and other grasses.
They were mowed from I to 3 times a summer®
Unharvested alfalfa type - These were old alfalfa fields, no longer
mowed, with the alfalfa less dense than in the preceding type®
Blue-
grass, Canada thistle, quackgrass, prickly lettuce, chess, and cheatgrass were common®
Sweetclover-I type - This was the first-year stage of sweetclover
(a biennial) which was drilled with a cultivated grass mixture®
Some
of the common field weeds were also present, such as fanweed, redroot
15
pigweed (Amaranthus _retrci£lexua)? and Canada thistle=,
Sweetfilover - II type - This was the second-year stage of sweetclover, and usually occurred in dense stands (if drilled)e
vated grasses were more apparent than in the previous type=
The culti­
Canada
thistle, clasping pepperweed, prickly lettuce, and chess were also fre­
quently presento
Cattail tvne - These were marshy areas dominated by cattails, with
redtop (Aerostis alba), a mannagrass (Glyceria sppe), rushes, and bul­
rush (Scimus sppo) commonly in association (Figure 5) =
Pothole with cover type - This refers to a pothole which had a bor­
der of emergent vegetation=
This usually consisted of cattails, and
some rushes, foxtail barley, redtop, nodding beggartick (Bidens ceruna)=
curl dock, and glandular ,willow-herb (Eniloblum ^landulosum).
Pothole - This was either a pothole with no border of emergent
vegetation, or one which was surrounded by a considerable area of cat­
tails that had been considered as a separate cover unit.
Rush type - These were marshy areas dominated by rushese
Redtop,
foxtail barley, and quackgrass also occurred in this type=
Sedge type - This type was a marshy area which was dominated by
sedges (Carex spp„) and usually had some rushes and glandular willowherb 0
Low marsh type - This type usually occurred in low areas which were
fairly wet in spring and early summer.
Foxtail barley, rushes,
16
Figure 6.
Old shelter belt in Section I with bluegrass type between
the rows.
17
water-plantain (Alisma plantago-acmatica). curl dock, alsake clover,
quackgrass, and redtop were commonly found in this type,
%oun& shelter belt - These were shelter belts under 5 years oldo
They were planted in rows, usually with a mixture of shrubs or trees
such as caragana, willow, Russian olive, apple (Pvrus spp0), honey­
suckle (Lonicera spp,), juniper (Junioerus spp,), buffaloberry, rose
(Rosa sppc), and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana)3
Some, grasses and
weeds grew in the rows, although the areas between were usually summer
fallowed,,
In 1971» these areas in some young shelter belts were drilled
into barley with cover type*
Old shelter belt - These were shelter belts 5 years old or older.
The shrub or tree species had usually grown enough to provide good cover.
The areas between the rows were either summer fallow or a grass type
(Figure 6),
Residential site - These usually consisted of a house and several
smaller buildings or sheds.
Some were occupied year long and others only
for short periods.
Weed type - These were either disturbed areas, such as a cultivated
field which hadn't been worked in a year or more, or other waste areas
dominated by such species.as Canada thistle, goosefoot, prickly lettuce
or whitetop (Cardaria draba),
type were:
Other species commonly found in this
alsake clover, narrow-leaf willow-herb, volunteer grains,
sweetclover, red clover (Trifolium nratensis), and quackgrass,
I
18
Pasture-hay type - This type refers to either a grazed pasture or
a grass-hay field.
These were all found outside the borders of the
sections except for one grass-hay field in Section II in 1971.
County road - These were improved gravel or paved roads which both
bordered and passed through portions of the sections.
'
-
Sections I and II were quite similar in regard to percentages of
each cover type, although Section I was more diverse than Section II
(diversity was determined from the calculation of the index of diversity
for the randomly selected sites in each section, which is described
later).
Section III was more diverse than Sections I and II, but the
vegetation was notably different. Section III was approximately 32 per­
cent bluegrass type and 9 percent quackgrass type as compared to 11
percent and 5 percent, respectively, for both Sections I and II. Section
III was also only 24 percent cultivated fields (wheat, barley, and
summer fallow) as compared to 4$ percent arid 46 percent for Sections I
and II, respectively.
Wheat, on the average, was at least twice as abun­
dant as barley in each section, although no barley was present in Section
III in 1970.
Harvested and unharvested alfalfa were found only in Sec-
.tion II, except for a small amount along the border of Section III.
Sweetclover I and II types were only found in Section I in any significant
amount.
Both young and bid shelter belts were most abundant in Section
III, but each was just over I percent of the area.
19
An index of the coverage provided by each plant species (by sec­
tion and for the entire study area) is found in the Appendix, Table 10o
This was calculated by summing the products of the coverage-class mid­
points and the areas of each cover unit in which each plant was found,
and dividing by the sum of the areas of the cover units in which plants
were found.
For those units which were of the pothole with cover type,
the area of the outer ten feet of the unit was used as the area of the
unite
This "index of cover” is thus the percent of the cover present
on a study section which is made up by a particular plant specieso
Pheasant Habitat Selection
Two significant factors in the suitability of a habitat to support
pheasants are the composition of the vegetation and the arrangement or
diversity of that vegetation.
Both of these factors were considered in
the analysis of the observation data,
A grid overlay, which delineated one-acre square coordinates, was
made for.the vegetation maps of the three sections.
Each observation
was located on the appropriate map, and the coordinate in which it.
occurred was noted,. This coordinate, plus the eight which surrounded
it, were considered in both the calculation of the index of diversity and
in the evaluation of the cover types associated with each observation,
A nine-acre block was chosen for consideration partially on the basis of
the results of Kuck, et al, (1970),
They found that in summer, hen
pheasants had an average home range size of 30,8 acres, and when nesting
20
or with a young brood, remained mainly within a 5-10 acre area.
Two-
hundred coordinates per section were selected randomly and analyzed in
the same mariner as those in which the observations occurred,,
The number
of actual observations per section are summarized in Table 2»
TABLE 2.
SUMMER OBSERVATIONS OF PHEASANTS AND PHEASANT-USE SITES MADE
IN 1970 AND 1971o
Section I
Glass
Section II
Section III
Total
Females l/
71
118
61
Males
61
86
. 43
. 190
Dusting sites
52
62
50
164
Roosting sites
10
10
7
194
276
161
Total
l/
250 .
631
Females, broods, or females with broods.
Diversity
The equation which I derived for the calculation of the index of
diversity (for the nine-acre block around each observation site) is as
follows:
D = (N-I) - I (
A ■
A - T
N
1
+
A - T
N
+ OOO "4* A - T
N
n
Where:
D = Index of diversity,
N = Number of separate cover types found within the total area,
A I= Total area being considered.
21
Ti o Area of cover type I, 2, «.o, n«
The two factors which thus affect the index of diversity are the
number of separate cover types found within the area considered, and
the proportion of each (the more equally proportioned they are, the
closer the index approaches N-l)<>
Figure 7 is an example of a computer
printout for the calculation of the index of diversity for one observa­
tion,,
Table 3 gives the average values of the index of diversity for
the four classes of observationso
It also contains the average value
of the 200 randomly selected sites in each of the three sections0
TABLE 3 o
AVERAGE VALUES QF THE INDEX QF DIVERSITY FOR SECTIONS I, II,
AND IIIe
In d e x QfrIiS L v e rs iW
Class of Observations
Section I
Section II
Section III
Females
10e67
9.59
Males . .
IOe 60
. 8.75
9.97
Total (Males and Females)
IOe 64
9.24
9.64
Dusting sites
IOe 23
8.43
9.67
'
Roosting sites
9.86
6.77
Random
Be 91
7.48
9.42
I
i
—
..
9.17
The distribution of the indices of diversity for both the actual observa­
tion sites and the randomly selected sites is given in the Appendix,
Table.lie
Cover Unit
Observation Table
Cumulative Area
Cover Type 2/
Unit_____ Type
3.35
For observation in coordinate (10,19)
Observation 5, Year 71, Section III,
Males = 0, Females = I, Brood = 5
3.35
9-acre block around observation site
B8
.17
Br I/
.31
.21
.09
2.92
2.92
.69
.69
Bad
.70
•70
•70
Bq
19
.28
8
. 1*2
.16
.16
9.00
8.99
Index of Diversity = 8.006
I/
This cover unit was 70% cover type 2 and 30% cover type 3.
Zj
Since some cover units were comprised of two cover types, this column is totaled for N in the equation.
Figure 7» Computer printout of the calculation of the index of diversity and summarization of
the cover types present around one observation, with portion of map considered.
23
In all three sections, the average values for the actual pheasant
observations were higher than the average value of the randomly selected
sites (except roosting sites in Section Il)*
Sections I and II each had
a notable difference between the average value of the total (male and
female) observations and the random sites*
This difference is 1*73 and
1.76 for Sections I and II9 respectively, and both are very highly
significant (P<*001) when tested with the t-test*
Also, for both of
these sections, the females had the highest average value, followed in
descending order by the males, dusting sites, and roosting sites*
The
results from Section III do not conform exactly with those from Sections
I and II, probably due to the concentration of most of the cultivated
cover types in the southern half of that, section*
Use of cover types
The use and possible selection of the various cover types by phea­
sants was determined from the occurrence of each within the nine-acre
block around each observation site (see Figure 7)*
The percent (fre­
quency) of the observations around which each cover type was present,
and the average percent of the nine-acre blocks which each cover type
occupied was calculated*
This was done for each of the four classes of
observations (males, females, dusting sites, and roosting sites), for
all observations combined, and for the 200 randomly selected sites in
each section*
The frequencies and percents of area thus calculated.for
the total observations and the random sites are given in Table 4* . The
TABLE L.
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT OF AREA OF EACH COVER TYPE WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND OBSERVATION SITES
AND RANDOMLY SELECTED SITES. I/
SECTION II
Frequency
Random
Actual
Bluegrass type
66.50
65.98
Percent
of kre&
Random*!/ Actual
11.18
SECTION III
Percent
Frequency
Random
Actual
of Area
Random^/ Actual
Percent
of Area
Frequency
8.61
79.50
81.52
11.22
12.63
76.00
68.32
31.89
26.46
69.20
6.62
86.67
Quackgrass type
73.00
79.90
5.61
5.96
76.50
4-31
86.50
8.86
9.35
Cultivated grass type
iia.oo
68.97
3.U3
6.99
63.00
56.88
5.25
5.80
66.50
52.80
2.74
5.15
7.50
18.06
0.U8
1.16
8.00
3.99
0.60
0.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Spring barley
16.50
22.68
3.80
4.57
33.50
65.65
7.79
11.87
13.50
4.35
0.90
0.67
Winter wheat
61.00
69.59
15.39
15.60
55.50
67.83
15.89
11.96
68.50
63.98
9.92
11.76
Sunnner fallow
78.50
89.18
25.67
26.80
68.00
76.66
21.92
21.16
63.50
81.37
12.60
23.06
Barley with cover type
26.50
31.96
2.85
4.25
2.50
2.17
0.02
0.05
18.50
18.63
0.64
0.90
19.20
3.62
5.16
6.00
Chess type
Harvested alfalfa type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.00
6.83
0.66 2/ 1.62
Unharvested alfalfa type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.50
23.55
2.26
4.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.00
16.95
3.05
1.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sweetclover— II type
26.50
62.78
3.01
7.10
4.00
4.71
0.23
0.26
8.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
Cattail type
60.50
63.92
5.34
3.82
68.00
51.09
1.39
0.85
68.00
70.81
3.15
3.15
Pothole with cover type
55.00
65.36
2.26
2.01
30.50
33.33
3.63
2.15
62.00
50.31
8.01
3.90
Pothole
21.50
19.59
0.81
0.66
9.50
11.96
0.83
1.17
10.50
8.07
0.67
0.38
Rush type
68.00
52.06
0.67
0.69
18.00
27.90
0.23
0.23
23.00
29.19
0.44
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.50
4.71
0.15
0.09
8.00
5-59
0.12
0.02
Low marsh type
61.50
37.63
0.48
0.61
22.00
27.17
0.31
0.39
29.50
36.78
0.56
0.61
Young shelter belt
10.00
10.31
0.52
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.50
25.67
1.39
2.46
Old shelter belt
10.00
10.31
0.85
0.83
3.00
1.45
0.06
0.01
30.00
26.71
1.19
1.46
Residential site
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.50
15.22
0.93
0.51
13.00
8.70
0.56
0.33
16.00
21.65
0.88
1.43
27.00
22.83
1.86
1.36
20.50
23.60
1.62
1.69
19.88
6.80 3/ 6.83
52.80
2.06 3/ 2.20
Sweetclover— I type
Sedge type
Weed type
Pasture-hay type
26.00
31.96
5.56 3/ 8.26
30.50
39.69
8.66 3/ 12.67
19.50
County road
12.00
23.20
0.63 3/ 1.17
39.50
53.26
1.81
45.00
2.60
I/
The differences in the vegetation and number of cover units between 1970 and 1971 were accounted for, and 50 percent of the random sites
were analyzed with the data from 1970, and 50* with the data from 1971.
2/
Since the average percents of area of the randomly selected sites are actually an estimate of the percentages of each section which is
of each type, these latter values are used in this column.
3/
The average percent of area of the random sites is used here, since this cover type is distributed along the border of the section
and this value is not an accurate estimate of the percent of the section which is of this type.
0.00
25
frequencies and percents of area for each class of observation
are
presented in the Appendix, Tables 12, 13 and 14«
The chi square was also calculated for the difference in frequent- ;
cies, between the random and total actual observations, for each cover
typeo .In determining significance, the chi square values from the table
were doubled since the expected numbers were determined by a random
process.
A frequency of occurrence which is greater than the expected
(random) value indicates a selection for areas where that cover type
was present.
A percent of area which is greater than the expected value
indicates a close association with, or usage of, that cover type when
it was present.
A description of the pheasant associations with each of the cover
types on the study area is given below.
Bluegrass type - The occurrence of this type around observation
sites was essentially the same as that for the random sites.
This indi­
cates a usage in proportion to availability, except for roosting sites
in Sections II and III, where the occurrence was greater.
Quackgrass type - This type was used more than expected by males
'and females in Section I,
and in association with dusting sites in
Section III (based on the results of the random sites).
No apparent
selection for it occurred in Section II.
Cultivated grass type - The actual observations showed a greater
frequency and percent of area of this type than did the random sites,
26
except in Section II, where the frequency of occurrence was Iess0
there appeared to be some selection for and usage of
Thus,
areas where this
type was present, particulatly for dusting and roosting*
Chess type - All four classes of observations in Section I had a
higher frequency of chess type than expected, and the chi square for
total observations was highly significant (P<0Ol)0
Section II, on the
other hand, showed a lower frequency of occurrence than expected*
Chess
type was not very abundant in either section, but in Section I it occur­
red in more diverse areas and in a more favorable association with other
cover types, than in Section II6
Chess type did not occur in Section
IIIo
Spring barley - Areas with spring barley were apparently selected 1
for in Sections I and II, with the chi square of the frequency in Sec­
tion II being highly significant (Pk6Ol)6
Cock pheasant observations
in Section III had a greater occurrence of spring barley than expected,
but for total observations, the occurrence was less than expected*
This
was undoubtedly due to the location of the barley in this section and
the limited amount of it*
Winter wheat - Areas with winter wheat were apparently selected for
in Sections I and III, with the chi square of the frequency in Section
III being highly significant (P<eOl)*
Roosting sites, however, did not
exhibit a greater occurrence of this type than expected*
27
Summer fallow - Observations in all three sections exhibited a
greater occurrence of summer fallow than expected, arid the chi square
of the frequency was highly significant (Pc0Ol) in Sections I and III0
Dusting sites showed the greatest association with this type, and roost­
ing sites generally showed the Ieast0
The high degree of observability
of pheasants on this type undoubtedly added to its apparent selection,
but I feel the pheasants actually did seek open areas such as summer
fallowed fields, especially during the morning activity periode
Bariev with cover type - This type was only present during 1971,
and only occurred in a significant amount on Section I 0
Here it was
present around observation sites with a greater frequency and percent of
area than expected, but the chi square of the frequency was not signifi­
cant 0
This type generally occurred around Section II and III observations
as frequently as expected, but with a greater percent of area.
Usage of
it for dusting sites was greater than expected in all three sections0
Harvested alfalfa type - This type generally showed more use by
pheasants than expected.
This was primarily due to the notably greater
occurrence than expected around male observations and roosting sites
(several nests were found and were classified as roosting sites).
Unharvested alfalfa type - This type only occurred in Section II,
and occurred around observation sites with a frequency slightly more than
expected.
The percent of area for the observations (4=66 percent), how­
ever, was over twice the percentage of the type on. the section (2.24 percent).
28
Sweetclover - 1 type - Section I was the only section with this type,
and it was only present in 1970*
All four classes of observations had
a lower frequency of occurrence and percent of area than expected for
this type.
The chi square of the frequency was highly significant
(P<,01),
Sweetclover-II type - In Section I, the areas which were sweetclover~
I type in 1970 were the sweetcloveiv-II type in 1971»
The use of sweet-
clover- II type in this section was in complete contrast with that of
the sweetclover ” I type the previous year.
All four classes of observa­
tions showed both a higher frequency of occurrence and percent of area
than expected, and the chi square of the frequency was highly signifi­
cant (P<oOl),
Sections II and III each had very little sweetclover- II
type (0,23 percent and 0,15 percent, respectively), however dusting sites
in Section II did exhibit a greater occurrence of it than expected.
In
Section III, this type did not occur around any observations,
Cattail type - In all three sections, this type occurred around 3
percent more of the observations than expected, but the percents of area
Were less than or equal to the expected values.
Pothole with cover type - In Section II, this type occurred around
3 percent more of the observations than expected, but the frequencies
in Sections I and III and the percents of area in all sections were less
than expected.
The chi square of.the frequency for Section III. was sig­
nificant (P<,05)e
-
29
PothoXe - The occurrence of this type around observation sites was
essentially the same as it was for the random sites.
Roosting sites in
all three sections, however, did have a slightly greater frequency of
this type than expected. . Pothole with cover type also occurred more
frequently around roosting sites in Sections II and III than expected.
Rush type—
The frequency with which this type occurred around ob­
servation sites was greater than expected for all four classes of obser­
vations in all three sections (except for dusting sites in Section III),
and the chi square of the frequency was highly significant (P<.01) for
observations in Section II.
The percents of area were also greater than
expected for male observations in all sections and for roosting sites in
Section I.
Sedge type - T h i s type, which made up only a small percentage of
Sections II and III, had lower usage by pheasants than expected.
Low marsh type - Areas where this type was present were generally
used more than expected.
The frequency of occurrence for Section II and
III observations and the percent of area for Section I and II observa­
tions were greater than expected.
Of the four classes of observations,
dusting sites exhibited the greatest association with this type.
Young shelter belt - Observations in Sections I and III, where this
type was found, had both a slightly greater frequency and percent of
area of this type than expected.
This was mainly due to dusting sites in
Section I, and to male and female observations in Section III.
30
Old shelter belt - In Section I t the presence of this type around
observations was as expected, with dusting sites showing the greatest
useo
Only 2 small units of this type were present in Section II and use
of them was less than expected,,
In Section III, only roosting sites
had a greater frequency of this type than expected, but all classes of
observations had a percent of area greater than or equal to the expected
valueo
Residential site - Residential sites were only present in Sections
II and III, where they occurred around observation sites with a lower
frequency and percent of area than expected*
Hen pheasant observations
showed the greatest tolerance of these sites, with frequencies equal to
, the expected values, but percents of area less than expected*
Weed type - For the occurrence of this type around observations,
both frequency and percent of area were greater than expected in Sections
I and III, and less than expected in Section II0
Roosting sites in all
three sections, however, had a lower frequency and percent of area than
expected*
Pasture-hav type - The observations in all three sections had. a
higher frequency of this type than expected, but a lower percent of area*
The chi square of the frequency for Section TI observations was signifi­
cant (P<e05)o
Because almost all of this type was along and outside the
borders of the sections, the percents of area are not an accurate esti­
mate of the percentages of the type in the sections*
If the percents of
31
area for the observations are compared to the percents of area for the
random sites (instead of the percentages of the type in the sections„
which are actually used in Table 4), then the percents of area for ob­
servations in all three sections are also greater than expected.
County road - The observations in all three sections showed a higher
frequency of this type than expected, and the chi square for Section I
and.II observations was. highly significant (Pc0Ol),
The percent of
area for Section II observations was also greater than expected.
This
type, for Sections I and III, is distributed the same as the previous
cover type, and if the percents of area for the observations are similar­
ly compared to the percents of area for the random sites, then they also
are greater than expected,
Male and female observations accbunted for
most of the occurrence of this type.
Associations with individual plant species
Pheasant associations with vegetation at the species level was eval­
uated on the basis of the presence of each species in the nearest and
second nearest vegetation to each observation.
Table 5 gives the per­
centage of each species in each of the various categories considered in
the analysis of these data.
In determining any positive association
with or selection for any species, the value, in the "index of cover 1971"
column was considered the expected value, and that in the "total 1971”
column, the observed value*
Since the values in the former column total
up to 181,14 percent, and those in the latter total up to 100 percent,
TABLE 5-
THE ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENCE OF EACH PLANT SPECIES IN THE NEAREST AND SECOND NEAREST VEGETATION TO PHEASANT OBSERVATIONS.
Nearest
Vegetation
Second Nearest
Vegetation
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Total
1971
(Percent) (Percent)
of Cover
AssoDustingS/ RoostingS./
elation Males 2/ Females 2/ Sites
Sites
(Percent)
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
GRASSES AND GRASS-LIKE PLANTS:
Agropyron cristatum
0.00
0.12
0.27
0.00
0.09
0.07
0.42
0.30
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
Agropyron intermedium
0.5U
2.12
0 .8 2
2.63
1 .6 0
1.41
1 .1 8
2 .1 6
0.38
0.65
1.20
0.00
16.55
9.21
10.68
10.50
1 1 .6 0
0 .1 8
0.50
0.00
1.97
0.64
Agropyron repens
Agrostis alba*
1 1 .8 2
1 2 .1 6
1.76
1U.0T
14.62
15.06
3.70
0.89
1.51
1.07
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
Alopecurus aequalis*
0 .1 8
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.15
0.05
5.43
0.00
0.00
o.6o
Alopecurus pratensis*
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.03
4.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Avena fatua
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.66
0.41
0.15
2.33
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Beckmannia syzigacline*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.05
0.07
0.02
6.3U
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Brcraus inermis
7.37
5.k7
7.95
4.81
6.24
6.17
4.62
2.42
9.51
6.88
5.42
14.81
Bromus japonicus (plus
B. mollis & B . racemosus)
1 .8 0
2.37
a .u t
1.75
2.11
2.45
4.24
1.05
2.28
1.72
2.41
3.70
Bromus tectorum
0.5U
1.37
0 .8 2
1.53
1.10
0.97
2.37
0.74
0.38
0.65
0 .6 0
3.70
Carex spp.*
0.00
0.12
0.27
0.44
0.l8
0.15
0.37
0.73
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dactylis glomerate
U.IU
4.11
1.64
3.28
3.53
U.T6
3.47
2.48
3.80
1.9U
5.42
3.70
Echinochloa crusgalli*
0.36
0.12
0.00
0.22
0 .1 8
0.00
0 .0 6
0.00
0.38
0.22
0.00
0.00
Eleocharis spp. *
0 .1 8
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.09
0.15
0.03
9.05
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
Festuca eleator
1 .8 0
2.12
2.47
0.66
1.79
2.30
2.20
1.89
2 .2 8
1.51
2.4l
7.4l
Glyceria borealis*
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.22
0.09
0.07
0.01
12.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Glyceria grand!s"
0.18
0.37
0.00
0.22
0.23
0.30
0.11
4.94
0.00
0.00
0 .6 0
0.00
Hordeum jubatum*
0.5U
1.12
0.27
2.19
1.05
1.34
1.13
2.15
0.38
0.U3
0 .6 0
0.00
Hordeum vulgare (and H.
distichum)
6.29
0.12
5.48
0.22
2 .6 1
U.39
11. Ul
0.70
2.28
5.16
15.06
0.00
Juncus spp.*
0.90
1.25
1.37
1.31
1.19
1.U9
0.75
3.60
0.38
1.08
0.00
l4.8l
Phleum pretense
0 .1 8
0.75
0.00
0.88
0.50
0.37
0.74
0.91
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.99
10.96
9.OU
11.38
12.52
16.13
22.34
1.31
17.11
l4.4l
9.64
14.81
Secale cereale
0.00
0.25
0.55
1.09
0.41
0.07
1 .0 8
0.12
0.38
0.22
0.00
0.00
Triticum aestivura
I..50
0 .6 2
8.77
0.44
2.93
2 .1 6
19.57
0.20
7.22
6.88
3.01
3.70
Alisma plantago-aquatica
0.5k
0.25
0.27
0.00
0 .2 8
0.37
0.04
.TU
0.38
0.22
1.20
0.00
Bidens ceruna
0.00
0.37
0.27
0.00
0 .1 8
0.15
0.07
3.88
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
Epilobium glandulosum
0.36
1.00
0.00
1.53
0.78
1.12
0.93
2 .1 8
0.38
0.22
0.00
0.00
Equisetum dubIus
0.00
0.25
0.27
0.22
0 .1 8
0.30
0.21
2.59
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
Filago arvensis
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.68
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melilotus officinalis— I
0 .1 8
1.49
0.55
0.66
0.83
0.89
0.71
2.27
0.00
0.65-
0.00
0.00
Melilotus officinalis— II
5.58
1.99
4.66
1.75
3.30
5.95.
4.79
2.25
3.00
6.02
5.US
3.70
Polygonum spp.
0.00
0 .6 2
0.27
0.22
0.32
0.U5
0.48
1.70
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
Gallx spp.
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.00
0.14
0.07
0.07
I.Bi
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.00
Scirpun spp.
0 .1 8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.20
0.63
0.00
0.00
o.6o
0.00
Solanum dulcamara
0.36
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.30
0.09
6 .0 3
0.38
0.22
0.00
0.00
Solldago graminifolia
0 .1 8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.04
3.17
0.00
0.00
0 .6 0
0.00
Tanecetum vulgare
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.12
1 .0 6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Poa spp.
PLANTS OF .MESIC SITES:
(continued)
16
33
TABLE •>.
(Conti nued)
Noim.'Bt
Vegetation
Liecond Nearent
Vegetation
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
PLANT.; OK MJ-::;IC OITKI (cont.)
Typha latifolin
3.90
1.12
0.00
1 1 .7 9
Total
ToKl
1971
(Percent) (Percent)
3.90
of Cover
1971
(Percent)
elation
3.12
b.k?
1.03
Dusting]/ Roosting]/
Males 2/ Females 2/ Sites
Sites
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
7.60
9 .6 8
6.6]
0.00
PLANT: OF DRIER !HTES i
Achillea millefolium
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.1k
0.07
0.83
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Agroetcmma githago
0.00
0.37
0.00
O.tlt
0.23
0.22
1.23
0.3?
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
0 .2 8
0.22
0.1k
2.8k
0.38
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.22
0.67
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AmarmitIiUB retroflexus
0. 36
0.00
0 .2 7
Aster falcatus
0.00
1.00
0.00
Camellna eativa
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.2?
0.05
0.07
1.20
0.0k
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cavsel la bursa-vantorIu
0.00
0.2b
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.15
0 .2 8
0.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vardarls Uraba
0.10
0.50
0.00
O.Wi
0.32
0.30
1 .9 9
0.27
0 .3 8
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chcnotiodlum album
0 .0 0
0.50
0 .0 0
0.00
0 .1 8
l.k f
0.27
0-.OC
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cheiiovodliun spp.
O.sfc
1.37
1.10
1.97
1.2k
0.67
0.91
1.33
0.76
1.08
0.00
0.00
Cirslum arvensp
9 .7 1
20.30
12.0 b
1 9 .6 9
16.10
12.0k
17.61
1.2k
9 . Sg
1 1 .8 3
B.k]
T vkl
Clrolum vulsare
0 .0 0
O.J.’
0 .0 0
0.00
0 .0 b
0 .0 0
1.13
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Descuraliila B u p h ln
0 .0 0
0.17
0 .0 0
0.22
0 .1 8
0 .1 b
O.50
0.'>k
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P la tith U B a n n e r l a
0 .0 0
0 .3 7
0 .0 0
0.22
0.18
0.30
1 .8
O.k?
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Eullob Iurn leptophyI Ium
o .y ii
0.7 V
0 .0 0
0.22
0.k6
0.15
1 . 15
0.2k
0.00
0.22
1.20
0 .0 0
Lactuca oerriola
5.9i<
9 .5 !)
b .21 •
12. Ot
B .k k
3.05
5.8?
0.95
6.08
k.73
8.k3
0.00
Levidlum eompentre
0 .0 0
0.50
0.00
0.88
0.17
0.52
0.71
1.33
0.00
0.00
OvOO
0.00
Levldlum ncrfollutmn
0.90
2.12
1.37
2.63
1.79
1.6k
5.68
0.52
0.76
1 .2 9
1.20
0.00
LI lltoBDermum arvoimc
0 .0 0
0 . IL**
0 .0 0
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.68
0.19
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
Medlcaito lupullim
0 .0 0
0.8.7
0.00
0.22
0.37
0.59
1.87
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Medlcayo satlvu
p .flfl
0.50
2
.7 k
1.09
1.60
2 .1 5
k.k6
0.99
3.01
2.80
0 .6 0
Ik. 8 1
Unobrychls vielnefolla
0 .1 0
0 .6 2
0.27
0.22
0.37
0.07
0.13
0.98
0 .3 8
0.22
0.00
0.00
Plaiitago app.
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.00
0 .0 b
0.07
0.26
0.k9
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
Polygonum a v lcularc
0
.1 Q
0.12
0.00
0.22
0.1k
0 .0 0
0 .1 ?
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
PoIygmium convolvulus
0 .0 0
0 .2 b
0 .0 0
0.22
0.1k
0 .0 0
1 .2 8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Runic x e r Ia y u n
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .2 2
0.09
0.00
l.k 9
0 .0 0
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
LtOiigu lnorba oce Idental Io
0.10
0 .0 0
0.00
0.23
0.09
o .ib
0 .2 0
1.36
0 .3 8
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.2b
0 .0 0
0.88
0.32
0 .0 7
1.2 0
0.11
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
Tarajuioum spp.
0.00
0 .2 b
0.00
0.00
0.09
o .lb
0.70
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ThJanpI arvenuc
0 .1 8
2 .8 6
0 .2 7
2.8k
1.7k
2 .1 6
3.80
1.03
0.00
0.22
0 .6 0
0.00
Triigopogoii dub IUB
0 .0 0
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.05
0 .0 7
1.83
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Trlfollum dubiiun
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0.22
0.05
0.07
0 .0 6
2.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TrlfolIiun Itybrldum
0 .3 6
3.1i
0 .8 2
2.19
1.83
2 .0 8
2 .0 6
1 .8 3
0 .7 6
O.k]
0 .6 0
0.00
T H Pu 11 tun vrutenniu
0 .1 0
0 .0 0
0.22
0.1k
0.22
0.5k
0.7k
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0.00
3.70
Vlfin uiitlva
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.05
0.07
0.11
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
i'.ifl
1 .10
0.22
1.01
0.7k
1.37
0.98
1 .9 0
1 .91
1.20
0.00
Iitymb r Ium all. Itin limun
LlIIELTKH RtiLT VIlRUii;::
!_/
-
I'eri'uiitagfi or Llir OiiLrIeit In Uic IVmr pn-vluin; categories, for 1970 and 1971 observations.
porceiituge ol' Lite nearest and second neuronL vegetation to mule (female) observations which was dominated by each species.
Ji/
*
inly the n e n V n t vegetation Lu these v lnnnnn of observations was recorded.
Urasses of men Ir sites.
r
34
an association index was calculated for each species for a more accurate
comparison.
This index was calculated by multiplying the observed value
by 1.81, and then dividing by the expected value.. A value greater than
1.00 thus represents some positive association.
The average measure­
ments of the vegetation nearest.and second nearest to observations for
each species, when it occurred as the dominant plant, are presented in
the Appendix, Table 15.
The plants which were present on the study area,
but were not present in the nearest or second nearest vegetation to ob­
servations are given in the Appendix, Table 16.
The data in Tables 5 and
15 were also compiled for the observations by section and will be men­
tioned when pertinent.
Grasses and grass-like plants - Of the grass species which were
usually planted for the cultivated grass type, only crested wheatgrass
had an association index less than.I.00.
The other species had associa­
tion indices ranging from 1.89 (meadow fescue) to 2.48 (orchard grass).
All four classes of observations showed a positive association with
these species.
Smooth brome and meadow fescue were most highly associa­
ted with roosting sites.
Crested wheatgrass was never abundant in the
cultivated grass type, and all five species also occurred naturally.
Of the grasses and grass-like plants usually found on the wetter
sites, nine had an association index greater than 1.00, two had an index
less than 1.00, and two did not occur near observations.
Sedges, which
had an association index less than 1.00, did occur near observations more
35
than expected in Section III0
Redtop, with an association index of
I0Oy9 occurred mostly as a subdominant in the second nearest vegetations
This was undoubtedly due to its association with cattails on the area*
which often occurred as a dominant in the second nearest vegetation.
Rushes were used most for roosting sites.
Most of these plants occurred
as subdominants.
Of the grasses and grass-like plants of drier sites.(including the
grains)9 three had an association index greater than I0OO8 six had an
index less than one and five did not occur near observations.
Quack-
grass 9 which received the most positive association of these grasses,
had an index of 1,76,
sites,
Bluegrass8 with an association index of 1,31« also occurred on
mesic sites.
tation,
This species also frequently occurred on mesic ;
Both occurred most often as dominants in the nearest vege­
Chess and cheatgrass both had an association index near I0OO8
and received the greatest use as roosting sites.
For the grains, barley
and wheat usually occurred as dominants 8 and oats and rye as sub dominants
All four had an association index less than 1,00,
Barley had a higher
value for the index than wheat (0,70 vs 0 ,20), and of the four classes
of observations8 was associated most with dusting sites.
Plants of mesic sites - Of the 24 plants usually found on mesic
sites, 12 had an association index greater than 1,00, two had an index
less than 1,00, and 10 did not occur near observations, .No overall posi­
tive association was shown for bulrush and cattails, but cattails
36
did occur frequently as the dominant plant in the second nearest vegeta­
tion e
Both stages of sweetclover were considered here, for when they
occurred naturally, it was usually on the more mesic sites, ,A positive
association was shown for sweetclover- II in all three sections, and
more so by females than by any other class of observation.
Only sweet-
clover -I I received use for a roosting site of the plants in this group.
Plants, of drier sites - Eighty-four species were listed in this
group.
Nine had an association index greater than 1,00, 26 had an index
less than 1,00, and ,49 did not occur near pheasant observations.
Of
those for which some positive association was shown, alsake clover,
small h o p . clover (Trifollum dubium), and goosefoot also occurred in
some mesic sites,
Canada thistle, for which some positive association
was shown, occurred most often as a subdominant,
Alfalfa had an associa­
tion index of 0,99 and usually occurred as a dominant.
was for roosting (nest ) sites,
Its greatest use
No positive association was indicated
for shelter belt shrubs by summer observations.
Density of Crowing Cocks
The greatest density of crowing cocks occurred in Section III (Table
6), and most of these (8 of 11) were in the southern half of the section.
Seven of the 13. crowing cticks in Section II were within 500 feet of one
of the alfalfa cover types.
Based on an average density, of 19=5 crowing
cbcks p e r ■square mile . for the entire study area, the maximum average
area per crowing cock was 32,9 acres.
37
.TABLE 6 e
Section
THE NUMBER AND DENSITY CF CROWING COCKS ON THE STUDY AREA IN
MAY, 1971«
Number of
Crowing Cocks
Area of Section
(acres;
Density
(cocks/sqo mio)
I
11
400
17,6
II
13
441
18.9
III
■11
309
22.9 _
35
1,150
Total
19.5
.
Brood Production
Several authors have found that approximately 70-80 percent of hen
pheasants are successful in bringing off a brood each year (Errington
and Hamerstrom 1937* Baskett 1947)«
Yearly differences in production
would then be mainly attributed to differences in average brood sizes0
Winter drive counts on the area over the past six years have indicated
a steadily declining pheasant population, although the decline from
1970 to 1971 was not great (Ge Salinas, pers0
Comm0 1971)0 Average
.
brood sizes were higher in 1971 than, in 1970 (7<>25 vs 4 «87) as seen in
Table 7» which indicates a higher production in 1971.(the decline in
population was probably not great enough to off-set the effect of the
larger broods)0
By assigning an age class to all 1971 brood observations, the dis­
tribution of the seasons hatch was calculated and plotted on a graph
38
TABLE 7,
AVERAGE SIZES OF BROODS OBSERVED ON THE NINEPIPE GAME MANAGEMENT AREA AND VICINITY,
Year
August
Number of Broods
Total
1970
a
3.83
5.25
4.87
1971
52
7.61
6,83
7.25
(Figure 8)0
These data show a hatching peak for June 14-18 and a second
lesser peak for July 13-16, probably due to renestinge
Crop Analysis
Analysis of the contents of the crops collected during the hunting
seasons (October
-
November) indicated considerable utilization of
wheat and barley (Table 8)e
Wheat occurred in 6? percent of the crops
and barley in 23 percent0
Together, wheat and barley made up Tl percent
;
of the volume of all crop contents. Plant and animal matter contributed
..
91 and 9 percent, respectively, of the total volume.
Seeds of prickly
lettuce, Polygonum spp,, and grasses also occurred frequently, in the
crops.
Areas of Winter Use
Almost all signs of pheasant activity in Section I (from January 69 , 1971) were near either the eastern or the western border of the sec­
tion,
There were four sites which received heavy use, and all were in
cattails and within 500 feet of a wheat field.
moderate use.
Seven sites received
Of these, five in were in cattails, one was in an old
B ro o d s
of
No.
June
Figure 8.
August
Estimated hatching dates of pheasant broods on the study area and vicinity, 1971
40
TABLE 8,
CONTENTS OF PHEASANT CROPS COLLECTED ON THE STUDY AREA IN THE
FALL OF 1970 AND 1971.
Fnori Ttftm
Number/Volume ^
PLANT: 2/
Triticum aestivum
Lactuca serriola
Polygonum son.
Hordeum spp.
Gramineae
Gramineae (leaves)
Thlasni arvense
Solanum dulcamara
Trifolium pratensis (leaves)
Acrostemma Ritha^o
A1^rapthus son.
Cruciferae
Taraxicum spp.
Cerastium vuleatum
Ghenonodium son.
Sonchus arvensis
Brassica son.
Cardaria draba
Artemisia tridentata
Onobrvchis viciaefolia
Aeeiloos cylindrica
Enilobium son.
Carex spp.
Unidentified seeds
Unidentified leaves
Unidentified corms
32/233.1
19/ 3.3
17/ 4.9
11/ 28.3
9/ 1.7
8/ 2.0
4/tr
Ij
3/ 24.3
3/ 1.8
3/ 0.8
3/tr
3/tr
2/tr
.
2/tr
l/tr
l/tr ,
l/tr
l/tr
l/tr
I/ 2.2
l/ 1.2
l/tr
l/tr
5/tr
4/tr
--„,1^2,0.
Total Plants
ANIMAL:
Locustidae
Lepidoptera
Hemiptera
Arachnoidea
Other animal
Total Animal
___
Frequency/Volume ^
67/69.O
40/ 1.0
35/ 2.0
23/ 8.0
19/ 0.5
17/ 0.6
8/tr
6/ 7.0
6/ 0,5
6/ 0.2
6/tr
6/tr
4/tr
4/tr
2/tr
2/tr
2/tr
2/tr
2/tr
2/ 0.7
2/ 0.4
2/tr
2/tr
10/tr
8/tr
2/ 0.6
' 47/305.5
98/91.0
13/ 23.7
4/ 3.3
3/ 0.8
2/tr
4/ 3.7
27/ 7.0
8/ 1.0
6/ 0.2
4/tr
8/ 1.0
’16/ 31.5
.33/ 9.0
- /100.00
48/337.0
TOTAL:
I/ Number of crops present in/volume from all crops, (cc.).
2/ Percent of crops present in/percent of total volume.
2/ Plant food items were mature seeds and/or fruits unless otherwise
indicated. '
Zt/ tr = less than 0.1 cc or 0.1 percent as appropriate.
41
shelter belt, one was in a strip of sweetclover- II, and all were with­
in 500 feet of a wheat field*
The northern 80-acre division of Section II (Figure 2) received the
heaviest winter use of any portion of the study area.
Signs of heavy
use occurred throughout most of the strip of cattails (between the
ditches) at the northern end, and a heavily used travel lane along the
eastern border connected these cattails and the wheat field in the south­
east comer.
Heavy use occurred in the northern portion of this wheat
field, and in the cattails around the large pothole adjacent to it.
Signs of moderate use were found in some of the cultivated grass type
in this area.
In the remainder of Section II, two sites received heavy use, and
both were in cattails and within 500 feet of a wheat field.
Eight sites
received moderate use, seven in cattails and one in unharvested alfalfa
type.
All were also within 500 feet of wheat or barley.
There were no signs of heavy use in Section III, although some
heavy use occurred in the cattails and willows along the reservoir just
north of the section (and within 500 feet of a wheat field on the sec­
tion) .
Six sites received moderate use, four in or around cattails and
two in old shelter belts.
All were within 500 feet of a wheat field.
Signs of light use were found in most portions of the section, and were,
usually in either cattails, old shelter belts, or cultivated grass type.
Results of a drive count that winter, conducted with the aid of
42
TABLE 9 o
PHEASANTS OBSERVED ON A DRIVE COUNT OF THE STUDY AREA ON
JANUARY 23 , 1971.
Section
Males
Females
Unidentified
Total
I
5
9
0
14
II
45
74
7
III
7
27
I
Total
57
no
126
'
.25_
8
175
Missoula high school students, showed only 175 pheasants on the study
area (Table 9)»
Of these, 105 were observed on the northern 80-acre
division of Section IIe
The sex ratio of those pheasants observed on
the drive count, and others observed during the month of January, was 77
malesz 164 females, or i:2013<>
j
Trapping, Tagging, and Movements
'
Because of the light snow conditions, only 32 pheasants were trapped
and tagged during the winter period*
released on the area that fall*
males (a sex ratio of lsl067)o
1
Of these, five were game farm birds
Twelve of the 32 pheasants captured were
Recaptures and sightings of marked birds
(Figure 9) during the winter period indicated little movement from the
trap areas *
No marked birds were observed more than one-fourth of a
mile from the original capture site*
of marked birds were, made*
From April-July, 1971» 14 sightings
They ranged from 70 yards to one mile from
the original site of capture.
I
Two marked pheasants were shot by hunters
'
43
on October 23, 1971.
One was 390 yards and the other 1.8 miles from
their respective sites of capture.
Jl
DISCUSSION'
There are many problems inherent in the evaluation of habitat used '
by a bird as adaptable as the ring-necked pheasantc
It was possible to
measure the diversity and composition of the vegetation in the vicinity
of the observations$ but other factors, which are more difficult to
measure, influence the location of the pheasant observations and the
interpretation of these data=
One of these factors is the relationship
and proximity to each other of the. various cover types in the section
which may be sought for the various daily activities0
Pheasants are also
more observable in certain cover types than in others«, By considering
the vegetation within a nine-acre block around observation sites, the
vegetation which actually attracted the bird to that area should be
represented and the effect of observability reduced^
Since pheasants
utilize different vegetation for different purposes, all classes of otn
servations from all periods of the day, when considered together, may
tend to obscure some selection for a specific purpose.
I
The data analysis showed that the more diverse areas supported or
attracted the most pheasants, as long as these areas provided the neces­
sary combination of vegetation (food, escape cover, loafing areas, etc.).
The indices of diversity for Sections I and II, where food crops were
well distributed throughout the sections, were quite comparable.
In
Section III, most of the grain crops were in the southern half of the
section (especially in .1970), and this is where most of the observations
occurred.
The average value of the index of diversity for the random
45
'sites,, which were distributed throughout the section, was not signifi­
cantly less than that for the observations in this section„
Thus, the
pheasants in Section III tended to select diverse areas in the vicinity
8
.
'
■
of grain crops, and not necessarily the most diverse portions Of the
section.
Hen pheasants, which are attempting to bring off and raise a.
brood during the summer, generally were in the most diverse areas»
This
may be due to greater security where the different and important cover
types are close together and interspersed, thus reducing the danger in­
volved in travelling between these cover types.
Areas relatively free or void of vegetation are used by pheasants
at certain times.
Such areas were utilized for dusting sites and when
most vegetation was wet from dew or rain.
These areas were thus often
used during the morning activity period, when many of the observations
were made.
Summer fallow, pasture-hay type, and county roads were used
for such purposes in varying degrees in each section.
Shelter belts in
Section ill were also similarly used.
Fall food habits data collected on the. study area show the impor­
tance of wheat and barley to the pheasants on the area.
In the analysis
of the use of the cover types, a definite selection was shown for areas
where either whfeat or barley were present.
Utilization of barley with
cover type was also greater than expected in all three sections.
Of
these two grains, barley was apparently utilized to a greater extent than
wheat, as indicated by frequency of occurrence and percent of area around
46
observations, and by the association index at the species Ievel6
The
relatively low association index of both wheat and barley (O620 and O670,
respectively) indicates that neither was used much as cover, but that
barley was used to a greater extent than Wheat6
The different types of vegetation on the study area were used to
various degrees as cover.
Of the vegetation mainly used for cover,
pheasants showed perhaps the most selection for the second year stage
of Sweetclover6
The data show that areas with either of the alfalfa cover
types or with the cultivated grass type were not strongly selected for,
but when available, these cover types were used considerably more than
expected. The seemingly greater use of the alfalfa cover types by male
pheasants may be due to the greater observability of. the cocks in early
summer, when these types are probably used the most.
Quackgrass, chess,
and weed cover types and some of the species which usually predominate
in these types showed a slightly greater use than expected.
,
Pheasants were also apparently associated with the vegetation of
the mesic sites to a greater extent than expected.
Fifty-seven percent
of the grasses and other plants of mesic sites had an association index
greater than 1.00, while only 12 percent of the grasses and plants of
drier sites had an index greater than 1.00 (grasses of the cultivated
.
grass type excluded).
the soil.is fairly dry.
Most of this use of mesic vegetation may be after
In general, the analysis of the use of coyer
types does not show a strong selection for the marshy, cover types.
Rush .
47
type8 howeverj was apparently selected for in each section and mainly
by malesj and for roosting sites.
Some selection was shown for areas
with cattails, although this cover type was probably used mainly as
escape cover.
This is indicated by frequencies of occurrence being
greater than expected, percents of area being less than expected, and
cattails frequently occurring as a dominant plant in the second nearest
vegetation to pheasant observations„
Gates (1970), in a Wisconsin study,
found considerable use of certain types of wetland vegetation by pheas­
ants for both nesting and winter concentration areas.
Some general characteristics of the vegetation adjacent to the
various classes of observations were noted.
The average heights and
cover values of the vegetation adjacent to dusting sites were generally
greater than those for total observations.
These parameters of the
vegetation around roosting sites were generally less than those for total
observations (Table 15$ Appendix),
The dusting sites were thus most
commonly found adjacent to cover types which provided good escape cover,
such as sweetclover-H, quackgrass, cultivated grass, and barley cover
types.
Roosting sites,on the other hand, were in more open or shorter
vegetation, such as that dominated by bluegrass, rushes, smooth brome,
alfalfa, meadow fescue or sometimes Canada thistle.
Females were gen­
erally associated with the better cover, and males with the more open
vegetation.
Those portions of the study area with winter concentrations of
pheasants demonstrate the importance of a close association between
cover and food.
Almost all sites with signs of moderate or heavy use
were in cattails or old shelter belts and withiri 500 feet of a wheat or
barley field.
Unharvested alfalfa, sweetclover- II, and. cultivated '
grass cover types, which also have some residual cover in winter, were
also utilized by pheasants during this season.
APPENDIX
50
TABLE 10»
COVER INDEX OF PLANTS FOUND CM THE STUDY AREA (PERCENT OF
COVER PROVIDED BY EACH PLANT)»
Section
I
Species
Section
JI
SeEHcK
III
Total
GRASSES AND GRASS-LIKE PLANTS;
Agropyron cristatum
intermedium
alba
thurberiana
Avena fatua
Beckmannia syzigachne
Bromus inermis
Bromus .iaponicus (plus B e
mollis and Be racemosus)
Bromus secalinus
Bromus tectorum .
Carex spp»
Dactylis glomerata
Deschampsia danthonioides
Eleocharis spp»
Elymus cinereus
Festuca eleator
Glyceria borealis
Hordeum vulgare (and H=
distichum)
■
Juncus sppe
Phalaris aruhdinacea
Secale cereale
Triticum aestivum
PLANTS OF MESIC SITES;
Alisma plantago-aauatic
■ Bidens ceruna
Boisduvalis.densiflora
0.03 0.45
0.90
10.09
2.29
.0.40
0.03
0.00
0.17
0.80
8.32
1.31
0.02
0.03
0.69
2.03
0.42
1.18
19.60
12.16
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.04
4.18
5.55
0.09
0.16
0.01
6.68
3.66
I. 51
0.14
0.05
0.03
2.33
0.01
0.02
5&74
3.75
1.98
4.62
4.24
0.03
4.53
0.05
4.03
0.19
1.90 ■
0.82
1.81
0.00
0.08
2.37
0.37
3.47
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.05 ■
0.03
0.04
.
0.29
0.19
4 o88.
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
' 1.11
0.00
0.14
1.46
14.11
4.05
1.20
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.79
13.56
0.14
1.16
5.33
1.01
0.55
0.03
0.28
13.90
0.03
2.35
16.47
0.02
0.67
0.03
1.41
35.69
0.75
0.03
0.74
22.34
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.46
0.30
26.85
14.12
1.08
19.57
0.01
0.04
0.14
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.66
20.04
0.01
0.01
2.20
0.01
0.11
1.13
II. 41
0.04
0.07
0.01
51
TABLE IOo
(Continued)
Species
Section
I
Section
II
Section
III
Total
PLANTS OF MESIC SITES .(Continued) s
Epilobium glandulosum
Equisetum dubius
Filago arvensis
Geum macrot
Iris missouriensis .
Melildtus officinalis-I
Melilotus officinalis-II
Mentha arvensis
micrantha)
Polygonum Spp6
Rorippa islandica
Rumex maritimus
SaIix spp»
Scirpus spp=
Solanum dulcamara
Solidago graminifolia
I^pha latifolia
PLANTS OF DRIER SITES:
Achillea millefolium
Amaranthus albus
Amaranthus retroflexus
Asparagus officinalis
Aster falcatus
Aster occidehtalis
Astragalus dasyglottis
Atriplex argentea .
Balsamorrhiza spp*
Brassica campestris
Brassica kaber
Brodiaea grandiflora '
Camelina satiya
0.01
0.57
0.46
0.58
0.14
1.02
1.72
10.37
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.80
0.14
1.30
0.10
0.00
0.05
2b 22
0.20
0.04
0.45
' 1.55
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.01
0.32
1.17
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.37
0.15
0.06
0.00
9.29
0.08
1.21
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.01
2*33
1.09
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.11
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.40
4.76
0.08
0.48
0.03 -
1.28
1.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.Q3
1.09
0.34
0.34
0.00
0.02
0.34
0.36
0.13
2.%
0.83
1.23
0.07
0.14
0.05
0.86
0.77
0.19
0.37
. 0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.17
0.20
2.76
'
0.43
1.30
0.01
0.01.
0.00
0.32
0.01
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.21
0.28
.4.40
.
»
0.13
0.93
0.21
0.68
0.%
0.01
Oo 71
4.79
0.08
0.03
0.02
0 0
.?
0.20
0.09
0.04
0.12
5.47
0.45
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.67
0.10
0.11
0.00
0.05
0.14
0.24
0.21
3.20
52
TABLE 10. (Continued)
Species
Section
I
PLANTS OF DRIER SITES (Continued):
•Capsella bursa-pastoris
.0.25
Cardaria draba
2.2?
OoOO
Centaurea maculosa
0.00
Cerastium viscosum.(plus C.
1.17
vulgatum and Stellaria
media)
. 1.68
Chenopodium album
0.72
Chenopodium spp.
nauseosus
0.04
0.00
14.60
Cirsium arvense
0.81
arvensis
0.64
0.19
2.40
0.03
Epilobium leptophyllum
0.71
0.06
Erigeron divergens (and E«
speciosus)
0.12
Gaillardia aristata
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.12
Iva axillaris
0.09
4.2$
Lactuca serriola
Lamium amplexicaule
0.0?
0.24
Lappula echinata
0.12
0.01
9.42
0.00
Lithospermum arvense
0=38
0=11
Lithospermum ihcisum
0.00
Lithospermum ruderale
0.19
Lupinus.sericeus
0.14
Lychnis alba
0.00
Malva rieglecta
0.00
Matricaria matricarioides
Section
II
Section
III
Total
0.48
. 3.08
0.34'
0.12
0.29
0.28
1*99
0.10
0.04
0.63
0.79
1.09
0.00
0.00
16.03
0.84
0.00
0.76
0.25
0.07
- 0.49
0.04
2.07
0.91
0.00
0.03
23.36
1.90
0.40
0.55
1.20
0.48
2.51
0.00
1.47
0.91
0.02
. 0.01
17.61
1.1 3 .
0=34
0.50
1.28
0.17
1.15
0.04
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.00
0=06
0.00
3.66
0.00
0.00
0.06
. 0.76
3.81
0.01
1.48
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.02 .
0.01
0.00
0.36
0.34
0.09
0.02
0.00
'
10.53
0.00
0.16 .
0.00
1.50
3.46
0.00 •
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.01
0.64
0.14
0.86 .
0.01
0.00
0.36
..
0.05
0.39
0=10
0.03
0.07
0.04
5.82
0=03
0=13
0.07
0.71
5.68
0.01
0.68
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.05
0.01
0.19
53
TABLE IO0
(Continued)
Species
Section.
I
Section
II
0.01
: 1.92
0.00
0.26
0.01
• 0.00
.0.08
0.25
1.58 "
, 0.21
0.06
0.12
0.48
0.99
0 .1?
: 1.47
0.19
0 .16
0.10
0.35
. 4.38
1.07
0.58
9.54
0.05
0.03
0.19
0.01
0.09
0.20
1.55
0.19
0.03
Section
III
Total
PLANTS OF DRIER SITES (Continued)s
Medicago sativa
cataria
viciaefolia
Lobotnrys scouleri
Plantago purshii
Plantago spp„
Polygonum aviculare
Polygonum convolvulus.
Populus sppo
Potentilla spp0. '
Rosa spp,
Sanguisorba Occidentalis
Sisymbrium altissimum
Solidago missouriensis
rubra
Symphoricarpos alb us
Taraxacum spp» •
Thlaspi arvense
Trifolium dubium :
Trifolium hybridum '
Vaccaria
Verbascum blattaria
Vicia■sativa'
o.oi
2.49
0.13
0.00
0.55
0.00 •'
0.00
■
o.oi
0.08
1.83
0.00
0.6l
0.04
0.00
0.02
1.43
2.11
2.26
0.00
1.31
0.46
0.00
0.31
0.15
0.31
5.82
1.87
4.46
1.13
0.02
0.01
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.10
0.00 ' 0.01
0.26
0.71
0.32
0.57
1.28
0.55
0.00
0.14
0.05
CU05
0.34 . 0.14
0.51
0.34
1.68
1.49
- 0 .20.
.0.47
1.60
- 1.20
. .0.52
0.23
0.02 .
0.06
0.06
0 .0?
. 0.21
0.70
3.80
5.25
2.22
1.83
0.06
0.19
2.06
■2<,49
1.16
0.54
. 6.08
0.03
0.51
0.71
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.11
.
SHELTER BELT SHRUBS:
TOTAL
2.11
178.50
0.09
170.85 .
.2.09
1.37
197.05
181.14'
54
TABLE 11.
Index, of
Diversity
DISTRIBUTION OF THE INDICES OF DIVERSITY FOR THE ACTUAL
OBSERVATIONS AND. RANDOMLY SELECTED SITES IN EACH SECTION.
~~
0.00 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.00.
IoOO ™ 1.50
1.50 - . 2.00
2©00 — 2.50
2.50 - .3.00
3.00 - 3.50
3.50 - 4.00
4.00 — 4.50
4.50 - 5.00
5.00 - 5.50
5 .50- 6.00
6.00 - 6.50
6.50 - 7.00
7.00 - 7.50
7.50 - 8.00
SoOO •" 8.50
.8.50 - 9.00
9.00 - 9.50
9.50 - 10.00
10.00 — 10.50
10.50 - 11.00
11.00 - 11.50
11.50 - 12.00
12.00 - 12.50
12.50 - 13.00.
13.00 - 13.50
13.50 - 14.00
IifoOO *"■14.50
14.50 - 15.00
15.00 - 15650
15.50 - 16.00
16.00 — 16.50
16.50 - 17.00
17.00 - 17.50
17.50 - 18.00
18.00 - 18.50
18.50 - 19.00
19.00 - 19.50
(continued)
.
'
.
.
Section I
Random: Actual
I/
I/
• 1.50 ■
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
1.00
0.00
.2.50
3.61
1.50
0.52
1.00
0.00
0 .5 0 .
0.52
3.50
1.55
1.50
0.52
4.00
1.55
4.00
2.06
3.00
. 1,55
2.50
2.58
2.00
4.12
9.00
1.55
. 8.00
5.67
4.50
4.64
2.50
4.12
4.00
5.15
7.00 . ' 7.22
.2.00
3.09
5.50
11.86
3.50
4.12
4.50
9.28
0.50
2.58
3.50
5.15
4.50
3.61
3.00
3.61
1.50
2.06
1.50 .
0.52
. 1=50
. 1.55
IbOO
2.58
1.00
1.03
. 0.50
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.03
Section II
Section Z n
Random Actual
Random Actual
I/
:
I/
I T
1.50
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50 . O .36
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
' 0.00
0.00
3.00
0.72
0.00
0.00
.4=00
1.81
1.50
0.00
2.00
. 0.00
0.62
2.54
6.50
3.50
4.35 .
0=62
4.50
2=50
3.99
0.62
5.50
3.62
■ 8.00
5.59
3.00
2.17
4.50
4.97
4.50
2.90
2.00
5.59
3.00
4.00 . 4.35
4.71
4.00
0.72
4.50
1.86
11.50
8.70
4.50
5.59
3.00
3.62
5.00
5.59
5.00
5.00
8.33
8.07
3.00 • 4.71
. 4.00
2.48
3.00
6.50
5.O7
5.59
3.00
1.86
4.50
4.35
7.00
7.61
6.50
4.97
2.50
4.00
1.45
3.11
3.50
5.50
11.80
1.45
1.00
2.90
3.00
3.73
2.50 . 0.72
5.00
6.83
1.00
6.52.
0.50
0.00
2.50
5.00
2.54
5.59
2.00.
2.90
2.00
. 1.86
2.00
1.50
1.45
1.24
0.00
0.50
1.45
' 1.24
1.00
O .36
1.00
■ 0.00
.0.00
1.81
0.00
. 0.62
0. 00
0.72
0.50
0.00
0.50
2.90
1.00
0.62
0.00
0.72
1.50
0.62
1.50
0=72
0.00
1.24
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.24.
ObOO
0.36
. .0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
55
TABLE 11«, (Continued)
Index of
Diversity
19o50
20o00
20o50
21.00
~
-
20.00
20.50
21.00
21.50
Section I
Random Actual
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•
Section II
Random Actual^
Section III
Random Actual
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.24
l/. Percent of the sites which lie within each range.
TABLE 12.
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT OF AREA OF THE COVER TYPES WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND THE FOUR CLASSES
OF OBSERVATIONS IN SECTION I.
Cover Type
Male
Observations
Percent
of Area
Frequency
Female
Observations
• Percent
Frequency
of Area
•Dusting Sites
Percent
Frequency
of Area
Roosting Sites
Percent
Frequency
of Area
Bluegrass type
72.13
9.01
6 7 .6 1
9 .3 7
5 9 .6 2
6 .0 2
5 0 .0 0
Quackgrass type
86.89
6.29
8k. 51
6 .2 8
6 9 .2 3
5 .1 8
6 0 .0 0
5.k3
Cultivated grass type
39.3k
k .8 0
k7.89
5 .5 2
5 5 .7 7
3 .9 6
8 0 .0 0
7.7k
Chess type
19-67
1 .2 8
18.31
1 .1 3
13. k6
0 .7 2
30.00
2 .8 2
30.00
1 0 .3 1
Spring barley
22.95
k.17
25.35
k.66
17.31
5 .0 3
Winter wheat
63.93
lk . 6 0
76.06
15. kk
69.23
1 6 .1 3
6 0 .0 0
l6.ll
Summer fallow
88.52
26.27
87-32
2k. 8 1
92.31
2 8 .6 8
90.00
3k. k2
Barley with cover type
21.31
2 .2 6
28.17
3.67
k8 . 0 8
7 .8 8
kO.OO
1.70
Harvested alfalfa type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unharvested alfalfa type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sweetclover— I type
22.95
2.65
1 1 .2 7
0 .7 2
9 .6 2
0 .9 k
20.00
0 .9 9
Sweetclover— II type
31.15
k.6k
4 3 .6 6
7 .5 1
5 1 .9 2
9 .7 1
6 0 .0 0
5 .7 0
Cattail type
68.85
5 1 .9 2
1 .5 k
7 0 .0 0
2 .3 6
Pothole with cover type
Pothole
Rush type
Sedge type
Low marsh type
k.01
6 7 .6 1
k.9k
l»7.5k
1.88
k2.25
1.78
5 1 .9 2
2 .6 1
20.00
I.Ui
21.31
0.65
21.13
0.46
13. k6
0.2k
3 0 .0 0
O.kl
50.82
0.77
k9-30
0 .6 k
5 3 .8 5
0 .6 2
7 0 .0 0
0 .9 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.k9
k.72
0.00
39.3k
0.58
32.39
k2.31
0 .7 3
kO.OO
0 .9 8
Young shelter belt
9.8k
0.k9
7.0k
0 .3 8
17.31
1.02
0.00
0.00
Old shelter belt
9.8k
1.00
7.0k
0.68
17.31
1.00
0.00
0.00
Residential Site
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.67
l.6k
1 9 .7 2
28.85
1.12
10.00
0 .6 1
Pasture-hay type
39.3k
10.77
3 3 .8 0
3.39
23.08
6.0k
20.00
3.53
County road
27.87
l.kO
28.17
I.Ui
13.k6
0.68
10.00
0 .5 0
Weed type
1 .5 8
TABLE 13.
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT OF AREA OF THE COVBt TYPES WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND THE FOUR CLASSES
OF OBSERVATIONS IN SECTION II.
Cover Type
Male
Observations
Percent
of Area
Frequency
Female
Observations
Percent
Frequency of Area
Dusting Sites
Percent
of Area
Frequency
Roosting Sites
Percent
Frequency
of Area
Bluegrass type
80.23
13.19
87.29
12 .90
72.58
9.9U
80.00
15.76
Quackgrass type
6 ?. UU
u .2 5
69. U9
u.02
69.35
u.97
80.00
u.13
Cultivated grass type
58. IU
6 .4 6
50.00
u.9 3
66.13
6.63
70.00
5.31
5.81
0.9 0
3.39
0.35
3.2 3
0.0U
0.0 0
0 .0 0
Spring barley
39-53
9 .3 0
55.93
15.56
30.65
8.88
70.00
9 .0 6
Winter wheat
5 8 .IU
1U.9U
50.00
n.39
33.87
9.6 1
20.00
7 .0 0
Summer fallow
70.93
20.19
73.73
20.66
88.71
26.39
30.00
2.5U
Barley with cover type
1.1 6
0.03
1 .6 9
0 .0 2
U. 8 U
0.15
0.00
0 .0 0
Harvested alfalfa type
2U.U2
7 .5 9
18.6U
3.9 9
8.06
1.0 9
50.00
2 3 .U3
Unharvested alfalfa type
22.09
u.0 9
28.81
5.1 0
16.13
U.98
20.00
2 .5 8
Sweetclover— I type
0 .0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0 .0 0
' 0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0 .0 0
Sweetclover— II type
2 .3 3
0.0 3
1.69
0.0 2
1U.52
1.1 1
0.00
0.0 0
Cattail type
U7.67
0.95
55.93
0 .8 0
51.61
0.91
20.00
0.1 9
Pothole with cover type
33.72
2 .3 7
29.66
2.07
37.10
2 .2 3
50.00
0.8 1
8.1U
0.6 9
10.17
1 .0 3
1 7 .7U
1 .8 0
30.00
2.9 0
0.2 1
20.00
0 .1 1
0.1 2
0.00
0.0 0
Chess type
Pothole
29.07
0.29
29.66
0.2 1
2U.19
5.8 1
0.16
U.2U
0.0 3
U.8U
22.09
0.28
2 0 .3U
0.2 3
U6.77
0.7 9
30.00
0 .6 U
Young shelter belt
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.00
0.0 0
0.0 0
0 .0 0
Old shelter belt
0 .0 0
0.0 0
2.5U
0 .0 2
1.61
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
Residential site
12 .79
0.3U
18.64
0.7 2
1U.52
o.uu
0.0 0
0.0 0
Weed type
23.26
1.3 5
22.88
0.9 8
2U.19
2.3 2
10.00
0 .0 8
Pasture-hay type
3U.88
10.09
35.59
11.33
53.23
15.86
U0.00
2U.U8
County road
55.81
2.42
3.0 3
37.10
I.UU
20.00
0.87
Rush type
Sedge type
Low marsh type
62.71
TABLE IU .
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND AVERAGE PERCENT OF AREA OF THE COVER TYPES WITHIN THE NINE-ACRE BLOCKS AROUND THE FOUR CLASSES
OF OBSERVATIONS IN SECTION III.
Cover Type
Male
Observations
Percent
of Area
Frequency
Female
Observations
Percent
Frequency of Area
Dusting Sites
Percent
of Area
Frequency
Roosting Sites
Percent
of Area
Frequency
Bluegrass type
T1*. **2
30.64
68.85
2 6 .4 5
5 8 .0 0
1 8 .3 8
100.00
5 8 .5 7
Quackgrass type
83.72
7.72
8 3 .6 1
7 .5 3
9 0 .0 0
1 3 .3 4
57.14
6 .6 0
Cultivated grass type
51.16
5.72
4 9 .1 8
4 .5 0
6 2 .0 0
5-64
28.57
3 .8 6
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
Spring barley
1 6 .2 8
2.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
Winter wheat
65.12
12.89
7 0 .4 9
1 3 .3 9
6 2 .0 0
10.21
14.29
1.22
Summer fallow
81
.U0
16.94
7 7 .0 5
2 3 .8 0
9 2 .0 0
2 9 .2 9
42.86
9 .3 0
0 .9 1
28.57
0 .4 7
Chess type
1
Barley with cover type
Harvested alfalfa
25.58
1 6 .2 8
1.22
11.48
0 .7 0
20.00
4 .1 9
1.64
0 .3 8
4 .0 0
1 .1 3
14.29
0.14
Unharvested alfalfa type
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
Sweetclover— I type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sweetclover— II type
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cattail type
6 7 .41.
2.86
6 7 .2 1
3.40
7 8 .0 0
3.10
7 1 .4 3
3.22
Pothole with cover type
5 3 .4 9
3 .8 5
4 9 .1 8
4.22
46.00
3.00
7 1 .4 3
7 .9 0
9 .3 0
0 .7 0
0 .3 0
6.00
0.23
14.29
0.27
2 5 .5 8
0.44
3 6 .0 7
0.39
20.00
0.31
57.14
0.37
6 .0 0
0.01
14.29
0 .0 6
Pothole
Rush type
8.20
2.33
0.03
6 .5 6
0.01
Low marsh type
30.23
0.17
3 6 .0 7
0 .6 0
3 8 .0 0
0.40
28.57
0.13
Young shelter belt
27.91
2.75
2 9 .5 1
3.04
2 0 .0 0
1.8l
14.29
0 .1 6
Old shelter belt
25.58
1.54
2 7 .8 7
1 .5 5
24.00
1.19
42.86
2.03
Residential site
Sedge type
2.33
0.01
13.11
0 .4 3
8.00
0.43
14.29
0.70
Weed type
20.93
1.44
2 7 .8 7
1 .7 2
22.00
1.36
14.29
0.70
Pasture-hay type
11.63
2 .0 6
1 9 .6 7
5 .2 3
2 8 .0 0
7.38
14.29
0.13
County road
60.47
2.25
52.46
2 .2 7
42.00
1 .8 0
85.71
4.05
59
TABLE 15.
MEASUREMENTS AND COVER VALUES OF THE NEAREST AND SECOND NEAREST VEGETATION TO PHEASANT OBSERVATIONS WHEN DOMINATED BY EACH SPECIES.
Distance
To Nearest
Vegetation
(Feet
S
Distance
To Second
Nearest
Vegetation
(Feet)
Average
Height
(Inches)
Height
Dusting
Sites
(Inches)
Height
Roosting
Average
Cover
Cover
Value
Roosting
U
Dusting
(inches)
GRASSES AND GRASS-LIKE PLANTS:
Agropyron cristatum
0.00
15.00
2U.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
Agropyron Intermedium
1.00
10.67
50.67
51.50
0.00
2.03
3.00
0.00
Agropyron repens
5-25
19.72
1 0 .0 8
1 2 .1 6
32.00
2.6i
2.76
2.00
Agrostis alba*
3.00
0.00
13.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Alopecurua aequalis*
0.00
0.00
22.00
22.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
Alopecurus pratensis*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Avena fatua
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Beckmannia syzigachne*
0.00
0.00-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bromus inermis
3.63
55.36
17.19
44.78
3 7 .7 5
2.81
2 .6 7
2 .5 0
Bromus .japonicus (plus
B. mollis & B. racemosus)
1.50
51.22
31.71
3 1 .2 5
30.00
2.53
2 .7 5
2.00
Bromus tectorum
0.00
12.67
36.33
33.00
1 7 .0 0
2 .6 7
3 .0 0
2.00
Carex spp.*
0.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
uo.67
52.11
5 6 .8 9
51.00
2.90
2 .8 9
2.00
Echinochloa crusgalli*
0.00
0.00
50.50
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Eleocharis spp.*
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Festuca eleator
2.50
32.56
41*. 00
5 6 .5 0
18.50
2.58
3.00
2.00
Glyceria borealis*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Glyceria grandis*
0.00
0.00
72.00
7 2 .0 0
0 .0 0
Hordeum .luoat urn*
0.33
12.00
2 8 .5 0
3 8 .0 0
liordeum vulgare (and
H. distichum)
0.23
•22.00
33-91
3 6 .8 8
Juncus spp.*
0.00
27.80
23.20
0.00
Phleum pratense
d.oo
0.00
44.00
0.00
Poa spp.
8.63
1*5.36
10.27
3 5 .3 7
Secale cereale
0.00
36.00
li.OO
0.00
Triticum aestivum
1.12
38.09
31.51
31.80
Alisma olatago-aquatica
0.00
1 8 .0 0
39.75
Bidens ceruna
0.00
12.00
3 6 .0 0
Epilobium glandulesum
0.00
EquiHetum dubius
0.00
Dactylis glomerata
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
3.00
0 .0 0
0.00
.2.1?
2.40
0.00
2 .3 0
0.00
2.00
3.Op
0.00
0.00
3 0 .5 0
2.24
2. 37
2.00
0.00
$ .0 0
0.00
0.00
44.00
2.46
2.20
2.00
50.00
0.00
2.50
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
1 7 .5 0
0.00
0 .0 0
3.00
0.00
0.00
1 8 .0 0
35.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
1 6 .2 5
0.0.0
PLANTS OF MESIC SITES:
0.00 .
Filago arvensis
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Melilotus officinalis— I
0.00
17.50
12.67
0.00
0.00
3. 33
0.00
0.00
Melilotus officinalis— II
8.77
29.29
58.08
3. 35
3.67
3.00
Polygonum spp.
0.00
2.00
27.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0 .0 0
0.00
Salix spp.
0.00
20.00
79.67
0.00
0.00
I. 3 3
0.00
0.00
Scirpus spp.
0.00
0.00
72.00
7 2 .0 0
0.00
'..0 0
3.00
16.50
0.00
<2.50
0 .0 0
0.00
3.00
0 .0 0
Solidago gramlnifolia
0.00
0.00
40.00
40.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
Tanecetum vui^nre
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
Solanum dulcamara
(continued)
6 5 .6 7
7 0 .0 0
•
0 .0 0
0.00
•
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
60
TABLE 15. (Continued)
Distance
To Nearest
VencLaLlon
(Fee L )
llpticies
DluLanue
T o Second
IIouresL
VoncLutiun
(Feet)
Average
HeintiL
(Inchuu)
Ileintit
Dun L irig
Si Los
(Inches)
HeighL
Hoostinn
Sites
(Inches)
Average I/
Dusting
Value
Roosting
Sites
I-IJUfBi o r MKilC SITES (emit.)
TvotiQ latifolia
1.08
IiJ .67
73.88
Aenillea in'.llefollum
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
Anrostemma nitnano
0.00
0.00
Amaranthus retroflexus
0.00
3.00
29.67
Aster falcatus
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Camelina sativa
0.00
0.00
0.00
Caosella bursa-pastoris
0.00
0.00
Cardaria draba
1.00
0.00
Chenooodium album
0.00
0.00
Chenopodium spp.
0.33
Cirsium arvense
6 .0 0
78.1*5
0.00
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
2. Qp
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.50
115.71
0.00
0.00
3.29
0.00
0.00
10.70
51.79
!*!».33
U 3 .6 II
2 .8 9
2.79
2.00
Cirsium vuinare
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Descurainia sophia
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dianthus armeria
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.59
3 .3 6
PLANTS OE DHIER SITES:
Epilobium IepLophyllum
2 3 .0 0
3 1 1 .0 0
2 9 .6 7
2 8 .5 0
0.00
1.67
1 .5 0
0 .0 0
1 6 .1 8
a t . 37
Il5.ll0
Il7.00
0.00
2 .6 5
2.80
0.00
Lepidium campesLre
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou.
Lepidlum pur ft>IluLum
0 .8 0
19.60
1 3 .5 0
0.00
I .90
1.00
0.00
Li Lhuspermum arvense
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mtfdlcano IupulIim
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 0 1 .9 0
pc. 'Ji
32.00
2 5 .0 0
.5 %
$ .0 0
3.00
if. 5 0
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
LacLucu serriolu
Mediuuno imLivu
1.33
iM u
2 5 .0 0
2
OnobryeliLs v i e Luefoliu
I .00
IP. 00
PlanLano spp.
0.00
iC .o o
18.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Polynonurn aviculare
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
1 .0 0
0.00
0.00
Polynonum convolvulus
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rumex crispus
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sannuisorba occidentalis
21.00
0.00
2 9 .0 0
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Sisymbrium alLissimum
15.00
0.00
57.00
0.00
0.00
!*.00
0.00
0.00
Taraxacum spp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
Thlaspi arvense
0.00
!«5.00
33.00
20.00
0.00
2.50
2.00
0.00
TranopoRon dubius
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
Trifolium dubIurn
0.00
0.00
b.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
Trifolium hybridum
1.00
107.67
35.00
1*8.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
Trifolium praLensis
0.00
0.00
1*8.00
0.00
U8.00
i.00
0.00
3.00
Vicia uaLiva
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
SHELTER BELT SHRUBS
3.67
!«.75
59.75
0.00
2.87
3.00
0 .0 0
I/
Cover values were averaged based on the foliowlnn numeric v alues:
(Jraeeeeof
meu l<: h I Leti.
8 5 .5 0
Poor-I , Fair*2, Oootl-1 , Very Ooud=I*.
61
•TABLE 16.
PLANTS PRESENT ON THE STUDY AREA, BUT NOT OCCURRING IN THE
NEAREST OR SECOND NEAREST VEGETATION TO PHEASANT OBSERVATIONS.
Specie's
■■Index of Cover 1971
GRASSES AND GRASS-LIKE PLANTS:
Aegilops cylindrica
Agrostis thurberiana
Bromus secalinus ■
Deschampsia danthonioid.es
Elymus cinereus
Phalaris arundinacea*
Polypogon monsneliensis* •
0.02
0.%
0.08
0.01
.
0.01
0.03
0.01
PLANTS OF MESIC SITES:
.Boisduvalis densiflora
Epildbium angustifolium
Geum macrophyllum
Iris Missouriensis
Mentha arvensis.
'Myosotis Iaxa Tand M. micrantha)
Roriooa islandica
■ Rumex.maritimus ,
. Sonchus asper (and S. uliginosis)
Veronica peregrina
0.01
0.13
0.23
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.02
1.25
0.45
PLANTS OF DRIER SITES:
Amaranthus albu's
Amsinckia lycopsoides
Anthemis cotula' '
Asclepias speciosa
Asparagus officinalis
Aster occidentalis
Astragalus dasyglottis.
Atriplex argentea
Balsamorrhiza•spp»
Brassica campestris
Brassica kaber
Brodiaea gradiflora
Centaurea maculosa
Cehtaurea repens
0.07
0.05
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.11
0.00
0.05
0.14
0.24
0.21
0.10
0.04
62
TABLE 16.
(Continued)
Species ■
PLANTS OF DRIER SITES; (Cont.)
Index of Cover 1971
•
Cerastium viscosum (plus C. vuleatum and
Stellaria media)
Chrysothanmus nauseosus
Cichorium intybus
Convolvulus arvensis
Dipsacus syIvestris
Erigeron divergens (and E. speciosus)
Gaillardia aristata
Galium aparine
Grindelia sauarrosa
Helianthus annuus
Hypericum perforatum
Iva axillaris
Lamium amplexicaule
Lappula echinata
Laooula redowskii
Linaria vulgaris
Lithospermum incisum
Lithoseermum ruderale
Lupinus sericeus '
' Lychnis -alba
Malva neglecta ■
Matricaria matricarioides
Nepeta cataria
Plagiobothrvs scouleri
Plantago purshii •
Polygonum douglasii
Populus spp.
Potentilla spp.
Rosa spp.'
Solidago missouriensis
Spergularia rubra
Symphoricarpos albus
Vaccaria segetalis
Verbascum blattaria
Verbascum thapsus
* Grasses of mesic. siteso
0.63
0.02
0.01
0.34
0.17
0.04
0.05
0.39
0.10
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.07
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.05
0.01
0.19
0.02
0.10
0.01
■0.14
0.05
0.14
0.34
0.23
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.51
0.06
.
■
'
63
UTERATURE CITED
Baskett, T0 Ce 1947o Nesting and production of the ring-necked pheas­
ant in northcentral Iowa0 Ecol0 Monographs® 17(1)s1-30®
Booth; W® E 0 1950c Flora pf Montana9 Part.I— Conifers and Monocotsc
Research Foundation, Montana State College, Bozeman® 232 ppe
« and J 0 C0 Wright0 1959s Flora of Montana, Part II—
Dicotyledonso Montana State College, Bozeman, 305 pp®
Daubenmire , R 0 1959® A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis o
Northwest- Science® 33(1):43-64®
Errington, P® L® and F® N® Hamerstrom, Jr® 1937® The evaluation of
nesting losses and juvenile mortality of the ring-necked pheasant®
J 0 Wildlo Mgmto 1:3-20®
. . .
Gates, Jo M 0 1970® Recommendations for a scattered wetlands program
of pheasant habitat preservation in southeast Wisconsin® Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources® Research Report 63® 24 pp®
Hiatt, R 0 W 0 1946o The relation of pheasants to agriculture in the
Yellowstone and Big Horn River valleys of Montana® Montaha State
Fish and Game Commission® 72 pp®
Kuck1 To L®, Ro B 0 Dahlgren1 and D0 R 0 Progulske„ 1970® Movements and
behavior of hen pheasants during the nesting season® J® Wildl®
-Mgmto 34(3):626-6300
Martin, A® Co, R® H®. Gensch1 and C® 'P®'Brown® 1946® Alternative methods
in upland game bird food analysis® J 0 Wildl® Mgmt0 10(l):8-12®
Pyrah1 D® 1970»
466-467®
Poncho markers for game birds®
J® Wildlc Mgmt0
34(2):
Robertson, W® B 6, Jr0 1958® Investigations of ring-necked pheasants in
Illinois® Illinois Department of Conservation® Tech® Bullo' No® I
137 PP®
U® So Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau® .1970-1971® Montana
monthly summary® U® S® Gov0t® Printing Office, Washington, D® C®
Yeager, L® E®, W® W® Sanfort, and J® L® Lyone 1951® Some problems of
pheasant management on irrigated land® Trans® 16th N® A® Wildl®
Conf 0:351-367®
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
3 1 762
1001 1976 5