MANAGING FARMLANDS
FOR WILDLIFE
Richard E. Warner, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Jeffery W. Walk, Illinois Chapter of The Nature Conservancy
James R. Herkert, Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Introduction
 Rapid technological change in agriculture
has dramatically affected farmland wildlife
 Wildlife management is often tied to soil
and water conservation efforts
 A systems approach is necessary to
successfully integrate wildlife conservation
with agriculture
Challenges to Conserving Farmland Wildlife
►
Divergent goals of wildlife conservation and agriculture
►
Changing farm conservation programs
►
Lack of reliable knowledge
►
Communicating the importance of wildlife to ecosystem
functions
►
Addressing positive and negative human-wildlife interactions
►
Facilitating access to private lands
Shift from Diversified Agriculture to Intensive
Rowcrop Monocultures has Caused Declines of
Many Species in the Midwestern United States
Crop Production Index (CPI) and harvest of farmland game
Changing Agricultural Practices are Implicated in
the Widespread Decline of Grassland Wildlife
Population trends from the
North American Breeding Bird
Survey (1966–2003) the eastern
meadowlark (Sturnella magna)
(top) and northern bobwhite
(Colinus virginianus) (bottom).
Percent changes per year of –
1.5/year or worse (red) suggest
overall population declines of
>50% during the period.
Social Context for Managing Farmland
Wildlife
► Most
initiatives cater to farmers and hunters of farmland
wildlife – a dwindling audience
 People living on farms has declined from 23% in 1940 to <2% today;
number of farms has declined 70%
 Number of small game hunters declined 31% from 1996-2006
 Many urban residents struggle to obtain access to private land
► Other
ecological and economic values of
conservation in agricultural settings are poorly
communicated
 Water purification, pollination, carbon sequestration, recreation, biological
pest regulation, soil enhancement
Managing Landscapes for Wildlife
Desirable Attributes of Major
Landscape Elements
Guidelines for Maintaining
Ecological Function
►
►
►
►
Habitat patches: larger, connected,
multiple, structurally and florally
diverse
Corridors: wider, continuous,
redundant, structurally and florally
diverse
Farmland matrix: diverse, optimal
juxtaposition, minimal disturbance
at critical periods (e.g., mowing
during nesting)
►
►
►
►
Self-sustaining populations that are
suitable and achievable
Preserve, enhance, or restore the
structure and function of existing
patches and corridors
Create new patches or corridors to
replace lost habitat
Minimize negative effects and
maximize positive attributes of the
matrix
Restore or mimic natural disturbance
regimes
Farm Programs as a Context for Habitat
Management
►
Historically, programs diverted
cropland from production to
adjust commodity prices,
promote conservation
►
“Set-aside” programs have
established wildlife-valuable
early successional cover
►
Programs reduce the hazards of
farming disturbances at critical
times for wildlife (e.g., the
nesting season)
Farmland diverted from production in
the United States, 1956–2002.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
►
►
►
►
►
The most important program of recent history for farmland
wildlife
At peak, >14.6 million ha (36 million acres) enrolled
Idles environmentally sensitive farmland for 10–15 years to
reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and provide wildlife
habitat
Landowners receive annual payments based on local land-rental
values and cost-share for establishing vegetation
Trend over time has been more targeted, flexible “sub-programs”
within the CRP
 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
 State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement
Distribution of Conservation Reserve Program, by percent of county enrolled, in
the United States in 2008. Data from Farm Service Agency.
Other Contemporary Farm Programs
Easement Programs
Working Lands Programs
►
►
►
►
Wetland Reserve Program
(WRP)
Grassland Reserve Program
(GRP)
Healthy Forest Reserve
Program (HFRP)
►
►
Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP)
Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program (WHIP)
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP)
All these farm programs are:
voluntary,
provide financial incentives,
administered by the US Department of Agriculture.
Optimizing Farm Programs for Wildlife
► Identify
Target Species and Communities
► Identify
Physiographic Characteristics
► Recognize
► Temporal
► Planning
► Work
► Be
Issues of Spatial Scale
Factors
and Coordinating Management Plans
with Landowners
Opportunistic and Flexible
Optimizing Farm Programs for Wildlife: Identify
Target Species and Communities
►
►
Traditionally, programs have been ‘first-come, first-served’ and
driven by landowner interest
Programs are increasingly structured to achieve specific
outcomes
 Targeted geographies with acreage allocations
 Higher standards for restored vegetation
 Minimum patch size, width
►
Incentives often need to be changed to entice a restricted
landowner pool
 State or private “enhancement” payments
 Increased cost share payments
 Sign-up and practice incentive payments
Optimizing Farm Programs for Wildlife:
Identify Physiographic Characteristics
►
►
►
►
►
►
What natural features define the region?
What was natural vegetation prior to agriculture?
What significant habitat features define the wildlife community,
including forests, wetlands, riparian corridors, intensive grain
cropping, and livestock grazing?
Are there remnant patches of natural vegetation or other
significant semi-permanent vegetation from which to start?
What life-history needs of target species are being fulfilled in
the existing agricultural matrix?
What life-history requisites are lacking?
Optimizing Farm Programs for Wildlife:
Recognize Issues of Spatial and Temporal Scale
►
What can be done a the patch (field) scale to benefit wildlife?
►
What limitations or opportunities do surrounding lands and
regional phenomena create?
►
On what time-frame can habitat be created and when will a
wildlife response be apparent?
►
Does that time-frame match with the duration of a farm
program?
Optimizing Farm Programs for Wildlife:
Working With Landowners
►
There is a direct relationship between effective interactions among biologists
and landholders during the planning process and the subsequent success of
the program
►
Learn what farm operators want: the goals of the landholder (not those of the
biologist) are likely to be applied and maintained
►
Follow-up is essential




Diagnose and correct problems
Opportunity to emphasize long-term maintenance of vegetation
Facilitates reevaluating/updating the plan as conditions change
Creates opportunities for making additional contacts, expanding the program to
other farms
Evaluating and Refining Programs
►
Vegetation
 Was desired vegetation established in the short- and long-term?
►
Participation by Landowners
 Did attitudes or knowledge change as a result of the program?
►
Responses by Wildlife
 Did population trend/abundance change?
 Did key demographic parameters (survival reproduction) change?
►
Interactions Between Wildlife and Habitat
 Were changes in target wildlife due to the program or other factors?
Did the evaluation occur at the right temporal and spatial scales?
SUMMARY
►
Pressures to produce more per unit of land are increasing, but
so is public will to achieve multiple natural-resource goals on
farmland
►
The spatial and temporal factors requisite for successful
farmland habitat interventions are tied to a complex farming
system with ecological and socioeconomic dimensions
►
Wildlife managers need to be aware of and influence this
system, ranging from regional policies and programs, to the
practices that are used on the ground, and to the perceptions
of landholders