Ring‐necked pheasant hens select managed Conservation Reserve Program grasslands for nesting and brood‐rearing

Matthews, Ty W.; Taylor, John S.; Powell, Larkin A.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.410

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4). Countylevel surveys of pheasants provide additional support and validation of our demographic estimates and model predictions of increased productivity (Matthews et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Our data do not directly support the first hypothesis, as we did not find that vegetation structure (VOR) at the nest bowl caused variation in nest survival (Tables 1 and 2). We did find that hens selected nest sites with high levels of vegetation density (Matthews et al 2012). In addition, DICRP fields had greater vegetation density and structural heterogeneity than monotypic grasslands found in unmanaged CRP and pasture fields (Matthews et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…We did find that hens selected nest sites with high levels of vegetation density (Matthews et al 2012). In addition, DICRP fields had greater vegetation density and structural heterogeneity than monotypic grasslands found in unmanaged CRP and pasture fields (Matthews et al 2012). Also, structural heterogeneity in the habitat patch surrounding the nest can influence nest success more than the vegetation at the nest (Schranck 1972, Bowman and Harris 1980, Mankin and Warner 1992.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Negus et al (2010) and Matthews et al (2012) demonstrated that discing and interseeding monotypic CRP fields increased vegetation density, preferred by nesting hens. Similarly, this type of management has been shown to increase forb and legume cover, along with bare ground (Greenfield et al 2002(Greenfield et al , 2003Leathers 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As vegetation diversity increased post-management, Leathers (2003) found an increase in arthropod abundance. Both nesting and brooding hens preferred disced and interseeded CRP (DICRP) to unmanaged CRP fields as a result of an increase in forb and legume content (Matthews et al 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mid‐contract management of Conservation Reserve Program grasslands provides benefits for ring‐necked pheasant nest and brood survival

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields may provide good habitat for nesting and brood‐rearing ring‐necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) during early stages of succession. But, the success of hens in early successional CRP, relative to late successional CRP and other grassland habitats, has yet to be evaluated. The reproductive period is especially critical for populations of pheasants, and CRP's benefits to hens and chicks may decrease as fields age because of loss of vegetative diversity, decrease in vegetation density, and accumulation of residual litter. During 2005–2006, we evaluated spatial and temporal variation in nest and brood survival for radio‐marked hen pheasants in areas of northeastern Nebraska where portions of CRP fields had been recently disced and interseeded (DICRP) with legumes. Nests in DICRP tended to have a higher daily survival rate (0.984; 95% CI: 0.957–0.994) than nests in grasslands (including CRP) that were unmanaged (0.951; 95% CI: 0.941–0.972). The probability of 23‐day nest success was 0.696 (95% CI: 0.631–0.762) for DICRP and 0.314 (95% CI: 0.240–0.389) for unmanaged grasslands. Daily brood survival rates varied by habitat type, brood age, and date of hatch. The probability of a brood surviving to day 21 was 0.710 (95% CI: 0.610–0.856). Brood survival rates increased with time spent in DICRP and as the brood aged. Survival decreased as broods spent more time in cropland and peaked seasonally with broods that hatched on 15 June. Brood survival probability, to 21 days, would be reduced to 0.36 (95% CI: 0.100–0.701) if broods in our sample had not used DICRP. We combined nest and brood survival in a productivity model that suggested 2,000 hens, in a landscape with no DICRP, would produce 1,826 chicks, whereas the same hens in a landscape of 100% DICRP would produce 5,398 chicks. Production of first‐year roosters more than doubled when hens nested in DICRP. Without DICRP, population growth rates of pheasant populations usually declined; with DICRP, populations stabilized with at annual survival rates of 0.3 or greater. The positive response of nest and brood survival to discing and interseeding CRP provides further evidence that CRP fields must be managed to optimize wildlife benefits. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…4). Countylevel surveys of pheasants provide additional support and validation of our demographic estimates and model predictions of increased productivity (Matthews et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mid‐contract management of Conservation Reserve Program grasslands provides benefits for ring‐necked pheasant nest and brood survival

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Landscape context influences nest survival in a Midwest grassland

Simonsen

Fontaine

2016

Jour. Wild. Mgmt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the management and restoration of habitat is the key method to conserve species of interest, local habitat management often fails to elicit desired responses in populations. Landscape features beyond the local habitat scale affect the population dynamics of ring‐necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), but the mechanism behind this response is unknown. One possibility is that nest survival, which is primarily reduced by nest predation, is regulating pheasant responses to the landscape. We investigated the extent to which land use affected nest survival by studying 202 artificial nests on 12 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields in Nebraska, USA with varying surrounding land‐use practices. After running a hierarchical analysis of competing models, we found that predicted nest survival increased as the amount of CRP, winter wheat, and pastureland surrounding a CRP field increased, whereas increasing fallow fields was correlated with decreased nest success. Our findings support theoretical and empirical evidence that nest predation rates are shaped by predator search efficacy. Changing the relative availability of nesting habitat that potentially holds alternative prey sources in our study affected nest survival rates, possibly by altering the search area of opportunistic nest predators. The similarities between the landscape relationships that predict nest survival and landscape predictors of pheasant abundance indicate that nest survival may potentially act as the mechanism shaping population dynamics within an ever changing farmland ecosystem. We recommend that managers consider the land use surrounding areas under consideration for habitat improvement to enhance conservation investments. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Evidence that the conservation reserve program slowed population declines of pheasants on a changing landscape in Nebraska, USA

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nebraska's agricultural landscape underwent dramatic changes during the last half of the 20th century. Since 1986, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has led to an increase in grassland cover, but pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) populations have been decreasing for decades. We hypothesized that if the CRP positively affected pheasant populations in Nebraska, USA, we should see effects reflected in pheasant population trend data. Thus, we examined one of the longest‐running population time‐series data sets in Nebraska, the rural mail‐carrier survey. We averaged pheasant counts annually over the entire state during 1951–2007. We fit 4 simple demographic models to the statewide population abundance index and used information‐theoretic methods to select the model with the most support. We found strong evidence that a logistic model with a 2‐period decline (transition year of 1986 based on optimization) in carrying capacity described the data better than all other models (e.g., AICc wi = 0.99). This model indicated an annual decline in our population index of approximately 15% until 1986, but then a slower annual decline of approximately 5% after 1986. The transition year (1986) corresponded with the date of implementation of the CRP. No other known effect occurred near the transition year and there is no evidence that other potential factors (e.g., disease, changes in predator communities) contributed to large‐scale population declines during our study. The introduction of the CRP may have positively affected pheasant populations, but the effects are so far insufficient to reverse the decline of pheasants in Nebraska. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Ring‐necked pheasant hens select managed Conservation Reserve Program grasslands for nesting and brood‐rearing

Cited by 16 publications

References 17 publications

Mid‐contract management of Conservation Reserve Program grasslands provides benefits for ring‐necked pheasant nest and brood survival

Mid‐contract management of Conservation Reserve Program grasslands provides benefits for ring‐necked pheasant nest and brood survival

Landscape context influences nest survival in a Midwest grassland

Evidence that the conservation reserve program slowed population declines of pheasants on a changing landscape in Nebraska, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About