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

Abstract

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.

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

“…Sites used by brooding hens had greater forb content than randomly selected habitats with no other covariate having much effect (Tables 5 and 6). Most critically, hens appeared to be selecting habitat to maximize productivity: Matthews et al (2012) reported greater nest success and brood survival in managed CRP. County-level surveys of pheasants provide additional, demographic evidence for the benefits from such management.…”

“…The 83-km 2 study area was located in the tallgrass prairie ecoregion in Stanton County (map: Matthews et al 2012). The landscape of our study area was dominated by agriculture (35.7%) and CRP fields (37.2%).…”

Associating conservation/production patterns in US farm policy with agricultural land-use in three Iowa, USA townships, 1933–2002

“…Conservation payments from the farm bill-which include most set-aside programs-are a major driver of idled land in agricultural landscapes (Burger et al, 2006). Long known to serve important functions for wildlife habitat, recent research on habitat management and biodiversity have increased the value of set-aside land for game and non-game species (Conover et al, 2011;Matthews et al, 2012). While our data show that set-aside land area has been subject to changes in the conservation or production focus of the farm bill, other work also suggests that the Conservation Reserve Program itself might have contributed to the decline of pastureland by increasing the net return of unenrolled, non-marginal cropland (Lubowski et al, 2008), thus increasing the incentive to convert pastureland to cropland.…”

Institutional Dimensions of Farmland Conservation: Applying the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework to the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program

“…Several studies have been conducted to measure the success of wildlife management in the program (Dunn,, Stearns, Guntenspergen, & Sharpe, 1993;Giudice & Haroldson, 2007;Matthews, Taylor, & Powell, 2012;Negus, Davis, & Wessel, 2010;Swanson, Scott, &, Risley, 1999). Agency officials keep track of this data and sometimes help fund the research.…”

“…FSA has made considerable effort to try to reduce these negative effects by implementing adaptive conservation strategies and practices (USDA, 2012). However, further standards for maintaining and implementing conservation practices over the lifetime of the contracts could significantly improve environmental outcomes (Giudice & Haroldson 2007;Matthews et al, 2012;Negus et al, 2010;Osborne, Sparling, & Hopkins, 2012;Risley et al, 1999).…”