Northern Bobwhite Non‐Breeding Habitat Selection in a Longleaf Pine Woodland

Kroeger, Anthony J.; DePerno, Christopher S.; Harper, Craig A.; Rosche, Sarah B.; Moorman, Christopher E.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.21925

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Selection for nesting in areas with greater woody understory cover, including shrubs and regenerating trees, likely is indicative of selection for the most limiting nest cover components on Fort Bragg. Basal area or tree density is thought to underlie habitat quality for bobwhite across its range (Fies et al 1992, Brennan et al 1998, Rosche et al 2019, Kroeger et al 2020, Hannon et al 2021), though we documented non‐significant trends of selecting lower basal area for nest sites in our study. Midstory and overstory tree cover competes for sunlight with understory plants, and thus a lower basal area is more beneficial for bobwhite because it allows adequate sunlight required for development of the understory that provides nesting cover.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 65%

Effects of Prescribed Fire on Northern Bobwhite Nesting Ecology

Rosche

Moorman

Kroeger

et al. 2021

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeated prescribed fire can create and maintain areas with sparse overstory tree cover and a dense grass‐forb‐shrub understory, providing habitat for northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus; hereafter, bobwhite). Despite potential benefits of prescribed fires for conserving bobwhite habitat, burning during the nesting season may destroy bobwhite nests and reduce available nesting cover. We monitored radio‐transmittered bobwhite (n = 104) from 2016 to 2018 to describe nest‐site selection and determine the risk of nest destruction on a 17,000‐ha North Carolina military installation, Fort Bragg, managed with rotational growing‐season and dormant‐season prescribed fires on an approximate 3‐year return interval. We located 48 nests, of which 8 (16%) were in areas burned the same year, 9 (19%) were in one‐year post fire, 25 (52%) were in 2‐years post fire, and 6 (13%) were in ≥3‐years post fire areas. We compared vegetation composition and structure at nests to nearby random locations and determined bobwhite selected nest sites with greater woody understory and wiregrass cover, lower basal areas of pines and hardwoods, and less distance to the nearest road. Two nests (6.7%) were destroyed during prescribed fires, but success of incubated nests was high (67%). We calculated the overall risk of nest destruction by prescribed fire as the proportion of active nests in areas with ≥3 years since last fire multiplied by the proportion of the study area burned each week. Overall, 11% (weekly truex ̅ = 0.75%, range = 0–3%) of the study area was burned during the 2016 nesting season (3 June to 3 September), 4% (weekly truex ̅ = 0.31%, range 0–2%) of the study area was burned during the 2017 nesting season (5 June to 2 September), and 7.5% (weekly truex ̅ = 0.58%, range 0–5%) of the study area was burned during the 2018 nesting season (3 June to 31 August). We estimated that no more than 0.75% of bobwhite nests across the study site were exposed to fire annually. Most growing‐season fires occurred before the bobwhite nesting season, which limited direct effects of prescribed fire on bobwhite nest survival. However, shifting prescribed fires to later in the growing season to better match the historical lightning season (i.e., after 1 June) would increase the risk of nest destruction. Because bobwhite used older roughs (i.e. areas 2 years since fire) for nesting, shortening the fire return interval to less than 3 years would increase the proportion of nests exposed to fire. Additionally, a shortened fire return interval would decrease available nesting cover, especially in regions with low soil fertility where vegetation change following fire is less rapid than on more productive soils. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 65%

Effects of Prescribed Fire on Northern Bobwhite Nesting Ecology

Rosche

Moorman

Kroeger

et al. 2021

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Managers should focus habitat features that can protect bobwhites from these sources. Woody understory cover is well documented to be beneficial to bobwhites and other galliformes during the nonbreeding season (Roseberry et al 1964, Roseberry and Klimstra 1984, Janke and Gates 2013, Warren et al 2013, Kroeger et al 2020). Furthermore, in an associated study, we found that bobwhites selected habitat during the nonbreeding season with increased visual obstruction (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonbreeding season survival of northern bobwhite in northeastern Colorado

Wolske,

Behney,

Powell

2023

Wildlife Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Northern bobwhites have experienced population declines in Colorado and range wide. Estimating vital rates can provide clues to factors limiting population growth rate. Although recent estimates of breeding season survival in the northwest corner of the northern bobwhite range are available, there have been no recent studies on nonbreeding season survival. We used radio‐telemetry to estimate nonbreeding season (October–March) survival of northern bobwhites at two study sites in northeastern Colorado during winter 2019–2020 and 2020–2021. Based on our sample of 157 bobwhites, we found that survival was highly variable between years and was negatively affected by colder daily minimum temperatures and deeper snow depths. Seasonal (six‐month) survival during the first year was 0.219 (SE = 0.040) and during the second year was 0.006 (SE = 0.005). We found no evidence that sex, age or study site influenced survival, and very weak support for an effect of body mass. During our study, there were two extreme winter weather events, during which we found unusually high numbers of non‐predation mortality. Overall, northern bobwhite nonbreeding season survival in the northwest corner of their range appears to be generally similar to other regions, except during extreme winter weather events, which resulted in high mortality. We encourage managers to create or maintain vegetation characteristics that will provide shelter from winter weather while also providing abundant food in close proximity.

show abstract

“…Visual obstruction as influenced by the structure of vegetation may determine occupancy and use of an area by various wildlife species (Swanson et al 1999, Lashley et al 2015, Kroeger et al 2020). Visual obstruction and habitat use by certain wildlife species may vary as vegetation type, density, and height changes (Winter et al 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetation structure and food availability following disturbance in recently restored early successional plant communities

Powell

Buehler

Moorman

et al. 2022

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fields dominated by nonnative grasses, such as tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), are being restored to native plant communities across the eastern U.S. Upon restoration, disturbance is necessary to maintain native communities in an early seral stage, and plant response to different management practices is of interest to managers to guide habitat enhancement for various wildlife species. We evaluated effects of burning and mowing following restoration of native plant communities via 2 methods (planting native grasses and forbs and seedbank response without planting), across 11 replicated sites in Tennessee and Alabama, 2019–2020. We compared vegetation composition and structure, openness at ground level, forage availability, and nutritional carrying capacity (NCC) following 4 treatments (Seedbank Burned, Seedbank Mowed, Planted Burned, Planted Mowed, and tall fescue Control), and we related these measurements to the food and cover requirements for 3 popular game species: white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). The combination of planting and mowing increased grass coverage, whereas units that were established via seedbank response and managed by burning had greater forb coverage. Visual obstruction above 25 cm was greater in all treatments than Control, which provided cover that has been described as selected nesting cover by wild turkey and bedding cover for deer. Openness at ground level, which is especially important for bobwhite and wild turkey broods, was 30% greater in Seedbank Burned than Planted Mowed where we recorded the least openness among treatments by the second year of treatment. Similarly, coverage of bobwhite food and deer forage plant species was greatest in Seedbank Burned. Biomass (kg/ha) of plant species known to be selected as forage by deer was greater in all treatments than in Control, and NCC (deer days/ha) was greatest in Seedbank Burned by year 2. Our results highlight differences in plant composition and structure following management of early successional communities. Where possible, we encourage managers to use fire instead of mowing to maintain plant communities, especially if food plants and enhanced structure at multiple levels for bobwhite, wild turkey, and deer are management objectives. Furthermore, our results illustrate planting native grasses and forbs is not necessary to restore native early successional plant communities on most sites.

show abstract

Northern Bobwhite Non‐Breeding Habitat Selection in a Longleaf Pine Woodland

Cited by 6 publications

References 74 publications

Effects of Prescribed Fire on Northern Bobwhite Nesting Ecology

Effects of Prescribed Fire on Northern Bobwhite Nesting Ecology

Nonbreeding season survival of northern bobwhite in northeastern Colorado

Vegetation structure and food availability following disturbance in recently restored early successional plant communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About