Pheasant responses to U.S. cropland conversion programs: A review and recommendations

Abstract

We describe ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) habitat needs, historical U.S. cropland conversion programs (CCPs), research documenting pheasant responses to these programs, and make policy recommendations for programs to more efficiently elicit such responses. Cropland conversion program principles supported in the pheasant literature include establishment of an initial seeding, a multiyear contract structure, prohibition of mowing during the nesting season, promotion of forbs in seedings, provision of large-block enrollments options, and inclusion of midcontract management. These principles are compatible with the habitat needs of many other grassland bird species. We therefore recommend the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and any future CCPs retain these foundational aspects. Initial plantings of higher diversity seed mixes have become prioritized over time, but we note whatever increase in average habitat quality these standards achieved, it was not enough to prevent widespread pheasant declines following more severe statutory limitations on CRP acreage enrollments beginning in 2008, coupled with long-term declines in other habitat types (e.g., hay, pasture, small grains). When faced with a trade-off, we thus recommend emphasis of enrolled area over quality, provided enrolled herbaceous tracts provide adequate structure (!3 dm of 100% visual obstruction) and canopy cover components (>5% forbs and >5% bare ground). Efficiencies may also be gained by altering initial seeding rates, offsetting program costs using grazing income, allowing more discretion in the use of midcontract management, and prioritizing enrollments in focus areas. Individual states, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and bird conservation joint ventures should work cooperatively to share data and perform return-on-investment-oriented research at multiple spatial scales concerning the effects of CCPs on pheasants. Ó

Anthropogenic drivers of avian community turnover from local to regional scales

“…We also omitted transient occurrences of species from our analysis, defined as observations of a species at a survey route where they only occurred in 1 year out of four, as infrequently occurring "transient" species do not show strong predictable responses to the local habitat or climatic conditions (Snell Taylor et al, 2018). As a result, at some survey locations, time series will capture the transition of species from transient to non-transient (or "core" species, sensu Snell Taylor et al, 2018)…”

Public Access for Pheasant Hunters: Understanding an Emerging Need

“…Pheasant hunters are declining in abundance, threatening the future of the funding and advocacy pheasant hunting has provided for conservation, particularly of grasslands, through license sales and sportsman's groups (Johnson and Schwartz 1993, McCoy et al 1999, Midwest Pheasant Study Group 2013, Taylor et al 2018. The mechanisms influencing pheasant population declines have been studied and discussed extensively, resulting in increasingly targeted pheasant management strategies (Warner et al 1984, Jorgensen et al 2014, Pabian et al 2015, NGPC 2016c.…”

Prey availability and accessibility drive hunter movement

“…Unfortunately, mitigating the unintended consequences of pheasant hunting is challenging because land-use change increasingly limits the area of land suitable for pheasant habitat and hunting. In the United States, CRP grasslands are a favored habitat of both pheasants and pheasant hunters (Anderson and David 1998, Hiller et al 2015, Pabian et al 2015, but CRP enrollment has steadily declined with negative consequences for pheasant populations and pheasant hunters (Ryan et al 1998, Taylor et al 2018. To offset the consequences for hunters, state agencies are under increasing pressure to provide hunter access to CRP by increasing landowner incentives in priority landscapes.…”