1 H COVER CHARACTERISTICS AND SHELTER REQUIREMENTS 



glance a|)i)par to be significant, are probably accidental rather than valid, for a closer inspec- 

 tion discloses no consistent tendencies. Most days, particularly in summer, are apt to be gusty 

 or with moderate wind conditions and the number of broods contacted under either still or 

 strong wind conditions are, therefore, comparatively small. 



Atmospheric Conditions. In comparing cover choice in sunny, cloudy and rainy weather, 

 a rather interesting reversal of trends evidenced under conditions warmer or colder than 

 normal, is observable (table 140)*. Apparently, woodland types ( E, EH, F and Hi furnish 

 rainy weather shelter, whereas the more open overgrown and slashing types are less well 

 patronized at this time. Conversely, in sunnv weather, the latter groups as well as the 

 more open second-growth hardwoods, prove to be more attractive. Yet it is these same groups 

 that are most sought out during colder weather, whereas, in warmer than normal weather, 

 greater use is made of conifers, as has been previously mentioned. As in sunny weather, the 

 open land types are apt also to be favored in cloudy weather. 



Ground Conditions. In attempting to plot brood cover choice under wet conditions, in con- 

 trast with dry ground, the results are complicated by the fact thai, as soon as the youngsters 

 can fly. they may seek shelter under conifers or in trees within the type. Thus, while the her- 

 baceous cover may appear wet to the field man, the immediate situation where the birds are 

 resting may be quite dry. One is prepared, therefore, to find from table 141'^ that grouse 

 broods do not vary their choice of cover depending on whether the ground is wet or dry. 

 The table indicates no strong tendency in this direction. Nor are the records consistent in 

 this regard. Apparently, wet cover is no deterrent to the birds seeking food and rest in such 

 open types as overgrown lands or slashings. Alder beds (type B) may then be used somewhat 

 less, possibly because they are naturally a wet land type. Even here, the birds have been 

 observed many times with their "feet almost in the water," for, especially in a dry season, some 

 of the best food is there to be found. 



In retrospect, one cannot escape the conclusion that few weather influences seem to be 

 sufficiently strong in themselves to govern the brood choice of cover types. 



Some Relationships of Undergrowth to Grouse Broods 



When the need arises, it is natural for most of us to classify a forested area according 

 to the size and character of the tree growth. Only when the undergrowth contributes to the 

 reproduction of the forest stand or is difficult In penetrate is it usually considered worthy of 

 special mention. But grouse use dilTercnl standards, for. to tliem. both undergrowth and 

 ground cover mav |)lay a substantial |)art in meeting their indi\idual food and shelter re- 

 quirements. Just how iniporlatit that part is, has never been deterrnined. The Investigation, 

 therefore, considered it wortliwhile to look into a few of ttie less cninpli'N influences of un- 

 dergrowth on grouse distriliution. 



The undergrowth on tlie \arious sluiK areas was divided iiilu the fcillnuing six types: — 



1. Large herbs 



2. Shrubs and berry bushes 



3. Hardwoods 



4. Hardwoods and conifers 



5. Conifers 



6. Combination of lv|ies 



♦ Set Appcnitix. I'. 806. 

 A Sec Appcn<lix, p. 807. 



