170 



COf ER CHARACTERISTICS AND SHELTER REQUIREMENTS 



We have niedtioned size and lompositioii of the edges but not their shape. The late Harry 

 Rogers, dean of game breeders in this country, long ago pointed out that half a dozen rows 

 of corn along a swale would not be as intensively used by pheasants as though the feed patch 

 was 15 to 20 rows wide. A narrow fringe of shrubs between woodland and brushland is. as 

 we have seen, less likely to be used by grouse than are either of the adjacent types. Thus it 

 appears that width may also influence edge use. 



To such an idea, one can think of exceptions. In classifying these one finds that they are 

 largelv valid only when either one or both of the abutting types are markedly poorer in 

 food and shelter quality tiian is the edge cover. 



"^ 



GOOD "edge" cover 



To sum up, grouse cover productivity seems to he more nearly proportional to the variet) 

 of the composition within each type making up the covert, than to the amount of type peri- 

 |)hery, unless the cover is so poor that the edges furnish markedly greater food and shelter 

 values than are to be found within one or both of the adjacent cover groups. 



VALUE OF CLEAR-CUT AREAS* 



In the foregoing discussion of grouse cover requirements during each of the three main life 

 periods of the birds, it lias been shown that cut-over areas or slashings are among the more 

 important types which may enter into the composition of an adequate habitat. Their pri- 

 mary function seems to be that of serving as summer and early fall feeding grounds for broods 

 and adults. They also represent openings which act to break up extensive tracts of woodland. 

 Furthermore, their influence becomes efTective within a sliorl lime after thi\ are created, 

 whereas plantings require many years. 



Cut-over areas, therefore, oiler the game manager a tool promising relali\cl) quick results 



• Wrilirn hy Rul.rrt Durrow Jur to the nbicnfe of iho lenior «iillHir in military tprvicr. 



