INFLUENCE OF LAND USE. CALCIUM. AND WEATHER 

 ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE 

 OF PHEASANTS IN ILLINOIS 



Ronald F. Labisky, James A. Harper, and Frederick Greeley 



THE EXOTIC RING -NECKED PHEASANT 



{Phasiarius colchicus) . introduced into Illinois in the 

 1890"s (Robertson 1958:3), has established thriving self- 

 maintaining populations in tlie northeastern third of the 

 state (Greeley, Labisky, & Mann 1962:6-16). By the 

 middle 1930's, pheasants had established a center of 

 abundance in Livingston and Ford counties of east-cen- 

 tral Illinois (Fig. 1 ) , a center that has persisted and pros- 

 pered to the present time. In winters of the late 1950's, 

 pheasants numbered between 60 and 90 birds per square 

 mile in portions of east-central Illinois. 



Pheasants ha\e never established self-maintaining 

 populations in the west-central and southern counties of 

 Illinois (Fig. 2), even though many propagated birds 

 have been liberated in some of these counties by both 

 private and public agencies during the past 50 years. 

 There is much \ariation in the abundance of pheasants 

 in different portions of the range occupied by these birds. 

 The phenomenon of limited distribution and variable 

 abundance of pheasants is not unique to Illinois but is 

 common over much of the pheasant range in the mid- 

 western states. This paper reviews published findings 

 and presents new data on three factors, land use, calcium, 

 and weather, all commonly considered as influencing the 

 distribution and abimdance of pheasants in Illinois. 



Acknowiedg ments 



Acknowledgments are made to the following person- 

 nel, present or former, of the Section of Wildlife Re- 

 search, Illinois Natural History Sur\ey: Thomas G. 

 Scott, who, as Head of the section at the time of research, 

 provided administrative and technical super\ ision ; and 

 William R. Edwards, present Associate Wildlife Special- 

 ist, Jack A. Ellis and William L. Anderson, present Re- 

 search Associates, and Stuart H. Mann, former Research 

 .•Assistant, all of whom offered ad\ice during preparation 

 of the manuscript. James S. Ayars, Technical Editor, 

 Illinois Natural History Survey, edited the manuscript. 



Horace W. Norton, Professor of Statistical Design 

 and Analysis, Department of Animal Science, University 

 of Illinois, and a consultant to the Natural History Sur- 



Thls paper is printed by authority of the State of IllinoiR. 

 IRS Ch. 127, Par. 58.12. It is a contrltnition of Illinois Federal 

 Aid Project No. 66-R, the Illlniila Department of Conservation. 

 the United States Bureau of Sport.s Fisheries and WiUllire. ami 

 the Illinois Natural History Survey. f<n)per.'ilinR. 



Honald F. Labisky is Associate Wildlife Specialist, Illinois 

 Natural History Survey, Urliana. James A. Harper and Fred- 

 erick Greeley were formerly employed as Research Associates 

 iiy the Illinois r)epartment of Conservation under terms of the 

 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and assigned to the 

 Illinois Natural History Survey for administrative and teclmical 

 supervision. Greeley is now Associate Professor of Wildlifi- 

 Management. University of Ma8sa<'husetts. Amiierst ; Harper 

 is now Wildlife Biologist. <»regon State Game Commission. 

 Corvallls. 



\ey, gave advice on statistical computations and interpre- 

 tations in the section "Pheasants and Land Use." 



Photographs for the cover and Fig. 1 were taken by 

 Wilmer D. Zehr, present photographer of the Illinois Nat- 

 ural History Survey ; those for Fig. 5 and 6 were taken by 

 William E. Clark, former photographer of the Survey. 



Pheasants and Land Use 



Although the distribution and abundance of pheasants 

 are the result of a web of interrelated factors, the relation- 

 ship between pheasants and land use merits primary 

 consideration because land use is an important deter- 

 minant of habitat. In an evaluation of the components 

 of ]3heasant habitat in Illinois, land use is of special im- 

 portance because of pronounced differences in agricul- 

 tural practices within the pheasant range. Topography 

 and soil characteristics exert an appreciable effect on 

 land use, but they will not be discussed specifically in 

 this report. 



In the midwestern states, pheasants ap]3ear to be 

 tolerant of considerable variation in the proportion of 

 the land cultivated (land in agricultural crops) . Kimball, 

 Kozicky, & Nelson (1956:213) reported that between 

 50 and 75 per cent of the land area within the best 

 pheasant range of the Plains and Prairie States (the 

 Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa) was cultivated. 

 Leedy & Hicks (1945 : 101 ) suggested that land cultivated 

 to the extent of 75 to 95 per cent pro\ided one of the 

 conditions for superior pheasant range in Ohio. Shick 

 (1952:18) reported that in 1941 about 70 per cent of 

 the land on the Prairie Farm in Michigan, a highly pro- 

 ducti\e pheasant area, was cultivated. In\'estigators in 

 Minnesota (Erickson et al. 1951 :40-41) reported "hea\y 

 production of corn and grain" as one characteristic of 

 good pheasant habitat. Robertson (1958:13) stated 

 that o\er most of the range of the pheasant in Illinois 

 as much as 95 per cent of the land area might be classed 

 as agricultural. 



In Illinois, the numbers of ])heasants coimted along 

 roadsides by rural mail carriers during periods of 5 

 cnnsecuti\e days in February, A])ril, and .August of 1957 

 and January, April, and August of 1958 (Greeley et al. 

 1962:4) were u.sed to classify the 102 coimties of the 

 state with respect to the relative abundance of pheasants. 

 Twenty-eight of the southern counties of Illinois in which 

 no ])heasants were <)hser\cd timing the February, 1957, 

 census (Greeley et al. 1962, Fig. 2) were classed as non- 

 pheasant range. These counties, the last 28 in Table 1 . 

 were not included in subsecjiient censuses: in all analyses, 

 they were considered as non])lu'asant habitat. 



