Q MISC. PUBLICATION 303, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



other species, but this should be done most carefully. If the proper 

 species for the required job are lacking, the planting should be par- 

 tially or entirely deferred until the next season. 



PLANTING FOR WILDLIFE 



In planting for wildlife the aim is "* * * the creation of such 

 an environment that the maximum of food and cover is available at 

 all seasons of the year for the particular birds or mammals consid- 

 ered" (138, p. 16}. It follows that considerable care is called for in 

 the selection of proper plant species. This is not a simple matter. 

 Many species may be adapted for planting in a given area. Discard- 

 ing those that are of little value in the control of erosion, we are left 

 with a list of plants that have diverse values as food for Avildlif e. 



To date, recommendations of a species for planting have rested 

 upon the utilization of its fruit by birds or mammals. There is a 

 difference between the importance of a certain item of food in the diet 

 of a given bird and the value of a species of plant for wildlife in 

 general. The one relates to the welfare of a particular species of bird, 

 the other to the extent to which a plant is used by mammals as well 

 as various species of birds. When the welfare of wildlife in general 

 is to be considered we can scarcely limit our choice to a species of 

 importance to the bobwhite alone, for example, although such use 

 will naturally influence our choice. Furthermore, we can scarcely 

 ignore other forms of wildlife even if we wish to encourage the pro- 

 duction of only one. 



McAtee (369) has said the importance of food items in the diet 

 of a bird is not indicated by statements as to the frequency with which 

 the items are taken. It is only under the percentage-by-bulk system 

 (the proportion of one food taken to the total amount of all foods 

 taken) combined with the counting of individuals, insofar as this is 

 possible, that the nearest approximation to the truth can be made. 

 Under the percentage-by-bulk system, he explains, comparison of 

 one part of the diet with another or of the food of one species or 

 group of species with that of another is possible. 



But he goes on to say (369, p. 4>6 '4), "* * * statements of the 

 frequency of occurrence of food items in bird stomachs may perhaps 

 be taken as rough indices of availability of the food or relish for it." 

 And in the publications so well known to biologists engaged in wild- 

 life management, he employs as his criterion of use the number of 

 birds known to have eaten the fruits, buds, catkins, or other parts. 



Examination of the record of the species of plants listed in this 

 publication will show some to have been utilized by a great many 

 species of birds and mammals. Such species should undoubtedly be 

 given priority in making planting lists. Other species may have very 

 poor records. This may be true often because they are actually not 

 used by wildlife. On the other hand, they may occur in a region 

 from which only a few bird stomachs have been examined. They 

 may bear fruits difficult to identify by ordinary methods of stomach 

 analysis. The fleshy fruit of Prunus ameri,cam,a, for instance, has been 

 found only once, in the stomach of a pine grosbeak, but observers have 

 noted that many birds eat this fruit. 



