MONTHLY WILDLIFE RESEARCH LETTER 
Department of Conservation and Natural History Survey, Cooperating 
Glen C. Sanderson and Helen C. Schultz, Editors 
Urbana, Illinois October, 1963 Vol. 6, No. 10 
1. Pheasant Popu1 ations and Land Use J. E. Warnock 
Studies on the 100, randomly selected, 10-acre plots on the Sibley Area in 
1962 and 1963 showed some of the effects of the Federal Feed Grain Program 
(FFGP) on the nesting ecology of pheasants. Land that would otherwise have been 
in corn and soybeans (instead of small grains and hay) produced 39*8 percent 
(41 of 103) of all successful nests in 1962 and 30.9 percent (25 of 81) in 1963* 
Undoubtedly, without the high quality nesting cover, particularly unharvested 
k hay, contributed by the program in 1 962 and 1963 , some of the pheasant hens that 
nested successfully on feed grain acres would have nested in other locations. 
However, it is questionable whether nesting success would have been as high as 
that which occurred on acres in the FFGP. In 1962, 29-9 percent (41 of 137) of 
the nests established on feed grain lands hatched, compared with only 18.9 per¬ 
cent (62 of 333) of the nests established on nonfeed grain lands; in 1963; 
hatching success was 25-8 percent (25 of 97 nests) on feed grain lands, compared 
with only-15.7 percent (56 of 356 nests) on nonfeed grain lands. 
2. Manipulation of Pheasant Habitat G. B. Joselyn 
In 1963; 17 of the 44 pheasant nests (39 percent) established on seeded 
roadside plots were successful, compared with 7 of the 41 nests (17 percent) 
established on control plots (Table 1). Abandonment and/or destruction by mam¬ 
malian predators accounted for 15 nests (34 percent) on seeded plots and 16 
(39 percent) on control plots. On the seeded plots, one nest was abandoned 
and/or destroyed by farm machinery; one was destroyed by humans and two by avian 
predators. These factors did not cause failure of any nests on control plots. 
Other causes of nest destruction being nearly equal on the two types of plots, 
the difference in hatching success was largely the result of a greater rate of 
nest abandonment on control plots than on seeded plots. Fifteen of the 41 nests 
(37 percent) established on control plots were abandoned, compared with only 5 
of 44 nests (11 percent) established on seeded plots. Apparently, nesting 
habitat on seeded plots was superior to that on control plots, thus providing 
pheasant hens with more secure nesting sites. 
iiJ*£C 12 
