Vol. 5, No. 10 
Page 2 
Table 1. Establishment cf pheasant nests by months in seeded and control 
plots on roadsides, Sibley study area, 1962. 
Month 
Nests in 
Test Plots 
Nests in 
Control Plots 
Total 
Number 
Percent 
Number 
Percent 
Number 
Percent 
April 
1 
5 
2 
11 
3 
8 
May 
2 
11 
10 
52 
12 
32 
June 
11 
58 
5 
26 
16 
42 
July 
4 
21 
2 
11 
6 
16 
August 
1 
5 
0 
— 
1 
2 
Total 
19 
loo 
19 
Too 
38 
Too 
3. Factors Influencing Distribution and Abundance of Pheasants 
W. L. Anderson, J. A. Harper 
Stubble fields on the Neoga area, south of the range occupied by pheasants, 
were cruised with a mobile nightlighting unit between July 30 and September 7, 1962, 
to locate roosting pheasants, and thereby gain refined data on production of chicks. 
Thirty adult pheasants (7 cocks and 23 hens) and 216 chicks (35 broods) were ob¬ 
served during 29 hours and 15 minutes of nightlighting, an average of 1 observed 
pheasant per 7.1 minutes of searching. An average of 9.3 chicks were observed per 
adult hen, indicating that productivity per surviving adult hen was exceptionally 
high on the area during the 1962 breeding season. 
4. Rabbi t Management VI, R. Edwards, D. A. Casteel 
Fifty-three rabbits on the 4-H area of Allerton Park were marked and released 
at their points of capture during October. Cottontails handled prior to October 15 
had their tails dyed yellow; rabbits trapped after that date were marked with 
black dye. Red dye will be used in November. The different tail colors will allow 
estimates of both population and mortality. 
Table 2 presents a summary of October trapping on the 4-H area for the years 
1957-62. Area rabbit populations were subjected to hunting mortality in all years 
but 1960. The data suggest that cottontail abundance fluctuates markedly from 
fall to fall independent of fall and winter mortality. 
Since the weight of a juvenile rabbit is related to its age, weights can be 
used to provide limited information on the age composition of a cottontail population. 
For example, where nutrition is not a limiting factor, a low mean weight reflects 
variability among the weights, thus ages, of cottontails in a sample. The larger 
the standard error, the greater the range of ages represented by the sample. 
Table 3 shows weights of cottontails handled during October on the 4-H area. These 
data suggest relatively little difference in age composition of cottontail populations 
from 1957-62. 
