MONTHLY WILDLIFE RESEARCH LETTER 
Illinois Federal Aid Project W-66-R 
Department of Conservation and Natural History Survey, Cooperating 
Glen C. Sanderson and Helen C. Schultz, Editors 
Urbana, Illinois 
June, 1977 
Vol. 20, No. 6 
Manipulation of Pheasant Habitat 
R. E. Warner 
In last month's newsletter (MWRL 20(5):1-2), the rates of predation and 
success were noted for pheasant nests established in the experimental roadsides 
in the Sibley Study Area (SSA) from 1963 to 1973• Four years of data (1973-76) 
subsequently collected from roadside plots on the Ford County Management Unit 
(FCMU) allow a preliminary comparison of nest success and predation for the 
roadsides in the two areas. This comparison is merited because seedings on 
the SSA and FCMU represent two different approaches to roadside management. 
Approximately 17 miles of seeded roadsides are located in semi scattered fashion 
over the 36-square-mile SSA. In contrast, nearly all roadsides (73 miles) in 
or abutting the 16-square-mile (4 x 4) FCMU are managed as nest cover. 
Over the period in which roadsides were searched on the two areas, densities 
of established pheasant nests were similar: 2.15 nests per acre on SSA road¬ 
sides, 1963-72, and 2.39 nests per acre on FCMU roadsides, 1973-76. Because 
the 17 miles of experimental roadside vegetation was only a small fraction of 
the total prime nest cover on the SSA from 1 963 to 1972, only a small proportion 
of all pheasant nests in the SSA were established on the roadsides. However, 
it is estimated that over the past 4 years, 33*7 percent of all pheasant nests 
in the FCMU were established in roadside cover. That one-third of all nests in 
the FCMU were established on roadsides (representing slightly over 1 percent of 
the total land area) is a result of the fact that nearly all roadsides are 
managed and that most other prime nest cover has been removed with the expansion 
of row crop farming. 
Relative to the SSA, roadsides in the FCMU have sustained a greater 
portion of all nesting activity, and therefore it would seem logical that 
predator activity would be intensified and nest success reduced on FCMU road¬ 
sides as compared with SSA roadsides. However, rates of predation and success 
of pheasant nests on roadsides do not differ significantly (JP^O.IO) for the 
two areas. For the FCMU, 32.3 percent of the nests established on roadside 
plots from 1973 to 1976 were successful and 47.6 percent were preyed upon 
(Table 1). For the SSA, 32.5 percent of the nests established on roadsides 
from 1963 to 1972 were successful and 42.8 percent were preyed upon (MWRL 
20(5):2, Table 1). There is no indication that nest predation is increasing 
from year to year on the FCMU roadside plots (Table 1). 
