Vol. 21, No. 7 
Page 4 
Responses of Pralrie Chickens to Habitat Manipulation 
R. L. Westemeier, 
D. R. Vance 
Arguments favoring restoration of native vegetation on prairie chicken 
sanctuaries in Illinois include the following: (1) It is axiomatic that prairie 
vegetation be emphasized for prairie chickens on soils that were originally 
developed by prairie vegetation. (2) At least the erodable portions of the 
sanctuaries that are not well suited for plowing, row cropping, and reseeding 
to redtop and timothy every 8-10 years should be seeded to permanent stands of 
native vegetation. (3) Established prairie sods resist weed invasion better 
than redtop, timothy, or brome. (4) Prairie vegetation is fire adapted and 
generally provides ample fuel for prescribed burning to retard succession by 
woody plants. (5) The native grasses, especially big and little bluestem and 
Indian grass, can be managed economically and ecologically for prairie chickens 
because of the.r high production of good-quality forage for hay or pasture after 
the nesting and early brood-rearing season. (6) Prairies are aesthetically 
pleasing. (7) Prairies are beneficial to other species of wildlife. 
Arguments unfavorable to restoration of native vegetation on the sanctuaries 
are also numerous. Existing data on the use of native vegetation by prairie 
chickens are disappointing (MWRL 21 (3):3)- Lowest densities of nests and lowest 
nest success were found in native grasses at Bogota when compared with fields 
dominated by redtop, timothy, or brome. Because switch grass now dominates 
most stands of prairie vegetation on the sanctuaries, present emphasis is 
directed to establishment of big and little bluestem, Indian grass, and various 
prairie forbs. This spring, unfortunately, no nests or other signs of use by 
prairie chickens were found on approximately 20 acres of diversified native 
prairie (without switch grass) about 500 m from the Donnelley booming ground, 
owever use by cottontail rabbits, pheasants, quail, and other wildlife (including 
woodcock) remained high in this tract. The presence of about 11 acres of dense 
woods and brush between the booming ground and this prairie may be a deterrent to 
prairie chickens. High use by pheasants may also deter prairie chickens from 
using t is tract. It is paradoxical that the introduced pheasant seems to 
favor the native grasses and the native prairie chicken seems to favor the 
introduced grasses. Pheasants may not necessarily prefer native grasses for 
mg, u p easants at Bogota show heavy use of prairie grasses for roostinq, 
p?c 6 < T 0ver \ and crowin 9- During the spring of 1978, all but 2 of 18 cock 
ThCT IhU ^°g°t a crowed consistently in or near fields of prairie vegetation. 
l h c U r S ’ this undesirable alien (see MWRL 19(2) :3-4) may benefit from greater 
acreages of native grasses on the sanctuaries. 
Tal1 ' d6nSe prairie gasses may afford nest predators such as skunks, 
o?her U enem^ C T S ' ^ wease,s greater protection from horned owls and 
other enemies than would redtop, timothy, or brome. Also, the tall native 
L h l ° n the Sanct “ anes are most frequently searched (illegally) for coyotes 
of covotes U a S :: 9 - VariOU ^ a,, - terrain vehicles - Cottontails, a principal food 
ot coyotes, are invariably more numerous in native grasses; thus, prairie 
grasses may foster higher coyote populations than would redtop, timothy, or 
rome. However, higher coyote numbers may not mean increased predation on 
