Vo I. 8, No. 1 
Page 3 
Responses of Bobwhites to Habitat Manipulation 
J. A. Ellis, R. L. Westemeier 
During prehunt censuses conducted November 1 - 12, 1964, totals of 220, 286, 
and 268 quail were observed on the Alma, Dale, and Forbes study areas, respectively. 
Population densities expressed as birds per 100 acres were 3-7 on Alma, 26.5 on 
Dale, and 14.2 on Forbes. 
Conditions for censusing with dogs were extremely poor during November. A 
prolonged drought that began in August and continued until mid-November, coupled 
with frequent periods of high temperatures and strong winds, made it difficult to 
locate quail during the censuses. 
Estimated prehunt populations on the Dale and Forbes areas in 1964 were smaller 
than in 1963- The prehunt population on Dale in 1964 was 3-7 percent smaller than 
in 1963 (297), and the prehunt population on Forbes in 1964 was 23.2 percent smaller 
than in I 963 (349). 
The prehunt populations in 1964 represented increases of 120 percent on Alma, 
522 percent on Dale, and 129 percent on Forbes when compared with the prebreeding 
(March) populations. The dramatic increase in numbers of quail from spring to 
fall on the Dale Area possibly reflected the principle of inversity and the quantity 
and quality of available nesting and brood-rearing cover on the area. 
R values (Monthly Wildlife Research Letter, May, 1964) were calculated from 
locations of quail coveys found during the prehunt census in 1964. The R value for 
the Dale Area was 1.28, indicating a significant departure from random toward 
uniformity. The R value for the Forbes Area, 1.12, did not depart significantly 
from random. In 1963, R values for the Dale and Forbes areas were 0.95 and 1.36, 
respectively. The improvement in the spatial relationships among coveys on the 
Dale Area in the fall of 1964, as indicated by the increased R value, is attributed 
to more favorable habitat conditions than existed in the fall of 1 963 . If the 
assumption concerning R values is valid, then the distribution of coveys on the 
Forbes Area in the fall of 1964 reflected a deterioration of habitat conditions 
when compared with that of the preceding year. 
5. Responses of Prairie Chickens to Habitat Manipulation R. J. Ellis 
In order to understand better the relationship between the acreage of nesting 
cover and prairie chicken numbers, cover on the areas chosen for annual counts of 
cocks on booming grounds was mapped during April and early May, 1964 (Monthly 
Wildlife Research Letter, July, 1964). Idle fields of grass and grass meadows were 
the only cover types found which were not disturbed during the nesting season. 
To test the apparent relationship between the number of booming cocks per 1,000 
acres, counted on the census areas in 1964 (Monthly Wildlife Research Letter, April, 
1964), and the percent of area in grassland undisturbed during the nesting season, 
the data were subjected to regression and correlation analysis (Figure 1). The 
resulting correlation coefficient, = 0*688, exceeded the reference value at 
