VoI. 8, No. II 
Page 3 
^ percent, and 43 percent from the fall populations in 1964. On the Forbes and Dale 
areas, 41 percent and }2 percent fewer quail, respectively, were found in the fall 
of 1965 as compared with the fall of 1963, in spite of major increases in the size 
of the areas. Declines were also noted in the number and average size of quail 
coveys in I 965 when compared with similar data for 1 96 3 and 1964 (Table 2). 
The prehunt populations in 1965 compared with the 1965 prebreeding (March) 
populations represented increases of 1 78 percent on Forbes, 383 percent on Dale, 
and only 42 percent on Alma. In 1964, summer population gains were 129 percent 
on Forbes, 522 percent on Dale, and 120 percent on Alma. 
It is speculated that the combined effects of several factors may have been 
responsible for the population declines: (1) adverse weather, (2) habitat 
deterioration, and, perhaps, (3) excessive hunting pressure in 1964. 
The weather during the 1965 breeding season was noticeably cooler and wetter 
than in 1964 and may have resulted in later hatches and/or smaller broods. 
The Forbes and Dale areas have changed from marginal farmland to large fields 
of weeds with undesirable buildups of duff. Many of these fields are now considered 
too "sod bound" to be useful to quail. The annual food patches and the wheat- 
legume-grass strips established in 1965 appear to offer too dense cover close to 
the ground. It seems evident that quail management is more successful on soils 
of low to moderate fertility, where the problems of rank cover, duff buildup, and 
woodland encroachment are minimal. 
On the Alma Area, 0.75 mile of hedgerows and 11 acres of woodland have been 
removed since the fall of 1964. Because of the cool, wet summer of 1 965 > most new 
legume seedings produced excellent growth following the wheat harvest, and were 
mowed for hay in late summer. Wheat stubble with a lush stand of legumes does 
not appear to be good roosting cover for quail. One type of top-quality roosting 
cover for quail appears to be small grain stubble (12 - 20 inches high) with an 
admixture of common ragweed, but without a lush stand of clover or other legumes. 
Numerous fields of this type were available for roosting in 1964, but in 1 965 none 
were available on the Alma Area. 
What appears to have been an excessive harvest of juvenile hens in 1964 on 
the Forbes and Dale areas may also have been responsible for lower numbers of quail 
in 1965* On Forbes, 87 cocks and 110 hens (ld*:l.2699) comprised the juvenile 
segment of the 1964 quail harvest; at Dale, the 1964 harvest of juvenile quail was 
80 c^cks and 95 hens (Id*: 1.1999)• Also on Forbes, the average size of quail coveys 
found during the 1965 posthunt (January) census was 7*7 birds. However, 12 coveys 
averaged 6.2 birds per covey on the most intensively hunted portion of the area 
(west side). Subsequently, 5 coveys containing 39 quail were found in this portior. 
of Forbes during the 1965 prebreeding (March) census, and this area was noticeably 
devoid of quail during the summer and fall of 1965* It has been demonstrated that 
the ability of a covey to withstand cold is directly proportional to its size, with 
coveys numbering less than 5 birds having little chance of surviving the rigors 
of winter. This factor, attributable to excessive hunting pressure in 1964, may 
also have resulted in the lower quail populations in the fall of 1965, especially 
on the Forbes Area. 
