VoI . 9, No. 4 
Page 3 
3. Factors Inf1uencinq Distribution and Abundance of Pheasants W. L. Anderson 
Hen pheasants collected from the better pheasant range in the state during 
Anri I 1966 were 18 percent heavier, on the average, than hens collected from tne 
same area last February (Table 3). Most of the increase in weight was attributable 
to increased depositions of fat; the fat strip and visceral fat averaged 327 and 
428 percent heavier, respectively, in the Apri1-col 1ected hens than in the February 
collected birds. The increase in body weight was accompanied by pronounced enlarge 
ments of the reproductive organs, the ovary increasing in weight nearly 10-fold and 
the oviduct nearly 14-fold (Table 3)• It is presumed that the increases in body 
weight from winter to the prenesting period are indicative of a general increase 
in reserves of basic metabolic fuels preparatory to the stresses of the approaching 
nesting season The data presented in Table 3 tentatively suggest that hens in 
the better pheasant range are entering the 1966 nesting season in good physical 
condition. 
Table 3» Weights, in grams, of the carcass, and of various parts, of hen pheasants 
collected in Livingston County, Illinois, during the winter period and the pre¬ 
nesting period of I 966 . Sample sizes are in parentheses. 
W!nter 
Feb. 
Feriod 
1966 
Prenesting Period 
April 1966 
Percent Change 
from Winter to 
Prenesting Period 
Mean 
Range 
Mean 
Range 
Entire Carcass 
906(7) 
775-1,002 
1,069(6) 
956-1,295 
+ 18 
Muse 1 es 
Sterna 1 
257(7} 
241-278 
266(5) 
243-296 
+4 
Leg 
165(7) 
134-185 
178(5) 
162-198 
+8 
Fat Deposits 
Fat Strip 
1.1(7) 
0.4-2.1 
4.7(6) 
2.4-7.8 
+327 
Visceral Fat 
4-7(6) 
1.4-8.9 
24.8(6) 
10.4-36.5 
+428 
Reproductive Organs 
Ovary 
0.2(7) 
C*> 
O 
1 
O 
2.1(6) 
O 
1 
O 
+950 
Oviduct 
0.4(7) 
0 
1 
0 
5.8(6) 
1.0-14.7 
+1,350 
4. Responses of Bobwhites to Habitat Maoipu ation 
J. A. Ell 
is, J. A. Eastman 
Various methods have been used to determine percentages of quail harvested on 
the Dale and Forbes areas since 1963* Ihese ca'culations were made by comparing 
(1) prehunt estimates with recorded kills; (2) prehunt estimates with posthunt 
estimates; (3) posthunt estimates plus kills with kills. 
