Vol. 9, No. 7 
Page 4 
The four counts made in June of 1965 and 1966 were used as a basis for comparing 
whistling activity on each area for the 2 years (Table 4). The number of cocks and 
the number of calls heard on Forbes during June 1966 were significantly higher than 
the numbers recorded in June 1965- The slight decrease in the number of cocks and 
of calls heard on Dale in June 1966 compared with June 1965 was not statistically 
significant. 
Table 3. Dates that the maximum numbers of cocks and calls were recorded on the 
Dale and Forbes areas in 1965 an d I 966 . 
_ Da 1 e _ Forbes _ 
1965 1966 1965 1966 
Dates most cocks were 
recorded June 18 June 7 July 8 July 5 
Dates most calls were 
recorded 
June 18 
May 
19 
May 28 
Jul y 5 
Table 4. Summary of 
counts made at weekl 
whist1ing activity 
y intervals on Dale 
by cock 
and on 
qua i l in 
Forbes in 
June recorded during four 
1965 and 1966. 
Da 1 e 
Forbes 
1965 
1966 
x 2 
1965 
1 966 
x 2 
Number of Cocks 
245 
230 
. 47 * 
73 
106 
6.05 + 
Number of Calls 
1,112 
1 ,088 
. 30 * 
255 
406 
34.54 ++ 
* Not s ignificant. 
t Significant at .05 level, 
tt Significant at .005 level. 
5. Responses of Prairie Chickens to Habitat Manipulation R. L. Westemeier 
The prairie chicken population at Bogota remained essentially unchanged 
between 1965 and 1 966 , but the range used by the chickens diminished. Two booming 
grounds used in previous years were defunct and the use of a third ground almost 
ceased during the spring of I 966 . Thus, the booming grounds at Bogota were mostly 
limited to only two sections in 1 966 instead of five sections as in 1965- This 
seems to be an unhealthy concentration of the Bogota flock. 
Often, shrinking prairie chicken range can be correlated with a loss of grass¬ 
land, which is essential as nesting and brood-rearing cover. Another causative 
factor became evident during the 1 966 booming season at Bogota. One old traditional 
