Vol. 10, No. 3 
Page 2 
3- Factors Influencing Distribution and Abundance of Pheasants W. L. Anderson 
It has long been wondered whether pheasants subsisting in marginal range can 
survive adverse environmental conditions as well as birds in Illinois' better 
range. Theoretically, pheasants from marginal range, which presumably are 
chronically stressed, would possess impaired abilities for coping with catastrophic 
conditions such as severe winter storms or lack of food. To test for possible 
differences in survival ability, five hens from marginal range (northern Coles 
County, Illinois) and five hens from the heart of the state's better range (Ford 
and Livingston counties) were captured during October 1966, and experimentally 
starved. All hens were juveniles (average age for both groups was 19 weeks), all 
were held individually in cages covered with nylon netting, and all had access to 
drinking water ad libitum. At the beginning of the experiment, the hens from 
marginal range weighed an average of 850 grams; those from the better ranqe averaqed 
845 grams. 
It was found that the hens from marginal range survived the applied stress 
(starvation) equally as well as the hens from the better range--both groups survived 
an average of 8-8 days. Survival of the former varied from 7 to 10 days, and that 
of the latter from 8 to 1 I days. The birds from the respective ranges lost, on 
the average, 52 and 50 percent of their initial body weights before dying. The 
experiment was repeated in January I 967 ar, d similar results were obtained; four 
juvenile hens from marginal range survived an average of II.5 days, while three 
juvenile hens from the better range survived an average of 11.7 days. These findings 
tentatively suggest that pheasants, at least the juveniles, in marginal range can 
survive severe stresses as well as birds in the better range. 
4. Responses of Bobwhites to Habitat Manipulation J. A. Ellis, K. P. Thomas 
In 1966, censuses of quail on the Dale and Forbes areas again yielded data 
which allowed the proportionate harvests of quail on those areas, by hunters, to 
be estimated using four different methods: (1) the ratio of marked to unmarked 
birds in the bag; (2) the harvest divided by the prehunt census estimate; (3) the 
difference between the prehunt and posthunt census estimates divided by the prehunt 
estimate; and (4) the harvest divided by the posthunt estimate and harvest, combined. 
Estimates of the proportionate harvest ranged from 31 to 74 percent on Forbes; 
estimates for Dale were 63-64 percent. When the estimate of 31 percent obtained 
from method (1) above was disregarded, the other methods all indicated a 73-74 per¬ 
cent harvest on Forbes. Estimates obtained using method (1) are questionable 
because of bias due to sample sizes and differences in nonrandom distribution 
between marked quail and hunters over the Forbes area. 
The estimates of the percentages of the prehunt populations of quail harvested 
during the past 4 years have remained relatively constant at 70 and 60 percent on 
the Forbes and Dale areas, respectively, with the exception of a 40-50 percent 
harvest on Forbes during 1963* Apparently, the population levels are fluctuating 
independently of the percentage of the fall populations harvested on these areas. 
