Vo]. 13 , Ho. 6 
Page 2 
less abundant, Heoga (poor pheasant range) compared with Sibley (good range), 
in both grit and in pheasants. Decause of these findings, additional samples 
of pheasant tissues are currently being analyzed for selected elements. Ten 
juvenile hens each were collected at Heoga and at Sibley on February 4-13/ 
1 ^ 70 , and dissected; leg bones ( femur , fibula , and tibjo - tarsus ), sternal 
muscles ( pectoral is thoracica , supracoracoideus — ventral head, and 
coracobrachial is posterior ), and the liver from each bird were saved. These 
tissues are being analyzed for sodium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and 
potassium by Stewart Laboratories, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee. Although this 
project was terminated on June 30, 1//0, the results of these analyses will be 
reported in the ii'./KL as soon as they become available. 
4. Responses of Dobwhites to Habitat I Iani pu1 at ion J* A. Ellis, 
D. R. Vance 
A preliminary study of the effects of prescribed burning, used for quail 
management, on small mammal populations was conducted by Paul Matthews in I'JbJ. 
Livetrapping in burned and in unburned (control) old field habitat showed 
Peromyscus leucopus and liicrotus ochrogaster to be the two most abundant 
species. Prior to the burning, the population of Peromyscus on control areas 
was apparently about three times that on burn areas (6.22 vs 2.21 captures per 
100 trap-nights). Three weeks after burning (March 4, li/^) there were 2.06 
and 4.52 captures per 100 trap-nights on control and on burned areas, 
respectively. Populations of IIicrotus prior to burning were about the same on 
control and on burn plots (1.7b vs 1.43 captures per 100 trap-nights). Wo 
Microtus were trapped on either control or burned areas after the prescribed 
burning, until June. These limited data suggest that, in this instance, 
prescribed burning in early spring did not adversely affect populations of 
Microtus or Peromyscus . 
5 . Responses of Prairie Ch i ckens to Hab i tat iIan i pul at ion R. L. l7ostemeier 
A knowledge of dispersion patterns of booming grounds and of the 
characteristics of booming ground sites are two factors basic to the management 
of prairie chicken sanctuaries. During the period of I 063 - 69 , tbe distances 
between 32 regularly used booming grounds at Bogota had not been closer than 
about 600 yards. The size of the "openings" or fields on which these booming 
grounds were located were no smaller than about 10 acres. 
This spring, six of the eight regularly used booming grounds at Bogota 
had a spacing and field size similar to those during the period l.,u 3 “ 63 . 
However, two booming grounds were as close as 300 yards and both were on sites 
only 5 acres in size. Twelve cocks boomed on 5 acres of undisturbed redtop 
and timothy (mixed) that had been flattened by snow, and rive cocks boomed on 
5 acres of weedy timothy that was burned in August l!>v.'S* The two grounds were 
part of a high density of breeding prairie chickens at Bogota this spring. 
Five booming grounds containing from 3 to 54- cocks each and totaling 
approximately 03 cocks were established in the one-half Section that contains 
the Yeatter, iicGraw, and Marshall Field III sanctuaries (232 acres). The 
close spacing of the two atypical grounds and the use of small sites for 
booming may thus be a function of high population density. The situation 
