A 5-1, Q Pllº Information Research 6 Incentives PHEASANTS FOREVER UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES MAR 1 5 2004 DEPOSITED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Natural Resources Conservation Service July 2003 THE LINK Ask any ten hunters or farmers about the causes of the modern day decline of ring-necked pheasant populations and you are like- ly to get several answers. Causes like disease, predators, and hunting pressure would probably be among the most common. Yet while all of those may have had a small impact to pheasant popu- lations in Colorado, one specific cause is more responsible than all others combined - changes in wheat stubble height and quality. HISTORY OF PHEASANTS AND WHEAT Pheasants were naturally found in Southeast Asia, and were brought to the U.S. as sporting fare. While there are several varieties of pheasants, the ring-necked pheasants (common to Colorado) normally depends upon grassland habitats. In Colorado, pheasants are typically found in grass domi- nated areas and fields, many of which are enrolled in USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). However, grassland habi- tats are rare in eastern Colorado, and to survive, the ring-necked pheasants has had to adopt other habitats like wheat fields. Many Colorado pheasants rely upon green wheat in the spring for nesting and night roosting, and wheat stubble the remainder of the year for survival cover. The 1950s were considered the peak of Colorado's pheas- ant population. During that time pheasants found an abundance of suitable habitat. Wheat fallow systems dominated the terrain, which virtually guaranteed lush, pristine landscapes that provided excellent habitat. Why: 1) Available wheat varieties grew tall and lush, which provided excellent nesting cover in the spring. 2) After harvest season, combines were simply unable to operate if too much straw was cut, which ulti- mately resulted in wheat stubble that frequently measured between knee- and waist-high, and some times even taller. 3) At the time, post-harvest weed control was almost nonexistent, and as a result, annual forbs like sun- flowers and kochia often grew up through the stubble, and provided additional cover to pheas- UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 08543 4085 Our pheasant boom continued, with normal fluctuations through the late 1960s, although signs of a declining pheasant population were evident by 1966. In 1967, as a result of the declining numbers, a research project near Holyoke, Colorado developed by the Division of Wildlife found wheat stubble and annual broadleaf overstory averaged nearly 20 inches tall after harvest. THE PRESENT N_---sº Today's pheasant numbers are a fraction of the past, due to a decrease in habitat quality. In 1954, Colorado's spring crowing counts routinely averaged 50 calls per station, a stark contrast to the less than 15 calls during the 1980s and 1990s. During these times, wheat stubble height and quality declined substantially. As in the 1967 research project, similar measurements taken in 1996 in Phillips County resulted in the finding that wheat stubble was approximately 10 inches, unless the wheat was harvested with a stripper header combine. Much of the population increase that is seen in the crowing counts in the late 1990s and early 2000s is due to large crow count increases on routes within areas where stripped wheat stubble is common. THE RESEARCH and THE QUESTION Research data from both Kansas and Colorado indicate that as average stubble height and density increase, pheasant abundance and Sur- vival increase. During a study in the mid-1990s, the Colorado Division of Wildlife trapped and tracked wild pheasants, releasing them into areas that had tall, weedy wheat stubble. Results showed that pheasant survival reached numbers compara- ble to those in the 1967 study. Similar studies in Kansas found comparable results. So, what happened to wheat stubble quality over the years? The decrease in wheat stubble height and quality can be attributed to the semi-dwarf and dwarf varieties of wheat that are planted today, more powerful combines that allow the stubble to be cut shorter, and increased chemical use on green wheat and wheat Stubble. ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW Much of the decrease in the quality of wheat stubble can be attributed to a declining farm economy. Farmers have been forced to intensify their cropping practices to produce more bushels of wheat, relative to the declining price per bushel. While necessary for farm survival, this intensification has come with increased production costs of approximately 20 percent. There have been other intangible costs, including long-term decreases in Soil moisture and organic matter, and a proliferation of cool season and grassy weeds that are difficult to control. Kansas research data suggests that in wheat-fallow sys- tems, the most productive system when considering the final profit per acre, is to leave tall stubble, and defer post-harvest chemical use until spring. Across a six-year span beginning in 1996, leaving tall stubble and not spraying after harvest averaged a 28 percent higher return than systems that emphasized intense chemical use. This difference is primarily due to lower costs, beginning after harvest, through the complete rotation, including the fallow/planting period, and back to harvest again. Admittedly, average bushels per acre yields were lower for the system that pro- moted tall stubble and deferred chemical use, than total yield of the intensive cropping system. Yet due to the lower input costs, and the moisture-conserving abilities of tall, weedy stubble, the most financially sound cropping system across the six years of the study, was to promote tall stubble and defer chemical use till Spring. Results were equally profound when comparing tall, weedy stubble to very short stubble or stubble that was undercut by sweep tillage immediately after harvest. Again, primarily due to the moisture storing and conserving abilities of tall wheat stubble, net profit was much higher across the life of the study for the tall, weedy, wheat stubble system. Data from the study suggests an often overlooked factor that plays a key role in this difference in production: tall stubble, and the tall, standing annual broadleaf weeds, like kochia and sun- flowers, which use moisture during the post-harvest period, are much better at storing and reducing evaporation of soil moisture through the winter and spring periods than are short, clean, or cultivated stubble. INCENTIVES FOR LANDOWNERS Producers can enroll in both practices for tall and unsprayed wheat stubble and receive: EQIP (stubble > 15") $3.00/acre” Pheasants Forever, CDOW (defer chemical use) $5.00/acre” Walk-In Access Program $1–$3/acre” In response to concerns about soil moisture, erosion, residue management, and decreasing populations of wildlife, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, in partnership with the Colorado Division of Wildlife's Pheasant Habitat Improvement Program (PHIP), and local chapters of Pheasants Forever, have developed an incentive package for landowners that promotes both tall wheat stubble and deferred chemical use. Through the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), producers can apply for a $3/acre wildlife habi- tat development incentives payment. Producers may also qualify for a $10/acre conservation tillage payment. Both are limited to three year maximums. In addition, in core pheasant range within Colorado, producers are eligible to receive $6-$8/acre for elimi- nating post-harvest wheat stubble chemical treatments and enrolling in the Division's Walk-In Access Program. The total benefit to producers under this practice is $16- $18/acre the first year and $9-$12/acre in following years. Producers should contact their local NRCS office, a local Division of Wildlife officer or biologist, or a local Pheasants Forever Chapter for additional information. *CDOW- and NRCS-sponsored incentives are dependent upon availability of funds. **May also qualify for additional $10/acre for conservation tillage. TO QUALIFY [T] A producer must leave wheat stubble that measures 15 inches tall or taller after harvest, either by using a stripper header to harvest wheat, or by simply raising the cutter bar to the need- ed height on a conventional combine. [] Producers should refrain from using spring herbicides with strong residual activities on green wheat, as these herbicides encourage non-beneficial grassy weeds (instead use contact herbicides to control mustard or noxious weeds). ſ] Likewise, producers should refrain from all post-harvest chemical and tillage weed control efforts. Doing so will allow forbs like sunflowers and kochia to grow, providing excellent habitat for pheasants, while buffering the soil sur- face against evaporative losses and effectively storing mois- ture that is received through the fall, winter, and spring sea- sons. Stubble and weed residues can be controlled the fol- lowing spring if necessary to eliminate spring weeds and vol- unteer wheat, and tilled over summer (defer tillage until July 1 to best conserve moisture) in preparation for fall planting.