corn, soybeans and wheat, and in pas-tureland.

As part of the cooperative

effort, Murphy- Brown and the Com mis-sion

established buffers along ditches

to filter out nutrients and herbicides

from waterways, prevent erosion and

— as naturally vegetated areas— pro-vide

needed habitat for quail, rabbits

and other wildlife. Not far from Suggs

Mill Pond Game Land, the farm is a

valued conservation area in North

Carolina’s southeastern region.

The project is funded by a grant

from the N. C. Department of Justice,

but, unlike other CURE cooperatives

across the state, Murphy- Brown is not

The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007

Division ofWildlife Management

N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission

1722 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1722

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Pre- sort Standard

U. S. Postage

PAID

Raleigh, NC

Permit No. 244

This publication was printed on recycled paper. 5,500 copies of this

public document were printed at a cost of $ 3488.65 or .6343 per copy.

A t first, it is a concept that seems at

odds: A large- scale hog farm that

benefits the environment. But a North

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis sion

part ner ship with the Murphy- Brown

Farm in Bladen County is doing just that.

Utilizing the Commission’s Coop -

erative Upland habitat Restora tion

and Enhancement program ( CURE),

Murphy- Brown Farms provides wild -

life habitat, meets water quality stan-dards

and continues to be a successful

agri- business.

The 80,000- hog, 4,000- acre facility

near Ammon, N. C., uses lagoon effluent

as fertilizer in row crops, which include

The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007

Fall 2007 / Volume 12, Issue 2 Published by the North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission

What’s Inside. . .

◆ Mark Jones is new Ag Liaison . . . . . 3

◆ Field Border Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

◆ Long- Term Answer to Drought . . . . . . 7

◆ Managing Forests for Songbirds . . . . 8

◆ Prescribed Fire Toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Murphy- Brown and CURE:

A Unique Partnership

continued on page 2

The Wildlife Resources Commission is an Equal Opportunity Employer, and all wildlife programs are administered for the benefit

of all North Carolina citizens without prejudice toward age, sex, race, religion or national origin. Violations of this pledge may be

reported to the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Equal Employment Officer, Personnel Office, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC

27606. Telephone ( 919) 707- 0101.

Established 1996

The Upland Gazette is published twice a year by the N. C.

Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Wildlife

Management. Designed by the Division of Conservation

Education— Special Publications.

Interim Executive Director Fred A. Harris

Wildlife Management Chief David Cobb, Ph. D.

Conservation Education Chief Ginger Williams

Communications Director Penny Miller

Editor Jill S. Braden

Assistant Editor Cay Cross

Graphic Designer Carla Osborne

Agriculture Liaison Biologist Mark D. Jones

Subscriptions The Upland Gazette

Division of Wildlife Management,

N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission

1722 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1722

Report hunting violations 1- 800- 662- 7137

Seasons for migratory game birds 1- 800- 675- 0263

Purchase a license 1- 888- 248- 6834 ( 2HUNTFISH)

Questions and comments welcome.

Contact jill. braden@ ncwildlife. org

A recent $ 308,000 grant to the N. C.

Wildlife Resources Commission

will help continue the efforts on the

Murphy- Brown Farm and expand

habitat improvements to nine addi-tional

farms.

The N. C. Department of Justice

grant was announced by state Attor-ney

General Roy Cooper on Oct. 22.

The money is part of an agreement

reached in 2000 with Smithfield Foods,

the world’s largest pork producer, to

enhance North Carolina’s environ-ment,

particularly its river basins.

The grant funds the installation of

field borders and buffers, which will

help improve water quality and en-hance

wildlife habitat in the region.

The grant will also assist edu cational

and scientific programs for farmers

on the compat ibility of water quality

and wildlife habitat with successful

agri- business practices.

The Commission has already estab -

lished habitat on more than 4,000 acres

of farmland under a prior grant. The

additional funds will allow continued

work on those acres and expansion

to approximately 3,000 more acres.

“ This has been a great cooperative

effort, resulting in good program rela-tions,

good habitat and benefits to

water quality,” said Don Hayes,

Grant Provides for

Water Quality and

Wildlife Habitat

continued on page 2

“ Both Murphy- Brown and the Commission can be proud

of their contributions to this project. Enhancing the buffer system

and adding block habitat has yielded increased water quality

and improved habitat for quail, songbirds and other small game.

Murphy- Brown is pleased to support the Commission and

promote these cooperative projects with landowners.”

— Dawn Williamson, Murphy”- Brown

“

2 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 3

Jack Mason, Agriculture

Liaison Biologist, Retires

continued from page 1

E ach year the Commission presents the Larry Diedrick

Small Game Awards. These awards honor former wild -

life commissioner Larry Diedrick and his commitment to

enhanc ing small- game populations in N. C.

Ruffin Powers II of Swans boro, N. C., received the 2006

Landowner Award for developing and managing quail

habitat on his family farm near St. Pauls ( Robeson County)

over the past 15 years. A long- time member and supporter

of Quail Unlimited, Powers has used text book quail man-agement

including timber thinning, prescribed burning,

food plot establishment, planting of native warm season

grasses and establishment of field borders.

Murphy- Brown, Inc. of Warsaw, N. C. received the Cor po-rate

Award for supporting the Commission’s CURE pro gram.

This award recognizes companies that own and manage

land to benefit small- game wildlife species.

Congratulations to the 2006 winners. We appreciate your

commitment to quail habitat.

J ack Mason, agriculture liaison biol ogist, retired in August from the N. C. Wild-life

Resources Commission. Jack earned his B. S. in Wildlife Conservation from

N. C. State University in 1974. He began working for the Wildlife Resources Com mi -

ssion in 1975 serving as a wild life management technician in the Moun tain Region.

In 1976 he became a wildlife biologist providing technical guidance and super-vising

the Crossnore Wildlife Management crew, a position he held for five years.

In 1981 he became the wild life biologist for District 8 and held this position until

December 2006, when he succeeded Terry Sharpe as agriculture liaison biologist.

Jack’s career has been devoted to conservation of wildlife with an empha sis on

habitat development and improvement. As biologist for the Upland Gazette, Jack

was an important resource and authority on small game animals, particularly

upland game birds. The Commission congratulates him on his career and

wishes him well.

Meet Mark Jones

Q and A with new Agriculture Liaison Biologist

The Upland Gazette editor, Jill Braden, recently sat down with Commission

biologist Mark Jones and discussed his role as the new agri culture liaison biologist.

Upland Gazette: Tell us about your

back ground and your previous

positions working at the Wildlife

Resources Commission.

Mark Jones: I have degrees from Vir-ginia

Tech ( B. S.) and the University of

Tennessee ( M. S.) in wildlife biology

and man agement. Many people know

I worked as the black bear project leader

for over nine years, but prior to that,

I worked as a small game biologist on

many of the issues that are now part

of the CURE program. These include

Farm Bill issues, habitat management

issues, research into quail habitat needs

and predation, and management of

early successional wildlife.

UG: It sounds like this new job is quite

a change from the Black Bear program.

MJ: Yes, it is. I supervise five biologists

who work on early successional wildlife

around the state. Three of these biolo-gists

are based out of the USDA Natural

Resources Con servation Service regional

offices, an agency that has primary fed -

eral oversight for farmers. The other two

biologists work on improving habitats

on corporate hog- farming operations

and in longleaf pine ecosystems.

UG: How will the Agriculture

Liaison Pro gram benefit from your

previous experience?

MJ: Black bears are a real wildlife success

story, but they are very different from

the species impacted by the Agriculture

Liaison Program. Bears are highly adapt -

able to human activities and respond to

regulatory management actions such as

those that con trol and influence harvest

levels. Quail and early successional birds

are habitat specialists to some extent.

They require very specific habitats and

are not as adapt able as bears. In many

ways, man aging these species is a much

greater challenge because landscape pat -

terns, cultural influences and devel op -

ment are not working to our advan tage

in North Carolina in terms of putting

habi tat for these species on the ground.

As most of our readers know, many of

these species are declining throughout

most of the southeastern United States.

UG: What are your goals for

this position?

MJ: Obviously, we would like to see bob-white

quail ( and species with similar

habitat needs) increase in numbers. To

do this we need to create large areas of

improved early successional habitats.

UG: Tell us about the research and

work you have planned.

MJ: We concentrate on actually creat -

ing habitat for quail and songbirds—

not doing applied research; although

we do monitor species response ( both

birds and plants) to our habitat treat -

ments. It’s interesting that many non-target

species, such as abundant animals

like deer and turkey, also ben efit from

these habitats. This new opportunity

allows me to work on many of these

matters again under the umbrella of a

well- designed program like CURE.

Former black bear biologist, Mark Jones, replaced

Jack Mason as agriculture liaison biologist.

Jack Mason

paid for its participation. The grant requirements call for

removing 150 acres from produc tion, which was completed

in January 2007. The majority of that acreage is in 20- foot

buffers, a width chosen to accommodate farm equipment.

These buffers, along with block habitats, protect a whopping

18.4 miles of waterways. Most of the buffers are maintained

by disking on a two- or three- year rotation and allowed to

grow in natural vegetation. Some buffers will be maintained

by prescribed burning or use of herbicides, and several of

the block habitats have been planted in native warm- season

grasses and forbs.

Water quality, a major component of the project’s goals,

is monitored by testing samples in the field and by sending

samples to the N. C. Department of Agriculture laboratory

in Raleigh. Testing is performed monthly and after signifi-cant

rainfall or severe storms. Nutrients, pH, dissolved oxy-gen,

dissolved solids and temperatures are monitored to

ensure the buffers help unpolluted water flow downstream.

Ongoing bird and quail counts are essential to ensure that

management practices are improving and maintaining habi-tat.

Initial results are encouraging, with three calling males

on aver age per point count for the summer quail routes.

Some timber stands have been improved as wildlife habi-tat

through roller chopping and prescribed burns. Lanes

were created to open up part of a nearby bay habitat. Future

plans for timber stand improvements include additional

prescribed burns, thinning, and replacing a stand of mixed

pines with longleaf pines.

Four other habitat areas have been heavily planted in

wildflowers and native grasses by Dr. David Orr of N. C.

State University, who will study predacious insects and

beneficial pollinators on the land.

Murphy- Brown Farms and CURE form a unique and

important partnership that is dedicated to providing wild -

life habitat and improving water quality. By its total com-mitment

to this effort, Murphy- Brown sets an example for

other landowners to follow and serves as a showcase for

management practices that improve the land for wildlife

and protect water quality.

The partnership is working so well, in fact, the site hosts

Wildlife and Water Quality Workshops several times a year,

to show how a large- scale hog farm can be productive and

improve the environment at the same time. Quail Unlim-ited,

Roundstone Seed, N. C. State University and N. C. Co-operative

Extension Services have co- sponsored workshops,

with topics ranging from use of fire as a manage ment tool,

maintenance of early succession vegetation, native grass

establishment, and quail ecology, to examining farm bill

programs. Anyone interested in attending future sessions

should e- mail cure_ tour@ yahoo. com. Use the word “ tour”

in the subject line.

Benjy M. Strope,

CURE Technical Assistance Biologist

private lands coordinator with the Wild life Management

Division of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Com mis sion.

“ This grant will help keep the program run ning for a few

more years at the same level, with expansion to some

additional farms.”

Among the project goals:

• Install field borders and buffers on 10 hog farms to

form a 7,000- acre coop erative for water quality im-provements

and wildlife habitat enhancement

• Demonstrate that water quality, wild life and farm-ing

operations can coexist

• Document the effects of field borders and buffers on

water quality and biodiversity

• Continue to maintain the Murphy- Brown Complex

in Bladen County as a showcase farm.

For more information, go online to www. ncwildlife. org

or call ( 919) 707- 0058.

continued from page 1

Commission Presents the Larry

Diedrick Small Game Awards

( L- R) Dr. David Cobb of the Commission, winners Ruffin Powers II, Dawn

Williamson of Murphy- Brown and Commission Chairman Wes Seegars.

4 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007

Specifically, we wanted to determine:

• If the focal area approach of the

CURE program works ( see below

for a quick review) and

• If it is important for the U. S.

Depart ment of Agriculture to

consider targeting its financial

incen tives ( e. g., CP33) for upland

bird habitat conservation in

land scapes that have high poten-tial

for quail management.

We also wanted to know if bobwhites

respond better to certain field border

shapes. We thought this information

would help biologists select locations

and layout patterns of field borders for

the CURE and CP33 programs.

Initiated in 2004, our research was

sponsored by the Wildlife Resources

Commission, USDA- NRCS/ MSU Bob-white

Restoration Project, NC State

University, and Murphy- Brown, LLC,

the nation’s largest pork producer.

What Makes Some Field Border Habitats

Better Than Others?

C reation of farm field borders is

widely encouraged to increase

bobwhite quail nesting and

brood- rearing cover on farms. But does

it make a difference if field border habi-tat

is long and thin, or wide and block-shaped?

And how does the landscape

surrounding a farm with field borders

influence the bobwhite response?

We set up an experiment designed

to answer both the landscape and the

field border shape questions relevant

to the N. C. Wildlife Resources Com-mission’s

Cooperative Upland- habitat

Restoration and Enhancement program

( CURE). Landscape and border shape

are also applicable to the Conservation

Reserve Program’s bird conservation

practice known as the Upland Bird

Habitat Buffer ( CP33) program. CURE

and CP33 provide financial and techni -

cal assistance to establish field borders

on private lands in North Carolina.

A quick review of the focal

area approach… why does

it matter?

When Commission biologists consid-ered

approaches to restoring bobwhite

habitat, they decided not to create a

little bit of habitat here and a little bit of

habitat there. Instead, they wanted to

join together as much habitat as possi-ble

in areas that had “ high potential”

for quail. An area has high potential if

quail already are present in reasonable

numbers or the area is suitable for dis-persing

quail to find new habitat ( see

“ Bobwhite Spring Dispersal” from the

spring 2007 Upland Gazette).

Commission biologists searched the

state for areas dominated by plant com-munities

that could be easily managed

for quail ( such as crop fields interspersed

with pine woodlands). They avoided

areas dominated by plant communities

such as tall fescue pasture and devel-oped

areas, which are unsuitable for

quail. Aggregations of suitable areas

have been designated “ focal areas” by

the Commission ( see map below). For

the sake of convenience, all other areas

are designated as non- focal areas.

Why might field border

shape matter?

Wildlife biologists have recommended

linear field borders for quail habitat

for almost 100 years. One logistical

advantage of relatively narrow, linear

field borders is that they typically use

less productive land found along field

edges. Recently, wildlife managers

have observed that linear habitats,

such as narrow field borders, may

concentrate quail in such small areas

that their nests become vulnerable to

predators. For example, imagine a

pair of quail nesting in a field border

15- feet wide and 1452- feet long ( a total

area of .5 acres). Nest predators such

as raccoons or black rat snakes, which

are known to travel along field edges,

have a good chance of finding the nest

and the incubating adults, even if they

are not actively search ing for them

( i. e., random encounter). However, if

.5 acres of habitat was clumped into a

nonlinear field border in the corner

of a field, a nesting pair of bobwhites

might stand a better chance of evading

detection because of the denser area

( see Figure 2b, page 10).

How did we find out if focal

areas work or if shape matters?

We selected 24 sites in the Coastal Plain

of North Carolina for our research. All

sites were commercial hog farms owned

by Murphy- Brown, LLC. Working with

Murphy- Brown allowed us to choose

sites from a large pool of company farms

and to control for variables such as crop

rotations and timber harvests, which

could influence quail populations. It also

was convenient to collaborate with

Murphy- Brown because we were able

to work with one landowner with 24

farms instead of 24 separate landowners.

We chose 12 farms in focal areas and

12 farms in nonfocal areas. Farms in

focal areas were surrounded primarily

by agriculture ( 49 percent row crops

and 18 percent forest). Farms in non -

focal areas were surrounded primarily

by forest ( 20 percent row crops and

44 percent forests). In 2004, we began

to delineate areas for field borders on

each farm. On half the farms in each

landscape, field borders were linear and

10 feet wide.

Wherever possible, we ori ented lin-ear

field borders so they were parallel

to crop rows to allow room for farm

machinery to operate within the fields.

On the other half of the farms in each

landscape, field borders

were non linear blocks

located at the ends or

corners of fields. To

minimize loss of crop

production, we iden-tified

the most unpro-ductive

field ends, cor-ners,

and “ odd areas”

for nonlinear borders.

Non linear borders

ranged from .12 to

6.13 acres, but most

were about .5 to .6

acres. Field borders

were established over

the next two years by

simply allowing them

to go fallow. Nothing

special was planted to create field bor-ders;

instead, we simply took advan-tage

of the existing seed bank. Our

farms varied by size, but the amount

of row crop that came out of produc-tion

on each farm was between two

and three percent.

Before establishing field borders in

2004, we counted the number of calling

bobwhite males during the summer to

get a baseline estimate of breeding sea-son

abundance. We continued to mon-itor

summer quail populations in 2005

and 2006 after field borders were estab-lished.

In 2005 and 2006, we also con-ducted

an experiment where we placed

artificial quail nests in field borders. This

allowed us to estimate nest depredation

in linear and nonlinear field borders

and in focal areas and nonfocal areas

( see illustration, page 10).

Great news if you live in a

focal area!

Quail increased on farms in focal areas,

regardless of field border shape. Over-all,

breeding season quail increased

by an average of 87 percent on these

farms. This means landowners who

want to increase quail on farms in focal

areas can use linear or nonlinear field

borders. The dramatic increase in quail

on farms in focal areas was detected in

the summer of 2005, when field borders

were first beginning to develop. This

suggests our field borders attracted

dispersing quail in the spring. There

was little change in quail populations

from 2005 to 2006, which suggests quail

may saturate the increased habitat pro -

vided by field borders rather quickly.

Does management in nonfocal

areas matter too?

Yes! As a whole, the number of quail

did not increase on farms in nonfocal

areas. However, quail did increase by

33 percent on farms with nonlinear field

borders. Therefore, landowners wish-ing

to increase quail with field borders

on farms in nonfocal areas should use

nonlinear field borders ( 0.5 acres each)

or perhaps linear borders wider than

those in our study ( e. g., 30 feet). The

By Jason Riddle ( Ph. D. candidate) and Christopher Moorman ( Associate Professor),

Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, N. C. State University

5

Figure 1

continued on page 10

This nesting hen and her chicks are examples of wildlife that benefit

from better field borders.

Map of focal areas within the Coastal Plain

( Focal areas are collections of suitable plant

communities easily managed for quail.)

PHOTO BY RANDY CASS, TALL TIMBERS RESEARCH STATION & LAND CONSERVANCY— FLORIDA

6 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 7

A s a biologist new to the CURE program and to cot-ton

farming, I have much to learn. Before becoming

involved with CURE, I thought cotton stalks pro-vided

no benefit to wildlife from late fall to spring because

shredded stalks leave little ground cover. Charles Grantham

and Gene Bennett, members of the Benthall CURE coopera-tive,

explained how they are trying to change that thinking.

Instead of shredding the cotton stalks after the late- fall

harvest— the way the majority of farmers in eastern North

Carolina do— they leave the stalks standing for wildlife.

Cotton stalks historically have been shredded to stop boll

weevil infestations. However, weevils have been eradicated

from the Southeast and are not an issue in North Carolina

unless a local outbreak occurs.

There are several advantages to leaving the stalks. At

$ 4- 6 per acre in fuel and labor costs, another trip across the

field is costly. And farm machines further compact the soil.

Both of these land managers noted that avian predators

cannot get down into the standing cotton stalks to hunt.

Grantham says that many times while hunting rabbits in

adjunct cutovers, he noticed that the rabbits run out into

the cotton stalk fields. He believes they view it just as a brier

thicket, a safe piece of escape cover. He also has seen quail

in the cotton stalks many times. Imagine a field with the

stalks removed and devoid of cover. No small game would

venture out into it in daylight. Leaving the stalks standing

makes sense!

Cotton stalks left until the next spring have been success-fully

over- planted with corn ( using no- till). According to

Grantham, “ The stalks are dry and brittle and fall down

Standing Cotton Stalks Provide Habitat for Wildlife

They’re also cost- effective

when touched by

the tractor,” and

“ the planter func-tions

the same

when farmers plant

fields with stalks re-moved.”

Planting is faster

because no row markers are

needed, assuming the planting is on

the old row and root system. Row cleaners

can be used to improve performance instead of

conventional coulters ( soil cutters).

Bennett, who is experimenting with over- planting,

thinks that the best option is to broadcast the cover crop—

in his case wheat— when the cotton is defoliated. If a grain

drill is used behind the cotton picker, then many of the stalks

will be lost. Placing a cover crop like wheat provides a food

source for game such as rabbits and, at the same time, slows

soil erosion. Farms enrolled in the Conservation Security

Program ( CSP), which was available in the Roanoke River

drainage in 2005, receive compensation for leaving cotton

stalks standing to benefit wildlife.

There are disadvantages to leaving cotton stalks. Lime

truck drivers do not like to drive through standing stalks

in late fall due to possible radiator punctures. However,

liming could be done in the spring when the stalks are fur-ther

decayed and more easily broken. Combine rakes and

apparatus may become clogged when the wheat crop is

harvested. Over- planting in the same row with cotton may

be difficult; however, the process is new and the disadvan-tages

remain unclear according to Bennett.

In the end, shredded cotton stalks may be another piece

of the puzzle that explains why small game populations are

declining in the Southeast. I am told that in the distant past,

farmers left cotton stalks in the fields perhaps to protect

small game from predators. I find no mention of the effects

of leaving cotton stalks standing in current literature, so

I am unsure as to the scientific merits of this practice. How-ever,

now that weevils are no longer an issue, leaving these

stalks standing certainly warrants further investigation.

We have observed that small game populations derive

more benefit from fields with standing overhead cover than

from those with no cover at all. In addition, no extra fuel,

tractor or mower wear/ tear, or labor is needed to leave the

cotton stalks and plant a cover crop over- top. I encourage

farmers and landowners to consider leaving cotton stalks

for wildlife.

Greg Batts

CURE Technical Assistance Biologist

NCWRC Division of Wildlife Management

Editor’s Note: For an in- depth look at

establishing, grazing and haying of warm

season grasses, check out the Land Man-agers’

Toolbox—“ Benefits of Warm Season

Grasses,” in the spring 2007 issue of the

Upland Gazette. For article reprints, please

call 707- 0353.

T his summer’s record- breaking

drought has been tough on cool

season grasses and the farmers

who grow them, but other options exist

when it comes to livestock forage.

The N. C. Wildlife Resources Com -

mis sion is promoting its CURE pro-gram

as win- win for private farmers.

CURE promotes the creation of small

game habitat in three focal areas across

the state, using native plants such as

drought- resistant, warm season grasses

in areas like the western Piedmont.

“ This is not a short- term method,

this is a long- term approach,” said

CURE Technical Assistance Biologist

Johnny Riley of warm season grasses,

which can take two years to begin pro-ducing

mature yields. “ But if farmers

will buy into the warm season grasses,

the results could be tremendous and

really help areas like the western Pied-mont

in future droughts. They are also

a great way to diversify forage and

get away from having 100 percent cool

season grasses.”

Unlike cool season forage species

such as fescue and orchard grass, warm

sea son varieties thrive during the hot -

test months of the year. Even better,

they do not require substantial summer

rainfall to produce significant tonnage.

Although, with good precipitation,

species like big bluestem, switchgrass

and eastern gammagrass can produce

impressive results with higher quality

than most cool season grasses.

Iredell County farmer Jerry Lundy

got more than three tons of forage

per acre on the first cutting in 2006.

A participant of CURE since 2002,

No- till planting in standing cotton stalks. Lundy said he has but one regret about

CURE has Long- Term Answer to Drought:

Warm Season Grasses

( L- R) CURE participant Jerry Lundy consults with Jim Wilson and Johnny Riley of the

Wildlife Resources Commission staff.

“ If I had it to do over again, I’d plant more.”

— Iredell farmer, Jerry Lundy on warm season grasses

the 20 acres of warm season grasses

scattered across his property.

“ If I had it to do over again, I’d plant

more,” he explained.

While farmers can use warm season

grasses to feed livestock, wildlife will

also benefit from the cover. Rabbits,

grouse, quail, deer, turkey and song-birds

use warm season grasses to dif -

fer ent extents. Commission biologists

encourage CURE participants to leave

these grasses uncut during the late

summer, providing valuable early suc-cessional

habitat— or young, burgeon-ing

wild areas— for wildlife during the

winter months. Helping farmers under -

stand how to incorporate small game

habitat into their normal farming activ-ities

is a major focus of the program.

Technical assistance is not restricted

to CURE areas. Commission biolo -

gists are also available to give advice

throughout the state, and in many cases,

federal Farm Bill programs can supple-ment

costs of establishing grasses and

other wildlife habitat.

In addition to the Piedmont focal

area, CURE cooperatives are located

in the northern and southern Coastal

Plains. To learn more about CURE, or

the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commis-sion,

visit www. ncwildlife. org.

8 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 9

I n 2007, 25 quail routes were surveyed: 10 routes in the Coastal Region, 11

routes in the Piedmont Region, and four routes in the Mountain Region. In

the Coastal Region, the average number of quail calls heard per route ( 25.2)

was up one percent from the previous year. In the Piedmont Region, the average

number of quail calls heard per route ( 4.6) was down nine percent from the pre-vious

year. In the Mountain Region, the average number of quail calls heard

per route ( 1.0) remained the same compared to the previous year; however, the

number of routes in the mountains was reduced from six in 2006, to four in 2007.

The number of quail calls heard per route in the Coastal Region has been rela-tively

stable since 2000; the Piedmont has varied up and down at a low level

and appears to be declining; and the Mountain Region has declined to an average

of only one bird heard per route.

There is a long- term downward trend in quail numbers in North Carolina.

Although there have been minor annual fluctuations, survey results over the

short term ( six to eight years) seem to indicate that quail numbers in the Coastal

Region may be stabilizing at a relatively low level consistent with the ever- more

limited amount of available habitat. Survey numbers obtained in the Piedmont

and Mountain regions are so low that a change in the number of bird calls heard

( or not heard) dramatically alters the percent change between years, and real

increases or decreases in actual numbers are hard to detect. Although it is

difficult to assess the last six to eight years in the Piedmont, the downward

trend in quail abundance in the Mountain Region appears to continue. Data in-dicate

that certain birds apparently travel back and forth between more suit-able

habitats, and contribute the majority of the total calls heard within the Pied-mont

and Mountain regions.

Bobwhite Quail Call Count Trends Downward

A total of 53 avid grouse hunters reported on 721

hunts during the 2006- 07 season. After slightly

declining during the 2005- 06 season, both the

grouse flush rate and the harvest rate increased during

the 2006- 07 season. The grouse flush rate increased

slightly from 3.94 to 4.03 flushes/ party trip (+ 2 percent)

and the harvest rate increased from 0.47 to 0.52 grouse

bagged/ party trip (+ 11 percent). The grouse flush rate

in the Southern Mountains ( 4.50 flushes/ party trip;

down 5 percent) remains considerably higher than the

flush rate in the Northern Mountains ( 2.68 flushes/ party

trip; up 25 percent). Flush rates were lowest in October

( 2.54 flushes/ party trip) when the leaves were still on

the trees and progres sively increased through November

( 3.74 flushes/ party trip), December ( 3.93 flushes/ party

trip), January ( 4.20 flushes/ party trip), and February

( 4.39 flushes/ party trip). Flush rates continue to be

somewhat higher on private lands ( 4.56 flushes/ party

trip) than on game lands ( 3.57 flushes/ party trip).

David T. Sawyer,

Upland Game Bird Biologist

2006- 2007 Avid Grouse Hunter Survey Summary

E veryone loves songbirds. Their melodious and some-times

persistent warbling marks the coming of spring.

For many of us, bird songs— like that of the wood

thrush— trigger fond childhood memories of playing in the

woods. But rarely are songbirds the focus of forest manage-ment.

Have you ever considered which songbirds might be

living in a nearby forest? Have you ever asked yourself how

you might make that forest better for songbirds?

The Forest Landbird Legacy Program ( FLLP) can help you

answer those questions.

A voluntary wildlife conservation program, FLLP targets

private non- industrial forest landowners in North Carolina

who want to manage their mature forests to benefit forest-dwelling

songbirds. Most of FLLP’s focus is on migra tory

birds thought to be in decline ( according to the best data

available). In addition to providing planning and financial

assistance for forest management, FLLP also recog nizes

land owners who conserve forest songbird habitat.

The Hosley Family was an early participant in FLLP. The

Hosleys thought so much of songbirds that they purchased

350 acres in the mountains just for the birds and worked with

a forester to do selective harvests. The family also asked the

FLLP team from the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission,

the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the USDA Nat ural

Resources Conservation Service for ideas to improve forest

management. Through FLLP, the Hosleys devel oped a plan

to arrest encroaching exotic inva sive plants that would

Managing Forests for Songbirds

John Ann Shearer, Fish & Wildlife Biologist, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service

eventually reduce

native plant cover

and food for the

wood thrushes,

hooded war blers

and scarlet tanagers

that used their for-est

as a breeding

home. In addition

to advice, FLLP

provided cost- share

funds for the exotic

plant treat ments

and recognized the

Hosleys with a sign

and certificate.

Promoting forest management strategies that sustain bird

populations can mean different things in different forests.

For tunately, wildlife officials can accomplish songbird man-age

ment while managing for forest health and economic

returns. Treatments may include snag creation, prescribed

burning, control of exotic invasive plants, forest stand habi-tat

improvement plantings— and in some cases— simply

main taining the status quo.

To learn more, or to locate an FLLP biologist near you, visit:

http:// www. fws. gov/ nc- es/ es/ partners/ factsheetlbl. pdf

or email Mark Johns at: johnsme@ mindspring. com

A total of 78 avid quail hunters reported on 1,192 hunts

during the 2006- 2007 season. The state wide quail

flush rate increased two percent to 1.96 coveys/ party

trip, while the harvest rate declined two percent to 1.21 quail

bagged/ hunter trip. Regionally, the flush rate in the Coastal

Plain was unchanged with 2.34 coveys/ party trip. The

flush rate in the Piedmont increased to 1.20 coveys/ party

trip (+ 19 percent), and the flush rate in the Mountains

declined to only 0.14 coveys/ party trip (- 89 percent but

a very small sample size). The central Coastal Plain, where

the flush rate had increased 39 percent in 2005- 06, main-tained

a high flush rate of 3.61 coveys/ party trip this year

(+ 1 percent). The flush rate in the central Piedmont increased

67 percent over the 2005- 2006 season to 1.52 coveys/ party

trip. Other climatological regions maintained flush rates

similar to the 2005- 2006 season.

David T. Sawyer,

Upland Game Bird Biologist

2006- 2007 Avid Quail Hunter Survey Summary

Adult male quail

FLLP partners from the Commission and the

U. S. Fish & Wild life Service present a certifica-tion

sign to Jessica Blake ( center) of the NC

Coastal Land Trust for longleaf pine restoration

work in Bladen County.

P rescribed fire is a cost- efficient

and effective tool that is used to

restore and maintain ground-cover

in open forest stands, openings

and grasslands. Prescribed fire pro-motes

a lush growth of grasses and

herbaceous vegetation that provides

food and cover for many species of

wildlife. Prescribed fire benefits many

important game species and rare plants

and animals, reduces wildfire impacts,

controls undesirable vegetation, and

prepares sites for forest regeneration.

10 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Fall 2007 11

Objectives

Sunlight must be available to pro -

duce lush groundcover vegetation.

Prescribed fire, either alone or in com-bination

with mechanical or herbicide

treatments, can be used to open forest

stands and remove litter to stimulate

native groundcover or prepare sites

to reestablish groundcover. A series

of carefully conducted prescribed

fires over several years may be neces-sary

to rehabilitate sites with a long

history of fire exclusion. Once a grass

or herbaceous groundcover is estab-lished,

fire applied on a one-, two-,

or three- year rotation will maintain

a healthy and diverse groundcover.

Burn block size, season of burning,

and fire intensity can be modified

to meet wild life objectives.

Timing of Burns

Restoration burns may be prescribed

dur ing the winter to reduce the litter

layer in small increments and prevent

damage to over- story trees. In summer,

where fuel levels allow, prescribed fire

can be used to top kill mid- story hard-woods.

Maintenance burns are typically

applied in late winter or early spring

to minimize the time until green up.

Land Managers’

TOOLBOX

Rotating the use of growing season

and dormant season burns often max i -

mizes the diversity of wildlife habitat.

Fire Lines

Prescribed fires are controlled by a break

in fuels. Existing landscape features such

as streams, fields and roads can often

serve as fire lines. Fire lines should be

cleared of all flammable materials. This

may be accomplished using heavy

equipment or farm tractors. Short lines

can be constructed with rakes, leaf blow-ers,

or ATVs with drags. Fire lines should

be planned and constructed in advance

to facilitate maintenance and safety.

Safety and Logistics

A burn plan which describes goals, tech -

niques, smoke sensitive areas, weather

parameters, block size and location,

and safety issues must be prepared for

each burn block. Work in conjunction

with your local N. C. Forest Service

office to address these issues. Contrac-tors

are available to conduct prescribed

burns in many areas of the state. Always

con tact your neighbors, local Volun-teer

Fire Departments, 911 centers, and

the N. C. Forest Service on the day of

your burn.

Ideally, field borders should com-prise

a larger percentage of row

crops on farms ( five to 10 percent).

While many farmers cannot afford

to take so much land out of produc-tion,

several state and federal pro-grams

are available to help offset

the cost of lost crop production.

Some farm ers also take advantage

of enhanced hunting lease opportu-nities

to supplement farm income.

• Quail counts increased quickly on

our test farms, but the increase did

not continue during the second year

of field border establishment. Addi-tional

increases probably would

have occurred only after establish-ing

more acreage in field borders

or other habitats favored by quail.

• After establishing field borders, land-owners

may create additional early

suc cession habitat by thinning and

burning adjacent woods. Thinning

to reduce tree canopy closure to

continued from page 5

percent of cropland taken out of produc-tion

should exceed three percent, espe-cially

on small farms or on farms with

limited early- succession vegetative cover.

What about the artificial nests?

Most predators of artificial nests were

raccoons. Interestingly, our artificial

nests were no more vulnerable in lin-ear

field borders than nonlinear field

borders. We also lost the same number

of nests to predators in focal areas and

non focal areas alike. We believe arti -

ficial nest depredation was similar

on our farms because the vegetation

within the field borders was sim ilar

among farms in terms of plant species

composition and physical structure.

It is also possible that our nonlinear

field borders were not large enough to

negate the “ edge effect,” where preda-tors

may be more abundant.

Conclusions

• In agriculture- dominated focal areas,

landowners have flexibility because

both linear and nonlinear field bor-ders

increase quail populations. But

landowners in forest- dominated non -

focal areas shouldn’t despair. They

may be able to increase quail on their

farms, but it will require larger blocks

of nonlinear field borders or wide,

linear borders to do so. On our study

sites, two to three percent of cropland

was con verted to fallow habitat.

approx imately 30 percent and burn-ing

to remove leaf litter and other

debris from the forest floor will pro-mote

increased groundcover and food

resources for quail and other wild -

life. Quail enthusiasts who plant food

plots may not see an increase in the

quail population. Food is not the only

consideration in attracting quail.

Qual ity cover for nesting, brood rear-ing,

and the ability to escape predators

are also limiting factors for bobwhite

in North Carolina. Breeding- season

quail counts on our focal area farms

almost doubled without food plots

or special seed mixes.

• On a practical note, landowners

should clearly communicate their

man agement goals with contract

grow ers, contract pesticide applica-tors,

and any others working in the

field( s). Their cooperation is crucial.

Biologists can enlist their support by

posting signs showing where field

borders are set aside for wildlife. We

used PVC poles and couplings as a

flexible way to identify field borders.

We cut eight- foot lengths of 1/ 2- inch

PVC pipe in half and used them to

identify field borders beside wheat

and soybeans. When crops were ro-tated

to cotton or corn, we placed a

coupl ing on top of the existing pole

and extended it to eight feet with an-other

four- foot length. Bright orange

flagging tape was tied to the top of

each pole to increase visibility. After

harvest, the poles could easily be bro-ken

down to four- foot lengths. This

reduced wind drag and helped keep

poles from blowing down in winter.

Row crops

Field border

Overhead representation of two identical row crop fields with field borders of different shapes. One field

has a half- acre linear field border along the backside ( a), and the other field has a half- acre nonlinear field

border in an “ odd” corner ( b).

Only $ 12 for 12 monthly issues

Fishing, conservation, hunting, natural history and more

www. ncwildlife. org 1- 866- 945- 3746

Subscribe to the Commission’s award- winning magazine!

Prescribed Fire: A Cost- Effective Tool

Figure 2

a. b.

PHOTOS BY JASON RIDDLE

These examples show an undisturbed artificial nest ( L) and a nest that’s been disturbed.