Wild Wonderings

Texas Quail Index 2019 Summary

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 17:56:00 +0000

Written by Amanda Gobeli, Project Coordinator 2, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Bobwhite Male. Photo by Andy Morffew via Wikimedia Commons.

The numbers are in for this year’s Texas Quail Index, and the reigning sentiment across the state appears to be “a slight improvement over last year, but less than we’d hoped for.” It’s difficult not to feel disappointed with the red letter years of 2016 and 17 still fresh in the minds of many quail enthusiasts, but it looks like we’ll have to wait at least one more year before this bust really turns around. With that in mind, we can examine data from each of the Texas Quail Index demonstrations to see what has been going on with quail populations and habitat in 2019.

Our first demonstration, Spring Call Counts, occurs in April/May and measures breeding capital for our quail populations. The graph below depicts statewide averages for the number of roosters heard per data collection stop:

Statewide averages for number of roosters heard per mile marker, with burgundy bars representing bobwhite counts and blue bars representing scaled quail counts. Error bars are standard error of the mean.

What’s immediately clear is that there was a considerable range in results among counties, from 0 birds heard over the course of 3 separate counts up to nearly 6.5 birds per stop at the other end of the spectrum. While we saw much higher numbers in 2016, 6+ birds per stop is respectable. Our overall bobwhite quail average was 2.4 roosters per stop, lower than 2018’s 3.4. Scaled quail held steady with an average of 1.4 compared to last year’s 1.5. While several counties remained about on-par with the previous year’s results, there were few that showed significant improvements.

As we transition into summer, the TQI shifts its focus to quail habitat and resources, starting with the Dummy Nest exercise. Here cooperators use chicken eggs to simulate a quail nest and interpret eggshells and other evidence to identify nest predators. Dummy nest survival overall was much improved over last year, with an average survival rate of about 53% overall compared to 2018’s record low of 41%:

A breakdown of dummy nest predators identified by eggshell evidence.

Dummy nests aren’t the only method we use to study quail predators; game cameras are also set up around this time to definitively identify some of the predators present on the property.

Total numbers of predators documented by game cameras, separated by species. Hogs/wild pigs and coyotes accounted for about 75% of observations.

This year’s game camera results can best be summarized as “hogs, coyotes, and everything else.” Those two species have always claimed the number 1 and 2 spots in the hierarchy of creatures photographed, largely because they are most likely to traverse the ranch roads where, for the sake of logistical simplicity, the cameras are often placed. However, the extent to which they dominated the field this year—accounting for about 75% of all observations—is surprising.

Wild pigs and coyotes weren’t the only animals photographed, however. Highlights included a mountain lion and two ring-tailed cats, pictured above.

The final summer demonstration for the TQI is habitat evaluations, in which cooperators conduct a standardized evaluation at each of their 8 study sites. These scores usually trend high and rarely fall below the “good” range on the rating scale, but it still helps us see how habitat features change from year to year.

Average habitat evaluation scores for each habitat parameter as well as the overall Evaluation Value. Error bars are standard error of the mean.

It looks like most aspects of quail habitat improved in 2019, including the “Evaluation Value” which gauges habitat quality overall. This year’s statewide average EV was 0.69, which falls well within the “good” range and represents an improvement over last year’s record low of 0.62. The only features which scored lower this year were nesting cover and (barely) Interspersion B, a measure of the diversity of woody cover species.

The U.S. Drought Monitor Texas map for April 16, 2019, indicating low-to-no drought conditions for much of the state.

The U.S. Drought Monitor can help us add some context to the Habitat Evaluation data. There’s no denying that 2019 was a rainy year; at the start of quail breeding season, many parts of the state were out of drought conditions entirely or at the first or second drought level. If nesting cover was slightly lower this year, it was probably because there were more moisture-rich, food producing forbs on the landscape, and that might be a good thing. It’s worth noting that 2018 was a rare year in which availability of food was identified as a limiting factor by TQI cooperators.

That bring us to the end of the year and the final demonstration of the Texas Quail Index: Roadside Counts.

Roadside count results for bobwhites (brown line) and scaled quail (blue line). Error bars are standard error of the mean.

These data represent quail numbers just prior to the start of hunting season and suggest that bobwhites are holding steady (low) relative to 2018, while scaled quail have done a bit better. The error bars are worth taking note of here as well, though: the wide spread for scaled quail suggests that values ranged more widely than they did for bobwhites. As with Spring Call Counts, there were several instances of 0s this year from cooperators who saw no birds whatsoever while driving routes where they were previously seen.

Overall, it seems like 2019 is one of those rare years that defies the wisdom of “If it rains we’ll have quail; if it don’t we won’t.” It rained, so where are our quail? One possibility is that a low carryover population from 2018 translated into less breeding activity than initially predicted. It’s also possible that the birds are out there and are simply laying low or making use of that high-quality habitat to avoid detection—we’ll see what hunters have to say once this quail season is over. Whatever the reason, we should keep in mind that recovering from a bust of this magnitude takes time, and these numbers could represent the first steps toward a more significant recovery for quail populations in 2020.

Resources for New Landowners: Wildlife

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:05:00 +0000

Knowledge of wildlife--how to identify species, the difference between native and invasive, and the ways in which animals interact--is essential when managing a property. In this latest edition of our Resources for New Landowners series, we discuss what you need to know and what tools are available to help you get up to speed.

Read the full article here in the Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute Blog.

Spotlight on Quail Predators: Raptors

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 15:52:00 +0000

Written by Shelby McCay, Project Coordinator I, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Project Coordinator II, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. Dale Rollins, Statewide Coordinator, Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative

What is a Raptor?

Raptors, a.k.a. “birds of prey,” include eagles, hawks, falcons, owls and many other species. The term raptor is derived from the Latin word rapio, meaning to seize or take by force; this is quite apt as raptors will often swoop down and seize prey with their large talons. But which species are the main predators of quail? The primary avian predators of quail are small, agile raptors referred to as Accipiters (Accipiter spp.) [which include Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii) and Sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus)] and northern harriers (a.k.a. marsh hawks; Circus cyaneus) among others (Rollins and Carrol 2001, Cox et al. 2004). Accipiters are considered some of the most efficient predators that quail face, with Cooper’s hawks being touted as “the outstanding natural enemy of the bobwhite” (Stoddard 1931). Other raptors known to take grown bobwhites include various broad–winged hawks, a.k.a. Buteos (Buteo spp., such as Red-tailed Hawks) and large owl species, such as Great-horned Owls (Bubo virginianus) or Barred Owls (Strix varia) (Jackson 1947; Parmalee 1954). All raptors are protected by state and federal law and therefore it is illegal to kill, trap, harass or possess these species.

Having a hard time telling the Sharp-shinned Hawk apart from the Cooper’s Hawk? Check out this beginner’s guide to identifying these species from the Audubon Society.

How do Raptors Hunt Quail?

Studies have shown that the reaction of quail in response to avian predators is innate and instinctive (Melvin and Cloar 1969, Perkins et al. 2014, Reyna and Newman 2018). Their short, round stature, small wings and large feet often make running an easier get-away than taking flight, but without sufficient cover, quail are “sitting ducks” when it comes to raptors. Raptors mainly prey on adult quail, but there has also been evidence of raptors targeting quail nests as well. Terhune et al. (2008) documented three cases of three different raptors depredating bobwhite nests (Barred Owl, Cooper’s Hawk, and Great-Horned Owl) during incubation at their study sites in Georgia.

Sharp-shinned Hawk in flight. Photo: Emilie Chen

But what about the chicks? Quail chicks are precocial, meaning they are covered in down feathers when they are born and able to leave the nest shortly after hatching. Since they are so small and mobile, it is unlikely that raptors will expend the energy needed to hunt them (Terhune et al. 2008). Screening cover, consisting of mostly tall bunchgrasses, broad-leafed forbs, and shrubs, allows chicks to roam with concealment from predators, including raptors who may be hungry enough to make a meal out of them (Rollins and Carroll, 2001).

Effects Raptors Have on Quail Populations

Since the late 1960s, many raptors—including Cooper’s hawks—have actually increased in abundance (Sauer, Hines, and Fallon 2002, Hernandez and Peterson 2007, Sauer et al. 2017). More hawks eat more quail, right—so does this mean they’re having a negative impact on quail populations? Are they contributing to the steep decline we’ve seen recently? The answer is not so simple.

North American Bird Survey Trend Results for Cooper’s Hawk in Texas (1967-2015). Data from Sauer et al. 2017.

Survival rates of bobwhites varies widely across seasons and can be influenced by a variety of factors (Rollins and Carroll, 2001). Bobwhites are subject to naturally high levels of mortality; in any given year, only about 20%–30% of the population will survive (Hernandez and Guthery 2012). Hawks, particularly Cooper’s and northern harriers, certainly contribute to the death toll of bobwhites, but there are many other variables at work as well. It’s also important to remember that not all of the raptor population growth is happening in bobwhite habitat and that Accipiters don’t ONLY predate upon quail—they’ll also take songbirds, doves, or even small mammals and reptiles as prey. The cumulative impact of raptor predation on actual quail populations is evident only at local scales and unlikely to cause large changes in their overall population (Rollins and Carrol 2001).

Raptors also have direct impacts on pen-raised quail, as they will congregate in areas where quail have been released. Perkins et al. (2018) found that avian predators can easily distinguish between flushes of wild and pen-raised bobwhites and had a 100% success rate when pursuing pen-raised birds, versus only a 7.2% success rate with wild birds. In one study, the investigators found that hawks increased by 35%–109% during a 2-month period following pen-raised quail releases but only by 11%– 52% in a control site (Hernandez and Guthery 2012). Rather than adding their numbers to wild quail populations, pen-raised birds may just be feeding raptor populations instead.

How to Reduce Raptor Predation on Quail

One major issue with predator management for quail is that the predators that are easiest to control may not be the same as those eating the most quail. Hawks are a primary predator of quail throughout Texas, but all hawks and other birds of prey are protected by state and federal law, unlike other mammalian predators such as raccoons and coyotes. So how can you help quail to evade their deadliest predators?

Perkins et al. (2014) determined that when attempting to evade a raptor, quail flew farther, faster, and landed in areas with relatively taller vegetation. This same study also found that quail only utilized woody shrub cover during raptor trials and did not utilize it during hunter, mammalian, and researcher threat simulations. Almost one-third of the times a quail was pursued by a hawk it went underground (into a burrow) to escape the hawk. Improving habitat through careful management of woody plants can help you minimize raptor predation and provide both escape and mid-day coverts for quail. Woody vegetation with dense branches, such as catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia) agarita (Mahonia trifoliolata), and littleleaf sumac (Rhus microphylla), hide quail from avian predators while providing shade and sometimes food as well (Perkins et al. 2014). If your property is lacking many of these species, half cutting mesquite trees is one way to increase suitable woody cover for quail.

Resources (YouTube videos)

References

Cox, S.A., Peoples, A.D., DeMaso, S.J., Lusk, J.J., and Guthery, F.S. 2004. Survival and cause-specific mortality of northern bobwhites in western Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 663-671.
Frank, M., James, A., Gobeli, A., Hardin, J., Perez, R. and Cathey, J. 2018. Potential causes of the Texas quail decline. https://nri.tamu.edu/media/2297/enri-007.pdf.
Hernandez, F., and Guthery, F.S. 2012. Beef, Brush and Bobwhites: Quail Management in Cattle Country. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Jackson, A.S. 1947. A bobwhite quail irruption in northwest Texas lower plains terminated by predation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 12:511– 19.
Melvin, K. B., and F. T. Cloar. 1969. Habituation of Responses of Quail (Colinus Virginianus) to a Hawk (Buteo Swainsoni): Measurement Through an ‘Innate Suppression’ Technique. Animal Behavior 17: 468-473.
Parmalee, P.W. 1954. 1954. Food habits of the great horned owl and barn owl in East Texas. Auk 71:469– 70.
Perkins, R., Boal, C., Rollins, D. and Perez, R.M. 2014. Northern bobwhite predator avoidance behavior in response to varying types of threat. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78: 1272-1281.
Perkins, R., Boal, C.W., and Dabbert, C.B. 2018. Raptor selection of captive reared and released galliform birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 42: 713-715.
Reyna, K.S. and Newman, W.L. 2018. Comparative analysis of behavioral response of captive-reared and wild-trapped Northern Bobwhites to simulated predator attacks. Avian Biology Research 11: 16-23.
Rollins, D. and Carroll, J.P. 2001. Impacts of Predation on Northern Bobwhite and Scaled Quail. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 39-51.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. The North American Breeding Bird Survey: Results and analysis 1966– 2001. Version 2002.1. Laurel, Md.: USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr, K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
Stoddard, H.L. 1931. The bobwhite quail: Its habits, preservation, and increase. Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Terhune, T.M., Sisson, D.C., Palmer, W.E., Stribling, H.L. and Carroll, J.P. 2008. Raptor Predation of Northern Bobwhite Nests. Journal of Raptor Research 42: 148-150.

The Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute grants permission for authors, readers and third parties to reproduce and republish materials from its blogs, publications and online products through permission requests to NRI Communications at nri@tamu.edu. This includes the use of figures, maps, photography and video media. If you have questions about permissions, please contact Brittany Wegner.

Resources for New Landowners: Vegetation

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 15:19:00 +0000

What's the difference between a flameleaf and skunkbush sumac? Does prickly pear have any utility for quail? How do you support the growth of native plants while keeping invasives off your property? In this article in our Resources for New Landowners series, we show you how to find answers to these questions and any others you might have about the vegetation on your land--a critical element in any land management plan.

Read the full article here on the Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute Blog page.

How to Use the Bobwhite Management Applications

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 15:25:00 +0000

Written by Abigail Holmes, Texas A&M NRI Extension Associate

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension continually strives to develop new educational content which helps Texans better manage their land for wildlife, resulting in the creation of a suite of smartphone applications for landowners. These apps provide management tips for several species of interest in Texas including wild pigs, white-tailed deer, and quail. Although the apps are fairly intuitive to use, this article will provide a step-by-step example for how to use both the Northern Bobwhite Management Calendar and the Northern Bobwhite Habitat Evaluation apps, which are now free in both the iTunes and Google Play app stores, to better manage your land for northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus).

Northern Bobwhite Management Calendar

When you open the Northern Bobwhite Management Calendar, the home screen displays a grid of twelve squares, with each labeled as a month of the year. At the bottom of the page are two tabs labelled “Introduction” and “Practices.” Be sure to take a look at the Introduction first; it provides background information about the proper use of the app and includes links to other resources. The Practices page is a convenient reference list for all the habitat management techniques included in the app.

Figure 1. The management calendar allows you to select a month of the year and
view which management practices should be employed during that month

To discover the best practices to use in a particular month, simply select the corresponding square. After you have chosen a month, a list of management suggestions will appear on the next screen for you to scroll through and interact with. For example, when you select the month of July, recommendations include brush sculpting, camera trapping, habitat evaluations, shredding, supplemental water, and grazing management. Each of these practices has their own page which prominently displays the months in which the practice should be implemented, step-by-step instructions on how to carry them out, and links to additional helpful resources. The first suggestion in July, brush sculpting, comes with a set of instructions on how to choose suitable brush for half-cutting to enhance wildlife habitat (Figure 2). As you browse the other months, you will see that suggested practices change based on what quail are doing at different times of the year, as well as how rangeland is likely to respond.

Figure 2. The individual pages for each management practice provide you with preferred implementation
months, step-by-step instructions, and a list of additional helpful resources.

Please note that, while the app provides a great overview of the practices that are used to create bobwhite habitat, a dedicated management plan may require more personalization. Every property is different and will respond to strategies in different ways, and this should be taken into account before making significant management changes. Do not hesitate to contact a local natural resources professional if necessary.

The Management Calendar also recommends conducting “habitat evaluations” during the month of July—a practice that helps you discover which aspects of your quail habitat require improvement. Conducting habitat evaluations can be challenging, but we happen to have an app to assist with that, too.

Northern Bobwhite Habitat Evaluation

The Northern Bobwhite Habitat Evaluation app is an easy-to-use tool that helps you determine the quality of your habitat for quail use. An introductory home page discusses the role that habitat plays in supporting quail populations and describes the various cover types that are essential to quail. To use the app, you must travel to the spot on your property you wish to evaluate and visualize a one-acre plot (about the size of a football field) which will be your evaluation area. You should expect to repeat this process multiple times across your property to represent all the habitat types that are present there—try not to cherry-pick spots! Below are screenshots of the pages that follow, filled with example answers (Figures 3 and 4). You will be asked to estimate the percentage of suitable bunchgrass nesting clumps, effective cover, and proximity to water sources. Be sure to carefully read the instructions for each cover type and refer to the pictures (tap the black “i" button in the upper right corner) to learn what you should be looking for. Additionally, when you get to the Food section, you will be asked to search for quail-friendly food plants and provide scores based on both their diversity and distribution. The “Plant Species List” button (lower left corner) provides plenty of examples, and the “i" button here walks you step-by-step through the process of determining food availability.

Figure 3. To begin, visualize a one-acre plot for each habitat type you wish to evaluate.

Figure 4. Study your acre-plot closely as you answer each question to the best of your knowledge.

After completing the survey, you will be provided with an evaluation score reflecting how your property is rated as quail habitat. In areas that might need improvement, simply touch “see recommendations” for a thorough list of ways to improve your habitat in areas that might be lacking. For example, recommendations on improving nesting cover include reducing grazing pressure in areas where cover is lacking, or chemically or mechanically removing brush in areas with cover that is too dense. For these and other management suggestions, you can refer back to the Northern Bobwhite Management Calendar for more details and resources on how (and when) to implement them on your land. Note that the app will not save your habitat evaluation score; if you wish to keep a record of it, you should write it down before closing the application.

Figure 5. The final page of your evaluation will provide a habitat
rating, along with recommendations on how to improve.

Both the Management Calendar and Habitat Evaluation App are designed to streamline and simplify the process of quail habitat management by providing a central location for information and resources. Whether or not you are a landowner, these apps are an excellent learning tool for anyone who wants to further their knowledge of quail and the best ways to create quality habitat for wildlife.

Resources for New Landowners: Soil Management

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:16:00 +0000

By Abigail Holmes, Texas A&M NRI Program Aide

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Introduction

Private Land Stewardship is a core component of our mission at the Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute (NRI), and our goal is to provide landowners with the resources they need to better care for their land. For new or future landowners, the best time to gather knowledge and information is before making management decisions that will have lasting effects on the land. Thinking of well-managed land conjures up images of lush, green fields and healthy wildlife populations, but it is important to stop and consider where it all begins - with the cultivation of healthy soils. In 2018, NRI wrote an article, “Private Land Stewardship Starts with Soils,” that pinpointed just why soils are so important and how they can impact management decisions. For the first article of our new blog series, “Resources for New Landowners,” we will revisit the importance of soils, and go more in-depth into the tools that are available to help us evaluate and understand soil.

Soil Testing

To understand soil, you have to know what’s in it. The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Soil, Water, and Forage Testing Laboratory conducts soil tests to determine property-level characteristics about soil. Some of their current tests include determining soil pH, the proportion of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), amount of micronutrients, salinity, and the presence of both organic and inorganic carbon. If you are unsure of how to collect a soil sample for testing, this video provides an excellent demonstration.

A demonstration of how to take a soil sample, from the Texas A&M
AgriLife Extension YouTube video, “How to Take a Soil Sample.”

NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed Ecological Site Descriptions, an extensive list of reports which classify and describe soil and vegetation for sites across the nation. The four major components of an Ecological Site Description (ESD) include site characteristics, plant communities, site interpretations, and supporting information. Sites are differentiated from one another depending on difference in soil, vegetation, and overstory canopy (e.g. forestland vs. rangeland). ESDs can provide useful information about land use suitability, best land management practices, and sustainability necessities for landowners and land managers.

To locate an ESD, visit the Ecological Site Description System for Rangeland and Forestland Data. This page allows you to search for ESDs either by choosing your state or selecting a Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). If you don’t know your MLRA, you can use this mapping tool to locate it (please note: when searching for MLRAs by state/county, the mapping tool will often freeze so it is best to use other criteria). Take a look at this video for a quick look at how to utilize these tools.

Once you enter your search criteria, a table will provide you with a report link for each available ESD, accompanied by basic site information. Each will be listed as “provisional” or “approved”—provisional status represents a report that has passed the minimum requirements for public release, but will continue to be refined until it gains full approval and distinguishes the site characteristics in detail. Each ESD provides you with a map of the site, common plant species found in the area, and an “ecological site concept.” These concepts paint a picture of the soil structure and important characteristics which may impact management decisions. Elements such as the permeability, pH, nutrient and mineral content of the soil may alter the way you manage the land to encourage healthy flora and fauna.

NRCS Web Soil Survey

The NRCS also developed the Web Soil Survey (WSS), the largest natural resource information system in the world. The WSS compiles information from the National Cooperative Soil Survey to provide vividly detailed soil maps for more than 95% of the nation’s counties. The WSS interactive map provides you with multiple tools to narrow down the map to a specific Area of Interest (AOI) for which you are seeking soil information. This resource is designed to teach landowners everything they need to know about soil to properly understand it, sustainably utilize it, and thoughtfully manage their properties.

To help you learn how to navigate this tool, we will take a look at the following prompt:

Use Web Soil Survey to look up an example property in Stonewall County located at 33° 14’ 19.15” N | 100° 19’ 10.14” W. Determine the predominant soil type at the site, as well as the primary vegetation and any other relevant information. Watch this tutorial to see a step-by-step look at how to find this soil information, or attempt the problem on your own.

Conclusion

Each of these valuable resources was developed to help landowners understand the complexity of soil and make informed decisions about land management. If managers learn the importance of the soil on their land, they will see how it impacts vegetation growth, wildlife and livestock populations, and the future of the property. After learning from these resources, landowners will more clearly recognize the value in managing their land from the ground up - literally.

List of Soil Resources:

● NRI blog - “Private Land Stewardship Starts with Soils”

● Soil testing at the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Soil, Water, and Forage Testing Laboratory

● Texas A&M AgriLife Extension video - “How to Take a Soil Sample”

● NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions and Ecological Site Description System for Rangeland and Forestland Data

○ ESD & MLRA tutorial video

● Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) explorer

● NRCS Web Soil Survey (WSS) and WSS interactive map

○ WSS tutorial video

Get Ready for the Statewide Quail Symposium!

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Fri, 31 May 2019 15:08:00 +0000

Are you prepared for the Statewide Quail Symposium this summer? It's not until mid-August, but you'll need to take action now if you want the best lodging and registration rates. Here's what you should know (and do) to get ready.

First, a breakdown of the basics:

WHAT: A 3-day event focused on topics of quail management and conservation in Texas.
WHERE: The Abilene area, with the MCM Elegante as the host hotel.
WHEN: August 14-16, 2019.
WHO: Speakers include agency personnel, landowners, researchers, and other experts.

Now, what should you do to prepare?

Check out our new website. Here you can read more about the Symposium, see a breakdown of the agenda, and find contact info for the event organizers if you have any questions.
Register! That seems like a given, but you'll want to do it sooner rather than later for a discounted registration rate. It's $50 to register early, which you can do online or by mailing in a registration form, which you can request here. Early registration cost is $50; after August 7, the price jumps to $75.
Take advantage of discounted student rates. Are you a student? If so, you can save even more on registration. Student rates will be $20 for early registration, $50 at the door.
Book a room at a discount with our room block. If you're coming in from out of town and plan to stay at the host hotel, you can get a special room rate of $94 per night by mentioning the Statewide Quail Symposium when you book. The block expires July 16 and it has a limited number of slots, so don't delay on this! Call (325) 698-1234 to book.

Finally, come prepared with any burning questions you want answered. In addition to our formal speakers, there will be plenty of other educators, consultants, researchers, and NGO representatives ready to talk quail.

The Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute grants permission for authors, readers and third parties to reproduce and republish materials from its blogs, publications and online products through permission requests to NRI Communications at nri@tamu.edu. This includes the use of figures, maps, photography and video media. If you have questions about permissions, please contact Brittany Wegner.

A Quail in the Hand: Making the Case for Animal Ambassadors

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Wed, 01 May 2019 13:58:00 +0000

Written by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

“Does anyone know this animal?”

It’s a question I often pose to kids who come by my booth when I promote quail conservation at conferences and events. There’s so much excitement at these gatherings—colorful displays, games, candy, and FREE STUFF—that it’s a wonder they pause in their frantic exploration of the show floor to speak to me at all, but they do! The reason is obvious to anyone walking by: they stare wide-eyed at the little brown creature, round and squat with distinctive black and white facial markings, which I hold in my hands—a wild thing that contrasts sharply with the artificial environment of the exhibit hall. They’re usually eager to answer my question.

“A bird!” they shout with confidence. They’re right of course, but I want specifics.

“Yes, but what kind of bird?” I press. Nine times out of ten, they have no clue—despite the fact that this animal is a native Texas species, and an important one among grassland fauna. From there we can examine the bird together, looking at the shape of his wings, his feet, his beak, to come to the conclusion that it isn’t anything like a raptor or a duck or a dove, but rather more like a miniature chicken. It’s actually a northern bobwhite quail; his name is Kirby, and he’s an animal ambassador for the Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative.

Kirby is an instant hit with visitors at all kinds of events.

Kids certainly aren’t the only ones who are enthralled by Kirby Quail. I’ve found he attracts visitors of all ages and backgrounds, folks who approach wanting to meet him, to take pictures, or to learn more about the species he represents. He is a guaranteed conversation starter, and the questions people have about Kirby tend to transition easily into lessons about bobwhites in general. One of the most common questions asked, for example, is “How old is Kirby?” Four years, if you’re wondering. The really remarkable thing is how Kirby’s age contrasts with the average lifespan of a wild bobwhite, which is only around 6 months to 1 year. People are usually shocked to find that out; then we can talk about why that is, what kinds of challenges they face in the wild and, ultimately, why their conservation is so crucially important.

The concept of an “animal ambassador” is certainly nothing new; zoos and aquariums have known for a long time that giving people a closer, more personal look at animals is a great way to foster emotional and cognitive connections. Studies have found that, among 4^th and 6^th graders, the use of live animals improved student learning and fostered a positive attitude toward the ambassador species (MacMillien 1994; Sherwood et al. 1989). Similar gains have been observed in zoo-goers as well. Visitors who were given opportunities to have active, more direct experiences with zoo fauna were found to have improved perceptions of the target species and conservation in general (Swanagan 2000). The impacts aren’t just feelings, either; these campaigns can also persuade guests to adopt long-lasting conservation behaviors (Mann et al. 2018). Telling people why they should care about animals is one thing, but direct interaction seems to go a long way toward helping that idea take hold.

Kirby Quail: Animal ambassador for the Quail Decline Initiative

Despite the potential benefits of using an animal ambassador, the practice—and Kirby the Quail in particular—have garnered some valid concerns and criticisms. One of the most relevant questions in this case is whether the act of introducing people to a friendly, cuddly, cute quail is going to turn them off to the idea of hunting them. Some of you are shaking your head in dismay at that prospect, and some of you are cheering internally—that is exactly why these are some of the most teachable moments in wildlife outreach. They are perfect opportunities to educate people on how conservation is achieved.

Do you know where the money to fund conservation comes from? Perhaps we should back up first and examine what’s meant by that question—what does it mean to “fund conservation?” There are all kinds of activities that could fall under that banner, but some examples include paying my salary and those of other educators who work on similar projects, supporting research focused on declining species, hosting programs that teach people how to manage and conserve habitat, creating resources (e.g. articles, videos, etc.) that inform people about these topics, and other efforts. In the case of quail in Texas, the money that makes this possible is generated largely by the Pittman–Robertson Act, which taxes the sale of firearms and ammunition to fund the management of game animals and their habitats, as well as the sale of hunting licenses and associated stamps. In short, hunters are footing the majority of bill.

Sometimes people start the “conservation conversation” without knowing these facts but with a strong repulsion to the idea of hunting. They look at Kirby and say, “How could anyone possibly hunt these animals? It’s cruel!” I make a great messenger in those instances, because I am NOT a hunter—I’m a bird watcher, and frankly, I look the part. So when I tell them that hunting is actually one of the best ways to help this species we love, and that hunters are valuable allies to conservation because they also love the bobwhite in their own way, it seems to resonate. I can’t say definitively that no one has ever sworn off hunting forever because they met Kirby, but I suspect that the people who are most enamored with my bird are generally not the same ones who are destined to carry on our hunting heritage. They are usually people—voters or future voters—who never had a single thought about quail prior to our meeting, but who now have a positive and memorable experience to draw upon.

When he's not working, Kirby is one spoiled bird!

Another common question relates to Kirby’s origin and care. First and foremost, rest assured: no wild bobwhites were harmed in the story of Kirby Quail. He was hatched from an egg acquired from a breeder, and since that time he has been accustomed to handling, travelling, and general human interaction to ensure that his job as an ambassador is as low-stress as possible. If you’ve ever had the opportunity to handle a wild quail, or even one raised with a hands-off approach, the difference is immediately obvious: while Kirby will sit calmly in human hands, a “wild” bird will flail violently to escape your grip, which is why experienced handlers know to keep the wings pinned close to the body to prevent harm. That’s not to say Kirby never has off days. When he shows signs of stress, or fatigue, or just general grouchiness, he goes off display, no questions asked. His health and safety are always top priorities.

Now that Kirby is getting older, he has a younger “sister” as an understudy—Bonnie Blue, a scaled quail (another native Texas species, also from a breeder). Although she is more energetic and curious than her big brother—it’s not clear whether the differences are due to her age or her species—she is also proving to be just as receptive to human interaction and is shaping up to be another excellent ambassador. She will also enjoy the same care and attention that have allowed Kirby such a long and productive career.

Bonnie Blue, Kirby's "sister," is also shaping up to be a great ambassador.

Of all the people who visit the Reversing the Decline of Quail Initiative booth, there’s one type that really stands out: older folks are delighted just to see a bobwhite quail. They share memories of times when, growing up in rural Texas, they would see birds just like Kirby running up and down the dirt roads, or flush a massive covey while walking through a field, or hear that characteristic “poor, bob-WHITE” whistle call echoing all around them in the grass at daybreak. Many come to the realization that it’s been a long time since they’ve experienced any of those things. Some are eager for answers, so we have a discussion about where the quail have gone; others seem content to stroke Kirby’s feathery chest and contemplate that sad fact, and that’s okay too. Either way, it seems like when they leave, they’re thinking more about this little brown bird than when they arrived: about its ecology, its life, its significance, and most importantly, about its decline and how to stop it.

References Cited:

MacMillen, O. (1994). Zoomobile effectiveness: sixth graders learning vertebrate classification. Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 181-183.
Mann, J. B., Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J. (2018) Penguin Promises: encouraging aquarium visitors to take conservation action, Environmental Education Research, 24:6, 859-874, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1365355
Sherwood, K. P., Rallis, S. F. & Stone, J. (1989). Effects of live animals vs. preserved specimens on student learning. Zoo Biology 8: 99-104.
Swanagan, J. S. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors' conservation attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 26.

Permit Required: What You Need to Know to Hunt, Release, or Move Quail in Texas

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:00:00 +0000

Written by Shelby McCay, Student Technician, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Robert Perez, Quail Program Leader, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Edited by John Mclaughlin, West Texas Quail Program Leader, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Introduction:

Three of the four quail species found in Texas are considered upland game birds and, as a result, activities involving these species are regulated for harvest by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). In order to hunt quail, develop a Private Bird Hunting Area, or trap and relocate wild birds, individuals must acquire the proper permits. In this article we explore three of the most common permits needed for quail in Texas: hunting licenses, private bird hunting area licenses, and Trap, Transport and Transplant (TTT) permits.

An upland game bird stamp is required to hunt quail in Texas. Photo by TPWD.

Hunting Quail:

Anyone who wishes to hunt quail must possess a valid hunting license with an upland game bird endorsement (stamp). In addition, every hunter (including out-of-state hunters) born on or after September 2, 1971 must successfully complete a Hunter Education Training Course. There are several options for the training, including a classroom course, online/field combination course, and an online only course available to those 17 years of age and older. Hunting licenses are valid from the purchase date through the following August 31^st, so always ensure that yours is up to date before going out into the field and make sure to observe season dates and bag limits for different game birds and animals.

Annual hunting licenses go on sale August 15 each year and can be purchased from a variety of retailers or online directly from TPWD. If you’re wondering where those fees go, TPWD reports that “100% of your hunting and fishing license fees go to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for on-the-ground conservation efforts that help make Texas one of the best places in the country to hunt and fish. Fish stocking, wildlife management, habitat restoration, land conservation, and Texas Game Wardens are just some of the initiatives funded in part by your license fees.”

The cover of the 2015-2016 TPWD Outdoor Annual

showing a covey of Scaled Quail. Photo by TPWD.

The Texas statewide quail season begins the Saturday closest to October 28th through the last Saturday in February and allows for the hunting of Northern Bobwhite, Scaled (blue) and Gambel's Quail. While Mearn's (Montezuma) quail have designated hunting seasons in other states, there is no open season for this species in Texas. It’s always a good idea to check out the Outdoor Annual for the most up-to-date regulations and to see if any changes were made for quail hunting in your region.

Releasing pen-reared birds for hunting purposes:

In Texas, a Private Bird Hunting Area license is required for landowners who wish to release banded, pen-reared bobwhite (or other pen-reared game birds (see TPWD designations) species such as pheasant, pigeons, partridge, chukar and mallard ducks) solely for year-round hunting purposes. This license cannot be used to propagate or sell quail, and quail acquired under this license must come from a licensed game bird breeder. In addition, this license is only valid for one contiguous tract of land from September 1 to August 31 of the following year.

Unlike with a normal hunting license, there is no season or bag or possession limit for these pen-reared game birds, and each must be fitted with a metal or plastic leg band that features the ID/dealer number of the permit holder before they are released. The property where the birds are released must be distinguishable from other hunting properties by signs posted along its perimeter with the words “Private Bird Hunting Area.” Each sign must also include the identification or dealer number of the permit holder. This license requires an application for each tract of land and a fee of $84 for each application. In addition, any person hunting on one of these areas must have a valid hunting license and Upland Game Bird Stamp endorsement, as mentioned above.

In Texas it is legal to purchase live game birds from a breeder to release on private property for various purposes, including for training bird dogs and to attempt to establish a new population. A private bird hunting area license is not required under these circumstances. The moment the birds are released onto the property they are legally considered wild and fall under all the applicable game laws (hunting regs, possession).

One point of debate to keep in mind when releasing pen-reared quail is speculation that these quail negatively affect wild bird populations. There are concerns regarding disease or parasite transmission, increased predator abundance, and the unintended displacement of wild bobwhites (Brennan 1991, Hernández and Perez 2007), although these theories have not been confirmed. Studies have repeatedly shown that the majority of pen-raised quail do not pose a threat to wild bird populations and importantly, do not survive long in the wild, making them a decent option for short-term hunting recreation but a poor one for establishing sustainable populations. Improving and managing habitat for quail is a better investment than releasing pen-raised birds if your goals tend towards the latter. The Texas A&M Natural Resources Quail Decline Initiative has a wealth of educational videos, resources and technical assistance available for those who would like to learn more about quail management. In addition, many TPWD Wildlife biologists can provide quail management technical assistance.

Moving Wild Birds: Trap, Transport and Transplant (TTT):

Trap, Transport and Transplant (TTT) permits are not currently being issued for wild quail in Texas pending further research on the efficacy of this approach to restore or bolster populations. To date, all translocations of wild quail have been completed under Scientific Permits issued to qualified applicants to conduct research. If or when application are accepted for quail TTT, the protocols outlined in the Upland Game Bird Management Handbook would apply. Including denial of applications if it is determined that the proposed activities are likely to have detrimental effects on the source population or existing populations near the release site, if the release site is outside the suitable range for the species, or if the release site does not have suitable habitat capable of sustaining the introduced birds.

The Upland Game Bird Management Handbook is a great resource

for landowners interested in supporting quail. Photo by TPWD.

Permit Violations

Conducting any of the aforementioned activities without the proper permit(s), or violation of the permit terms, can have legal consequences. These penalties can involve fines, permit revocation, or potential jailtime if the violations are serious enough. When in doubt, it is always a good idea to contact your local Game Warden to make ensure you have the correct permits and you are following their terms.

Conclusion:

As we’ve seen, there are quite a few permits involved with quail hunting and management activities in Texas. Each has specific terms that need to be followed, so it is always a good idea to reach out to your local biologist or Game Warden to make sure you are complying with the permit. In the end, each serves a unique purpose and helps ensure that all quail species are effectively conserved and managed for present and future Texans.

References:

Brennan, L.A. 1991. How can we reverse the Northern Bobwhite population decline? Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:544-555.
Hernández, F., and R.M. Perez. 2007. Managing and releasing pen-raised bobwhites. Pages 327-335 in Brennan, L.A., and K. Armstrong, eds. Texas Quails: Ecology and Management. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, USA.
McCay, S., A. Gobeli, J. Cathey, and D. Rollins. 2018. The Problem with Pen Raised Quail. Wild Wonderings Blog. http://wild-wonderings.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-problem-with-pen-raised-quail.html. Accessed 8 October 2018.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2010. Private Bird Hunting Area License. https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/licenses/media/PWD_348a_Private_Bird_Hunting_Area_Information.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2018.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2010. Trap, Transport & Transplant Permit Application Package. https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdforms/media/pwd_1242_w7000_ttt_quail.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2018.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2015. Private Bird Hunting Area Application.. https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/licenses/media/PWD_348_Private_Bird_Hunting_Area.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2018.

Statewide Quail Symposium Returns!

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:32:00 +0000

Written by Shelby McCay, Student Technician, Natural Resources Institute

Ah-bob-WHITE! Calling all quail enthusiasts – the Statewide Quail Symposium returns this summer! This biennial conference brings together Texas experts in the fields of quail conservation, management and research to weigh in on frequently asked questions and hotly debated topics. Presenters include state agency personnel, research scientists, landowners, and managers to share expertise and address issues threatening quail.

The conference will kick off with a field day hosted at the MT7 Ranch in Breckenridge, where attendees will get a firsthand look at quail habitat management strategies in action and learn various techniques for habitat evaluation. The following two days will be packed with seminars led by a variety of experts ranging from field biologists to land managers and agency personnel. Get updates on quail outreach and education efforts, learn about both sides of controversial issues in “point/counterpoint” sessions which encourage debate, and hear the latest news in quail research.

Topics covered include:

Effects of invasive species on quail

Best management practices for quail habitat

Emerging research on parasites and disease

Variables in the quail equation

initiatives to recruit new quail hunters and NGO support

Cows and quail

The value of management on small acreages

Coyotes as a predator of quail

Translocation as a restoration technique

Quail and rain

Use of GPS transmitters in quail research

Does management work?

Quail census methods

…and more!

This year’s symposium will be held August 14th-16^th, 2019 at the MCM Elegante in Abilene, TX. Tickets are available for purchase through the Texas Wildlife Association. Early Registration is $50 and will be $75 at the door. Student tickets are available for $20. All proceeds will benefit the Rolling Plains Bobwhite Brigade.

Stay up to date with the symposium through the TAMU Quail Decline Initiative Facebook Page.

Texas Quail Index 2018 Summary

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:09:00 +0000

Written by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

The end of 2017 had quail enthusiasts across the state of Texas holding their breath. Years 2015 and 2016 had been remarkable for quail with record numbers of birds heard, seen and hunted, and the highest values yet recorded in the Texas Quail Index monitoring program. While 2017 wasn’t a bust by any means, we saw a levelling off of the meteoric rise in quail numbers in many parts of the state. High carryover from the preceding years ensured that there were still plenty of birds around at the start of hunting season, but it felt like our rollercoaster was nearing its apex and preparing to plummet down the other side.

A male and female bobwhite pair. Photo courtesy of TPWD.

By several accounts, that’s exactly what happened. Texas Parks and Wildlife’s longstanding quail monitoring program, which includes 14 years of roadside count data, reports a nearly 80% drop off in bobwhite sightings this year versus last year in the Rolling Plains (average of 26.72 birds seen per route in 2017, 5.43 in 2018). Scaled quail fared worse, with counts falling more than 90% this year in the same ecoregion (average of 3.67 birds seen per route in 2017, 0.30 in 2018). The graphs for each species paint a startling picture of this rise and fall, with peaks representing the recent record highs dropping off starkly to near 2013/14 levels. The Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch has also reported disappointing trapping numbers and a lack of quail this hunting season.

Bobwhite roadside counts in the Rolling Plains dropped starkly this year. Graph from the TPWD 2018-19 Quail Forecast.

Quail Index Roadside Count Data show similar trends. While data collection efforts in some areas were once again hampered by (much-needed) rain, we saw a drop in average bobwhite counts from 1.36 birds per mile in 2017 to 0.38 birds this year. Among cooperators in scaled quail country—namely the Edwards Plateau and Trans Pecos ecoregions—the “blues” appeared to weather the bust better with numbers even increasing slightly from an average of 1.29 birds per mile in 2017 to 1.36 this year. Because our Rolling Plains cooperators report only on bobwhites, we cannot offer any input on the scaled quail decline reported in the Rolling Plains by Texas Parks and Wildlife.

Roadside count results for the 2018 Texas Quail Index. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Roadside counts are typically conducted in late summer, but the TQI begins monitoring quail populations in the spring (April/May) with call counts. Judging by call count data alone, it seemed like quail populations might have stabilized after all. Counts for both species were about on par with 2017, averaging slightly higher for bobwhites (3.4 roosters per mile marker this year, 3.1 last year) and slightly lower for scaled quail (1.5 this year, 1.8 last year). This is likely attributable to the holdover from the previous year. While some parts of the state, such as the panhandle, were already experiencing severe drought conditions during this time, the dry spell wouldn’t really take its toll on most Texas quail country until the summer—i.e., peak quail breeding season.

The U.S. Drought Monitor from June 26 shows several parts of the state in moderate to extreme drought.

The disparity between call count and roadside count numbers suggests that quail faced serious challenges over the summer. One of the ways that the Quail Index attempts to gauge breeding season challenges is through the use of “dummy nests”—stand-ins for quail nests, constructed using 3 chicken eggs, which can be monitored to estimate rates of actual nest predation. This year, our dummy nest survival rates were the lowest they’ve ever been for the TQI, averaging only 41%. While it may seem defeatist to mark a <50% success rate as satisfactory, quail nests experience such naturally high rates of predation that anything above 40% is generally considered acceptable. However, the change relative to last year (average dummy nest survival was 49% in 2017) may be worth paying attention to. Some of this might be attributable to human factors, such as differences in volunteers or cooperating properties, but it’s also possible that it’s a symptom of increased predation pressure or reduced habitat quality.

The TQI includes protocols for monitoring predators as well, using eggshell evidence from dummy nests and game cameras. In the case of nests, the two most commonly identified predators were raccoons, which have a tendency to tear shells into large chunks, and coyotes, which typically crush shells into tiny fragments. These two together made up more than half of our “candidates of destruction” for dummy nests. Game camera evidence suggests that one nest predator may be underrepresented, however: feral hogs. The number of hogs caught on camera rose dramatically this year (199), more than doubling last year’s count (72) and totaling more than coyotes and raccoons combined (83 and 85, respectively). Overall, we saw more total predators photographed this year, but less species diversity with the feral hogs dominating the counts.

Feral hogs were especially abundant quail predators this year. Photo courtesy of USDA.

The TQI’s habitat evaluations further clarify why quail may have struggled this summer. These scores have always trended high, with properties rarely falling below the “good” or “excellent” ranges, but our average overall Evaluation Value this year—0.62—was the lowest it’s been over the course of the Index. That score follows precedent and places in the “good” category, but the limiting factors that contribute to it are a departure from the norm. “Limiting factors” are aspects of the habitat that restrict its usability for a species (bobwhite or scaled quail in this case) and nesting cover has almost always been limiting. This year however, the most significant factors were availability of food and diversity of woody cover species, both of which may have been exacerbated by lack of rain.

In short: it looks like we’ve finally hit a bust. Some may find this disheartening after the great resurgence of 2015 and 16, but it’s important to remember that boom and bust cycles are simply how quail populations operate. Ups and downs are normal, and even the most expertly managed, quail-friendly properties will have them. Data collection and continued monitoring are just as important in bust years as they are in boom years, as we learn which conditions produce fewer birds and maintain long-term data sets to detect trends over time.

TQI cooperators with the Rolling Plains Texas Master Naturalist group.

Thank you to the Texas Quail Index cooperators—including volunteers, county extension agents, wildlife biologists and landowners who make that data collection possible!

Spotlight on Quail Predators: Raccoons and Nest Depredation

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:02:00 +0000

Written By Abigail Holmes, Texas A&M University WFSC ‘19

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. Dale Rollins, Statewide Coordinator, Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative

Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are pervasive throughout most of the United States, and these “masked bandits” are well-known predators of quail and their eggs. Populations of raccoons and other mesopredators have steadily grown over the last 30 years due to several factors, including an increase in both fragmented habitats, a decline in the fur market, and supplemental feeding for deer and other wildlife (Rollins, 2014). If you are a landowner attempting to manage your property to benefit quail populations, there are steps you can take to determine if raccoons are predominant predators on your land.

Researchers attempt to determine the perpetrator of nest depredation events based on either eggshell evidence or camera footage. One west Texas study that utilized remotely-triggered cameras for nest surveillance found that raccoons were responsible for 91% of depredations in simulated quail nests (Hernandez et al. 1997). Similar studies along the border of Florida and Georgia found raccoons to be the most significant mammalian predators of quail nests, making up between 5-29% of depredations over a two year period. Most of these nest raids occurred at night and involved a raccoon removing eggs from the nest with its front paws or mouth, then remaining at the nest while eating its meal (Staller et al. 2005).

Eggshell evidence alone may not always be a reliable method of identifying nest depredation by raccoons. One study in west Texas reported that raccoons left eggshells behind after raiding nests, while researchers in Florida captured video evidence of a raccoon eating quail eggs whole and leaving no evidence (Hernandez et al.1997; Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy 2018). It is commonly stated that raccoons will tear eggshells into large fragments and discard them near the nest bowl, but this behavior may vary depending on the size of the eggs in question (Hernandez et al. 1997). Hernandez et al. found eggshell evidence 91% of the time when chicken eggs were used, but only 3% of the time when quail eggs were used. The only indisputable evidence of a nest predator’s identity is camera footage, which can be used in conjunction with simulated (“dummy”) nests to maximize the chances of catching an egg bandit in the act.

A raccoon caught in the act of nest depredation.
Photo by Dr. Dale Rollins.

Although raccoons may pose a significant threat to quail eggs, they are often unsuccessful at preying on adult quail. Another video from the Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy shows a raccoon attempting to grab a quail incubating its nest. The quail is able to flush and escape the raccoon, but this leaves its eggs vulnerable. A nest full of eggs, stationary and defenseless, is a far easier meal for a raccoon than a highly mobile adult bird. Because of this, raccoons more commonly depredate quail eggs than prey on quail themselves, making them more of a problem predator during spring and summer nesting seasons.

The use of trail cameras and/or dummy nests can help landowners determine if raccoons are causing trouble for quail on their property, but what rights do landowners have to limit raccoon nest depredation? According to the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, raccoons become classified as “nuisance fur-bearing animals” when they are depredating or threatening human health or safety (TPWD, 2018). Landowners are legally allowed to take these “nuisance” animals by any means on their own personal land with no hunting or trapping license and no limit on numbers. However, according to TPWD it is illegal to:

Take fur-bearing animals on privately-owned land or body of water without the consent of the owner of the land or water or his agent
Take fur-bearing animals on statutory wildlife sanctuaries, public roads and highways or their rights-of-way
Take fur-bearing animals with snare, foothold, body-gripping-style traps, and/or live box trap unless such devices are examined at least once every 36 hours and animals are removed on discovery
Shoot at, take or attempt to take any fur-bearing animal from a boat on public waters in Texas
Use smoke, explosives or chemical irritants of any kind to harry or flush fur-bearing animals
Harvest or sell the pelt from such nuisance animals unless the person possesses a valid trapping license and the take occurs during the defined furbearer season.

A raccoon photographed by a trail camera. Photo from the Texas Quail Index.

It is important to note that the efficacy of predator control to benefit prey species has mixed reviews in the scientific community, and there are other ways to mitigate the effects of raccoons on your land which may be more effective. One method might be to reduce your predator control efforts altogether; scientists suggest that coyotes, through direct predation on mesopredator species, can alleviate predation on quail by species like raccoons (Henke and Bryant, 1999). In theory, if coyotes kill raccoons, there will be fewer raccoons threatening quail nests. Predation management is always complex, but coyotes can alter how raccoons use the habitat and help keep them confined to heavier brush (which is less likely to serve as quail nesting habitat) (Cooper et al. 2015).

Another way to protect quail eggs from raccoons is to cultivate better nesting habitat. The more hidden a nesting site is, the less likely it is to be discovered by predators. Lastly, if you are providing supplemental feed for quail, be aware that multiple non-target species might be utilizing your feeders. You can continue putting your game cameras to good use by setting them up near feeders to determine how much of your feed is actually being consumed by quail and how much is feeding raccoons, wild pigs, or other undesired species. Feeder sites can serve as productive sites to trap raccoons (Henson et al. 2012). If you find that a large portion of your feed is being eaten by quail adversaries, you may need to alter or eliminate your supplemental feeding practices altogether to prevent quail predators from congregating in those areas. Small management changes can have a big impact when it comes to reducing predation on quail, and it is often best left up to well-informed landowners to decide what practices will most effectively reduce raccoon nest depredation on their individual properties.

For further rules and regulations on the capture, take, and sale of fur-bearing animals, view an informational TPWD publication here.

For information on how to cultivate better nesting habitat for quail, take a look at the videos on our YouTube playlist.

Literature Cited:

Cooper, S. M., Jhala, S., Rollins, D. and Feagin, R. A. 2015. Nocturnal movements and habitat selection of mesopredators encountering bobwhite nests. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 39: 138-146. doi:10.1002/wsb.499
Henke, S.E. and F.C. Bryant. 1999. Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community in western Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63(4): 1066-1081.
Henson, K. D., et al. 2012. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wsb.209
Hernandez, F., D. Rollins, & R. Cantu. 1997. Evaluating evidence to identify ground-nest predators in west Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(4): 826-831.
Rollins, D. 2014. Integrated predation management for quail managers. Texas Wildlife Association. San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from https://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/wildlife/files/2013/09/Integrated-Predation-Mgt-TWA-2-14.pdf
Staller, E.L., W.E. Palmer, J.P. Carroll, R.P. Thornton, & D.C. Sisson. 2005. Identifying predators at northern bobwhite nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1): 124-132.
Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy. [Talltimbers1958]. 2018. Raccoon depredation [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYRJEOT2oSg&feature=youtu.be
Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy. [Talltimbers1958]. 2012. Raccoon attack [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWmXH5-9UZo&feature=youtu.be
[TPWD] Fur-bearing animal regulations. 2018. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, TX. Retrieved from https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_br_w7000_0065.pdf

Do Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Have a Place in Wild Pig Management?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 18:55:00 +0000

By: Ian Gates, Research Associate – Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited By: Josh Helcel, Extension Associate – Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are a growing concern across the country, and, unfortunately, Texas seems to have the largest population over other states. Landowners, producers and others concerned with minimizing damages associated with this exotic species often look to emerging technologies to reduce wild pig numbers. Remotely activated trapping system manufacturers boast higher capture rates over traditional box and corral traps that rely on a mechanical trigger tripped by wild pigs. Aerial gunning with a helicopter proved to be a viable population reduction tool (Campbell et al. 2010). Even conventional hunting can be improved through the use of technologies such as night vision, thermal optics and firearm suppressors. Now, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are gaining a place in the management toolbox to improve management of wild pigs.

Emerging Uses of UAVs

From recreational flying by hobbyists to commercial uses like construction or even military applications, today’s UAVs are fast becoming a daily tool to complete tasks in a more efficient way. For instance, the largest retailer in the world, while currently limited by aviation regulations, is already poised to deliver packages to your door with UAVs. Researchers and agricultural producers have taken notice of UAV benefits, and have begun incorporating this technology into agricultural production. In fact, 80-90% of the anticipated growth in the UAV market by 2025 is projected to come from the agricultural sector (Stehr 2015). From sensing and mapping the methane emissions of cattle to detecting the ideal ripeness of fruits through their ethylene levels (Pobkrut et al. 2016), UAV use in agriculture is well underway and seemingly here to stay.

Unmanned aerial vehicles use will progress along with the need, technology and acceptance of this tool. For instance, improvements to UAV flight controllers and other sensors are already translating to the actual pilot becoming less of a necessity and more of a safety precaution. In the not too distant future, UAVs will be able to perform their duties autonomously. Provided a number of regulatory hurdles involved with autonomous aircraft are resolved, this could mean a big win for agricultural production or crop protection.

Fully autonomous aerial vehicles will be capable of both flying and charging without the need of human involvement.

UAV Uses in Wild Pig Research

Many UAVs can be equipped with infrared or thermal sensors as well as low light cameras which aid in the detection of the primarily nocturnal wild pig. While research efforts have focused mainly on agricultural crop monitoring and damage assessment (Michez et al. 2016; Steinbrucken 2013), UAVs equipped with these kinds of systems are also being used gain a bird’s-eye view of wild pigs, their trails and loafing areas. Additionally, UAV systems are being developed that have the ability to discern the difference between damage specifically caused by wild pigs and other sources of damage (Rutton et al. 2018). For instance, UAV sensors can identify differences in damage signatures caused by flooding and other sources as opposed to wild pigs. This kind of research could potentially lead to streamlined and efficient crop loss documentation for insurance claims in the future. Other UAV research efforts involve direct wild pig monitoring and surveys for population estimates (Racanelli et al. 2018). This research demonstrates an emerging role for UAV systems in wild pig management, with implications for more efficient control measures in the future.

Crop damage due to wild pigs can be efficiently documented by UAVs (Texas A&M AgriLife Photo by Boone Holliday)

The Potential Role of UAVs in Wild Pig Control

Researchers, producers and agencies such as Texas Wildlife Services are already utilizing UAVs to gain a better understanding of crop destruction caused by wild pigs, especially on lands which may be difficult or time consuming to access. However, UAVs are also being used to scout for wild pigs, identify areas they frequently inhabit and to determine their access points onto a property. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) laws and certification procedures in Texas are strict and for good reason, so direct control efforts from an UAV are extremely unlikely. More realistic uses for the UAVs in wild pig control in the future will most likely be in a supporting role that increases the efficacy of legal control methods. One example could be to utilize an autonomous thermal equipped UAV to locate sounders for trapping, hunting or aerial gunning with helicopters. Another could be to efficiently determine potential snaring locations by flying a UAV around a property’s perimeter fence instead of spending all day driving to scout snare sites. While the primary limitations of UAV today are mostly regulatory, numerous possible uses for UAVs in wild pig control exist that could come into play in the future.

Conclusion

Although it may seem intimidating, getting to know the ends and outs of UAVs has become easier. Many people can pick up a controller and within a few hours become competent in flying simple recreational UAVs. Those who live near large cities may readily find groups that offer flight lessons and companies that rent UAV equipment at reasonable rates. There are many great options among UAV types, but it is a good idea to try different ones before purchasing a particular aircraft. Flying with someone that already uses the UAVs is encouraged, and practicing will increase your comfort level in operating the aircraft. Whether using UAVs commercially or non-commercially, a pilot should know and understand all applicable rules and regulations for UAV operation in their state before operating any aircraft. Although UAVs are not the sole answer to wild pig or land management, they are emerging as another tool that should receive consideration.

Wild pig resources listed below are available at the AgriLife Bookstore

– L-5523 Recognizing Feral Hog Sign
– L-5524 Corral Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs
– L-5525 Box Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs
– L-5526 Placing and Baiting Feral Hog Traps
– L-5527 Door Modifications for Feral Hog Traps
– L-5528 Snaring Feral Hog
– L-5529 Making a Feral Hog Snare
– SP-419 Feral Hogs Impact Ground-nesting Birds
– SP-420 Feral Hog Laws and Regulations
– SP-421 Feral Hogs and Disease Concerns
– SP-422 Feral Hogs and Water Quality in Plum Creek
– SP-423 Feral Hog Transportation Regulations
– L-5533 Using Fences to Exclude Feral Hogs from Wildlife Feeding Stations
– WF-030 Reducing Non-target Species Interference While Trapping Wild Pigs
– WF-033 Wild Pigs and Ticks: Implications for Livestock Production, Human and Animal Health
– ENRI-005 Wild Pigs Negatively Impact Water Quality: Implications for Land and Watershed Management

Click here for additional resources on wild pigs

______________________________________________________________________________________________

For educational programming or technical assistance with wild pigs please contact:

Josh Helcel, 512-554-3785, josh.helcel@tamu.edu

Literature Cited

Campbell, T.A, D.B.Long and B.R. Leland. 2010. Feral swine behavior relative to aerial gunning in southern Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 74(2)

Michez, A., K. Morelle, F. Lehaire, J. Widar, M. Authelet, C. Vermeulen and P. Lejeune. 2016. Use of unmanned aerial system to assess wildlife (Sus scrofa) damage to crops (Zea mays). Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, Vol. 4, No. 4 : pp. 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2016-0014

Pobkrut, T., T. Eamsa-ard and T. Kerdcharoen. 2016. Sensor drone for aerial odor mapping for agriculture and security services. 13th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), Chiang Mai, pp. 1-5. doi: 10.1109/ECTICon.2016.7561340

Rutten, A., J. Casaer, K. Cox and H. Leirs. 2018. Assessing agricultural damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) using drones. Institute for Nature and Forest Research, University of Antwerp. Conference proceedings from the international wild pig conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Stehr, N.J. 2015. Drones: The newest technology for precision agriculture. Natural Sciences Education. 44:15-04-0772. doi:10.4195/nse2015.04.0772

Steinbrucken, B. 2013. A comparison of survey methods for monitoring crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa). BIOM32. Lund University Libraries. Id:4123606

The Many Functions of Wallowing for Wild Pigs

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 18:35:00 +0000

Written by Shelby McCay, Texas A&M University, WFSC ’15 and MNRD ’19

Edited by Josh Helcel, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Wallowing is defined as coating the body surface with mud or a mud-like substance and while this behavior is not found exclusively in wild pigs (Sus scrofa) (rhinos, elephants, bovids and deer will also wallow) it is most commonly attributed to them (Bracke 2011). You may be wondering, why do they wallow? What function does it serve? As it turns out there are a variety of reasons why pigs wallow and we will explore each further here.

Thermoregulation

Both wild and domestic pigs are prone to overheating due to their lack of sweat glands and so they must use other methods to regulate their body temperature. These include moving during the cooler hours of the day, occupying shaded areas, or wallowing. In Texas, wild pigs typically wallow during mid-day throughout the summer and into the early fall months in order to avoid the hottest parts of the day. As average temperatures begin to decline, wallowing becomes less of a necessity for cooling and more of an opportunistic behavior. So why do they use mud to cool off instead of just getting directly in water? One study showed that it took two hours for the water in the mud on wild pigs to evaporate compared to only 15 minutes for just water (Ingram 1965). Essentially, layers of mud can serve as a kind of long lasting “wet suit” to keep wild pigs cool in warm environments (Bracke 2011).

Health Benefits

In addition to aiding in thermoregulation, the mud layer wild pigs obtain from wallowing can provide multiple health benefits. Research has shown that mud can serve as a kind of protective layer against biting insects (Nalin 1996) and sunburn (Gegner 2001). One study found that wallowing could potentially help wild boars disinfect wounds caused by fighting through the bactericidal properties of the mud (Fernández-Llario 2005). Wild pigs can carry a variety of ectoparasites, including fleas, lice and ticks (Schuster 2011) and they usually carry the highest parasite load in the summer months (Bracke 2011). Ticks in particular are commonly found behind the ears and on thin skinned areas where wild pigs have a hard time reaching (Bracke 2011) and are one of the most common ectoparasites found on wild pigs. In a study conducted in Texas, seven different species of ticks were found on wild pigs across eight eco-regions (Sanders et al. 2013). Wallowing can help wild pigs to remove some of these ectoparasites as the mud layer can trap some of them and the pigs can later remove by rubbing on either natural or manmade objects. Wild pigs will often intelligently seek out telephone poles and posts treated with creosote achieve this, as the compound is toxic to ectoparasites. In areas with high wild pig activity, visible markings from their rubbing behavior can often be found.

Wallowing and rubbing behavior helps to rid wild pigs of fleas, lice and ticks.

Sexual Function

In a 2005 study, Fernàndez-Llario looked at the wallowing behavior of wild boars in Spain and found that males wallowed mainly in the autumn months when temperatures and parasitic loads were low. So if thermoregulation and parasite removal weren’t driving the wallowing behavior in the males, what was? To try to figure this out, the study also looked at the reproductive systems of sows and found that the primary breeding season stretched from the last part of October into the first part of November which overlapped with the increased wallowing behavior in the males. This suggests that there may also be a sexual function to wallowing for wild pigs, although further studies are needed to confirm this potential connection.

Research indicated that wallowing may also serve a role in wild pig reproduction. While more research is needed, adult males (boars) increased wallowing activity during active breeding periods.

Conclusion

Overall wallowing is unique behavior that serves many functions for wild pigs, but it does have negative environmental impacts on our Texas’s water systems. Wallows can affect watersheds by muddying waters, creating bank erosion, creating algae blooms, destroying aquatic vegetation, and decreasing livestock use and fish production (Stevens 2010, eXtension 2012, Helcel et al. 2018). Wild pigs will often create wallows in moist areas near ponds, creeks and sloughs since they offer easy access to mud and as they lie in these areas they will defecate, adding bacteria and pathogens into the water resulting in impairments to the system and degrading the ecosystem (Peterson et al. 2012, Helcel et al. 2018). This fecal contamination can transmit pathogens that can threaten agricultural production, livestock productivity, wildlife, and limit human use (Helcel et al. 2018). Consistent and widespread abatement efforts remain important in reducing the damages associated with wild pigs, and can lead to improved water quality, habitat and overall ecosystem functionality.

Wild pig resources listed below are available at the AgriLife Bookstore

Click here for additional resources on wild pigs

______________________________________________________________________________________________

For educational programming or technical assistance with wild pigs please contact:

Josh Helcel, 512-554-3785, josh.helcel@tamu.edu

References

Bracke, M.B.M. 2011. Review of wallowing in pigs: Description of the behaviour and its motivational basis. Applied Animal Behavior Science 132, 1-13.

eXtension. 2012. Feral Hog Behavior. http://articles.extension.org/pages/64381/feral-hog-behavior.

Fernández-Llario, P., 2005. The sexual function of wallowing in male wild boar (Sus scrofa). Journal of Ethology. 23, 9–14.

Ingram, D.L., 1965. Evaporative cooling in pig. Nature 207, 415–416.

Gegner, L., 2001. Considerations in organic hog production. ATTRA’s organic matters series. http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/ ATTRA/hog production2001.pdf.

Helcel, J., Teel, P., Tyson, M., Cash, J., Hensley, T., and Cathey, J.C. 2016. Wild Pigs and Ticks: Implications for Livestock Production, Human and Animal Health. AgriLife Extension Service. https://wildpigs.nri.tamu.edu/media/1293/ewf-033-widl-pigs-and-ticks-implications-for-livestock-production-human-and-animal-health.pdf.

Helcel, J., Cobb, F. and Cathey, J. 2018. Wild pigs negatively impact water quality: Implications for land and watershed management. AgriLife Extension Service. https://wildpigs.nri.tamu.edu/media/1187/enri-005-widl-pigs-negatively-impact-water-quality-implications-for-land-and-watershed-management.pdf.

Nalin, D.R., 1996. O come, let us wallow in glorious mud’ Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 90, p. 717.

Peterson, J., Cathey, J., Wagner, K. and Redmon, L. Lone Star Healthy Streams Feral Hog Manual. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. http://www.agrilifebookstore.org/Lone-Star-Healthy-Streams-Feral-Hog-Manual-p/esc-005.htm.

Sanders, D.M., A.L. Schuster, P. W. McCardle, O. F. Strey, T. L. Blankenship, and P. D. Teel. 2013. Ixodid ticks associated with feral swine in Texas. Journal of Vector Ecology. 38:361–373.

Stevens, R. 2010. The feral hog in Oklahoma. The Samuels Roberts Noble Foundation, Ardmore, Oklahoma, USA.

Schuster, A.L. 2011. Spatial and Temporal Survey of Feral Pig Ectoparasites in Three Texas Wildlife Districts (Doctoral Dissertation).

http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2011-12-10290/SCHUSTER-DISSERTATION.pdf;sequence=2.

Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Texas Quail

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:59:00 +0000

Written by Abigail Holmes, Texas A&M University WFSC ‘19

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Ms. Amanda Gobeli, Dr. Roel Lopez, Dr. Brian Pierce,
and Dr. Dale Rollins of the Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Climate scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate that greenhouse gas induced climate change will produce a global temperature rise between 2.5°F and 10°F in the next century (NASA, 2018). They predict this change will have serious implications for some wildlife and their ecosystems. Researchers have identified a variety of changes that both plants and animals may undergo in response to global warming such as shifts in distribution, earlier breeding times, and reduced breeding performance (Crick, 2004). Many species will likely shift their distributions northward to cooler latitudes in order to compensate for rising global temperatures (Gates, 1993).

Warmer temperatures may also encourage a “spring advancement” trend among wildlife, meaning they would initiate seasonal breeding activities earlier in the year. Signs of spring advancement include behaviors like earlier flowering, mating, or nesting. One study conducted on 677 species of plants and animals found that 62% were already exhibiting signs of spring advancement (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). Many bird species are especially susceptible to this phenomenon because their life cycles are highly influenced by temperature and rainfall patterns, which makes them excellent bio-indicators for the current state of the ecosystems in which they live. It is estimated that the egg laying date for 75% of bird species in the year 2080 will occur earlier on average than they do today (Crick & Sparks, 1999). Earlier nesting and egg-laying dates are just a couple of many examples that indicate how climate change can alter the life history of animals.

A male (left) and female (right) Montezuma quail. Photo by Aaron Maizlish.

What do these projected changes mean for Texas quails, specifically? According to some climate models, Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae), the least abundant quail in Texas, will potentially see an overall decrease of about 35-41% of suitable environmental conditions and areas in which they can live by 2070 (Salas et al. 2017). Montezuma quail in the United States are primarily found in the mountains of New Mexico, and hotter temperatures could initially provide the opportunity to expand into higher latitudes as these regions warm in the next few decades. The warming effect is a double-edged sword, however: the parts of Texas currently occupied by Montezuma quail—primarily in the Edwards Plateau and Trans Pecos ecoregions—may become less suitable to them. There will likely be a significant reduction of Montezuma quail numbers in the state, if not complete eradication, due to more extreme temperatures and other influences such as precipitation changes. Despite this, it has been projected that around 57% of their distribution will remain stable in the next fifty years due to their significant presence throughout Mexico (Salas et al. 2017).

A male Gambel’s quail. Photo by Brad Sutton, Joshua Tree National Park.

Studies of another Texas resident—the Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii)—indicate they may experience a 75% increase in their suitable range from 2001-2075 (Sohl, 2014). Their natural tolerance for higher temperatures may help them adapt to increasing average temperatures more efficiently than other species. However, Gambel’s, as well as scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), are not able to survive temperatures above 45°C (113°F) and could also suffer from water loss if increasing temperatures create a shortage of succulent plants which are a primary source of water for these species (Henderson, 1971).

Scaled quail are also likely to be stressed by the effects of climate change, either directly or indirectly, and both scaled quail and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginanus) populations have declined concurrently with increasing global temperatures. Although there are many factors which contribute to their shrinking numbers, global warming can exacerbate the problems they already face, such as habitat loss and fragmentation. Scaled quail and northern bobwhite abundance in semiarid regions is largely dependent on annual rainfall, an association that makes their populations particularly vulnerable to changing precipitation patterns (Bridges et al. 2001). Adequate rainfall is needed to provide food, moisture, and vegetative cover, meaning habitat quality may suffer in the wake of drier conditions and increasing frequency and intensity of droughts (NCAR, 2010).

One management strategy that can help counteract these effects is the creation of “microhabitats” with vegetative cover to protect quail from the heat and keep the ground cooler than ambient temperatures. Leafy canopies provide shade and higher evapotranspiration rates that work to cool the thermal environment at quail-level (Guthery et al. 2000). Altered rainfall patterns may make it increasingly difficult to sustain moisture-rich vegetation, but runoff can be redirected to create lush areas, and in some cases supplemental water can work in a similar way to make the environment hospitable for quail.

Likely future drought scenarios based on current climate change projections of greenhouse gas emissions. Map from Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews.

Northern bobwhites in Texas and other parts of their southern range will likely face the most severe complications in a future with global warming. Studies have shown that prolonged high heat loads can cause early or staggered hatching times, reduce the length of the laying season, and prevent re-nesting attempts (Guthery et al. 2001). A 50% reduction in hatching rates was found when a 5°C (9°F) increase in pre-incubation temperatures was tested on eggs to imitate future scenarios of climate change (Reyna & Burggren, 2017). Bobwhite eggs can resist moderate oscillations or increases in ambient temperatures, but those in southern latitudes may find it difficult to cope if temperatures continue to climb. Higher temperatures can also inhibit bobwhite reproduction in other ways (Leopold, 1933). The stimulatory effects of rainfall on bobwhite reproduction can be significantly reduced by both increasing global temperature trends and higher-than-average temperatures in a single year for a locality (Robinson and Baker, 1955; Heffelfinger et al. 1999). Additionally, extreme summer temperatures often result in a smaller juvenile to adult ratio by decreasing chick survival rates and shortening the egg-laying season. If temperatures continue to rise above annual means, it could have serious implications for northern bobwhite reproduction and the long-term viability of populations (Lusk et al. 2001, Tri et al. 2012).

A male northern bobwhite. Photo from Mike Powers.

Current climate models from the USDA Northern Research Station predict that the center of northern bobwhite distribution will begin to shift north over time as these areas warm to their preferred temperatures, while southern latitudes become increasingly intolerable (USDA, n.d.). Bobwhites may even see a slight increase in habitable area between the years 2000-2100 as northern latitudes become warm enough to support their life cycles, but southern habitats will become increasingly uninhabitable (Salas et al. 2017). This follows the trend of many other species whose ranges will expand into northern latitudes, but there is no guarantee that bobwhites will be capable of moving northward to compensate for less favorable southern habitats. Barriers such as habitat fragmentation and the limited dispersal abilities of the birds themselves may prevent bobwhite quail from shifting their home range if necessary (Gates, 1993; Corlett & Westcott, 2013).

Although there are many potential impacts of climate change such as rising ocean levels, an increase in extreme weather events and wildfires, and changes in precipitation patterns (NASA, 2018), these all have varying levels of influence on the life of a quail in Texas. It is impossible to know exactly how all of these elements will affect the future of quail, or to what degree the birds will be able to cope. Other hurdles that prevent distribution shifts, such as habitat fragmentation, reduction in necessary vegetative food and cover, and reduced reproductive success, are all factors that may make it difficult for bobwhite and other Texas quail to thrive in a world affected by climate change. Only time will tell if Texas quail are able to adapt quickly enough to survive in a changing world.

Literature Cited:

Audubon. 2018. The climate report: Montezuma quail. National Audubon Society. http://climate.audubon.org/birds/monqua/montezuma-quail

Bridges, A.S., M.J. Peterson, N.J. Silvy, F.E. Smeins, and X.B. Wu. 2001. Differential Influence of Weather on Regional Quail Abundance in Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1): 10-18.

Corlett, R.T. and D.A. Westcott. 2013. Will plant movements keep up with climate change? Trends in Ecology and Evolution: 1-7.

Crick, H.Q.P. 2004. The impact of climate change on birds. British Ornithologists’ Union, Ibis 146(1): 48-56.

Crick, H.Q.P. and T.H. Sparks. 1999. Climate change related to egg-laying trends. Nature 399: 423-424.

Gates, D.M. 1993. Climate change and its biological consequences. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA.

Guthery, F.S., C.L. Land, and B.W. Hall. 2001. Heat loads on reproducing bobwhites in the semiarid subtropics. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1): 111-117.

Guthery, F.S., N.D. Forrester, K.R. Nolte, W.E. Cohen, and W.P. Kuvlesky Jr. 2000. Potential effects of global warming on quail populations. National Quail Symposium Proceedings 48(4): 198-204.

Guthery, F.S. 1997. A philosophy of habitat management for northern bobwhites. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 293-301.

Heffelfinger, J.R., F.S. Guthery, R.J. Olding, C.L. Cochran, Jr., and C.M. McMullen. 1999. Influence of precipitation timing and summer temperatures on reproduction of Gambel’s quail. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 154-161.

Henderson C.W. 1971. Comparative temperature and moisture responses in Gambel and scaled quail. The Condor 73: 430-436.

Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, USA.

Lusk, J.J., F.S. Guthery, and S.J. DeMaso. 2001. Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) abundance in relation to yearly weather and long-term climate patterns. Ecological Modelling 146(1-3): 3-15.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2018. How climate is changing. Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Web. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37-42.

Reyna, K.S. and W.W. Burggren. 2017. Altered embryonic development in northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) induced by pre-incubation oscillatory thermal stresses mimicking global warming predictions. PloS ONE 12(9): e0184670.

Robinson, T.S. and R.H. Baker. 1955. Climate and bobwhite quail in Kansas – 1951-1954. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 58: 353-359.

Salas, E.A.L., V.A. Seamster, K.G. Boykin, N.M. Harings, & K.W. Dixon. 2017. Modeling the impacts of climate change on species of concern (birds) in south central U.S. based on bioclimatic variables. AIMS Environmental Science 4(2): 358-385.

Sohl, T.L. 2014. The relative impacts of climate and land-use change on conterminous United States bird species from 2001 to 2075. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112251.

Tri, A.N., J.P. Sands, M.C. Buelow, D. Williford, E.M. Wehland, J.A. Larzon, K.A. Brazil, J.B. Hardin, F. Hernandez, and L.A. Brennan. 2012. Impacts of weather on northern bobwhite sex ratios, body mass, and annual production in South Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(3): 580-586.

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. 2010. Climate change: drought may threaten much of globe within decades. National Center for Atmospheric Research, AtmosNews. Web.

USDA Northern Research Station. N.d. Climate change bird atlas: northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

The Problem with Pen Raised Quail

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:34:00 +0000

Written by Shelby McCay, Texas A&M University, WFSC ’15 and MNRD ’19

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. Dale Rollins, Statewide Coordinator, Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative

The history and practice of releasing pen-raised quail is almost 100 years old. It began in the 1930s as an attempt to bolster declining populations throughout the southeastern U.S., and it was an attractive option for both wildlife biologists and landowners searching for a simple fix to the quail decline problem. Tens of millions of pen-raised quail were released by state wildlife agencies, with some even building their own hatcheries in the belief that it would take many years for wild populations to recover (Gerstell 1938, Anonymous 1942, Hernández et al. 2012, Whitt et al. 2017).

An example of a state quail hatchery. Photo: California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

However, it soon became apparent that no matter how many quail were released, their survival rate across most areas and habitat types within their U.S. range was abysmally low (Buechner 1950). In a radio-telemetry study in south Texas, researchers found that half of their pen-raised birds perished only 9 days after release; by 12 weeks, all of them had died (Perez et al. 2002). But why don’t these pen-raised quail last in the wild? There are two main theories—let’s explore each further.

One theory is that pen-raised quail are not as genetically vigorous as their wild counterparts due to inbreeding. Research has shown this is not the case. A study conducted by Ellsworth et al. (1988), found that the genetic variability in pen-raised bobwhites was not notably deficient, and they did not display high levels of inbreeding compared to wild quail. But even if pen-raised birds are not lacking genetic diversity, could wild quail have some unknown genetic advantage? Two studies examined this question by crossing pen-raised quail with wild ones, producing what is known as F1 offspring, and comparing their survival to purebred pen-raised quail. Both studies found that the survival rates of F1 and pen-raised birds were almost identical (Roseberry et al. 1987, Perez et al. 2002). It seems there is little evidence for genetic differences causing low survival in pen-raised birds.

A dead bobwhite quail hen. Photo: Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch

Another theory is that being raised in captivity means pen birds do not develop the necessary behaviors and survival skills essential for life in the wild. Reports of pen raised quail post-release indicate that they may be found in relatively open cover and remain easily approachable even after 5-10 weeks in the wild (Roseberry et al. 1987). They also display unusually sedentary behavior and do not appear to disperse far after their release. For example, Roseberry et al. (1987) found that the majority of both F1 and pen-raised birds were captured within 250 meters of their release site; the second year, the majority of both groups were captured within 50 meters. This behavior can be lethal for birds that should be on the move looking for food and avoiding predators. There is also potential for predators to stake out these release sites for an easy meal, if the same places are used frequently; further research is needed to confirm if this is the case (Hernández and Perez 2007).

There have been several studies comparing the behavior of pen-raised quail after they have been released to that of wild quail, starting with their flight patterns. Research has shown that pen-raised quail are often reluctant to fly when approached (Roseberry et al. 1987) and when they do fly they have poor flight speeds (Perez et al. 2002). In one instance, researchers measured the flight speeds and distances of wild vs pen-raised bobwhites and found a significant difference between the two groups (Perez et al. 2002). Wild birds had an average flight speed of 27-28 mph (43.5-45 kilometers per hour), whereas pen-raised birds had an average flight speed of 18-19 mph (29-30.5 kph)—an almost 10 mph (15 kph) difference! They also found that pen-raised bird flight distances were, on average, 107 feet (32.5 meters) shorter than wild birds. The combination of reluctance to fly, slower flight speed, and shorter flight distance might make pen-raised birds less effective at escaping predators in the wild.

A group of wild bobwhites being released after leg-banding. Photo: Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch.

While quail may be relatively easy to raise in captivity, research strongly indicates that these pen-raised birds are not well suited to survive long-term in the wild. The answer to “why” is most likely a combination of poorly developed flight abilities, sedentary behavior and lack of predator avoidance to name a few. Releasing pen-raised quail can still be useful as a way to supplement hunting activities, but as of right now, it is not a viable way to replenish wild populations. In addition, research has shown that releasing pen-raised birds can decrease the survival of wild quail around the release site as more avian predators are attracted to these areas (Sisson et al. 2000). It is far better to invest time and money in improving and managing quail habitat, as the high reproductive rates of wild bobwhites, if currently present in the area, can restock an area naturally with good habitat and favorable conditions (Cathey et al. 2007).

For more information on how to improve your quail habitat and populations, check out resources from the Texas A&M Quail Decline Initiative, our Youtube channel or for technical assistance contact Extension Associate Amanda Gobeli through email at agobeli@tamu.edu or phone at (325) 653-4576.

References

Anonymous. 1942. The propriety of attempting to restore bobwhite quail in Texas by raising the quail in pens for release in the wild. Austin: Texas Game, Fish
Buechner, B. K. 1950. An evaluation of restocking with pen-reared bobwhite. Journal of Wildlife Management 14:363– 77.
Cathey, J.C., Cooper, S.M., Alford, D.L., and Ransom, D. 2007. Roost Site Selection and Survival of Pen-Reared Northern Bobwhite. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. http://agrilife.org/texnat/files/2017/02/Quail-Pen-raised-survival-2007.pdf
Ellsworth, D. L., Roseberry, J.L. and Klimstra, W.K.. 1988. Biochemical genetics of wild, semi-wild, and game-farm northern bobwhites. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:138– 44.
Gerstell, R. 1938. An analysis of the reported returns obtained from the release of 30,000 artificially propagated ringneck pheasants and bobwhite quail. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference. 3:724-29.
Hernández, F., Guthery, F. S. and Meinzer, W. 2012. "Water, Predators and Pen-raised Bobwhites." Beef, Brush, and Bobwhites: Quail Management in Cattle Country. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Pgs. 113-117.
Hernández, F. and Perez, R.M. 2007. "Managing and Releasing Pen-Raised Bobwhites." Brennan, L. A. & Armstrong, K. Texas Quails: Ecology and Management. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Pgs. 327-335.
Perez, R. M., Wilson, D.E. and Gruen, K.D. 2002. Survival and flight characteristics of captive-reared and wild northern bobwhite in southern Texas. Proceedings of the National Quail Symposium 5:81– 85.
Roseberry, J.L., Ellsworth, D.L. and Klimstra, W.D. 1987. Comparative Post-Release Behavior and Survival of Wild, Semi-Wild, and Game Farm Bobwhites. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15: 449-455.
Sisson, D.C., Speake D.W. and Stribling, H.L. 2000. Survival of Northern Bobwhites on Areas With and Without Liberated Bobwhites. National Quail Symposium Proceedings. 4: Article 20.
Whitt, J.G., Johnson, J.A. and Reyna, K.S. 2017. Two centuries of human‐mediated gene flow in northern bobwhites. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 41: 639-648.

Spotlight on Quail Predators: Coyotes and the Mesopredator Release Hypothesis

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:09:00 +0000

Written by Abigail Holmes, Texas A&M University WFSC ‘19

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. Dale Rollins, Statewide Coordinator, Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative

Photo by Jay Iwasaki.

Coyotes (Canis latrans) are widely assumed to be a major threat to quail populations, but are such accusations warranted? It is hard to deny that these canine predators will eat an adult quail or snack on a clutch of eggs if the opportunity presents itself, but they may not be the malevolent quail-eaters that many believe them to be. Some research even suggests that coyotes can indirectly help quail populations by alleviating predation pressures from other species.

The “mesopredator release hypothesis” states that removing large predators from an ecosystem, either by targeted control or loss of habitat, will alleviate pressure on mesopredator populations, allowing their numbers to grow and placing more pressure on prey populations. This raises some key questions: what exactly is a mesopredator, and how could fewer predators harm a prey species? A mesopredator is defined as, “. . . any mid-ranking predator in a food web, regardless of its size or taxonomy” (Prugh et al., 2009). A coyote could therefore be defined as a mesopredator in the presence of a higher-ranking apex predator like a wolf (Canis lupus), but coyotes fill the niche of top predator in most Texas ecosystems. This leaves the rank of “mesopredator” to species like skunks (Mephitis mephitis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and badgers (Taxidea taxus) – all potential food sources for coyotes and known predators of quail. If coyotes are removed from the ecosystem, there will be higher numbers of mesopredators consuming more prey. Those prey populations—quail included—will ultimately be diminished by the coyote’s absence (Henke and Bryant, 1999).

Striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) (left) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) (right) are two common mesopredators. Photos from USFWS Mountain-Prairie and Ken Thompson.

Diet studies have, for the most part, supported the mesopredator release hypothesis and the idea of coyotes as indirect allies of quail. On the Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch, researchers analyzed over 1,000 coyote scats in a three year period and found only one containing evidence of quail predation. The most common food items were rodents like cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and plants like the prickly pear cactus (Opuntia engelmannii). Coyotes on the ranch also consumed five potential predators of quail: snakes, raccoons, skunks, badgers, and feral hogs (Sus scrofa; TAMU Wildlife and Fisheries Extension, 2017).

Two coyotes in Saguaro National Park. Photo from the National Park Service.

The story appears to be the same throughout the southern United States. Researchers in South Texas found that northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) remains were present in less than 1% of all examined coyote stomachs, and they suggested that coyotes are frequently mislabeled as major quail predators due to misinterpretation of evidence and small statistical sampling sizes (Henke, 2002). Coyotes from the Chihuahuan Desert to southern Oklahoma are known to consume a variety of prey including lagomorphs (rabbits and hares), rodents, and insects, as well as seeds and fruits (Andelt et al., 1987; Hernandez et al., 2002; Litvaitis and Shaw, 1980). In some areas, an abundance of alternative food sources has been shown to lessen the predation pressure on other prey items (Andelt et al., 1987).

The distribution of coyotes and quail throughout Texas may further absolve the coyote of blame for declining quail populations. Coyote densities are consistently highest in both the Rolling Plains and South Texas Plains ecoregions, and these regions are also home to the highest densities of bobwhite quail. Conversely, the Edwards Plateau ecoregion contains the lowest density of both coyotes and northern bobwhites (Rollins & Carroll, 2001). While it is important to remember that “correlation does not equal causation,” the trend is a noteworthy indicator that the presence of coyotes is not necessarily a detriment to quail.

The Rolling Plains and South Texas Plains ecoregions are home to both the highest densities of coyotes and the highest densities of northern bobwhite. Maps from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

It may be tempting to conclude that mesopredator removal is the key to helping quail, but not so fast! While the coyote’s influence on mesopredator populations can be beneficial, analogous control efforts by humans to reduce mesopredator numbers are not a viable short-term strategy for improving quail populations (Lyons et al., 2009). Instead, mesopredator trapping effectively removes the buffer species between coyote and quail, encouraging coyotes to seek out quail as a higher percentage of their diet to account for the loss of their other prey.

Although coyotes cannot be completely disregarded as a quail predator, the pressure they put on populations is not likely a major contributor to the quail decline in Texas. Such a small portion of their varied diet consists of quail that they may be helping the birds more than they are harming them. Landowners should always be mindful of the fact that grassland ecology is complicated: removing a species or trying to mimic its role in the environment often has unintended—sometimes disastrous—consequences. Coyotes, as simultaneous predators and allies of quail, are evidence of that reality.

Literature Cited:

Andelt, W.F., J.G. Kie, F.F. Knowlton, and K. Cardwell. 1987. Variation in coyote diet associated with season and successional changes in vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(2): 273-277.

Gipson, P.S. 1974. Food habits of coyotes in Arkansas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 38(4): 848-853.

Henke, S.E. 2002. Coyotes: friend or foe of northern bobwhite in southern Texas. Pages 57-60 in S.J. DeMaso, W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr., F. Hernandez, and M.E. Berger, eds. Quail V: Proceedings of the Fifth National Quail Symposium. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.

Henke, S.E. and F.C. Bryant. 1999. Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community in western Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63(4): 1066-1081.

Hernandez, L., R.R. Parmenter, J.W. Dewitt, D.C. Lightfoot, and J.W. Laundre. 2002. Coyote diets in the Chihuahuan Desert, more evidence for optimal foraging. Journal of Arid Environments 51: 613-624.

Litvaitis, J.A. and J.H. Shaw. 1980. Coyote movements, habitat use, and food habits in southwestern Oklahoma. The Journal of Wildlife Management 44(1): 62-68.

Lyons, E.K., J. Frost, D. Rollins, and C. Scott. 2009. An evaluation of short-term mesocarnivore control for increasing hatch rate in northern bobwhites. National Quail Symposium Proceedings 6(47): 447-455.

Prugh, L.R., C.J. Stoner, C.W. Epps, W.T. Bean, W.J. Ripple, A.S. Laliberte, and J.S. Brashares. 2009. The rise of the mesopredator. BioScience 59(9): 779-791.

Rollins, D. and J.P. Carroll. 2001. Impacts of predation on northern bobwhite and scaled quail. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1): 39-51. TAMU Wildlife and Fisheries Extension. 2017. Coyotes and Quail. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwAsbcKieiU

Wild Pigs Negatively Impact Water Quality

noreply@blogger.com (Wildlife and Fisheries Extension) — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 11:00:00 +0000

By: Forrest Cobb, Research Assistant

Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Three years ago some of my colleagues and I spent every week checking and rechecking an electric fence we hoped would keep wild pigs out. We were conducting a horticultural study with 1,600 fresh and tender ornamental plants grown over the course of a year. Unfortunately for us, our small plot was not far from a creek that supported a seemingly endless population of wild pigs. Every week we would see damaged brush, dead plants, and clumps of bare loose soil just outside the fence line. Thankfully they never got inside, but while we had the luxury of fencing off and maintaining that relatively small enclosure, that same level of exclusion would not have been feasible for a larger tract of land and certainly is not for stream and rivers courses and their associated wetlands. Impacts on agriculture, plant diversity, and wildlife habitat can be easily observed in areas disturbed by the rooting behavior of wild pigs. One of their less obvious impacts, and the focus of our newest publication, is their impact on water quality in Texas. But before we discuss some of these impacts, let's consider just how serious of an issue wild pigs have become.

Wild pigs now occur in at least 36 states and the economic toll of these animals in the US was estimated to exceed $1.5 billion in 2007, a number likely to be much larger today. Population modeling indicates that as many as 3-5 million wild pigs now inhabit Texas and they are present in almost every county in the state (Figure 1). The number and range of these animals is not surprising considering their incredible adaptability and fecundity. With an average lifespan of 4-5 years, adult sows commonly produce litters of 4-6 offspring and can have 1-3 liters per year. Their population growth is relatively unchecked by predators. Coyotes, bobcats, and feral dogs have been known to prey upon juveniles but humans remain the only significant predators of adult wild pigs. Population modeling has indicated that as much as 66% of the wild pig population would need to be harvested every year for 5 years or more to halt population growth. With humans only harvesting an estimated 29% of the population per year, we will see continued growth and spread of wild pigs. Omnivorous and intelligent, wild pigs are well adapted to conditions across the state and their foraging, opportunistic predation, rooting, and wallowing behaviors are incredibly disruptive, having serious repercussions for the ecological and economic health of our state.

Figure 1. NMFSS data showing 2016 feral swine populations by county. (Image Credit – USDA-APHIS)

A worrisome aspect of wild pigs in Texas is the impact on water quality they have by damaging riparian areas and wetlands. Since wild pigs lack sweat glands, they often stay close to water bodies in order to cool themselves by wallowing in wet, shaded areas. This concentrates wild pig populations in sensitive riparian areas, which are both crucial transitional zones between upland areas and water bodies, and a vital component of maintaining overall water quality. Healthy riparian and wetland communities perform numerous critical functions which maintain water quality including, stabilizing soils, decreasing water velocities during flooding, providing fish and wildlife habitat, mitigating contamination from surrounding storm water runoff, and lowering water temperatures through shading. Because of their disruptive rooting and wallowing behavior, as well as heavy foraging of native mast (fruits and nuts), wild pigs can significantly decrease native vegetation cover in riparian corridors. By reducing native ground cover, native tree abundance, and native seedling establishment, they increase the presence and abundance of invasive plant species, and destabilize stream and river banks leading to increased sedimentation, nutrient loads, turbidity, and altered pH levels.

While they indirectly impact water quality through the destruction of riparian and wetland communities, wild pigs also directly impact water quality through defecation. One study of fecal coliforms in the Buck Creek watershed of Texas found that as much as 50% of E.coli bacteria samples collected were from wildlife sources including wild pigs, while only 20% originated from domestic animals or livestock. With a high defecation rate (1,121 grams per day) when compared to other wildlife species like white-tailed deer (500-772 grams per day), their contribution to bacterial loading and water quality is becoming a growing concern for land managers and regulatory authorities statewide. Especially since, as of 2012, the majority of Texas water bodies were listed as bacterially impaired. Bacterial impairment increases the potential for disease transmission in both wildlife and human populations. Recreational activities such as swimming, wading, and fishing are necessarily restricted as a result of these unsanitary conditions.

Wild pig activity in and near water sources can spread invasive plant species, destabilize soil, reduce native species abundance, alter nutrient and pH levels, increase turbidity, and contribute to increased E. coli bacteria levels in surface water systems.

Agriculture is also impacted when access to high quality water becomes limited. One study found that livestock with a quality water supply can produce as much as 20% more animal gain as compared to livestock with access to impaired water. Furthermore, the low dissolved oxygen and high nutrient levels associated with impairment can reduce aquatic species abundance and diversity, and lead to massive algal blooms and fish kills.

Wild pig populations contribute to impaired water quality in Texas, both directly through fecal deposition, and indirectly by altering wetland and riparian communities. While more research is needed to quantify their impact and contribution to water impairment, wild pig abatement has been shown to benefit riparian ecosystems and overall water quality by reducing bacterial impairment, reducing the spread of invasive species, increasing vegetation cover, facilitating proper nutrient cycling, decreasing erosion, and decreasing surface water turbidity. Given the wide spread and growing challenge posed by wild pigs in Texas, the potential benefits of management and control should be considered in any plan for improving or safeguarding water quality. Application of consistent and widespread abatement efforts remains the only way of stabilizing and thus reducing the impacts of wild pig populations on landscapes and water quality in Texas.

For more information on how wild pigs negatively impact water quality, please click the link below to download a free electronic copy of “Wild pigs negatively impact water quality: Implications for land and watershed management” from the AgriLife Bookstore.

http://www.agrilifebookstore.org/Wild-Pigs-Negatively-Impact-Water-Quality-p/enri-005.htm

Wild pig resources listed below are available at the AgriLife Bookstore

Click here for additional resources on wild pigs

_______________________________________________________________________________________

For educational programming or technical assistance with wild pigs please contact:

Josh Helcel, 512-554-3785, josh.helcel@tamu.edu

References

Baird, J.V. 1990. Soil facts: Nitrogen management and water quality. North Carolina Cooperative Extension AG-439-2.

Campbell, T.A. and D.B. Long. 2009. Feral swine damage and damage management in forested ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 257:2319-2326.

Chavarria, P.M., R.R. Lopez, G. Browser, and N.J. Silvy. 2007. A landscape-level survey of feral hog impacts to natural resources of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Human Wildlife Conflicts 1:199-204.

Cushman, J.H., T.A. Tierney, and J.M. Hinds. 2004. Variable effects of feral pig disturbances on native and exotic plants in a California grassland. Ecological Applications 14:1746–1756.

Doupe´ R.G., J. Mitchell, M.J. Knott, A.M. Davis, and A.J. Lymbery. 2009. Efficacy of exclusion fencing to protect ephemeral floodplain lagoon habitats from feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Wetlands Ecology and Management. DOI 10.1007/s11273-009-9149-3

Gingerich, J.L. 1994. Florida’s Fabulous Mammals. World Publications. Tampa Bay.

Giovanni, G. D., L. Gregory, P. Dyer, and K. Wagner. 2007. Bacterial Monitoring for the Buck Creek Watershed – Final Report. Texas AgriLife Research, Texas Water Resources Institute, and Texas AgriLife Extension Service. TSSWCB Project 03-07.

Jay, M.T., Cooley, M., Carychao, D., Wiscomb, G.W., Sweitzer, R.A., Crawford-Miksza, L., Farrar, J.A., Lau, D.K., O’Connell, J., Millington, A., Asmundson, R.V., Atwill, E.R., and Mandrell, R.E. 2007. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle, central California coast. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13:1908–1911.

Kotanen, P.M. 1995. Responses of vegetation to a changing regime of disturbance: Effects of feral pigs in a California coastal prairie. Ecography 18:190-199.

Mapston, M. E. 2007. Feral hogs in Texas. AgriLife Extension B-6149 03-07, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M.E. McClain. 2005. Riparian: ecology, conservation and management of streamside communities. Elsevier, San Diego, USA.

Ohio State University Extension. 2006. Ohio livestock manure management guide. Bulletin 604. The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.

Parker, I.D. 2010. The role of free-ranging mammals in the deposition of Escherichia coli into a Texas floodplain. Doctoral Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Pimental, D. 2007. Environmental and economic costs of vertebrate species invasions into the United States. Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Siemann, E., J.A. Carrillo, C.A. Gabler, R. Zipp, and W.E. Rogers. 2009. Experimental test of the impacts of feral hogs on forest dynamics and processes in the southeastern US. Forest Ecology and Management 258:546-553.

Singer, F.J., W.T Swank, and E.E.C. Clebsch. 1984. Effects of wild pig rooting in a deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:464-473.

Taylor, R.B., E.C. Hellgren, T.M. Gabor, and L. Ilse. 1998. Reproduction of feral pigs in southern Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 79:1325–1331.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2013. 2012 Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d).

Timmons, J.B., J. Mellish, B. Higginbotham, J. Griffin, R. Lopez, A. Sumrall, K. Skow, and J.C. Cathey. 2012. Feral hog population growth, density and harvest in Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service SP-472.

Williams, W.D., O. Kenzie, D. Quinton, and P. Wallis. 1996. The water source as a factor affecting livestock production. In: Animal Science research Development: Meeting Future challenges. Proceedings, Can. Soc. Anim. Sci., Lethbridge, AB. E

Invasive Species: Top Offenders Against Quail

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 21:00:00 +0000

Written by Abigail Holmes, Texas A&M University WFSC ‘19

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. Dale Rollins, Statewide Coordinator, Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative

The term “invasive species” is often heard in scientific fields, but what does it really mean for a plant or animal to be invasive? According to the USDA, an invasive species is a non-native whose introduction to an ecosystem causes economic or environmental harm. A species most frequently becomes invasive after humans transport it, either intentionally or unintentionally, to a new environment where it faces little to no grazing or predation threat and has an abundance of nourishment and space to grow (Kuvlesky et al. 2002). Without predators, diseases, or other constraints to limit its numbers, an invader can aggressively outcompete native species and become extremely difficult to eradicate. Because of this, some researchers believe invasive species may be the single biggest threat to endangered species (Wilcove 1998 & Westbrooks 1998).

Several invasive species have made their way into the Texas grasslands. In the early 20th century, federal and state agencies as well as livestock producers introduced a series of African grasses to the southwestern United States to act as a control on erosion and provide additional forage for livestock. Many of these grasses, such as buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), Kleberg bluestem (Dichanthium annulatum), and King Ranch bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum), have become naturalized—meaning they can persist and spread without human intervention—and are increasing across their introduced ranges.

Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare). Photo by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Uvalde.

So how have these introduced grasses affected quail and other Texas wildlife that call the grasslands home? All invasive plants share characteristics that allow them to be successful invaders, but these traits can also make their presence harmful to quail populations as they frequently outcompete native species for space, reduce the amount of soil nutrients available, and decrease the overall diversity of the habitat. The invasive grasses often grow so thick that it is difficult for quail to move around or nest (Tjelmeland, 2010 & Kuvlesky et al. 2002). The loss of plant diversity can also lead to a reduced abundance of insects, which are a key food source for nesting hens and their young broods in the early summer months of April through July (Kuvlesky et al. 2002).

Kleberg bluestem (Dichanthium annulatum). Photo by Harry Rose.

Two major invasive grasses in Texas, buffelgrass and Kleberg bluestem, have another unique trick to give them an edge over native species. They engage in “allelopathy,” the production of chemicals to inhibit the seed germination of other plant species and prevent them from growing in the immediate area (Kuvlesky et al. 2002). In Texas, the Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis) and partridge-pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata) are two forbs that provide excellent food for quail but are susceptible to this seed germination inhibition. In the presence of these invasive grasses, food sources for quail can be diminished. We would be remiss if we stated that non-native grasses are always harmful to quail - there are rare cases in areas with limited ground cover where introduced species might be helpful to quail if they do not completely overtake the normal habitat structure and prevent growth of forbs, but native grass species would still likely suffer and have less space to grow (Kuvlesky et al. 2002). Generally, invasive grasses render large areas of quail habitat unusable and exacerbate the already declining quail populations.

The label of “invasive” is not restricted to plants; there are plenty of animals that fit that designation as well. One example, and one of Texas’ most notorious invaders, is the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta). Red imported fire ants (RIFA) were first introduced to the United States in the 1930s, and by the 1980s their populations had grown to occupy over 3.6 million square miles of the southeast. These aggressive insects can have both direct and indirect effects on the health of northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), but none of them are positive. RIFA reduce invertebrate populations in areas they occupy and can indirectly cause a shortage of food for quail, but they will also directly attack hatching chicks by delivering painful stings. Fire ant venom has hemolytic, cytotoxic, and necrotic properties which can cause reduced weight gain, reduced survival, and irritation that affects feeding and resting behavior in bobwhite chicks (Allen et al. 2000).

Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). Photo by USDA Agricultural Research Service.

Research has shown that northern bobwhites are less abundant in Texas counties that have been infested with red imported fire ants for many years, and bobwhite densities were nearly four times greater in the southeast before the invasion of fire ants (Allen et al. 1995 & Allen et al. 2000). In these studies, the presence of fire ants was able to explain up to 75% of annual variation in bobwhite abundance (Allen et al. 2000). Unfortunately, red imported fire ants will likely never be eradicated, but the best solution for protecting quail populations from red imported fire ants is to preserve remaining native ant species to stop the spread of the invasive ants (Drees, 2014).

A group of wild pigs (Sus scrofa). Photo from Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are another invasive animal that is especially prolific in Texas. As “opportunistic omnivores,” they pose a threat to almost any food source they stumble upon, including quail nests. In a 1993 study, between 10-25% of simulated bobwhite nests were depredated by wild pigs. As pig populations have increased almost exponentially over the last 25 years, there is no doubt that their impact on quail has also increased (Timmons, 2011).

Quail populations face countless threats from every direction, including habitat fragmentation, lack of food sources, and lack of cover. The introduction of invasive species presents yet another challenge to their survival—one which they may be ill-prepared to face, given that invasives take over an area rapidly and leave no time for adaptation. Land managers can attempt to mitigate the effects of invasive species on quail populations by managing in favor of native species, treating invasive vegetation chemically or mechanically, and implementing control programs for some of the larger invasive animals, like hogs. The most effective way to combat the negative effects of these species, however, is to prevent invasion before it occurs.

Literature Cited

Allen, C.R., R.D. Willey, P.E. Myers, P.M. Horton, and J. Buffa. 2000. Impact of red imported fire ant infestation on northern bobwhite quail abundance trends in southeastern United States. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology 17(1): 43-51.

Allen, C.R., R.S. Lutz, and S. Demarais. 1995. Red imported fire ant impacts on Northern Bobwhite populations. Ecological Applications 5: 632-638.

Drees, B.M. 2014. Managing red imported fire ants in wildlife areas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service: ENTO-019.

Guthery, F.S. and N.E. Koerth. 1992. Substandard water intake and inhibition of bobwhite reproduction during drought. Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 760-768.

Kuvlesky, W.P., Jr., T.E. Fulbright, and R. Engel-Wilson. 2002. The impact of invasive exotic grasses on quail in the southwestern United States. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute 02-102: 118-128. The Fifth National Quail Symposium. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.

Timmons, J., J.C. Cathey, D. Rollins, N. Dictson, and M. McFarland. 2011. Feral hogs impact ground-nesting birds. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service: SP-419.

Tjelmeland, Aaron. Quail Posts - South Texas Invasive Grasses - Texas Wildlife Association. Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 28 October 2010. Web.

Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). Washington, D.C.

Wilcove, D.S. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48: 214-222.

The Effects of Abatement Efforts on Wild Pig Behavior

noreply@blogger.com (Wildlife and Fisheries Extension) — Wed, 30 May 2018 16:53:00 +0000

By: Josh Helcel, Extension Associate

Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are notorious for their ability to learn from past experiences and evade control efforts. Groups of wild pigs that are not pressured often increase their diurnal activity and become more active during the day time (Gundlach 1967). However, as abatement pressures increase wild pigs can alter their behavior to become more active at night and other behaviors can modify as well (Stegeman 1938, Hanson and Karstad 1959, Choquenot et al. 1996, Waithman 2001, Pei 2006). This article will discuss various effects abatement techniques can have on wild pigs, and will recommend strategies that can help to minimize behaviors including trap aversion and escape when enacting control efforts for wild pigs.

Hunting Can Accelerate Wild Pig Birth Rates

It is accepted that sport hunting wild pigs alone will not significantly reduce populations. Perhaps less apparent is that human activities such as hunting can influence evolutionary characteristics at both the population and species level (Darimont et al. 2009). A good example of this has been observed in deer species (Odocoileus sp.); whereas high rates of trophy harvest were shown to lead to smaller overall horn size and body mass over time (Coltman et al. 2003). In wild pig populations, however, high hunting pressure doesn’t necessarily lead to reduced body sizes or smaller tusks. Extensive monitoring of wild pig populations over 22 years found that high hunting pressure can actually cause wild pigs to shorten their gestation period by as much as 12 days per cycle (Gamelon et al. 2011). This acceleration is further compounded by increased conception rates of sows within their first year of life when populations are subjected to intense hunting or other abatement pressures (Gamelon et al. 2011). Essentially, wild pigs may breed earlier and produce offspring more quickly when subjected to hunting pressure. Given this novel survival strategy, it becomes more understandable why a state like Missouri banned completely the sport hunting of wild pigs on conservation lands.

Research indicated that wild pig sows subjected to high hunting pressure had higher conception rates in their first year and produced offspring up to 12 days sooner than normal gestation.

Wild Pig Adaptations to Aerial Gunning

Aerial gunning is an effective population reduction strategy unless limited by topography or dense canopy cover (Campbell et al. 2010). However, previous research has shown that wild pigs can intelligently adapt their behavior to avoid detection and flushing by helicopters (Saunders and Bryant 1988). It might be assumed that these animals would simply disperse from their home range in response to aerial gunning efforts. In fact, research indicated the opposite in that core area and home range sizes did not alter either before or after enacting aerial control (Campbell et al. 2010). Rather, wild pigs can adapt to aerial gunning by seeking dense cover and refusing to flush from it despite concerted efforts by the pilot and crew.

Instead of flushing, some wild pigs have adapted to evade helicopters by holding within dense cover.

What is significant about this behavior is that until relatively recently wild pig populations had not encountered significant predation from above their line of sight. Despite this, they have quickly adapted to be capable of intelligently evading a formidable 5000 pound “aerial predator” that otherwise would seem to have every advantage. The intelligence and adaptability of wild pigs are key factors that compound effective control (Sweeney et al. 2003), and this is again evidenced by their potential to evade aerial gunning efforts.

Trap Aversion

Research has long documented trapping as an effective population reduction technique, with 70-80% reductions in populations having been reported using this technique alone (Saunders et al. 1990, Vernes et al. 1999). However, wild pigs can adapt to avoid traps altogether for a variety of reasons. This can occur due to the size and type of trap used, but also can be attributed to inadvertently “educating” wild pigs through incomplete captures. With the exception of solitary adult males (boars), wild pigs travel in social groups called sounders. When trapping these animals, it is important to target and remove the entire sounder in a single trapping effort. This is generally accomplished through a process of pre-baiting and conditioning the group over time to routinely enter a trap large enough to contain the entire sounder. Corral style traps are often best suited for this, and research indicated this type of trap to be four times more effective than conventional box traps (Williams et al. 2010). Box traps, while valued for their portability, usually only capture 1-3 animals at a time. No matter what type of trap is used, incomplete captures can divide sounders and cause remaining pigs to avoid traps in the future.

In order to minimize learned trap aversion due to incomplete captures, the goal of any trapping effort should be to target and remove the entire sounder of wild pigs.

Trap Escape

Wild pigs can also adapt to escape traps, and individuals that learn to do so often exhibit this behavior repeatedly. Trap escapes can be accomplished through climbing, rooting, exploiting trap design flaws and even jumping considerable heights in excess of 4 feet. It is important to construct and implement sound trap designs, and it is equally important to check traps as soon as possible following each trap night. Many experienced trappers check their traps at first light and bring a firearm in order to harvest any residual pigs that may be near the trap site due to incomplete capture or escape. The Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute recommends that corral traps be constructed with four to six 16’ cattle panels that have 5’ panel height and 4” mesh in order to minimize trap escapes. It is generally not necessary to bury or trench paneling underground, but it is important not to leave any gaps at ground level or near the head gate. Game cameras can be integral in monitoring wild pig activity at trap sites, and can also help to identify any modifications necessary in order to minimize the potential for trap escape.

Wild pigs will attempt to escape traps if given the opportunity. Ensure that traps are constructed properly and check traps at first light to help minimize trap escape attempts. (Image Credit: Andy James)

Conclusion

Wild pigs exhibit a variety of behavioral responses to abatement pressure. Their intelligence and adaptability can complicate effective control, factors that are only compounded by their extreme fecundity. It is important to select appropriate strategies as well as to adapt control techniques as necessary in order to minimize any potential issues which can reduce the success of abatement efforts. This can undoubtedly be easier said than done, as is evidenced by the numerous and often remarkable ways in which wild pigs can evade control efforts despite the best technologies available to man. However, best management practices including trapping, aerial gunning, strategic shooting, snaring, and the use of trained dogs remain proven tools that, when implemented in a combined approach, can successfully abate the damages associated with wild pigs.

Wild Pig Resources Listed Below are Available at the AgriLife Bookstore

– L-5523 Recognizing Feral Hog Sign– L-5524 Corral Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs
– L-5525 Box Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs

– L-5526 Placing and Baiting Feral Hog Traps
– L-5527 Door Modifications for Feral Hog Traps

– L-5528 Snaring Feral Hog

– L-5529 Making a Feral Hog Snare

– SP-419 Feral Hogs Impact Ground-nesting Birds

– SP-420 Feral Hog Laws and Regulations

– SP-421 Feral Hogs and Disease Concerns

– SP-422 Feral Hogs and Water Quality in Plum Creek

– SP-423 Feral Hog Transportation Regulations

– L-5533 Using Fences to Exclude Feral Hogs from Wildlife Feeding Stations

– WF-030 Reducing Non-target Species Interference While Trapping Wild Pigs
– ENRI-005 Wild Pigs Negatively Impact Water Quality: Implications for Land and Watershed Management

Click here for additional resources on wild pigs

_______________________________________________________________________________________

For educational programming or technical assistance with wild pigs please contact:

Josh Helcel, 512-554-3785, josh.helcel@tamu.edu

Literature Cited

Campbell, T.A., D.B. Long and B.R. Leland. 2010. Feral swine behavior relative to aerial gunning in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2):337-341.

Coltman, D. W., P. O'Donoghue, J. T. Jorgenson, J. T. Hogg, C. Strobeck, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2003. Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Nature 426:655-658.

Choquenot, D., J. McIlroy, and T. Korn. 1996. Managing vertebrate pests: Feral pigs. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia.

Darimont, C. T., S. M. Carlson, M. T. Kinnison, P. C. Paquet, T. E. Reimchen, and C. C. Wilmers. 2009. Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:952-954.

Gamelon, M., A. Besnard, J. Gaillard, S. Servanty, E. Baubet, S. Brandt and O. Glmenez. 2011. High hunting pressure selects for earlier birth date: wild boar as a case study. Evolution 65(11):3100-3112.

Gundlach, H. 1968. Brutfursorge, Brutpflege Verhaltensontogenese und Tagesperiodik beim Europaischen Wildschwein (Sus scrofa L.). Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 25(8):955-995.

Hanson, R. P., and L. Karstad. 1959. Feral swine in the southeastern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 23(1):64-74.

Pei, K. J. C. 2006. Present status of the Formosan wild boar (Sus scrofa taivanus) in the Kenting National Park, southern Taiwan. Suiform Soundings 6(1):9-10.

Saunders, G., and H. Bryant. 1988. The evaluation of feral pig eradication program during simulated exotic disease outbreak. Australian Wildlife Research 15:73-81.

Saunders, G., B. Kay, and R. Parker. 1990. Evaluation of a warfarin poisoning programme for feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Australian Wildlife Research 17(5):525-533.

Stegeman, L. J. 1938. The European wild boar in the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Journal of Mammalogy 19(3):279-290.

Sweeney, J. R., J. M. Sweeney, and S. W. Sweeney. 2003. Feral hog. In ‘wild mammals of North America’. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD. pp. 1164–1179.

Vernes, K., C. N. Johnson and J. Mitchell. 1999. The effectiveness of trapping in reducing pig abundance in the Wet Tropics of north Queensland. In ‘Feral pigs: Pest status and prospects for control. Pp 51-56. Proceedings of a feral pig workshop. James Cook University, Cairns, March. Research Report No. 13. Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management, Cairns, Australia.

Waithman, J. 2001. Guide to hunting wild pigs in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Programs Branch, Sacramento, California.

Williams, B. L., R. W. Holtfreter, S. S. Ditchkoff and J.B. Grand. 2010. Trap style influences wild pig behavior and trapping success. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(2):432–436.

Sorting Out Bobwhite Population Genetics

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:23:00 +0000

Written by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. James Cathey, Associate Director, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Edited by Dr. Wade Ryberg, Research Scientist, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Wild quail face a long and varied list of challenges to their daily and long-term survival. While some perils are easily identified—a predator raiding a nest, a lack of vegetative cover for nesting, or a sweltering summer day—others, like diseases and parasites, are more subtle. Still others are even less tangible than that; to observe them, you have to dive into the gene pool. Genetic diversity is a topic not often addressed when discussing ways to help quail, but given its role in determining the fate of populations, perhaps it should garner more consideration.

Genetic diversity can be succinctly defined as the variety of genes that exist within a population (National Biological Information Infrastructure 2011). As an example, imagine a herd of wild horses with individuals of many coat patterns and colors: there are bays, buckskins, paints, appaloosas, palominos—whatever your preference is, this herd has it! It’s easy to see here that the genes which control coat color occur in many different forms within this population. The herd’s genetic diversity, at least with regards to this one characteristic, appears to be quite high. While this is a simplified example and it should be noted that many physical characteristics are controlled by multiple genes, the principle remains the same.

There’s a lot more riding on genetic diversity than simply an animal’s color, and in fact this concept can make or break a population. Genes that affect all kinds of other traits—everything from immune system response and fertility to predator avoidance behaviors—may vary between individuals. Some genes are more useful for survival than others, and their utility may change over time. Consider a population where a few individuals are resistant to a particular disease. That resistance may not be especially helpful under normal conditions, but if an outbreak of the disease occurs, those with the resistant genes will have better odds of survival. Genetic diversity within a population is crucial to its long term survival, as it increases the chances that some of its members are able to deal with challenges as they arise, allowing the group to persist into the future.

In this population, different colors represent different genetic profiles. The red birds are highly resistant to a particular disease.

Following an outbreak of the disease, only the red birds and a few lucky individuals of other genotypes survive. If the population had consisted entirely of one of the other colors, i.e. lacked genetic diversity, this disease likely would have wiped it out.

Quail populations are no different from others when it comes to the need for diverse genes. What is different, though, is the number of factors at play that can potentially influence bobwhite population genetics, which include both natural forces and human activities. It might even be said that quail are disadvantaged in that department by default: birds generally have less genetic diversity than other types of animals (Avise et al. 1980) and galliforms (quail, turkey, and chickens) have less relative to other birds (Gutierrez et al. 1983). The sedentary habits of bobwhite quail may also be cause for concern. We know that a bobwhite’s home range is typically one square mile or less (Lohr et al. 2011), which might imply that populations can easily become isolated due to distance. Isolation means fewer individuals in the breeding pool, which in turn means less genetic variability.

However, according to research examining the population genetics of bobwhites in Illinois, distance may not be as isolating as we might assume. There was relatively little genetic differentiation between wild populations examined, meaning there was enough overlap that they were able to mix, mingle and swap genetic information to some extent. Additionally, what little differentiation there was could not be attributed to distance—groups of birds that were near enough to mix simply did not due to some other isolating factor (Berkman et al. 2013). Habitat fragmentation is labeled as a likely culprit, as stretches of uninhabitable space (e.g., a road, an overgrazed pasture, a dense stand of forest) may separate quail populations even if they are geographically quite close.

But of course wild bobwhite populations are not only influenced by their own mixing; there’s also the introduction of pen-raised birds to consider. It may seem like a moot point, especially in Texas where all evidence points to the fact that pen-raised quail last no more than a few months in the wild (Perez et al. 2002) and rarely manage to breed. We do know, however, that survival rates for captive birds are surprisingly high elsewhere in the bobwhite’s range (Evans et al. 2009) and that these birds can and do breed with wild quail (Berkman et al. 2013, Evans et al. 2009).

People choose to raise and release quail for a variety of reasons. Photo courtesy of Becky Ruzicka.

The results of those pairings are mixed. We just explained that a smaller breeding pool equals less genetic diversity, so increasing the breeding pool with pen-raised individuals should help, right? Although captive breeding populations are not necessarily plagued by severe inbreeding, as we might fear, by some measures they do exhibit less genetic variation than their wild counterparts (Ellsworth et al. 1988, Evans et al. 2009). On top of that, their genetic makeup is shaped entirely by artificial pressures, whereas the genetics of wild birds are molded by the challenges they face each day (Hernández et al. 2013, Evans et al. 2009). Consider the traits a quail breeder might select for in his stock: larger birds, birds that are less inclined to run, birds that grow well on artificial feed— although good for production, these traits may not be conducive to long term survival of the species. Slow and heavy birds seem ill-adapted to life in the wild.

In Texas, it’s difficult to say how many birds are released in attempts to bolster wild populations, as most of this activity occurs on private lands. Despite the abysmal survival rates for pen-raised birds, some may reproduce in the wild—that is often the end goal of such efforts, after all. On top of the genetic implications, pen-raised birds can affect wild populations in other ways: they may transmit disease, push wild birds out of their territory, or attract more predators to an area (Hernández et al. 2013). It’s not all bad news, as releasing pen-raised birds to hunt can relieve hunting pressure on the wild populations (Hernández and Guthery 2012), but the potential for negative impacts should not be ignored.

So what does all this mean for wild quail? First, lack of genetic diversity has not been identified as a major contributing factor to the decline of quail (Berkman et al. 2013). However, the potential for habitat fragmentation to isolate populations and create or exacerbate genetic issues is concerning, especially as Texas lands continue to be divided into increasingly smaller parcels (Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute 2017). It’s also worth noting that the extent to which genes determine a quail’s survival instincts and how much is a product of upbringing (the age-old “nature vs nurture” debate) is not well understood (Ellsworth et al. 1988). While releasing pen-raised birds does carry risks, they can also be useful supplements during hunting season, especially in large-scale commercial operations (Hernández and Perez 2007). Whether the benefits of release outweigh the drawbacks is a decision that individual land stewards will have to make for themselves.

Literature Cited

Avise, J. C., Patton, J. C., & Aquadro, C. F. (1980). Evolutionary genetics of birds.
Berkman, L. K., Nielsen, C. K., Roy, C. L., & Heist, E. J. (2013). Population genetic structure among bobwhite in an agriculturally modified landscape: Bobwhite Population Genetics. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(7), 1472–1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.597
Ellsworth, D. L., Roseberry, J. L., & Klimstra, W. D. (1988). Biochemical Genetics of Wild, Semi-Wild, and Game-Farm Northern Bobwhites. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 52(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801074
Evans, K. O., Smith, M. D., Burger Jr, L. W., Chambers, R. J., Houston, A. E., & Carlisle, R. (2009). Release of pen-reared bobwhites: potential consequences to the genetic integrity of resident wild populations. In National Quail Symposium Proceedings (Vol. 6, p. 15).
Gutierrez, R. J., Zink, R., & Yang, S. (1983). Genic variation, systematic, and biogeographic relationships of some Galliform birds. The Auk, 100, 33–47.
Hernández, F., Brennan, L. A., DeMaso, S. J., Sands, J. P., & Wester, D. B. (2013). On reversing the northern bobwhite population decline: 20 years later. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37(1), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.223
Hernández, F., & Guthery, F. S. (2012). Beef, brush, and bobwhites: quail management in cattle country (1st ed., Texas A&M University Press ed). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Hernández, F., and R. M. Perez. 2007. Managing and releasing pen-raised bobwhites. Pages 327–335 in L. A. Brennan, editor. Texas Quails book.
Texas A&M University Press, College Station, USA.
Lohr, M. , Collins, B. M., Williams, C. K. and Castelli, P. M. (2011), Life on the edge: Northern bobwhite ecology at the northern periphery of their range. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75: 52-60. doi:10.1002/jwmg.25
"National Biological Information Infrastructure". Introduction to Genetic Diversity. U.S. Geological Survey. Archived from the original on February 25, 2011. Retrieved March 21, 2018.
Perez, R. M., Wilson, D. E., & Gruen, K. D. (2002). Survival and flight characteristics of captive-reared and wild northern bobwhite in South Texas. In National Quail Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 81–85).
Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute. (2017). Texas Landowner Changes and Trends (Texas Land Trends). Retrieved March 23, 2018. http://txlandtrends.org/media/1018/ltchanginglandownerfinal2.pdf

Are Wild Pigs Considered Wildlife?

noreply@blogger.com (Wildlife and Fisheries Extension) — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:40:00 +0000

By: Josh Helcel, Extension Associate

Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are well known for their burgeoning populations and increasing negative impacts on agricultural production, water quality, native wildlife species and their habitat. While many people actively seek to control populations through abatement efforts, others find recreational value in these animals. The question posed in the title may at first seem obvious. How could a group of animals that literally have the word “wild” as part of their name not be classified as wildlife? In Texas at least, the correct answer may surprise you.

Wildlife Value by the Numbers

Over 100 M people participated in and spent over $150 M on “wildlife-associated recreation” activities in 2016¹. These activities included hunting, fishing, birdwatching, outdoor photography and others. Hunting license and gear sales in 2016 exceeded $25 B aloneand nearly 12 M Americans participated in hunting in the same time frame¹.

Figure 1. Nearly 12 million Americans averaged over $2,000 each in hunting related expenditures in 2016. (Image Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)

Is There Value in Wild Pigs?

In Texas, there is no hunting season or bag limit for wild pigs and they can legally be pursued at night on private property. Regulated as exotic animals by Texas Parks and Wildlife, these laws are intended to aid in the reduction of wild pig populations currently estimated from 3-5 million in Texas. Often referred to as “the poor man’s grizzly bear,” wild pigs offer an affordable hunt. Recognize the double-edged sword here, as some people may place positive value on wild pigs, but they may fall short of seeing the growing agricultural and conservation damage caused by this invasive species.

Wildlife Defined

It is important to know whether wild pigs are a wildlife species or not and then make a well-informed decision about the value of wild pigs. Let’s review three separate definitions for wildlife (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Definitions for the term “wildlife” from (1) Oxford dictionaries, (2) Merriam-Webster

and (3) Duhaime’s Law Dictionary.

A few phrases stick out from these definitions including the terms “native fauna” as in the first definition, “neither human nor domesticated” from the second definition and “animals living in their natural habitat” from third definition. Wild pigs are not native to North America. They initially arrived here as domestic farm pigs. They do not live in their natural habitat. For more information on their origins click here, but based on these three separate definitions wild pigs are simply not wildlife.

Unmarked Exotic Livestock

You may be surprised to learn that wild pigs are actually considered livestock in Texas. The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) regulates their movement and sale in Texas and classifies all wild pigs as unmarked exotic livestock. You can read more about how they are legally classified in the Texas Administrative Code, about specific movement / transportation regulations and learn about the approved holding facilities in Texas that will purchase wild pigs. What this means is that when you have wild pigs on your property you actually have exotic livestock that directly compete with native wildlife for resources. Under this designation, the landowner owns the wild pigs, provided they can catch and possess them.

Conclusion

Wild pigs are exotic livestock and not wildlife in Texas. Despite the recreational value of this species to hunters and year round income potential to landowners, wild pigs cause an estimated $1.5 B in the US in annual agricultural damages alone. While the numerous other negative impacts associated with wild pigs are much harder to quantify monetarily, their net value is negative and comes at the expense of agricultural production, water quality, habitat and native wildlife species.

Wild Pig Resources Listed Below are Available at the AgriLife Bookstore

– L-5523 Recognizing Feral Hog Sign
– L-5524 Corral Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs

– L-5525 Box Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs
– L-5526 Placing and Baiting Feral Hog Traps

– L-5527 Door Modifications for Feral Hog Traps

– L-5528 Snaring Feral Hog

– L-5529 Making a Feral Hog Snare

– SP-419 Feral Hogs Impact Ground-nesting Birds

– SP-420 Feral Hog Laws and Regulations

– SP-421 Feral Hogs and Disease Concerns

– SP-422 Feral Hogs and Water Quality in Plum Creek

– SP-423 Feral Hog Transportation Regulations

– L-5533 Using Fences to Exclude Feral Hogs from Wildlife Feeding Stations

– WF-030 Reducing non-target species interference while trapping wild pigs

Click here for additional resources on wild pigs

_______________________________________________________________________________________

For educational programming or technical assistance with wild pigs please contact:

Josh Helcel, 512-554-3785, josh.helcel@tamu.edu

References Cited

1) "2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation National Overview." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 2017. https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf

Meet the Gambel's Quail

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Written by Abigail Holmes, Texas A&M University WFSC ‘19

Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelli) are less common in Texas than northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus) and scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), but they are compelling creatures with unique adaptations that allow them to survive the harsh desert conditions in which they live. These ground-dwelling birds were discovered in the 1840s by William Gambel, a young American naturalist who loved birds and minerals (Ashworth 2017). Gambel discovered several other species to which his name is now attributed, including the dainty Mountain Chickadee (Poecile gambeli) and Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii). Although William Gambel discovered many interesting species, researchers continue to focus on Gambel’s quail and are perpetually learning more about these charismatic birds.

Male and female Gambel’s quail are sexually dimorphic and have somewhat different appearances. Photo by Kevin Bondelli.

Gambel’s quail have clear differences in appearance from the three other species of quail that are found in Texas - northern bobwhite, scaled quail, and Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae). They are most easily identified by the black, teardrop-shaped plume (“topknot”) displayed on their foreheads. Although both male and female Gambel’s quail have these distinct plumes, they are sexually dimorphic, meaning that the sexes differ in appearance. The males have flashier coloration which includes black faces and foreheads, a black patch on their undersides, and an unmistakable rusty crown bordered in white (Texas A&M AgriLife Extension), while females have more uniformly gray/brown faces.

In addition to their distinctive coloration, Gambel’s are also generally stockier birds than other Texas quail. A Gambel’s quail at maturity can weigh anywhere between 160-200 grams (0.35 - 0.44 pounds) with a wingspan of approximately 14 inches, while bobwhites, with a comparable wingspan, average 140-170 grams (0.31 - 0.37 pounds) (Thomson 2001; Chumchal 2000; Texas A&M AgriLife Extension). Although Gambel’s quail are more impressive in size than other species, they still exhibit the typical quail behavior of avoiding flight until it is absolutely necessary; they much prefer to run from danger and hide in plant cover (Thomson 2001). However, Gambel’s quail do not usually travel long distances and spend their lives in a home range of between 25-393 acres, depending on the habitat quality of the land (Luna et al. 2017).

Gambel’s quail are also unique when it comes to vocalizations, as their calls are distinct from the “poor-bob-white” whistle of bobwhites and the “Pe-cos” calls of scaled quail. The most noteworthy vocalization Gambel’s quail make is a loud, three note “ka-KAA-ka” which is used to locate other quail or assemble a group. Other sounds can include the alarming “chip-chip-chip” or the “kow” and “whit whit” sounds of a male courting a female (Texas A&M AgriLife Extension). Along with these calls, males sometimes exhibit a behavior called “tidbitting” when courting females. A male will extend small bits of food to a female while fanning his tail in the air and holding his head close to the ground to entice the female into mating. Once they have mated, Gambel’s quail are generally socially monogamous and will stay in one pair for their entire lifespan of about 1.5 - 2 years. In Arizona and New Mexico, there have been a few instances of Gambel’s quail mating with scaled quail and creating a hybrid offspring called a “scramble” (Luna et al. 2017).

A male Gambel’s quail. Photo by Aaron Maizlish.

The far west Trans-Pecos ecoregion of Texas where Gambel’s quail are found makes up a small portion of their range that stretches primarily into New Mexico and Arizona. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the Hawaii Division of Fish and Game introduced a few Gambel’s quail to all the main Hawaiian islands, but today only insignificant amounts remain on the Big Island of Hawaii, Lanai, and miniscule Kaho’olawe (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology). Gambel’s quail are well acquainted with the extremely dry habitats of the Sonoran, Chihuahuan, and Mojave deserts, but they generally choose to live near riparian areas (habitats close to sources of water like a river or stream). The vegetation that grows in these areas is critical for nesting, roosting, and shade from the hot desert sun. Gambel’s quail, like most other quail, get the majority of their drinking water requirements from the food they eat and rarely need to drink surface water.

Because Gambel’s quail live in such extreme desert environments, food is generally limited and they must have diverse diets to survive. They often feed near the ground for insects like ants and beetles, tender plant shoots, and seeds. In years with less precipitation, they will rely more on fruit and berries from shrubs and cacti to make up for the lack of herbaceous plants. In Arizona, mesquite trees can act as an important source of food for Gambel’s quail (Luna et al. 2017). They eat the seeds, leaves, and flowers throughout the year and will sometimes eat mesquite seeds from cattle and coyote droppings (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology). During the hotter months, Gambel’s quail adopt a bimodal activity pattern to keep from overheating (Goldstein et al. 1985). This means they eat in the early morning and late evening and rest throughout the hottest parts of the day. During these daytime resting periods, it is critical that quail have access to plant cover to shield them from the sun’s rays. Ideal cover plants can include tarbush (Flourensia cernua), little leaf sumac (Rhus microphylla), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa).

Gambel’s quail generally nest on the ground in bowl-shaped indentations, but will sometimes lay their smooth, brown-spotted eggs in trees or shrubs with suitable platforms. The chicks of Gambel’s quail are known to hatch in synchrony. After an incubation period of 21-31 days, the mother will call to her chicks who then communicate with one another through their egg shells and hatch at the same time. Generally, these chicks will neatly break a circle in the egg shell with their beaks and then open it like a door (The Cornell Lab of Ornithology).

Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) is a woody plant that Gambel’s quail will utilize for cover, roosting, and food provision.

Although their numbers are relatively small in Texas, the management and research needs of Gambel’s quail should still be considered. Most of the research for this species takes place in the states where their populations are highest. Texas generally gets its information about Gambel’s quail population trends from informal data counts like Christmas Bird Count and harvest data, but it is becoming increasingly important to get more reliable population data from sources like brood-count and call-count surveys. Studies conducted by Texas Parks & Wildlife Department have led researchers to believe that Gambel’s quail populations in Texas, unlike bobwhites and scaled quail, have remained steady and may even be increasing (Luna et al. 2017). If their numbers in Texas continue to grow, it will become crucial for us to learn more about their ecology and life history, as well as the management practices that will help them thrive.

To read more about Gambel’s quail, visit Texas A&M AgriLife Extension’s informational page here.

Edited by Dr. Dale Rollins, Statewide Coordinator, Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

Literature Cited

Animal Fact Sheet: Gambel’s Quail. 2008. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Web. https://www.desertmuseum.org/kids/oz/long-fact-sheets/gambel%27s%20quail.php
Ashworth, Dr. William B. 2017. Scientist of the day - William Gambel. Linda Hall Library. Web. http://www.lindahall.org/william-gambel/
Chumchal, Matthew. 2000. Colinus virginianus. Animal Diversity Web. Web. http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Colinus_virginianus/
Gambel’s Quail. All About Birds. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Web. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Gambels_Quail/lifehistory
Gambel’s Quail. Guide to North American Birds. Audubon. Web. http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/gambels-quail
Gambel’s Quail. Reversing the Decline of Quail in Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. Web. https://wildlife.tamu.edu/gambels-quail-reversing-the-quail-decline-initiative/
Goldstein, David L. and Kenneth A. Nagy. 1985. Resource utilization by desert quail: time and energy, food and water. The Ecological Society of America 66(2): 378-387.
Luna, Ryan S., Richard S. Temple, Michael R. Sullins, Louis A. Harveson, Robert Perez, Alfonso Ortega-Sanchez, and Michael T. Gray. 2017. Gambel’s quail in Texas: biology and management. Texas Parks & Wildlife. Web. https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_1936_gambels.pdf
Thomson, Matthew. 2001. Callipepla gambelii. Animal Diversity Web. Web. http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Callipepla_gambelii/

The Economic Value of Hunting

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:19:00 +0000

Written by Trenton Dragon, Texas A&M University, WFSC ’19

Edited by Dr. Dale Rollins, Statewide Coordinator, Reversing the Quail Decline Initiative

Edited by Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

A preacher once told me that where you place your money, so will be your heart. That must hold true, because a new report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed that in the year 2016 nearly 40% of the U.S. population was involved in spending an estimated $156.3 billion on licenses, equipment, and fees to enjoy our wildlife. This sizeable investment not only shows the large interest, but plays a major role in managing our wild resources.

Photo Source: “Photos: Deer Hunting Opening Day In America.” Outdoor Life, 27 Sept. 2011

By making purchases, hunters supported the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), which levies an excise tax on sporting goods, ammunition and archery equipment. Funds generated from this tax are used for the restoration of wildlife and their habitats, hunter education training, and development of public shooting ranges. A great deal of money must be spent in order to generate enough funds from taxes to have a significant impact on these goals. According to the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife – Associated Recreation, hunters alone spent $25.6 billion on licenses and hunting gear. While these funds are useful, the benefit to wildlife and our enjoyment would not be possible without the active management done on public and especially, on private lands. Locally, consumptive and non-consumptive enjoyment of wildlife is a huge economic stimulus and is vital to the economic vitality of many small towns across the nation.

Here in the great state of Texas, bobwhite and scaled quail are two of the species that have a large enough impact to be considered economically vital to many small towns, particularly in the western regions of the state. In the article “What’s a quail worth?” the average quail hunter in the 2010-2011 season spent $8,606 for 8.8 days of hunting. This is significant, because according to Jason Johnson, an economist for AgriLife Extension, 46% of this money was spent at the hunter’s final destination and another 18% between the hunter’s home and his hunting property. This brings a great deal of funding directly to rural Texas communities, in contrast to the funds generated through the Pittman-Robertson Act that end up in the hands of state wildlife agencies. In this way, quail hunters stimulate small town economies and help to ensure the continuation of their sport by making quail a valuable commodity.

However, quail are not the only wild animal that is a valuable commodity. A species does not even have to be hunted to be considered economically important. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report, $75.9 billion dollars of the $156.3 billion dollars spent on wildlife in 2016 was spent by wildlife watchers, which includes bird watchers, photographers, etc. In this way, the economic impact of wildlife is not limited to hunters, but by paying self-imposed taxes, hunters assure that these resources will be well-managed into the future.

References Cited:

“Photos: Deer Hunting Opening Day In America.” Outdoor Life, 27 Sept. 2011, www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2011/09/photos-deer-hunting-opening-day-america.
“USFWS-WSFR Wildlife Restoration Program.” Official Web page of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/grantprograms/WR/WR_Act.htm.
Byrns, Steve. What's a quail worth? 27 Jan. 2012, https://www.landcan.org/pdfs/today.agrilife.org-Whats_a_quail_worth.pdf
“2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation National Overview.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 2017. https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf

How to Earn Your Very Own SHET Softball

noreply@blogger.com (Amanda Gobeli) — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:00:00 +0000

By Amanda Gobeli, Extension Associate, Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute

One of the most effective tools for evaluating quail habitat isn't a fancy gadget or a complicated mathematical formula--it's a simple, everyday softball.

The Softball Habitat Evaluation Technique (SHET...careful how you pronounce it) highlights the similarities between a quail and a softball. They're about the same size and behave similarly in the air, exhibiting "restricted flight." Patches of woody cover for quail should be no more than a softball's throw apart, as that's about as far as they fly when flushing to escape predators. A thrown ball should be able to "bounce and hide," indicating the correct vegetation thickness. If the ball sticks in the grass without bouncing, it may be too thick for a quail to navigate effectively, and if you can see it easily on the ground then aerial predators scanning for quail can probably see them, too.

These instructions are helpfully printed on our custom SHET softballs, which we are prepared to give away to folks who will use them to help quail! Here's how you can earn one:

Write a paragraph of at least 150 words describing what you have learned from a Quail Decline Initiative program, article, video, or other resource. There are several of these right here on the Wild Wonderings blog and in the "Quail" playlist on the Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute YouTube page. Also describe how you plan to use your softball to help quail in your area.
Email this paragraph to agobeli@tamu.edu
If your submission is approved, we will let you know via email and will request a shipping address to send you a softball, at no charge!

Note that we may post these submissions on our Facebook page. Any pictures you would like to provide that can accompany your submission are also welcome! Paragraphs must be in your own words (no plagiarizing) and must meet the minimum 150 word count. There will be a limit of one softball per person.

You may also send any questions to agobeli@tamu.edu, or message us on Facebook.