A STUDY OF SCALED AND BOBWHITE QUAIL WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND BRUSH CONTROL by JOHN ELLIS THARP, B.S. A THESIS IN RANGE SCIENCE Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of I MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved Accepted May, 1971
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A STUDY OF SCALED AND BOBWHITE QUAIL
WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON HABITAT
REQUIREMENTS AND BRUSH CONTROL
by
JOHN ELLIS THARP, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
RANGE SCIENCE
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
I MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
Accepted
May, 1971
Ac
T3 [97{ No.S3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My gratitude to Dr. Donald A. Klebenow for his expenditure
of time and guidance. I express my appreciation for helpful com-
ments by Dr. Bill E. Dahl and Dr. Robert L. Packard.
I am indebted to Gene W. Darr, Kenneth R. Kattner, and
Wayne Robertson for their assistance in the field work. Robert
E. Wadley aided in writing the computer program. Sincere
appreciation goes to the Renderbrook-Spade Ranch for providing
Deep Hardland 1 Deep Hardland 2 Bottomland 2 Bottomland 1 Chained Bottomland 2 Sandyland 2 Sandyland 1
Acres Per Bird
0.8 1.2 1.2 4.5 6. 9 7. 5
10.0
Habitat Type
Chained Bottomland 1 Rough Broken 1 Deep Sand 1 Deep Sand 2 Very Shallow 1 Rough Broken 2 Very Shallow 2
Acres Per Bird
15.0
The deep hardland habitats and bottomland habitats were the
most preferr-ed by bobwhite coveys (Table 3). The deep hard1and
habitats had populations of 1 bird/0. 8 acre and 1 bird/3. 1 acres.
The bottomland habitats had populations of 1 bird/ 0. 8 acre and 1 bird/
1. 5 acres. The shallow soil habitats were again the least preferred
habitats.
The deep hardland and bottomland habitats were the most im-
portant summer habitats for bobwhite quail. The deep sand areas were
important as breeding habitat but use was negligible as brood and
TABLE 3
BOBWHITE QUAIL COVEY POPULATIONS
RENDER.BR.OOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
Habitat Type
Deep Hardland 1 Bottomland 2 Bottomland 1 Deep Ha rdland 2
Chained Bottomland 1
Rough Broken 2
Sandyland 1
Acres Per Bird
0.8 o. 8 1. 5 3. 1 6.9 7. 5
10.0
Habitat Type
Deep Sand 1 Deep Sand 2 Sandyland 2 Chained Bottomland
Very Shallow 1 Rough Broken l
Very Shallow 2
2
'
Acres Per Bird
15. 0 18.0
12
covev habitat. The densitv decrease mav reflect a movement out of # # -
this habitat into adjacent habitats following breeding. The sandyland
and chained bottomland habitats were of moderate importance through
the summer. The shallow soil habitats were of little importance as
bobwhite habitat throughout the summer.
In order to explain these variations in bobwhite quail populations,
the vegetation data were placed in a step-wise multiple regression com-
puter program as independent variables, and were tested against the
different quail populations which were the dependent variables. The
interaction between these independent variables accounted for 76o/o of
the variation in the breeding populations, 99o/r. of the variation in brood
populations, and 99o/o of the variation in covey populations (Table 4).
TABLE 4
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH CORRESPONDING R 2
VALUES FOR BOBWHITE QUAIL IN
Independent Variables
THE ORDER OF DELETION
Breeding Populations Grass cover (squared) Canopy cover 0-18" high X Forb cover Grass cover X Litter Forb cover X Litter Canopy cover 0- 18 11 high X Canopy cover 1- 3 1 high
Brood Populations Forb cover X Litter Bare ground X Litter Litter (squared) Grass cover X Forb cover Grass cover X Bare ground
Covey Populations Canopy cover 0-18" high X Forb cover Canopy cover 0-18" high X Bare ground
Grass cover (squared) Canopy cover with a ground to crown height of
1-2' X Forb cover Grass cover X Forb cover
. 7567
. 67 51
.5811
. 4762
. 1624
. 9895 • 9833 • 9685 . 9193 . 7585
. 9851
. 9361
. 9031
. 8583
. 5406
13
These interactions were used in developing the following prediction
equation:
where,
Y 2 =- 171.94284 +. 27408X4 x 5 +. 08910X4
x6
+ . 01256X 5X7
+ . 04187x6
x7
+. 01999X7
x7
Y 3 = -75.74179-. 03297X 1x 5 +. 05879X 1x6
+.18172X3
X -.03361XX + 37811X4X 5 4 4 . 5
Y 1 = Breeding population of bobwhites/90 acres,
Y 2 = Brood population of bobwhite/60 acres,
Y 3 = Covey population of bobwhite/90 acres,
14
X 1 = Total feet of canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high/1000 feet,
x 2 = Total feet of canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high/1000
feet,
x 3 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of
1 to 2 feet/ 1000 feet,
X4 = Percent grass cover,
x 5 = Percent forb cover,
X6 = Percent bare ground,
x 7 = Percent litter.
The most important single interaction for predicting bobwhite
breeding populations was canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high and canopy
cover 1 to 3 feet high, but only accounted for 16% of the variation
(Table 4). I
15
The interaction between grass cover and bare ground was the
most important in predicting brood habitat and accounted for 75% of
the variation in brood populations in the sites (Table 4). Normally an
increase in grass cover will improve brood habitat and cause an in
crease in population, if no other factor such as forb cover or litter is
deficient.
Grass cover and forb cover were the most important in pre
dicting covey habitat. The interaction between these 2 variables ac
counted for 54% of the variation among sites (Table 4). An increase in
grass and £orbs should increase the potential for covey habitat, particu
larly if adequate canopy cover is available.
Total canopy cover and the amount of canopy cover with a ground
to crown height of 1 to 2 feet were found to be insignificant and were
deleted by the computer.
The prediction equations and field data were used to calculate
an expected population for each of the 14 census plots. With only minor
deviations, the calculated and actual populations were similar (Table 5).
Scaled Quail Habitat
The largest breeding populations of scaled quail were found in
a chained bottomland habitat having 1 bird/9. 0 acres and in a rough
Bottomland 1 Bottomland 2 Deep Sand 2 Very Shallow 1 Deep Hardland 1 Very Shallow 2 Chained Bottomland 2
Acres Per Bird
2.5 3.6
11. 7 30.0 81. 8 90.0
Habitat Type
Rough Broken 1 Deep Sand 1 Rough Broken 2 Deep Ha rdland 2 Sandyland 1 Sandy1and 2 Chained Bottomland 1
Acres Per ~ir~-.
Acres Per Bird
18
I
19
The population on the remaining four acres varied from 1 bird/ 11. 7
acres to 1 bird/90. 0 acres.
From habitat to habitat, the densities of scaled quail varied
considerably throughout the summer periods. No site maintained
more than a moderate density, such as the Deep Sand 2 habitat.
Density increased in the bottomlands when the birds began coveying.
The same multiple regression program used for bobwhites was
used to explain the variations in scaled quail population. All of the in
dependent variables except canopy cover over 3 feet tall and total canopy
cover with a ground to crown height over 2 feet were shown to be signi
ficant. The interaction among the independent variables (Table 9) ac
counted for 84% of the variation in quail breeding population, 89o/o of
the variation in brood populations and 81 o/o of the variation in covey
population. These interactions were used in developing the following
prediction equation for scaled quail:
where,
yl = 1.96885 + .00651X 1X 4 - .00569X1X 3
. 00106X2x 9 +. 00~37X4X8 +. 00504X6X 7
y 2
= . 24 781 + . 02494X2x 6 + . 00 134X9
x9
. 00321X7
x9
- . 00361X4X 5 + . 002 72X7X 7
, y 3 = 16. 49564 + . 02681X2X 4 - . 08003X2x 6
+ . 00657x4 x8
- . 00988X4X7
- . 02948X6X 7
y 1
= Breeding population of scaled quail/90 acres,
TABLE 9
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH CORRESPONDING R2 VALUES FOR SCALED QUAIL IN THE
Independent Variables
Breeding Population Bare ground X Litter
ORDER OF DELETION
Total canopy cover X Grass cover Canopy cover 0- 18" high X total canopy cover with
a ground to crown height 0- 1 1
Canopy cover 0-18" high X total canopy cover with a ground to crown height 1-2 1
Canopy cover 0- 18" high X Grass cover
Brood Population Grass cover X Forb cover Canopy cover 18 "- 3 1 high X Bare ground Litter (squared} Total canopy cover with a ground to crown height
0- 1 1 X Litter Total canopy cover with a ground to crown height
0-1 1 (squared)
Covey Population Total canopy cover X Grass cover Grass cover X Litter Canopy cover 18 "- 3 1 high X Bare ground Bare ground X Litter Canopy cover 18"-3 1 high X Grass cover
y2
= Brood population of scaled quail/60 acres,
Y 3
= Covey population of scaled quail/90 acres,
R2
Values
. 8420
. 7613
. 6134
. 5096
. 2857
. 8916
. 8742
. 8099
. 7400
. 6232
. 8068
. 7124
. 6452
. 5961
. 4893
20
X 1
= Total feet of canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high/1000 feet,
21
X2 = Total feet of canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high/1000
feet,
x3 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of
1 to 2 feet/ 1000 feet ,
x4 - Percent grass cover, -
Xs - Percent forb cover, -
x6 - Percent bare ground, -
X? = Percent litter,
X8 = Total canopy cover/ 1000 feet,
x9 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of
0 to 1 feet/ 1000 feet. (;
The interaction between canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high and
grass cover was the most important in accounting for variations in
breeding populations, but it only accounted for 28. 6% of the variation
(Table 9). An increase in both of these factors will normally improve
breeding habitat.
The square of the value for canopy cover with a ground to crown
height 0 to 1 foot accounted for 62% of the variation in brood habitat
(Table 9). An increase in this type of cover in a habitat should increase
brood population.
The most important interaction for predicting covey populations
was canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high and grass cover. It accounted
for 49o/o of the variation in covey populations.
22
The prediction equations and field data were used to calculate
an expected population for each of the 14 census plots. With only minor
deviations, the calculated and actual populations were similar (Table
10).
Brush Control
The best quail populations on the ranch were in the deep hard-
land and bottomland habitats. These are also the habitats in which most
of the brush control has been done.
Bottomland Habitats
The first plot in an uncontrolled bottomland habitat (Fig. 1)
had a bobwhite breeding population of 1 bird/22. 5 acres, a brood popu-
lation of 1 bird/4. 5 acres, and a covey population of 1 bird/1. 5 acres.
~ It had a scaled quail covey population of 1 bird/2. 5 acres but was of
low importance as breeding and brood habitat (Table 11).
Another bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) was sprayed in June, 1970.
The population for that month was 1 bobwhite quail/ 8. 2 acres and 1
scaled quail/3. 5 acres. Spraying occurred during the June census
period and some reaction to the herbicide treatment was evident that
was not included in Table 11. Prior to spraying, the plot contained
created the best summer habitat for bobwhites (Table 11). The scaled
quail covey population was 1 bird/3. 6 acres. It was of less impor-
tance as breeding and brood habitat for scaled quail.
The data from the plots on which brush had been controlled by
chaining indicated that this practice was probably detrimental to both
species (Table 11). One chained bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) was sprayed
in 1965 and then chained in 1968. This habitat was utilized by bob-
whites only during brood raising and by scaled quail during breeding
and brood raising. It was not occupied by coveys of either species
(Table 11). The existing canopy cover in this area was 7. 8%, com-
posed mainly of mesquite regrowth under three feet high. The grass
cover was low at 11. 5% (Appendix D).
The second habitat that was sprayed in 1965 and chained in
1968 was not utilized by scaled quail at any time. However, this site
maintained a moderate bobwhite population throughout the summer
(Table 11). The canopy cover in this area was only 0. 9% but it had a
grass cover of 50o/o (Appendix D). •
27
Deep Ha rdland Habitats
The two deep hardland habitats (Fig. 2) had been sprayed in
1968 and in June, 1970. The 1970 sprayed area was highly preferred
by bobwhites for the brooding and coveying periods but was of minor
importance for scaled quail all summer. No quail of either species
were observed on this plot for two weeks following the herbicide ap
plication in June. Then populations increased, resulting in the bob
white brood and covey population of 1 bird/ 0. 8 acres while during
breeding there were only 1 bird/30. 0 acres.
The second deep hardland habitat (Fig. 2), sprayed in 1968,
was of little importance as s ca1ed quail habitat. It contained 1 bob
white/ 12. 9 acres during the breeding period and maintained high
populations through the brood and covey periods.
.~---------------------~
' '
Fig. 2. Deep hardland habitats: a) Habitat prior to aerial spraying in June, 1970, b) Habitat aerial sprayed in 1968.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Habitat
Scaled quail and bobwhite quail have evident differences in
preference for breeding and brood habitat. Two of the larger breeding
populations of scaled quail were found in a chained bottomland habitat
and a rough broken habitat on which no breeding bobwhites were ob
served. A similar rough broken habitat and a very shallow soil habi
tat were the most preferred by scaled quail broods, but were not used
by bobwhites.
Both species used the bottomlands as covey habitat, but the deep
hardland habitats which were highly preferred by bobwhites were of
less importance to scaled quail. The diffe renee s in prefe renee can be
partially explained by the prediction equations for the two species.
When using the prediction equation for bobwhites care must be
taken not to de- emphasize the importance of brush in their habitat.
The equation for breeding may lead to the conclusion that complete
removal of brush will improve bobwhite quail breeding habitat and
this is not true. The deep sand soil habitat which contained the highest
29
30
breeding population of bobwhite quail had a moderate distribution of
all types of cover (see Appendix D). What the equation does indicate
is that a reduction 1n canopy cover in a brushy area, coupled with a
resulting increase in grass or forb cover should increase the breed
ing potential for quail in that habitat.
The equations show reduction in canopy cover results in a decrease
in covey preference for that habitat unless there was an immediate tn
crease in grass and forb cover. It appeared that bobwhite quail do
require canopy cover, but a reduction in canopy cover can be com
pensated for by an increase in ground cover, either of grass, £orbs
or litter. The ground to crown height of existing canopy cover ap
peared more important in covey habitat than any other type of canopy
cover. Canopy cover having a ground to crown height of 1 to 2 feet
was most preferred by bobwhites. This may explain the preference
for low growing shrubs, such as lotebush, littleleaf sumac (Rhus
microphylla), and catclaw (Acacia sp. ). Quail flushed from cover
were associated with these three species 90% of the time. It ap
peared that these shrubs should occur in large clumps. They should
be large enough to accomodate a covey of 20 to 30 quail. The clump
size the quail seemed to prefer ranged from 5 to 15 feet in diameter.
Some type of canopy cover, either by itself or interacting with
the amount of grass cover, was a part of the most imporant variable
in every regression equation for scaled quail. It would appear that
31
this variable exerts a greater influence on scaled quail than on bobwhites
where only during breeding canopy cover 0-18 inches high X canopy
cover 1-3 feet high was the most important interaction. The percent
age of bare ground was part of an interaction during all three of the
summer periods for scaled quail. It was never included in the most
important interaction, however. In the field, there seemed to be a
closer relationship than was apparent in the analyses. Two of the
three most preferred habitats, sites Rough Broken 2 (Table 7) and
Bottomland 1 (Table 8) had low percentages of grass cover. The other
preferred habitat, site Bottomland 2 (Table 8), had a grass cover of
45o/o. However, most scaled quail observed in this area was within
100 feet of a dry creek bed that extended the length of the study plot.
When escaping, they usually ran or flew into the dry stream bed.
The regression equations for scaled quail contain a bias that I
suspect occurred when these birds were censused. Their method of
escape did not lend well to censusing with bird dogs. When located by
the pointer dogs, the birds would not remain in place and were observed
in many cases running out of the plot. The censused population may be
lower than the actual population.
Brush Control
Bottomland Habitats
The exact effect of herbicide spraying on bottomland sites seems
determined by the type of canopy that remains afterward and the amount
32
of ground cover existing after herbicide application. The high covey
population of scaled quail in the 1970 sprayed bottomland habitat after
herbicide application indicated that quail may be unaffected by this
type of brush control. The reason appears to be the shrubby cover that
remains after herbicide treatment. Lotebush, littleleaf sumac, catclaw,
and other low growing shrubs may not be affected by the herbicides.
In bottomlands these shrubs, together with the dead stems or resprouts
of mesquite that the sprayed area may still contain, provide the cover .
necessary for scaled quail.
The bobwhite population decreased on the 1970 sprayed bottom-
land habitat indicating that the removal of brush was detrimental to
bobwhite quail. Unless sufficient ground cover exists on a sprayed area
a decline in population could be expected. Normally bottomland habi
tats without brush control have a low percent grass cover due to shad
ing and competition with brush species. This is the main purpose for
removing the brush. If understory improvement follows brush control,
the long term effects of spraying on these bottomland habitats would
appear beneficial.
The bottomland habitat sprayed in 1968 and having two years to
recover maintained the most dense bobwhite population throughout
the summer. Increased ground cover apparently compensated for
the reduction in canopy cover. On sites such as this, as grass cover
increases following herbicide treatment, the potential for quail
•
33
also increases. The management practices and climatic factors that
affect grass cover will determine the length of time it takes to make
one of these habitats adequate for a good bobwhite population. Judging
from the 1968 sprayed bottomland, this can happen in one or two years.
Chaining bottomland habitats appears to be detrimental to both
species of quail. The low amount of canopy cover together with the
low percent grass cover in the first sample plot made it poor habitat
for both species. The second plot maintained a moderately dense bob
white population. Apparently the bobwhites were able to tolerate the
reduction in canopy cover because of the existing grass cover, but the
potential for this habitat was limited by the lack of canopy cover which
is required by both bobwhite and scaled quail.
Deep Hardland Habitats
The dense population existing in the deep hardland habitat that was
sprayed in 1970 indicated that spraying on this site was not detrimental
to bobwhite quail. There was a decrease for a short period of two
weeks following application.
The differences in bobwhite populations in the two deep hardland
habitats was probably due mostly to differences in canopy and ground
cover and not from the herbicide itself. Mesquite was the dominant
shrub species on these sites but it is of minor importance as quail
cover (Jackson, 1969). Lotebush was the shrub species most often
34
used for cover on these deep hardland habitats, and since spraying with
present herbicides has little or no effect on lotebush, spraying was not
detrimental to bobwhite quail. For a deep hardland habitat to carry
its maximum quail population, it would appear to need about 45% grass
cover and 4o/o to 6o/o canopy cover, mostly lotebush. I think that one to
three clumps of lotebush, 10 to 15 feet in diameter is sufficient and
this combined with the regrowth of mesquite following spraying could
provide excellent bobwhite quail habitat.
Since these deep hardland habitats were of minor importance as
scaled quail habitat the effect of spraying these habitats could not be
determined.
Management Implications
Chained bottomland habitats were used at times but generally ap-
peared undesirable for both species of quail. Chaining large areas is
not recommended at all and even in small areas it would be desirable
if low growing shrubs such as lotebush and littleleaf sumac could be
left. The plots in these habitats were located with one edge near the
uncontrolled areas and extended outward into the chained areas. Al-
most all quail in these plots were observed near the uncontrolled
areas. Very few quail were ever observed more than half-way into
\ the plot. When flushed the quail of both species always flew out of
the chained areas into adjacent uncontrolled areas. The centers of •
35
the chained areas were rarely used. The need for cover forces these
birds to stay within easy flight of uncontrolled areas. Leaving strips
of brush through the center of these areas and leaving certain species
throughout would increase their potential and possibly produce a com
bined bobwhite and scaled quail population of 1 bird/2. 0 acres or bet
ter. If the area contained only scaled quail a recommended practice for
chained bottomland habitats would be brush piling or addition of some
artificial cover (Snyder, 1967). In areas having a high percent grass
cover, fallow disking of strips (Jackson, 1969) should increase its
potential as scaled quail habitat.
Management becomes highly complicated in areas where more
than one species is involved. When managing for one species you
must be careful and determine its effect on the other species. For
example the bottomland habitat sprayed in 1968, having a bobwhite
population of 1 bird/0. 9 acre and a scaled quail population of 1 bird/3. 6
acres, should not be altered to improve its potential as scaled quail
habitat. The combined covey population in this habitat was 1 bird/
0. 65 acre which is higher than most managers believe possible. Any
attempt to improve this habitat would probably be futile due to competi
tion and other limiting factors exerting their influence.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY
Vegetation and quail data were collected on fourteen study areas
in seven vegetation types, to determine habitat requirements, and
the effects of brush control on bobwhite and scaled quail. The vege
tation data were entered into a step-wise multiple regression program
as independent variables and the quail populations as dependent vari
ables.
The interaction between these independent variables accounted for
most of the variations in scaled and bobwhite populations during breed
ing, brood raising and coveying.
The effects of brush control will vary with the type of habitat,
the amount of preferred canopy cover existing before and after treat
ment, the amount of grass cover existing before and after treatment,
and the species of quail involved. Spraying in bottomland habitats ap
pears to be immediately detrimental to bobwhite quail, but has a minor
effect on scaled quail. As grass cover increases on these sites, they
should have the potential to carry a higher bobwhite population than the
untreated habitats.
36
37
Chaining in bottomland habitats was detrimental to both species.
Strips of brush and selected shrubs should be left if these areas are
to maintain a good quail population.
The deep hardland habitats were of minor importance to scaled
quail, but highly preferred by bobwhite. Because of the heavy grass
cover normally on these areas, spraying had little effect on either
species unless all brush was removed.
In regard to herbicide spraying, I agree with Jackson (1969) who
stated that brush control as currently practiced may be resulting in
better quail habitat generally by encouraging sprouting of mesquite
which results in low cover better suited to quail than tall mesquite
trees.
LITERATURE CITED
Ever_ette, E. 1952. Introducing the bobwhite quail. Texas Game and Fish 10(3):20-22.
Gould, F. 1962. Texasplants. Texas A & M Univ. MP-585, 121 p.
Hart, R. , and G. Veteto. 1969. Oak woodland wildlife management survey. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-74-R-13, 7 p.
Jackson, A. S. 1969. Quail management handbook. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Bull. 48, 77 p.
Jackson, A. S., and H. Green. 1964. Dynamics of bobwhite quail on the West Texas Rolling Plains. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-88-R.-3, 8 p.
Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland restoration--the problem. U.S.D.A. andS.C.S. JointPubl. No. 4-19114:1-10.
Schemnitz, S. D. 1961. Ecology of the scaled quail in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Wildl. Monogr. No. 8, 47 p.
Schemnitz, S. D. 1964. Comparative ecology of bobwhite and scaled quail in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Amer. Midland Natur. 77f2): 429-433.
Snyder, W. D. 1967. Experimental habitat improvement for scaled quail. Colorado Dep. of Game, Fish and Parks Tech. Publ. No.
19, 65 p.
Stoner, H. R., T. J. Holder, D. L. McCiennen and K. M. Templeton. 1969. Soil survey of Mitchell County Texas. U.S. D. A., S.C. S. and Texas A & M Univ., p. 30-45.
38
•
r
39
Teer, J. T. and N. K. Forrest. 1968. Bionomic and ethical implica
tions of commercial game harvest programs. Trans. N. Am. Wildl.
and Natur. Resources Con£. 33:192-204.
Wallmo, C. 0. 1957. Ecology of the scaled quail in Wes.t Texas. M.S.
Thesis. Texas A & M Univ., College Station, 134 p.
Wing, L. W. 1941. . Size of bird flocks in winter. Auk. 58:188-194.
APPENDIX
A. Data on breeding, nesting, brood and covey s1ze.
B. Percent occurrence and composition of plant species occurring
on the study area.
C. Data from bobwhite and scaled quail nests on the Renderbrook
Spade Ranch, 1970.
D. Line intercept and ground cover data.
E. List of plant species occurring on the study areas.
40 •
41
APPENDIX A: DATA ON BREEDING, NESTING, BROODAND COVEY SIZE
Breeding
The main features of reproduction appear to be similar for
both species, differing slightly. Pairing was observed for both species
in late April, but complete covey breakup was not terminated until
late May. The first brood of bobwhite quail was observed on June 7,
1969 and on June 9, 1970. The first brood of scaled quail was ob-
served on June 6, 1969 and on June 8, 1970 indicating that breeding
for both species began in early May during both years. Juvenile
birds one to two days old were observed for both species during
the last ¥leek in August. The nesting season appears to be prolonged
for both species from early May to late August.
Nesting
Ten bobwhite quail nest.~ were located in 1970. Predation had
occurred on six prior to their discovery, leaving four that were in-
cubated. Six of these nests were located in clumps of tobossa grass
and four in clumps of three-awn grass (Aristida ~·). The clutch
sizes of the four incubated nests were 12, 13, 14 and 15 with an aver-
age of 13. 5. Only two nests were successful. In the nest with 13
eggs 11 hatched. All 15 hatched from the last nest.
In contrast to the grass nesting habit of the bobwhite only one
of four scaled quail nests was located in strictly grass cover
-
APPENDIX A (Continued)
(see Appendix C). The remaining three were in vegetation afford
ing more cover. The clutch sizes of these nests were 11, 13, 14,
and 14. The nests with 11 and 14 eggs were successful and in both
cases all eggs hatched. The average clutch size was 13. 0 as com-
pared to the 13. 5 for bobwhites.
A mixed nest was located in a clump of grass at the base
of a dead mesquite. It contained 10 scaled quail eggs and three
bobwhite eggs and was being incubated by a sc~.led quail. The nest
was destroyed a week after its discovery by a predator.
Predation
Nest depredation was quite evident and it is my opinion that
the skunk was the major predator. A strong skunk odor was evi-
dent at three of the destroyed nests and a skunk was actually ob-
served destroying one nest. The nests on almost all occasions
were completely destroyed and the crushed shells spread several
feet around the nest. Further research, however, is necessary to
determine the extent of this predation.
Brood and Covey Size
'42
Quail brood mortality appears to be highest just after hatch
ing before the young are able to fly. The average brood size for bob
whites calculated from 18 observations of non-flying juveniles, was •
APPENDIX A (Continued)
12. 4; whereas for scaled quail it was 13. 0, just slightly under the
average clutch size for both species. The average brood size for
bobwhites that were able to fly, from 26 observations, was 10. 2;
and for scaled quail, from 24 observations, was 10. 6.
Covey formation is a slow continuous process, starting in
43
June and probably continuing into October. The first covey of
scaled quail was observed on June 25, 1970. It was composed of
four adults and 22 juveniles. The first covey of bobwhites, com
posed of three adults and 20 young, was observed on July 7, 1970.
The average covey size in late August was 25. 9 for bobwhites based
on 31 observations and 24. 5 for scaled quail, based on 37 observa-
tions. This is slightly uncle r the 31. 2 birds for covey reported by
Schemnitz (1961) for scaled quail, and much higher than 12.03 re
ported by Wing (1941) for bobwhites.
AP
PE
ND
IX B
: P
ER
CE
NT
OC
CU
RR
EN
CE
AN
D C
OM
PO
SIT
ION
OF
PL
AN
T S
PE
CIE
S O
CC
UR
RIN
G O
N
TH
E S
TU
DY
AR
EA
. W
OO
DY
PL
AN
TS
GIV
EN
IN
PE
RC
EN
T C
AN
OP
Y C
OV
ER
.
(R.E
ND
ER
.BR
OO
K-S
PA
DE
RA
NC
H,
19
70
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Gra
sses
An
dro
:eo
go
n b
a.
Ari
sti
da l
o.
-
vs
1
10
. 0
vs
2 D
H
DH
R
.B
1 2
1
2.5
7
.5
R.B
D
S
2 1 7.
5
2.5
DS
2 2.5
BL
1
BL
S
L
2 1
SL
2
CB
1
CB
2 "
Aristida~
45
.0
25
.0
5.0
1
2.5
1
5.0
1
7.5
2
.5
2.5
2
. 5
52
. 5
27
. 5
2.5
A r
isti
da w
r.
22
.5
52
.5
2.5
4
0.0
2
5.0
2
5.0
3
0.0
2
.5
2.5
2
.5
22
.5
Bo
ute
1o
ua
cu
. 2
.5
5.0
2
.5
45
.0
2.5
B
ou
telo
ua t
r.
15
.0
12
.5
12
.5
7.5
7
.5
15
.0
-B
rom
us
wi.
1
2.5
3
7.5
8
5.0
5
.0
Bu
ch
loe d
a.
10
.0
35
.5
50
.0
47
.5
7.5
2
0.0
1
2.
5 2
0.0
C
en
ch
rus
pa.
47
.5
45
.0
7-.
5
Ch
lori
s cu
. 7
.5
15
.0
2.5
3
7.5
2
5.0
1
5.0
Era
gro
sti
s s
e.
30
.0
7.5
Festu
ca o
c.
27
.5
20
.0
97
.5
12
. 5
35
.0
5.0
7
2.5
7
0.0
2
.5
-F
est
uca ~·
10
.0
Hil
ari
a m
u.
2.5
3
7.0
4
0.0
7
. 3
12
. 7
62
.5
4.8
--
Ho
rdeu
rn ~·
7.5
3
2.5
8
0.0
1
5.0
Leptoloma~
2.5
2
.5
87
.5
92
.5
67
.5
75
.0
7.5
Pan
icu
m h
a.
5.0
-
Pan
icu
m r
a.
7.5
2
5.0
2
.5
-P
asp
alu
m d
i.
2.5
Ph
ala
r is
ar.
4
5.0
2
.5
~ ~
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Ph
1eu
m ~
Sp
oro
bo
lus
cr.
S
tip
a 1~
Sti
pa
ne.
T
rid
en
s al
. -
T r
iden
s .E
!_.
Tri
setu
m i
n.
-
Fo
rbs
Ac1
eisa
nth
es ..
!P·
Allium~·
Am
bly
o1
epis
~·
Ambrosia~
Ap
han
ost
eph
us
.!:!:·
A
rtem
isia
lu
. -
Cassia~.
Cen
tau
rea a
m.
-C
irsi
um
te.
-
Ch
am
aesa
rach
a c
o.
-C
lem
ati
s d
r.
-C
occ
ulu
s ca
. -
Co
mm
eli
na ~·
~
vs
1
12.
5
2.5
8
0.0
5.0
7
.5
20
.0
2.5
vs
2
45
.0
17
.5
85
.0
2.5
5
0.0
DH
D
H
RB
R
B
DS
1 2
1 2
1
5.0
2
.5
20
.0
20
.0
15
.0
30
.0
2.5
17
.5
15
.0
15
.0
15
.0
7. 5
2.5
5
.0
10
.0
25
.0
7. 5
70
.0
5.0
2
.5
5.0
7
.5
45
.0
DS 2
45
. 0
67
.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
15
.0
7.5
1
5.0
2
7.5
7
.5
25
.0
17
.5
12
.5
2.5
7.5
7.5
3
5.0
9
5.0
12
. 5
2.5
2
.5
10
.0
7.5
1
7.5
5
.0
SL
C
B
2 1
7. 5
2
.5
2.5
30
.0
95
.0
5.0
2.5
CB
2
7. 5
1
5.0
7. 5
.~
U"\
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Cro
ton
.&!.:
C r
oto
n .E
_£.
Cro
ton
te.
-C
rucif
era
e ~
Cy
peru
s u
n.
Da1
ea n
a.
-Daucus~
Dit
hy
raea w
i.
Dy
s so
dia
ac.
Dy
sso
dia
~·
Eri
og
on
um
an
.
Ero
diu
m t
e.
-E
up
ho
rbia
al.
Eu
ph
orb
ia 1
a.
Euphorbia~·
Ev
ax
mu
. -
Ev
o1
vu
lus
nu
. -
Gaillardia~·
Gau
ra s
u.
--
Go
s sp
yia
nth
us
1a.
Gu
tierr
ezia
dr.
-
Gu
tierr
ezia
sa. -
vs
1
47
.5
5.0
20
.0
22
.5
87
.5
2.5
1
7.5
2
.5
2.0
10
. 0
25
.0
10
.0 vs
2
40
.0
52
. 5
30
.0
DH
D
H
RB
R
B
DS
1 2
1 2
1
75
.0
27
.5
2.5
1
5.0
2.5
2
.5
5.0
1
7.5
5
.0
2.5
1
7.5
7
.5
40
.0
2.5
2.5
2
.5
80
. 0
42
. 5
90
.0
30
.0
40
.0
55
.0
40
.0
2.5
2
.5
2.5
2
.5
7.5
2
.5
42
.5
30
.0
57
.5
40
.0
7.
5 1
0.0
7
.5
2.5
3
2.
5 1
2.5
5.0
1
7.5
2
.5
15
.0
47
.5
5.0
1
0.0
20
.0
55
.0
40
.0
45
.0
30
.0
2.5
1
7.5
DS 2
57
.5
20
.0
12
. 5
22
.5
25
.0
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
22
.5
45
.0
15
.0
2.5
1
0.0
1
7.5
4
5.0
15
.0
62
.5
10
.0
12
.5
2.5
42
.5
35
.0
2.5
42
.5
77
.5
15
.0
70
.0
52
.5
SL
2
37
.5
5.0
32
.5
27
.5
35
.0
70
.0
CB
1
20
.0
25
.0
20
.0
37
.5
55
.0
2.5
45
.0
40
.0
CB
2
10
.0
2.5
2.5
70
.0
5.0
27
.5
15
.0
57
.5 ~
0'
•
.......
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Hed
eo
ma d
r.
-H
ed
yo
tis ~
Hed
yo
tis
hu
. H
off
man
seg
gia
de.
Hy
men
op
ap
pu
s fl
. K
ram
eri
a 1
a.
-L
app
u1
a re
. L
ap
pu
la t
e.
Lep
idiu
m o
b.
Lesq
uere
lla a
r.
Lin
um
le.
-L
inu
m r
i.
-L
ith
os1
2er
n1
um
in
. L
yg
od
esm
ia r
a.
Mela
mp
od
ium
1~
Mo
nard
a ~
Mo
nard
a ~
No
rth
osc
ord
um
bi.
-
Oen
oth
era
~·
Op
un
tia l
e.
Pa1
afo
xia
S..£
.:. PhysaF?~ 1
o.
..
vs
1 7.6
22
.5
2.5
2.5
5
7.5
5
.0
67
.5
7.5
2
.5
5.0
vs
2
10
.0
7.5
2.5
25
.0
50
.0
72
.5
42
.5
7. 5
DH
D
H
RB
R
.B
DS
1
2 1
2 1
20
.0
5.0
5
.0
45
.0
2.5
2
.5
5.0
1
0.0
2
5.0
12
. 5
27
.5
7.5
7
.5
12
.5
52
.5
55
.0
45
.0
27
.5
10
.0
57
.5
37
.5
5.0
2
.5
60
.0
42
.5
22
.5
37
.5
\
2.5
2
0.0
5
2.5
70
.0
2.5
5
.0
2.5
DS
2 7.
5 1
7.5
12
.5
7.5
10
.0
80
.0
7.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1 7.5
2
.5
2.5
7.5
7
.5
7.
5 2
0.0
4
7.5
4
7.5
9
7.5
5
0.0
5
5.0
5
.0
10
.0
52
.5
45
.0
15
. 0
2.5
15
.0
2.5
2.5
20
.0
SL
2 7.5
2.5
1
2.
5
97
.9
17
.5
27
.5
2.5
CB
1
32
.5
10
.0
35
.0
2.5
1
7.5
7.5
CB
2
20
.0
15
.0
5.0
77
.5
47
.5
22
.5
15
.0
2.5
1
2.5
2.5
~
-J
'
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Plantago~
Pla
nta
go
rh
.
Po
lyg
ala
tw
.
Salv
ia r
e.
-S
cu
tell
ari
a w
r.
-S
ola
nu
m e
l.
-S
ph
ae r
alc
ea ~·
Th
ele
sp
erm
a ~
Tra
des c
an
tia ~·
Teu
cri
um
la.
-V
erb
en
a b
i.
-X
an
this
ima t
e.
--
Xan
thiu
m i
t.
-Y
ucca _
g!.
Zin
nia
[!_
.
Wo
od
ies
Acacia
.&!·
A
rtem
isia
fi.
-
Atr
iple
x ~
Berb
eri
s t
r.
-
vs
1
40
.0
12
.5
2.5
7.
5
2.5
12
. 5
10
.0
.4
. 1 . 9 vs
2
45
.0
5.0
32
.5
5.0
7. 5
10
.0
. 6 D
H
DH
R
.B
R.B
D
S 1
2 1
2 1
22
.5
57
.5
22
.5
7.5
3
0.0
72
.5
45
.0
35
.0
47
.5
2.5
2
.5
12
.5
7.5
2
7.5
2.
5
5.0
1
5.0
5
.0
27
.5
27
.5
15
.0
7.5
1
0.0
1
2.5
2
7.5
5.0
2
.5
7.5
7
.5
15
.0
2.5
2
2.5
.9
' 1
.8
DS
2
65
.0
2.5
12
.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
15
.0
97
.5
2.5
25
.0
65
.0
25
.0
5.0
7.
5
7.5
2
.5
12
.5
12
.4
30
.0
10
,0
2.5
1
2.5
7
.5
2.5
7
.5
.7
1.4
1
.5
3. 1
SL
2
92
.5
2.5
22
.5
CB
1 5.0
3
7.5
7.5
30
.0
.4
CB
2
52
.5
32
.5
2.5
1
0.0
3
2.5
42
.5
20
.0
1.8
~
00
•
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Celt
is re
. -
Co
nd
ali
a o
b.
-D
ale
a f
o.
-Ephedra~
Juniperus~
Min
1.o
sa b
i.
-O
pu
nti
a l
e.
Pro
so
pis
ju
.
Qu
erc
us
ha.
-R
hu
s m
i.
-V
i tis
ac.
-Z
an
tho
xy
lum
te.
vs
1 5.0
. 6
.
3 . 5
VS
=
Very
Sh
all
ow
Sit
e
DH
= D
eep
Hard
lan
d S
ite
RB
= R
ou
gh
Bro
ken
Sit
e
DS
= D
eep
San
d S
ite
BL
= B
ott
om
lan
d S
ite
SL
= S
and
y1
and
Sit
e
VS
D
H
2 1
.4
.3
. 5
3.0
.
3 .3
CB
= C
hain
ed
Bo
tto
mla
nd
Sit
e
DH
R
.B
2 1 1
.0
2.4
. 1
12
. 1
R.B
2 1
.5
1.5
1
4.9
.2
.7
DS
1 6
.5
DS
2 7
.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
2.9
1
.3
2.2
.4
.4
1.9
1
.8
.4
. 3
6.5
2.4
.
5 .2
SL
2 5
. 1
CB
1
. 3
CB
2
.2
3.7
~
.....0
50
APPENDIX C: DATA FROM BOBWHITE AND SCALED QUAIL NESTS ON THE RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 19.70
Species
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Scaled
Scaled
Scaled
Scaled
Mixed
Clutch Eggs Size Hatched
6 0
10 0
7 0
8 0
1 7''' ~.- 0
13 -·· ~.- 11
15 , .. ~,, 15
12~~ 0
14 , .. ~.- 0
14~~ 14
13~~ 0
11* 11
13 0
Cover Used
Aristida Grass
Tobossa Grass
Tobossa Grass
Tobossa Grass
Lotebush and Tobossa Grass
Tobossa Grass
Tasajillo and Tobossa Grass
Phalaris and Tobossa Grass
Three-awn Grass
Tobossa Grass and Prickly Pear
Three-awn and Prickly Pear
Buffalo Grass and Mesquite
I * Denotes nests that were incubated
AP
PE
ND
IX D
: L
INE
IN
TE
R.S
EP
T A
ND
GR
OU
ND
CO
VE
R.
DA
TA
Sit
e
Lin
e I
nte
rcep
t/ 1
00
0 f
eet
Can
op
y
Co
ver
Gro
un
d t
o
0-1
8"
18
"-3
' T
ota
l C
row
n
Heig
ht
Hig
h
Hig
h
Co
ver
0-
1'
1-2
'
Bo
tto
mla
nd
1
15
. 5
44
. 5
13
9.
5 12
3.
7 4
. 2
Bo
tto
mla
nd
2
0 2
5.
1 3
7.
5 3
7.
5 0
Deep
San
d 2
3
.4
6.
8 5
1.
0 3
4.
0 6
.8
Very
Sh
all
ow
1
12
.6
17
. 5
35
.0
32
. 5
2.4
Deep
Hard
lan
d
1 2
2.
3 11
. 1
65
.0
44
.0
50
. 0
Very
Sh
all
ow
2
24
.7
7.2
4
2.
5 3
9.
1 3
.4
Ch
ain
ed
Bo
tto
mla
nd
2
47
. 8
31
. 0
78
. 5
72
. 5
0
Ro
ug
h B
rok
en
1
6.2
1
8.7
1
62
.0
0 2
5.0
Deep
San
d
l 2
3.8
1
4.
3 1
09
. 5
61
. 9
19
. 0
Ro
ug
h B
rok
en
2
23
. 7
47
.4
21
3.
5 2
0.2
1
1.
9
Deep
Hard
lan
d 2
0
0.
1 0
. 1
0 0
San
dy
lan
d
1 7
7.
0 0
35
.0
77
.0
0
San
dy
lan
d 2
8
6.
3 6
.2
92
. 5
92
. 0
0
Ch
ain
ed
Bo
tto
mla
nd
1
9. 5
0
9. 5
9.
5
0
Perc
en
t G
rou
nd
Co
ver
Gra
ss
Fo
rbs
(%)
(o/o
)
17
.7
19
.4
45
. 2
14
.9
9. 9
1
6.
5
29
. 5
9.
5 4
8.
0 ,
8.0
21
. 0
10
.0
11
. 5
22
. 7
18
. 8
7.8
15
. 0
10
. 3
15
. 2
11
. 2
30
. 0
12
. 5
18
. 5
10
.0
16
.8
17
.8
50
. 0
9. 0
Bare
(%)
3.
1 5.
1
3. 6
5
. 0
4.
0 4
. 5
6.8
1
0.8
6
.5
6.
8 6
. 8
11
. 5
4.
7 4
.0
Lit
ter
( o/o
)
59
. 8
34
. 8
70
. 0
56
.0
40
. 0
64
. 5
59
. 0
62
. 8'
6
7.
8 6
8.
7 5
0.
8 5
9.
9 6
0.
7 3
7.
0
(,]'1
1-'
•
..
. .
.
52
APPENDIX E: LIST OF PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE STUDY AREAS. NOMENCLATURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOULD (1962) _