A little or a lot, the saga of hard and fast rules!

oldandnew

New member
I had a conservation with an earnest young habitat officer, who shall remain anonymous here. Regarding the plant species which not in favor. We agreed on brome and fescue, though neither is banned as noxious invader. Where I had a diversion of the party line, is red cedar, multiflora rose, and certain lespedeza plants. My theory is that especially bobwhite quail management, a lot will run over everything, is unacceptable, but managed, like we must for quail, a little bit is valuable. In the sixities, Missouri had harvests of between 2M-4M quail annually! Seems unbelievable now. We had help. Limited fescue, even more limited brome, broken-up ag. fields, (you farmers remember a farm called 4 bottom farm), firewood was harvested, timber was burned annually, (no ticks!), small grain, rotation to avoid fertilizer, accept manure, plowed under cover crops, and bone meal, limited pesticides. In those days we had western red cedar hedgerows, every fence line with native prairie grass, and lespedeza, every field corner had a multiflora or blackberry bramble, usually a few cedars or pin oaks with leaves staying on all winter. Now called a covey headquarters! Quail ate lespedeza seeds and foliage, eat rose hips, as do ALL song birds, Cardinal, Junco's, Mocking birds, roosted safely under the multiflora or huddled in worse weather under a cedar tree or under the pin oak canopy, song birds above. Planting vast acres of prairie grass will not solve all quail issues. If we allow fescue to be legal to plant, why can't I manage multiflora, cedars, and lespedeza? Especially since quail is my crop! My heaven we can't even get any help eradicating thistle from the state, in fact my county has a "garden" of that along the roadway. My point is this. At one point in time butter was bad for you, so we went to margarine, tasted bad and now worse that butter! Sugar, no no, went to sachrinne and aspertame. Now sugar it seems does not create cancer cells. Hard fast rules by break necked and hasty government managers, remind me of the old government joke, "We are the government, and we are here to help!" Meanwhile, I tend my root grafting of multiflora rose, lespedeza, selective cedar trees, and brushy oaks, I found and transplanted locally. I have seen my quail using, feeding, and roosting all week in there vicinity along my drive way. A little to help the cause.
 

Prairie Drifter

Active member
Wow, O&N, you got a lot of shot in that ounce and a quarter load!!! A lot depends on your capability, neighbors, native species, and budget of both time and money. A lot of wildlife management deals with structure. Often, a number of plants "can" provide that structure within a habitat. The most beneficial species do that without an aggressive attempt to become the only species on the landscape. Others will try to dominate your acreage and jump fences onto your neighbors at the same time. IF you can use the tamer species to perform the same task that the more aggressive species does, you will be way ahead to do so. In the consideration of multi-flora rose and cedar, they remained in control (or so we thought) for many years because of the management practices of the time and the strength of native habitats in healthy condition. However, as more pressures were applied to those native species and more exotics were competing with them for space AND those management practices became lost on the land; those exotic species due to their aggressive nature, lack of natural controls, and expanding seed source, have taken over.

From a management standpoint, look at the problems that are moving across our country. 40 years ago, cedars weren't a problem across most of Kansas. Today, on the other hand, we have problems with expanding cedar populations in even the farthest west counties. There are places along I35 near Topeka that used to be tall-grass prairie that are now cedar woodlands that are canopied out. Why does that matter? Well, currently those acres are lost to the production of prairie chicken, quail, and to a large extent, white-tailed deer! From a human perspective, those plants have reduced land values, increased wildfire potential, increased pollen pollution, increased erosion, decreased hydrology, besides what they have done to the indigenous prairie species. Having managed wildlife areas for over 30 years, I can tell you that one of my primary costs is dealing with exotic species that were planted before we knew better that continue to spread across acres of better habitat. If I didn't have to deal with cedar, elm, locust, multiflora rose, sericea lespedeza, johnsongrass, purple loosestrife, rough-leafed dogwood, phragmites, bindweed, and any number of other exotic species, I would have a lot more time and $ to expend toward practices that would increase game species. My challenge to you is to take a road trip. Drive from home either east or west for 200 or more miles and see how succession changes with the rainfall belt. Also look at how the dominance of exotic species increases or decreases as you travel. I guess it boils down to the difference between managing habitat where natural techniques keep species in balance or one where those (inexpensive) techniques are a lot less effective and the habitat trends toward dominance by 1 or few species. If stability is supported by diversity, then invasive exotics lead toward instability. Often, there are other species that can fulfill that role without running amuk outside of the row that they were planted in. Am I hitting the mark here at all?
 

UGUIDE

New member
Finally some quality posts. How do I know? these are almost like a foreign language to me.

I am bringing big ag to conservation as I am just coming back from MO after buying and autosteer tractor no till drill. all JD.

I love cedars and russian olives and all other invasive species because it seems like the pheasants are drawn to them.

I have learned that one persons invasive is another persons highly desireable.

Lot of "I" statements there. LOL.

Precision Conservation is where its at boys. Thought I coined this term but the biologists on Cheasapeke Bay already used it a few years back.
 

Prairie Drifter

Active member
Just so I can rush this evolution, lets throw in one of the biggest exotics.......the ring-necked pheasant. As we all know, this import from the orient has flourished here because we created a habitat that hadn't existed pre-man! As such, the supposition that "native" species might, or would fill all of the habitat niches would be a stretch. You have to ask yourself where the variety of crop species/varieties we use also came from. Somewhere, by either chance or luck or whatever, we did good and pheasants have flourished due to agriculture that, in itself, is an exotic here.
 

oldandnew

New member
Wow, O&N, you got a lot of shot in that ounce and a quarter load!!! A lot depends on your capability, neighbors, native species, and budget of both time and money. A lot of wildlife management deals with structure. Often, a number of plants "can" provide that structure within a habitat. The most beneficial species do that without an aggressive attempt to become the only species on the landscape. Others will try to dominate your acreage and jump fences onto your neighbors at the same time. IF you can use the tamer species to perform the same task that the more aggressive species does, you will be way ahead to do so. In the consideration of multi-flora rose and cedar, they remained in control (or so we thought) for many years because of the management practices of the time and the strength of native habitats in healthy condition. However, as more pressures were applied to those native species and more exotics were competing with them for space AND those management practices became lost on the land; those exotic species due to their aggressive nature, lack of natural controls, and expanding seed source, have taken over.

From a management standpoint, look at the problems that are moving across our country. 40 years ago, cedars weren't a problem across most of Kansas. Today, on the other hand, we have problems with expanding cedar populations in even the farthest west counties. There are places along I35 near Topeka that used to be tall-grass prairie that are now cedar woodlands that are canopied out. Why does that matter? Well, currently those acres are lost to the production of prairie chicken, quail, and to a large extent, white-tailed deer! From a human perspective, those plants have reduced land values, increased wildfire potential, increased pollen pollution, increased erosion, decreased hydrology, besides what they have done to the indigenous prairie species. Having managed wildlife areas for over 30 years, I can tell you that one of my primary costs is dealing with exotic species that were planted before we knew better that continue to spread across acres of better habitat. If I didn't have to deal with cedar, elm, locust, multiflora rose, sericea lespedeza, johnsongrass, purple loosestrife, rough-leafed dogwood, phragmites, bindweed, and any number of other exotic species, I would have a lot more time and $ to expend toward practices that would increase game species. My challenge to you is to take a road trip. Drive from home either east or west for 200 or more miles and see how succession changes with the rainfall belt. Also look at how the dominance of exotic species increases or decreases as you travel. I guess it boils down to the difference between managing habitat where natural techniques keep species in balance or one where those (inexpensive) techniques are a lot less effective and the habitat trends toward dominance by 1 or few species. If stability is supported by diversity, then invasive exotics lead toward instability. Often, there are other species that can fulfill that role without running amuk outside of the row that they were planted in. Am I hitting the mark here at all?
Didn't the conservation departments send out plants and encourage planting of multiflora rose? lespedeza? ( I use common pasture lespedeza not sericea), cedars are easy to control....burn them! and they are natural. I have been to every state you describe, and recognize the subtly of the land. For instance I am not going to prescribe multiflora in the sandhills! As we speak I went to the Missouri conservation plant bundles, and yes indeed, I can order and have roughleaved dogwood delivered for my quail habitat! So my question is with all the "current rules" espoused as gospel, why did we prescribe the opposite 10-20 years ago. Did we not know better then?, or maybe now! We had quail then! now not so much. Now we have USFG decrying pheasants as not native, (like us Europeans!) Huns should go too! What about the wonderful canadian rye in my grass seed bundle? Does Kansas exclude that? Not Pheasants Forever! I see the same bone headed, behind the desk decisions repeated. I agree that different parcels and different species require different prescriptions. Local management per parcel should have the latitude to make a determination, at each individual location, Kansas as any other state has variety, not a cookie cutter democratic all for one and one for all. In my circumstance, I live adjacent to the suburbs, habitat is farm fields, and putrid fescue pasture. I am the only habitat. We have a lot of stray dumped cats, and all kinds of predators from multiple hawks, owls, weasels, skunks, coons, possums, foxes and at least one bobcat I ran over in the drive with a chicken in it's jaw. Multiflora is part of the answer, protects the song birds on a perch, escape cover from land based predators, food and cover. Mine are like Normandy tank traps, yes the predators get in them as well, prey can escape and hide quickly. I sure see increased variety of songbirds, quail, and a side benefit of a lot of rabbits, deer and turkey too. I keep blackberries, service berry, buck brush, wild plum dispersed. My challenge is the %&#! black locust. At the end of the day, I would hope flexibility of management, not some granite stone proclamation. Our quail management ideas are from the 1930's for the most part, Aldo Leopold.
 

Prairie Drifter

Active member
O&N, you're not in left field at all. Things do change and we're never always right. A lot of my job today in undoing what my predecessors did using the old knowledge yesterday. We used to think quail were monogamous, they're not. My area used to be the State multi-flora rose nursery, now we fight the problem. We used to stock pen-reared quail as my area was also the State quail farm, now we know that's a waste of time and money. We do learn as we go on, and unfortunately, much of our noxious weed policy is based on agricultural interests alone. Being mandated to spend money to control plants that are beneficial to our production seems ludicrous, but sometimes it fits better into the big picture than the pixel that is our ground. If plum will perform the protective function as rose and not run rampant across the landscape, use plum. If Oriental Arborvitae will perform the same function as redcedar and will stay in the planting where you put it, use the arborvitae. The dogwood has it's place, but out of that place it can be too dominant. It's funny that 100 years ago our predecessors planted Siberian Elm and other species because that is all they thought would grow here, but now we have many different species making up our timber and those "hearty" species are now expanding out of control. If I could wave a wand and start over on my area with the current knowledge and eliminate the species that waste my precious time and money, I would. In 50 years, will my successor want to change things, probably. Biology isn't all hard and fast rules. Or maybe better said, we don't always know what the hard and fast rules of biology are, but we're getting there. I worry, the same people that gave us multi-flora rose, crown vetch, Johnson grass, Siberian Elm, Locust, and many of the other problems of today are now giving us GMO corn, roundup ready soybeans, glyphosate, clones, and many other "new discoveries" that may well kill or deform us down the road. The old adage of "keep it simple stupid" rings in my ears from time-to-time. Maybe I need to listen more.
 

Prairie Drifter

Active member
I think that the simple answer to where we are today and why Missouri is no longer producing 2-4M quail before the gun is that plant succession has slid past the adaptive niche for quail. For the very reasons you originally posted, woody cover, fescue, brome, and modern farming have replaced the native prairie, weedy cover and patchwork farming of the past. We didn't used to have wheat farmers or corn farmers, we had farmers and they all planted any number of crops in fields that they could manage with their smaller equipment. It is now harder to do the burning we did then because we've built buildings out in the flammable habitat, have a smokey bear mentality, and have air quality rules. We'd have more quail if everyone burned wood for heat. Not happening. I do challenge you to get some 10-50 year old aerial photos of your place or places you hunt and compare what was there then to what is there now. It'll be quite educational. (fixed it Tom)
 
Last edited:
O&N, you're not in left field at all. Things do change and we're never always right. A lot of my job today in undoing what my predecessors did using the old knowledge yesterday. We used to think quail were monogamous, they're not. My area used to be the State multi-flora rose nursery, now we fight the problem. We used to stock pen-reared quail as my area was also the State quail farm, now we know that's a waste of time and money. We do learn as we go on, and unfortunately, much of our noxious weed policy is based on agricultural interests alone. Being mandated to spend money to control plants that are beneficial to our production seems ludicrous, but sometimes it fits better into the big picture than the pixel that is our ground. If plum will perform the protective function as rose and not run rampant across the landscape, use plum. If Oriental Arborvitae will perform the same function as redcedar and will stay in the planting where you put it, use the arborvitae. The dogwood has it's place, but out of that place it can be too dominant. It's funny that 100 years ago our predecessors planted Siberian Elm and other species because that is all they thought would grow here, but now we have many different species making up our timber and those "hearty" species are now expanding out of control. If I could wave a wand and start over on my area with the current knowledge and eliminate the species that waste my precious time and money, I would. In 50 years, will my successor want to change things, probably. Biology isn't all hard and fast rules. Or maybe better said, we don't always know what the hard and fast rules of biology are, but we're getting there. I worry, the same people that gave us multi-flora rose, crown vetch, Johnson grass, Siberian Elm, Locust, and many of the other problems of today are now giving us GMO corn, roundup ready soybeans, glyphosate, clones, and many other "new discoveries" that may well kill or deform us down the road. The old adage of "keep it simple stupid" rings in my ears from time-to-time. Maybe I need to listen more.
I think honeysuckle fits in that category too. Look at the hills in the winter time driving through Missouri. Its the only thing green and looks like really good cover. Ive seen quail escape to such cover too. But its really invasive. I see it driving through the eastern part of kansas too. But somewhere in the neighborhood of topeka, you stop seeing it. Or seeing so much of it. It almost looks like a break in habitat. Will it not grow in the flinthills?? My dads place in eastern missouri is so overgrown with it that every time im home I go clear a patch out of his woods for him. Cut and spray. And it seems like a lost cause.
 

Ranger Rick

Member
I think that the simple answer to where we are today and why Missouri is no longer producing 2-4M quail before the gun is that plant succession has slid past the adaptive niche for quail. For the very reasons you originally posted, woody cover, fescue, brome, and modern farming have replaced the native prairie, weedy cover and patchwork farming of the past. We didn't used to have wheat farmers or corn farmers, we had farmers and they all planted any number of crops in fields that they could manage with their smaller equipment. It is now harder to do the burning we did then because we've built buildings out in the flammable habitat, have a smokey bear mentality, and have air quality rules. We'd have more quail if everyone burned wood for heat. Not happening. I do challenge you to get some 10-50 year old aerial photos of your place or places you hunt and compare what was there then to what is there now. It'll be quite educational. (fixed it Tom)
The natural environment changes over time. The lake I'm on has gone through dramatic changes in fish habitat over the last 25 years. The forest of the NE US are second growth forest and are poor habitat for grouse and woodcock.

Here in WI, I scout annually for new Aspen cuts I'll be hunting in another 5-7 years. In the meantime, a couple of my brothers always want to hunt the stands we shot grouse in 20 years ago, that are too mature and no longer hold many birds.

Pre-European settlement, the natives used fire to control the habitat. They recognized that mature forests shaded out browse species for deer, Oak savannahs and prairies grew over, choked with brushy vegetation and turned into forest. Alongside modern farming techniques, the elimination of the use of fire as a tool has been one of the biggest mistakes of the modern era.
 

Miforester

Member
I think that the simple answer to where we are today and why Missouri is no longer producing 2-4M quail before the gun is that plant succession has slid past the adaptive niche for quail. For the very reasons you originally posted, woody cover, fescue, brome, and modern farming have replaced the native prairie, weedy cover and patchwork farming of the past. We didn't used to have wheat farmers or corn farmers, we had farmers and they all planted any number of crops in fields that they could manage with their smaller equipment. It is now harder to do the burning we did then because we've built buildings out in the flammable habitat, have a smokey bear mentality, and have air quality rules. We'd have more quail if everyone burned wood for heat. Not happening. I do challenge you to get some 10-50 year old aerial photos of your place or places you hunt and compare what was there then to what is there now. It'll be quite educational. (fixed it Tom)
Thanks Troy, just looking out for Smokey!
 

SDJIM

New member
WOW now that was a whole bunch of info to take in for this old city boy who at times thinks he is a farmer and wildlife habitat genius---maybe not so much and more likely not at all. I keep trying and research things as much as I can but I still keep coming up just a little short---It is truly not as easy as it would seem and not many people seem to want to help. I took a drive around here today and most of the area wouldn't support a PET ROCK yet alone common old wildlife.

All I can do is to keep trying--I assure you I will till I draw my last breath---damm it just wasn't suppose to be this hard.
 

UGUIDE

New member
A thought/questions on invasives:

One of the top species picks in my tree belt design would be cedars and Russian olives among some others. American plums too.

I have no issue with these outside my belts and wildlife love them. They get a bad rap across the nation though.

IMO in precision conservation they are highly functional.

Should be be much more specific about ideas and remedies when regional thinking surely differs greatly and can add confusion and lack of clarity to the habitat conversation?
 

Prairie Drifter

Active member
A thought/questions on invasives:

One of the top species picks in my tree belt design would be cedars and Russian olives among some others. American plums too.

I have no issue with these outside my belts and wildlife love them. They get a bad rap across the nation though.

IMO in precision conservation they are highly functional.

Should be be much more specific about ideas and remedies when regional thinking surely differs greatly and can add confusion and lack of clarity to the habitat conversation?
I think a lot of the problem is with good neighbor policy. With species that have proven that they won't stay where you put them, there is a level of irresponsibility with putting them on the landscape. Though you may well be ok with their invading your land beyond the rows where you planted them, your neighbors may well not be. There are some significant costs, both directly and indirectly, with their invasion. First, there is the cost to remove and control them(direct cost). Second, those plants take up water and fertility that could be going to livestock forage species (indirect cost) and lost to cattle gains on those acres. In Kansas, there are areas where cedars have invaded grasslands to the point that they have changed the hydrology. Springs that ran for centuries are now dry, and simply the removal or killing of the cedars will result in the spring flowing again. If you drive, or you could go onto google earth, and look at the land adjoining I35 going into Topeka, Kansas from the south. You will see cedar forests that were grasslands just a few decades ago. The prairie has been completely replaced and the financial productivity of those acres is lost. I don't understand how someone can afford to own acres like that with no income potential. Also, to eliminate the problem trees and re-establish a much less diverse grassland may well cost more than the value of the land. If you start adding the negative effects of all of the non-native species against the native ecosystems that they have invaded, it is no wonder that many native species of game are now in peril. The habitats that they evolved with are often largely gone. For fun, go to www.kswildflower.org and look at how many species that we recognize are actually exotics. I've challenged folks in the past to keep a log for a month or so of what species that they step on when they get out of their vehicle and look up the % that are exotic. It's an eye opener!

I guess my point is this: if a certain plant is functional as wildlife cover and yet is quite invasive and there are other species, even exotic ones, that provide the same structure and viability without the invasive threat; why not use the species that is less costly to maintain/control? Plum instead of rose, arborvitae or pine instead of cedar. Even if the cost for stock and establishment is double, that would be far offset from the cost of controlling invasion of acres leading away from the established rows from now on.
 
Last edited:
How did all the cedars get there? Did conservation plant them? Or is it because everyone out in Kansas plants cedars around their houses for a wind break? I have noticed more and more every year that Ive hunted out there. Do they suck the ground dry because they have a longer tap root. Do trees and woody plants with shallow root systems work better for cover plants? Sorry, thats alot of questions in one post
 

Prairie Drifter

Active member
Many of them are dispersed by bird and rodent feces. Eat them, poop them. You will often see a lot of seedlings under the power lines. That's birds. Cedars take over 25 gallons of water a day. That'll raise a lot of grass. Cedars have a lot of roots in the top foot of soil and directly compete with surrounding brush and grass. They also intercept a lot of rain before it hits the ground and prevent the same. As for what root system is better, a lot of that depends on where they are planted, what the soil type is, and how much rainfall the area gets. The primary point in this thread is that some of the species often used for habitat are known to be invasive and there are alternatives that provide the same structure without that additional cost of control.
 

Prairie Drifter

Active member
A thought/questions on invasives:



I have no issue with these outside my belts and wildlife love them.
Uguide, sorry, guess there are two ways to read this sentence. One is, you have no problem that it is happening, the other, you have no problem of it happening.

If plum can be a problem in your area, there are probably other plants that you could use that wouldn't be. Here that could be fragrant sumac, chokecherry, coralberry, or lilac.
 

UGUIDE

New member
Uguide, sorry, guess there are two ways to read this sentence. One is, you have no problem that it is happening, the other, you have no problem of it happening.

If plum can be a problem in your area, there are probably other plants that you could use that wouldn't be. Here that could be fragrant sumac, chokecherry, coralberry, or lilac.
Yes yes I meant I have no issues on my farm with anything spreading outside desired area. Plums put on outside rows was early design fault of my own but put in the middle rows in between cedars and they keep them in check.

The plums sucker like heck but guess where the birds are?
 

oldandnew

New member
How do we Know?

Many of them are dispersed by bird and rodent feces. Eat them, poop them. You will often see a lot of seedlings under the power lines. That's birds. Cedars take over 25 gallons of water a day. That'll raise a lot of grass. Cedars have a lot of roots in the top foot of soil and directly compete with surrounding brush and grass. They also intercept a lot of rain before it hits the ground and prevent the same. As for what root system is better, a lot of that depends on where they are planted, what the soil type is, and how much rainfall the area gets. The primary point in this thread is that some of the species often used for habitat are known to be invasive and there are alternatives that provide the same structure without that additional cost of control.
Are these planting invasive, create a disruption to the natural order which spawns some other ecological nightmare? Simply we don't know! We thought we had those answers many years ago, but we were mistaken. Cedar trees can provide shelter in icy conditions, I believe like carry enough ice without breaking to provide wind and overhead cover. A lot of pheasant deaths are from ice-beak from having to turn into wind in icy conditions to avoid freezing to death. I have quail roost under them repeatedly in winter, according to them, better accommodations than the prairie grass pasture adjacent, second would be under, you guessed it multi-flora! I agree to much of it all a nightmare. But with quail we have to manage anyway, I assume U-Guide does, and Prairie Drifter. We can all agree, that billiard pool table crop ground is vacant, I would submit vast sweeping prairies are limited as well. Food and checkerboard agricultural quarter sections increased the carrying capacity of game on the prairies. Food and water. It's not food or water which impacts the highly tilled farmlands it's space. As stated before Missouri became quail central because it was about 1/2 pine timber, rough ground, another 1/2 prairie grasslands, which were then put to the plow. The rough ground was left unaltered creating increase in quail population. The pines were succeeded by oaks, again prized, and harvested, creating open spaces, now global warming replaces the oak with soft maple. Un-native aggressively planted K 31, super seeded the prairie, lespedeza not very aggressive, fell pray to tar spot, and higher yielding legumes in favor with the K 31 and cool season imports. Native Quail were and are hear, just not in a cornucopia bounty of population. My thoughts are that pheasants, ducks, geese, deer, turkey are all easy prospects to create habitat for in my opinion. Deer and turkey respond to whim of modern agriculture and sprawling suburbia, as do geese. Ducks are a seasonal issue, and we have a long head start in rescuing the breeding grounds, with a fore front organization, and multi government intervention, at a time of cheap land. Pheasants are barnyard birds, small amounts of nesting cover, winter cover, and eat almost anything, if they are planted, with a chance of decent habitat condition they will reproduce. More complex, more costly are habitat for quail and prairie grouse. These log heads with mining, oil exploration, agriculture practices, and agricultural advise from universities. We all know about Canadian rye, devastating to dogs, could be easily supplanted by less dangerous grasses, yet all states in the Midwest use it. Including Pheasants Forever! No acknowledgement from all the above and no fixes. Again are we wrong before or are we wrong now? What else are we wrong about? I think we have seen the enemy.....and he is Us! Me like watch the birds and they tell me what to do.
 
Last edited:

SetterNut

New member
I am very much in line with Troy's thinking. Maybe it is because we are both in KS and see what things like cedar do when not controlled.

I have been working for about 2 years to take out cedars and hedge trees that are in the middle of my pasture. If the previous owner would have burned like he should have, I would not have to bust my butt to get all these hawk perches cut down. Then across the road from me there are hundreds of tightly packed cedars, and someone built a house in them. If those caught fire the house is a goner. That makes my burning very scary.

The other battle is brome. It is coming on to my place from my neighbors place. It is having a hard time getting into my native pasture, but it has move a long way around some of my crop fields and under some of my plum thickets. I have been spraying it back, but that is a slow and expensive process to do without killing my plum thickets.

I have some time and money to throw at this stuff as the farm is not the way I make a living. But it would not break my heart if Fescue, Brome and cedars were all killed off in my area of KS. I can tell you we would have a lot more quail and PC.
 
Top