Interesting talk to PGC.

Trying to apply Midwestern habitat models to eastern states did not work here. If we didn't think outside the box a little, our pheasant reintroduction would have failed. With our rainfall amounts and invasive plant issues, switchgrass will degrade to the point it no longer provides the necessary cover quality. Again, not theory here, all this has been learned over the past 10 years. Spraying switch in the Midwest may not be necessary, here it is a necessity.
 
I think we may all be closer to being on the same page than one might think. I had asked the same questions about switch grass and it's relation to past pheasant populations. I 've had this discussion with RS before. The answer is we simply can't duplicate the Soil Bank era and the farming practices of that time. We have to utilize the limeted amount of acres available to there fullest potential and switch grass has proven to give us the best chance of doing this. Let's not forget THIS IS WORKING ! Can these switch grass fields be tweaked to offer even better results, I would think so.
It sure is good to go to a farm in Pa. and see hundreds of wild ringnecks again!
 
I don't mean to beat this subject to death but;

I don't see the logic in thinking that because modern AG is currently encouraging chemically dependent mono cultured crops and barren late winter cover that it's a good idea to follow a similar practice in wildlife conservation and developing pheasant friendly habitats.

I personally know of fields in NW PA and NE Ohio that contain switch mixed in with other grasses and field weeds that for many many years have maintained very good grassland habitat for pheasants throughout most of the year excepting deep snows and late winter early spring conditions. Birds that hang out in this type of cover through most of the hunting season have gizzards that are full of a variety of seeds, weeds and insects.

I don't think switch grass is much of a food source at all for pheasants is it?

To me it might make some sense to maintain some strips of herbicide dependent switch along side more diverse grassy or brushy cover but I don't see the logic in full dense fields of switch alongside mono cultured and harvested crops as being a better kind of pheasant and wildlife habitat. Better to work at encouraging healthier farming and wildlife conservation practices whatever it takes.

It is great to hear about the wild reproducing birds in PA...I sure hope it is forever...and ever.


*
 
Last edited:
It is fine to have some plants along with the switchgrass. The swithcgrass just needs to be the dominant plants. They will provide the necessary winter cover to reduce bird mortality over the winter. Here in the east, the switchgrass fields will degrade in cover quality if broadleafs are not controlled. In large fields a monoculture habitat is not productive. In the east, we don't have many large fields. We get the diversity through the fragmentation of our landscape. We have seen here that dense switchgrass (8 to 10 lbs/acre) provide good winter survival. Agriculture provides much of the food but there are awlays weed seeds in fields even if they are sprayed. The problem here is not a sanitized field, it's weeds choking the grass out. It is hard to argue with success. We have tried the diversity plantings with 1 to 3 lbs switch to the acre and other grasses mixed in. It does not work here. At some point we could risk having too much switchgrass, we are so far from that problem it will be years before we need to pull back. New York state did a study about 15 years ago with switchgrass and they found better than 80% of all pheasant and duck nests ni the study area were in switchgrass fields. They will use it for nesting and nest success in switchgrass is far better than other cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top