<%BANNER%>

Reproductive Ecology of Resident and Translocated Bobwhites on South Florida Rangelands

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024663/00001

Material Information

Title: Reproductive Ecology of Resident and Translocated Bobwhites on South Florida Rangelands
Physical Description: 1 online resource (51 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Schad, Brandon
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bobwhite, colinus, florida, microhabitat, nest, quail, rangeland, relocated, selection, translocated, vegetation, virginianus
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY OF RESIDENT AND TRANSLOCATED BOBWHITES ON SOUTH FLORIDA RANGELANDS By Brandon J. Schad August 2009 Chair: William Giuliano Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Populations of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) have been declining steadily over the last several decades throughout their range, probably due to changing land uses and habitat degradation. This decline has been observed in south Florida as well, where there is a lack of general knowledge about the reproductive ecology and nesting requirements for northern bobwhites that may be hindering conservation efforts. Similarly, translocation, another tool that may serve to restore northern bobwhite populations to their former level in south Florida, has not been well studied. This study evaluated northern bobwhite nest habitat selection and success at several levels: microhabitat, home range, and landscape levels. I found that bobwhites selected for nest sites that had increased vegetative structure and visual obstruction at the microhabitat level, which was consistent with the characteristics of successful bobwhite nests. At a home range and landscape levels, bobwhites tended to select nests nearer to fencerows, further from canals, and further from habitat edge. Successful nests were further from most linear landscape features such as fencerows and canals that may be corridors for predators, but closer to habitat edge. I suggest managing for nest habitat that has taller, thicker herbaceous vegetation, interspersed with other types of habitat to increase edge, that is located away from fencerows and other linear landscape features to increase nest success. Habitat should be managed similarly for both resident and translocated birds.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brandon Schad.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Giuliano, William M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024663:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024663/00001

Material Information

Title: Reproductive Ecology of Resident and Translocated Bobwhites on South Florida Rangelands
Physical Description: 1 online resource (51 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Schad, Brandon
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bobwhite, colinus, florida, microhabitat, nest, quail, rangeland, relocated, selection, translocated, vegetation, virginianus
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY OF RESIDENT AND TRANSLOCATED BOBWHITES ON SOUTH FLORIDA RANGELANDS By Brandon J. Schad August 2009 Chair: William Giuliano Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Populations of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) have been declining steadily over the last several decades throughout their range, probably due to changing land uses and habitat degradation. This decline has been observed in south Florida as well, where there is a lack of general knowledge about the reproductive ecology and nesting requirements for northern bobwhites that may be hindering conservation efforts. Similarly, translocation, another tool that may serve to restore northern bobwhite populations to their former level in south Florida, has not been well studied. This study evaluated northern bobwhite nest habitat selection and success at several levels: microhabitat, home range, and landscape levels. I found that bobwhites selected for nest sites that had increased vegetative structure and visual obstruction at the microhabitat level, which was consistent with the characteristics of successful bobwhite nests. At a home range and landscape levels, bobwhites tended to select nests nearer to fencerows, further from canals, and further from habitat edge. Successful nests were further from most linear landscape features such as fencerows and canals that may be corridors for predators, but closer to habitat edge. I suggest managing for nest habitat that has taller, thicker herbaceous vegetation, interspersed with other types of habitat to increase edge, that is located away from fencerows and other linear landscape features to increase nest success. Habitat should be managed similarly for both resident and translocated birds.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brandon Schad.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Giuliano, William M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024663:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY OF RESIDENT AND TRANSLOCATED BOBWHITES ON SOUTH FLORIDA RANGELANDS By BRANDON J. SCHAD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Brandon J. Schad 2

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Alico Inc., the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, and the University of Florida provided financial and logistical support for my project. I thank John R. Alexander for his encouragement and support, Dr. Bill Giuliano, Dr. Franklin Percival, and Jim Selph for their advice and guidance, Robert Hoffman and Chance Hines for assistance with data collection, and Tommy McGill, Bob Miley, Frankie Culbreth, Pat Crews, and Scott VanWagner for their support and guidance. 3

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................5 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10 Study Objectives.....................................................................................................................12 Study Area..............................................................................................................................12 2 METHODS.............................................................................................................................14 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................14 Analyses..................................................................................................................................18 3 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................22 Microhabitat Level Habitat Use and Selection.......................................................................22 Home Range Level Habitat Use and Selection.......................................................................25 Landscape Level Habitat Use and Selection..........................................................................26 4 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................41 Microhabitat Level Habitat Use and Selection.......................................................................41 Home Range Level Habitat Use and Selection.......................................................................44 Landscape Level Habitat Use and Selection..........................................................................46 Summary.................................................................................................................................47 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................48 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................51 4

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Nest habitat characteristics examined for northern bobwhite in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.......................................................................................................20 3-1 Microhabitat characteristics of bobwhite nest sites and paired random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008..........................................................................................28 3-2 Microhabitat characteristics of translocated bobwhite nest sites and paired random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008....................................................................29 3-3 Microhabitat characteristics of resident bobwhite nest sites and paired random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.............................................................................30 3-4 Microhabitat characteristics of resident and translocated bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008..........................................................................................31 3-5 Microhabitat characteristics of successful resident and translocated bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008....................................................................32 3-6 Microhabitat characteristics of successful and unsuccessful bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.................................................................................33 3-7 Microhabitat characteristics of successful and unsuccessful translocated bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.............................................................35 3-8 Microhabitat characteristics of successful and unsuccessful resident bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008....................................................................36 3-9 Home range level habitat characteristics of bobwhite nest and paired random sites for each nest in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.............................................................37 3-10 Home range level habitat characteristics of translocated bobwhite nest and paired random sites for each nest in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008..................................37 3-11 Home range level habitat characteristics of resident bobwhite nest and paired random sites for each nest in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008...............................................38 3-12 Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008..........................................................................................................................38 3-13 Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful translocated nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.......................................................................................................38 3-14 Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful resident nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.......................................................................................................39 5

PAGE 6

3-15 Landscape level habitat characteristics of bobwhite nests and 1000 random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.................................................................................39 3-16 Landscape level habitat characteristics of translocated bobwhite nests and 1000 random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008.......................................................39 3-17 Landscape level habitat characteristics of resident bobwhite nests and 1000 random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008....................................................................40 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Nested plot design used to sample vegetation at quail nest and random sites in south Florida rangelands 2007-2008...........................................................................................20 7

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY OF RESIDENT AND TRANSLOCATED BOBWHITES ON SOUTH FLORIDA RANGELANDS By Brandon J. Schad August 2009 Chair: William Giuliano Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Populations of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) have been declining steadily over the last several decades throughout their range, probably due to changing land uses and habitat degradation. This decline has been observed in south Florida as well, where there is a lack of general knowledge about the reproductive ecology and nesting requirements for northern bobwhites that may be hindering conservation efforts. Similarly, translocation, another tool that may serve to restore northern bobwhite populations to their former level in south Florida, has not been well studied. This study evaluated northern bobwhite nest habitat selection and success at several levels: microhabitat, home range, and landscape levels. I found that bobwhites selected for nest sites that had increased vegetative structure and visual obstruction at the microhabitat level, which was consistent with the characteristics of successful bobwhite nests. At a home range and landscape levels, bobwhites tended to select nests nearer to fencerows, further from canals, and further from habitat edge. Successful nests were further from most linear landscape features such as fencerows and canals that may be corridors for predators, but closer to habitat edge. I suggest managing for nest habitat that has taller, thicker herbaceous vegetation, interspersed with other types of habitat to increase edge, that is located away from fencerows and other linear 8

PAGE 9

landscape features to increase nest success. Habitat should be managed similarly for both resident and translocated birds. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Populations of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) have declined dramatically throughout their North American range, with declines in Florida averaging ~4.3%/year during the past several decades (Sauer et al. 2001, Giuliano et al. 2007). These declines are most likely due to loss and degradation of Floridas quail habitat, a result of changes in land use. This is particularly true in rangelands, where native range is frequently converted to improved pastures of Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum) and other sod-forming grasses, and both improved and native range are often overgrazed (Giuliano et al. 2007). Habitat restoration and translocation of wild bobwhites may be effective tools for restoring quail populations in Florida. However, a general lack of knowledge about quail ecology (including reproductive ecology) in Floridas rangelands, which are very different from anywhere else in the northern bobwhites range, and the effectiveness of translocating quail as a restoration tool, may hinder restoration efforts (FWC 2004, Hines 2004, Giuliano et al. 2007). High reproductive potential of northern bobwhites is one of the main factors allowing bobwhite populations to exist with and recover from high annual mortality and catastrophic events (Suchy and Munkel 1993). A better understanding of northern bobwhite reproductive ecology in south Florida rangelands may provide insights into their management and facilitate population increases and restorations. Based on studies from other parts of the northern bobwhites range, quail appear to prefer nesting in fields dominated by native, warm season bunchgrasses such as wiregrass (Aristida stricta) and various bluestems (Andropogon spp.), 0.3-0.7 m tall, with birds nesting near the base of grass clumps. Ideal nesting habitat has ~2.7, 30 cm diameter grass clumps/m 2 that is close to (within 15-25 m) shrubby escape cover (Giuliano et al. 2007). Several non-Florida studies have examined bobwhite nest site selection, and found at 10

PAGE 11

patch level, bobwhites selected nest sites with taller grass and woody cover, less bare ground, greater litter and grass cover, and more visual obstruction than associated random sites (Taylor et al. 1999, Townsend et al. 2001, Lusk et al. 2006). This type of nesting cover probably provides accessible nest site locations, with protection from predators. While these studies provide a general idea of bobwhite nest site selection, all occurred in western states (e.g., Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas). There have been no such studies on the unique rangelands of south Florida, where quail nesting habitat requirements may differ from other parts of its range (Giuliano et al. 2007). Another factor potentially limiting northern bobwhite conservation and population restoration is their poor dispersal ability, coupled with isolated, remnant populations throughout much of their range (Burger 2001, Giuliano et al. 2007). As a result, even when northern bobwhite habitat is restored, it may take decades, if ever, for birds to re-colonize restored areas. Translocating wild birds from source populations into restored habitats may be a viable means of restoring local bobwhite populations. However, there has not been extensive research to determine its effectiveness. Several studies have examined using translocation as a means of reintroducing the masked subspecies of bobwhite (Ellis et al. 1977, Smith 1987, Hernandez et al. 2006), and found that translocation had limited success, possibly due to the differences in habitat between source and restoration sites (Hernandez et al. 2006). There have been several recent studies looking at the effects of translocation on other subspecies of northern bobwhite. However, the primary focus of these studies was on the impact translocating bobwhites had on their home range size, movement patterns, and site fidelity (Liu et al. 2002, Terhune et al. 2006). Terhune et al. (2006) studied the impact relocating bobwhites had on reproduction, and found translocating bobwhites did not reduce reproductive output, and may serve to augment quail 11

PAGE 12

populations. However, the study did not examine the potential of relocating bobwhites to a restored habitat, or what effect moving bobwhites into restored habitat (which may differ from the habitat where they were trapped) has on nesting ecology. Terhune et al. (2006) monitored nest success and survival, but nest site use and selection were not determined, and these factors are an important part of bobwhite reproductive ecology (Giuliano et al. 2007). Further, these studies were not conducted on the unique Florida subspecies of bobwhite (Colinus virginianus floridanus) or in Florida rangelands. Study Objectives My primary objective was to examine nest site selection by resident and translocated northern bobwhites in the rangelands of south Florida at the microhabitat level (i.e., vegetation structure at the nest site), home range level, and at the landscape level. Additionally, I wanted to determine if bobwhite nest site selection in south Florida rangelands had an effect on nest success. Study Area The project took place in the North and South Prairies and surrounding areas of the Devils Garden/Alico Ranch in Hendry County, FL (Township 45S, Range 31E, Sections 1 and 12; Township 45S, Range 32E, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, and 18). I collected data during the nesting seasons of 2007 and 2008 (approximately March through August). The study area encompassed ~800 ha, which could support a minimum viable population of 500-1000 birds (assuming one bird/0.81-1.62 ha; Giuliano et al. 2007). This area was chosen because it 1) was large enough to support a minimum viable population, 2) was easily accessible, 3) was improvable in terms of quail habitat and manipulating other activities (e.g., grazing), 4) had fair quail habitat, 5) habitat enhancement had already begun on the area (e.g., roller chopping and reduced grazing), 6) had relatively few birds at the time of the study, and 7) did not have quail 12

PAGE 13

hunting. Point counts (Bibby et al. 2000) during May and June, 2006 indicated that the area had a minimum population of 24 birds, and habitat evaluations indicated that there were ~100 ha of useable space in the area for quail. 13

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 METHODS Data Collection Throughout the study, I captured, translocated, and released wild birds into the study area. All birds were banded with a standard metal leg-band (Monel Butt-End #7, National Band and Tag Company) and released into useable habitat within the study area. All trapped females that weighed 140 g were fitted with a 5 g necklace-style radio transmitter with a mortality sensor (Model AWE-QLL, American Wildlife Enterprises; weighing <3.5% of the birds body mass; Fuller et al. 2005). I trapped extensively throughout the study area prior to releasing translocated birds, and all captured resident hens over 140 g were fitted with radio collars. Translocation of wild birds into the study area began during the spring of 2007, and continued during the spring of 2008. I translocated quail into the restoration area from early spring until the nesting season had begun. Although it has been found that it takes several months for a bobwhite to become familiar with its new habitat after translocation (Liu et al. 2002), birds moved into new habitat in winter resulted in extremely high mortality rates, and translocating birds during spring and summer increased their chance for survival through the breeding season. Wild birds were obtained for translocation from other portions of the Alico Ranch, where quail were found in habitat that potentially faced destruction or degradation (e.g., conversion to sugar cane production or water impoundment). I trapped birds in donor areas using standard wire funnel traps and bait (e.g., corn; Bookhout 1996, Braun 2005), checking traps after dark each day. Captured birds were transferred from traps to holding boxes, transported to a workroom where they were sexed and aged based on standard feather criteria (Giuliano et al. 2007), banded, weighed, females fitted with radio-transmitters, and released in appropriate cover. I released birds at locations where there was suitable warm season grass cover for nesting, shrubs to 14

PAGE 15

provide escape and thermal cover, and forb cover to provide foraging and brood rearing habitat in close proximity to one another. I trapped, handled, and released resident birds each year, using the same procedures as for translocated birds. Trapping, handling, and releasing of birds followed appropriate animal care and use protocols (e.g., AOU Ad Hoc Committee on the Use of Wild Birds in Research 1988). The project was reviewed and approved by the University of Florida/IFAS Non-Regulatory Animal Research Committee (003-008 WEC) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Once nesting season began each year, radio collared birds were radio-located daily (diurnally) by triangulation from three known receiving locations (White and Garrott 1990, Krebs 1999, Millspaugh and Marzluff 2001, Braun 2005). I established receiving locations at 0.40 km intervals, forming a grid throughout the study area. Once per week, birds were located using homing to determine whether they were nesting or not. When monitoring indicated that a female had initiated incubation (i.e., found repeatedly in the same location during the nesting season; March-August), nests were visually located and eggs counted. When visiting a nest, I took care not to disturb vegetation, with all disturbed vegetation returned to its original position after the visit. Nests were marked by placing a small piece of flagging on the nest vegetation clump, and location recorded using a global positioning system (GPS). I attempted to check nests every three days, when the hen was absent from the nest, to determine the status of the nest. When incubation ceased, as determined via radio telemetry and nest visits, I recorded the fate of the nest and number of eggs hatched. I considered all nests hatching 1 egg successful. Each nest site was paired with a location 100 m distant in a random compass direction for microhabitat evaluation. 15

PAGE 16

At each nest and paired random location, vegetation composition and structure were examined in several strata (i.e., overstory, understory, shrub, herbaceous, and ground levels; Dueser and Shugart 1978), using a nested plot design (Figure 2-1). All overstory (woody vegetation 7.5 cm diameter at breast height [DBH]) and understory (woody vegetation <7.5 cm DBH, >2.0 m in height) plants were counted and DBH measured within a 0.03 ha circular plot to estimate density and basal area (individual species and all combined), species richness, and diversity (Krebs 1999). Overstory and understory canopy closure were estimated for each strata from 41 evenly spaced, vertical ocular tube sightings along 2 perpendicular 20 m transects centered in the 0.03 ha plot (James and Shugart 1971). Shrubs (woody vegetation 2.0 m in height) were counted, maximum height determined for each species, and horizontal shrub coverage measured along two perpendicular 20 m 2 (2x10 m) transects centered on the 0.03 ha plot to estimate horizontal shrub coverage, species richness, and diversity. Coverage (ocular estimate) and maximum height of each species of herbaceous plant were determined in a 1m 2 plot centered on the nest or random site and in four 1m 2 plots, one randomly located in each quadrant of the 0.03 ha plot. Coverage of bare ground (i.e., no herbaceous or shrub canopy cover) was also determined in all five 1m 2 plots. To assess vertical vegetation structure from 0-2 m above ground, a cover pole (Griffin and Youtie 1988) was centered on the 0.03 ha plot, with readings taken at 5 m and 10 m from each of the cardinal directions. The plant species most closely associated with the nest location (e.g., nest under wiregrass) was recorded, as well as the total number of red imported fire ant mounds present within the plot. All variables measures at nest sites and paired random sites are described in Table 2-1. I plotted nest site locations in a Geographic Information System (GIS), and measured distances from nest sites to several landscape features including un-grazed areas, canals, habitat 16

PAGE 17

edge, wetlands, burned areas, fencerows, and roads using the ArcView 3.3 Nearest Feature extension. I created layers of the desired variables using GPS locations of variable vertices, digitized several from United States Geological Survey digital orthophoto quadrangles, and converted the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissions Habitat and Landcover raster dataset to a vector layer. To analyze habitat selection at the home range level, I gave each nest site a 50 ha buffer using the Hawths Tools extension in ArcGIS v. 9.3. Fifty hectares is an approximate mean home range size for both resident and translocated northern bobwhites during the nesting season (Liu et al. 2002). Fifty random points were then generated (using Hawths Tools) within each buffer. I measured distances from the 50 random points to the same variables using the same methods as with nest sites. To compare nest habitat type use between resident and translocated bobwhites at this level, habitat type was determined at each nest site as well as all random sites using ArcGIS 9.0. I used habitat classifications outlined in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissions Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005). Habitat classifications included agriculture, disturbed/transitional, dry prairie, freshwater marsh/wet prairie, grassland/improved pasture, hardwood hammock forest, mixed hardwood-pine forest, natural pineland, and shrub swamp. To analyze habitat selection at the landscape level, I generated1000 random points throughout the study area using the Hawths Tools extension in ArcGIS 9.3. I calculated distances to the habitat variables measured for analysis at the home range level for nest sites and the 1000 random sites using the Nearest Feature extension for ArcView v. 3.3. To compare nest habitat type use between resident and translocated bobwhites at this level (i.e., landscape), habitat type was determined at each nest site as well as all random sites using ArcGIS 9.0. 17

PAGE 18

Analyses I used one-way blocked analysis of variance to compare nest habitat variables between nest sites and paired random sites at the microhabitat level, and to compare nest macrohabitat variables (i.e., distances to roads, habitat edge, etc.) at the home range level between nest sites and the mean distances of the 50 paired random points associated with each nest. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare microhabitat variables between resident and translocated nest sites, and between successful and unsuccessful nests. A one-way analysis of variance was also used to compare variables between nest and random sites (i.e., 1000 study area wide) at the landscape level. I used discriminant function analysis (DFA) to determine which combination of variables best discriminated between nest and paired random sites, between resident and translocated nest sites, and between successful and unsuccessful nests at the microhabitat level. Discriminant function analysis was also used to discriminate between nest and paired random sites at the home range and landscape levels. I used methods described by Noon (1981) and McGarigal et al. (2000) to reduce multicolinearity problems and the number of variables considered in each DFA model. All DFA models were fit using a stepwise forward procedure with a tolerance of 0.001, F to enter = 0.15 and F to remove = 0.15. Since the order in which variables are entered into the model can effect final model selection, and there is no accepted method of determining the order of variable entry into a model (McGarigal et al. 2000, SYSTAT 2007), I entered variables into the model based on effect size (Cohen 1988) in one-way analysis of variance comparisons (i.e., the variable with the largest effect size was entered first and the variable with the smallest effect size was entered last). I assumed effect size was positively associated with biological importance, regardless of statistical significance. I assessed the relative importance of each variable in the final model by examining the standardized canonical discriminate functions 18

PAGE 19

(SCDF). Variables with higher SCDF values made greater contributions to the discriminating power of the model (McGarigal et al. 2000). Likelihood ratio analysis was used to examine dependence between nest vegetation use (i.e., what species of vegetation the nest was located in) and bird origin (i.e., resident or translocated), and to examine dependence between FWC landcover type and bird origin. At the home range level, likelihood ratio analysis was used to examine dependence between FWC landcover type at nest and paired random sites. The analysis was conducted once comparing nest sites to all 50 paired random sites, and once comparing nest sites to the majority cover type of all 50 random points combined within the buffer. At the landscape level, likelihood ratio analysis was used to examine dependence between nest sites and the 1000 random points throughout the study area. Likelihood ratio analysis was also used to examine dependence between nest success and FWC landcover type, grazing regime (i.e., grazed or un-grazed), and nest vegetation type. I considered all tests significant at P 0.05. If necessary, I used Fishers least significant difference tests for post-hoc comparisons (SYSTAT 2007). All comparisons used all birds, translocated birds only, and resident birds only, where appropriate. 19

PAGE 20

Figure 2-1. Nested plot design used to sample vegetation at quail nest and random sites in south Florida rangelands 2007-2008. Table 2-1. Nest habitat characteristics examined for northern bobwhite in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Variable Variable description Nest_%forbs (%) Forb coverage in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_fb_max (cm) Maximum height of forbs in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_%gram (%) Graminoid coverage in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_gr_max (cm) Maximum height of graminoids in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_%bunch (%) Bunchgrass coverage in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_bn_max (cm) Maximum height of bunchgrass in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_%shrub (%) Shrub coverage in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_sh_max (cm) Maximum height of shrubs in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_%litter (%) Litter cover in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_%bare (%) Bare ground in 1m 2 plot at nest site Nest_Litt_depth (cm) Mean litter depth at nest site taken from 4 readings Nest_sp_rich (#) Species present 1m 2 plot at nest site Com_Sp._Rich (#) Species present in all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_%forbs (%) Mean forb coverage from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_fb_max (cm) Mean maximum height of forbs from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_%gram (%) Mean graminoid coverage from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_gr_max (cm) Mean maximum height of graminoids from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_%bunch (%) Mean bunchgrasses coverage from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_bn_max (cm) Mean maximum height of bunchgrasses from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_%shrub (%) Mean shrub coverage from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_shrub_max (cm) Mean maximum height of shrubs from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_%litter (%) Mean litter cover from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site Com_%bare (%) Mean bare ground from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site 20

PAGE 21

Table 2-1. Continued. Variable Variable description Com_Litt_depth (cm) Mean litter depth from all 5 1m 2 plots at sampling site VO_%5m 0-50 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 5 m between 0 cm and 50 cm VO_%5m 50-100 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 5 m between 50 cm and 100 cm VO_%5m 100-150 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 5 m between 100 cm and 150 cm VO_%5m 150-200 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 5 m between 150 cm and 200 cm VO_%10m 0-50 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 10 m between 0 cm and 50 cm VO_%10m 50-100 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 10 m between 50 cm and 100 cm VO_%10m 100-150 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 10 m between 100 cm and 150 cm VO_%10m 150-200 (%) Mean vertical obstruction from 10 m between 150 cm and 200 cm OV_SPEC_RICH (#) Species present in overstory OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) Density of overstory plants in plot OV_OCUL_% (%) Ocular tube readings with overstory vegetation UN_SPEC_RICH (#) Species present in understory UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) Density of understory plants in plot UN_OCUL_% (%) Ocular tube readings with understory vegetation SH_SP_RICH (#) Species present in shrub layer SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) Density of shrubs in plot SH_COV_% (%) Cover tape obscured by woody vegetation along 4 10 meter transects FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) Density of fire ant mounds Distance to 50 acre plot (m) Distance to nearest ungrazed area Distance to canals (m) Distance to nearest canal Distance to habitat edge (m) Distance to habitat edge Distance to wetland (m) Distance to nearest wetland Distance to burned areas (m) Distance to nearest burned area Distance to fencerow (m) Distance to nearest fencerow Distance to roads (m) Distance to nearest road 21

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Microhabitat Level Habitat Use and Selection During the study, I trapped 288 wild quail, of which 103 were fitted with radio transmitters. Of these birds, 176 were translocated into the study area from other areas of the ranch. I found 40 nests; 15 of resident quail and 25 of translocated quail. At the microhabitat level, quail selected nest sites with taller forbs, greater horizontal visual obstruction, and a lower density of fire ant mounds than at paired random sites (Table 3-1). The best combination of variables that discriminated between nest and paired random sites, in order of importance, was vertical visual obstruction at 5 meters between 100 and 150 cm (SCDF = 0.700), overstory canopy closure (SCDF = 0.680), maximum height of bunchgrasses (SCDF = -0.644), maximum shrub height (SCDF = -0.608), cover of bare ground (SCDF = -0.510), distance to the nearest fencerow (SCDF = -0.439), and vertical obstruction at 10 m between 0 and 50 cm (SCDF = 0.360; 69% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.698; P 0.001). Considering only translocated nests, nest sites had greater vertical obstruction at 5 m between 50 and 100 cm than at paired random sites (Table 3-2). The best combination of variables that discriminated between translocated nests and paired random sites, in order of importance, was distance to the nearest fencerow (SCDF = -1.101), distance to the nearest road (SCDF = 1.094), shrub cover (SCDF = -1.081), vertical obstruction at 5 m between 50 and 100 cm (SCDF = 0.907), litter depth (SCDF = 0.742), distance to the nearest canal (SCDF = -0.704), and cover of grass (SCDF = -0.544; 79% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.809; P = 0.001). Considering only resident quail nests, nests sites had taller maximum forb heights and greater vertical obstruction than paired random sites (Table 3-3). The best combination of variables to discriminate between resident quail nest sites and paired random sites, in order of 22

PAGE 23

importance, was maximum height of forbs (SCDF = 2.647), overstory canopy closure (SCDF = 2.362), vertical visual obstruction from 10 m between 0 and 50 cm (SCDF = -1.564), and distance to wetlands (SCDF = 1.345; 100% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.948; P 0.001). Habitat type was independent of whether it was a nest or paired random site for all nests (P = 0.664), translocated nests only (P = 0.972), and resident nests only (P = 0.117). Comparing nest site use between translocated and resident bobwhites, resident nest sites had taller maximum heights of forbs, greater overstory canopy closure, were further from un-grazed areas, and were closer to areas burned than translocated birds (Table 3-4). The best combination of variables that discriminated between resident and translocated bobwhite nests, in order of importance, was distance to burned areas (SCDF = 1.737), understory density (SCDF = 1.435), bunchgrass density (SCDF = -0.902), and vertical obstruction at 10 m between 100 and 150 cm (SCDF = -0.538; 96% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.905; P 0.001). Considering only successful resident and translocated nest sites, resident nests had taller maximum heights of forbs, greater visual obstruction at 10 m between 100 and 150 cm, higher density of overstory plants, and were closer to burned areas than the nests of translocated bobwhites (Table 3-5). The best combination of variables to discriminate between successful translocated and resident nests, in order of importance, was maximum height of bunchgrasses (SCDF = 1.634), forb cover (SCDF = 1.205), maximum height of shrubs (SCDF = 0.993), cover of bunchgrasses (SCDF = 0.988), and vertical obstruction at 10 m between 100 and 150 cm (SCDF = 0.864; 86% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.931; P = 0.002). Nest vegetation use depended on whether quail were translocated or resident birds (P = 0.009). However, post hoc tests could not be performed due to small sample sizes. Habitat type 23

PAGE 24

at the nest was independent of whether it belonged to a resident or translocated bobwhite for all nests (P = 0.817) and successful nests only (P = 0.412). Successful nests had greater coverage of forbs and taller bunchgrasses at the nest site than unsuccessful nests (Table 3-6). The best combination of variables that discriminated between successful and unsuccessful nests, in order of importance, was forb cover (SCDF = 0.963), overstory canopy closure (SCDF = -0.616), and distance to habitat edge (SCDF = -0.590; 75% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.709; P = 0.003). Considering translocated quail nests, successful nests were closer to roads than unsuccessful nests (Table 3-7). The best combination of variables discriminating between successful and unsuccessful translocated quail nests, in order of importance, was shrub density (SCDF = 0.971), distance to the nearest fencerow (SCDF = -0.934), distance to roads (SCDF = 0.745), litter depth (SCDF = -0.659), and bare ground coverage (SCDF = 0.539; 81% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.824; P = 0.002). Considering only resident bobwhite nests, successful nests had greater cover of forbs and taller maximum height of grasses (Table 3-8). The best combination of variables that discriminated between successful and unsuccessful resident bobwhite nests, in order of importance, was forb cover (SCDF = 0.963), overstory canopy closure (SCDF = -0.616), and distance to habitat edge (SCDF = -0.590; 75% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.709; P = 0.003). Whether a nest was successful or unsuccessful was independent of which habitat type the nest was located in for all nests (P = 0.394), translocated nests only (P = 0.918), and resident nests only (P = 0.140). Nest success did not depend on whether a nest was found in a grazed or un-grazed area for all nests (P = 0.959), translocated nests only (P = 0.831), or resident nests only (P = 0.999). Nest success was 24

PAGE 25

independent of what type of nest vegetation nests were located in for all nests (P = 0.875), translocated nests only (P = 0.361), and resident nests only (P = 0.282). Home Range Level Habitat Use and Selection At the home range level, nest sites were closer to un-grazed areas, further from canals, closer to burned areas, and closer to fencerows than at paired locations (Table 3-9). The best combination of variables that discriminated between nests and random sites was distance to fencerows and distance to habitat edge (49% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.272; P = 0.045), with distance to habitat edge being more important (SCDF = -0.760) than distance to fencerow (SCDF = 0.594). Considering only translocated quail nests, nest sites were closer to un-grazed areas, further from canals, and closer to fencerows than paired sites (Table 3-10). The best combination of variables to discriminate between nests and paired sites was distance to fencerows and distance to habitat edge (59% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.472; P 0.001), with distance to fencerow being more important (SCDF = 0.814) than distance to habitat edge (SCDF = -0.574). Considering only resident nest and paired sites, bobwhite nests were closer to burned areas than paired sites (Table 3-11). The best combination of variables included only distance to burned areas. Habitat type was independent of whether or not the site was a nest site or one of 50 paired sites for all nests (P = 0.447), translocated nests only (P = 0.886), or resident nests only (P = 0.966). However, when comparing nest sites to the majority cover type for the 50 paired points, cover type was dependent on whether the sites were a nest or paired site (P = 0.001). Quail selected dry prairie over freshwater marsh/wet prairie (P = 0.001) and dry prairie over grassland/improved pasture (P 0.005), but there was no effect when examining freshwater marsh/wet prairie relative to grasslands/improved pasture (P = 0.620). When examining translocated nest sites, cover type was dependent on whether a site was a nest or paired random 25

PAGE 26

site (P = 0.012). Translocated quail selected for dry prairie over freshwater marsh/wet prairie (P = 0.005) and dry prairie over grassland/improved pasture (P = 0.004), but there was no effect when considering freshwater marsh/wet prairie relative to grassland/improved pasture (P = 0.719). When examining resident nest sites, cover type was dependent on whether a site was a nest or paired random site (P = 0.003). Resident quail selected for dry prairie over freshwater marsh/wet prairie (P = 0.002) and dry prairie over grassland/improved pasture (P = 0.001), but there was no effect when considering freshwater marsh/wet prairie relative to grassland/improved pasture (P = 0.679). When comparing successful and unsuccessful nest sites to landscape features, I did not find any significant differences in variables (Table 3-12). Considering only translocated successful and unsuccessful nest sites, successful nests were closer to roads than unsuccessful nests (Table 3-13). Considering only resident nests, there were no differences between successful and unsuccessful nests. Discriminant function analysis did not create models for all, translocated, or resident nests. Landscape Level Habitat Use and Selection At the landscape level, nest sites were further from habitat edge and burned areas than random points (Table 3-15). However, the best combination of variables to discriminate between nest and random sites, in order of importance, was distance to burned areas (SCDF = 0.746), distance to habitat edge (SCDF = 0.486), distance to fencerows (SCDF = -0.473), and distance to canals (SCDF = 0.309; 74% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.166; P 0.001). Considering only translocated nest and random sites, nests were closer to un-grazed areas, further from habitat edge, further from burned areas, and closer to fencerows than random sites (Table 3-16). The combination of variables that discriminated best between nest sites and random sites, in order of importance, was distance to burned areas (SCDF 26

PAGE 27

= 0.850), distance to habitat edge (SCDF = 0.282), distance to canals (SCDF = 0.280), distance to un-grazed areas (SCDF = -0.276), and distance to fencerows (SCDF = -0.258; 84% correct jackknifed classification rate; canonical correlation = 0.235; P 0.001). Considering only resident quail nest and random sites, nest sites were further from un-grazed areas than randomly located points (Table 3-17). There was no combination of variables that best discriminated between resident quail nest and random sites. The habitat type a site was located in was independent of whether it was a nest or random point for all nests (P = 0.175), translocated nests only (P = 0.617), and resident nests only (P = 0.889). 27

PAGE 28

Table 3-1. Microhabitat characteristics of bobwhite nest sites and paired random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest sites (n = 22) Paired random sites (n = 27) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.188 0.025 0.176 0.027 0.741 Nest_fb_max (cm) 62.000 5.962 45.757 4.225 0.029 Nest_%gram (%) 0.609 0.033 0.662 0.035 0.271 Nest_gr_max (cm) 109.351 4.465 113.000 4.612 0.574 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.378 0.043 0.359 0.034 0.608 Nest_bn_max (cm) 91.351 8.576 108.459 6.200 0.112 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.027 0.012 0.018 0.011 0.597 Nest_sh_max (cm) 14.432 5.939 10.595 3.581 0.583 Nest_%litter (%) 0.112 0.027 0.073 0.014 0.196 Nest_%bare (%) 0.041 0.009 0.057 0.016 0.349 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 2.182 0.327 1.542 0.159 0.085 Nest_sp_rich (#) 5.351 0.341 5.514 0.321 0.725 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 11.000 0.564 10.919 0.488 0.914 Com_%forbs (%) 0.183 0.018 0.198 0.020 0.578 Com_fb_max (cm) 91.829 6.103 73.324 5.702 0.030 Com_%gram (%) 0.551 0.025 0.582 0.028 0.496 Com_gr_max (cm) 120.973 3.949 118.162 4.324 0.634 Com_%bunch (%) 0.210 0.022 0.155 0.017 0.051 Com_bn_max (cm) 107.703 7.511 117.000 4.578 0.297 Com_%shrub (%) 0.012 0.004 0.025 0.008 0.151 Com_shrub_max (cm) 31.361 7.478 30.972 6.505 0.970 Com_%litter (%) 0.136 0.022 0.097 0.010 0.095 Com_%bare (%) 0.075 0.015 0.069 0.015 0.749 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 1.852 0.246 1.580 0.158 0.352 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.879 0.021 0.850 0.022 0.331 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.294 0.043 0.163 0.032 0.015 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.109 0.026 0.030 0.016 0.013 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.072 0.024 0.016 0.010 0.030 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) 0.940 0.012 0.897 0.019 0.308 VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.465 0.045 0.293 0.039 0.005 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.232 0.039 0.116 0.032 0.023 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.143 0.031 0.084 0.028 0.165 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.432 0.126 0.270 0.092 0.299 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.689 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.045 0.016 0.015 0.006 0.071 UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.378 0.125 0.243 0.090 0.386 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.255 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.030 0.013 0.019 0.009 0.491 SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.595 0.323 3.649 0.368 0.908 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.070 0.013 0.084 0.016 0.501 SH_COV_% (%) 0.057 0.012 0.054 0.011 0.875 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.006 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.036 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 249.820 52.271 244.562 53.166 0.887 Distance to canals (m) 428.771 41.384 415.057 44.674 0.868 Distance to habitat edge (m) 43.995 7.096 51.569 6.533 0.452 Distance to wetland (m) 62.271 7.185 73.716 7.205 0.283 Distance to burned areas (m) 1299.689 160.155 1249.368 162.316 0.637 28

PAGE 29

Table 3-1. Continued. Nest sites (n = 22) Paired random sites (n = 27) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to fencerow (m) 113.558 18.426 119.186 15.447 0.620 Distance to roads (m) 342.007 33.591 316.291 36.766 0.616 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-2. Microhabitat characteristics of translocated bobwhite nest sites and paired random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest sites (n = 14) Paired random sites (n = 14) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.169 0.035 0.182 0.039 0.805 Nest_fb_max (cm) 46.909 6.069 49.136 5.263 0.761 Nest_%gram (%) 0.634 0.042 0.661 0.043 0.643 Nest_gr_max (cm) 111.864 5.588 114.182 5.072 0.762 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.397 0.058 0.328 0.043 0.348 Nest_bn_max (cm) 90.409 11.760 110.136 7.170 0.157 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.020 0.011 0.005 0.002 0.176 Nest_sh_max (cm) 13.545 7.924 8.636 4.434 0.596 Nest_%litter (%) 0.095 0.023 0.057 0.013 0.170 Nest_%bare (%) 0.051 0.013 0.077 0.024 0.346 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 2.023 0.221 1.614 0.217 0.199 Nest_sp_rich (#) 5.318 0.408 5.682 0.498 0.559 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 11.545 0.781 11.636 0.670 0.931 Com_%forbs (%) 0.180 0.020 0.194 0.026 0.664 Com_fb_max (cm) 87.727 8.598 82.182 7.808 0.636 Com_%gram (%) 0.540 0.031 0.576 0.038 0.444 Com_gr_max (cm) 123.364 4.070 121.409 4.550 0.753 Com_%bunch (%) 0.203 0.026 0.160 0.023 0.224 Com_bn_max (cm) 108.318 9.237 119.455 5.268 0.304 Com_%shrub (%) 0.013 0.005 0.021 0.009 0.432 Com_shrub_max (cm) 34.571 10.805 32.381 9.319 0.883 Com_%litter (%) 0.118 0.022 0.092 0.014 0.321 Com_%bare (%) 0.093 0.024 0.082 0.024 0.732 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 1.650 0.145 1.773 0.251 0.676 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.882 0.023 0.850 0.030 0.396 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.255 0.036 0.136 0.044 0.036 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.095 0.034 0.039 0.025 0.187 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.084 0.033 0.023 0.016 0.105 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) .941 .013 0.902 0.022 0.323 VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.414 0.045 0.286 0.055 0.083 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.180 0.041 0.123 0.044 0.349 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.123 0.037 0.093 0.039 0.583 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.318 0.166 0.273 0.117 0.819 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.860 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.020 0.012 0.013 0.007 0.628 UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.364 0.155 0.227 0.113 0.485 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.172 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.040 0.021 0.010 0.008 0.198 29

PAGE 30

Table 3-2. Continued. Nest sites (n = 14) Paired random sites (n = 14) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.591 0.398 3.864 0.467 0.645 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.066 0.020 0.076 0.013 0.695 SH_COV_% (%) 0.063 0.018 0.041 0.008 0.271 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.006 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.056 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 123.597 48.093 116.769 52.187 0.963 Distance to canals (m) 481.942 52.169 471.054 61.724 0.985 Distance to habitat edge (m) 46.901 63.908 53.662 8.373 0.582 Distance to wetland (m) 63.908 9.010 79.456 9.808 0.255 Distance to burned areas (m) 1856.559 164.226 1827.187 175.614 0.817 Distance to fencerow (m) 88.706 19.789 94.321 17.268 0.670 Distance to roads (m) 379.215 41.962 357.933 49.720 0.787 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-3. Microhabitat characteristics of resident bobwhite nest sites and paired random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest sites (n = 10) Paired random sites (n = 11) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.215 0.037 0.167 0.037 0.370 Nest_fb_max (cm) 84.133 9.250 40.800 7.023 0.001 Nest_%gram (%) 0.572 0.053 0.663 0.062 0.245 Nest_gr_max (cm) 105.667 7.492 111.267 8.830 0.638 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.373 0.065 0.403 0.055 0.729 Nest_bn_max (cm) 92.733 12.727 106.000 11.401 0.434 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.037 0.026 0.038 0.026 0.965 Nest_sh_max (cm) 15.733 9.239 13.467 6.089 0.839 Nest_%litter (%) 0.137 0.057 0.095 0.026 0.472 Nest_%bare (%) 0.025 0.009 0.028 0.013 0.840 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 2.417 0.750 1.429 0.234 0.224 Nest_sp_rich (#) 5.400 0.608 5.267 0.316 0.850 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 10.200 0.776 9.867 0.624 0.739 Com_%forbs (%) 0.188 0.035 0.204 0.033 0.735 Com_fb_max (cm) 98.000 8.333 60.333 7.200 0.002 Com_%gram (%) 0.567 0.045 0.591 0.041 0.888 Com_gr_max (cm) 117.467 7.811 113.400 8.385 0.729 Com_%bunch (%) 0.220 0.039 0.148 0.025 0.129 Com_bn_max (cm) 106.800 13.038 113.400 8.385 0.675 Com_%shrub (%) 0.011 0.006 0.031 0.015 0.238 Com_shrub_max (cm) 26.867 9.976 29.000 8.928 0.875 Com_%litter (%) 0.163 0.045 0.105 0.013 0.151 Com_%bare (%) 0.049 0.011 0.049 0.012 0.996 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 2.148 0.571 1.298 0.103 0.136 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.875 0.045 0.850 0.031 0.657 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.367 0.102 0.208 0.044 0.163 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.133 0.044 0.015 0.009 0.014 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.050 0.028 0.004 0.004 0.113 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) 0.937 0.025 0.888 0.035 0.284 30

PAGE 31

Table 3-3. Continued. Nest sites (n = 10) Paired random sites (n = 11) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.558 0.093 0.304 0.050 0.025 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.329 0.077 0.104 0.044 0.015 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.179 0.059 0.069 0.040 0.121 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.600 0.190 0.267 0.153 0.190 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.198 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.083 0.033 0.016 0.010 0.065 UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.400 0.214 0.267 0.153 0.614 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.860 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.016 0.009 0.033 0.020 0.468 SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.600 0.559 3.333 0.607 0.737 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.074 0.016 0.095 0.036 0.591 SH_COV_% (%) 0.048 0.014 0.075 0.025 0.370 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.345 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 451.778 92.020 436.251 86.523 0.868 Distance to canals (m) 343.697 63.970 331.061 57.904 0.779 Distance to habitat edge (m) 39.344 12.565 48.654 10.775 0.627 Distance to wetland (m) 59.651 12.255 65.105 10.390 0.801 Distance to burned areas (m) 614.312 145.144 627.102 142.646 0.950 Distance to fencerow (m) 153.320 34.397 156.483 26.310 0.770 Distance to roads (m) 282.474 54.066 253.829 51.314 0.622 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-4. Microhabitat characteristics of resident and translocated bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Resident nest sites (n = 15) Tranlocated nest sites (n = 22) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.215 0.037 0.169 0.035 0.384 Nest_fb_max (cm) 84.133 9.250 46.909 6.069 0.001 Nest_%gram (%) 0.572 0.053 0.634 0.042 0.355 Nest_gr_max (cm) 105.667 7.492 111.864 5.588 0.503 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.373 0.065 0.397 0.058 0.795 Nest_bn_max (cm) 92.733 12.727 90.409 11.760 0.896 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.037 0.026 0.020 0.011 0.528 Nest_sh_max (cm) 15.733 9.239 13.545 7.924 0.859 Nest_%litter (%) 0.137 0.057 0.095 0.023 0.454 Nest_%bare (%) 0.025 0.009 0.051 0.013 0.157 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 2.417 0.750 2.023 0.221 0.561 Nest_sp_rich (#) 5.400 0.608 5.318 0.408 0.908 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 10.200 0.776 11.545 0.781 0.247 Com_%forbs (%) 0.188 0.035 0.180 0.020 0.830 Com_fb_max (cm) 98.000 8.333 87.727 8.598 0.416 Com_%gram (%) 0.567 0.045 0.540 0.031 0.602 Com_gr_max (cm) 117.467 7.811 123.364 4.070 0.471 Com_%bunch (%) 0.220 0.039 0.203 0.026 0.709 Com_bn_max (cm) 106.800 13.038 108.318 9.237 0.923 Com_%shrub (%) 0.011 0.006 0.013 0.005 0.814 31

PAGE 32

Table 3-4. Continued. Resident nest sites (n = 15) Tranlocated nest sites (n = 22) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Com_shrub_max (cm) 26.867 9.976 34.571 10.805 0.619 Com_%litter (%) 0.163 0.045 0.118 0.022 0.324 Com_%bare (%) 0.049 0.011 0.093 0.024 0.153 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 2.148 0.571 1.650 0.145 0.327 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.875 0.045 0.882 0.023 0.881 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.367 0.102 0.255 0.036 0.218 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.133 0.044 0.095 0.034 0.503 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.050 0.028 0.084 0.033 0.497 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) 0.937 0.025 0.941 0.013 0.897 VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.558 0.093 0.414 0.045 0.123 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.329 0.077 0.180 0.041 0.066 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.179 0.059 0.123 0.037 0.400 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.600 0.190 0.318 0.166 0.277 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.636 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.083 0.033 0.020 0.012 0.049 UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.400 0.214 0.364 0.155 0.888 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.329 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.016 0.009 0.040 0.021 0.384 SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.600 0.559 3.591 0.398 0.989 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.074 0.016 0.066 0.020 0.770 SH_COV_% (%) 0.048 0.014 0.063 0.018 0.561 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.791 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 451.778 92.020 123.597 48.093 0.001 Distance to canals (m) 343.697 63.970 481.942 52.169 0.105 Distance to habitat edge (m) 39.344 12.565 46.901 63.908 0.611 Distance to wetland (m) 59.651 12.255 63.908 9.010 0.777 Distance to burned areas (m) 614.312 145.144 1856.559 164.226 0.000 Distance to fencerow (m) 153.320 34.397 88.706 19.789 0.088 Distance to roads (m) 282.474 54.066 379.215 41.962 0.164 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-5. Microhabitat characteristics of successful resident and translocated bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Resident nest sites (n = 5) Tranlocated nest sites (n = 10) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.330 0.045 0.200 0.063 0.201 Nest_fb_max (cm) 90.000 13.704 44.900 9.943 0.020 Nest_%gram (%) 0.475 0.061 0.592 0.066 0.278 Nest_gr_max (cm) 107.200 17.878 114.200 5.603 0.639 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.385 0.079 0.365 0.092 0.891 Nest_bn_max (cm) 100.400 22.569 82.900 18.808 0.584 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.020 0.320 Nest_sh_max (cm) 0.000 0.000 23.600 16.204 0.331 Nest_%litter (%) 0.120 0.068 0.120 0.045 0.999 Nest_%bare (%) 0.020 0.005 0.040 0.019 0.475 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 1.800 0.382 2.375 0.328 0.305 32

PAGE 33

Table 3-5. Continued. Resident nest sites (n = 5) Tranlocated nest sites (n = 10) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_sp_rich (#) 6.400 1.030 5.100 0.690 0.305 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 11.400 0.927 11.300 0.955 0.948 Com_%forbs (%) 0.291 0.086 0.215 0.036 0.345 Com_fb_max (cm) 111.800 11.830 103.500 15.301 0.729 Com_%gram (%) 0.556 0.082 0.500 0.051 0.552 Com_gr_max (cm) 139.600 14.016 123.000 4.937 0.186 Com_%bunch (%) 0.268 0.040 0.193 0.025 0.117 Com_bn_max (cm) 139.600 14.016 116.100 8.564 0.156 Com_%shrub (%) 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.006 0.358 Com_shrub_max (cm) 0.000 0.000 27.556 18.991 0.309 Com_%litter (%) 0.109 0.048 0.140 0.042 0.659 Com_%bare (%) 0.029 0.009 0.056 0.010 0.112 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 1.390 0.227 1.695 0.168 0.308 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.900 0.100 0.920 0.020 0.772 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.550 0.185 0.265 0.051 0.059 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.213 0.087 0.090 0.050 0.226 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.025 0.025 0.050 0.033 0.663 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) 0.938 0.063 0.950 0.018 0.796 VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.700 0.162 0.435 0.076 0.114 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.487 0.128 0.175 0.063 0.031 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.212 0.075 0.100 0.054 0.275 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.800 0.374 0.100 0.100 0.032 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.022 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.078 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.084 UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.800 0.583 0.100 0.100 0.121 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.271 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.024 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.078 SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.600 1.077 3.000 0.447 0.549 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.061 0.029 0.037 0.010 0.342 SH_COV_% (%) 0.034 0.010 0.029 0.013 0.808 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.008 0.004 0.007 0.001 0.707 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 482.110 135.099 235.214 102.293 0.179 Distance to canals (m) 267.278 74.497 381.872 81.264 0.385 Distance to habitat edge (m) 50.339 19.899 36.570 11.382 0.528 Distance to wetland (m) 67.295 16.812 57.468 12.611 0.655 Distance to burned areas (m) 900.062 297.508 1881.431 248.507 0.031 Distance to fencerow (m) 168.468 44.225 122.761 32.696 0.428 Distance to roads (m) 251.120 76.666 271.633 53.645 0.829 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-6. Microhabitat characteristics of successful and unsuccessful bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Successful (n = 15) Unsuccessful (n = 21) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.243 0.047 0.150 0.028 0.077 Nest_fb_max (cm) 59.933 9.620 64.524 8.052 0.716 33

PAGE 34

Table 3-6. Continued. Successful (n = 15) Unsuccessful (n = 21) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%gram (%) 0.553 0.049 0.648 0.044 0.169 Nest_gr_max (cm) 111.867 6.684 105.095 5.780 0.451 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.372 0.065 0.392 0.061 0.827 Nest_bn_max (cm) 88.733 14.317 89.905 10.901 0.948 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.020 0.014 0.033 0.020 0.612 Nest_sh_max (cm) 15.733 11.017 14.190 7.114 0.903 Nest_%litter (%) 0.120 0.036 0.105 0.040 0.788 Nest_%bare (%) 0.033 0.013 0.046 0.013 0.493 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 2.183 0.255 2.238 0.550 0.937 Nest_sp_rich (#) 5.533 0.576 5.238 0.447 0.684 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 11.333 0.688 10.810 0.875 0.662 Com_%forbs (%) 0.240 0.037 0.144 0.013 0.009 Com_fb_max (cm) 106.267 10.712 84.095 6.626 0.072 Com_%gram (%) 0.519 0.042 0.575 0.033 0.295 Com_gr_max (cm) 128.533 5.791 113.667 4.917 0.059 Com_%bunch (%) 0.218 0.022 0.198 0.035 0.664 Com_bn_max (cm) 132.933 7.675 93.571 11.104 0.046 Com_%shrub (%) 0.006 0.004 0.015 0.005 0.198 Com_shrub_max (cm) 17.714 12.493 39.381 9.459 0.170 Com_%litter (%) 0.130 0.031 0.141 0.033 0.809 Com_%bare (%) 0.047 0.008 0.095 0.025 0.120 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 1.593 0.136 2.032 0.422 0.400 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.914 0.029 0.853 0.031 0.169 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.346 0.069 0.266 0.057 0.372 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.125 0.044 0.103 0.035 0.690 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.043 0.025 0.097 0.038 0.271 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) 0.946 0.021 0.932 0.016 0.249 VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.511 0.075 0.445 0.057 0.480 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.264 0.068 0.221 0.049 0.598 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.132 0.045 0.158 0.046 0.699 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.333 0.159 0.524 0.190 0.474 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.326 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.026 0.021 0.062 0.023 0.285 UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.333 0.211 0.381 0.161 0.859 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.443 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.011 0.005 0.045 0.023 0.220 SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.200 0.449 3.875 0.469 0.336 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.045 0.011 0.089 0.021 0.114 SH_COV_% (%) 0.031 0.009 0.074 0.020 0.088 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.007 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.207 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 317.513 84.796 213.139 69.014 0.347 Distance to canals (m) 343.674 59.726 470.301 55.122 0.139 Distance to habitat edge (m) 41.160 9.810 47.379 10.214 0.680 Distance to wetland (m) 60.744 9.829 64.293 10.477 0.817 Distance to burned areas (m) 1435.354 238.356 1216.783 215.812 0.518 Distance to fencerow (m) 137.997 26.031 99.160 26.145 0.322 Distance to roads (m) 264.795 42.424 390.231 47.651 0.075 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. 34

PAGE 35

Table 3-7. Microhabitat characteristics of successful and unsuccessful translocated bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Successful (n = 10) Unsuccessful (n = 11) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.200 0.063 0.143 0.039 0.447 Nest_fb_max (cm) 44.900 9.943 49.364 8.509 0.735 Nest_%gram (%) 0.592 0.066 0.673 0.058 0.372 Nest_gr_max (cm) 114.200 5.603 105.273 8.870 0.416 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.365 0.092 0.414 0.084 0.700 Nest_bn_max (cm) 82.900 18.808 90.818 15.523 0.747 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.030 0.020 0.014 0.014 0.500 Nest_sh_max (cm) 23.600 16.204 5.636 5.636 0.290 Nest_%litter (%) 0.120 0.045 0.068 0.020 0.293 Nest_%bare (%) 0.040 0.019 0.064 0.021 0.413 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 2.375 0.328 1.795 0.303 0.209 Nest_sp_rich (#) 5.100 0.690 5.545 0.545 0.615 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 11.300 0.955 11.909 1.331 0.719 Com_%forbs (%) 0.215 0.036 0.150 0.020 0.129 Com_fb_max (cm) 103.500 15.301 77.727 8.061 0.142 Com_%gram (%) 0.500 0.051 0.577 0.039 0.240 Com_gr_max (cm) 123.000 4.937 120.273 5.982 0.732 Com_%bunch (%) 0.193 0.025 0.200 0.046 0.898 Com_bn_max (cm) 116.100 8.564 96.455 15.924 0.305 Com_%shrub (%) 0.009 0.006 0.015 0.007 0.572 Com_shrub_max (cm) 27.556 18.991 38.545 14.166 0.642 Com_%litter (%) 0.140 0.042 0.097 0.024 0.370 Com_%bare (%) 0.056 0.010 0.129 0.045 0.146 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 1.695 0.168 1.582 0.252 0.719 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.920 0.020 0.845 0.041 0.128 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.265 0.051 0.259 0.057 0.939 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.090 0.050 0.109 0.051 0.792 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.050 0.033 0.123 0.058 0.304 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) 0.950 0.018 0.927 0.021 0.304 VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.435 0.076 0.414 0.058 0.823 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.175 0.063 0.200 0.057 0.772 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.100 0.054 0.155 0.055 0.492 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.100 0.100 0.545 0.312 0.208 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.145 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.024 0.124 UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.100 0.100 0.545 0.282 0.168 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.003 0.137 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.005 0.005 0.075 0.040 0.115 SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.000 0.447 4.091 0.667 0.199 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.037 0.010 0.096 0.037 0.160 SH_COV_% (%) 0.029 0.013 0.092 0.033 0.103 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.378 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 235.214 102.293 41.237 27.756 0.053 Distance to canals (m) 381.872 81.264 538.297 66.731 0.148 35

PAGE 36

Table 3-7. Continued. Successful (n = 10) Unsuccessful (n = 11) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to habitat edge (m) 36.570 11.382 57.789 12.716 0.242 Distance to wetland (m) 57.468 12.611 70.804 13.593 0.492 Distance to burned areas (m) 1881.431 248.507 1841.635 226.426 0.911 Distance to fencerow (m) 122.761 32.696 63.325 25.302 0.158 Distance to roads (m) 271.633 53.645 461.062 57.177 0.028 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-8. Microhabitat characteristics of successful and unsuccessful resident bobwhite nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Successful (n = 5) Unsuccessful (n = 10) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Nest_%forbs (%) 0.330 0.045 0.158 0.040 0.021 Nest_fb_max (cm) 90.000 13.704 81.200 12.452 0.671 Nest_%gram (%) 0.475 0.061 0.620 0.070 0.206 Nest_gr_max (cm) 107.200 17.878 104.900 7.729 0.891 Nest_%bunch (%) 0.385 0.079 0.367 0.092 0.905 Nest_bn_max (cm) 100.400 22.569 88.900 16.119 0.686 Nest_%shrub (%) 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.039 0.340 Nest_sh_max (cm) 0.000 0.000 23.600 13.363 0.242 Nest_%litter (%) 0.120 0.068 0.145 0.081 0.845 Nest_%bare (%) 0.020 0.005 0.028 0.014 0.723 Nest_Litt_depth (cm) 1.800 0.382 2.725 1.117 0.580 Nest_sp_rich (#) 6.400 1.030 4.900 0.737 0.259 Com_Sp._Rich (#) 11.400 0.927 9.600 1.046 0.290 Com_%forbs (%) 0.291 0.086 0.136 0.018 0.031 Com_fb_max (cm) 111.800 11.830 91.100 10.726 0.256 Com_%gram (%) 0.556 0.082 0.573 0.056 0.689 Com_gr_max (cm) 139.600 14.016 106.400 7.609 0.040 Com_%bunch (%) 0.268 0.040 0.196 0.055 0.409 Com_bn_max (cm) 139.600 14.016 90.400 16.227 0.073 Com_%shrub (%) 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.008 0.184 Com_shrub_max (cm) 0.000 0.000 40.300 13.117 0.053 Com_%litter (%) 0.109 0.048 0.190 0.062 0.411 Com_%bare (%) 0.029 0.009 0.059 0.014 0.190 Com_Litt_depth (cm) 1.390 0.227 2.526 0.837 0.367 VO_%5m 0-50 (%) 0.900 0.100 0.863 0.050 0.711 VO_%5m 50-100 (%) 0.550 0.185 0.275 0.116 0.218 VO_%5m 100-150 (%) 0.213 0.087 0.094 0.048 0.219 VO_%5m 150-200 (%) 0.025 0.025 0.063 0.041 0.556 VO_%10m 0-50 (%) 0.938 0.063 0.937 0.026 0.999 VO_%10m 50-100 (%) 0.700 0.162 0.488 0.113 0.304 VO_%10m 100-150 (%) 0.487 0.128 0.250 0.088 0.154 VO_%10m 150-200 (%) 0.212 0.075 0.163 0.082 0.707 OV_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.800 0.374 0.500 0.224 0.478 OV_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.409 OV_OCUL_% (%) 0.085 0.041 0.078 0.061 0.921 36

PAGE 37

Table 3-8. Continued. Successful (n = 5) Unsuccessful (n = 10) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P UN_SPEC_RICH (#) 0.800 0.583 0.200 0.133 0.196 UND_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.113 UN_OCUL_% (%) 0.024 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.534 SH_SP_RICH (#) 3.600 1.077 3.600 0.686 0.999 SH_DEN_TOT (#/m 2 ) 0.061 0.029 0.081 0.019 0.573 SH_COV_% (%) 0.034 0.010 0.055 0.021 0.511 FIR_ANT_DEN (#/m 2 ) 0.008 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.376 Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 482.110 135.099 436.612 125.001 0.8250 Distance to canals (m) 267.278 74.497 381.906 88.478 0.418 Distance to habitat edge (m) 50.339 19.899 33.846 16.441 0.556 Distance to wetland (m) 67.295 16.812 55.828 16.815 0.676 Distance to burned areas (m) 900.062 297.508 435.718 123.402 0.123 Distance to fencerow (m) 168.468 44.225 145.747 48.031 0.768 Distance to roads (m) 251.120 76.666 298.152 73.707 0.697 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-9. Home range level habitat characteristics of bobwhite nest and paired random sites for each nest in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest site (n = 39) Paired random sites (n = 39) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 249.820 52.271 281.012 49.793 0.000 Distance to canals (m) 428.771 41.384 392.157 37.711 0.002 Distance to habitat edge (m) 43.995 7.096 34.859 1.469 0.190 Distance to wetland (m) 62.271 7.185 53.452 2.365 0.230 Distance to burned areas (m) 1299.689 160.155 1322.355 156.908 0.003 Distance to fencerow (m) 113.558 18.426 132.723 13.698 0.039 Distance to roads (m) 342.007 33.591 328.266 29.381 0.138 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-10. Home range level habitat characteristics of translocated bobwhite nest and paired random sites for each nest in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest site (n = 39) Paired random sites (n = 39) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 123.597 48.093 281.012 49.793 0.000 Distance to canals (m) 481.942 52.169 392.157 37.711 0.000 Distance to habitat edge (m) 46.901 8.613 34.859 1.469 0.238 Distance to wetland (m) 63.908 9.010 53.452 2.365 0.230 Distance to burned areas (m) 1856.559 164.226 1322.355 156.908 0.056 Distance to fencerow (m) 88.706 19.789 132.723 13.698 0.022 Distance to roads (m) 379.215 41.962 328.266 29.381 0.119 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. 37

PAGE 38

Table 3-11. Home range level habitat characteristics of resident bobwhite nest and paired random sites for each nest in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest site (n = 39) Paired random sites (n = 39) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 451.778 92.020 281.012 49.793 0.064 Distance to canals (m) 343.697 63.970 392.157 37.711 0.503 Distance to habitat edge (m) 39.344 12.565 34.859 1.469 0.555 Distance to wetland (m) 59.651 12.255 53.452 2.365 0.682 Distance to burned areas (m) 614.312 145.144 1322.355 156.908 0.027 Distance to fencerow (m) 153.320 34.397 132.723 13.698 0.408 Distance to roads (m) 282.474 54.066 328.266 29.381 0.675 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-12. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Successful nests (n = 15) Unsuccessful nests (n = 23) Variable Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 317.513 84.796 213.139 69.014 0.347 Distance to canals (m) 343.674 59.726 470.301 55.122 0.139 Distance to habitat edge (m) 41.160 9.810 47.379 10.214 0.680 Distance to wetland (m) 60.744 9.829 64.239 10.477 0.817 Distance to burned areas (m) 1435.354 238.356 1216.783 215.812 0.518 Distance to fencerow (m) 137.997 26.031 99.160 26.145 0.322 Distance to roads (m) 264.795 42.424 390.231 47.651 0.075 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-13. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful translocated nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Successful nests (n = 10) Unsuccessful nests (n = 13) Variable Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 235.214 102.293 41.237 27.756 0.053 Distance to canals (m) 381.872 81.264 538.297 66.731 0.148 Distance to habitat edge (m) 36.570 11.382 57.789 12.716 0.242 Distance to wetland (m) 57.468 12.611 70.804 13.593 0.492 Distance to burned areas (m) 1881.431 248.507 1841.635 226.426 0.991 Distance to fencerow (m) 122.761 32.696 63.325 25.302 0.158 Distance to roads (m) 271.633 53.645 461.062 57.177 0.028 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. 38

PAGE 39

Table 3-14. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful resident nest sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Successful nests (n = 5) Unsuccessful nests (n = 10) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 482.110 135.099 436.612 125.001 0.825 Distance to canals (m) 267.278 74.497 381.906 88.478 0.418 Distance to habitat edge (m) 50.339 19.899 33.846 16.441 0.556 Distance to wetland (m) 67.295 16.812 55.828 16.815 0.676 Distance to burned areas (m) 900.062 297.508 435.718 123.402 0.123 Distance to fencerow (m) 168.468 44.225 145.747 48.031 0.768 Distance to roads (m) 251.120 76.666 298.152 73.707 0.697 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-15. Landscape level habitat characteristics of bobwhite nests and 1000 random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest sites (n = 39) Random sites (n = 1000) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 249.820 52.271 287.449 8.684 0.405 Distance to canals (m) 428.771 41.384 380.257 9.561 0.323 Distance to habitat edge (m) 43.995 7.096 31.869 1.003 0.021 Distance to wetland (m) 62.271 7.185 47.517 1.539 0.063 Distance to burned areas (m) 1299.689 160.155 782.975 22.068 0.000 Distance to fencerow (m) 113.558 18.426 149.611 3.977 0.078 Distance to roads (m) 342.007 33.591 379.939 8.700 0.395 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. Table 3-16. Landscape level habitat characteristics of translocated bobwhite nests and 1000 random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest sites (n = 22) Random sites (n = 1000) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 123.597 48.093 287.449 8.684 0.004 Distance to canals (m) 481.942 52.169 380.257 9.561 0.103 Distance to habitat edge (m) 46.901 8.613 31.869 1.003 0.023 Distance to wetland (m) 63.908 9.010 47.517 1.539 0.103 Distance to burned areas (m) 1856.559 164.226 782.975 22.068 0.000 Distance to fencerow (m) 88.706 19.789 149.611 3.977 0.019 Distance to roads (m) 379.215 41.962 379.939 8.700 0.990 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. 39

PAGE 40

Table 3-17. Landscape level habitat characteristics of resident bobwhite nests and 1000 random sites in south Florida rangelands, 2007-2008. Nest sites (n = 15) Random sites (n = 1000) Variable* Mean SE Mean SE P Distance to 50 acre plot (m) 451.778 92.020 287.449 8.684 0.022 Distance to canals (m) 343.697 63.970 380.257 9.561 0.641 Distance to habitat edge (m) 39.344 12.565 31.869 1.003 0.369 Distance to wetland (m) 59.651 12.255 47.517 1.539 0.338 Distance to burned areas (m) 614.312 145.144 782.975 22.068 0.386 Distance to fencerow (m) 153.320 34.397 149.611 3.977 0.910 Distance to roads (m) 282.474 54.066 379.939 8.700 0.172 *variable descriptions in Table 2-1. 40

PAGE 41

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Microhabitat Level Habitat Use and Selection Most of the selected nest microhabitat variables can be associated with greater visual obstruction of the nest site, which probably serves to conceal the nest from predators and possibly provide thermal protection for incubating hens. This is consistent with previous findings on nest microhabitat selection (Taylor et al. 1999, Townsend et al. 2001, Arredondo et al. 2006) and use of habitats for thermal protection by bobwhites (Guthery et al. 2005). While I did not find any relation between vertical obstruction and nest success, Townsend et al. (2001) found that successful nests were concealed better than unsuccessful nests. Bobwhites selected for more overstory canopy closure and shorter bunchgrasses at the nest site, but I found that successful nests had less canopy coverage and taller bunchgrasses at the nest site than unsuccessful nests. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. Arredondo et al. (2006) reported bobwhites selecting for taller bunchgrasses at the nest site than was available in the surrounding area, and both Taylor et al. (1999) and Lusk et al. (2006) found that successful nests were associated with taller vegetation than unsuccessful nests. My results may have differed from Arredondo et al. (2006) because average bunchgrass height at nest sites in south Florida (91.4 cm) was much greater than the average bunchgrass height of nest sites found in Texas (23.7 cm). This suggests that the habitat structure may be different in these two areas, causing bobwhites to select for different nest habitat characteristics, or that after some height threshold selection may no longer be associated with success, or may be associated with declining success. Bobwhites selected nest sites with less bare ground, which is consistent with the findings of Townsend et al. (2001) and may be to provide additional visual obstruction of the nest. While I did not find a relation between bare ground and nest success, Townsend et al. (2001) reported less bare ground 41

PAGE 42

at successful nest sites, while Lusk et al. (2006) found that successful nests were associated with higher levels of bare ground than random sites. Nest sites were located closer to fencerows, possibly because fencerows provide better escape and foraging cover than the surrounding habitats. Nest sites also had lower densities of fire ant mounds than random sites, possibly because bobwhites may be avoiding this predator of quail chicks. Lehman (1947) found several cases in which newly hatched chicks were killed at the nest by imported fire ants and Giuliano et al. (1996) found that exposure to fire ants can reduce chick survival, but Johnson (1961) found that fire ants did not have an influence on quail production. I found less shrub cover surrounding translocated nest sites than was available, possibly because shrub cover blocks sunlight, which reduces the growth of herbaceous plants at lower levels, reducing visual obstruction at potential nest sites. Successful nests were found to have less shrub cover than unsuccessful nests by Taylor et al. (1999), while Lusk et al. (2006) found the opposite to be true. I did not find shrub cover to be a significant factor associated with nest success at the microhabitat level. Translocated bobwhites selected nest sites with deeper litter than paired random sites; successful translocated quail nests also had deeper litter than unsuccessful nests. Again, this is possibly because increased litter provides better nest concealment from predators. Translocated nests were associated with greater graminoid cover than random sites, which was consistent with the findings of several studies (Taylor et al. 1999, Townsend et al. 2001, Arredondo et al. 2006), but this was not found to be associated with nest success. Additionally, while translocated bobwhites selected nest sites that were further from roads and closer to fencerows than random sites, successful translocated nests were in fact closer to roads and further from fencerows than unsuccessful nest sites. While bobwhites use fencerows for cover and foraging, fencerows may also be corridors for nest predators. Selecting 42

PAGE 43

for closer proximity to fencerows may be placing nests at a higher risk for predation (Stanton 1944), and is supported by Hannon and Cotterill (1998) who found that overall predation of artificial nests in shrubs and on the ground was highest in fencerows when compared to other habitats. Baskett (1947) found that very few ring-necked pheasant nests in fencerows were successful. The majority of important habitat characteristics at resident nest sites were associated with greater visual obstruction. This probably serves to hide the nest from potential predators, and is consistent with the findings of Taylor et al. (1999). While I did not find a connection between nest success and visual obstruction, both Taylor et al. (1999) and Lusk et al. (2006) found that successful nests were surrounded by taller herbaceous vegetation than unsuccessful nests. It is possible that due to my small sample size, I could not detect significant effects of vertical obstruction on nest success. Resident bobwhites selected for greater overstory canopy closure at nest sites, and successful resident nest sites were associated with greater overstory canopy closure than unsuccessful nest sites. Resident nests were also located closer to wetlands than random sites. This is probably because during the nesting season, the edges of these wetlands provide an abundance of forbs, bare ground, and overhead protection, which is characteristic of good bobwhite brood habitat (Giuliano et al. 2007). Resident bobwhites selected nest sites with habitat characteristics that were closely associated with greater visual obstruction than at translocated nest sites. Taller vegetation at the nest site may lead to increased nest success (Taylor et al. 1999, Lusk et al. 2006), and greater visual obstruction of the nest site may lead to increased nest success (Townsend et al. 2001, Hernandez et al. 2003). This may suggest that resident bobwhites are selecting for nest sites that are more likely to be successful than translocated bobwhites. However, I did not find that nest 43

PAGE 44

success was dependent on whether a quail was resident or translocated, which is consistent with the findings of Terhune et al. (2006b). Resident bobwhites nested closer to burned areas than translocated bobwhites. Burned areas provided more bare ground and forb cover than unburned areas, and resident bobwhites may have been able to better select nest sites near these areas because they were more familiar with the habitat. Liu et al. (2002) determined that it required approximately 4 months for translocated bobwhites to become familiar with their new habitat. Being moved only a short time before the nesting season, translocated bobwhites may not have been able to find burned areas before making their nests. Translocated birds also nested closer to un-grazed areas than resident bobwhites, possibly because the thicker, un-grazed vegetation at these sites more closely resembled the habitat where they were trapped than the grazed habitats in the remainder of the study area. When comparing successful resident and translocated nest sites, the important habitat characteristics again indicated that resident birds selected for greater visual obstruction than translocated birds. Resident nests were also closer to burned areas than translocated nests. Nest clump vegetation type was dependent on whether a bird was resident or translocated, but nests success did not depend on nest clump vegetation type. Home Range Level Habitat Use and Selection When comparing nest sites to 50 random nest sites within a home range sized buffer, the most important habitat characteristic was distance to fencerows, with nest sites being closer to fencerows than paired random sites. This could be because fencerows offer good escape and foraging cover. I did not find significant relationships between any habitat characteristic and nest success, however, Baskett (1947) found that ring-necked pheasants nesting in fencerows had poor nest success due to high levels of predation. Quail selected nest sites further from edge and canals, possibly to avoid nest predators, which may use these as travel corridors. Barding and 44

PAGE 45

Nelson (2008) found that meso-predators such as raccoons tended to follow linear habitat features such as habitat edge and trails when foraging, and meso-predators incorporate more levees and roads into their home range than expected (Frey and Canover 2006). Nests were closer to burned areas than random sites, which may be because areas burned the winter before typically have abundant forbs and less litter, which would provide good brood habitat (Giuliano et al. 2007). Quail selected dry prairie for nests sites over both grassland/improved pasture and freshwater marsh/wet prairie habitats. This is possibly because meso-predators, particularly raccoons, forage selectively in wetland habitats (Barding and Nelson 2008). When comparing translocated nests to random sites at the home range level, the most important habitat characteristic was distance to fencerows. This is consistent with our findings for all nests combined, and may have occurred for the same reasons. Nest sites were also closer to un-grazed areas, further from canals, and further from habitat edge than random sites. I did not find relationships between any of these characteristics and nest success. Translocated birds may have selected nest sites closer to un-grazed sites because they offered more cover than grazed areas, and many of the quail were translocated from areas with more cover than the habitat they were released into. Translocated birds may have avoided habitat edge and canals because they may be travel corridors for potential nest predators (Frey and Canover 2006, Barding and Nelson 2008). Translocated quail selected dry prairie habitat for nest sites over both grassland/improved pasture and freshwater marsh/wet prairie habitats, possibly because of the tendency for the study area to flood during nesting season. When comparing resident nest sites to random sites at the home range level, the only significant variable was distance to burned areas. Nests were closer to burned areas than random sites. Resident birds may have selected nest sites closer to burned areas because they provide 45

PAGE 46

better brood habitat than elsewhere in the study area. I did not find a relationship between any nest characteristic and nest success for resident nests. Resident quail selected dry prairie over both grassland/improved pasture and freshwater marsh/wet prairie habitats for nest sites. Landscape Level Habitat Use and Selection When comparing nest sites to random points at a landscape level, the two most important habitat characteristics influencing nest site selection were distance to habitat edge and burned areas, with nest sites being further from both habitat edge and burned areas than random points. Quail may have avoided habitat edges for nest sites to avoid predation, but they were probably further from burned areas because there were so few burned areas in the study area. Other important variables included distance to fencerows and canals, with nest sites being closer to fencerows and further from canals than random sites, which may have been because fencerows offer good escape and foraging cover. They may have avoided canals because they are often used as travel corridors for possible predators (Frey and Canover 2006), however, this has also been shown to be true for fencerows (Barding and Nelson 2008). I did not find any significant relationship between habitat characteristics and nest success. When comparing translocated nest sites to random sites, the most important variables were distance to un-grazed areas, habitat edge, burned areas, and fencerows. Nests were closer to fencerows and un-grazed areas, and further from habitat edge and burned areas. Translocated birds may have nested nearer to fencerows and un-grazed areas because of the denser vegetative cover available there, which may have been lacking in other areas of the study area. Distance to canals was also important but to a lesser degree, with nests being further from canals than random points. None of the habitat characteristics being selected for were related to nests success. 46

PAGE 47

Resident nests were further from un-grazed areas than random points. No other habitat characteristics had a significant effect on nest site selection. Resident quail may have avoided un-grazed areas because the vegetation there is much denser, and may make it difficult to move and forage. Summary Management should be used to create microhabitat conditions with increased density and height of herbaceous nest vegetation. More litter and less bare ground should be provided at potential nesting sites, to create better visual obstruction for nests, which in turn should reduce nest predation. This could be achieved by burning habitat to stimulate growth of warm season grasses and forbs, and by using backing fires, which would leave some areas unburned. This would provide areas of thicker residual vegetation mixed with other habitats, which would be ideal for northern bobwhite nesting. Decreasing grazing rates during the nesting/growing season would allow for bunchgrasses and forbs, important to nesting, to grow taller and denser, and would improve nesting habitat. At the home range scale, habitat should be managed for increased heterogeneity of nesting vegetation, since nest success is improved by being closer to habitat edge. Again, this may be accomplished by periodic, slow backing fires that leave a patchy mix of burned and unburned habitat. Fencerows, roads, and canals may be potential linear travel corridors for predators (Barding and Nelson 2008) at the landscape level, and should be minimized in areas of suitable nesting habitat since bobwhites may select to nest near these features, resulting in a reduction of nest success. Translocated and resident bobwhites may select for slightly different nesting habitat, but none of these differences resulted in a difference in nest success between resident and translocated birds. Because they have similar nest success to resident birds, translocating birds may be a viable method for restoring populations of northern bobwhites in south Florida rangelands. 47

PAGE 48

LIST OF REFERENCES Arredondo, J.A., F. Hernandez, F.C. Bryant, R.L. Bingham, and R. Howard. Habitat-suitability bounds for nesting cover of northern bobwhites in semiarid rangelands. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2592-2599. Barding, E. E., and T. A. Nelson. 2008. Raccoons use habitat edges in northern Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 159: 394-402. Baskett, T.S. 1947. Nesting and production of the ring-necked pheasant in north-central Iowa. Ecological Monographs 17:1-30. Bookhout, T.A., editor. 1996. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. Braun, C.E., editor. 2005. Techniques for wildlife investigations and management. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. Burger, L.W. 2001. Northern bobwhite. Pages 122-146 in J.G. Dickson, editor. Wildlife of southern forests: habitat and management. Hancock House, Blaine, WA. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA. Ellis, D.H., S.J. Dobrott, and J.G. Goodwin. 1977. Reintroduction techniques for masked bobwhites. Pages 345-354 in Endangered birds-management techniques for preserving threatened species. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2004. Floridas Wildlife Legacy Initiative. http://www.wildflorida.org/swg/. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Floridas Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Floridas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Frey, S. N., and M. R. Conover. 2006. Habitat use by meso-predators in a corridor environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1111-1118. Fuller, M.R., J.J. Millspaugh, K.E. Church, and R.E. Kenward. Wildlife Radiotelemetry. Pages 377-417 in C.E. Braun, editor. Techniques for wildlife investigations and management. Sixth edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Giuliano, W.M., C.R. Allen, R.S. Lutz, and S. Demarais. 1996. Effects of red imported fire ants on northern bobwhite chicks. Journal of Wildlife Management 60: 309-313. Giuliano, W.M., J. Selph, and B. Schad. 2007. Bobwhite quail in Florida: ecology and management. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, UF/IFAS, Gainesville, FL. 48

PAGE 49

Griffin, B., and B.A. Youtie. 1988. Two devices for estimating foliage density and deer hiding cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 206-210. Guthery, F.S., A.R. Rybak, S.D. Fuhlendorf, T.L. Hiller, S.G. Smith, W.H. Puckett, R.A. Baker, and W.H. Puckett. 2005. Aspects of the thermal ecology of bobwhites in north Texas. Wildlife Monographs 159:1-36 Hannon, S. T., and S. E. Cotterill. 1998. Nest predation in aspen woodlands in an agricultural area in Alberta: the enemy from within. The Auk 115: 16-25. Hernandez, F., R.W. DeYoung, L.A. Brennan, S.A. Gall, and W.P. Kuvlesky. 2006. Recovery of rare species: case study of the masked bobwhite. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:617-631. Hernandez, F., S.E. Henke, N.J. Silvy, and D. Rollins. 2003. The use of prickly pear cactus as nesting cover by northern bobwhites. The Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 417-423. Hines, T. 2004. Conceptual Plan for Northern Bobwhite Restoration in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. James, F.C., and H.H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description. Audobon Field Notes 24: 727-736. Johnson, A. S. 1961. Antagonistic relationships between ants and wildlife with special reference to imported fire ants and bobwhite quail in the southeast. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 15:88-107. Krebs, C.J. 1989. Ecological methodology. Harper Collins, New York, NY. Lehman, V.W. 1946. Bobwhite quail reproduction in southwestern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 10: 111-123. Liu, X., R.M. Whiting, Jr., D.S. Parsons, D.R. Dietz. 2002. Movement Patterns of resident and relocated northern bobwhites in East Texas. Proceedings of the National Quail Symposium 5: 168-172. Lusk, J.J., S.G. Smith, S.D. Fuhlendorf, F.S. Guthery 2006. Factors influencing northern bobwhite nest-site selection. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:564-571. McGarigal, K., S. Cushman, and S. Stafford. 2000. Multivariate statistics for wildlife ecology and research. Springer, New York, NY. Millspaugh, J.J., and J.M. Marzluff, editors. 2001. Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, New York, NY. 49

PAGE 50

Noon, B.R. 1981. The distribution of an avian guild along a temperate elevational gradient: The importance and expression of competition. Ecological Monographs 51: 105-125. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2006. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD Smith, N.S. 1987. Reintroduction of masked bobwhite quail into southern Arizona. Transactions of the Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists 18:187-188. Stanton, F. W. 1944. Douglas ground squirrel as a predator on nests of upland game birds in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 8: 153-161. Suchy, W.J. and R.J. Munkel. 1993. Breeding strategies of northern bobwhite in marginal habitat. Pages 69-73 in K.E. Church and T.V. Dailey, eds. Quail III: national quail symposium. Kansas Dep. Wildl. And Parks, Pratt. SYSTAT. 2007. System for windows: Statistics. Version 12. Systat, Inc., Evanston, Illinois, USA. Taylor, J.S. K.E. Church, D.H. Rusch 1999. Microhabitat selection by nesting and brood-rearing northern bobwhite in Kansas. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 686-694. Terhune, T.M., D.C. Sisson, H.L. Stribling, and J.P.Carroll. 2006a. Home range, movement, and site fidelity of translocated northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) in southwest Georgia, USA. European Journal of Wildlife Research 52:119-124. Terhune, T.M., D.C. Sisson, H.L. Stribling, and J.P.Carroll. 2006b. The efficacy of relocating wild northern bobwhites prior to breeding season. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:914-921. Townsend, D.E., II, R.E. Masters, R.L. Lochmiller, D.M. Leslie, Jr., S. J. Demaso, A.D. Peoples 2001. Characteristics of nest sites of northern bobwhites in western Oklahoma. Journal of Range Management 54: 260-264. White, G.C., and R.A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 50

PAGE 51

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Brandon Schad was born in Stillwater, Minnesota. He graduated from the University of Minnesota in 2004 with a bachelors degree in fisheries and wildlife, and since then has worked for a variety of organizations. He worked for the USDA Forest Service on habitat improvement projects in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, and worked later for Ducks Unlimited Inc. in both the sand hills of Nebraska and the Missouri coteau in North Dakota on several studies of upland nesting waterfowl nest selection and success. He moved to Florida in 2006 to work at the University of Florida researching northern bobwhites, and received his M.S. in wildlife ecology and conservation from the University of Florida in August, 2009. He is an avid hunter and angler, and loves spending his time outdoors.