Brome Fields

February 6, 2001 Farm Bill Network e-mail List Discussion Summaries

By Amy Papenfuss and Wendy Dickie, umbsn@smumn.edu

In this discussion, participants converse over a range of topics relating to brome fields and pheasant nesting. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) facilitates taking fields out of farm production and creating habitat, but the habitat is often taken over by brome, an aggressive, poor-quality grass. Participants discussed the problems associated with brome fields, and the effects they have on wildlife, especially pheasants. Discussion members also stated opinions about CRP flexibility, and the need for legislation to be implemented at the state level versus the federal level. Following are highlights from the discussion:

William Gibbons

• I like your idea of enrolling the field borders in CRP to prevent erosion, but two suggestions:
1. The 50 ft width (while wider than current fence rows) will still serve as a predator trap. In addition, a 50 ft wide strip would likely drift in completely in the winter and provide no cover. I would suggest going 2-3 times that wide.
2. Second, instead of allowing all four sides of a field to be enrolled, why not limit it to just those ends with erosion potential? In some cases that might mean only one or two sides (or part of sides) per field. That will create a bigger bang for the buck.

William McGuire

• Brome is aggressive under Missouri growing conditions and, as a consequence, difficult to maintain in conditions favorable to wildlife. I could have used a number of other monoculture plantings that are as much or more problematic (switchgrass monoculture included).
• We need diversity in plantings and the ability to rely more on natural regeneration (rather than always planting something).
• Pheasant is not as much of a poster child here as prairie chicken and bobwhite quail. There is also much concerned about a host of other grassland nesting species, particularly birds.
• Native warm-season grasses are easier to manage (here) to maintain plant diversity (beneficial to wildlife) than cool-season options. This is mostly because the aggressive cool-season species quickly dominate cool-season grasslands, to the exclusion of legumes, forbs and cool-season grasses that aren't as aggressive.
• Vigorous management such as annual disking and herbicide application (to weaken the grasses) can be used to manage aggressive cool-season species but such frequent management (to benefit wildlife) is not feasible for most landowners.
• Native grass mixtures or mixes of less aggressive cool-season grasses (orchardgrass, redtop, timothy) result in stands that can maintain habitat quality for longer stretches (3-4 years) without management.

Tim Davis

· I certainly respect the data you present, however as we have discussed many times before, run the same research under different climatic and environmental conditions and the results will be substantially different. What we are talking about and I've heard it many times over is flexibility.

· In Colorado, we are dealing with CRP enrollment from 3,500 feet to almost 8,000 feet. We need flexibility within the state, let alone among the states to make CRP work better for wildlife.

· Colorado is not a big pheasant state by any stretch of the imagination, however we do have constituents and landowners that want to see better pheasant habitat and more pheasants. In areas that are intensively farmed and can support sustainable populations of pheasants, it's our responsibility to provide local research-based information that supports our CRP seeding recommendation for pheasants. In areas that will not support pheasants, we try to target vegetative mixes that will enhance habitat for wildlife indigenous to that area.

• I'm not sure the USDA "Environmental Benefits Index" is an appropriate place to encourage public access on CRP acres. Your point regarding unaccepted producers missing the EBI cutoff is well taken and I can certainly appreciate the frustration among wildlifers and producers. However, is providing access points to the solution, or are changes that may provide higher environmental value more appropriate? I have real concern over where we draw the line when defining public access. What exactly is public access? Just hunting or does it include wildlife watching? What about other recreational activities? There are a number of interest groups that we may not be aware of that may want a piece of the "access" pie. Again, I am real hesitant about this and would suggest that we look at alternatives before we go any further with it.
• Even though these policy issues are extremely important and I appreciate the need for the dialogue, is it appropriate at this time? What about the Conservation Security Act (CSA)? Flex Fallow Bill? Recommendation to take action on Farm Policy legislation this year? Where are we as a group on these legislative issues? I think we need to refocus and look at the big picture before we start talking about EBI changes. If something doesn't come out of this session increasing the CRP cap, our EBI discussions are mute, aren't they? How can we come together to make some of these legislative issues benefit the wildlife resource? Let's change gears.

Tim Gieseke

• Progressive states need to partner with the USDA on the next Farm Bill to bring flexibility to a regional or state level. The climatic and agricultural diversity in the country, along with local, technical insight should give merit to this proposal.
• The state-federal partnership developed for CREP's is an example to follow. Treating the entire country with the same conservation implementation plan is beyond obsolete and highly inefficient. I know Hypoxia is becoming a buzz word for the Gulf of Mexico, but the Minnesota River experiences hypoxic conditions much like most polluted waters across the U.S. of A. And the programs I need to address hypoxia in MN probably are going to be different than my friends in other agri-ecoregions. Government agencies can operate more efficiently. We must accept this fact.

Stanley L Etter

• I realize that the pheasant is not the only grassland bird of importance, but it is one of the species most studied. Ample literature regarding both nesting density and success is available from numerous studies in many states and provinces.
• A preference for brome grass has also been demonstrated for Greater Prairie Chickens in long term nesting studies in Illinois and Minnesota. Though a hunted Galliform, prairie chickens are highly valued natives as opposed to the naturalized ringneck.
• Having planted my first native grass in 1985 and watching succession in even older stands, I do not agree that natives are easier to manage. Though succession may proceed at a slower rate in drier areas, native grasses in Illinois rapidly become dense stands that require management at least as quickly as do brome stands.
• Prairie was much more than plants. Fire and the grazing and trampling of unrestrained herds of bison, elk and pronghorns maintained a mosaic of grasses and forbs and various successional stages. Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that this mosaic cannot be maintained without grazing. Certainly we cannot maintain the variable plant communities and several stages for a variety of animals without continued management. At present we do not know to a scientific certainty what techniques work.
• I stand by my earlier statement that I like or dislike particular vegetation based on the response of wildlife. I still think we need research to identify requirements of individual species. If we can't provide for these requirements by artificial manipulation of native plants then I think we are justified in using introduced vegetation.
• Having been present at the dedication of the first Illinois prairie chicken sanctuary in l963, I know that nesting in fields harvested for redtop seed maintained the population until that time. Putting a puzzle together with half the pieces, i.e. free-ranging grazers, etc., only works if we can make substitute pieces.
• I don't know the source of the quote, but I once heard Garrison Koehler say that calling a small patch of native grass a prairie was like calling a saltwater aquarium an ocean.

Roger Pederson

• I think the point here is not to promote smooth brome fields but to illustrate that the EBI places too much emphasis on multi-species selection of warm season natives as a prerequisite to get into CRP. This view has been rationalized from a national level that it is better for wildlife despite plenty of examples of even single species CRP stands providing abundant wildlife value if the stand is located in the right place.
• People cite pheasants and ducks but mainly because there are more data on the game species and pheasants are a major high profile species with farmers. Many of us in the Northern Great Plains feel the state-approved wildlife planting mix should receive at least as high a cover value in the EBI as a warm-season native mix. We also have concerns about individual farmers having the ability to establish warm season natives, the initial high management requirements to get a warm-season native stand going, increased cost of warm season native seed -- all for a ten year program. To many of us, it would make a lot more sense and be more practical to promote the state-wildlife mix and reserve warm-season native plantings for a program with a longer tenure (at least the 15 year option under CRP) and where increased management assistance can be provided.
• I can also appreciate other regions concerns about having more management capability on CRP (particularly for the Southeast where the landscape level need is for fields in an early successional stage ...i.e., frequently disturbed) and in places like Illinois, Iowa and southern Minnesota where the desire is to try and re-establish a small fraction of tall-grass prairie that was once there.
• I think a regional landscape level assessment should guide the target CRP habitats we should try to establish and as many others on this list have identified, there is a strong need to develop a suitable management capability (whether through NRCS, state agencies, or private consulting) for these sites.
• I share your concern for prairie remnants and having lived in Iowa, I know first hand how little prairie is left there. Where I live now, in the prairie pothole region of the Dakotas, however, there still are sizable tracts of native prairie left (in the form of pasture) that are being threatened by conversion to cropland. There is a huge need here for a USDA program that would provide a conservation easement to prevent this land from being broken and get us into the situation where only a short-tenure program like CRP can provide wildlife habitat.

William R Clark

• Many of you know that Todd Bogenschutz (IaDNR) and I (along with a collection of graduate students and technicians) have been working on pheasant population dynamics in relation to habitat characteristics and landscape changes in the cornbelt. There's been lots of "talk" about pheasant numbers, the value of brome, restoration of diverse prairies, and landscape effects. Here are a few points based on our data (and a knowledge of some of the data from elsewhere in the Great Plains that has been mentioned in these conversations).
• Despite the fact that there have been many studies of pheasants, there are not lots of reliable estimates of density of pheasants on a landscape scale. Winter densities may reach 300-500 per quarter section of dense habitat but on a large scale sustainable numbers aren't as great as has been suggested. Most importantly, populations are highly variable depending on winter and spring weather. Pheasant numbers respond quickly from lows when there is a diverse landscape base but may not respond at all when the landscape is row crops and roadsides. In winter, dense stands of warm season grasses (and cattails) stand up to snow, and break the wind but aren't always sufficient to protect birds from aerial predators. Shrub and tree cover is important for aerial cover. In spring, roosters are the spacing mechanism that spreads the population out on the landscape, depending on available crowing sites and escape cover. Roosters and hens will go a long way from winter concentrations to breed and nest. Brome/alfalfa is great nesting cover and often selected over warm season and mixed prairie because it greens up early, has just the right litter characteristics, isn't too tall, and is easy for hens to escape from in case a predator comes along. Blocks of habitat (like CRP fields) are better than smaller pieces. Our research shows a real increase in nesting success at >40 acres, but the nest success inside the blocks is affected by internal features like wetlands, shrubby patches, and old fence lines that focus predator activity. What's surrounds the block is important too. Clusters of 20-40 acre blocks are better than one big 160-acre isolated CRP field. And sometimes little patches in the middle of nowhere produce successful nests because predators don't bother to go there! As soon as the hen hatches a nest she heads for weedy edges or mixed forb/grass stands where there are lots of insects for chicks. The hen and brood won't go too far but moving a ½-mile isn't unusual. Mixed prairie with lots of forbs and some open ground is great brood cover. Our results also show that increasing the amount of perennial habitat on the landscape (regardless of cool season, warm season, wetlands) has a much bigger effect than changing the arrangement. Once you've reached about 20% perennial grassland in the landscape you've made most of the gains. But below 20% adding cover in small parcels with lots of edge (like buffers along streams and drainageways) isn't going to gain as much as adding cover in larger blocks of CRP.
• Our research has led us to think at scales like the township and to think of diversity on the landscape scale (winter, spring, nesting, broods, all parts of the life cycle). If a farmer has 640 acres to devote to wildlife maybe they can have it all. But even then you can't escape weather and focused activities of predators. Getting too rigid on our definitions of what is good habitat ignores the variability and the larger scale issue. Furthermore, what's most effective in Illinois or Indiana isn't going to be the same as what is effective in Kansas or North Dakota. And what works for pheasants isn't the same as what will work for Henslow's sparrows or small mammals and short-eared owls (although there may be some similarities). And if you have interest in fish in prairie streams you'd have another viewpoint. Mixtures of cool season grasses and forbs are good (and we need research on mixtures of natives that can be successfully established). Diversity is good, especially at the landscape scale. Management of stagnant CRP is good. Buffers and small wetlands are good. Just depends on what you value.
• Our goal should be to encourage flexibility in programming and a conservation ethic in the farming community. One thing we know for certain is that perennial habitat produces more wildlife benefits than annual row crops.

Laurel Badura

• Landowners find it difficult to manage wildlife habitat because there is little economic return.  Managing brome and keeping it in a "useful" successional stage is very time consuming.  Managing for a "native" grassland isn't as time consuming and allows a site to meet the many different needs of wildlife at different times.
• It also seems hunters and many wildlife managers place value on a grassland by the number of pheasants a particular area can produce, but in my mind, I value a grassland by it's diversity and the many different species of wildlife it can support

Prairie Land Management, Inc.

• You can have all the ideal nesting cover in the world, but if the hens do not survive there will be nothing to nest in the nesting cover. It is a matter of which came first, the chicken (pheasant) or the egg.
• As Bill mentioned, the degree and quality of winter cover and available food sources needed in Minnesota is much higher in the northern regions than the southern regions. The "limiting factors" change geographically as well as with land use.
• I believe Iowa allows development of excellent shrub conifer plantings with 5 or 10 ac. switchgrass plantings combined with the higher diversity native grass and wildflower plantings. What a treat it would be to be able to design each conservation project addressing the limiting factors and having the best of all worlds...some woody cover to understand and provide for the greater winter mortalities in the central and northern states, nice thick switch to provide additional excellent winter cover with a nice food source, and the ability to provide a nice diversified planting for nesting and "prairie" likeness. Minnesota may become the pheasant capitol of the world!
• We have also been designing in the cool season grass and legumes with planning to provide that component of the nesting, either as a CP1 or a perennial whitetail foodplot. It seems that the rules do not allow the flexibility to do this kind of management.
• Who ever is putting the next farm bill together and the state requirements, I would appreciate addressing these needs and also providing for more "local" flexibility with wildlife management. I have also found that this type of management can greatly reduce the cost of conservation projects (while developing increased diversity) and can be designed with better, cost saving long-term management (burning).

Richard S Rhodes II

• At the risk of diluting my pleas for preservation of our prairie remnants, I propose that substantial field borders be allowed enrolled as independent elements of the continuous sign-up CRP program.
• Why? As an observer of the Iowa landscape since 1972 (including training as a Quaternary geological paleoecologist) and a rural landowner since 1997, I have consistently seen, year after year, substantial sediment production during routine rain events from field end rows in nearly every slope class across all soil types with any kind of tillage (including true no-till). Unfortunately I only can offer this anecdotal observation, not quantitative studies of the problem. Nonetheless it seems counterproductive when I see contour cultivated fields with heavily eroded end rows. Which have been planted up and down slopes to squeeze out the last bushel from the ground. In my opinion the only way to control these linear foci of sediment production is to permanently vegetate them with herbaceous plant materials (trees or shrubs leave too much bare ground once their canopy closes and who wants to turn a tractor, spray rig, or combine around in woody growth anyway).
• I would expect that a 50-foot maximum width would be adequate for most purposes, with the producer or owner able to enroll more narrow widths at their choice. Rental rates and incentives should be the same as for similar types of continuous CRP. As with filter strips and waterways, mowing should be freely allowed until established. Annual pre-harvest mowing of the inner half of the field border could be allowed to prevent problems with combining, at least the outer half should be left unmowed for winter cover. Except in the deep south where the rough grows ferociously, after establishment, mowing or burning of the entire border could be allowed for woody vegetation control every second or third year. Where the borders of adjacent fields were enrolled, prescribed fire could be easily controlled with a minimum of effort (especially if disked or mowed fire breaks were made at the ends of the borders between the fields).
• For a 160 acre square field, if all 4 borders were enrolled at maximum width, there would be 12 acres of grassed border to provide nesting habitat (and 6 acres of winter cover if inner half mowed pre-harvest) -- a vast "habitat" improvement over the 1 to 5 foot "waste" strip by present practice (0.3 to 1.2 acres per 160 acre field). I assume that this wider cover strip also would reduce predation success by making the fencerow predator travel lane at least 10 times as wide.
• Furthermore, in prairie country, the fencerows are some of the last refuges for vanishing prairie plant & invertebrate species and the presence of an adjacent, less intensely manipulated field border could provide the buffer needed to allow their tenuous survival to continue a little longer.
• To me, the multiple benefits of developing a continuous CRP practice for field borders are obvious -- reduced soil erosion, increased wildlife habitat, and temporary stabilization of a widespread but diffuse reservoir of native prairie diversity.

Bill Baxter

• As one of the researchers involved in the long-term pheasant studies, I will switch my comments to cool season grasses and legumes rather than just brome. We looked at more than 1150 pheasant nests during our life history and ecology study in Nebraska, and we recorded all plants, which occurred at the nest sites. I know that several other states and Labisky looked at a similar number and found similar results to ours.
• Eighty seven percent of all the nests that we catalogued were established in cover that would be classified as cool season: alfalfa, cool-season grasses and wheat respectively. The cool-season grasses were predominantly smooth brome or western wheat.
• Other cool season grasses included Canada Wildrye and Poa sp. Nest densities were measured in terms of "nests per acre". Conversely, nest densities in warm season grasses were expressed in terms of "acres per nest". Nest densities in alfalfa and the cool season grasses were approximately two per acre. Nest densities in warm season grasses were approximately one nest per four per acres. Winter Wheat was unique in that nest densities were very low (8 acres/nest), but acreage devoted to the crop was high (25% of the area), and nest success rates were high. A recent literature review by Dr. Kenneth Higgins Indicated that there was no significant difference between warm season grasses and cool season grasses based on nest success rates.
• However, the studies cited omitted nest density as a factor in determining that there was no difference in the two types. In my simple way of thinking, you cannot project which is best as nesting cover without looking at both statistics. The Fish and Wildlife Service or the two Dakotas should have some good data on Dense Nesting Cover (DNC).
• Brome grass generally needs disturbance more frequently than warm season grasses. The time it takes from establishment to being sod bound varies with the amount of precipitation. In the eastern part of Nebraska it usually becomes "sod bound" in 3 to 5 years. In the more arid western part of the state it produces less vegetative material and may not become "sod bound for 8 to 10 years. Warm season grasses also exhibit the ability to become "sod bound" but at a slower rate.
• Single-species-stands of switchgrass provide better winter cover than brome or other cool-season species. Single species stands of Big Bluestem do not. Based on 13 years of observing my own 144 acres of CRP; which contains cool season/legume mixes, 5 species warm season native mix, single species plantings of switchgrass, big bluestem and eastern gamma grass. My observations on bobolinks, dickcissels and grasshopper sparrows were similar to those of Mr. Rhodes. However, I wont elaborate since I do not have data.
• As scientists, we all frequently have the opportunity to demonstrate our intelligence or our ignorance. Whenever, we use all encompassing language such as brome is no value to wildlife we come very close to demonstrating the latter. There are reams and reams of information in the form of peer reviewed research that are available to us as scientists and naturalists. Using it as the basis for our statements is preferable to relying on our personal likes or dislikes.
• Now if you will bear with me, just a few thoughts about providing points in the Environmental Index for producers willing to allow public access for hunting. Nebraska has a very successful walk-in access program (CRP-MAP) where we pay 4 or 5 dollars per acre for access. Cooperating producers also agree to interseed 10% of their contract with legumes. The producer has the option of using native or introduced legumes. However, they have to get into the CRP before they can get into our CRP-MAP program. Since 1996, Nebraska has lost approximately 400,000 acres of CRP. A lot of those producers only missed being accepted by a few points. Many producers with unaccepted offers would have been quite willing to trade access for an extra 10 points and our 5 Bucks. It is strictly voluntary allowing the producer to choose whether to go for the points or not. We strongly support the Federation's proposal to provide some EBI points to producers offering public access. Send your hunters to the Northern Great Plains or better yet come out yourself.

Todd Bogenschutz

• No mixture of plants will provide all things to all wildlife in all areas. Exotic plants can provide as much wildlife value as native plants. Both groups of plants can benefit some species if managed and both can benefit other species if unmanaged. Having said this I will state there are a "few" exotics that are of no benefit to wildlife and should never be used. In Iowa they would be fescue and reed canary. Both are VERY aggressive and detrimental to wildlife and native vegetation.
• To provide the best wildlife habitat on CRP we simply need to offer both groups of plants with management options that create managed and unmanaged areas. As Mr. McGuire noted prescribed fire and strip disking are 2 management options on CRP that create this "good wildlife habitat". Provide a diversity of vegetation, food, and larger blocks of habitat with proper mgmt and we've done the best we can for most wildlife. Just to add to Kyle's comments, winter might not be as big an issue in the southern latitudes as it is in northern areas like MN or ND.
• In regards to the EBI, I think a little too much emphasis has been placed on what is planted (exotics vs. natives) and not enough emphasis has been placed on how the vegetation is managed (exotics or natives) after it is planted. If we are truly concerned about the wildlife resource, how the vegetation is managed is vastly more important to wildlife than what the vegetation is, with a few exceptions like fescue etc.

Prairie Land Management, Inc.

• I agree with the 10 acres but I think you will find most of us would like to see 20 acres developed as a core area. I would also include a design to connect these areas if possible to increase the carrying capacity and the travel lanes. I usually try to design by 40-acre parcels and connect them. You would not believe the increase in wildlife within the first year. However, I will stress that it is very important for the person designing to really understand the land management. It is better if you can wear many hats (farmer/operator/owner, wildlife, environment, long-term management, cost, etc) when developing a management plan.

Stanley L Etter

• Thanks for pointing out something again that several of we old nest searchers have felt for some time. All of the pheasant nesting studies of the 60s and 70s found brome, especially when mixed with alfalfa or other legumes, to be excellent nesting cover. Admittedly I have never searched native grasses, but brome and other cool season grasses are green and growing when nests are being established. The warm season natives provide only dead growth for concealment at that time of year and are little better than bare ground when burned.
• I like or dislike any vegetation based on the wildlife response. There is a difference between prairie restoration and wildlife management. I've been involved in both and support prairie restoration for its own value. However I think the notion that simply using climax prairie plants guarantees wildlife abundance is misguided. We compound that error by ignoring cool season natives.

Prairie Land Management, Inc.

• I too am a landowner up in Minnesota but I also own a land management and wildlife enhancement company, www.PLMgmt.com if you care to take a look. You have some nice numbers but I would express that you could have a lot more, and I mean a lot more, than what you have right now. All wildlife has limiting factors. If these limiting factors are not provided for, a lower population and diversity will also be observed. With the cover, size of the farm and populations you reported, I would say that you have half of what you could have. And I am being conservative with that comment.
• For instance, with 640 acres in Iowa you should have a carrying capacity of well over 1200 to 1500 pheasants. Typically we can develop property to maintain a population of 300 to 500 birds per 160 acres, or more under the right conditions. This is obviously dependant on other variables but should be obtainable for your property. I am using the pheasant as a barometer but you are obviously aware and take appreciation for many types of wildlife on your property. I commend you for your observations and that appreciation. For what it's worth, I strongly feel that brome grass is a compromise in wildlife cover. It is cheap, easy to establish and provides cover.
• However, if you do not have thick winter cover (well designed shrubs, conifers and thick native grass) with a consistent winter food source (high residue cropland and/or food plot/feeder combo, never food plot alone (deer will clean it out by January on the worst winter when it is the most important and leave nothing)), you will probably not have a surviving reproducing population to use the brome grass for nesting or loafing. Brome grass may be better suited for nesting than thick native grass, but will provide high hen mortality if winter cover is limited. You can have all the nesting and loafing cover in the world, but if the hens don't survive there won't be any eggs to lay. Diversity is good.

Steve Capel

· 5 species mixtures are not readily planted in most of this countryside due to limited seed of adapted species, lack of equipment capable of planting such fluffy species as bluestems and Indian grass, etc.  We often get a good, 5th species (from a wildlife standpoint) via bromsedge invasion of the stands.  

· We would love to be able to include a small amount of Kobe (or Korean) lespedeza in the mix, but it doesn't fit the 5 species natives category. 

· There are plenty of times when simply allowing succession of natural vegetation to progress would establish a very suitable cover from both a wildlife AND erosion standpoint--and it would save considerable money for both USDA and the landowner.  This may not be the case in the Great Plains, but stand back for a few months in the SE and you get a pretty darn good cover.  Why not let the landowner use that approach, pending an evaluation at some future point to determine IF it has accomplished a suitable cover?

· There is simply not adequate regional flexibility in many current programs, CRP included.