A Study of Scaled and Bobwhite Quail with Special

A STUDY OF SCALED AND BOBWHITE QUAIL

WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS AND BRUSH CONTROL

by JOHN ELLIS THARP, B.S.

A THESIS

RANGE SCIENCE

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

I MASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved

Accepted

May, 1971 Ac T3 [97{ No.S3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My gratitude to Dr. Donald A. Klebenow for his expenditure of time and guidance. I express my appreciation for helpful com- ments by Dr. Bill E. Dahl and Dr. Robert L. Packard.

I am indebted to Gene W. Darr, Kenneth R. Kattner, and

Wayne Robertson for their assistance in the field work. Robert

E. Wadley aided in writing the computer program. Sincere

appreciation goes to the Renderbrook-Spade Ranch for providing

the research area.

.. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iv

LIST OF FIGURES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v

I. INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

II. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 2

III. METHODS ...... , ...... 5

Study Area . • • • • . . • • • • • . . . . • • 5

Experimental Approach ...... 8

IV. RESULTS ...... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10

Bob\vhite Habitat ...... 10 Scaled Quail Habitat ...... 15 Brush Control ...... 22 Bottomland Habitats ...... 22 Deep Hardland Habitats . . . 27 V. DISCUSSION ...... 29 Habitat ...... 29 Brush Control ...... 30

Bottomland Habitats . • • • • • . . 30 Deep Hardland Habitats ...... 33 Management Implications ...... 34

VI. SUMMARY . • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36

LITERATURE CITED • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38 APPENDIX ...... 40 iii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Bobwhite Quail Breeding Populations, Rende rbrook- Spade Ranch, 1970 • . . .. . • . . • . . . • • • . 10

2. Bobwhite Quail Brood Populations, Rende rbrook-Spade Ranch, 1970 • . . • • • . • • . • . • . • . • . • 11

3. Bobwhite Quail Covey Populations, Rende rbrook-Spade Ranch, 1970 • . . . • . . • . . . . • • . . • • • 12

4. Independent Variables with Corresponding R2 Values for Bobwhite Quail in the Order of Deletion ...... 13

5. Actual and Computed Y Values for Bobwhite Quail on

Renderbrook-Snade.... Ranch, 1970...... 16

6. Scaled Quail Breeding Populations, Renderbrook-Spade Ranch, 1970 . • . • . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . 17

7. Scaled Quail Brood Populations, Renderbrook-Spade Ranch, 1970 ...... 18

8. Scaled Quail Covey Populations, Renderbrook-Spade Ranch, 1970 ...... 18

\ 2 9. Independent Variables with Corresponding R Values for Scaled Quail in the 0 rde r of Deletion . . . . . • • 20

1 o. Actual and Calculated Y Values for Scaled Quail on Renderbrook-Spade Ranch, 1970 ...... 23

11. Scaled and Bobwhite Quail Populations on Controlled Bottomland and Deep Hardland Habitats, and on an Uncontrolled Bottomland Habitat, Renderbrook Spade Ranch, 1970 . . . • . • ...... 25

•

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Bottomland habitats controlled and uncontrolled: a) Uncontrolled bottomland habitat, b) Bottom land habitat sprayed in June, 1970, c) Bottom land habitat sprayed in 1968, d) Chained bottomland habitat . . . . . • . . . . • • . • . • . . . . 24

2. Illustration of deep hardland habitat: a) Habitat prior to spraying in June, 1970, b) Habitat aerial sprayed in 1968 .....••...•. • • • 28

v CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Noxious brush is one of the maJOr range problems in Texas

(Rechenthin, 1964). There are 88.5 million acres of brush lands

(82% of Texas) and extensive brush control programs have been re cently undertaken to alleviate this problem. Few studies have been made relating brush control to wildlife. It is important that quail ecology and brush management be considered together because in a few years proceeds from hunting of quail coupled with other income from wildlife use may be equal to or greater than income from live

stock (Teer and Forrest, 1968).

Few reports define exactly when quail habitat becomes immedi ately untenable because of too little or too much cover (Jackson, 1969).

Therefore, study was initiated in May of 1969 and continued through

August of 1970.

The primary objectives of this study were to determine: 1) habitat preferences for scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) and bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) on the Texas Rolling Plains, and; 2) effects of brush control on bobwhite and scaled quail.

1 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Scaled quail are distributed over the arid and semiarid low lands of western Texas. They are well adapted to the Rolling Plains of west Texas (Wallmo, 1957) whereas the same area appears to be marginal habitat for bobwhite quail. Everette { 1952) reported bob white quail did not thrive in the arid Southwest except when there is adequate moisture during the breeding season. The western boundary of bobwhites seemingly depends on variations in rainfall, but normally their western limit is in the Rolling Plains in Texas. Schemnitz

( 1961) concluded that bobwhite quail, unlike scaled quail, were not tolerant of dry hot weather.

Schemnitz (1961, 1964) suggested there were no major dif ferences in the foods eaten by scaled quail and bobwhite quail in western Oklahoma despite the variation of habitat types occupied by the two species. The main dissimilarity in diet for the two species of quail was the variety of foods eaten expressed in terms of average number of plant species per crop. Eleven of the twenty most

2 •

• 3

prominent foods (95. Zo/o by volume) eaten by bobwhite quail were also

among the most prominent foods of scaled quail (73. So/o of their diet).

Cover is equally important as food to quail according to Jack

son (1969). It seems that quail adjust to cover deficiencies more

readily than they do to food scar city. Quail need the following types

of cover: overhead screening for concealment while feeding and moving;

tangled woody thickets or dense patches of coarse weeds and grasses

which easily can be reached when quick escape from an enemy is es

sential; cover for resting, dusting, and the midday inactive period;

and nesting and roosting cover.

Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) and sand shinnery oak (Quercus

havardii) provide resting and screening cover needed for feeding and

movement. Moderately grazed vegetation interspersed with islands of

taller weeds and grasses in the shelter of mesquite shrubs or by sand

shinnery oak motts lend additional types of cover. Screening cover

for concealment while feeding and moving is at its best in years when

rainfall and plant succession result in continuous stands of annual broom

weed (Gutierrezia dracunculoides). This is an important quail food

plant and provides an ,unlimited food supply during such years (Jack-

son, 1969).

Few studies have been initiated to determine the effect of

extensive brush control programs on quail. Jackson and Green (1964),

working on the Matador Wildlife Management Area in western Texas,

-·~ 4 found that there were only minor differences in bobwhite populations between the aerial sprayed and untreated areas on similar acreages.

Complete kill of mesquite seldom occurs and regrowth can provide better quail cover than the original stand.

Burning reduced overstory vegetation on the Matador Manage ment Area permitting increased understory plant growth (Hart and

Veteto, 1969). Forbs, legumes, and small woody plants were particu larly benefitted; all of these yield good food and cover for quaiL Quail were most dense in such areas of controL CHAPTER III

METHODS

Study Area

This study was conducted 20 miles south of Colorado City,

Texas, on the Rende rbrook-Spade Ranch.

The ranch is in an area transitional between the humid climate of central Texas and the semi-arid climate to the west; average annual precipitation is 18 inches. Less than 13 inches of rainfall occurs one year in ten, but more than 29 inches occurs one year in ten (Stoner, et al., 1969). Elevation ranges from 1, 900 to 2, 400 feet.

Seven habitat types on the ranch were recognized. They are listed below along with descriptions taken from Stoner, et al. ( 1969).

1) BOTTOMLAND HABITAT: This habitat occurs in narrow

draws and along river bottoms; soils are nearly level, deep,

and fertile. Such areas receive runoff from adjoining range

sites and are considered one of the better habitat types on

the ranch. Such areas may provide the only forage on the

range in dry periods.

2) CHAINED BOTTOMLAND HABITAT: This habitat 1s identical • 5 6

to the Bottomland Range Habitat except for a reduction in

canopy cover as a result of brush control. It was useful

for study purposes because of the tr~atment.

3) DEEP HARDLAND HABITAT: This habitat occurs on a

smooth, nearly level and gently sloping plain where soils

are moderately fine textured and of 20 inches depth. They

have a high capacity to hold water and plant nutrients, but

are only moderately permeable to water and roots.

4) ROUGH BROKEN HABITAT: This habitat consists of steep

escarpments and severely eroded areas, or scalds below

the escarpments. It is composed of rough breaks and a

large part of it is almost inaccessible to livestock. The

plant cover is sparse and highly variable because of dif

ferences in soil materials, slope-exposure, and degree

of geologic erosion.

5) SANDYLAND HABITAT: This habitat occurs on sandy up

lands throughout the ranch where soils are deep, nearly

level or gently sloping, and coarse-textured. Soils in

this type are moderately to readily permeable to water.

Root penetration is deep, but soils have little capacity to

hold water and plant nutrients.

6) VERY SHALLOW SOIL HABITAT: This habitat occupies

smooth hills within the Rolling Plains. These gentle 7

slopes are remnants of High Plains outwash material with

shallow soils and many pebbles and rocks on the surface

throughout the profile. These soils have reduced mois

ture holding capacity, but the moisture available is used

effectively by growing plants.

7) DEEP SAND SOIL HABITAT: This habitat occurs mainly

adjacent to the Colorado River. It consists of large dunes.

The deep soils are level to gently sloping, coarse-textured,

and moderately permeable to readily permeable to roots

and water. Such soils have a low capacity for holding water

and plant nutrients, and are highly susceptable to blowing

in unprotected areas. The major canopy cover is sand

shinnery oak.

Vegetation varies with soil type, ranging from catclaw (Acacia greggi), tolerant of arid conditions, to hackberry (Celtis reticulata) and other plants that grow in moist bottomlands (Stoner, et al., 1969).

Extensive brush control programs have been undertaken on the Renderbrook-Spade Ranch. This has provided an excellent oppor tunity to study some of their effects on quail habitat. The two main methods of brush control were aerial application of herbicides and chaining. 8

Experimental Approach

Two 30-acre plots were established in each of the habitat types.

These were censused for quail eight times in the period from May 18 through August 31, 1970, aided by bird dogs. The location of each bird or covey was recorded alongwith the name of the shrub or grass from which it was flushed. Care was taken not to recount birds flying back into another portion of the plot. Records were kept on total number of birds and brood and covey sizes (see Appendix A).

Four vegetation sample plots, each 40 X 50 feet were established in each 30-acre quail plot. Vegetation plots were located 75 feet from a center point in the direction of the four cardinal directions. Five tapes 50 feet long were placed in each plot along the 40 feet side, and along each of these tapes total canopy cover was recorded in width of cover 0 to 18 inches off the ground, 18 inches to 3 feet, and over 3 feet above the soil surface. The amount of opening uncle r the shrub was also measured. It was recorded as total width of canopy cover above the opening. Opening heights were classed as: 0 to 1 foot, 1 foot to 2 feet, and over 2 feet.

Two 16 inch square frames were placed along each of these tapes to determine the percentages of grass cover, forb cover, bare ground and litter, and the frequency of occurrence of each plant species.

The frequ~-ncy data are listed in Appendix B. 9

Step-wise multiple regressions were used to identify those habitat characteristics that account for variability 1n quail populations.

The independent variables were: total canopy cover; canopy cover between 0 to 18 inches high; canopy cover between 18 inches and 3 feet high; canopy cover over 3 feet high; total canopy cover having a ground to crown height of 0 to l foot, 1 to 2 feet and over 2 feet; total grass cover; forb cover; bare ground; and litter. The dependent variables were: number of bobwhite quail and scaled quail during three periods, i.e., breeding, brooding, and covey formation. The data from the months of June, July and August, respectively, were used to classify these three periods. While somewhat arbitrary, the validity of this classification was borne out by the field data. During

June 186 adults were located, but only four broods with a total of 39 birds. To prevent bias, only the adult population was used for the

June data because if the immature birds were included any plot containing a brood automatically became a preferred plot. During July,

17 broods were located for a total immature population of 293 birds.

Ninety-three adults were counted. The broods were more evenly distributed and the total populations were used for data analysis.

Many of the juvenile birds were too large to distinguish from adult birds by August. Individual broods had begun to join, forming coveys of more 'than one family group. All birds encountered were counted during that period. CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Bobwhite Habitat

The largest breeding population of bobwhites was 1 bird/2. 6

acres in a deep sand soil habitat and the smallest populations were

in a very shallow soil habitat, a rough broken habitat, and chained

bottomland habitat, where no quail were observed (Table 1).

TABLE 1

BOBWHITE QUAIL BREEDING POPULATIONS RENDER.BROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970

Acres Acres Habitat Type Per Habitat Type Per Bird Bird

Deep Sand 2 2.6 Sandyland 2 22.5 Bottomland 2 5.0 Deep Hardland 1 30.0 Sandyland 1 10. 0 Rough Broken 2 45.0 Deep Sand 1 12.9 Very Shallow 2 45.0 Deep Hardland 2 12. 9 Very Shallow 1 Chained Bottomland 1 18. 0 Chained Bottomland 2 Bottomland 1 22.5 Rough Broken 1

T~e deep hardland habitats were the most preferred by bobwhites as brood habitat with 1 bird/0. 8 acres and 1 bird/ 1. 2 acres

10 11

(Table 2). The least preferred habitats were the rough broken, deep sand, and very shallow soil habitats on which no quail were observed.

BOBWHITE QUAIL BROOD POPULATIONS RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970

Acres Acres Habitat Type Per Habitat Type Per Bird Bird

Deep Hardland 1 0.8 Chained Bottomland 1 15.0 Deep Hardland 2 1.2 Rough Broken 1 Bottomland 2 1.2 Deep Sand 1 Bottomland 1 4.5 Deep Sand 2 Chained Bottomland 2 6. 9 Very Shallow 1 Sandyland 2 7. 5 Rough Broken 2 Sandyland 1 10.0 Very Shallow 2

The deep hardland habitats and bottomland habitats were the most preferr-ed by bobwhite coveys (Table 3). The deep hard1and habitats had populations of 1 bird/0. 8 acre and 1 bird/3. 1 acres.

The bottomland habitats had populations of 1 bird/ 0. 8 acre and 1 bird/

1. 5 acres. The shallow soil habitats were again the least preferred habitats.

The deep hardland and bottomland habitats were the most important summer habitats for bobwhite quail. The deep sand areas were important as breeding habitat but use was negligible as brood and 12

TABLE 3

COVEY POPULATIONS BOBWHITE QUAIL ' RENDER.BR.OOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970

Acres Acres Habitat Type Per Habitat Type Per Bird Bird

Deep Hardland 1 0.8 Deep Sand 1 15. 0 Bottomland 2 o. 8 Deep Sand 2 18.0 Bottomland 1 1. 5 Sandyland 2 Deep Ha rdland 2 3. 1 Chained Bottomland 2 Chained Bottomland 1 6.9 Very Shallow 1 Rough Broken 2 7. 5 Rough Broken l Sandyland 1 10.0 Very Shallow 2

The densitv decrease mav reflect a movement out of covev habitat. - # # this habitat into adjacent habitats following breeding. The sandyland and chained bottomland habitats were of moderate importance through the summer. The shallow soil habitats were of little importance as bobwhite habitat throughout the summer.

In order to explain these variations in bobwhite quail populations,

the vegetation data were placed in a step-wise multiple regression com-

puter program as independent variables, and were tested against the

different quail populations which were the dependent variables. The

interaction between these independent variables accounted for 76o/o of

the variation in the breeding populations, 99o/r. of the variation in brood

populations, and 99o/o of the variation in covey populations (Table 4). 13

TABLE 4

2 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH CORRESPONDING R VALUES FOR BOBWHITE QUAIL IN THE ORDER OF DELETION

Independent Variables

Breeding Populations Grass cover (squared) . 7567 Canopy cover 0-18" high X Forb cover . 67 51 Grass cover X Litter .5811 Forb cover X Litter . 4762 Canopy cover 0- 18 11 high X Canopy cover 1- 3 1 high . 1624

Brood Populations Forb cover X Litter . 9895 Bare ground X Litter • 9833 Litter (squared) • 9685 Grass cover X Forb cover . 9193 Grass cover X Bare ground . 7585

Covey Populations Canopy cover 0-18" high X Forb cover . 9851 Canopy cover 0-18" high X Bare ground . 9361 Grass cover (squared) . 9031 Canopy cover with a ground to crown height of 1-2' X Forb cover . 8583 Grass cover X Forb cover . 5406

These interactions were used in developing the following prediction equation: 14

Y =- 171.94284 +. 27408X x +. 08910X x 2 4 5 4 6

+ . 01256X X + . 04187x x +. 01999X x 5 7 6 7 7 7 Y = -75.74179-. 03297X x +. 05879X x 3 1 5 1 6 +.18172X X -.03361XX + 37811X X 3 5 4 4 . 4 5

where,

Y 1 = Breeding population of bobwhites/90 acres,

Y 2 = Brood population of bobwhite/60 acres,

Y 3 = Covey population of bobwhite/90 acres,

X 1 = Total feet of canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high/1000 feet,

x 2 = Total feet of canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high/1000

feet,

= Total feet of intercept with x 3 a ground to crown height of

1 to 2 feet/ 1000 feet,

X4 = Percent grass cover,

x 5 = Percent forb cover,

X6 = Percent bare ground,

x 7 = Percent litter.

The most important single interaction for predicting bobwhite breeding populations was canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high and canopy cover 1 to 3 feet high, but only accounted for 16% of the variation

(Table 4). I 15

The interaction between grass cover and bare ground was the

most important in predicting brood habitat and accounted for 75% of

the variation in brood populations in the sites (Table 4). Normally an

increase in grass cover will improve brood habitat and cause an in

crease in population, if no other factor such as forb cover or litter is

deficient.

Grass cover and forb cover were the most important in pre

dicting covey habitat. The interaction between these 2 variables ac

counted for 54% of the variation among sites (Table 4). An increase in

grass and £orbs should increase the potential for covey habitat, particu

larly if adequate canopy cover is available.

Total canopy cover and the amount of canopy cover with a ground

to crown height of 1 to 2 feet were found to be insignificant and were

deleted by the computer.

The prediction equations and field data were used to calculate

an expected population for each of the 14 census plots. With only minor

deviations, the calculated and actual populations were similar (Table 5).

Scaled Quail Habitat

The largest breeding populations of scaled quail were found in

a chained bottomland habitat having 1 bird/9. 0 acres and in a rough

broken ha}?itat containing 1 bird/ 11. 3 acres {Table 6). No scaled quail

/ were observed in either of the 'sandyland habitats or the other chained ._. 0'

0190

0107

0086 Error

0340 0302

0225

. .

-.0170 -.0107

-.0497

-.0175

-.0031

-.0243

-.0032 -.0017

Population

0190 0170

0107

0497

0175

9914 Comp.

0031 0243

9660 9698

9775

0032

0017

. .

29. 11.9893

59.

13.

112.

108.

Covey

9.0 0

6.0 5.0 Actual

12. 29.0

59. QUAIL

13.

112.

109.

1970

0021

0111 0012

0004

0078 0020

0055 0188

. .

. Error

-.0001 -.0017 -.0076

-. -.0017 -.

-.0020

-.0074

BOBWHITE

RANCH,

111

Population

FOR.

0021

0001 0017 9922

0055 0188

0020

9926

. .

. . Comp.

9.0076

75.9996 11.

20.0020 73.0017

12.

116.9988

Brood

0 0

VALUES

0 0

0 9.0

0 0

6.0

Actual

76.0 12.0 TABLE

20.0 73.0

13.

117.

0028 0033

02 0010 0123

0089

0004

0095 Error

. . . . .

. .

-.0081 -.0064

-.0076 -.0070 -.0029 -.0359

R.ENDERBR.OOK-SPADE

COMPUTED

Population

AND

0028 9967

02 9990

0359

0095 Comp.

2.0081 2. 7.0064 1.

8.9877

4.0076 4.0070 7.

4.9996

18.0029

34.9911

Breeding

0 3.0

2.0 7. 0

2.0 9.0

4.0 4.0 7.0

ACTUAL

18.

35.0

Actual

Bottom- Bottom-

Broken Broken 2

Hardland Hard1and

Shallow Shallow

Sand Sand

land

Very Very Deep Deep Rough Rough Bottomland Site Deep Deep Bottomland

Chained

Sandyland Sandyland Chained 17

TABLE 6

SCALED QUAIL BREEDING POPULATIONS , RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970

Acres Acres Habitat Type Per Habitat Type Per Bird Bird

Chained Bottomland 2 9.0 Deep Hardland 2 30.0 Rough Broken 1 11. 3 Bottomland 1 30.0 Bottomland 2 15.0 Deep Hardland 1 45.0 Deep Sand 2 18.0 Very Shallow 1 90.0 Deep Sand 1 22.5 Chained Bottomland 1 Rough Broken 2 22.5 Sandyland 1 Very Shallow 2 22.5 Sandyland 2

bottomland habitat. The remaining 9 habitats varied from 1 bird/15. 0 acres to 1 bird/90 acres.

Only seven plots were utilized by scaled quail as brood habitat

(Table 7). The major brood populations were found on a rough broken habitat containing 1 bird/ 4. 1 acres and on a very shallow soil habitat containing 1 bird/6. 4 acres. The population in five other habitats varied from 1 bird/30. 0 to 1 bird/90 acres. No quail were observed on the other seven plots.

No quail were observed on eight of_the plots during covey1ng

(Table 8). Only six habitats on the ranch contained coveyed scaled quail and of these only the two bottomland habitats were of any major importan~e, containing 1 bird/2. 5 acres and 1 bird/3. 6 acres. 18

TABLE 7

SCALED QUAIL BROOD POPULATIONS ' RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970

Acres Acres Habitat Type Per Habitat Type Per Bird ~ir~-.

Rough Broken 2 4. 1 Bottomland 1 Very Shallow 1 6.4 Bottomland 2 Chained Bottomland 2 30.0 Rough Broken 1 Deep Sand 2 30.0 Deep Hard1and 2 Deep Sand 1 45.0 Sandyland 1 ·Deep Hardland 1 81. 8 Chained Bottomland 1 Very Shallow 2 90.0 Sandyland 2

TABLE 8

SCALED QUAIL COVEY POPULATIONS, RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970

Acres Acres Habitat Type Per Habitat Type Per Bird Bird

Bottomland 1 2.5 Rough Broken 1 Bottomland 2 3.6 Deep Sand 1 Deep Sand 2 11. 7 Rough Broken 2 Very Shallow 1 30.0 Deep Ha rdland 2 Deep Hardland 1 81. 8 Sandyland 1 Very Shallow 2 90.0 Sandy1and 2 Chained Bottomland 2 Chained Bottomland 1

I 19

The population on the remaining four acres varied from 1 bird/ 11. 7 acres to 1 bird/90. 0 acres.

From habitat to habitat, the densities of scaled quail varied

considerably throughout the summer periods. No site maintained

more than a moderate density, such as the Deep Sand 2 habitat.

Density increased in the bottomlands when the birds began coveying.

The same multiple regression program used for bobwhites was

used to explain the variations in scaled quail population. All of the in

dependent variables except canopy cover over 3 feet tall and total canopy

cover with a ground to crown height over 2 feet were shown to be signi

ficant. The interaction among the independent variables (Table 9) ac

counted for 84% of the variation in quail breeding population, 89o/o of

the variation in brood populations and 81 o/o of the variation in covey

population. These interactions were used in developing the following

prediction equation for scaled quail:

yl = 1.96885 + .00651X1X 4 - .00569X1X3

. 00106X x +. 00~37X X +. 00504X X 2 9 4 8 6 7 y = . 24 781 + . 02494X x + . 00 134X x 2 2 6 9 9 . 00321X x - . 00361X X + . 002 72X X 7 9 4 5 7 7 , y 16. 49564 + . 02681X X - . 08003X x 3 = 2 4 2 6 + . 00657x x - . 00988X X - . 02948X X 4 8 4 7 6 7 where,

y = Breeding population of scaled quail/90 acres, 1 20

TABLE 9

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH CORRESPONDING R2 VALUES FOR SCALED QUAIL IN THE ORDER OF DELETION

Independent R2 Variables Values

Breeding Population Bare ground X Litter . 8420 Total canopy cover X Grass cover . 7613 Canopy cover 0- 18" high X total canopy cover with a ground to crown height 0- 1 1 . 6134 Canopy cover 0-18" high X total canopy cover with a ground to crown height 1-2 1 . 5096 Canopy cover 0- 18" high X Grass cover . 2857

Brood Population Grass cover X Forb cover . 8916 Canopy cover 18 "- 3 1 high X Bare ground . 8742 Litter (squared} . 8099 Total canopy cover with a ground to crown height 0- 1 1 X Litter . 7400 Total canopy cover with a ground to crown height 0-1 1 (squared) . 6232

Covey Population Total canopy cover X Grass cover . 8068 Grass cover X Litter . 7124 Canopy cover 18 "- 3 1 high X Bare ground . 6452 Bare ground X Litter . 5961 Canopy cover 18"-3 1 high X Grass cover . 4893

y = Brood population of scaled quail/60 acres, 2 Y = Covey population of scaled quail/90 acres, 3 X = Total feet of canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high/1000 feet, 1 21

X2 = Total feet of canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high/1000

feet,

x3 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of

1 to 2 feet/ 1000 feet ,

x4 - Percent grass cover,

Xs - Percent forb cover,

x6 - Percent bare ground,

X? = Percent litter,

X8 = Total canopy cover/ 1000 feet,

x9 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of

0 to 1 feet/ 1000 feet. (;

The interaction between canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high and grass cover was the most important in accounting for variations in breeding populations, but it only accounted for 28. 6% of the variation

(Table 9). An increase in both of these factors will normally improve breeding habitat.

The square of the value for canopy cover with a ground to crown height 0 to 1 foot accounted for 62% of the variation in brood habitat

(Table 9). An increase in this type of cover in a habitat should increase brood population.

The most important interaction for predicting covey populations was canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high and grass cover. It accounted for 49o/o of the variation in covey populations. 22

The prediction equations and field data were used to calculate

an expected population for each of the 14 census plots. With only minor

deviations, the calculated and actual populations were similar (Table

10).

Brush Control

The best quail populations on the ranch were in the deep hard-

land and bottomland habitats. These are also the habitats in which most

of the brush control has been done.

Bottomland Habitats

The first plot in an uncontrolled bottomland habitat (Fig. 1)

had a bobwhite breeding population of 1 bird/22. 5 acres, a brood popu-

lation of 1 bird/4. 5 acres, and a covey population of 1 bird/1. 5 acres.

~ It had a scaled quail covey population of 1 bird/2. 5 acres but was of

low importance as breeding and brood habitat (Table 11).

Another bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) was sprayed in June, 1970.

The population for that month was 1 bobwhite quail/ 8. 2 acres and 1

scaled quail/3. 5 acres. Spraying occurred during the June census

period and some reaction to the herbicide treatment was evident that

was not included in Table 11. Prior to spraying, the plot contained

1 scaled quail/2. 3 acres and 1 bobwhite/3. 3 acres. Immediately fol-

lowing the herbicide application the population of both species declined.

At the end of June no bobwhites were found in this area and the scaled

~ ~

'-.,.) '-.,.)

N N

0.028 0.028

0098 0098

0040 0040

0008 0008

0063 0063

0098 0098 0032 0032

.. ..

. . . .

. .

Error Error

-.0166 -.0166

-.0013 -.0013 -.0012 -.0012

-.0058 -.0058 .-

-.0067 -.0067 0 0

-.0041 -.0041

' '

0028 0028

0166 0166

0012 0012 9902 9902

0067 0067

0040 0040 0008 0008

0032 0032 9937 9937

• •

. .

. . . .

. .

8.0013 8.0013

0 0

2.9902 2.9902

Comp. Comp.

36.0058 36.0058

24. 24.

11.0041 11.0041

Population Population

.. ..

QUAIL QUAIL

Covey Covey

0 0

8.0 8.0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

1.0 1.0 0 0

3. 3.

36.0 36.0

25.0 25.0

11. 11.

Actual Actual

3 3

1970 1970

3 9 9 3

11 11

16 16

113 113 SCALED SCALED

00 00

0032 0032

0260 0260

0 0

00 00

0027 0027

0008 0008

0236 0236

0067 0067

0 0 0367 0367

. .

.0014 .0014

. .

-. -.

Error Error

-. -.

~ ~

3 3

FOR FOR

11 11

16 16

0 0

113 113

99£? 99£?

RANCH, RANCH, 0032 0032

0260-. 0260-.

0 0

0008 0008 0027 0027

0236 0236

0067 0067

0 0

. .

.0051.0051 .0051.0051

. .

.0014 .0014

2. 2.

3.0101-.0101 3.0101-.0101

2. 2.

1. 1.

22. 22. 11. 11.

13.9633 13.9633

10 10

Comp. Comp.

Population Population

VALUES VALUES

0 0

Y Y

0 0

.. ..

3.0 3.0

0 0

3 3

2.0 2.0

0 0

1.0 1.0

Brood Brood

22.0 22.0

11. 11.

14.0 14.0

TABLE TABLE

Actual Actual

32 32

0306 0306

0211 0211

0321 0321

0102 0102

0148 0148

02 02

. .

-.0106 -.0106

-.0033 -.0033

-.0121 -.0121

-.0194 -.0194

-.0172 -.0172

Error Error -.0044 -.0044

-.0117 -.0117

-.0085 -.0085

-. -.

CALCULATED CALCULATED

RENDER.BR.OOK-SPADE RENDER.BR.OOK-SPADE

32 32

0033 0033

ON ON

9789 9789

0321 0321

0172 0172

0044 0044

9852 9852

Population Population 02 02

. .

AND AND

. .

5.0121 5.0121

3.9694 3.9694

5. 5.

3.0194 3.0194

3.9898 3.9898

8. 8.

2. 2.

2.0117 2.0117

1. 1.

10.0106 10.0106

4.0085 4.0085

Comp. Comp.

0 0

5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0

6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0

0 0

4.0 4.0

8.0 8.0 3. 3.

2. 2.

10.0 10.0

1.0 1.0 4. 4.

Breeding Breeding

ACTUAL ACTUAL

Actual Actual

2 2

1 1

2 2

1 1

2 2

1 1

2 2

1 1

1 1 2 2

2 2

Bottom-

2 2 1 1

Broken Broken

Sand Sand

Hardland Hardland

Shallow Shallow

land land

• •

Chained Chained

Bottomland Bottomland Sandyland Sandyland

Deep Deep

Routh Routh

Rough Rough

Deep Deep

Deep Deep Very Very

Very Very Site Site

4 4

N N

~ ~

1968, 1968,

in in

habitat, habitat,

sprayed sprayed

bottomland bottomland

habitat habitat

Uncontrolled Uncontrolled

:Rottomland :Rottomland

a) a)

c) c)

d d

1970, 1970,

uncontrolled: uncontrolled:

June, June,

in in

and and

habitat. habitat.

sprayed sprayed

controlled controlled

habitat habitat

habitats habitats

bottomland bottomland

Bottomland Bottomland

Chained Chained

Bottomland Bottomland

d) d)

b) b)

1. 1. Fig. Fig. 25

TABLE 11

SCALED AND BOBWHITE QUAIL POPULATIONS ON BOTTOMLANDS AND DEEP HARDLANDS WITH BRUSH CONTROL AND A BOTTOMLAND WITHOUT BRUSH CONTROL, RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970

. ' . . . ' ••• '• .. I o. o o • I, '•• Oo • t I o I. '"- .. • '• ' " •o

Acres/Bird Habitats Bobwhite Scaled ..... Breec:ling Brood Covey.· . Breedii).g Brood Covey

Uncontrolled 22.5 4.5 1.5 30.0 0 2. 5 Bottomland

1970 Sprayed 8.2 6.0 9.0 3. 5 12.0 2. 1 Bottomland

1968 Sprayed 5.0 1.2 0.8 15.0 0 3. 6 Bottomland

1970 Chained 0 6.9 0 9.0 30. 0 0 Bottomland

1968 Chained 18.0 15.0 6. 9 0 0 0 Bottomland

1970 Sprayed 30.0 0. 8 0.8 45.0 81. 8 81. 8 Deep Hardland

1968 Sprayed 12. 9 1.2 3. 1 30.0 0 0 Deep Hardland

quail population dropped to 1 bird/ 15 acres. Apparently, something other than canopy removal forced the birds from this area since de- foliation does not occur immediately following spraying. Bird populations recovere-d; during July there were 1 scaled quail/ 12. 0 acres 26 and 1 bobwhite/6. 0 acres (Table 11). Covey population density was

1 scaled quail/2. 1 acres (greatest density of scaled quail sampled) and 1 bobwhite/9. 0 acres (lower than the other bottomland habitats).

A bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) sprayed in 1968 had a grass cover of 45. 2o/o (Appendix D) and this combined with a distribution of

. ·- woody species, mostly lotebush (Condalia obtusifolia) (Appendix B), created the best summer habitat for bobwhites (Table 11). The scaled quail covey population was 1 bird/3. 6 acres. It was of less importance as breeding and brood habitat for scaled quail.

The data from the plots on which brush had been controlled by chaining indicated that this practice was probably detrimental to both species (Table 11). One chained bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) was sprayed in 1965 and then chained in 1968. This habitat was utilized by bobwhites only during brood raising and by scaled quail during breeding and brood raising. It was not occupied by coveys of either species

(Table 11). The existing canopy cover in this area was 7. 8%, composed mainly of mesquite regrowth under three feet high. The grass cover was low at 11. 5% (Appendix D).

The second habitat that was sprayed in 1965 and chained in

1968 was not utilized by scaled quail at any time. However, this site maintained a moderate bobwhite population throughout the summer

(Table 11). The canopy cover in this area was only 0. 9% but it had a • grass cover of 50o/o (Appendix D). 27

Deep Ha rdland Habitats

The two deep hardland habitats (Fig. 2) had been sprayed in

1968 and in June, 1970. The 1970 sprayed area was highly preferred by bobwhites for the brooding and coveying periods but was of minor importance for scaled quail all summer. No quail of either species were observed on this plot for two weeks following the herbicide ap plication in June. Then populations increased, resulting in the bob white brood and covey population of 1 bird/ 0. 8 acres while during breeding there were only 1 bird/30. 0 acres.

The second deep hardland habitat (Fig. 2), sprayed in 1968, was of little importance as s ca1ed quail habitat. It contained 1 bob white/ 12. 9 acres during the breeding period and maintained high populations through the brood and covey periods. .~ ------~

Fig. 2. Deep hardland habitats: a) Habitat prior to aerial spray ing in June, 1970, b) Habitat aerial sprayed in 1968. CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Habitat

Scaled quail and bobwhite quail have evident differences in preference for breeding and brood habitat. Two of the larger breeding populations of scaled quail were found in a chained bottomland habitat and a rough broken habitat on which no breeding bobwhites were ob served. A similar rough broken habitat and a very shallow soil habi tat were the most preferred by scaled quail broods, but were not used by bobwhites.

Both species used the bottomlands as covey habitat, but the deep hardland habitats which were highly preferred by bobwhites were of less importance to scaled quail. The diffe renee s in prefe renee can be partially explained by the prediction equations for the two species.

When using the prediction equation for bobwhites care must be taken not to de- emphasize the importance of brush in their habitat.

The equation for breeding may lead to the conclusion that complete removal of brush will improve bobwhite quail breeding habitat and this is not true. The deep sand soil habitat which contained the highest

29 30

breeding population of bobwhite quail had a moderate distribution of

all types of cover (see Appendix D). What the equation does indicate

is that a reduction 1n canopy cover in a brushy area, coupled with a

resulting increase in grass or forb cover should increase the breed

ing potential for quail in that habitat.

The equations show reduction in canopy cover results in a decrease

in covey preference for that habitat unless there was an immediate tn

crease in grass and forb cover. It appeared that bobwhite quail do

require canopy cover, but a reduction in canopy cover can be com

pensated for by an increase in ground cover, either of grass, £orbs

or litter. The ground to crown height of existing canopy cover ap

peared more important in covey habitat than any other type of canopy

cover. Canopy cover having a ground to crown height of 1 to 2 feet

was most preferred by bobwhites. This may explain the preference

for low growing shrubs, such as lotebush, littleleaf sumac (Rhus

microphylla), and catclaw (Acacia sp. ). Quail flushed from cover

were associated with these three species 90% of the time. It ap

peared that these shrubs should occur in large clumps. They should

be large enough to accomodate a covey of 20 to 30 quail. The clump

size the quail seemed to prefer ranged from 5 to 15 feet in diameter.

Some type of canopy cover, either by itself or interacting with

the amount of grass cover, was a part of the most imporant variable in every regression equation for scaled quail. It would appear that 31 this variable exerts a greater influence on scaled quail than on bobwhites where only during breeding canopy cover 0-18 inches high X canopy

cover 1-3 feet high was the most important interaction. The percent

age of bare ground was part of an interaction during all three of the

summer periods for scaled quail. It was never included in the most

important interaction, however. In the field, there seemed to be a

closer relationship than was apparent in the analyses. Two of the

three most preferred habitats, sites Rough Broken 2 (Table 7) and

Bottomland 1 (Table 8) had low percentages of grass cover. The other

preferred habitat, site Bottomland 2 (Table 8), had a grass cover of

45o/o. However, most scaled quail observed in this area was within

100 feet of a dry creek bed that extended the length of the study plot.

When escaping, they usually ran or flew into the dry stream bed.

The regression equations for scaled quail contain a bias that I

suspect occurred when these birds were censused. Their method of

escape did not lend well to censusing with bird dogs. When located by

the pointer dogs, the birds would not remain in place and were observed

in many cases running out of the plot. The censused population may be

lower than the actual population.

Brush Control

Bottomland Habitats The exact effect of herbicide spraying on bottomland sites seems

determined by the type of canopy that remains afterward and the amount 32

of ground cover existing after herbicide application. The high covey

population of scaled quail in the 1970 sprayed bottomland habitat after

herbicide application indicated that quail may be unaffected by this

type of brush control. The reason appears to be the shrubby cover that

remains after herbicide treatment. Lotebush, littleleaf sumac, catclaw,

and other low growing shrubs may not be affected by the herbicides.

In bottomlands these shrubs, together with the dead stems or resprouts

of mesquite that the sprayed area may still contain, provide the cover .

necessary for scaled quail.

The bobwhite population decreased on the 1970 sprayed bottom-

land habitat indicating that the removal of brush was detrimental to

bobwhite quail. Unless sufficient ground cover exists on a sprayed area

a decline in population could be expected. Normally bottomland habi

tats without brush control have a low percent grass cover due to shad

ing and competition with brush species. This is the main purpose for

removing the brush. If understory improvement follows brush control, the long term effects of spraying on these bottomland habitats would

appear beneficial.

The bottomland habitat sprayed in 1968 and having two years to

recover maintained the most dense bobwhite population throughout the summer. Increased ground cover apparently compensated for the reduction in canopy cover. On sites such as this, as grass cover • increases following herbicide treatment, the potential for quail 33 also increases. The management practices and climatic factors that affect grass cover will determine the length of time it takes to make one of these habitats adequate for a good bobwhite population. Judging from the 1968 sprayed bottomland, this can happen in one or two years.

Chaining bottomland habitats appears to be detrimental to both species of quail. The low amount of canopy cover together with the low percent grass cover in the first sample plot made it poor habitat for both species. The second plot maintained a moderately dense bob white population. Apparently the bobwhites were able to tolerate the reduction in canopy cover because of the existing grass cover, but the potential for this habitat was limited by the lack of canopy cover which is required by both bobwhite and scaled quail.

Deep Hardland Habitats

The dense population existing in the deep hardland habitat that was sprayed in 1970 indicated that spraying on this site was not detrimental to bobwhite quail. There was a decrease for a short period of two weeks following application.

The differences in bobwhite populations in the two deep hardland habitats was probably due mostly to differences in canopy and ground cover and not from the herbicide itself. Mesquite was the dominant shrub species on these sites but it is of minor importance as quail cover (Jackson, 1969). Lotebush was the shrub species most often 34 used for cover on these deep hardland habitats, and since spraying with present herbicides has little or no effect on lotebush, spraying was not detrimental to bobwhite quail. For a deep hardland habitat to carry its maximum quail population, it would appear to need about 45% grass cover and 4o/o to 6o/o canopy cover, mostly lotebush. I think that one to three clumps of lotebush, 10 to 15 feet in diameter is sufficient and this combined with the regrowth of mesquite following spraying could provide excellent bobwhite quail habitat.

Since these deep hardland habitats were of minor importance as scaled quail habitat the effect of spraying these habitats could not be determined.

Management Implications

Chained bottomland habitats were used at times but generally appeared undesirable for both species of quail. Chaining large areas is not recommended at all and even in small areas it would be desirable if low growing shrubs such as lotebush and littleleaf sumac could be left. The plots in these habitats were located with one edge near the uncontrolled areas and extended outward into the chained areas. Al- most all quail in these plots were observed near the uncontrolled areas. Very few quail were ever observed more than half-way into

\ the plot. When flushed the quail of both species always flew out of the chained areas into adjacent uncontrolled areas. The centers of • 35 the chained areas were rarely used. The need for cover forces these birds to stay within easy flight of uncontrolled areas. Leaving strips of brush through the center of these areas and leaving certain species throughout would increase their potential and possibly produce a com bined bobwhite and scaled quail population of 1 bird/2. 0 acres or bet ter. If the area contained only scaled quail a recommended practice for chained bottomland habitats would be brush piling or addition of some artificial cover (Snyder, 1967). In areas having a high percent grass cover, fallow disking of strips (Jackson, 1969) should increase its potential as scaled quail habitat.

Management becomes highly complicated in areas where more than one species is involved. When managing for one species you must be careful and determine its effect on the other species. For example the bottomland habitat sprayed in 1968, having a bobwhite population of 1 bird/0. 9 acre and a scaled quail population of 1 bird/3. 6 acres, should not be altered to improve its potential as scaled quail habitat. The combined covey population in this habitat was 1 bird/

0. 65 acre which is higher than most managers believe possible. Any attempt to improve this habitat would probably be futile due to competi tion and other limiting factors exerting their influence. CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY

Vegetation and quail data were collected on fourteen study areas

in seven vegetation types, to determine habitat requirements, and

the effects of brush control on bobwhite and scaled quail. The vege

tation data were entered into a step-wise multiple regression program

as independent variables and the quail populations as dependent vari

ables.

The interaction between these independent variables accounted for

most of the variations in scaled and bobwhite populations during breed

ing, brood raising and coveying.

The effects of brush control will vary with the type of habitat,

the amount of preferred canopy cover existing before and after treat

ment, the amount of grass cover existing before and after treatment,

and the species of quail involved. Spraying in bottomland habitats ap

pears to be immediately detrimental to bobwhite quail, but has a minor

effect on scaled quail. As grass cover increases on these sites, they

should have the potential to carry a higher bobwhite population than the untreated habitats.

36 37

Chaining in bottomland habitats was detrimental to both species.

Strips of brush and selected shrubs should be left if these areas are to maintain a good quail population.

The deep hardland habitats were of minor importance to scaled quail, but highly preferred by bobwhite. Because of the heavy grass cover normally on these areas, spraying had little effect on either species unless all brush was removed.

In regard to herbicide spraying, I agree with Jackson (1969) who stated that brush control as currently practiced may be resulting in better quail habitat generally by encouraging sprouting of mesquite which results in low cover better suited to quail than tall mesquite trees. LITERATURE CITED

Ever_ette, E. 1952. Introducing the bobwhite quail. Texas Game and Fish 10(3):20-22.

Gould, F. 1962. Texasplants. Texas A & M Univ. MP-585, 121 p.

Hart, R. , and G. Veteto. 1969. Oak woodland wildlife management survey. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-74-R-13, 7 p.

Jackson, A. S. 1969. Quail management handbook. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Bull. 48, 77 p.

Jackson, A. S., and H. Green. 1964. Dynamics of bobwhite quail on the West Texas Rolling Plains. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-88-R.-3, 8 p.

Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland restoration--the problem. U.S.D.A. andS.C.S. JointPubl. No. 4-19114:1-10.

Schemnitz, S. D. 1961. Ecology of the scaled quail in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Wildl. Monogr. No. 8, 47 p.

Schemnitz, S. D. 1964. Comparative ecology of bobwhite and scaled quail in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Amer. Midland Natur. 77f2): 429-433.

Snyder, W. D. 1967. Experimental habitat improvement for scaled quail. Colorado Dep. of Game, Fish and Parks Tech. Publ. No. 19, 65 p.

Stoner, H. R., T. J. Holder, D. L. McCiennen and K. M. Templeton. 1969. Soil survey of Mitchell County Texas. U.S. D. A., S.C. S. and Texas A & M Univ., p. 30-45.

• r

Teer, J. T. and N. K. Forrest. 1968. Bionomic and ethical implica tions of commercial game harvest programs. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resources Con£. 33:192-204.

Wallmo, C. 0. 1957. Ecology of the scaled quail in Wes.t Texas. M.S. Thesis. Texas A & M Univ., College Station, 134 p.

Wing, L. W. 1941. . Size of bird flocks in winter. Auk. 58:188-194. APPENDIX

A. Data on breeding, nesting, brood and covey s1ze.

B. Percent occurrence and composition of plant species occurring

on the study area.

C. Data from bobwhite and scaled quail nests on the Renderbrook

Spade Ranch, 1970.

D. Line intercept and ground cover data.

E. List of plant species occurring on the study areas.

• 40 41

APPENDIX A: DATA ON BREEDING, NESTING, BROODAND COVEY SIZE

Breeding

The main features of reproduction appear to be similar for both species, differing slightly. Pairing was observed for both species in late April, but complete covey breakup was not terminated until late May. The first brood of bobwhite quail was observed on June 7,

1969 and on June 9, 1970. The first brood of scaled quail was observed on June 6, 1969 and on June 8, 1970 indicating that breeding for both species began in early May during both years. Juvenile birds one to two days old were observed for both species during the last ¥leek in August. The nesting season appears to be prolonged for both species from early May to late August.

Nesting

Ten bobwhite quail nest.~ were located in 1970. Predation had occurred on six prior to their discovery, leaving four that were incubated. Six of these nests were located in clumps of tobossa grass and four in clumps of three-awn grass (Aristida ~·). The clutch sizes of the four incubated nests were 12, 13, 14 and 15 with an average of 13. 5. Only two nests were successful. In the nest with 13 eggs 11 hatched. All 15 hatched from the last nest.

In contrast to the grass nesting habit of the bobwhite only one of four scaled quail nests was located in strictly grass cover '42 APPENDIX A (Continued)

(see Appendix C). The remaining three were in vegetation afford

ing more cover. The clutch sizes of these nests were 11, 13, 14,

and 14. The nests with 11 and 14 eggs were successful and in both

cases all eggs hatched. The average clutch size was 13. 0 as com-

pared to the 13. 5 for bobwhites.

A mixed nest was located in a clump of grass at the base

of a dead mesquite. It contained 10 scaled quail eggs and three

bobwhite eggs and was being incubated by a sc~.led quail. The nest

was destroyed a week after its discovery by a predator.

Predation

Nest depredation was quite evident and it is my opinion that

the skunk was the major predator. A strong skunk odor was evi-

dent at three of the destroyed nests and a skunk was actually ob-

served destroying one nest. The nests on almost all occasions

were completely destroyed and the crushed shells spread several

feet around the nest. Further research, however, is necessary to - determine the extent of this predation.

Brood and Covey Size

Quail brood mortality appears to be highest just after hatch

ing before the young are able to fly. The average brood size for bob • whites calculated from 18 observations of non-flying juveniles, was 43

APPENDIX A (Continued)

12. 4; whereas for scaled quail it was 13. 0, just slightly under the average clutch size for both species. The average brood size for bobwhites that were able to fly, from 26 observations, was 10. 2; and for scaled quail, from 24 observations, was 10. 6.

Covey formation is a slow continuous process, starting in

June and probably continuing into October. The first covey of scaled quail was observed on June 25, 1970. It was composed of four adults and 22 juveniles. The first covey of bobwhites, com posed of three adults and 20 young, was observed on July 7, 1970.

The average covey size in late August was 25. 9 for bobwhites based on 31 observations and 24. 5 for scaled quail, based on 37 observations. This is slightly uncle r the 31. 2 birds for covey reported by

Schemnitz (1961) for scaled quail, and much higher than 12.03 re ported by Wing (1941) for bobwhites.

~ ~

2.5 2.5

2 2

5.0 5.0

" "

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

4.8 4.8

2.5 2.5

CB CB

ON ON

22.5 22.5

15.0 15.0

20.0 20.0

1 1

2.5 2.5

CB CB

85.0 85.0

70.0 70.0

62.5 62.5

80.0 80.0

5 5

7.5 7.5

COVER. COVER.

2 2

27. 27.

25.0 25.0

75.0 75.0

SL SL

OCCURRING OCCURRING

5 5

2.5 2.5

7-. 7-.

52. 52.

37.5 37.5

30.0 30.0

72.5 72.5

67.5 67.5

SL SL

5 5

7 7

CANOPY CANOPY

2 2 1

2. 2.

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0

BL BL 2.5 2.5

SPECIES SPECIES

12. 12.

15.0 15.0

12. 12.

45.0 45.0

37.5 37.5

32.5 32.5

1 1

5.0 5.0

BL BL

15.0 15.0

12.5 12.5

35.0 35.0

25.0 25.0

20.0 20.0

PLANT PLANT

5 5

PERCENT PERCENT

2 2

2.5 2.5

DS DS

OF OF

12. 12.

92.5 92.5

IN IN

45.0 45.0

5 5

7. 7.

2.5 2.5

DS DS

97.5 97.5

30.0 30.0

87.5 87.5

47.5 47.5

GIVEN GIVEN

3 3

2 2 1

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5 7. 7.

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5

R.B R.B

1970) 1970)

17.5 17.5

20.0 20.0

25.0 25.0

COMPOSITION COMPOSITION

7.5 7.5

PLANTS PLANTS

R.B R.B

15.0 15.0

47.5 47.5

25.0 25.0

45.0 45.0

AND AND

RANCH, RANCH,

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5

10.0 10.0

40.0 40.0 27.5 27.5

12.5 12.5

50.0 50.0

40.0 40.0

WOODY WOODY

1 1 2 1

5.0 5.0

2.5 2.5

DH DH DH

37.0 37.0

12.5 12.5 12.5

35.5 35.5

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0

AREA. AREA.

2 2

vs vs

52.5 52.5

25.0 25.0

OCCURRENCE OCCURRENCE

0 0

2.5 2.5

1 1

2.5 2.5

vs vs

10.0 10.0

15.0 15.0

10. 10.

22.5 22.5

45.0 45.0

STUDY STUDY

(R.ENDER.BROOK-SPADE (R.ENDER.BROOK-SPADE

THE THE

PERCENT PERCENT

ba. ba.

se. se.

B: B:

di. di.

cu. cu.

tr. tr.

pa. pa.

~· ~·

ar. ar.

ra. ra.

ha. ha.

wr. wr.

lo. lo. oc. oc.

da. da.

wi. wi.

- ~· ~·

cu. cu.

mu. mu.

is is

Species Species

ristida ristida

Phalar Phalar

Leptoloma~ Leptoloma~

Festuca Festuca

Paspalum Paspalum

Hilaria Hilaria

Panicum Panicum

Hordeurn Hordeurn

Festuca Festuca

Chloris Chloris

Cenchrus Cenchrus

Eragrostis Eragrostis Buchloe Buchloe

Bromus Bromus

Boute1oua Boute1oua

Bouteloua Bouteloua

A A

Aristida~ Aristida~

Andro:eogon Andro:eogon

Aristida Aristida

Grasses Grasses

Plant Plant APPENDIX APPENDIX

U"\ U"\

.~ .~

5 5

2 2

CB CB

7. 7.

15.0 15.0

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0

CB CB

5 5

2 2 1

7. 7.

SL SL

2.5 2.5

95.0 95.0

30.0 30.0

SL SL

5.0 5.0

15.0 15.0

95.0 95.0

7.5 7.5

BL BL

2.5 2.5

12.5 12.5

25.0 25.0

35.0 35.0

10.0 10.0

5 5

1 1 2 1

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

BL BL

15.0 15.0

17.5 17.5

27.5 27.5

12. 12.

17.5 17.5

0 0

2 2

DS DS

45. 45.

67.5 67.5

DS DS

30.0 30.0

70.0 70.0

7.5 7.5

RB RB

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

15.0 15.0

5 5

5.0 5.0 7. 7.

5.0 5.0

2.5 2.5

RB RB

15.0 15.0

20.0 20.0

5 5

5.0 5.0

7. 7.

2.5 2.5

15.0 15.0

20.0 20.0

1 1 2 1 2 1

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0

2.5 2.5

DH DH DH

17.5 17.5

45.0 45.0

25.0 25.0

2 2

2.5 2.5

vs vs

50.0 50.0

17.5 17.5

85.0 85.0

45.0 45.0

5 5

1 1

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

5.0 5.0

2.5 2.5

vs vs

20.0 20.0

12. 12.

80.0 80.0

co. co.

.!:!:· .!:!:·

(Continued) (Continued)

~· ~·

..!P· ..!P·

~· ~·

B B

cr. cr.

am. am.

lu. lu.

- -

in. in.

ca. ca.

dr. dr.

te. te.

al. al.

.E!_. .E!_.

~ ~

ne. ne.

1~ 1~

Species Species

~ ~

ridens ridens

Clematis Clematis

Chamaesaracha Chamaesaracha

Cirsium Cirsium

Cocculus Cocculus

Centaurea Centaurea

Commelina Commelina

Cassia~. Cassia~.

Forbs Forbs

Aphanostephus Aphanostephus

Artemisia Artemisia

Ambrosia~ Ambrosia~

Amblyo1epis Amblyo1epis

Ac1eisanthes Ac1eisanthes

Allium~· Allium~·

Trisetum Trisetum

T T

Stipa Stipa

Ph1eum Ph1eum

Sporobolus Sporobolus

Plant Plant APPENDIX APPENDIX

• •

0' 0' ~ ~

2 2

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0 2.5 2.5

CB CB

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0 57.5 57.5

70.0 70.0

27.5 27.5

1 1

2.5 2.5

CB CB

40.0 40.0

45.0 45.0

37.5 37.5

25.0 25.0 55.0 55.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

2 2

5.0 5.0

SL SL

70.0 70.0

35.0 35.0

32.5 32.5

37.5 37.5

27.5 27.5

2.5 2.5

SL SL

77.5 77.5

15.0 15.0

17.5 17.5

45.0 45.0

2.5 2.5

52.5 52.5

15.0 15.0

35.0 35.0

10.0 10.0 12.5 12.5

1 1 2 1

2.5 2.5

70.0 70.0

BL BL BL

42.5 42.5

62.5 62.5

10.0 10.0

15.0 15.0

22.5 22.5

5 5

2 2

25.0 25.0

DS DS

12. 12.

22.5 22.5

20.0 20.0

57.5 57.5

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0

15.0 15.0

12.5 12.5

10.0 10.0

DS DS

40.0 40.0

75.0 75.0

5 5

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

7. 7.

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

5.0 5.0 17.5 17.5

30.0 30.0

10.0 10.0

32. 32.

RB RB

40.0 40.0

17.5 17.5

15.0 15.0

5.0 5.0

2.5 2.5

17.5 17.5

45.0 45.0

40.0 40.0

30.0 30.0

RB RB

17.5 17.5

2.5 2.5

40.0 40.0

57.5 57.5

90.0 90.0

40.0 40.0

5 5

5.0 5.0

2.5 2.5

1 1 2 1 2 1

55.0 55.0

2.5 2.5

30.0 30.0

55.0 55.0

42. 42.

DH DH DH

27.5 27.5

0 0

5 5

2.5 2.5

20.0 20.0

2 2

47.5 47.5

42.5 42.5

80. 80. 30.0 30.0

52. 52.

vs vs

40.0 40.0

0 0

2.0 2.0

2.5 2.5

10.0 10.0

10. 10.

1 1 25.0 25.0

5.0 5.0

17.5 17.5

87.5 87.5

22.5 22.5

20.0 20.0

vs vs

47.5 47.5

1a. 1a.

sa. sa.

dr. dr.

(Continued) (Continued)

an. an.

~ ~

1a. 1a. al. al.

nu. nu.

B B

wi. wi.

ac. ac.

~· ~·

te. te.

un. un.

su. su.

te. te.

.E_£. .E_£.

.&!.: .&!.:

mu. mu.

na. na.

Species Species

spyianthus spyianthus

sodia sodia

oton oton

r r

Gutierrezia Gutierrezia

Gos Gos

Gutierrezia Gutierrezia

Gaura Gaura

Gaillardia~· Gaillardia~·

Evax Evax Evo1vulus Evo1vulus

Euphorbia~· Euphorbia~·

Euphorbia Euphorbia

Erodium Erodium

Eriogonum Eriogonum

Dyssodia Dyssodia

Dys Dys

Dithyraea Dithyraea

Daucus~ Daucus~ Da1ea Da1ea

Cyperus Cyperus

Cruciferae Cruciferae

Croton Croton

C C

Croton Croton

Plant Plant APPENDIX APPENDIX ......

APPENDIX B (Continued)

Plant Species vs vs DH DH RB R.B DS DS BL BL SL SL CB CB 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Hedeoma -dr. 20.0 Hedyotis ~ 7.6 10.0 5.0 5.0 7. 5 7.5 7.5 Hedyotis hu. 45.0 17.5 2.5 2.5 20.0 Hoffmanseggia de. 22.5 7.5 2.5 Hymenopappus fl. 12.5 7.5 12. 5 Krameria 1a.- 2.5 7.5 15.0 Lappu1a re. 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.0 10.0 25.0 7. 5 32.5 5.0 Lappula te. 20.0 Lepidium ob. 2.5 25.0 12. 5 27.5 7.5 7.5 12.5 7.5 47.5 47.5 97.5 97.9 10.0 77.5 Lesquerella ar. 57.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 45.0 27.5 50.0 55.0 35.0 47.5 Linum le.- 5.0 10.0 57.5 37.5 5.0 2.5 10.0 5.0 2.5 22.5 Linum ri.- 67.5 72.5 60.0 42.5 22.5 37.5 10.0 52.5 45.0 17.5 17.5 15.0 Lithos12ern1um in. \ 15. 0 Lygodesmia ra. 7.5 2.5 2.5 Melampodium 1~ 2.5 42.5 20.0 52.5 Monarda ~ 15.0 7.5 Monarda ~ 70.0 80.0 27.5 Northoscordum bi.- 2.5 Oenothera ~· 2.5 7.5 2.5 2.5 Opuntia le. 5.0 5.0 2.5 12.5 Pa1afoxia S..£.:. 7. 5 PhysaF?~1o. 2.5 20.0 2.5

~ -J

• •

~ ~

00 00

2 2

1.8 1.8

2.5 2.5

CB CB

10.0 10.0

32.5 32.5

52.5 52.5

32.5 32.5

20.0 20.0

42.5 42.5

.4 .4

1 1

7.5 7.5

5.0 5.0

CB CB

37.5 37.5

30.0 30.0

2 2

2.5 2.5

SL SL

22.5 22.5 92.5 92.5

1.5 1.5

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0

2.5 2.5

SL SL

5 5

1.4 1.4

7.5 7.5

7. 7.

BL BL

10,0 10,0

12.4 12.4

97.5 97.5 65.0 65.0

1 1

.7 .7

3. 3.

1 1 2 1

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5

BL BL

12.5 12.5

30.0 30.0

15.0 15.0

25.0 25.0

2 2

2.5 2.5

DS DS

12.5 12.5

65.0 65.0

' ' 1

DS DS

27.5 27.5

30.0 30.0

.8 .8

.9 .9

2.5 2.5

5.0 5.0

7.5 7.5

2.5 2.5

7.5 7.5

22.5 22.5

12.5 12.5 R.B R.B

47.5 47.5

2.5 2.5

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

R.B R.B

27.5 27.5 12.5 12.5

35.0 35.0

22.5 22.5

5 5

5.0 5.0

7.5 7.5

2. 2.

DH DH 15.0 15.0

27.5 27.5

45.0 45.0

57.5 57.5

7.5 7.5 7.5

5.0 5.0

1 1 2 1 2 1

15.0 15.0

DH DH

27.5 27.5

72.5 72.5

22.5 22.5

5 5

. . 6

7. 7.

5.0 5.0

5.0 5.0 2 2

10.0 10.0

vs vs

32.5 32.5

45.0 45.0

5 5

. . 9

. . 1 .4 .4 5 5

2.5 2.5

7. 7.

1 1

2.5 2.5

10.0 10.0

12. 12.

vs vs

12.5 12.5

40.0 40.0

' '

~· ~·

~ ~

(Continued) (Continued)

~· ~·

te. te.

fi. fi.

- -

wr. wr.

tr. tr.

B B

la. la. it. it.

~ ~

bi. bi.

rh. rh.

tw. tw.

el. el.

[!_. [!_.

cantia cantia

_g!. _g!.

re. re.

ralcea ralcea

Species Species

Berberis Berberis

Zinnia Zinnia

Acacia.&!· Acacia.&!·

Artemisia Artemisia Atriplex Atriplex

Woodies Woodies

Xanthium Xanthium Yucca Yucca

Verbena Verbena Xanthisima Xanthisima

Teucrium Teucrium

Trades Trades

Thelesperma Thelesperma

Sphae Sphae

Solanum Solanum

Scutellaria Scutellaria

Polygala Polygala

Salvia Salvia

Plantago Plantago

Plantago~ Plantago~

Plant Plant APPENDIX APPENDIX

~ ~

.....0 .....0

.2 .2

3.7 3.7

2 2

CB CB

. . 3

1 1

CB CB

1 1

5. 5.

2 2

SL SL

.4 .4

1.8 1.8

6.5 6.5

SL SL

.2 .2

2.2 2.2

BL BL

. . 5

. . 3

.4 .4

2.4 2.4

1.9 1.9

1 1 2 1

1.3 1.3

2.9 2.9

BL BL

7.5 7.5

2 2

DS DS

6.5 6.5

1 1

DS DS

.7 .7

.2 .2

1.5 1.5

2 2

14.9 14.9

R.B R.B

1 1

2.4 2.4

1.0 1.0

12. 12.

R.B R.B

. . 1

2 2 1

DH DH

. . 3

. . 5

DH DH

.3 .3

.4 .4

3.0 3.0

2 2 1

Site Site

VS VS

. . 5

. . 3

. 6 6 .

5.0 5.0

1 1 Site Site

Site Site

vs vs

Site Site

Bottomland Bottomland

te. te.

Broken Broken

(Continued) (Continued)

Sand Sand

Hardland Hardland

Shallow Shallow

B B

ju. ju.

ha. ha.

ob. ob.

bi. bi.

le. le.

Chained Chained

Bottomland Bottomland

Sandy1and Sandy1and

Deep Deep

- Rough Rough

Deep Deep

Very Very

ac. ac.

mi. mi.

re. re.

fo. fo.

= =

Species Species

= =

tis tis

CB CB

BL BL

SL SL

DS DS

RB RB

DH DH

VS VS

Zanthoxylum Zanthoxylum

Vi Vi

Rhus Rhus

Quercus Quercus

Prosopis Prosopis

Opuntia Opuntia Min1.osa Min1.osa

Juniperus~ Juniperus~

Ephedra~ Ephedra~

Dalea Dalea

Condalia Condalia

Celtis Celtis

Plant Plant APPENDIX APPENDIX 50

APPENDIX C: DATA FROM BOBWHITE AND SCALED QUAIL NESTS ON THE RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 19.70

Species Clutch Eggs Cover Size Hatched Used

Bobwhite 6 0 Aristida Grass

Bobwhite 10 0 Tobossa Grass

Bobwhite 7 0 Tobossa Grass

Bobwhite 8 0 Tobossa Grass

Bobwhite 1 7'''~.- 0 Lotebush and Tobossa Grass

Bobwhite 13 -··~.- 11 Tobossa Grass

Bobwhite 15 ,~,,.. 15 Tasajillo and Tobossa Grass

Phalaris Bobwhite 12~~ 0 and Tobossa Grass

14 ,.. Three-awn Grass Scaled ~.- 0

Tobossa Grass and Prickly Pear Scaled 14~~ 14 Three-awn and Prickly Pear Scaled 13~~ 0

Scaled 11* 11 Buffalo Grass and Mesquite Mixed 13 0

I * Denotes nests that were incubated

• •

. .

.. ..

. . .

1-' 1-' (,]'1 (,]'1

0 0

5 5 8 8 7 7 8 8

7 7

0 0

9 9 0 0

8' 8'

8 8 8 8

o/o) o/o)

( (

37. 37. 34. 34.

56.0 56.0

59. 59.

70. 70.

59. 59. 59. 59. 50. 50.

60. 60.

64. 64. 62. 62. 67. 67. 68. 68. 40. 40.

Litter Litter

1 1 1 1 7 7

5 5

8 8 0 0 0 0

8 8 6 6

Cover Cover

3. 3.

5. 5. 4. 4. 5. 5. 4.0 4.0 6. 6. 6.8 6.8 6. 6.

6.5 6.5

3. 3.

4. 4.

(%) (%)

11. 11.

10.8 10.8

Bare Bare

0 0

3 3 5 5

2 2 5 5

5 5 7 7

Ground Ground

9. 9.

7.8 7.8

9. 9.

8.0 8.0

(o/o) (o/o)

17.8 17.8

10.0 10.0

11. 11. 12. 12.

10. 10.

10.0 10.0 16. 16.

14.9 14.9

19.4 19.4 22. 22.

Forbs Forbs

, ,

0 0

5 5

0 0

2 2 0 0 5 5

8 8

0 0 5 5

0 0

9 9

2 2

9. 9.

(%) (%)

Percent Percent

16.8 16.8

18. 18.

50. 50. 15. 15.

15. 15.

30. 30.

18. 18.

11. 11.

17.7 17.7 21. 21.

48. 48. 29. 29.

45. 45.

Grass Grass

9 9

0 0

2 2

0 0

3.4 3.4

0 0

2.4 2.4

0 0 6.8 6.8

4. 4.

11. 11.

19. 19.

1-2' 1-2'

25.0 25.0

50. 50.

to to

Height Height

5 5

DATA DATA

0 0

9 9

5 5 1 1

5 5

0 0

5 5

7 7

feet feet

1' 1'

9. 9.

0 0

3. 3.

92. 92.

77.0 77.0

20.2 20.2

61. 61.

39. 39.

72. 72.

32. 32.

34. 34. 0-

44.0 44.0

37. 37.

Ground Ground

Crown Crown

12 12

1000 1000

COVER. COVER.

5 5

1 1

5 5

0 0

5 5

9. 9.

Cover Cover

0. 0.

92. 92.

35.0 35.0

78. 78.

42. 42.

35.0 35.0

65.0 65.0

51. 51.

37. 37.

Total Total

109. 109.

162.0 162.0 213. 213.

Cover Cover

139. 139.

Intercept/ Intercept/

GROUND GROUND

1 1

Canopy Canopy 3 3

0 0

1 1

5 5

1 1

8 8

5 5

0 0

6.2 6.2

0 0

0. 0.

Line Line

7.2 7.2

6. 6.

14. 14.

18.7 18.7

47.4 47.4

31. 31.

11. 11.

17. 17.

25. 25.

AND AND

44. 44.

High High

18"-3' 18"-3'

5 5

3 3

0 0

7 7

8 8

3 3

5 5

9. 9.

0 0

6.2 6.2

3.4 3.4

0 0

86. 86.

77. 77.

23. 23.

23.8 23.8

47. 47.

24.7 24.7 12.6 12.6

22. 22.

15. 15.

High High

0-18" 0-18"

1 1

INTER.SEPT INTER.SEPT

2 2

1 1

2 2

1 1

LINE LINE

2 2

1 1

2 2

l l

1 1

2 2

D: D:

2 2

Bottomland Bottomland

Broken Broken

Hardland Hardland

Sand Sand

Shallow Shallow Hardland Hardland

Shallow Shallow

Sand Sand

Chained Chained

Sandyland Sandyland

Rough Rough Deep Deep Sandyland Sandyland

Deep Deep

Rough Rough

Chained Chained

Very Very

Deep Deep

Very Very

Deep Deep

Bottomland Bottomland

Site Site APPENDIX APPENDIX 52

APPENDIX E: LIST OF PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE STUDY AREAS. NOMENCLATURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOULD (1962) _

Scientific Name . CPrnt:non Name

Grasses

Andropogon barbinodis Cane bluestem

Aristida longiseta Red three-awn

Aristida purpurea Purple three-awn

Aristida wrightii Wright three-awn

Bouteloua curtipendula Sideoats gramma

Bouteloua trifida Red gramma

Bromus wildenowii Rescue grass

Buchloe dactyloides Buffalo grass

Cenchrus pauciflorus Sandbur

Hooded windmill grass Chloris cucullata Tumble lovegrass Eragrostis sessilispica

Sixweeks fescue Festuca octoflora Cluster fescue Festuca paradoxa Tobosagrass Hilaria mutica Little barley Hordeum pusillum Fall witchgrass Leptoloma cognatum Halls panicum Panicum hallii • 53

APPENDIX E (Continued)

Scientific Name C orrnn,on- N arpe

·Grasses

Panicum ramisetum Bristle panicum

Paspalum dilatatum Dallisgrass

Phalaria arundinaceae Reed canary grass

Phleum pratense Timothy

Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed

Stipa leucotricha Texas wi. ntergras s

New Mexico feathergrass Stipa neomexicana

Tridens albescens White tridens

Hairy tridens Tridens pilosus Prairie trisetum Trisetum interruptum

Forbs Trumpets Acleisanthes ~ Wild onion Allium~. Huisachedaisy Amblyolepis setigera Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya Plains dozedaisy Aphanostephus ramossissmus Louisiana sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana Dwarf senna Cassia pumilio 54

APPENDIX E (Continued)

Scientific Name Conrrnon...... Name

Forbs

Cassia romeriana Twoleaf senna

Centaurea americana Arne rican basketflowe r

Cirsium texanum Southern thistle

Chamaesaracha coronopus Green false- nightshade

Clematis drummondi Texas virgins bower

Cocculus carolinus Carolina snailweed

Commelina ~· Dayflower

Croton dioicus Grassland croton

Croton glandulosus Tropic croton

Croton pottsii Leatherweed croton

Croton texensis Texas croton

Cruciferae ~ Mustard

Cyperus uniflorus Oneflower flatsedge

Dalea nana Dward dalea

Daucus pus ill us Southwestern carrot

Dithyraea wislizeni Spectaclepod

Prickleleaf dogwood Dyssodia acerosa

Mayweed dogwood Dys sodia papposa 55

APPEND~ E (Continued)

Scientific Name Con::nn.on N~me

Forbs

Echinocactus texensis Devils pincushion

Eriogonum annum Annual wildbuckwhea t

Erodium texanum Texas filaree

Euphorbia albomarginata Whitemargin euphorbia

Euphorbia lata Hairy euphorbia

Euphorbia spathulata Warty euphorbia

Evax multicaulis Rabbits tobacco

Evolvulus nuttallianus Hairy evolvulus

blanket Gaillardia pulchella Indian

honeysuckle Gaura suffulta Wild

W olly cottonflowe r Gosspyianthus lanuginosus

Annual broomweed Gutie rre zia dracunculoide s Perennial broomweed Gutierrezia sarothrae Drummond hedeoma Hedeoma drummondii Needleleaf bluets Hedyotis acerosa Mat bluets Hedyotis humifusa Mesquite weed Hoffmanseggia densiflora Yellow wollywhite Hymenopappus flavescens • Trailing ra tany Krameria lanceolata \ 56

APPENDIX E (Continued}

Scientific Name C.ommon Na,rne

Forbs

Lappula redowskii Flatspine stickweed

Lappula texana Hairy stickweed

Lepidium oblongum Veiny pepperweed

bladde rpod Lesquerella argyraea Silvery flax Linum lewisii Prairie flax Linum rigidum Stiffstem

Narrowleaf gromwell Lithospermum incisum

Skeleton plant Lygodesmia ramosissima Plains blackfoot Melampodium leucanthus Horsemint Monarda pectinata Horsemint Monarda punctata False garlic Northoscordum bivalve Buttercup Oenorthera ~· Tasijillo Opuntia leptocaulis Flores tina Palafoxia ~ Purple ground cherry Physalis lobata Wolly plantain Plantago purshii Redseed plantain Plantago rhodosperma 57 APPENDIX E (Continued)

Scientific Name'· Common Name

Forbs

Polygala tweedyi Rock milkwort

Salvia reflexa Lanceleaf sage

Scutellaria wrightii Penland skullcap

Solanum eleagnifolium Silverleaf nightshade

Solanum rostratum Buffalo bur

Thelesperma megapotamicum Colorado greenthread

Tradescantia ~· Spiderwort

Teucrium laevigatum Annual germander

Verbena bipinnatifida Sweet william

Verbena plicata Whitevein verbena

Xanthisima texanum Texas sleepydaisy

Xanthium italicum Cocklebur

Yucca glauca Soapweed yucca

Zinnia grandiflora Plains zinnia

Woodies

Acacia greggii Catclaw

Artemisia filifolia Sand sagebrush

Fourwing saltbush A triplex canes cans • 58

APPENDIX E (Continued) .- Scientific Name Common Name

Woodies

Berberis trifoliolata Agarito

Celtis reticulata Hackberry

Cephalanthus occidentalis Common bottombush

Ce rcis canadensis Redbud

Condalia obtus ifolia Lotebush

Dalea formosa Feather dalea

ephedra Ephedra antisyphlitica Vine

bush Forestiera pubescens Elbow

Texas black walnut Juglans microcarpa

One- seeded juniper Juniperus monosperma

Catclaw mimosa Mimosa biuncifera

Mesquite Prosopis juliflora . Littleleaf sumac Rhus microphylla Bush grape Vitis ace rifolia Pricklyash Zanthoxylum texanum