Burger, Loren W., Jr.

Capel, Stephen

Crawford, John A.

Robel, Robert J.

Sotherton, Nicolas W.

English

University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace

National Quail Symposium ProceedingsVolume 3 Article 251993Appendix A: Agricultural Practices and PesticidesStephen CapelVirginia Department of Game and Inland FisheriesJohn A. CrawfordOregon State UniversityRobert J. RobelKansas State UniversityLoren W. Burger Jr.University of MissouriNicolas W. SothertonThe Game Conservancy TrustFollow this and additional works at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/nqspThis Appendix is brought to you for free and open access by Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion inNational Quail Symposium Proceedings by an authorized editor of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, pleasecontact trace@utk.edu.Recommended CitationCapel, Stephen; Crawford, John A.; Robel, Robert J.; Burger, Loren W. Jr.; and Sotherton, Nicolas W. (1993) "Appendix A:Agricultural Practices and Pesticides," National Quail Symposium Proceedings: Vol. 3 , Article 25.Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/nqsp/vol3/iss1/25172 Quail III AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND PESTICIDES STEPHEN CAPEL, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, 4792 Anderson Highway, Powhatan, VA 23139 JOHN A CRAWFORD, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 ROBERT J. ROBEL, Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-4901 LOREN W. BURGER JR., The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211 NICOLAS W. SOTHERTON, The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1 EF, UK. Citation: Capel, S., J. A Crawford, R. J. Robel, L. W. Burger Jr. and N. W. Sotherton. 1993. Strategic plan for quail management and research in the United States: issues and strategies-Agricultural practices and pesticides. Pages 172-173 in K. E. Church and T. V. Dailey, eds. Quail III: national quail symposium. Kansas Dep. Wildl. and Parks, Pratt. Agricultural practices have broad-scale in-fluences on quail populations. As time has passed, these once positive influences have now become largely negative. In spite of many problems faced by quail in contemporary, clean farmed agricul-tural environments, numerous proactive manage-ment and research opportunities exist. The par-ticipants for the Agricultural Practices and Pes-ticides portion of the Strategic Planning Workshop identified 3 broad categories of issues that have the greatest potential to impact quail populations in contemporary agricultural en-vironments: (1) general habitat loss and strategies for development and improvement, (2) use and management of agricultural chemicals, and (3) agricultural programs and policies. Issue 1.1 HABITAT LOSS AND STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT Extensive fanning practices and water develop-ment projects have eliminated vast areas of quail habitat and caused widespread fragmentation of the remaining habitat. Strategies l.1.1-Establish and maintain quail manage· ment areas within watersheds that are impacted by reclamation projects. 1.1.2-Develop and implement inventory and monitoring systems (e.g., geographic information systems) to identify the quality and extent of quail habitat, particularly where habitat has been severely restricted. 1.1.3-Conduct research to determine minimal and optimal sizes of management units and populations for quail in areas impacted by reclamation projects and habitat fragmentation. 1.1.4-Conduct studies of quail productivity in no-till and conservation till agricultural lands compared with traditional rowcrop and small grain environments. 1.1.5-Encourage acceptance of low-input, sus-tainable agriculture (cf., Robinson 1990), and use working demonstration farms to show application of economically practical quail habitat manage-ment techniques. 1. 1.6-Add wildlife to the list of traditional beneficial uses of water. Issue 1.2 USEANDMANAGEMENTOF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS Pesticides (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, and nematocides) directly and indirectly have adverse effects on game-bird populations. However, suffi-cient data are lacking to clearly support or refute the relationship between pesticides and quail. Strategies 1.2.1-Determine the chrect (e.g., White et al. 1990, Kilbride et al. 1992) and indirect (cf., Sotherton et al. 1993) effects of pesticides on quail populations. 1.2.2-Encourage agronomic methods and cul-tural practices that reduce quantities and change temporal use of chemicals to mitigate their effects 1Capel et al.: Appendix A: Agricultural Practices and PesticidesPublished by Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange, 1993Appendix A. Strategic Planning Workshop on quail populations (e.g., Conservation Head-lands , sensu Potts 1986). 1.2.3-Develop safe methods of applying pes-ticides. Issue 1.3 AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS AND POLICIES Federal farm programs include practices that severely limit the value of these programs for quail. For example the CRP and other set-aside programs include practices such as mandatory mowing in summer, promotion of exotic cool-season grasses (e.g., tall fescue [Festuca spp.]), emphasis on establishing tree monocultures , and lack of management options (e.g., strip-disking) for maintaining old fields, all of which reduce potential benefits of these programs for quail. In addition, state and local programs (e.g., weed control) reduce the quality of quail habitat . Strategies 1.3.1-Enlist Congressional support to modify current programs, such as the CRP, so they are maintained or improved for quail. l .3. 2-Establish "top down" (federal, state , coun-ty) policy formulation for implementation and enforcement with respect to enhancing wildlife habitat. 1.3.3-Identify specific problems and needs of quail in contemporary agricultural environments 173 and conduct research directed toward farm and quail management issues . 1.3.4-Develop a more flexible set of regional, statewide, and national guidelines for farm con-servation programs that better fit local require-ments of quail (e.g., use of native warm-season grasses opposed to exotic cool-season grasses) . 1.3.5-Quantify differences in weed control, erosion, and soil quality among fields that are mowed, strip-disked, and traditionally planted to crops. l.3.6--Change weed control regulations in federal programs to specify the control of only noxious plants . l . 3. 7-Seek development and implementation of new and existing legislation that mandates im-proved interagency cooperation and more equi-table allocation of agricultural conservation pro-gram funds at all levels of government. 1.3.8--Use government agencies and private constituency groups to jointly sponsor informa-tional materials (e.g., pamphlets and videos) per-taining to management practices benefiting quail in productive and fallow croplands. 1.3.9-Provide U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel (e.g., Soil Conservation Service agents) with training and information about beneficial management practices for quail. 1.3.10-Seek implementation of State Technical Committees, provided for in the 1985 and 1990 farm bills to improve interagency cooperation and provide better opportunities for input on wildlife implications of farm programs . 2National Quail Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 3 [1993], Art. 25http://trace.tennessee.edu/nqsp/vol3/iss1/25

Appendix A: Agricultural Practices and Pesticides

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&amp;context=nqsp

Appendix A: Agricultural Practices and Pesticides

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace