U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientic Investigations Report 2015–5070

Management of Conservation Reserve 

Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife 

Habitat Objectives
All photographs taken by Mark Vandever, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center.
Management of Conservation Reserve 

Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife 

Habitat Objectives

By Mark W. Vandever and Arthur W. Allen

Scientic Investigations Report 2015–5070

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Vandever, M.W., and Allen, A.W., 2015, Management of conservation reserve program grasslands to meet 

wildlife habitat objectives: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5070, 47 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155070.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Wildlife Habitat ....................................2

Non-game Birds....................................................................................................................................3

Gamebirds..............................................................................................................................................5

Northern Bobwhite Quail............................................................................................................5

Grouse............................................................................................................................................6

Ring-necked Pheasant................................................................................................................6

Waterfowl...............................................................................................................................................7

Mammals................................................................................................................................................8

Insects ..................................................................................................................................................10

Pollinators ............................................................................................................................................11

History of Grassland Management...........................................................................................................12

Natural Caused and Man-Caused Disturbance ............................................................................12

Ecoregion Descriptions......................................................................................................................13

Semi-arid: Historically Grazed (Shortgrass Prairies)...........................................................13

Semi-arid, Arid: Historically Ungrazed (Desert Grasslands and Shrublands).................14

Mesic: Historically Grazed (Tallgrass and Mixed-grass Prairies).....................................14

Mesic: Historically Ungrazed (Coastal Grasslands and Savannas)..................................14

Compatible Environmental, Social and Programmatic Goals......................................................14

Management of CRP Grasslands ..............................................................................................................16

Disking and Interseeding...................................................................................................................17

Grazing..................................................................................................................................................18

Burning .................................................................................................................................................20

Haying and Mowing............................................................................................................................21

Permissive Use of CRP Grasslands .................................................................................................23

Enhancement of Habitat Quality.......................................................................................................25

Landowner Views on Management of CRP Vegetation ...............................................................26

Avian Habitat and Grassland Biomass Production................................................................................27

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................28

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................30

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................30

Appendix 1. Latin names of wildlife species discussed in text...........................................................44

Appendix 2. Latin names of vegetation discussed in text....................................................................45

Appendix 3. Description of Potential Effects of Managing CRP Grasslands for 

Wildlife Habitat ...............................................................................................................................46

Figure

1. Primary nesting season in the United States.........................................................................24
Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands 

to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

By Mark W. Vandever and Arthur W. Allen

purposes. There is persistent concern that improvement seen 

in wildlife habitat and other environmental profits delivered 

by the CRP are ephemeral and last only as long as funding 

supports the existence of the program and its vegetative cover 

is properly managed.

An involved American population will continue to expect 

governmental policies to enhance long-term protection of natural resources and public health. Recent investigations furnish 

evidence that the collective economic value of environmental 

benefits delivered by the CRP likely exceed program costs. The 

mounting significance placed on environmentally-responsible 

land management is based in part on public recognition that 

social, aesthetic, and recreational values enhance the traditional 

uses of agricultural land. 

Introduction

A cooperative agreement was initiated in 1985 among 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service 

Agency, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agency,1 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National 

Ecology Research Center (heretofore referred to as the ‘cooperators’) to investigate effects of the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) on wildlife habitat (Farmer and others, 

1988; Hays and others, 1989; Allen, 1994). The nationwide 

1

Now the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center is now the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s Fort Collins Science Center.

Executive Summary

Numerous studies document environmental and social 

benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This 

report offers a synopsis of findings regarding effects of 

establishing CRP conservation practices on the quality and 

distribution of wildlife habitat in agricultural landscapes. On 

individual farms, year-round provision of wildlife habitat 

by the CRP may appear relatively insignificant. However, 

considered from multi-farm to National scales, such improvements in habitat and wildlife response have proven to be 

extensive and profound. 

Because CRP acres historically have been dominated by 

plantings of introduced and native grasses, this report focuses 

on issues pertaining to wildlife response to grass-dominated 

conservation practices. While the majority of CRP acres 

have been concentrated largely in the Great Plains and Corn 

Belt regions, 47 states (and Puerto Rico) have participated, 

resulting in measurable environmental benefits throughout 

the United States. Numerous investigations of habitat use by 

a wide range of wildlife species reveal that periodic management of CRP lands can enhance benefits through and beyond a 

typical 10 year (yr) general CRP contract. 

Over its 28-yr existence, the CRP has evolved into an 

effective integration of conservation and agricultural policies targeting fragile and environmentally-valuable lands. 

Landowners with fields enrolled in the CRP often are the first 

to observe improvement in the landscape, greater numbers 

and kinds of wildlife, cleaner water and air, less erosion, and 

they have the satisfaction of seeing fragile lands serve better 
evaluation began with 34 State Fish and Wildlife agencies collecting data under guidance and cooperation from the National 

Ecology Research Center and International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agency. The impetus for this evaluation was 

born, in part, from recognition that little information existed 

that described the effects of the USDA’s Soil Bank Conservation Program (1956–1972) on wildlife habitat. Recovery 

of wildlife populations affiliated with agro-ecosystems was 

not a primary goal of the CRP, but benefits to wildlife were 

expected. The cooperators recognized the opportunity to 

initiate multi-year, regional studies to monitor, quantify, and 

describe the consequences of specific conservation practices 

on wildlife habitats and related issues. Findings from these 

investigations enable refinement of CRP conservation practices, permitting the Farm Service Agency and USDA to 

further increase efficiency of conservation policies.

Numerous investigations by Federal agencies, State 

wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, and universities 

have examined the effectiveness of CRP policies in reaching numerous environmental objectives (Allen and Vandever, 

2012). Many perceptive summaries of CRP effects on the 

quality and distribution of wildlife habitat have been completed. For example, Reynolds (2005) provides a meticulous 

analysis of CRP grassland enhancement of upland-nesting 

duck habitat in the Great Plains’ Prairie Pothole Region, and 

Burger (2005) presents a discerning analysis of CRP habitat 

issues in the Southeast. Explanations of CRP accomplishments and management issues in the Midwest are furnished 

by Farrand and Ryan (2005), and descriptions of avian use of 

Great Plains CRP grasslands are provided by Johnson (2005) 

and Rodgers (2005). Each summary in these reports provides 

regionally-focused descriptions of benefits to wildlife brought 

by the CRP as well as documentation of problems which need 

to be addressed to maximize effectiveness of specific conservation practices.

The CRP was designed to address a number of economic and environmental issues affiliated with agricultural 

land use. As the program evolved over the last quarter of a 

century, environmental issues shaped design and on-ground 

implementation of the program. Since its initiation, the 

majority of lands enrolled in the CRP have been planted to 

introduced and native grasses. Conservation goals of the 

CRP were not intended to restore native grasslands or any 

other pre-agricultural environmental condition. However, 

in relation to furnishing required characteristics of wildlife 

habitat, various investigations suggest CRP grasslands can 

provide many ecosystem services similar to natural grasslands if native vegetation is planted and physical disturbances mimicking historical effects of fire or grazing are 

incorporated into long-term management. However, the ecological uniqueness of native grasslands cannot be replaced 

completely with planted grasslands.

Since the arrival of modern agriculture, many wildlife 

species dependent upon grasslands have declined in both 

distribution and abundance. Many of these grassland species 

have benefited from increased habitat proved by CRP. There 

is abundant evidence that numerous wildlife species have, at 

least temporarily, increased in numbers and distribution as a 

consequence of taking highly erosive and environmentally 

sensitive lands out of crop production and planting these acres 

with grass-dominated cover. The CRP has brought proven 

improvements in wildlife-habitat quality. These improvements 

reach from individual fields to broad landscapes, but continued 

provision of ecosystem services from the CRP are influenced 

by agricultural markets and policies and programs contained 

in the Farm Bill.2

Effects of the Conservation Reserve 

Program on Grassland Wildlife Habitat

Journey across an intensively farmed landscape with 

mile after mile of uninterrupted, cropped fields and you will 

see countryside largely incapable of supporting wildlife in 

meaningful numbers. Yet, vital habitat is provided when a 

relatively small amount of permanent, high-quality grassdominated cover is interlaced on the most environmentally 

sensitive lands of this landscape. This habitat can support a 

wide diversity of wildlife. The benefits to wildlife from these 

CRP grasslands associated with agricultural ecosystems are 

substantial {Heard, 2000 #558}(Heard and others, 2000). 

In decades immediately preceding the CRP, many wildlife 

species were no longer present within intensively farmed 

landscapes. Since the advent of the CRP, hundreds of studies 

have provided credible estimates quantifying the effects of 

agricultural conservation policies on wildlife. As a body of 

research, these studies document the influence of CRP on the 

quantity and quality of wildlife habitat since it was implemented more than a quarter century ago (Allen and Vandever, 

2012). The benefits described in these studies are in addition 

to the benefits from reduced soil erosion that originally was 

the primary environmental objective of the program. 

2

A comprehensive agricultural and food policy tool legislated every 5 years 

by the U.S. federal government

2 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives
Undoubtedly, many wildlife species have benefited from 

the increase in cover furnished by the CRP and enhancement 

of biodiversity within the agricultural ecosystem. But difficulties arise when defining optimal management strategies 

for wildlife species in agricultural ecosystems because most 

endemic wildlife species have unique habitat requirements. 

Vegetation communities in CRP fields are dynamic and change 

during the duration of the contract.3 The quality of wildlife 

habitat may coincide with changes in vegetative composition 

(Riffell and others, 2008). This complicates linking wildlife 

response to specific conservation practices, particularly if 

specific quantifiable goals (for example, species recruitment 

or vegetation biomass) are not identified (Gregory and others, 

2007). Wildlife response to improvement in habitat might 

not be directly observed in the field where the conservation 

practice is implemented. For example, aquatic wildlife have 

unquestionably benefitted from reduced sedimentation entering surface waters as a consequence of removal of erosive 

lands from production. The cumulative effect of each upstream 

acre where runoff has been reduced contributes to improved 

aquatic habitat lower in the watershed. The aggregate effects 

of conservation practices established under the CRP are difficult to quantify; however, ample evidence shows the benefits 

of these practices reach well beyond the fields and farms upon 

which practices have been established.

Non-game Birds

Most avian species have the potential to respond readily 

to changes in habitat composition and newly created habitats. 

Increased numbers of individuals, greater diversity in species, and higher rates of nest success often can be related to 

specific vegetation associations and improvements in habitat 

quality and quantity. Groups of avian species are of economic or social importance (there are an estimated 48 million 

birdwatchers; [Carver, 2006]), of ecological significance due 

to declining populations (for example, endemic grassland 

species), or both (for example, upland-nesting waterfowl). 

Compared to other wildlife species, most avian species are 

relatively easy to observe and monitor during specific seasons. 

Singing or displaying territorial males, nest density, brood survival, and other measures reflecting habitat use can be related 

to specific vegetation associations and conservation practices.

Because they are of public interest, respond quickly to 

changes in their environment, and are comparatively easy to 

monitor, avian species’ response to CRP conservation practices are well documented. Studies confirm that converting 

grain- and fiber-production fields to CRP has improved the 

quality and distribution of avian habitat and generally, the 

more-diverse and native CRP plantings have greater habitat 

value. The program has enhanced habitat for species with 

wide-ranging habitat needs as well as species that are highly 

3

A voluntary agreement between landowner and USDA to retire environmentally sensitive land in agricultural production and plant conservation 

covers in exchange for payment typically lasting 10–15 years. 

dependent on specific grassland characteristics. Primarily 

due to a lack of vegetation diversity and fragmentation, older 

monotypic stands of either warm- or cool-season grasses provide at least minimal structure and cover for improvement in 

habitat quality (King and Savidge, 1995). If maximizing habitat quality for birds associated with agricultural landscapes is 

a goal, diverse plantings with variable structure and cover are 

considered superior to monotypic stands. However, even CRP 

grass-monocultures have brought improvement in habitat quality for some avian species in intensively farmed settings. 

Many species forage in cropland, but farming activities 

(for example, tillage, chemical application, haying) permit few 

bird species to nest within tilled land (for example, mountain 

plover [Charadrius montanus], horned lark [Eremophila alpestris]) (see a list of wildlife species listed in Appendix 1). Of 

those species that do attempt to nest in tilled fields, reproductive success typically is low. Croplands and pastures normally support relatively common, generalist species, whereas 

CRP fields are known to support obligate grassland birds 

(for example, sedge wren [Cistothorus platensis], grasshopper sparrow [Ammodramus savannarum], dickcissel [Spiza 

americana], lark bunting [Calamospiza melanocorys], and 

Henslow’s sparrow [A. henslowii]). These bird communities 

are indicators of species that have relatively narrow, explicit 

habitat needs affiliated with grassland structure, composition, 

and management (Patterson and Best, 1996; Leddy and others, 

1997; Gill and others, 2006). For instance, increased abundance of upland sandpipers (Bartramia longicauda), grasshopper sparrows, greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido), 

eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), and horned larks are 

found in moderately to heavily grazed tallgrass prairies (Skinner and others, 1984; Saab and others, 1995; Powell, 2006), 

while Henslow’s sparrow and sedge wrens generally are 

absent. Many of these species experienced significant declines 

in abundance and distribution prior to availability of CRP 

grasslands (Reynolds and others, 1994; Johnson and Igl, 1995; 

Herkert, 2007a; Ribic and others, 2009). Those avian species whose local abundance has been most influenced by the 

presence of CRP grasslands generally have exhibited regional 

improvement in populations as well (Herkert, 2009).

Over 90 avian species have been documented breeding in 

CRP grasslands (Ryan and others, 1998). Some studies suggest 

CRP grasslands planted to a suite of native species have been 

shown to support a greater abundance of birds (Hickman and 

others, 2006). However, species richness has not been found 

to differ between types of CRP plantings (McCoy and others, 

2001; Hickman and others, 2006). Nest abundance has been 

found to range from 9 to 27 times greater in CRP grasslands 

than abundance found in crop fields. In six Midwestern states, 

bird abundance was 1.4 to 10.5 times greater in CRP fields 

than within row crops (Best and others, 1997). Nest success 

was similar between CRP and row-crop fields; however, total 

number of nests found in cropland was only 7 percent of that 

found in CRP grasslands. Mean densities of birds in Minnesota CRP fields were 313 as compared to 167 in pasture and 9 

in cropland (Leddy and others, 1997). 

Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Wildlife Habitat 3
Restoration of grassland in agricultural settings can 

furnish habitat suitable for breeding birds even if vegetationspecies composition is not similar to that found in native prairie 

(Fletcher Jr. and Koford, 2003). Some combination of variables 

including grassland species composition, structural diversity, 

size of habitat, time since disturbance, and management activities defines relations between grassland birds and their habitat 

(Peterjohn, 2003). Each species responds to these features 

differently. Therefore, one simple, all-encompassing conservation strategy will not address declines of bird species affected 

by agricultural practices. Some species benefit from frequent 

vegetation disturbance (for example, bobolinks [Dolichonyz 

oryzivorus] and grasshopper sparrows) while other species 

find greater suitability in undisturbed vegetation (for example, 

Henslow’s sparrow) (Herkert, 1994b; Herkert, 2007b). 

Bird species respond to differing characteristics of 

grassland defined by height, density, and structure of vegetation. These features vary as vegetation changes through years 

in response to disturbance or lack thereof. Consequently, 

grassland seral-stage is an effective predictor of use for many 

grassland birds (Fritcher and others, 2004), and suitability 

of habitat for a specific species needs to account for how 

grassland characteristics change through time. Birds requiring taller vegetation and residual cover normally are more 

abundant in mid-to-old seral stages of grassland development. 

Younger CRP grasslands (1 yr to 2 yr old) generally support 

a greater diversity and density of avian species. Older fields 

(3 yr to 6 yr old), typically with greater amount of litter and 

grass cover, support higher nest success (Millenbah and others, 1996). Insect diversity and biomass, which are important 

for brood-feeding opportunities, diminish as CRP grasslands 

age in response to lower diversity of plant species. The lack 

of flowering plants (forbs) in CRP grasslands also has been 

proposed as an important factor affecting arthropod abundance 

(Hickman and others, 2006).

Disturbance of CRP fields strongly affects their value 

for grassland birds. Disturbance through grazing and haying 

had more influence on bird community composition than did 

composition of the plant species established in CRP grasslands 

(Chapman and others, 2004). Conservation practices that do 

not allow for suitable disturbance generally will benefit only 

a narrow complement of birds regardless of grasses planted. 

The absence of fire or other management actions to prevent 

encroachment of woody vegetation into grassland can diminish habitat suitability greatly for grassland birds. Occurrence 

of grassland birds in North Dakota decreased rapidly when 

woody cover increased to only 5 percent to 20 percent (Grant 

and others, 2004).

Numerous investigations conclude that, although vegetation abundance and structure are good indicators of avian 

habitat quality, the vegetation species used for cover can affect 

which bird species benefits. In an assessment of avian habitat 

quality in Maryland, CRP-grassland bird-habitat preferences 

were determined more by vegetation structure than by plant 

species composition (Gill and others, 2006). Warm-season 

grass mixes came closest to approximating avian species 

richness found in native prairie in eastern South Dakota and 

western Minnesota (Bakker and Higgins, 2009). In southeast 

Nebraska, total abundance of birds and avian species richness 

did not differ between plantings of cool-season grasses with 

legumes and warm-season, native grasses (King and Savidge, 

1995; Delisle and Savidge, 1997). Plantings of cool-season 

grasses with legumes generally furnished the best conditions 

for ground-nesting bird species requiring low vegetation 

height and minimal depth of litter (for example, grasshopper sparrow), whereas warm-season native grasses provided 

better reproductive habitat for species nesting higher in the 

vegetation canopy and needing denser vegetative growth 

(for example, common yellowthroat [Geothlypis trichas] 

and sedge wren). Relative abundance of birds and nests also 

were similar between cool-season grasses (smooth brome 

[Bromus inermis], orchardgrass [Dactylis glomerata], and 

timothy [Phleum pratense]) and warm-season grasses (switchgrass [Panicum virgatum]) (see a list of vegetation listed in 

Appendix 2) planted on CRP filter strips in Iowa (Henningsen 

and Best, 2005). Warm-season grasses generally had more 

4 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives
vertically-dense live vegetation, taller residual vegetation, and 

greater richness of forb species, whereas, cool-season grasses 

generally had greater horizontal density and resistance to 

encroachment from weedy plants. Differences in bird-species 

abundance were evident between seasons, but overall, species 

richness, nesting success, and total use by birds in winter did 

not differ between cool-season grasses and legumes and native 

warm-season grasses in Missouri (McCoy and others, 2001). 

However, seasonal needs of wildlife differ, and introduced 

species of grass may well serve the needs of some bird species, at least during specific seasons. 

While most investigations report native grasses furnishing the most desirable habitat to encourage a complete assemblage of bird species, monocultures of introduced grasses 

(primarily old-world bluestems [Bothriochloa spp.] and weeping lovegrass [Eragrostis curvula]) have furnished habitat for 

some grassland birds in the Southern Great Plains (Coppedge 

and others, 2001; Thompson and others, 2009). Although nest 

counts were small, Cassin’s sparrow (Peucaea cassinii), a 

species in decline throughout its range, was found in unburned 

Texas weeping lovegrass monocultures (Oberheu and others, 

1999). The authors concluded that weeping lovegrass may 

not be the best cover for wildlife due to a lack of structural 

diversity and deficient thermal cover, although it is better 

than cropland. The grass does, however, furnish some avian 

habitat in fields bordered by cotton and may be the best option 

for addressing multiple conservation issues on sandy soils 

in the southern High Plains. An assessment of avian habitat 

quality in CRP fields planted to old-world bluestems showed 

disturbance through grazing or haying created the diversity in 

grassland structure needed to support a diverse assemblage of 

avian species (Chapman and others, 2004a). Without suitable 

disturbance in these plantings, the authors concluded the CRP 

will benefit only a narrow group of bird species regardless of 

plant-species composition.

Planting CRP fields with exotic, nonnative grasses can 

have unintended effects on avian use. No differences in nest 

density of chestnut-collared longspurs (Calcarius ornatus) 

were found between native prairie and crested wheatgrass 

monocultures in eastern Montana (Lloyd and Martin, 2005), 

but as a consequence of lower abundance of insects, nestlings 

in crested wheatgrass-dominated fields gained weight more 

slowly and took longer to fledge than nestlings in native prairie, resulting in greater susceptibility to predation. An analysis 

of insect biomass in Kansas CRP fields planted to old-world 

bluestems (a formerly approved CRP cover in Kansas) also 

revealed monocultures lacked forbs and sufficient litter to 

produce an abundance of insects (Hickman and others, 2006). 

The authors suggested the large area planted with old-world 

bluestem monocultures in the southern Great Plains may be 

contributing to a regional decline in grassland birds.

The benefits of CRP grasslands on avian species, as well 

as other wildlife, ultimately are dependent upon neighboring 

land use. The abundance of bird species in row crops increased 

as more grassland cover in whole-field enrollments and strip 

cover became available in the landscape (Bryan and Best 

1991; Best and others, 2001). In terms of grassland-dependent 

birds, land use has been correlated more with the amount of 

CRP grassland habitat provided in the field or from adjacent 

grasslands than with field age and size (Swanson and others, 

1999). Habitat quality generally is greater when CRP grasslands are located near or adjacent to existing grasslands, which 

create larger, contiguous blocks of cover rather than a higher 

number of smaller isolated grasslands (Johnson and Igl, 2001; 

Rodgers, 2005). 

Gamebirds

Northern Bobwhite Quail

Scarcity of nesting and brood-rearing cover has contributed to an overall decline in northern bobwhite quail (Colinus 

virginianus) habitat throughout much of its range (Brennan, 

1991; Cox and others, 2005; Burger and others, 2006). Investigations of bobwhite quail habitat have elevated recognition 

of the importance of providing bare ground and a diversity 

of forbs in CRP grasslands to improve their value as brood 

habitat (Madison and others, 2001; Greenfield and others, 

2003). Analysis of National Resource Inventory data (http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/

nra/nri/) and measures of grassland bird populations showed 

increased quail numbers in response to greater density of 

CRP grasslands less than 4 yr old (Riffell and others, 2008). 

Younger CRP grasslands (less than 4 yr old) typically have a 

greater percentage of bare ground and a higher presence and 

diversity of forb species than found within older fields. These 

characteristics directly affect the quality of nesting and broodrearing cover. 

Plantings of cool-season grasses, warm-season grasses, 

or a mixture of both types are capable of furnishing reproductive habitat for northern bobwhite quail if vegetation of 

sufficient height and density is provided. Introduced grasses 

have been associated with negligible improvements in habitat 

quality for bobwhite quail due to unsuitable structure, depleted 

vegetation composition, and an absence of food-producing 

plants (Barnes and others, 1995; Madison and others, 2001). 

Although introduced perennial grasses can furnish some 

environmental benefits such as erosion control and enhanced 

water quality, establishment of smooth-brome, orchardgrass, 

and tall-fescue monocultures in CRP grasslands has brought 

minimal, if any, improvement in the quality of quail habitat. 

The aggressive nature of these introduced grasses results in 

insufficient amounts of forbs and almost no bare ground, each 

of which is a critical component of bobwhite quail brood 

habitat (Stauffer and others, 1990; Roseberry and David, 1994; 

Barnes and others, 1995; Madison and others, 2001). Dense 

cover inhibits efficient movement and foraging by quail and 

other small ground-dwelling wildlife that are poorly adapted to 

inhabit dense, exotic grass stands (Germano and others, 2001; 

Newbold and Carpenter, 2005). Numerous investigations have 

focused on management of CRP fields to enhance habitat 

quality by increasing abundance and diversity of forb species 

Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Wildlife Habitat 5
in grasslands dominated by exotics (Washburn and others, 

1999; Madison and others, 2001; Greenfield and others, 2002; 

Burke and others, 2008). Disking, mowing, prescribed fire, 

herbicides, and combinations of practices have been useful 

in diminishing dominance of these exotic grasses. However, 

introduced grasses are aggressive, requiring disturbance as 

frequently as every 2 yr to maintain desired characteristics of 

grassland cover. Clean-farming practices and management 

actions such as poorly timed, infrequent or overly-intense 

burns (Brennan, 1991) and control of annual weeds (Greenfield and others, 2002) can have negative effects on the quality 

and distribution of bobwhite quail habitat. 

Overall, throughout much of northern bobwhite quail 

primary range, CRP lands comprise only a small proportion 

of its habitat. These fields often are embedded in landscapes 

containing grassland and woodland cover types (Weber and 

others, 2002). Conservation buffers, management of field 

borders, and focused CRP conservation practices (such as 

Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds) were recognized as having multiple environmental benefits in addition to improving 

the quality of quail habitat (Burger and others, 2006). These 

practices have been beneficial, but significant enhancement of 

quail populations can be expected only when availability and 

quality of habitat are addressed beyond individual farms and 

on a regional scale (Williams and others, 2004; Burger and 

others, 2006). 

Grouse

Prairie grouse populations require extensive contiguous 

habitat and have suffered greatly from range contraction due 

to grassland conversion to cropland (Boyd and others, 2011). 

Establishing CRP grasslands near existing native grassland 

elevates overall habitat quality to a greater degree for prairie 

grouse than does the presence of isolated grassland established 

under the CRP program. An evaluation of lesser prairiechicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), greater prairie-chicken, 

and sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) population responses to CRP grassland across parts of eight Midwestern states found the greatest population response occurred 

where CRP grasslands were situated near pre-existing grasslands (Rodgers and Hoffman, 2005). Multi-species plantings 

of native grasses furnished nesting and brood habitat of the 

greatest value to all three species. Grasslands 12 to 30 inches 

(in) (30 to 75 centimeters [cm]) in height with a high diversity of forbs were considered optimum cover composition for 

foraging and brood rearing. Grasses of greater height may be 

used as roosting and winter cover, but all three species otherwise avoided such stands. Invasive woody vegetation, eastern 

redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) in particular, must be prevented from invading CRP grasslands if suitable habitat is to 

be maintained for lesser and greater prairie-chickens as well as 

other grassland-obligate birds (Chapman and others, 2004b). 

Lesser prairie-chicken populations in Kansas have 

increased in localized areas as a consequence of CRP grasslands (Jensen and others, 2000; Fields and others, 2006). 

Availability of relatively-open vegetative cover supporting an 

abundance of insects (brood habitat) was believed to be the 

most critical habitat factor affecting prairie-chicken populations. Nearly 70 percent of lesser prairie-chicken nests located 

were in CRP grasslands planted to native warm-season grasses 

or enhanced with plantings of sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) or white clover (Trifolium repens) and several species of 

wildflowers. Lesser prairie-chicken habitat in CRP fields can 

be improved by mid-contract management practices (required 

since 2003 and conducted between the 4th and 7th year) 

such as moderate disturbance (grazing, burning, disking) and 

enhancement through seeding of forbs and native grasses (Ripper and others, 2008). The number of lesser prairie-chickens 

nesting in CRP grasslands suggests continuation of the program will assist in regional persistence of the species. 

Sharp-tailed grouse were rare to absent in Wyoming 

prior to the CRP’s provision of vital-grassland nesting cover, 

which permitted expansion of grouse westward from Nebraska 

(Wachob, 1997). Rodgers and Hoffman (2005) reported population and range expansion of sharp-tailed grouse in 10 of 12 

states correlated with CRP that were planted to cool-season 

grasses and legumes (primarily alfalfa [Medicago sativa]). In 

northwestern Colorado, 26 percent of leks were found in CRP 

grasslands, which composed only 3 percent of the area. In 

Idaho, the greatest level of sharp-tailed-grouse land use was in 

CRP grasslands interspersed with patches of native vegetation 

(Sirotnak and others, 1991). The CRP fields used were characterized as having high levels of grass cover and diversity in 

vegetation species. 

Critical habitat has been provided for Gunnison sagegrouse (Centrocercus minimus) in Colorado where CRP grasslands have enhanced roosting and foraging habitat as a consequence of higher grass cover and an abundance of forbs (Lupis 

and others, 2006). In Washington, CRP grasslands benefitted 

recovering populations of greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus) by providing crucial nesting and brooding cover (Schroeder and Vander Haegen, 2006). The amount of land use by 

greater sage-grouse increased as CRP grasses matured. Habitat 

quality of CRP was expected to increase in response to natural 

reestablishment of sage brush into the planted grasslands.

Ring-necked Pheasant

Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) populations generally have showed positive response to multi-year 

cropland-diversion programs such as the CRP and Reinvest in 

Minnesota grasslands (Kimmel and others, 1992). Examination of association between pheasant population and Breeding 

Bird Survey data across nine states shows positive correlation of ring-necked pheasants with larger amounts of CRP 

land present (Nielson and others, 2008). In Minnesota, for 

each 10 percent increase of CRP grassland in the agricultural landscape, pheasant survey numbers increased by 12.4 

and 32.9 birds per route in spring and summer, respectively 

(Haroldson and others, 2006). Pheasant numbers increased 

in Iowa by 30 percent in the first 5 yr of the CRP (Riley, 

6 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives
Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Wildlife Habitat 7

1995). Numbers of pheasants recorded on survey routes in 

Iowa increased when as little as 4 percent of the county was 

in CRP. Similar results were reported in locations where the 

greatest growth in pheasant numbers were recorded when 

CRP was added to Iowa landscapes most heavily dominated 

by rowcrops (Riley, 1995). Ring-necked pheasant nest success 

is higher in undisturbed blocks of habitat rather than small, 

linear, disturbed cover types (Clark and others, 1999).

Grasslands planted as part of the CRP in the Texas 

panhandle have benefited ring-necked pheasant numbers and 

distribution by the addition of grass cover across a landscape 

where non-cropland is uncommon and isolated (Berthelsen 

and others, 1990). Vegetation within and immediately adjacent 

to playa lake basins often was the only cover available in the 

intensively farmed region. The vegetation provided in CRP 

grasslands, often in whole-field enrollments, furnishes refuge 

and enables expansion of pheasants into otherwise inhospitable landscapes devoid of cover. 

The pheasant is recognized as the bellwether of sustainable habitat in agriculturally dominated landscapes (Warner 

and others, 1999). Well-established, year-round cover is 

critical for providing winter, nesting, and territorial habitat. 

Whereas CRP grasslands often furnish available nesting 

habitat, in areas of intensive wheat production such as eastern 

Colorado, CRP grasslands is the dominant cover available in 

early spring (Snyder, 1984). Hen nest initiation coincides with 

suitable, available nesting cover of a height and density quality found in winter wheat and wheat stubble fields (Snyder, 

1984; Snyder, 1991), but spring tillage of wheat stubble also 

coincides with nest initiation and tillage has been shown to 

have mortality rates higher than predation (Snyder, 1984). 

Nesting cover found in CRP fields has been shown to increase 

hen success at hatching a clutch, but does not necessarily 

increase long-term bird population density (Robertson, 1996). 

The vital habitat component provided by CRP cover is often 

the high-quality brood habitat for pheasants and other wildlife 

where both vegetative cover and food are provided year-round 

(Warner and others, 1999).

Winter cover, described as areas where pheasants congregate in loose flocks, are composed of woody areas, dense 

scrubby cover, and tall residual vegetation (Robertson, 1996). 

In more northern regions, winter cover for ring-necked pheasants is provided by robust wetland vegetation such as cattails 

(Typha spp.) and ungrazed grasslands. During the most severe 

winter weather, wetland vegetation and ungrazed grasslands 

may become snow covered, eliminating vital thermal cover. 

Investigations in South Dakota found that planting of taller, 

robust, warm-season native grasses provided better winter 

cover for ring-necked pheasants than did cool-season CRP 

grasslands, which became flattened by snowfall more easily 

than ungrazed native grasses (Eggebo and others, 2003; Larsen 

and others, 1994). However, when compared to warm-season 

grasses, grasslands planted to cool-season species furnished 

superior nesting habitat, as sufficient cover was available 

earlier in the nesting season (Eggebo and others, 2003; Leif, 

2005). These findings led to the conclusion the best grassland 

habitat for ring-necked pheasants would be a mosaic of both 

cool-season grasses with a legume component and warmseason grass mixes. Dense monocultures of any grass types are 

inferior to diverse grass-legume plantings. Multiple cover types 

planted in close proximity provide refuge from unforeseen 

events such as major winter weather (Homan and others, 2000). 

Absence of vegetation diversity in early CRP plantings 

limited habitat benefits of CRP to ring-necked pheasants. 

Availability and quality of brood habitat may be one of the 

most limiting characteristics of pheasant habitat. The quality 

of unmanaged CRP grassland as brood habitat will diminish 

as fields age and become dominated by grasses. The quality 

of CRP grasslands as brood habitat improved where legumes 

and other forbs were inter-seeded and the amount of bare 

ground increased (Rodgers, 1999). Native grasses themselves 

furnish minimal food to pheasants. Waste grain and weed 

seeds in cropland are the primary forage for pheasants. With 

the persistent use of herbicides on cropland and diminishing 

abundance of weed seeds and insects, the food value of cropland for pheasants has declined (Rodgers, 1999; Krapu and 

others, 2004). The presence of forbs in structurally diverse 

CRP grasslands may increase in importance to pheasants and 

other wildlife where foods are becoming less available in 

farmed lands.

Waterfowl

The CRP increased the number of ducks produced in the 

Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) by an estimated 12.4 million 

ducks between 1992 and 1997 (Reynolds and others, 2001). 

Assuming no major changes in enrollment patterns, more 

than an additional 13 million ducks (2.2 million per year) 

are believed to have been produced between 1998 and 2002, 

providing an estimated 25 million additional ducks due to CRP 

(Reynolds, 2005). The study emphasized that grassland covers 

established by CRP were as important if not more important 
8 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

than the CRP wetlands. Nest success of upland nesting ducks 

(for example, mallard [Anas platyrhynchos] and blue-winged 

teal [A. discors]) was 46 percent greater in PPR CRP grasslands as compared to non-CRP covers, and duck nest success was higher on tracts of CRP grassland than on any other 

major cover type. An investigation of avian use of Minnesota 

public lands also revealed duck density and species richness 

was greater on CRP grasslands than recorded on public lands 

(Cunningham, 2005). Thirty-percent of all successful duck 

nests in the PPR study area were located in CRP covers that 

accounted for only 7 percent of cover on the landscape. The 

positive response by ducks to the CRP is in response to fairlylarge contiguous units of comparatively-tall, dense, perennial 

grasslands planted in close proximity to wetlands. 

Wetlands embedded in grasslands are superior nesting and 

foraging habitat for ducks than equivalent-sized wetlands occurring in cropland. As the CRP developed, it became apparent that 

better wildlife habitat would result from locating grasslands near 

existing wetlands and non-farmed areas such as Waterfowl Production Areas (Hurley and others, 1996). As of 2005, analysis 

of CRP grasslands showed 75 percent of CRP contracts in the 

PPR to be located in areas of high or medium duck accessibility 

zones and benefit upland-nesting waterfowl (Reynolds and others, 2006). Conservation goals of CRP and Swampbuster, each 

authorized in the 1985 Food Security Act, complemented each 

other by providing high-quality nest cover adjacent to smaller 

wetlands sheltered from tillage. It is estimated that over 230,000 

small, temporary, and seasonal wetlands were embedded in CRP 

grasslands in the PPR (Reynolds, 2005). An estimated 492,000 

pairs of ducks are believed to have been attracted to these wetlands annually between 2000 and 2003. 

Mammals

From field to landscape scale, habitat enhancement from 

deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) to moose (Alces alces) 

has been attributed to conservation practices established under 

the CRP. Although mice and other small mammals typically 

are not considered in management decisions, their presence 

increases the diversity of wildlife affiliated with CRP and 

agricultural landscapes. Small mammal populations are sensitive to alterations in habitat. Therefore, diversity in populations generally correlates positively with vegetation structure, 

diversity, and complexity, which furnishes opportunities for 

assessing changes in ecological conditions as well as habitat 

quality (Rucker, 2001; Olson and Brewer, 2003; Sammon, 

2005). A greater abundance and variety of small mammals has 

been associated with establishment of CRP grasslands, which 

have, in turn, supported a diversity of wildlife, including avian 

and mammalian predators (Evrard and others, 1991; Davis, 

1998; Olson and Brewer, 2003). 

Mammals and other wildlife species responded to habitats 

influenced by the CRP on multiple scales. For example, swift 

fox (Vulpes velox), a species of concern in some western 
regions, avoided northwestern Texas CRP fields planted 

to old-world bluestem. This planted, non-native grass was 

taller and more dense than grasses found in native shortgrass 

prairies (Kamler and others, 2003). The homogenous nature 

of old-world bluestem fields resulted in lower within-field 

prey diversity and restriction of swift fox mobility and visibility. However, greater amounts of habitat edge and diversity 

provided in a landscape containing CRP grasslands furnished 

a greater diversity of prey species than found strictly within 

native prairie (Kamler and others, 2007). Swift fox diets in 

CRP-dominated landscapes comprised insects, birds, and mammals (primarily black-tailed jackrabbits [Lepus californicus] 

and cottontail rabbits [Sylvilagus spp.]). In sites dominated by 

native prairie, swift fox diets were predominately insects.

Kamler and others (2005) concluded that resident coyotes 

(Canis latrans) in northwest Texas maintained small home 

ranges on native prairie, whereas transient coyotes used CRP 

fields dominated by old-world bluestem to a greater level. 

Native prairie was thought to contain a greater amount and 

greater diversity of prey species than was found within the CRP 

fields; therefore, use of these fields was dominated by resident 

coyotes. The CRP fields furnished the only tall, permanent 

vegetation in the study area, giving the best available cover 

for transient coyotes. Resident coyotes did take advantage of 

the taller grassland cover provided by CRP in winter months. 

Eighty-percent of coyote natal dens were found in CRP fields.

Former cropland in Delta Junction, Alaska (enrolled in 

the CRP) originally planted to smooth brome and red fescue 

(Festuca rubra) are transitioning from grasslands into shrublands. A greater abundance of native grasses, forbs, shrubs, 

and tree species was recorded as CRP fields aged (Seefeldt 

and others, 2010). Young, grass dominated CRP fields were 

believed to furnish good habitat for bison (Bison bison) 

whereas older, shrub dominated fields were good habitat for 

moose. In more intensively farmed regions in the lower 48 

states, CRP grasslands have improved the quality and distribution of habitat for large mammals. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. hemionus), and pronghorn 

antelope (Antilocapra americana) have benefited from 

improvements in foraging areas, fawning sites, and the presence of relatively tall, diverse vegetative cover in otherwise 

heavily farmed landscapes (Griffin, 1991; Gould and Jenkins, 

1993; Wachob, 1997; Grovenburg and others, 2010). These 

enhancements in availability and quality of habitat have been 

documented at field as well as landscape scales. 

Kamler and others (2001) illustrate the significance of 

CRP in expanding a species distribution for mule deer in 

Texas. Over-hunting and habitat loss diminished mule deer 

abundance and distribution throughout most of the Panhandle 

by the 1940s. Remnant populations were found only in major 

drainages associated with the Canadian River where topography furnished adequate cover. Deer were extremely rare 

Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Wildlife Habitat 9
10 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

or absent from the flat terrain dominated by agriculture and 

shortgrass prairie. By 1985, mule deer distribution increased 

to 48 percent of Panhandle counties due to reintroductions 

and limited natural expansion of range. Mule deer distribution 

between 1985 and 2000 nearly doubled and deer inhabited 

88 percent of Panhandle counties as more than 1.4 million 

acres of CRP grasslands were established during those years. 

The CRP fields provided taller vegetative cover (primarily 

old-world bluestem) than native grasslands and enhanced the 

distribution of cover across the otherwise uniform landscape 

dominated by crop fields. The elevated amount of grassland 

cover and its interspersion within cropland have permitted 

mule deer to expand their range across much of the Texas 

Panhandle. When asked permission to sample CRP vegetation 

on their enrolled lands, many Panhandle landowners told Cade 

and others (2005) that they had seen deer on their farms for the 

first time in decades. They attributed the renewed occurrence 

of deer to the presence of CRP grasslands. 

Insects

With millions of acres of CRP grassland located in 

American landscapes, the potential opportunities to enhance 

habitat quality for desirable insect species appear substantial. 

The majority of research on CRP grassland characteristics and 

insect abundance, distribution, and diversity has been focused 

on insect availability as food for game and songbirds. These 

studies concentrated largely on differences between types of 

grass plantings (for example, nonnative versus native species 

and warm-season versus cool-season, grasses), age of grassland, and characterization of vegetation management regimes 

to maximize availability of insects. Many of the recommendations made for the invigoration of mature CRP grasslands 

are focused on improving habitat for insects in relation to 

providing forage for game and non-game birds. To date, there 

has been no published research investigating abundance or 

distribution of pollinator insects in relation to dissimilar CRP 

conservation practices.

There are believed to be over 163,000 species of insects 

(both identified and non-described) north of the Mexican 

border (Hodges, 1995). Insects provide numerous ecological benefits including pollination of natural vegetation and 

agricultural crops. Insects are a critical source of nutrition for 

wildlife. Ecological services provided by insects (for example, 

amendment to soil quality, pest control, pollination, and wildlife nutrition) in the United States are conservatively valued at 

$57 billion annually, but the true economic and environmental 

importance of these species and other insects remains largely 

unknown and underappreciated (Losey and Vaughan, 2006). 

Because of adaptation to their environment, changes in 

insect diversity and abundance are indicative of habitat loss 

and environmental changes. Within agricultural landscapes, 

diversity in insect populations is related to plant-species diversity, structural diversity of vegetation, size of available habitat, 

and spatial distribution of suitable habitat. The intensification of agricultural land use, including greater dependence on 

pesticides and herbicides, and disease are factors contributing 

to lower numbers of desirable insects.

Not surprisingly, numbers, density, and diversity of insects 

found within cropland are much lower than in adjacent CRP 

grasslands and other non-farmed land (Best and others, 1995; 

Cederbaum and others, 2004; Doxon and Carroll, 2010). Disturbance of cropland through annual tillage, seasonal absence 

of vegetative cover, and application of herbicides and pesticides 

contribute to the negligible numbers of insects present on tilled 

acres. Annually, haying grasslands in Kansas greatly reduced 

vegetative litter, negatively affecting habitat quality for grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Caelifera) and beetles (Coleoptera spp.) 

and decreasing these species’ abundance (Jonas and others, 

2002). Uncultivated habitats close to crop fields have been 

shown to enhance effectiveness of natural pollinators, support 

insect species that prey on crop pests, and elevate crop yields 

(which positively affects farm profits) (Fox and others, 2004; 

Morandin and Winston, 2006; Bauer and Wing, 2010). 

Grasslands containing the greatest numbers of forb species support larger biomass and abundances of insects than 

do less-diverse fields (Burger and others, 1993; McIntyre and 

Thompson, 2003; Reeder and others, 2005; Hickman and 

others, 2006; Doxon and Carroll, 2007). Biomass of beneficial insects was found to be 12 times greater in grassland 

with complex diversity in vegetation than in grassland within 

monocultures (Taylor and others, 2006). Insect biomass was 

eight times greater in plots of intermediate vegetation diversity 

than recorded in monocultures. Insect diversity and biomass 

typically decrease as forbs become less abundant in grassdominated fields. Over time, without disturbance, the presence 

of forbs in CRP grasslands becomes negligible (Baer and others, 2002; Cade and others, 2005). 

The advantages brought by higher abundance of insects 

do not always require radical changes in farming practices. 

Areas devoted to permanent cover, even if only in grasses, 

often support higher abundance of insects than found within 

conventionally-tilled fields (Rodenhouse and others, 1993). 

Insect abundance generally is higher near permanently vegetated field edges and within crop fields surrounded by more 

complex composition in vegetation. Establishment of relatively small, non-farmed sites supporting grasses and perennial flowering plant species is essential for increasing insect 

diversity within intensively farmed landscapes. Small areas of 

non-farmed land intertwined with cropland furnish pollinating and other insects with habitat and corridors for movement 

across otherwise inhospitable landscapes (Kremen and others, 

2002; Davros and others, 2006). Within cotton fields where 

strips of clover had been incorporated, insect abundance was 

greater than in both conservation-tillage and conventional crop 

fields (Cederbaum and others, 2004). 

There has been no evidence suggesting that CRP grasslands are a source of insect pests for adjacent crops. Stands of 

weeping lovegrass planted under the CRP in Texas furnished 

only marginal over-wintering habitat for the boll weevil 

(Anthonomus grandis). Winter survival and emergence of the 

pest species was consistently lower in CRP grassland than 
recorded in nearby native covers (Carroll and others, 1993). 

Grasslands established under the CRP were not believed to be a 

source area for damaging insects and may be beneficial by providing habitat for predators and parasites of insect species that 

damage cotton crops (Phillips and others, 1991; Hoernemann 

and others, 2001). 

Pollinators

Recognition of the importance of insects as pollinators 

and indicators of environmental quality has grown in recent 

years, in part in response to declines in honey bee (Apis 

mellifera) populations. Unfortunately, as recognition of the 

significance and demand for pollination services is increasing, 

wild-pollinator abundance and diversity continue to decline 

(Spivak and others, 2011). Much of the pollination credited 

to honey bees is performed by other bee species and insects 

(Southwick and Southwick Jr, 1992). Approximately 3,500 

native bee species occupy North America, many of which are 

important for pollination. It has been estimated that 60 percent 

to 90 percent of plant species require pollination services by 

animals (Kremen and others, 2007) and one in every three 

mouthfuls of food by humans depends on bees and other pollinators (Buchmann and Nabhan, 1996). Populations of wild 

pollinators have the potential to mitigate declining pollination services furnished by honey bees if habitats of sufficient 

quality and distribution are provided within agricultural lands 

(Kremen and others, 2002). 

The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 introduced the Pollinator Habitat Initiative as a means to address 

some of these concerns by maximizing ecological services 

using CRP lands to target pollinator conservation. Effective pollinator habitat is complementary to other conservation lands planted for wildlife habitat and may help mitigate 

declines of native and managed pollinators as well as reduce 

habitat fragmentation and degradation of floral diversity. In 

highly-engineered agricultural landscapes, floral diversity at 

local and broader landscape scales is fundamental for successful bee populations. Unlike many avian species, wild bees 

are extremely limited in maximum foraging distance; thus, 

conservation strategies need to be at appropriate spatial scales. 

Wild bees frequently have spatially separated nesting habitat 

and food sources. Nesting and foraging habitat being separated 

by less than a few hundred meters is critical for a dynamic 

bee population (Zurbuchen and others, 2010). Although nesting habitat is more of a limiting factor than availability of 

food source, successful reproduction relies on the ability to 

bridge the distance between habitat and forage (Gathmann and 

Tscharntke, 2002). Successful monitoring and evaluation of 

USDA pollinator habitat plantings will require an integrated 

landscape-modeling approach, as population response essentially is tied to usable habitat. 

Ongoing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies are 

evaluating the extent to which CRP grasslands provide additional ecosystem services such as providing managed and wild 

pollinators refuge and habitat. Efforts are being made to model 

Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on Grassland Wildlife Habitat 11
12 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

• Management prescriptions for avian species of conservation concern vary regionally and as fields age;

• Many CRP contractees value wildlife and seek information on how to best manage for wildlife. 

History of Grassland Management

The North American grassland is a slowly evolved but 

highly complex biome dating back 25 million years. When 

European settlers came to North America, they discovered that 

a boundless area of grasses and forbs blanketed the central part 

of the continent (Weaver, 1954). Acre by acre, this grassland 

was profoundly altered by modern man, until only a small percentage of what once spanned from the foothills of the Rocky 

Mountains to western Indiana and Wisconsin and from Canada 

to the Mexican border exists today (Samson and Knopf, 1994). 

The last century brought dramatic changes to the American landscape as specialization in crop production resulted in 

lands farmed more intensively at the expense of grasslands 

and loss of habitats for wildlife. Agricultural practices have 

the single largest effect on the character of our landscape and 

the future of wildlife (Grewell and others, 2003). The principal 

threat to wildlife from converting grasslands to cropland and 

development is the reduction and fragmentation of habitat. For example, grassland birds, which are predominantly 

habitat specialists and area sensitive, are negatively affected 

by habitat fragmentation and are found in lower densities in 

landscapes lacking sufficient patches of open habitat (Helzer 

and Jelinski, 1999). Most of the prairies and wetlands of the 

Great Plains states have been converted to agricultural production, resulting in a substantial simplification of ecosystem 

diversity across much of the agricultural landscape. The loss 

of idle, non-farmed areas in agroecosystems, in combination 

with less diversity in crops, continues to affect the distribution 

and quality of habitats for both resident and migratory wildlife. Conservation practices have been beneficial in lessening 

unwanted effects of agricultural production (that is, conversion 

of grasslands) by implementing USDA programs such as the 

CRP that help meet landscape-level environmental goals. But, 

planting conservation covers on the landscape alone is not 

sufficient to meet most wildlife habitat requirements without 

implementing management of the cover. 

Natural Caused and Man-Caused Disturbance

Disturbances are natural or anthropogenic in origin 

(Turner and others, 2003) and have been described as “any 

relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, 

community or population structure and changes resources, 

substrate availability, or the physical environment” (White and 

Pickett, 1985, p. 7). Native grasslands evolved with ecological 

disturbances. Although the frequency, timing, and origin of a 

disturbance may be debated, its significance from an ecological 

interactions between plants and pollinators in USDA conservation plantings as well as in wetlands, annual grain crops, 

rangelands, and public lands in order to assess the utility of 

these lands for targeting successful management of bees. 

Investigations between CRP grasslands and the quality of 

habitat have led to several broad conclusions: 

• Grass cover furnishes better breeding and wintering 

cover than does cropland;

• Grassland vegetation characteristics (for example, 

density, height, species composition) change through 

time and furnish habitat for different species as grass 

plantings age;

• Grasslands containing greater diversity of vegetation 

composition and structure provide better habitat for a 

greater number of species than less-diverse grasslands;

• Management (that is, grazing and burning) that mimics 

natural disturbance will elevate habitat quality for a 

greater number of avian species; 

• Tree encroachment into grasslands greatly diminishes the 

value of these CRP fields for many grassland species;

• Management prescriptions for early-successional habitat (that is, disking) provide greater benefits to a larger 

suite of species;
History of Grassland Management 13

perspective cannot be. It is important, therefore, to implement 

a disturbance regime such as grazing and fire in systems where 

disturbance was historically critical to ecosystem integrity. If 

the CRP is not managed to suit the requirements of target wildlife, its connection to the landscape becomes insignificant, as 

habitat condition is equally important as location (McLachlan 

and others, 2009). As important as it is to plant CRP resembling native plant communities, the desired vegetation structure 

and composition may require prescribing management activities suitable to the landscape (McLachlan and others, 2009). 

Ecoregion Descriptions

To understand the potential effects of managing grasslands for wildlife habitat, one must understand the ecological 

drivers that are integral to the ecosystem. For the purpose of 

this paper, North American grasslands are divided into four 

basic classifications: semi-arid grasslands that evolved with 

grazers, semi-arid to arid grasslands that did not evolve with 

grazers, mesic grasslands that evolved with grazers, and mesic 

grasslands that did not evolve with grazers. 

Semi-arid: Historically Grazed (Shortgrass 

Prairies)

Shortgrass prairies extend from Oklahoma, Texas, and 

New Mexico, through western Kansas, Nebraska, and eastern 

Colorado. Dominant native shortgrasses in this region are blue 

grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides). Both grasses rarely exceed 10 cm (4 in) of height but 

extend well belowground, where they store 90 percent of their 

biomass, thus holding the soils together and providing stability 

during periods of drought (Milchunas and Lauenroth, 2001). 

This plant community co-evolved with intensive grazing pressure by large herds of bison followed by periods of vegetation 

recovery and regrowth (Milchunas and Vandever, 2013). In 

this ecoregion, short-duration intensive grazing is critical to 

ecological sustainability. 

In some shortgrass regions (for example, in eastern 

Colorado), CRP fields were planted with taller grasses that 

may have occurred naturally in isolated, small patches, 

but not over broad areas. These grasses are not as droughttolerant as the native shortgrass vegetation and maintain a 

much greater proportion of their plant material aboveground. 

When heavily grazed, they have a high potential for mortality and susceptibility to wind erosion and may likewise fail 

primary goals of reducing soil erosion, especially in periods 

of drought. To assure establishment and permanence of new 

enrollments into CRP, native shortgrass species that are 

drought- and grazing-tolerant should be emphasized and the 

necessity of grazing be endorsed. 

It is important to note that within the shortgrass bioregions there are other vegetation types, such as pinyon-juniper 

and sandsage prairie, that naturally occur in certain areas with 

certain soils. These areas within the larger shortgrass bioregions were not grazed historically, and the soils will not support the grazing that the true shortgrass vegetation supports. 
14 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Semi-arid, Arid: Historically Ungrazed (Desert 

Grasslands and Shrublands)

Extremely little rainfall is received in the southwest and 

west portions of the Continental Divide (Colorado, Utah, Idaho, 

eastern Oregon, and Washington) and grasslands and shrublands 

in these areas did not evolve with significant grazing. Grazing 

by domestic animals provides little or no ecological benefit for 

these grasslands. Grazing CRP for management purposes into 

these areas should be avoided, except where ecological benefits 

are scientifically valid, such as for invasive plant control, and 

then only in accordance with an appropriate grazing plan. 

Mesic: Historically Grazed (Tallgrass and Mixedgrass Prairies)

The tallgrass and mixed-grass prairies are roughly 

located from the 100th meridian eastward to just west of the 

Appalachian Mountains. This region evolved with grazing 

and periodic fires. The majority of acres enrolled in the CRP 

are in this region, and, although these prairies do not require 

grazing to the same extent as the shortgrass prairie, grazing 

greatly influences habitat requirements of the endemic grassland birds. Grazing practices can promote heterogeneity of 

habitat structure and can create suitable habitat for birds that 

prefer shorter, less-dense vegetation, such as the two species 

of prairie-chickens. However, carefully-drafted management 

plans should be in place to avoid overgrazing these systems, 

which might lead to changes in the vegetation composition. 

Historically, fire was widespread and common in these 

grasslands (more common in the tallgrass) as the high productivity of vegetation allowed for ample combustible fuel. Fire 

is integral to the ecology of these grasslands, as it serves to 

remove accumulation of vegetation litter, thereby providing 

opportunity for vigorous regrowth of grasses and preventing 

encroachment of woody plants that would threaten displacement of vegetation characteristic of the prairie (Larson and 

others, 2013). After fires reduced decadent vegetation, native 

bison grazed on the new vegetative shoots and proceeded 

across the prairie, leaving behind vegetation to regrow and 

produce litter to fuel the next fire (Henrichs, 1997).

Mesic: Historically Ungrazed (Coastal 

Grasslands and Savannas)

East of the Mississippi River, these native grasslands 

evolved with natural disturbance such as wildfire and meadows created by beavers (Askins, 1999). They also were 

affected by anthropogenic disturbances, such as burning and 

agricultural clearing. These mesic grasslands are found in 

the Southeast, including Florida and some coastal areas of 

Texas, the Midwest, and the Northeast. Nearly all (99 percent) of these grasslands have been converted to agriculture 

or to urban/exurban developments since European settlement. 

Disturbance history of these grasslands is likely the least 

understood of all ecoregions of North America. While it is 

generally accepted that fire is an important ecological driver, 

the historical frequency of fire in this ecoregion is unclear 

(Patterson and Sassaman, 1988; Parshall and Foster, 2002). 

However, without fire, these grasslands are invaded rapidly by 

woody species. In the southeastern pine savannas, grassland 

bird species rely on frequent (2–3 yr) burns to eliminate succession of hardwood forests (Askins and others, 2007). The 

same is true for northeastern coastal grasslands, where basic 

ecological processes have been suppressed, leading to conversion of grass-dominated habitats into forest (Vickery and 

Herkert, 2001; Askins and others, 2007). 

Compatible Environmental, Social and 

Programmatic Goals

Sustainable management of resources, clean air, water, 

and wildlife are but a few recognized benefits brought by 

effectively interlinking agricultural and conservation policies. 

Management policies that encourage efforts to preserve and 

enhance grassland habitat may contribute to the conservation 

of grassland ecosystems and help reverse the rapid decline of 

grassland birds: the most dramatically declining guild of birds 

in North America. USDA conservation policies can affect 

both migratory and non-migratory wildlife and their habitats 

on private and public lands. The success of conservation on 

agricultural lands is much more than summarization of acres 

devoted to specific conservation practices, as conservation 

success requires the ability to quantify and describe conservation effectiveness in meeting diverse environmental and social 

goals. While information is needed on how well conservation 

practices achieve conservation goals, one of the more visible 

environmental benefits of the CRP is its effect on wildlife. 

Biologists agree that the key to preserving wildlife and 

maintaining biodiversity is habitat. However, relating the 

changes in wildlife response directly to habitat quality is not as 

straightforward, as a number of factors can influence wildlife 

populations. Factors out of human control, such as weather 

can have a substantial influence on wildlife communities. The 

definition of habitat quality for many grassland-associated 

species varies by seasonal needs. Good-quality habitat can 

be reduced substantially when untimely events (for example, 

heavy rains or hail) occur during nesting season. Drought is 

associated with changes in structure and coverage of vegetation and lower abundance of insects, which in turn can limit 

bird numbers as it affects nesting and fledging success. As 

food supplies decrease, birds’ territory size may increase, but 

only to a limited degree after which habitat becomes undesirable (Cody, 1985). However, not all birds are negatively 

affected by extreme environmental conditions, as affinity for 

certain habitat conditions can vary by species (Cody, 1985). 

Bird populations in semi-arid environments were found to 

decrease, increase, or not change during drought conditions 

depending on the species (George and others, 1992). 

Similarly to the extreme wet and dry conditions wildlife 

experience in the summer, winter conditions affect wildlife 
History of Grassland Management 15
16 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

too. Although less research has been done assessing the 

value of CRP for winter habitat, these fields are used for food 

sources and cover from predators (Best and others, 1998). 

Species undergoing population declines such as ring-necked 

pheasant, American tree sparrow (Spizella arborea), northern 

bobwhite quail, and dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis) were 

found to benefit from Midwestern CRP covers in the winter 

(Best and others, 1998). For deer in northern climates, winter 

habitat was found to be more critical than summer habitat 

for survival and reproduction (Wallmo and others, 1977). 

However, if CRP fields age without disturbance, provisions 

of resources (that is, food and cover) may decline and negatively affect their habitat value. It is for this reason that habitat 

management (for greater diversity of species or for sensitive 

species with specific habitat needs) is needed to sustain viable 

populations of wildlife. Wildlife populations do not always 

respond to changes in habitat, and populations can change year 

to year from a variety of biotic and abiotic influences. Therefore, a successful management plan to address the habitat 

requirements of a targeted species would require identification 

of all critical habitat elements within the spatial and temporal 

contexts in which they are inhabited.

The underlying assumption supporting management of 

CRP grasslands has been to advocate improvement in longterm quality of wildlife habitat. As with native grasslands, 

the importance of managing CRP grasslands is based on 

evidence that, left undisturbed, CRP grasslands eventually 

become decadent as a consequence of a build-up of vegetative 

litter, diminished vegetative species diversity, and an overall 

decline in stand productivity. Forbs have been shown to be 

important in that they furnish diversity, in-stand structure, 

vegetation composition, and are the primary vegetative strata 

supporting invertebrate populations, which is essential as a 

food source for game and non-game birds. But as grasses 

become dominant in older, undisturbed CRP grasslands, forbs 

become rare to absent. Although long-term maintenance of 

wildlife-habitat quality has been the driving force behind support for managed disturbance, care should be taken to avoid 

conflict with programmatic goals of the CRP (for example, 

reducing soil-erosion, improving water quality) (McLachlan 

and others, 2011). 

Management of CRP Grasslands

More than 75 percent of CRP lands are planted to grasses 

classified as either introduced or native species. Introduced 

and native grasses are classified as either cool-season or 

warm-season grasses that, as their names imply, exhibit optimum growth during the cooler spring and autumn or warmer 

summer seasons. Cool-season and warm-season grasses 

have physical characteristics differing among species within 

and across geographic regions and are confined to a particular habitat. Although perennial grasses dominate primary 

production on most CRP lands, broad-leafed plants (forbs) 

contribute largely to vegetation species richness in most 

North American grassland communities (Bragg and Steuter, 

1995; Briggs and Knapp, 2001) including those established 

as part of the CRP. Many grasslands that were established in 

the early years of the CRP (1987–1989) were not seeded with 

native forbs, or if they were, forb abundance diminished due 

to a lack of disturbance and competition with some grass species. In terms of potential quality of wildlife habitat, perennial polycultures of native grasses generally benefit a wider 

variety of wildlife species than do perennial native monocultures, or poorer quality monocultures of introduced grasses. 

Introduced grasses (for example, crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum], smooth brome, tall fescue [Schedonorus 

arundinacea]) can negatively affect native plant species and 

diversity and alter resource allocation to roots or litter (Christian and Wilson, 1999). In addition, monocultures furnish 

minimal diversity in structural composition. 

Numerous investigations illustrate the need to incorporate 

disturbance into CRP grasslands if specific vegetative characteristics are desired over multi-year periods. In most cases, 

CRP grass plantings without some significant disturbance are 

taken over by one or several grass species exhibiting increased 

dominance and also suffer from greater amounts of dead plant 

material (litter) and reduction in abundance of forbs as stands 

age (Millenbah and others, 1996; McCoy and others, 2001; 

Baer and others, 2002; Greenfield and others, 2003). Younger 

stands of grass are characterized by an abundance of bare 

ground, a presence of broad-leaved, flowering plants (forbs), 

and variability in vegetation height and density. Results of a 

10-yr evaluation of vegetation characteristics in 170 undisturbed, Midwestern- and Southern- Plains CRP fields show 

a general decline in vegetation height and density following 

a peak in these characteristics 2–4 yr after the fields were 

planted (Cade and others, 2005).

Disturbance is an important component of grasslands; it 

affects community structure and function. Lack of disturbance 

often creates favorable conditions for encroachment of woody 

vegetation, which affects habitat quality for many grassland 

birds and may be the most critical of grassland management 

issues in some regions (Coppedge and others, 2001; Chapman 

and others, 2004b; Rodgers, 2005).Vegetation response to disturbance can be characterized by the type, intensity, and timing 

of management actions (Collins, 1987). Regardless of species 

planted, the type and frequency of management administered 

to seeded grasslands often defines their long-term potential 

as wildlife habitat. Perpetuation of diversity in grass-species 

composition and vegetation structure sustains desirable habitat 

for a variety of grassland-dependent wildlife. Under most circumstances, species diversity is greatest at intermediate levels 

of disturbance (Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992). 

While natural-disturbance regimes may be desirable from 

an ecological prospective, dependence on natural disturbance 

often is unrealistic in CRP grasslands embedded in an agriculturally dominated landscape. Because the frequency and type 

of disturbance applied to CRP grasslands represents a crucial 

issue in meeting specific conservation objectives, disturbance 

regimes must be tailored (1) to the biotic community desired 
Management of CRP Grasslands 17

and (2) to attain specific management objectives. A practical 

approach to grassland wildlife management is to define and 

furnish enough suitable habitats to support viable populations 

of those species with the most restrictive requirements (Graul, 

1980). This approach is based on the assumption that wildlife 

species with broader, less-limiting habitat needs will find associated habitat of suitable quality. Management prescriptions 

aimed at provision of habitats for several species of management concern require a mosaic of vegetation conditions across 

the landscape (Winter and others, 2005).

 The management interval in grasslands is affected by 

climatic conditions, soils, grass species, and management history of the individual stand, but ultimately, it can be defined 

only when the habitat needs of specific wildlife species are 

considered. Any management activity prescribed for grasslands may enhance habitat conditions for some species, while 

it may be detrimental to others. Ideally, management prescriptions designed to address wildlife habitat and other issues of 

environmental concern are implemented at the watershed or 

landscape level (Ribic and others, 2009). 

If the objective of management is to modify grassland 

composition for wildlife habitat, the principal tools available 

are haying, grazing, disking, and controlled use of fire (see 

potential effects of management on vegetation in Appendix 3). 

These management options may be used independently or in 

combination to reduce grass dominance and density, thereby 

encouraging a diversity of forbs in CRP grasslands. 

Disking and Interseeding

The increased amount of light, warmer soil temperature, 

and diminished competition from grasses and woody vegetation often is necessary for forbs to become established in 

existing grasslands. Disking can be used to eliminate or reduce 

existing grass cover to create greater diversity in CRP grasslands. This method of management can be used to increase the 

amount of bare ground in grasslands, since it relies on natural 

incursion of broad-leaved plants. Seed dispersal declines with 

distance from parent vegetation (Cramer and others, 2008); 

therefore, grasslands isolated from existing seed sources may 

require disking and inter-seeding to enhance vegetation and 

habitat diversity. Plots sown to a variety of native forbs and 

grasses after disking have been shown to be less susceptible 

to invasion by undesirable plant species such as old-world 

bluestems (Falk and others, 2013). In older, well-established 

grasslands, increased disking intensity may be necessary 

to establish a suitable seedbed for subsequent planting of 

legumes or other non-grass vegetation. In especially dense or 

sod-bound grasslands, it may be necessary to use grazing, fire, 

or haying to remove grass biomass prior to disking.

Light disking and interseeding of forbs in northeastern 

Nebraska resulted in a more structurally diverse vegetation 

community following treatment of CRP fields, supporting 

a greater variety of bird species than did unmanaged, older 

CRP grasslands (Negus and others, 2010). Fields evaluated 

were 10–15 yr old and originally planted to smooth brome 

and legumes. Avian abundance was 35 percent higher in 

fields where 50 percent to 60 percent of the area had been 

lightly disked and legumes planted. Avian-species richness 

and diversity also were greater within treated fields as compared to fields not disked. Treated areas had greater maximum 

height of vegetation, better horizontal vegetation density, 

and a higher percentage of bare ground than did non-treated 

sites. An annual treatment of portions of CRP grasslands was 

recommended to create a mosaic of vegetation characteristics 

and to furnish habitat for a diversity of avian species. When 

deemed suitable as a management practice, disking intensity 

should correlate with soil type, maturity and cover of existing 

grass stand, and management objectives. Using disking and 

inter-seeding in conjunction with other management methods 

(for example, grazing, burning) might result in even-greater 

diversity in vegetation and an elevation of habitat quality for a 

larger number bird species.

The types of grasses needing management influence 

the success and duration of management benefits to habitat. 

In western Kansas, burning and light-disking native, warmseason grasses greatly improved brood-habitat quality for ringnecked pheasants and northern bobwhite quail by diminishing 

the amount of grass litter and furnishing more bare ground 

(Doxon and Carroll, 2010). The lesser amounts of litter and 

exposed soil presumably enabled chicks of both species to 
18 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

move more easily through the habitat and experience higher 

success in foraging. Brood habitat in CRP fields would benefit 

from periodic disking set at time intervals according to vegetation characteristics. For cool-season, sod-forming grasses such 

as tall fescue, smooth brome, and orchardgrass, the effects of 

disking are of shorter duration and may require more intensive 

disking to achieve desired management results. For example, 

fall disking of tall fescue has resulted in improvements in 

habitat quality lasting only 2 yr (Madison and others, 2001; 

Greenfield and others, 2002). The amount of bare ground and 

decreased depth and cover of litter lasted only slightly longer 

in orchardgrass. Disking in midwestern and southeastern CRP 

fields planted to these species was recommended every 2–3 

yr to maintain desirable characteristics of habitat. Greenfield 

and others (2003) reported that the effect of disking was 

well within acceptable limits of soil erosion rates and recommended more intensive disking to extend benefits for a greater 

amount of time.

Grazing

Grazing is a natural process that land managers can use 

to manipulate vegetation growth and response. Perhaps more 

than any other type of disturbance, grazing can be managed 

to accomplish long-term quality and distribution of habitat for 

targeted wildlife species. Grazing can affect grassland vegetation structure, productivity, and if done repeatedly, species 

composition and density. Each of these characteristics is influenced by the intensity, duration, and timing of grazing, which 

can affect the amount of vegetative cover present (Klute and 

others, 1997). Removal of grassland cover through grazing 

alters vegetation height, residual vegetation, and litter. Each 

of these variables may influence habitat conditions for a given 

wildlife species, depending on their fundamental or seasonal 

habitat requirements. Nesting-habitat quality for many species 

of upland-nesting waterfowl, game birds, and non-game birds 

decline in response to annual grazing. However, investigations 

show that periodic grazing can enhance habitat conditions 

for grassland-nesting species over the long-term (Renken and 

Dinsmore, 1987; Kruse and Bowen, 1996). Avian species 

that evolved in association with heavy, periodic grazing will 

experience declines in suitable habitat features in the absence 

of grazing (Knopf, 1994; Knopf and Samson, 1996). There 

has been strong support from some non-governmental groups 

for USDA to implement grazing on CRP lands in regions with 

long evolutionary histories of grazing (for example, shortgrass 

steppe in the western Great Plains) to create desired vegetation 

conditions for wildlife and support establishment of native 

perennial grasses. 

Regardless of wildlife habitat requirements, grazing does 

have unique effects on grassland composition. The shortgrass 

steppe of the Great Plains evolved with heavy grazing for at 

least 10,000 yr (Milchunas and Vandever, 2013), and grazing 

by large herbivores (cattle, bison) is required to sustain mixedgrass prairies (Bragg and Steuter, 1996). Due to their varying 

preferences for specific species of vegetation or preference for 

new vegetative growth, ungulates influence the abundance of 

plant species by actively maintaining areas of short, rapidly 

growing vegetation at community and landscape levels. 

Ungulate grazing usually results in greater rates of vegetation 

renewal than are found in non-grazed areas (Ring and others, 

1985; Vinton and others, 1993). Grazing also can diminish 

dominance and the competitive ability of grasses contributing 

to increased plant species and community diversity (Collins 

and Glenn, 1988; Collins and Gibson, 1990). By creating 

openings in the dominant grass canopy and physically disturbing the soil surface, grazing creates microsites favorable for 

the establishment of new vegetation. Maximum species diversity of vegetation typically occurs under moderate grazing 

intensities (Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992).

Vegetation diversity and productivity may be adversely 

affected when grazing is eliminated, too intense, of excessive 

duration, or occurs at inappropriate times (for example, grass 

in early stages of development or during drought). The dominant grazing-tolerant grasses, whether cool- or warm-season, 

require regular plant/herbivore interactions and rest periods 

during the growing season for recovery and regrowth. Fields 

with an undesirable weedy component may require multiple 

grazing treatments throughout the grazing season and should 

be timed early (before native grasses begin growing) and later 

in the season after natives have completed seed production 

(Hendrickson and Olson, 2006). Either continuous heavy grazing or excessive litter accumulation resulting from a lack of 

grazing may adversely affect individual species abundance by 

reducing vegetation productivity and diversity. 

Variable intensities of grazing affect habitat distribution 

differently, thereby influencing the composition of grassland bird communities (Owens and Myres, 1973). Species 

dependent upon dense, tall, grass-dominated habitats will be 

largely eliminated when grazing is periodically intense or 

occurs annually. However, intense grazing in early spring can 

enhance habitat quality for species requiring short, sparse vegetation or bare ground during the nesting season (Renken and 

Dinsmore, 1987). Overall richness of avian species in North 

Dakota decreased in response to greater grazing pressure, 

but total bird density in grazed fields increased due to a few 

bird species responding positively to grazing (for example, 

horned lark, chestnut-collared longspur) (Kantrud, 1981). The 

diversity of breeding birds was consistently higher on idle 

or lightly-grazed plots. Evaluating the effects of grazing and 

haying on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife refuges, 

Strassmann (1987) concluded that grazing generally was 

detrimental to ground-nesting birds, citing at least 55 studies 

documenting negative consequences on avian nesting stemming from removal and trampling of residual and standing 

vegetation. Grazing reduced nest densities of some species of 

breeding waterfowl in North Dakota, but vegetation and nest 

densities recovered quickly following termination of grazing 

(Kruse and Bowen, 1996). 

The USDA can provide some relief from severe 

drought or natural disaster to areas affected by authorizing 

some grazing by domestic livestock in eligible CRP fields. 
Under authorized emergency use, land operators have 

the option of grazing 100 percent of their CRP field at 75 

percent of the calculated stocking rate or 75 percent of 

their field at 100 percent of the stocking rate. Regardless 

of stocking rate, a minimum height of 3 in residual cover is 

required for cool-season grasses, and 6 in for warm-season 

grasses. For cover and nesting requirements of most birds 

and other wildlife, the best wildlife option is to leave a 

field 25 percent ungrazed, preferably in one contiguous 

block, and, if possible, adjacent to other grasslands or nongrazed covers. 

Several factors influence the suitability of grazing as a 

CRP grassland-management option. While some landowner/

CRP contractees will implement grazing to manage habitats 

for wildlife, many others will not or cannot. The number of 

CRP contractees who have access to livestock for grazing 

is unknown. Livestock are increasingly rare on farms where 

commodity crops are the primary product. A national survey 

of CRP landowners revealed only 21 percent of respondents 

identified grazing as the most-compatible management option 

for their operations (Allen and Vandever, 2003). Less than 

10 percent of survey respondents in the Lake States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan), Corn Belt (Iowa, Missouri, 

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio), and Northeast (Maine, Vermont, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire) Farm 

Production regions (FPRs) found grazing a suitable management option for their CRP grasslands. The greatest acceptance 

of grazing was reported from respondents in the mountain 

(Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, 

New Mexico) FPR, with 63 percent favoring this management 

alternative. Forty-three percent and 38 percent of respondents 

in the Pacific (Washington, Oregon, California) and Southern 

Plains (Texas, Oklahoma) FPR, respectively, identified grazing 

as a desirable management option. In the Southern Plains, 

Johnson and others (1997) found that, when CRP grassland 

contracts expired, the probability of grazing decreases if the 

land was previously irrigated. The likelihood of grazing as an 

acceptable management option also declined as age of the contract holder and area of land enrolled in CRP increased. It also 

was determined that CRP fields coming out of the program 

were more likely to be grazed if soil erosion was the primary 

reason for initial enrollment. 

Barriers to grazing CRP grasslands include the need for 

fencing and watering facilities, the availability of cattle, and 

the distance to CRP fields. The lack of cattle or provisions to 

move cattle from occupied pastures to CRP fields is a fundamental limitation to adopting grazing as a widespread management practice. Simply moving stock from traditional pastures 

to distant CRP fields may limit practicality of grazing as a 

management alternative. To routinely graze fields, temporary 

or permanent fencing and water are needed. The majority of 

CRP fields were used for crop production prior to enrollment 

in the program. In most cases, fences around these fields, if 

they ever existed, were removed years ago as fields and farming equipment became larger (Cochrane, 1993; Rodenhouse 

and others, 1993). It is uncommon to see a CRP field enclosed 

by barbed wire or any other permanent fence, particularly in 

western regions where enrolled fields tend to be large. Estimated fencing costs for a single strand electric fence requires 

a substantial commitment of capital, estimated at $693 per 

linear mile (Cearley and others, 2009) which doesn’t include 

associated costs such as labor or a functioning water source 

(cattle require between 9 gallons and 18 gallons of water per 

day, depending on weather and body condition). Availability 

of water is potentially the limiting factor to implementing 

periodic grazing on CRP grasslands (particularly in more arid 

regions such as the southern Great Plains). Trucking water 

to cattle often is prohibitively expensive because many CRP 

fields are far from existing pastures. Availability of water in or 

adjacent to existing CRP fields is one of the primary limiting 

factors in incorporating grazing.

Management of CRP Grasslands 19
20 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Burning

The scientific understanding that fire plays the primary 

role as the fundamental architect of species-rich grassland 

ecosystems has become accepted during the last century; fire 

is no longer viewed as a negative disturbance (Noss, 2013). 

Historically, fire has been a vital disturbance in most biomes; 

however, fire suppression has resulted in loss of biodiversity, 

changes in vegetation communities, and ultimately, alteration 

of ecosystem functions (Allen and Palmer, 2011). Vegetation response to fire varies as a consequence of vegetation 

composition, season of burn, climatic conditions, and effects 

of other disturbance on the vegetation community (Anderson, 

1990). Because of the historical emphasis on range management in grasslands, the majority of research on prescribed 

burning has focused on nutrient cycling and productivity of 

individual grass species (Collins and Gibson, 1990). Maximum species richness and diversity in grasslands can be 

expected in response to periodic, but not annual, burning. 

Annually burned grasslands typically support lower diversity 

in vegetation species composition and structure as a consequence of a diminished seed bank (Abrams and others, 1986). 

Periodic fire does, however, remove litter, and can provide 

a favorable seed bed and microclimate that encourages the 

establishment of forb species. 

Historically, grassland fires would occur throughout the 

year, but native American tribes ritualized autumn and late 

winter burning of grasslands, whereas later European settlers favored early spring burns for livestock grazing (Towne 

and Kemp, 2003). The use of fire to increase grass cover of 

both cool and warm season species is most effective when 

prescribed in the autumn or winter (that is, during dormancy) 

(Towne and Kemp, 2003; Diboll, 1986). Early spring fires may 

burn foliage critical for root production reducing vigor of cool 

season grasses. A resource manager may use early spring fire 

as a management tool if reducing vigor of cool season grasses 

in favor of warm season grasses is a priority (Diboll, 1986). 

Fire removes the impenetrable vegetation and litter 

layer in tallgrass prairies and enhances surface soil microclimate (light, temperature, and nutrient availability), resulting 

in enhanced productivity (Knapp and Seastedt, 1986). In a 

Kansas tallgrass ecosystem, diversity of vegetation increased 

for 6–7 yr following burning, but thereafter began to decline 

(Collins and Gibson, 1990). Diminished diversity in vegetation was attributed to development of a thick layer of litter 

and standing dead material, which inhibited establishment of 

non-grass vegetation. In a west-central Kansas buffalograss/

blue grama community, it took 3 yr, under dry conditions, for 

biomass to return to levels equivalent to unburned grassland 

(Ford and McPherson, 1996). With above-average precipitation, biomass returned to pre-burn levels in the second year 

after burning.

Regrowth of grasses, suppression of woody vegetation, 

and reduction of litter following burning of mixed-grass prairie in west-central Kansas improved habitat quality for wildlife 

species of concern such as: Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii), grasshopper sparrow, LeConte’s sparrow (A. leconteii), Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii), and western meadowlark (Ford and McPherson, 1996). Rodent populations often 

expand after fire in response to increased availability of forb 

species, seeds, and insects. Predator populations may benefit 

and increase their use of grasslands in response to elevated 

populations of rodents following burning. An increase in 

small-mammal populations may, however, have negative 

effects on other species. Higher densities of small mammals 

may result in greater predation rates on nests of groundnesting birds (S. Skagen, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun.). Species negatively affected by destruction of the litter 

layer, at least in the short-term, include wildlife species that 

forage on invertebrates in litter or depend on it for concealment. Ground-nesting passerine birds such as the Henslow’s 

sparrow and bobolink are dependent on dense litter for nest 

concealment and are negatively affected by the loss of vegetation litter (McKee and others, 1998).

In making recommendations for application of prescribed burns on prairie fragments, it was suggested that only 

20 percent to 30 percent of areas greater than 80 hectares (ha) 

should be burned annually to maintain diversity of vegetation 

conditions (Herkert, 1994a). Fragmented grasslands of smaller 

area (a subjective term requiring more research attention) can 

have a greater percentage of area burned, but probably should 

not exceed 50 percent to 60 percent of the area (Herkert, 

1994a). Prescribed burning strategies should incorporate an 

understanding of historical fire frequency, timing and intensity 

at various intervals, seasons, and intensities that shape vegetation communities and increase biological diversity (Senft 

and others, 1987). Management plans should be structured 

around an understanding of historic processes and ecosystem 

interactions, as they can be an effective tool for habitat-related 

management in some CRP grasslands, but they may not be 

ecologically appropriate in others. Managers should account 

for concerns of soil erosion when implementing burns for 

wildlife habitat and meet USDA objectives for tolerable 
Management of CRP Grasslands 21

limits. Altered abundance and species composition, as well 

as environmental changes during the last century, may render 

fire unable to recreate ecological conditions similar to the past 

(Brockway and others, 2002). For example, fire frequency of 

5–10 years in xeric regions such as the northern Great Plains 

and shortgrass steppe is reasonable, but fire frequency of every 

1–5 yr is more appropriate in mesic regions. Little is known 

about historic fire regimes in xeric communities (Augustine 

and others, 2010) but they are more sensitive to fire than some 

other communities, do not have the fuel load to carry a fire, 

and are more sensitive to invasion of fire tolerant species. 

The recommended burning interval varies in response 

to management objectives and characteristics of vegetation in 

CRP grasslands. In Kansas, management requirements to burn 

CRP fields that were identified as rare and declining habitat 

were replaced with management practices based on site specific 

needs and objectives. In some regions, prolonged drought has 

prevented CRP from establishing enough biomass to use fire 

as a successful tool. In other regions, such as eastern Kansas, 

too-frequent burning of native grasses in CRP lands negatively 

influenced avian productivity. Robel and others (1998) reported 

that avian productivity was higher in unburned CRP fields 

than within spring-burned CRP fields during the year of burning. On average, study fields were burned 2.5 times in a 5-yr 

period. Most bird nests were located in fields not burned for at 

least 2 consecutive years. The number of nests found per field 

increased in response to greater time intervals between burns. 

Robel and others (1998) attributed annual or biannual spring 

burning to depletion of structural complexity in vegetation as a 

consequence of loss of standing dead material and litter on the 

ground surface. The adverse effects on avian use of CRP grasslands could likely be reduced by increasing the interval between 

burns. Loss of suitable nesting cover resulting from annual and 

biannual burning of grasslands, including some CRP lands, 

may be a major factor contributing to recent declines in greater 

prairie-chickens in eastern Kansas (R. Rodgers, Kansas Wildlife 

and Parks, oral commun.). Ultimately, it is not the frequency of 

the disturbance but the interaction between different types of 

disturbances that has the greatest effect on suitability of habitat 

for some wildlife species.

Increased nest success of birds in a variety of midwestern 

grasslands occurred 2–3 yr following burning (Herkert and 

others, 1996). Under most circumstances, a 3–5 yr application 

of fire was most appropriate to maintain desirable habitat for 

grassland birds in this region. A comparable burning interval was recommended for grassland bird habitat in eastern 

Nebraska CRP fields planted to both cool- and warm-season 

grasses (King and Savidge, 1995). Application of prescribed 

burning was recommended on a 3-yr interval in warm-season 

native grasses in northeastern Kansas to furnish desirable nesting settings for mourning doves (Hughes and others, 2000). 

Nesting habitat quality for the greatest number of bird species 

in North Dakota mixed-grass prairie likely would occur if a 

mosaic of habitats were furnished by applying fire at different 

intervals of time (Madden and others, 1999; 2000). Burning 

intervals were defined as short (2–4 yr), moderate (5–7 yr) 

and long (over 8 yr). The authors recommended burning 

20 percent to 30 percent of a management area annually. 

Avian nesting in southern Great Plains weeping lovegrass was 

inhibited for at least 2 yr following burning of grassland cover 

in CRP fields (Oberheu and others, 1999). Consequently, the 

authors recommended a variety in burning intervals to provide 

a mosaic of habitat conditions for nesting birds. 

Results of a national survey of CRP participants showed 

that use of prescribed fire was reported by nearly 25 percent 

of respondents from Pacific Coast and Northern Plains (North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas) FPRs regions 

(Allen and Vandever, 2003). No more than six percent of 

respondents in Mountain, Lake, Appalachian (West Virginia, 

Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina), and Northeast FPRs used fire as a management tool. Fields in these four 

regions typically are smaller in comparison to those in the 

Pacific and Northern Plains where fields are perhaps more 

isolated from dissimilar land uses. Prescribed fire is one of the 

least expensive management tools to maintain grassland vigor 

and habitat quality (Gill and others, 2006). However, grassland burning may be a less-suitable option due to small size 

of fields, concerns about air pollution, anxiety about potential 

damage to adjacent woodlands/farm infrastructure, difficulties 

in scheduling, cost, legal liabilities, or a lack of experience in 

application of fire for management purposes. Natural limitations such as vegetation species, fuel load, topography, and 

weather may also influence management decisions to prescribe 

fire. Where these issues constrain application of prescribed 

fire, more acceptable management alternatives may be grazing, haying, mowing, or disking. 

Haying and Mowing

Haying is removal of vegetative material from the field 

after cutting. Mowing is when grasses and other plant debris 

remains in the field after cutting. Shredding of vegetation is 

an extreme method of grassland harvest where vegetation is 

cut into smaller pieces than when it is mowed, and is then left 

on the ground surface. All of these methods directly influence 

habitat quality by immediately creating a uniform cover and 

reducing the amount of vertical plant cover within a field. 

For landowners not able or willing to graze or burn their CRP 

cover, haying has become an alternative for mid-contract 

management. Periodic mowing and mowing for cosmetic 

purposes is not allowed as a management tool by CRP policy, 

but mowing can be used to aid with grass establishment and 

for spot control of weeds and other plant pests (Allen and others, 2001). The effects of each process may have implications 

for vegetative and habitat characteristics as they alter the 

vegetation density and structure into the next growing season. 

Periodic haying may increase habitat value of grasslands 

by opening the grass canopy and discouraging growth of 

undesirable species (Allen and others, 2001). Haying results 

in removal of vegetation, thereby reducing litter accumulation which may have negative effects on reproductive-habitat 
22 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives
Management of CRP Grasslands 23

quality for ground-nesting birds the following spring (Renner 

and others, 1995). Mowing without removal of vegetative material may negatively affect habitat due to excessive 

amount of debris remaining in the field (Kurzejeski, 1996; 

McCoy and others, 2001). The negative effects of excessive 

amounts of detritus in grasslands include reduction in light 

reaching the ground surface, lower soil temperatures later into 

the spring, alteration in physiology of emerging vegetation, 

reduction in carbon-dioxide uptake by vegetation, inhibition 

of nitrogen fixation by microbes and algae, reduced plant biomass, and diminished activities of some invertebrates (Peet 

and others, 1975; Rice and Parenti, 1978; Knapp and Seastedt, 1986). Consequently, grassland productivity generally 

declines in response to increasing or excessive amounts of 

dead plant material. Cool-season grasses, typically harvested 

earlier in the growing season, may exhibit sufficient regrowth 

to provide habitat value for wintering birds. Late-season 

mowing of warm-season grasses has detrimental effects on 

winter availability of food and cover for wildlife as there 

often is insufficient time for regrowth prior to winter (McCoy 

and others, 2001).

In a national survey of 1,412 CRP contractees, nearly 

58 percent of respondents identified mowing or haying as the 

preferred periodic management of vegetation on lands enrolled 

in the CRP (Allen and Vandever, 2003), but this option was 

less acceptable in southern and western regions (μ = 33 percent) than in northern and eastern regions (μ = 65 percent). 

Disking or plowing were the least desirable management 

tools (preferred by 8 percent of respondents) due to greater 

equipment and operational costs. The greatest use of mowing occurred in the Corn Belt and Lake States FPRs, with 77 

percent and 70 percent of respondents, respectively, reporting 

it as the primary method for weed control. The presence of 

weedy forbs typically is greater in young CRP fields. As CRP 

grasslands mature and grasses become dominant, weedy forb 

cover diminishes. Mowing to eliminate undesirable weedy 

forbs was extensive in early years of the CRP. In a multi-state 

evaluation, mowing of CRP grasslands to control weeds was 

widespread, with 82 percent of sampled fields having more 

than 75 percent of their area mowed (Hays and Farmer, 1990). 

Fifty-five percent of those fields were entirely mowed. More 

than 50 percent of the fields included in an evaluation of the 

quality of CRP grasslands as northern bobwhite quail habitat 

were mowed or otherwise disturbed for the purposes of weed 

control (Burger and others, 1990). More than half of the fields 

sampled in an Ohio study were mowed for weed control during the nesting season, potentially destroying incubating hens, 

broods and nests (Swanson and others, 1999). To maintain 

habitat potential, mowing CRP fields should be minimized and 

limited to spot treatment for weed control when feasible.

Haying or mowing patterns within individual fields can 

influence residual habitat values of grasses remaining standing 

after harvest. Partial mowing of CRP grasslands could be used 

to develop a mosaic of grassland stand ages with different 

physical characteristics to meet the needs of diverse populations of avian species (Horn and Koford, 2000). Regulations 

require operators to leave 50 percent of an eligible CRP field 

standing and unharvested, to be used for emergency purposes. 

Ideally, grasses hayed for emergency use should be harvested 

in large, contiguous blocks; studies have revealed that birds 

using narrow, linear, and small, isolated grassland covers are 

more susceptible to predation and nest failure (Herkert, 1994a; 

Luttschwager and others, 1994; Ball and others, 1995; Horn 

and others, 2005). The value of the remaining cover may be 

greater for wildlife if the unharvested portion of the field is 

adjacent to neighboring unharvested grassland or other noncropped land. 

Survival of new or introduced seedlings in grasslands 

generally is restricted to larger openings in the canopy due to 

greater physical space, light, moisture, and nutrients. Frequent 

mowing of dominant grassland vegetation has been successful 

in establishing forbs in mesic tallgrass prairies (Williams and 

others, 2007), but it is less effective as weed control in shortgrass steppe (Milchunas and others, 2011). In an assessment of 

haying CRP grasslands under authorized emergency use in the 

northern Great Plains, alfalfa was found to be more abundant 

within mowed fields than within non-mowed fields (Allen and 

others, 2001).

Frequent mowing of warm-season, perennial grasses 

in the first and second years after seeding of forbs favored 

growth of forbs in a 25-yr prairie planting site in northern 

Iowa (Williams and others, 2007). Forb seedlings in mowed 

plots grew larger and matured more quickly than did those 

in unmowed plots. Four years after introduction, forbs were 

twice more abundant in mowed plots than in unmowed plots. 

Seeded forbs in treated plots gradually increased in size over 

years, becoming more visually dominant and eventually 

producing seed. A combination of mowing during establishment, burning on a 3-yr rotation, and herbicide application for 

control of noxious weeds in CRP plantings of native, warmand cool-season grasses furnished diverse grassland required 

by obligate grassland bird species in Maryland (Gill and others, 2006). Mowing CRP fields for any reason other than spot 

treatment of weeds is restricted until after the primary nesting 

season for grassland birds (fig.1). It may vary regionally or in 

response to the needs for specific species, but July 15 is often 

accepted as the end of the primary nesting season (Granfors 

and others, 1996; Patterson and Best, 1996; Horn and Koford, 

2000). Spraying herbicides for weed control should be delayed 

until after mid-July to permit maximum nest success of grassland birds (Patterson and Best, 1996). 

Permissive Use of CRP Grasslands

Conservation provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill allowed 

specific permissive uses for vegetation management in CRP 

lands. The effect these practices have on the landscape will 

vary based on how States set guidelines addressing CRP 

conservation plans. In some States, such as Nebraska, the 

routine-grazing provision will have the same guidelines as 

previously existed for managed grazing. Other States may 

set new guidelines for routine grazing that are much different 
Figure 1. Primary nesting season in the United States.

EXPLANATION

Duration, in days

<100100 to 125126 to 153

New Hampshire: April 15–August 1Alaska: May 15–June 25Vermont: April 15–July 31Connecticut: April 15–August 1Delaware: April 15–August 15Massachusetts: No CRPMaryland: April 15–August 15New Jersey: April 1–July 15Road Island: April 1–August 1

Source: Farm Service Agency

Primary Nesting Season Dates and Duration

April 1–July 1

May 1–July 15

March 1–July 15

April 1–August 1

April 1–August 1

April 1–July 15

April 1–July 1

March 1–July 1

March 1–July 1

May 1–July 1

April 15–July 15

March 15–July 15

May 1–July 15

May 1–August 1

May 15–August 1 April 15–August 1 May 15–August 1

June 1–August 1

May 15–August 1

May 1–July 15

April 1–July 15

April 1–July 15

March 1–July 15

April 1–August 31

May 15–August 1

April 15–July 1

April 15–Septe

April 1–A

March 15–

July 15

April 1–July 31

May 15–August 1

April 15–

August 1

Apr

April 1–

September 

Ap

Au

March 15–

July 15

April 1–

August 1

April 15–July 15

April 1–

August 15

May 15–July 15
Management of CRP Grasslands 25

from guidelines for managed grazing. The USDA has placed 

restrictions on the frequency of non-emergency haying and 

grazing to prevent annual use and avoid diminished habitat 

quality for some wildlife species. It has been recommended 

that the effects of new USDA rules for permissive use should 

be monitored for habitat quality and suitability for bird use 

(Herkert, 2007b). 

Provisions for managed haying were removed and 

replaced in the 2008 Farm Bill with a broader provision called 

Managed Harvesting, which includes biomass production. Following the restrictive changes brought about by the National 

Wildlife Federation 2006 lawsuit (http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

Internet/FSA_File/settlement_agreement_states.pdf), some 

States were forced to modify the frequency of harvesting 

vegetation on CRP-enrolled lands because of known effects 

to wildlife-habitat quality for species of concern. In order to 

assess how new Farm Bill provisions will affect the landscape 

at state and regional levels, an evaluation of how States are 

applying the new requirements is needed. Landowners with 

active contracts are authorized to harvest forage periodically 

via routine grazing. Permissive use of routine grazing has 

created numerous opportunities to diversify covers existing in 

CRP contracts. Presently, older existing contracts have managed haying and grazing provisions, whereas new contracts 

have routine grazing and biomass-harvest provisions. This 

means that a county can have CRP contracts with (1) managed haying under old managed haying and grazing rules, (2) 

managed grazing under old managed haying and grazing rules, 

(3) managed harvest under new rules, (4) managed harvest for 

biomass under new rules, and (5) routine grazing under new 

rules that all coincide with existing emergency haying and 

grazing (T. McCoy, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, 

written commun.). This could create an opportunity to compare the differences between the effects of haying and grazing, 

as well as any differences between types of grazing (managed 

versus routine) and types of harvesting (harvesting for hay 

versus harvesting for biomass). To gain a better understanding 

of how frequently the permissive-use provisions of CRP lands 

are being deployed, a survey of select areas (northern Great 

Plains, southern Great Plains, Mountain, Corn Belt) would 

need to be conducted. Additional research may be warranted 

to investigate potential effects of CRP fields harvested for biomass production, as the frequency of this management action 

may affect wildlife habitat.

Currently, acreage eligible for emergency haying and 

grazing after drought or excessive moisture conditions can be 

used to provide needed forage for local producers. Emergency 

haying and grazing does not have restrictions on frequency 

(for example, consecutive years); however, the timing of the 

relief must be deployed after the primary nesting season. 

Because land hayed or grazed under emergency conditions 

directly affects the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat, 

emergency haying and grazing may replace the need for subsequent managed or routine use treatments. Extended drought 

periods encountered in some parts of the country have meant 

that, in some places, CRP grasslands have been grazed or 

hayed repeatedly, under unfavorable plant production conditions, and concurrently with neighboring grassland habitats 

that have been severely reduced. Information regarding the 

temporal and spatial effects of emergency haying and grazing 

on CRP vegetation and grassland wildlife could benefit USDA 

decision makers with managing the CRP for wildlife.

Enhancement of Habitat Quality

The many investigations between CRP and wildlifehabitat quality have broadened our understanding of the 

environmental benefits of establishing relatively undisturbed 

perennial cover in intensively farmed landscapes. Numerous examinations have shown that grasslands are not static 

ecosystems. Many CRP grasslands lose quality as plantings 

mature and become decadent and as legumes and forbs diminish and grasses become dominant (Felix and Owen, 2001; 

Ribic and others, 2009; Negus and others, 2010). Long-term 

disregard of grassland management can result in increased 

dead plant material and decreased plant production (Schacht 

and others, 1998). Regardless of habitat concerns, disturbance 

of some form is normally needed to set back succession to 

form younger, open stands. This set back, in turn, is needed to 

maintain long-term vigor of grasslands. Grassland-management prescriptions resulting in a diversity of age classes and 

structure (seral stages) will maximize bird-species diversity 

associated with these habitats (Fritcher and others, 2004).

Vegetation diversity characteristically is lowest in 

undisturbed or severely disturbed grasslands, while greatest 

in those exposed to moderate levels of disturbance (Collins 

and Barber, 1986; Hughes and others, 2000). Dependence on 

natural disturbance is impractical for long-term management 

of grasslands typical of CRP acreages embedded in agriculturally dominated landscapes. Successful introduction of native 

vegetation into established grasslands often is difficult (Wilson 

and Gerry, 1995). In such situations, mechanical methods (tilling, herbicides, mowing) are likely to have the greatest results 

where diversification of vegetation composition is an objective (Bragg and Sutherland, 1989; Berger, 1993). Long-term 

management efforts on large land units may influence native 

prairie communities more than short-term efforts on small, 

fragmented sites, regardless of how intensively they are managed (Van Dyke and others, 2004).

Regional differences in acceptance of management 

alternatives are influenced by landowner limitations, which 

may affect the general design of CRP management prescriptions. Opposition to any CRP management was greatest in 

the southern Great Plains (51 percent) and least in the Southeast (16 percent), but nationally, an average of 62 percent of 

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that USDA requirements to maintain benefits for wildlife were reasonable (Allen 

and Vandever, 2003). Where farms and fields are comparatively small, haying or disking may be the most acceptable 

option to maintain quality wildlife habitats. In many regions, 

livestock are no longer a part of the typical farm operation, 

and grazing as a management tool is not a practical option. 
26 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Grazing also can be problematic on CRP grasslands where 

fences are absent and water may not be readily available. 

Conversely, in western regions of the United States where 

average size of CRP fields is larger and fields often are miles 

from a contractee’s farmstead, haying or other forms of 

physical disturbance may be less acceptable because time and 

movement of equipment are problematic. However, in these 

western regions, grazing or burning are a natural component to 

the system and may be the best management alternative. For 

optimum effectiveness, management prescriptions must integrate the willingness and capability of the contractee with the 

available management options, based on local site condition, 

plant community, and perceived wildlife response. 

Investigations of CRP grassland management have led to 

several broad conclusions:

• Grassland management practices available for use 

include interseeding, disking, prescribed fire, fertilization, mowing, haying, and grazing; 

• Appropriateness, timing, and frequency of management 

prescriptions will vary based on habitat requirements 

of wildlife species of greatest management concern;

• Enhancement (for example, interseeding of legumes) 

may best be accomplished following grazing, burning, 

disking, or haying; 

• Regional or local wildlife species priorities should 

guide management prescriptions;

• Not all CRP contractees have livestock; therefore, the 

desire to hay or graze will not be a universal management alternative to operators;

• Costs to landowner are a concern, and financial assistance largely will define acceptance of management 

prescriptions.

Landowner Views on Management of CRP 

Vegetation

Attachment to their land and its protection for future 

generations are underlying motivations for many farmers to 

participate in conservation programs (Ryan and others, 2003; 

Valdivia and Poulos, 2009). Seventy-five percent of respondents to a survey of CRP contractees agreed or strongly agreed 

that benefits of the program to wildlife were important (Allen 

and Vandever, 2003). Over 60 percent of those replying to the 

survey believed USDA requirements to maintain long-term 

CRP benefits to wildlife habitat were reasonable. However, 

nearly 82 percent of respondents felt if CRP vegetation covers 

were well established there should be no requirements to disturb or enhance vegetation established under the program. 

Greater effectiveness and acceptance of CRP management will be born from prescriptions that do not reduce and 

may even enhance farm profits (Rodenhouse and others, 

1993). The simplest plan with the least time and financial 

commitment required by the landowner will have the greatest 
Avian Habitat and Grassland Biomass Production 27

likelihood of success, but any form of management of CRP 

fields may be objectionable to some CRP contractees because 

they perceive it as a regulatory obligation and burden in terms 

of time and financial costs. 

To understand the decision process that a landowner must 

undergo before participating in conservation programs, one 

must realize that landowners have complete control over their 

land and the need to maximize any increased value of the land 

resulting from changes in the land market (Furuseth, 1987). 

Increasing land value is a major driver of why participation 

in environmental programs is more common by owners with 

land further from cities (Duke, 2004). Ownership of livestock 

increases probability of keeping land in established cover. The 

size of a CRP contract increases the probability of land returning to crop production (Johnson and others, 1997). Landowners 

in areas affected by existing or perceived urban development 

tend to reject conservation programs to avoid long-term commitments for the potentially high economic return they may 

receive for their land (McClaran and others, 1985; Liffmann 

and others, 2000). Urban sprawl tends to bring a greater 

demand for recreational use (for example, fee hunting) on private lands, consequently contributing to the land’s value. 

Some landowners may resist providing wildlife habitat 

simply because the cover established infringes on cultural 

norms for well-ordered appearance of farms. Establishment of 

conservation practices may give neighbors the impression that 

the landowner is indifferent or a careless manager of their land 

(Nassauer, 1995; Ryan and others, 2003). Other landowners 

may be more receptive to management options that focus on a 

single species or group of well-recognized species of wildlife 

rather than more ambiguous intentions such as “ecosystem” 

management (Holsman and Peyton, 2003). Landowners not 

focused on farming as their principal source of income are less 

likely to adopt conservation practices than are operators whose 

primary occupation is farming (Lambert and others, 2006). 

Younger farm operators who rely less on off-farm income are 

more likely to accept conservation practices compatible with 

continued production. Contractees retired from active farming may have the greatest difficulty in acceptance of periodic 

management for CRP grasslands due to a lack of equipment. 

This difficulty can be addressed, in part, by contracting CRP 

management responsibilities to other operators who have the 

equipment to complete needed management.

Avian Habitat and Grassland Biomass 

Production

Biofuel production is expected to be a significant use of 

agricultural land and an alternative use for CRP grasslands 

as contracts expire (McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998; Best and 

Murray, 2005; Florine and others, 2006), which will subsequently reduce future participation in the CRP (Riffell and 

others, 2008). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 mandates the 2022 production of biofuels should equal 

36 billion gallons, with roughly 16 billion gallons expected to 

come from cellulosic biofuels derived from trees and grasses 

(Fargione and others, 2009a; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2013). The incentives to grow more commodity crops 

are driving one of the largest land-cover and land-use changes 

in recent history (Wright and Wimberly, 2013). In the western Corn Belt, U.S. farmers converted 566,560 million ha of 

grassland into corn and soybean fields between 2006 and 2011 

(Wright and Wimberly, 2013). In Iowa, conversion of grassland to CRP land has been concentrated on less-suitable land, 

as the more productive lands are already in crop production. 

In South Dakota and Iowa, 5 percent of these less-productive 

lands are being converted to cropland each year. Of potential 

sources of cropland biofuel (ethanol from corn and soybeans, 

cellulose from grasses), only grass biomass has the potential to 

furnish wildlife habitat in association with energy production 

(Higgins and others, 2005; Bies, 2006). 

A successful perennial grass for energy production 

requires establishment and persistence of a cultivar that 

produces high biomass output with low energy input (Mulkey 

and others, 2006). Because of its wide geographic distribution, 

relatively high yield and net energy content, and its adaptability to a variety of soils, switchgrass is believed to be the ideal 

native grass for biomass energy. Non-native grasses such as 

smooth brome, orchardgrass, tall fescue, and old-world bluestems also are harvested for biomass. Of these non-natives, 

giant miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) is commonly 

accepted for producing biomass because of its ideal plant 

traits, but little research has been done to quantify its potential effects on avian species. Giant miscanthus is a relatively 

new agronomic perennial crop with sterile seed; rhizomatous 

growth habit; and tall, vertical structure. Studies done in 

the United Kingdom have shown miscanthus fields attract a 

variety of common farmland and woodland wildlife specialists 

(Semere and Slater, 2007; Sage and others, 2010; Donnelly 

and others, 2011), but these fields were compared mostly to 

arable annual cropland. 

In the United States, little research has yet been done to 

investigate the effects of planting monocultures of miscanthus 

on native wildlife species, and there is concern that the suitability of habitat for birds that did not evolve with the density 

and structure provided by miscanthus will be limiting (3-meter 

tall thickets; (Fargione and others, 2009b). Whether intentional 

or not, introduction of exotic plant species in the US often has 

produced detrimental consequences for native habitats and wildlife species (Pimentel and others, 2000; Fargione and others, 

2009b). A 2011 USDA environmental assessment of giant miscanthus for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, 2011) concluded that 

wildlife would incur minor negative effects in proposed project 

areas, but acknowledged there was a lack of applicable peerreviewed data. The environmental assessment suggests that on 

the whole, cultivated fields had greater environmental impacts 

than perennial dedicated energy crops but less than fallow fields. 

To help offset anticipated adverse effects, USDA has developed 

a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. 
28 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Biofuels derived from a high diversity of native grass 

species can furnish more useable energy with less pollution 

from agrichemicals than can energy production from corn 

ethanol or soybean biodiesel (Tilman and others, 2006). It 

has been suggested that retired agricultural lands could, with 

proper management, be used to produce a sustainable energy 

product, renew soil fertility, and create additional habitat for 

some bird species (Murray and others, 2003). However, investigations have found that grasslands with a higher diversity 

of grass species are less productive in biomass yield than are 

grass monocultures. An investigation of possible use of CRP 

grasslands in northeastern states found grass biomass and 

ethanol yield declined in response to greater richness in plant 

species (Adler and others, 2009). The CRP fields evaluated 

were dominated by switchgrass, big bluestem (Andropogon 

gerardii), and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans). Biofuel yield 

decreased by 77 percent as plant species increased in number 

from 3 species to 12.8 species. A higher diversity of plant species negatively influenced concentrations of lignin, cellulose, 

and hemicellulose, resulting in poor yield and leading to the 

conclusion that sites with higher plant-species richness will 

exhibit diminished energy yield. 

A comparison of biomass production in Oklahoma CRP 

fields planted to monocultures of old-world bluestem to fields 

planted with native mixed species (big bluestem, Indiangrass, 

little bluestem [Schizachyrium scoparium], sideoats grama 

[Bouteloua curtipendula], and silver beardgrass [Bothriochloa laguroides]) found the monocultures to be a productive 

source of biomass (Venuto and Daniel, 2010). However, with 

repeated harvest, biomass production from old-world bluestem 

monocultures declined more rapidly than biomass production 

from native species. To compensate for the decreased production, the authors suggested that a harvest rotation would 

be needed to allow a percentage of grassland to be annually 

removed from production. They also suggested that fertilization would be needed to maintain grassland productivity. 

Cool-season grasses exhibit their greatest biomass accumulation in spring and early summer, as compared to warmseason grasses (such as switchgrass and old-world bluestem), 

which experience most biomass accumulation both in late 

spring and summer (Florine and others, 2006). Most studies of 

switchgrass for biomass production recommend harvesting in 

late summer to fall. Roth (2005) concluded that delaying the 

harvest until at least mid-August should provide a sufficient 

amount of time to permit 90 percent of bird nests to fledge 

from Wisconsin switchgrass fields. A major disadvantage 

of harvesting cool-season grasses is that biomass would be 

removed earlier in the reproductive season, resulting in substantial nesting failure for birds in these fields.

Delaying switchgrass harvest until after the first killing frost in South Dakota maximized grass available for 

harvest and decreased the amount of forbs in the vegetation 

(Mulkey and others, 2006). The highest yields of switchgrass in south-central states occurred in mid-September 

(Sanderson and others, 1999). As harvest frequency of 

switchgrass increased total seasonal yield declined so much 

it was believed switchgrass biomass production may not be 

economical in this region. Switchgrass is sensitive to frequent harvest. Switchgrass in 9-yr-old CRP fields declined 

rapidly when harvested annually during the growing season 

in South Dakota (Mulkey and others, 2006). The number of 

avian species using grasslands used for biomass production 

may be reduced due to reduction of forb abundance from 

herbicides and application of fertilizers during breeding 

season (Murray and Best, 2003). Chemical applications may 

cause nest failure directly or further diminish the quality of 

vegetation structure.

An effective option to retain some avian habitat in 

harvested areas is to maintain blocks of unharvested grassland adjacent to or interspersed with harvested fields (Best 

and Murray, 2005). Nest success was greater in unharvested 

switchgrass fields (59 percent) as compared to harvested fields 

(40 percent) and remaining standing vegetation (33 percent), 

where grasses were taken in alternating strips. While strips 

of switchgrass standing after harvest may not affect habitat 

quality for wintering birds, lower nest success in narrow linear 

covers has been well documented. 

When compared to non-harvested CRP grassland, avian 

habitat quality will likely decline under a biomass-production 

scenario due to frequent harvesting and associated disturbances. Biomass harvested in fall and winter will not affect 

breeding birds, but changes in vegetation structure and 

abundance may influence nest success the following year 

(Best and Murray, 2005; Roth and others, 2005). Practically 

all investigations between composition of CRP grasslands 

and wildlife habitat describe higher diversity in plant species 

as an enrichment of habitat value. Conversely, it appears the 

greatest potential for biomass production lies in monocultures. 

However, with consideration for timing of harvest and placing a portion of grassland in a harvest rotation, not all habitat 

value for breeding birds will be sacrificed. To compensate for 

the potential loss of cropland foods in areas extensively used 

for grass-biomass production, the addition of food plots may 

be useful to maintain habitat quality (Murray and Best, 2003; 

Best and Murray, 2005).

Ultimately, changes in wildlife habitats associated with 

energy production will depend on intensity, scale, and type 

of land used. Many environmental services provided (for 

example, high-quality nesting cover) are highly correlated 

with total CRP acreage, and their value is not easily replaced 

by intensely managed cropland. Furthermore, if native grasslands are converted to biomass production, effects on wildlife 

habitat will be severe and largely irreparable (Higgins and 

others, 2005).

Conclusion

A CRP field’s value as habitat cannot be defined until 

specific wildlife objectives are identified. For example, is the 

management goal to provide nesting habitat for grassland bird 

species associated with older, thicker grasslands, or are species 
Conclusion 29

dependent on younger, more open grasslands? Perhaps the 

diversity of vegetation is not significant, and only the presence 

of grassland suitable as winter cover is the goal. Because wildlife needs are so diverse and species of management concern 

vary widely, there is no one collective management prescription appropriate for wildlife. Generally, however, more diverse 

stands composed of a rich diversity of native plant species 

that are periodically managed by fire, grazing, disking or other 

appropriate (natural and man-made) disturbances provide the 

greatest wildlife benefits. 

Agricultural productivity and environmental quality 

are not mutually exclusive. The environmental, social benefits, and economic costs of interlacing conservation into the 

agricultural landscape are debated constantly, always with 

passion and sometimes with supporting data (Gregory and 

others, 2007). Since 1982, innovations in farm organization 

and production methods have increased American agricultural 

productivity by nearly 50 percent (O’Donoghue and others, 

2011). Less land is used today to supply more agricultural 

production than was used 30 yr ago. In approximately the 

same period of time, the CRP has reduced soil erosion and 

improved water quality. The environmental benefits of soil 

and water conservation are not always obvious or immediately 

evident. The largely positive response of wildlife populations 

to CRP conservation practices is proof that these policies work 

and are improving the contemporary and future of worth of the 

American landscape and its agricultural industry.

Control of soil erosion, improvement in water quality, 

and provision of wildlife habitat on agricultural lands are not 

independent issues. Largely, conservation practices designed 

to address regionally prevalent soil-erosion issues have been 

beneficial to wildlife species also of regional concern. Waterfowl, ring-necked pheasants, bobwhite quail, and many songbirds generally prosper when even a relatively small portion 

of the landscape is dedicated to non-farmed covers (that is, 

field borders, contour, and buffer strips) because they furnish a 

high degree of interspersion between farmed and non-farmed 

land. In drier regions, such as the southern Great Plains, where 

wind erosion is prevalent, whole-field enrollments of CRP 

grasslands have proven beneficial to lesser prairie-chickens, 

grassland songbirds, and other species dependent upon large, 

contiguous blocks of grassland cover. Regardless of region, 

some type of management will be required to maintain grassland quality and desirable features of habitat needed by many 

species of wildlife. 

Numerous investigations have shown a positive response 

by wildlife to removal of erosive and environmentally sensitive lands from crop production. Greater numbers and distribution of wildlife are visible and quantifiable benefits of the 

CRP. Other positive responses brought by the CRP include 

economic benefits to landowners enrolled in the program and 

to rural communities (Leistritz and others, 2002; Hansen, 

2007). While selected environmental benefits delivered by the 

CRP can be given economic value, many others cannot. For 

example, what is the monetary worth of improved air quality, greater aesthetic quality of the landscape, reappearance 

of springs, improved quality of well water, control of drifting snow, having forage to give to neighbors in time of need, 

provision of lands for schools to teach environmental education, or neighbors and friends to hunt or just enjoy watching 

wildlife? These are but a few of the ancillary profits described 

by CRP participants (Allen and Vandever, 2003). 

Nationally, a valuation of a subset of CRP benefits 

provides an estimated $1.3 billion per year in environmental benefits, which is 70–85 percent of the program’s costs 

(Hansen, 2007). These environmental estimates are based 

primarily on soil erosion, water quality, wildlife viewing, and 

pheasant hunting, and are conservative. If it were possible 

to include all additional environmental profits (for example, 

carbon sequestration, greater biodiversity, flood control, 

reductions in pesticide use, and nutrient loading of ground 

and surface waters) delivered by the CRP, the benefits likely 

would exceed program costs. However, variable rates of 

funding and relatively short-term (10 yr) contracts make the 

CRP an unpredictable source of environmental enhancement 

and wildlife habitat over the long-term (Cunningham, 2005; 

Herkert, 2009).

The majority of the American population works, recreates, and encounters the natural world on private lands 

(Norton, 2000). Farm families and the American public value 

the traditional and non-market products brought by American 

agriculture. The public’s demand for foods produced by safe, 

environmentally sound methods is based in part on public 

recognition that social, aesthetic, and recreational interests 

increase the importance of safer resources derived from 

traditional uses of agricultural land (Taylor, 2001; Dimitri and 

others, 2005). An American public increasingly involved in 

the link between agricultural production and the environment 

may continue support for and seek refinement of governmental 

policies that are intended to enhance long-term protection of 

natural resources. The extensive and significant improvement 

in wildlife populations and their habitats brought by the CRP 

and the landowners participating in the program is largely 

unknown to the general public. Emphasis should be made by 

the USDA to make it a priority to inform the general public 

about the environmental and wildlife benefits delivered by 

their conservation programs and to highlight program successes to avoid misperceptions of program goals.

Complete understanding of ecological processes within 

agricultural lands remains imperfect, but we recognize that 

the maintenance of long-term agricultural productivity often 

comes with unintentional environmental costs, and that these 

costs cannot be disregarded. The CRP is the largest publicprivate partnership for wildlife habitat and the cornerstone of 

the USDA’s conservation programs. The program’s goals have 

evolved continuously since its inception, and without doubt, 

the CRP has brought economic, social, and environmental 

profits to American society. The CRP program can result in 

agricultural yield and viable populations of wildlife, but compatibility between these goals depends on deliberate, low-cost 

strategies favoring an enduring presence of essential habitats 

within intensively farmed regions.
Finding ways to induce greater responsiveness from 

private landowners to supply environmental amenities will 

continue to challenge those who design and implement agricultural policies. Because of the ecological complexities associated with agricultural land use, evaluating and monitoring 

effects of the CRP and other conservation programs is necessarily intricate and costly. Yet, it is only with such information 

that program effectiveness can be improved by identifying key 

conservation objectives at local, regional, and national levels. 

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to S. Hyberg for laying the groundwork 

of research for this project. I thank T. Riley, C. Kowaleski, 

and N. Marymor for their comments and contributions to this 

manuscript. 

References Cited

Abrams, M.D., Knapp, A.K., and Hulbert, L.C., 1986, A tenyear record of aboveground biomass in a Kansas tallgrass 

prairie—Effects of fire and topographic position: American 

Journal of Botany, p. 1509–1515.

Adler, P.R., Sanderson, M.A., Weimer, P.J., and Vogel, K.P., 

2009, Plant species composition and biofuel yields of conservation grasslands: Ecological Applications, v. 19, no. 8, 

p. 2202–2209.

Allen, A.W., 1994, Regional and state perspectives on Conservation Reserve Program contributions to wildlife habitat: 

Fort Collins, Colo., National Biological Survey, p. 28.

Allen, A.W., Cade, B.S., and Vandever, M.W., 2001, Effects 

of emergency haying on vegetative characteristics within 

selected conservation reserve program fields in the northern 

Great Plains: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 56, 

no. 2, p. 120–125.

Allen, A.W., and Vandever, M.W., 2003, A national survey of 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands: Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. Geological 

Survey Biological Science Report 2003–0001.

Allen, A.W., and Vandever, M.W., 2012, Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) contributions to wildlife habitat, management issues, challenges and policy choices—An Annotated 

Bibliography: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5066, p. 185.

Allen, M.S., and Palmer, M.W., 2011, Fire history of a prairie/

forest boundary—More than 250 years of frequent fire in a 

North American tallgrass prairie: Journal of Vegetation Science, v. 22, no. 3, p. 436–444.

Anderson, R.C., ed., 1990, The historic role of fire: Norman, 

Okla., University of Oklahoma Press, 8 p.

Askins, R.A., 1999, History of grassland birds in eastern North 

America: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 19, p. 60–71.

Askins, R.A., Chávez-Ramírez, Felipe, Dale, B.C., Haas, C.A., 

Herkert, J.R., Knopf, F.L., and Vickery, P.D., 2007, Conservation of grassland birds in North America—Understanding 

ecological processes in different regions: Ornithological 

Monographs, p. iii–46. [Report of the AOU Committee on 

Conservation]

Augustine, D.J., Derner, J.D., and Milchunas, D.G., 2010, 

Prescribed fire, grazing, and herbaceous plant production 

in shortgrass steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, 

v. 63, no. 3, p. 317–323.

Baer, S.G., Kitchen, D.J., Blair, J.M., and Rice, C.W., 2002, 

Changes in ecosystem structure and function along a chronosequence of restored grasslands: Ecological Applications, 

v. 12, no. 6, p. 1688–1701.

Bakker, K.K., and Higgins, K.F., 2009, Planted grasslands 

and native sod prairie—Equivalent habitat for grassland 

birds?: Western North American Naturalist, v. 69, no. 2, 

p. 235–242.

Ball, I.J., Eng, R.L., and Ball, S.K., 1995, Population density 

and productivity of ducks on large grassland tracts in northcentral Montana: Wildlife Society Bulletin, p. 767–773.

Barnes, T.G., Madison, L.A., Sole, J.D., and Lacki, M.J., 

1995, An assessment of habitat quality for northern bobwhite in tall fescue-dominated fields: Wildlife Society Bulletin, p. 231–237.

Bauer, D.M., and Wing, I.S., 2010, Economic consequences of 

pollinator declines—A synthesis: Agricultural and Resource 

Economics Review, v. 39, p. 368–383.

Berger, J.J., 1993, Ecological restoration and nonindigenous 

plant species—A review: Restoration Ecology, v. 1, no. 2, 

p. 74–82.

Berthelsen, P.S., Smith, L.M., and Geroge, R.R., 1990, Ringnecked Pheasant nesting ecology and production on CRP 

lands in the Texas southern high plains: Transactions of the 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, p. 46–56.

Best, L.B., Bergin, T.M., and Freemark, K.E., 2001, Influence 

of landscape composition on bird use of rowcrop fields: The 

Journal of Wildlife Management, p. 442–449.

Best, L.B., Campa, Henry, III, Kemp, K.E., Robel, R.J., Ryan, 

M.R., Savidge, J.A., Weeks, H.P., and Winterstein, S.R., 

1997, Bird abundance and nesting in CRP fields and cropland in the Midwest—A regional approach: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 25, no. 4, p. 864–877.

30 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives
References Cited 31

Best, L.B., Campa, Henry, III, Kemp, K.E., Robel, R.J., Ryan, 

M.R., Savidge, J.A., Weeks, H.P., and Winterstein, S.R., 

1998, Avian abundance in CRP and crop fields during winter 

in the midwest: American Midland Naturalist, v. 139, no. 2, 

p. 311–324.

Best, L.B., Freemark, K.E., Dinsmore, J.J., and Camp, M., 

1995, A review and synthesis of habitat use by breeding 

birds in agricultural landscapes of Iowa: American Midland 

Naturalist, p. 1–29.

Best, L.B., and Murray, L.D., 2005, Bird responses to harvesting switchgrass fields for biomass, in Transactions North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 69, 

Spokane, Wash., March 16–20, 2004, Proceedings: Washington, D.C., Wildlife Management Institute, p. 224–235.

Bies, L., 2006, The biofuels explosion—Is green energy 

good for wildlife?: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 34, no. 4, 

p. 1203–1205.

Boyd, Chad, Petersen, Steven, Gilgert, Wendell, Rodgers, 

Randy, Fuhlendorf, Sam, Larsen, Randy, Wolfe, Don, Jensen, K.C., Gonzales, Phil, Nenneman, Melvin, Danvir,

 Rrick, Dahlgren, David, and Messmer, Terry, 2011, Looking toward a brighter future for lekking grouse: Rangelands, 

v. 33, no. 6, p. 2–11.

Bragg, T.B., and Steuter, A.A., 1995, Mixed prairie of the 

North American Great Plains: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

p. 335–348.

Bragg, T.B., and Steuter, A.A., 1996, Prairie ecology—The 

mixed prairie, in Samson, F.B., and Knopf, F.B., eds., 

Prairie conservation—Preserving North America’s most 

endangered ecosystem: Washington, D.C., Island Press, 

p. 53–65.

Bragg, T.B., and Sutherland, D.M., 1989, Establishing warmseason grasses and forbs using herbicides and mowing, in

North American Prairie Conference, 11, Lincoln, Nebr., 

7–11 August, 1989, Proceedings: Prarie Pioneers—Ecology, 

History and Culture—Proceedings of the Eleventh North 

American Prairie Conference. 

Brennan, L.A., 1991, How can we reverse the northern Bobwhite population decline: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 19, 

no. 4, p. 544–555.
32 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Briggs, J.M., and Knapp, A.K., 2001, Determinants of C3 forb 

growth and production in a C4 dominated grassland: Plant 

Ecology, v. 152, no. 1, p. 93–100.

Brockway, D.G., Gatewood, R.G., and Paris, R.B., 2002, 

Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass prairie 

ecosystems—Initial effects of prescribed burning during the 

dormant and growing seasons: Journal of Environmental 

Management, v. 65, no. 2, p. 135–152.

Bryan, G.G., and Best, L.B., 1991, Bird abundance and species richness in grassed waterways in Iowa rowcrop fields: 

American Midland Naturalist, p. 90–102.

Buchmann, S.L., and Nabhan, G.P., 1996, The forgotten pollinators: Washington, D.C., Island Press.

Burger, L.W., 2005, The Conservation Reserve Program in 

the Southeast—Issues affecting wildlife habitat value, in

Haufler, J.B., ed., Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill 

conservation programs, 2000–2005 update: The Wildlife 

Society, Technical Review 05–2, p. 63–92.

Burger, L.W., Kurzejeski, E.W., Dailey, T.V., and Ryan, M.R., 

1993, Relative invertebrate abundance and biomass in 

Conservation Reserve Program plantings in northern Missouri, in Church, K.E., and Dailey, T.V., Quail III—National 

Quail Symposium—Kansas City, Mo.: Pratt, Kans., Kansas 

Department of Wildlife and Parks, p. 102–108.

Burger, L.W., McKenzie, Don, Thackston, Reggie, and 

Demaso, S.J., 2006, The role of farm policy in achieving 

large scale conservation—Bobwhite and buffers: Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, v. 34, no. 4, p. 986–993.

Burger, L.W., Jr., Kurzejeski, E.W., Dailey, T.V., and Ryan, 

M.R., 1990, Structural characteristics of vegetation in CRP 

fields in northern Missouri and their suitability as Bobwhite 

habitat: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference, p. 74–83.

Burke, J.D., Chamberlain, M.J., and Geaghan, J.P., 2008, 

Effects of understory vegetation management on brood 

habitat for northern bobwhites: The Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 72, no. 6, p. 1361–1368.

Cade, B.S., Vandever, M.W., Allen, A.W., and Terrell, J.W., 

2005, Vegetation changes over 12 years in ungrazed and 

grazed conservation reserve program grasslands in the 

central and southern plains, in Allen, A.W., and Vandever, 

M.W., eds., The Conservation Reserve Program—Planting 

for the future—Proceedings of a National Conference, Fort 

Collins, Colorado, June 6–9, 2005: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5145, p. 106–119.

Carroll, S.C., Rummel, D.R., and Segarra, E., 1993, Overwintering by the boll weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Conservation Reserve Program grasses on the Texas High 

Plains: Journal of Economic Entomology, v. 86, no. 2, 

p. 382–393.

Carver, E., 2006, Birding in the United States—A demographic 

and economic analysis: Addendum to the, p. 2006–2004. 

Cearley, K.A., Amosson, S.H., Warminski, Patrick, Jones, 

DeDe, and Kenny, Nicholas, 2009, After the Conservation 

Reserve Program: Economic Decisions with Farming and 

Grazing in Mind, accessed April 24, 2015, at http://hdl.

handle.net/1969.1/87591.

Cederbaum, S.B., Carroll, J.P., and Cooper, R.J., 2004, Effects 

of alternative cotton agriculture on avian and arthropod populations: Conservation Biology, v. 18, no. 5, p. 1272–1282.

Chapman, R.N., Engle, D.M., Masters, R.E., and Leslie, D.M., 

2004a, Grassland vegetation and bird communities in the 

southern Great Plains of North America: Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, v. 104, no. 3, p. 577–585.

Chapman, R.N., Engle, D.M., Masters, R.E., and Leslie, D.M., 

2004b, Tree invasion constrains the influence of herbaceous 

structure in grassland bird habitats: Ecoscience, v. 11, no. 1, 

p. 55–63.

Christian, J.M., and Wilson, S.D., 1999, Long-term ecosystem 

impacts of an introduced grass in the Northern Great Plains: 

Ecology, v. 80, no. 7, p. 2397–2407.

Clark, W.R., Schmitz, R.A., and Bogenschutz, T.R., 1999, 

Site selection and nest success of ring-necked pheasants as 

a function of location in Iowa landscapes: The Journal of 

Wildlife Management, p. 976–989.

Cochrane, W.W., 1993, Development of American agriculture—A historical analysis: University of Minnesota Press, 

500 p.

Cody, M.L., ed., 1985, Habitat selection in birds: Academic 

Press, San Diego, 558 p.

Collins, S.L., 1987, Interaction of disturbances in tallgrass prairie—A field experiment: Ecology, v. 68, no. 5, p. 1243–1250.

Collins, S.L., and Barber, S.C., 1986, Effects of disturbance on 

diversity in mixed-grass prairie: Plant Ecology, v. 64, no. 2, 

p. 87–94.

Collins, S.L., and Gibson, D.J., 1990, Effects of fire on community structure in tall-grass and mixed-grass prairie, in Collins, S.L., and Wallace, L.L., eds., Fire in North American 

tall-grass prairie: Norman, Okla., University of Oklahoma 

Press, p. 81–98.

Collins, S.L., and Glenn, S.M., 1988, Disturbance and community structure in North American prairies, in During, 

H.J., Werger, M.J.A., and Willems, J.H., eds., Diversity and 

pattern in plant communities: The Hague, SPB Academic 

Publishing, p. 131–143.

Coppedge, B.R., Engle, D.M., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Masters, 

R.E., and Gregory, M.S., 2001, Landscape cover type and 

pattern dynamics in fragmented southern Great Plains grasslands, USA: Landscape Ecology, v. 16, no. 8, p. 677–690.
References Cited 33

Cox, S.A., Guthery, F.S., Lusk, J.J., Peoples, A.D., DeMaso, 

S.J., and Sams, Mike, 2005, Reproduction by northern bobwhites in western Oklahoma: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 69, no. 1, p. 133–139.

Cramer, V.A., Hobbs, R.J., and Standish, R.J., 2008, What’s 

new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem 

assembly: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 23, no. 2, 

p. 104–112.

Cunningham, M.A., 2005, A comparison of public lands and 

farmlands for grassland bird conservation: The Professional 

Geographer, v. 57, no. 1, p. 51–65.

Davis, S.S., 1998, Effects of prescribed fire on small mammals 

and beetle assemblages in Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) grasslands: Lubbock, Tex., Texas Technical University, 55 p.

Davros, N.M., Debinski, D.M., Reeder, K.F., and Hohman, 

W.L., 2006, Butterflies and continuous Conservation 

Reserve Program filter strips—Landscape considerations: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 34, no. 4, p. 936–943.

Delisle, J.M., and Savidge, J.A., 1997, Avian use and vegetation characteristics of conservation reserve program fields: 

Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 61, no. 2, p. 318–325. 

Diboll, Neil, 1986, Mowing as an alternative to spring burning 

for control of cool season exotic grasses in prairie grass 

plantings, in Clambey, G.K., and Pemble, R.H., eds., The 

prairie—Past, present and future, Proceedings of the Ninth 

North American Prairie Conference: Fargo, N. D., North 

Dakota State University, p. 204–209.

Dimitri, Carolyn, Effland, A.B.W., and Conklin, N.C., 2005, 

The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and 

farm policy: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information 

Bulletin Number 3.

Donnelly, Alison, Styles, David, Fitzgerald, Joanne, and 

Finnan, John, 2011, A proposed framework for determining 

the environmental impact of replacing agricultural grassland 

with Miscanthus in Ireland: GCB Bioenergy, v. 3, no. 3, 

p. 247–263.

Doxon, E.D., and Carroll, J.P., 2007, Vegetative and invertebrate community characteristics of Conservation Reserve 

Program fields relative to gamebirds in western Kansas: The 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 158, no. 2, p. 243–259.

Doxon, E.D., and Carroll, J.P., 2010, Feeding ecology of RingNecked Pheasant and Northern Bobwhite Chicks in Conservation Reserve Program fields: The Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 74, no. 2, p. 249–256.

Duke, J.M., 2004, Participation in agricultural land preservation programs—parcel quality and a complex policy environment: Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 

v. 33, p. 34–49.

Eggebo, S.L., Higgins, K.F., Naugle, D.E., and Quamen, F.R., 

2003, Effects of CRP field age and cover type on ringnecked pheasants in eastern South Dakota: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 31, no. 3, p. 779–785.

Evrard, J.O., Snobl, D.A., Doeneir, P.B., and Dechant, J.A., 

1991, Nesting Short-eared Owls and voles in St. Croix 

County: Passenger Pigeon, v. 53, p. 223–226.

Falk, A.D., Fulbright, T.E., Smith, F.S., Brennan, L.A., 

Ortega-Santos, A.J., and Benn, Stephen, 2013, Does seeding 

a locally adapted native mixture inhibit ingress by exotic 

plants?: Restoration Ecology, v. 21, no. 4, p. 474–480.

Fargione, J.E., Cooper, T.R., Flaspohler, D.J., Hill, Jason, 

Lehman, Clarence, McCoy, Tim, McLeod, Scott, Nelson, 

E.J., Oberhauser, K.S., and Tilman, David, 2009, Bioenergy 

and wildlife—Threats and opportunities for grassland conservation: Bioscience, v. 59, no. 9, p. 767–777.

Farmer, A.H., Hays, R.L., and Webb, R.P., 1988, Effects of 

the Conservation Reserve Program on wildlife habitat—A 

cooperative monitoring study: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

p. 232–238.

Farrand, D.T., and Ryan, M.R., 2005, Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on wildlife conservation in the 

Midwest, in Haufler, J.B., ed., Fish and wildlife benefits of 

Farm Bill conservation programs, 2000–2005 update: The 

Wildlife Society, Technical Review 05–2, p. 41–62.

Felix, Joel, and Owen, M.D.K., 2001, Weed seedbank dynamics in post conservation reserve program land: Weed Science, v. 49, no. 6, p. 780–787.

Fields, T.L., White, G.C., Gilgert, W.C., and Rodgers, R.D., 

2006, Nest and brood survival of lesser prairie-chickens in 

west central Kansas: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 70, 

no. 4, p. 931–938.

Fletcher, R.J., Jr., and Koford, R.R., 2003, Changes in breeding bird populations with habitat restoration in northern 

Iowa: The American Midland Naturalist, v. 150, no. 1, 

p. 83–94.

Florine, S.E., Moore, K.J., Fales, S.L., White, T.A., and 

Burras, C.L., 2006, Yield and composition of herbaceous 

biomass harvested from naturalized grassland in southern 

Iowa: Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 30, no. 6, p. 522–528.

Ford, P.L., and McPherson, G.R., 1996, Ecology of fire in 

shortgrass prairie of the southern Great Plains: U.S. Forest 

Service General Technical Report RM, v. 285, p. 20–39.

Fox, T.B., Landis, D.A., Cardoso, F.F., and Difonzo, C.D., 

2004, Predators suppress Aphis glycines Matsumura population growth in soybean: Environmental Entomology, v. 33, 

no. 3, p. 608–618.
34 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Fritcher, S.C., Rumble, M.A., and Flake, L.D., 2004, Grassland 

bird densities in seral stages of mixed-grass prairie: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 57, no. 4, p. 351–357.

Furuseth, O.J., 1987, Public attitudes toward local farmland 

protection programs: Growth and Change, v. 18, no. 3, p. 49.

Gathmann, Achim, and Tscharntke, Teja, 2002, Foraging 

ranges of solitary bees: Journal of Animal Ecology, v. 71, 

no. 5, p. 757–764.

George, T.L., Fowler, A.C., Knight, R.L., and McEwen, L.C., 

1992, Impacts of a severe drought on grassland birds in 

western North Dakota: Ecological Applications, v. 2, no. 3, 

p. 275–284.

Germano, D.J., Rathbun, G.B., and Saslaw, L.R., 2001, 

Managing exotic grasses and conserving declining species: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, p. 551–559.

Gill, D.E., Blank, Peter, Parks, Jared, Guerard, J.B., Lohr, 

Bernard, Schwartzman, Eedward, Gruber, J.G., Dodge, 

Gary, Rewa, C.A., and Sears, H.F., 2006, Plants and breeding bird response on a managed Conservation Reserve 

Program grassland in Maryland: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 34, no. 4, p. 944–956.

Gould, J.H., and Jenkins, K.J., 1993, Seasonal use of Conservation Reserve Program lands by white-tailed deer in eastcentral South Dakota: Wildlife Society Bulletin, p. 250–255.

Granfors, D.A., Church, K.E., and Smith, L.M., 1996, Eastern meadowlarks nesting in rangelands and conservation 

reserve program fields in Kansas: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 67, no. 2, p. 222–235.

Grant, T.A., Madden, Elizabeth, and Berkey, G.B., 2004, 

Tree and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie—

Implications for breeding grassland birds: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 32, no. 3, p. 807–818.

Graul, W.D., 1980, Grassland management practices and bird 

communities, in DeGraaf, R.M., technical coordinator, 

Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame 

birds: Ogden, Utah, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical 

Report, p. 38–47.

Greenfield, K.C., Burger, L.W., Chamberlain, M.J., and 

Kurzejeski, E.W., 2002, Vegetation management practices on Conservation Reserve Program fields to improve 

northern bobwhite habitat quality: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 30, no. 2, p. 527–538.

Greenfield, K.C., Chamberlain, M.J., Burger, L.W., and 

Kurzejeski, E.W., 2003, Effects of burning and discing Conservation Reserve Program fields to improve habitat quality 

for northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): American 

Midland Naturalist, v. 149, no. 2, p. 344–353.

Gregory, Stan, Allen, A.W., Baker, Matthew, Boyer, Kathryn, 

Dillaha, Theo, and Elliot, Jane, 2007, Realistic expectations 

of timing between conservation and restoration actions and 

ecological responses, in Schnepf, Max, and Cox, C.A., eds., 

Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality—Strengthening the science base: Soil and Water Conservation Society, p. 196.

Grewell, J.B., Landry, C.J., and Conko, G.P., 2003, Ecological agrarian—Agriculture’s first evolution in 10,000 years: 

Purdue University Press, 220 p.
References Cited 35

Griffin, S.L., 1991, Pronghorn use of agricultural land in 

northwestern South Dakota: Brookings, S. Dak., South 

Dakota State University, Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences 

Department, M.S. Thesis, 63 p.

Grovenburg, T.W., Jacques, C.N., Klaver, R.W., and Jenks, 

J.A., 2010, Bed site selection by Neonate Deer in grassland 

habitats on the Northern Great Plains: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 74, no. 6, p. 1250–1256.

Hansen, L.R., 2007, Conservation Reserve Program—

Environmental benefits update: Agricultural and Resource 

Economics Review v. 36, no. 2, p. 1–14.

Haroldson, K.J., Kimmel, R.O., Riggs, M.R., and Berner, 

A.H., 2006, Association of ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, and meadowlark abundance to Conservation Reserve 

Program grasslands: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 70, 

no. 5, p. 1276–1284.

Hays, R.L., and Farmer, A.H., 1990, Effects of the CRP on 

wildlife habitat—Emergency haying in the Midwest and 

pine planting in the Southeast: Denver, Colo., Transactions 

of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, v. 55, p. 30–39.

Hays, R.L., Webb, R.P., and Farmer, A.H., 1989, Effects of the 

Conservation Reserve Program on wildlife habitat—Results 

of 1988 monitoring, in Transactions of North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Washington, 

D.C., 17–22 March 1989, Proceedings: Washington, D.C., 

Wildlife Management Institute, p. 365–376.

Heard, L.P., Allen, A.W., Best, L.B., Brady, S.J., Burger, Wes, 

Esser, A.J., Hackett, Ed, Johnson, D.H., Pederson, R.L., 

Reynolds, R.E., Rewa, Charlie, Ryan, M.R., Molleur, R.T., 

and Buck, Paige, 2000, A comprehensive review of Farm 

Bill contributions to wildlife conservation, 1985–2000: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Wildlife Management Institute, Technical Report 

USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000, 208 p. [W.L. Hohman and D.J. 

Halloum, editors]

Helzer, C.J., and Jelinski, D.E., 1999, The relative importance 

of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding 

birds: Ecological Applications, v. 9, no. 4, p. 1448–1458.

Hendrickson, J., and Olson, B., 2006, Understanding plant 

response to grazing, in Launchbaugn, K., ed., Targeted 

grazing—A natural approach to vegetation management and 

landscape enhancement: Centennial, Colo., American Sheep 

Industry Association, p. 32–39.

Henningsen, J.C., and Best, L.B., 2005, Grassland bird use of 

riparian filter strips in southeast Iowa: Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 69, no. 1, p. 198–210.

Henrichs, Lisa, 1997, Grazing as a technique for prairie restoration: Restoration and Reclamation Review, v. 2, no. 5.

Herkert, J.R, 1994a, Breeding bird communities of midwestern 

prairie fragments—The effects of prescribed burning and 

habitat-area: Natural Areas Journal, v. 14, no. 2, p. 128–135.

Herkert, J.R., 1994b, The effects of habitat fragmentation on 

midwestern grassland bird communities: Ecological Applications, v. 4, no. 3, p. 461–471.

Herkert, J.R., 2007a, Conservation reserve program benefits 

on Henslow’s sparrows within the United States: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71, no. 8, p. 2749–2751.

Herkert, J.R., 2007b, Evidence for a recent Henslow’s sparrow population increase in Illinois: The Journal of wildlife 

management, v. 71, no. 4, p. 1229–1233.

Herkert, J.R., 2009, Response of Bird Populations to Farmland 

Set Aside Programs: Conservation Biology, v. 23, no. 4, 

p. 1036–1040.

Herkert, J.R., Sample, D.W., and Warner, R.E., 1996, Management of Midwestern grassland landscapes for the conservation of migratory birds: U.S. Forest Service General 

Technical Report NC, v. 187, p. 89–116.

Hickman, K.R., Farley, G.H., Channell, Rob, and Steier, 

J.E., 2006, Effects of old world bluestem (Bothriochloa 

ischaemum) on food availability and avian community 

composition within the mixed-grass prairie: Southwestern 

Naturalist, v. 51, no. 4, p. 524–530.

Higgins, K.F., Osborn, R.G., Naugle, D.E., and Bakker, 

K.K., 2005, Contrasting the potential effects of biomass 

fuel, soy-base fuel, ethanol, and wind energy developments on northern Great Plains Wildlife, in Transactions 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 69, Spokane, Wash., 16–20 March, 2004, Proceedings: Washington, D.C., Wildlife Management Institute, 

p. 199–214.

Hobbs, R.J., and Huenneke, L.F., 1992, Disturbance, diversity, 

and invasion—Implications for conservations: Conservation 

Biology, v. 6, no. 3, p. 324–337.

Hodges, R.W., 1995, Diversity and abundance of insects, in

LaRoe, E.T., Farris, G.S., Puckett, E.E.,Doran, P.D., and Mac, 

M.J., eds., Our living resources—A report to the Nation on 

the distribution, abundance, and health of US plants, animals, 

and ecosystems: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service, p. 161–163.

Hoernemann, C.K., Johnson, P.J., and Higgins, K.F., 2001, 

Effects of grazing and haying on arthropod diversity in 

North Dakota Conservation Reserve Program grasslands: 

Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science,v. 80, 

p. 283–308.

Holsman, R.H., and Peyton, R.B., 2003, Stakeholder attitudes 

toward ecosystem management in southern Michigan: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 31, no. 2, p. 349–361.
36 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Homan, H.J., Linz, G.M., and Bleier, W.J., 2000, Winter 

habitat use and survival of female ring-necked pheasants 

(Phasianus colchicus) in Southeastern North Dakota: The 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 143, no. 2, p. 463–480.

Horn, D.J., and Koford, R.R., 2000, Relation of grassland bird 

abundance to mowing of Conservation Reserve Program 

field in North Dakota: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 28, 

no. 3, p. 653–659.

Horn, D.J., Phillips, M.L., Koford, R.R., Clark, W.R., Sovada, 

M.A., and Greenwood, R.J., 2005, Landscape composition, 

patch size, and distance to edges—Interactions affecting 

duck reproductive success: Ecological Applications, v. 15, 

no. 4, p. 1367–1376.

Hughes, J.P., Robel, R.J., and Kemp, K.E., 2000, Factors 

influencing mourning dove nest success in CRP fields: The 

Journal of Wildlife Management, p. 1004–1008.

Hurley, T.M., Babcock, B.A., Reynolds, R.E., and Loesch, 

C.R., 1996, Waterfowl populations and the Conservation 

Reserve Program in the Prairie Pothole Region of North and 

South Dakota: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University, 30 p.

Jensen, W.E., Robinson, D.A., Jr., and Applegate, R.D., 2000, 

Distribution and population trend of lesser prairie-chicken 

in Kansas: Prairie Naturalist, v. 32, no. 3, p. 169–175.

Johnson, D.H., 2005, Grassland bird use of Conservation 

Reserve Program fields in the Great Plains, in Haufler, J.B., 

ed., Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation 

programs, 2000–2005 update: The Wildlife Society, Technical Review 05–2, p. 17–32.

Johnson, D.H., and Igl, L.D., 1995, Contributions of the 

Conservation Reserve Program to populations of breeding birds in North Dakota: Wilson Bulletin, v. 107, no. 4, 

p. 709–718.

Johnson, D.H., and Igl, L.D., 2001, Area requirements of 

grassland birds— A regional perspective: The Auk, v. 118, 

no. 1, p. 24–34.

Johnson, P.N., Misra, S.K., and Ervin, R.T., 1997, A qualitative choice analysis of factors influencing post-CRP land 

use decisions: Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, v. 29, p. 163–174.

Jonas, J.L., Whiles, M.R., and Charlton, R.E., 2002, Aboveground invertebrate responses to land management differences in a central Kansas grassland: Environmental 

Entomology, v. 31, no. 6, p. 1142–1152.

Kamler, J.F., Ballard, W.B., Fish, E.B., Lemons, P.R., Mote, 

K., and Perchellet, C.C., 2003, Habitat use, home ranges, 

and survival of swift foxes in a fragmented landscape—

Conservation implications: Journal of Mammalogy, v. 84, 

no. 3, p. 989–995.

Kamler, J.F., Ballard, W.B., Lemons, P.R., Gilliland, R.L., 

and Mote, Kevin, 2005, Home range and habitat use of 

coyotes in an area of native prairie, farmland and CRP 

fields: The American Midland Naturalist, v. 153, no. 2, 

p. 396–404.

Kamler, J.F., Ballard, W.B., and Swepston, D.A., 2001, Range 

expansion of mule deer in the Texas Panhandle: Southwestern Naturalist, v. 46, no. 3, p. 378–379.

Kamler, J.F., Ballard, W.B., Wallace, M.C., and Gipson, P.S., 

2007, Diets of swift foxes (Vulpes Velox) in continuous and 

fragmented prairie in northwestern Texas: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 52, no. 4, p. 504–510.

Kantrud, H., 1981, Grazing intensity effects on the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native grasslands: Canadian 

Field-Naturalist, v. 95, no. 4, p. 404–417.

Kimmel, R., Berner, A., Welsh, R., Haroldson, B., and Malchow, S., 1992, Population responses of grey partridge 

(Perdix perdix), ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) and meadowlarks (Sturnella sp.) to farm programs in 

Minnesota: Gibier Faune Sauvage, v. 9, p. 797–806.

King, J.W., and Savidge, J.A., 1995, Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on wildlife in southeast Nebraska: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 23, no. 3, p. 377–385.

Klute, D.S., Robel, R.J., and Kemp, K.E., 1997, Seed availability in grazed pastures and Conservation Reserve 

Program fields during winter in Kansas: Journal of Field 

Ornithology, v. 68, no. 2, p. 253–258.

Knapp, A.K., and Seastedt, T.R., 1986, Detritus accumulation 

limits productivity of tallgrass prairie: Bioscience, v. 36, 

no. 10, p. 662–668.

Knopf, F.L., 1994, Avian assemblages on altered grasslands: 

Studies in Avian Biology, v. 15, p. 247–257.

Knopf, F.L., and Samson, F.B., 1996, Prairie legacies—Birds, 

chap. 10 of Prairie conservation—Preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem: Washington D.C., Island 

Press, p. 135–148.

Krapu, G.L., Brandt, D.A., and Cox, R.R., 2004, Less waste 

corn, more land in soybeans, and the switch to genetically 

modified cropsrends with important implications for wildlife management: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 32, no. 1, 

p. 127–136.

Kremen, Claire, Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., GemmillHerren, Barbara, LeBuhn, Gretchen, Minckley, Robert, 

Packer, Laurence, Potts, S.G., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and 

Vazquez, D.P., 2007, Pollination and other ecosystem 

services produced by mobile organisms—A conceptual 

framework for the effects of land-use change: Ecology Letters, v. 10, no. 4, p. 299–314.
References Cited 37

Kremen, Claire, Williams, N.M., and Thorp, R.W., 2002, 

Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural 

intensification: Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, v. 99, no. 26, p. 16812–16816.

Kruse, A.D., and Bowen, B.S., 1996, Effects of grazing and 

burning on densities and habitats of breeding ducks in North 

Dakota: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 60, no. 2, 

p. 233–246.

Kurzejeski, E.W., 1996, Vegetation structure and avian species 

composition in diverted farmland: Jefferson City, Miss., 

Missouri Department of Conservation, Federal Aid Project 

No. W-31-R-05, Final Report, p. 75.

Lambert, D., Sullivan, P., Claassen, R., and Foreman, L., 

2006, Conservation–compatible practices and programs: 

who participates?, United States Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, 43 p.

Larson, D.M., Grudzinski, B.P., Dodds, W.K., Daniels, M.D., 

Skibbe, Adam, and Joern, Anthony, 2013, Blazing and 

grazing—Influences of fire and bison on tallgrass prairie 

stream water quality: Freshwater Science, v. 32, no. 3, 

p. 779–791.

Larsen, D.T., Crookston, P.L., and Flake, L.D., 1994, Factors 

associated with ring-necked pheasant use of winter food 

plots: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 22, p. 620–626.

Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F., and Naugle, D.E., 1997, The 

importance of Conservation Reserve Program fields to 

breeding grassland birds at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota: 

Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science v. 76, 

p. 105–111.

Leif, A.P., 2005, Spatial ecology and habitat selection of 

breeding male pheasants: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 33, 

no. 1, p. 130–141.

Leistritz, F.L., Hodur, N.M., and Bangsund, D.A., 2002, Socioeconomic impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program in 

North Dakota: Rural America, v. 17, no. 3, p. 57–65.

Liffmann, R. H., Huntsinger, L., and Forero, L. C., 2000, To 

ranch or not to ranch—Home on the urban range?: Journal 

of Range Management v. 53, p. 362–370.

Lloyd, J.D., and Martin, T.E., 2005, Reproductive success of 

Chestnut-collared Longspurs in native and exotic grassland: 

The Condor, v. 107, no. 2, p. 363–374.

Losey, J.E., and Vaughan, M., 2006, The economic value of 

ecological services provided by insects: Bioscience, v. 56, 

no. 4, p. 311–323.

Lupis, S.G., Messmer, T.A., and Black, T., 2006, Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse use of Conservation Reserve Program Fields 

in Utah and response to emergency grazing—A Preliminary Evaluation: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 34, no. 4, 

p. 957–962.

Luttschwager, K.A., Higgins, K.F., and Jenks, J.A., 1994, 

Effects of emergency haying on duck nesting in Conservation Reserve Program fields, South Dakota: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 22, no. 3, p. 403–408.

Madden, E.M., Hansen, A.J., and Murphy, R.K., 1999, Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat and abundance of 

passerine birds in northern mixed-grass prairie: Canadian 

Field-Naturalist, v. 113, no. 4, p. 627–640.

Madden, E.M., Murphy, R.K., Hansen, A.J., and Murray, L., 

2000, Models for guiding management of prairie bird habitat in northwestern North Dakota: The American Midland 

Naturalist, v. 144, no. 2, p. 377–392.

Madison, L.A., Barnes, T.G., and Sole, J.D., 2001, Effectiveness of fire, disking, and herbicide to renovate tall fescue 

fields to northern bobwhite habitat: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 29, no. 2, p. 706–712.

McClaran, M. P., Romm, J., and Bartolome, J. W., 1985, 

Differential farmland assessment and land use planning 

relationships in Tulare County, California: Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation v. 40, p. 252–255.

McCoy, T.D., Ryan, M.R., Burger, L.W., and Kurzejeski, E.W., 

2001, Grassland bird conservation—CP1 vs. CP2 plantings 

in Conservation Reserve Program fields in Missouri: American Midland Naturalist, v. 145, no. 1, p. 1–17.

McIntyre, N.E., and Thompson, T.R., 2003, A comparison 

of Conservation Reserve Program habitat plantings with 

respect to arthropod prey for grassland birds: The American 

Midland Naturalist, v. 150, no. 2, p. 291–301.

McKee, G.W., Ryan, M.R., and Mechlin, L.M., 1998, Predicting greater prairie-chicken nest success from vegetation and 

landscape characteristics: Journal of Wildlife Management, 

v. 62, no. 1, p. 314–321.

McLachlan, Megan, Bartuszevige, Anne, Pool, Duane, 

and Venture, P.L.J., 2011, Evaluating the potential of 

the Conservation Reserve Program to offset projected 

impacts of climate change on the Lesser Prairie-Chicken 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus): National Resources 

Conservation Service, Submitted to the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and the USDA Farm 

Service Agency, 44 p.

McLachlan, Megan, Carter, Mike, and Venture, P.L.J., 

2009, Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on 

priority shortgrass prairie birds: National Resources 

Conservation Service, Submitted to the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and the USDA Farm 

Service Agency, 46 p.

McLaughlin, S.B., and Walsh, M.E., 1998, Evaluating environmental consequences of producing herbaceous crops for 

bioenergy: Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 14, no. 4, p. 317–324.
Milchunas, D.G., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2001, Belowground 

primary production by carbon isotope decay and long-term 

root biomass dynamics: Ecosystems, v. 4, p. 139–150.

Milchunas, D.G., and Vandever, M.W., 2013, Grazing effects 

on plant community succession of early- and mid-seral 

seeded grassland compared to shortgrass steppe: Journal of 

Vegetation Science, v. 25, no. 1, p. 22–35.

Milchunas, D.G., Vandever, M.W., Ball, L.O., and Hyberg, 

S., 2011, Allelopathic cover crop prior to seeding is more 

important than subsequent grazing/mowing in grassland 

establishment: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 64, 

no. 3, p. 291–300.

Millenbah, K.F., Winterstein, S.R., Campa, Henry III, Furrow, L.T., and Minnis, R.B., 1996, Effects of conservation 

reserve program field age on avian relative abundance, 

diversity and productivity: Wilson Bulletin, v. 108, no. 4, p. 

760–770.

Morandin, L.A., and Winston, M.L., 2006, Pollinators provide 

economic incentive to preserve natural land in agroecosystems: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v. 116, 

no. 3, p. 289–292.

Mulkey, V., Owens, V., and Lee, D., 2006, Management of 

switchgrass-dominated Conservation Reserve Program 

lands for biomass production in South Dakota: Crop Science, v. 46, no. 2, p. 712–720.

Murray, L.D., and Best, L.B., 2003, Short-term bird response 

to harvesting switchgrass for biomass in Iowa: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v. 67, no. 3, p. 611–621.

Murray, L.D., Best, L.B., Jacobsen, T.J., and Braster, M.L., 

2003, Potential effects on grassland birds of converting marginal cropland to switchgrass biomass production: Biomass 

and Bioenergy, v. 25, no. 2, p. 167–175.

Nassauer, J.I., 1995, Messy ecosystems, orderly frames: Landscape Journal, v. 14, no. 2, p. 161–170.

Negus, L.P., Davis, C.A., and Wessel, S.E., 2010, Avian 

response to mid-contract management of Conservation 

Reserve Program fields: The American Midland Naturalist, 

v. 164, no. 2, p. 296–310.

Newbold, T.A.S., and Carpenter, G.C., 2005, Desert horned 

lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos) locomotor performance—

The influence of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 50, no. 1, p. 17–23.

Nielson, R.M., Mcdonald, L.L., Sullivan, J.P., Burgess, Colleen, 

Johnson, D.S., Johnson, D.H., Bucholtz, Shawn, Hyberg, 

Skip, and Howlin, Shay, 2008, Estimating the response of 

ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) to the Conservation Reserve Program: The Auk, v. 125, no. 2, p. 434–444.

Norton, D.A., 2000, Conservation biology and private land—

Shifting the focus: Conservation Biology, v. 14, no. 5, 

p. 1221–1223.

Noss, R.F., 2013, Forgotten grasslands of the South—Natural 

history and conservation: Island Press.

O’Donoghue, E.J., Hoppe, R.A., Banker, D.E., Ebel, Robert, 

Fuglie, Keith, Korb, Penni, Livingston, Michael, Nickerson, 

Cynthia, and Sandretto, Carmen, 2011, The changing organization of U.S. farming: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service.

Oberheu, Deanna, Mitchell, R., Dabbert, B., and Davis, S., 

1999, Observations of avian nesting activity in burned and 

non-burned weeping lovegrass CRP: Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, v. 12, p. 14–17.

Olson, R.A., and Brewer, M.J., 2003, Small mammal populations occurring in a diversified winter wheat cropping 

system: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v. 95, 

no. 1, p. 311–319.

Owens, R.A., and Myres, M.T., 1973, Effects of agriculture 

upon populations of native passerine birds of an Alberta 

fescue grassland: Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 51, 

p. 697–713.

Parshall, T., and Foster, D., 2002, Fire on the New England 

landscape—Regional and temporal variation, cultural and 

environmental controls: Journal of Biogeography, v. 29, 

no. 10-11, p. 1305–1317.

Patterson, W.A., and Sassaman, K.E., 1988, Indian fires in the 

prehistory of New England, Holocene human ecology in 

northeastern North America: Springer, p. 107–135.

Patterson, M.P., and Best, L.B., 1996, Bird abundance and 

nesting success in Iowa CRP fields—The importance of 

vegetation structure and composition: American Midland 

Naturalist, v. 135, no. 1, p. 153–167.

Peet, Mary, Anderson, Roger, and Adams, M.S., 1975, Effect 

of fire on big bluestem production: American Midland Naturalist, v. 94, no. 1, p. 15–26.

Peterjohn, B.G., 2003, Agricultural landscapes—Can they support healthy bird populations as well as farm products: The 

Auk, v. 120, no. 1, p. 14–19.

Phillips, S.A., Jr., Brown, C.M., and Cole, C.L., 1991, Weeping lovegrass, Eragrostis curvula (schrader) Nees von Esenbeck, as a harborage of arthropods on the Texas high plains: 

The Southwestern Naturalist, p. 49–53.

Pimentel, David, Lach, Lori, Zuniga, Rodolfo, and Morrison, 

Doug, 2000, Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States: Bioscience, v. 50, 

no. 1, p. 53–65.

Powell, A.F.L.A., 2006, Effects of prescribed burns and bison 

(Bos bison) grazing on breeding bird abundances in tallgrass prairie: The Auk, v. 123, no. 1, p. 183–197.

38 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives
References Cited 39

Reeder, K.F., Debinski, D.M., and Danielson, B.J., 2005, 

Factors affecting butterfly use of filter strips in Midwestern 

USA: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v. 109, 

no. 1–2, p. 40–47.

Renken, R.B., and Dinsmore, J.J., 1987, Nongame bird communities on managed grasslands in North Dakota: Canadian 

Field-Naturalist, v. 101, no. 4, p. 551–557.

Renner, R.W., Reynolds, R.E., and Batt, B.D.J., 1995, The 

impact of haying Conservation Reserve Program lands on 

productivity of ducks nesting in the Prairie Pothole Region 

of North and South Dakota: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

v. 60, p. 221–229.

Reynolds, R.E., 2005, The future of the conservation 

reserve—A soil and water conservation society perspective, 

in Allen, A.W., and Vandever, M.W., The Conservation 

Reserve Program—Planting for the future—Proceedings of 

a National Conference, Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5145, 

p. 144–148.

Reynolds, R.E., Shaffer, T.L., Loesch, C.R., and Cox, R.R., 

2006, The Farm Bill and duck production in the Prairie 

Pothole Region—Increasing the benefits: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 34, no. 4, p. 963–974.

Reynolds, R.E., Shaffer, T.L., Renner, R.W., Newton, W.E., 

and Batt, B.D.J., 2001, Impact of the conservation reserve 

program on duck recruitment in the U.S. Prairie Pothole 

Region: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 65, no. 4, 

p. 765–780.

Reynolds, R.E., Shaffer, T.L., Sauer, J.R., and Peterjohn, B.G., 

1994, Conservation Reserve Program—Benefit for grassland birds in the Northern Plains: Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, v. 59, 

p. 328–336.

Ribic, C.A., Guzy, M.J., and Sample, D.W., 2009, Grassland 

bird use of remnant prairie and conservation reserve program fields in an agricultural landscape in Wisconsin: The 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 161, no. 1, p. 110–122.

Rice, E.L., and Parenti, R.L., 1978, Causes of decreases in 

productivity in undisturbed tallgrass prairie: American Journal of Botany, v. 65, no. 10, p. 1091–1097.

Riffell, Sam, Scognamilli, Daniel, and Burger, L.W., 2008, 

Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on northern 

 bobwhite and grassland birds: Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment, v. 146, no. 1–3, p. 309–323.

Riley, T.Z., 1995, Association of the Conservation Reserve 

Program with Ring-necked pheasant survey counts in Iowa: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 23, no. 3, p. 386–390.

Ring, C.B., Nicholson, R.A., and Launchbaugh, J.L., 1985, Vegetational traits of patch grazed rangeland in west-central Kansas: Journal of Range Management, v. 38, no. 1, p. 51–55.

Ripper, Dana, McLachlan, Megan, Toombs, Theodore, and 

VerCauteren, Tammy, 2008, Assessment of Conservation 

Reserve Program fields within the current distribution of 

Lesser Prairie-Chicken: Great Plains Research, v. 18, no. 2, 

p. 205–218.

Robel, R.J., Hughes, J.P., Hull, S.D., Kemp, K.E., and Klute, 

D.S., 1998, Spring burning—Resulting avian abundance 

and nesting in Kansas CRP: Journal of Range Management, 

v. 51, no. 2, p. 132–138.

Robertson, P.A., 1996, Does nesting cover limit abundance of 

ring-necked pheasants in North America?: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 24, p. 98–106.

Rodenhouse, N.L., Best, L.B., O’Connor, R.J., and Bollinger, 

E.K., 1993, Effects of temperate agriculture on neotropical migrant landbirds, in Finch, D.M., and Strangel, P.W., 

eds., Status and management of neotropical migratory birds: 

Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-229, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, p. 280–295.

Rodgers, R.D., 1999, Why haven’t pheasant populations in 

western Kansas increased with CRP?: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 27, no. 3, p. 654–665.

Rodgers, R.D., 2005, Conservation Reserve Program successes, failures, and management needs for open-land 

birds, in Allen, A.W., and Vandever, M.W., eds., The 

Conservation Reserve Program—Planting for the future—

Proceedings of a National Conference: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5145, 

p. 129–134.

Rodgers, R.D., and Hoffman, R.W., 2005, Prairie grouse 

population response to Conservation Reserve Program 

grasslands—An overview, in Allen, A.W., and Vandever, 

M.W., The Conservation Reserve Program–Planting for the 

future—Proceedings of a National Conference: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5145, 

p. 120–128.

Roseberry, J.L., and David, L.M., 1994, The Conservation 

Reserve Program and northern Bobwhite population trends 

in Illinois: Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of 

Science, v. 87, no. 1–2, p. 61–70.

Roth, A.M., Sample, D.W., Ribic, C.A., Paine, L., Undersander, D.J., and Bartelt, G.A., 2005, Grassland bird 

response to harvesting switchgrass as a biomass energy 

crop: Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 28, no. 5, p. 490–498.

Rucker, A.D., 2001, Conversion of tall fescue pastures to 

tallgrass prairie in southeastern Kansas: Manhattan, Kans., 

Kansas State University, Kansas Department of Wildlife and 

Parks, Annual Progress Report, 56 p.
40 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Ryan, M.R., Burger, L.W., and Kurzejeski, E.W., 1998, The 

impact of CRP on avian wildlife—A review: Journal of 

Production Agriculture, v. 11, no. 1, p. 61–66.

Ryan, R.L., Erickson, D.L., and De Young, R.K., 2003, Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along 

riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed: 

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v. 46, 

no. 1, p. 19–37.

Saab, V.A., Bock, C.E., Rich, T.D., and Dobkin, D.S., 1995, 

Livestock grazing effects in western North America, in

Martin, T.E., and Finch, D.M., eds., Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds: New York, Oxford 

University Press, p. 311–353.

Sage, Rufus, Cunningham, Mark, Haughton, A.J., Mallott, 

M.D., Bohan, D.A., Riche, Andrew, and Karp, Angela, 

2010, The environmental impacts of biomass crops—Use 

by birds of Miscanthus in summer and winter in southwestern England: Ibis, v. 152, no. 3, p. 487–499.

Sammon, J.G., 2005, Effects of an invasive grass (Bothriochloa ischaemum) on a grassland rodent community: The 

Texas Journal of Science, v. 57, no. 4, p. 371.

Samson, Fred, and Knopf, Fritz, 1994, Prairie conservation in 

North America: Bioscience, v. 44, no. 6, p. 418–421.

Sanderson, M.A., Read, J.C., and Reed, R.L., 1999, Harvest management of switchgrass for biomass feedstock 

and forage production: Agronomy Journal, v. 91, no. 

1, p. 5–10.

Schacht, W.H., Smart, A.J., Anderson, B.E., Moser, L.E., and 

Rasby, R., 1998, Growth responses of warm-season tallgrasses to dormant-season management: Journal of Range 

Management, v. 51, no. 4, p. 442–446.

Schroeder, M.A., and Vander Haegen, W.M., 2006, Use of 

CRP fields by greater sage-grouse and other shrubsteppe 

associated wildlife in washington: Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Technical Report Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, 39 p.

Seefeldt, S.S., Conn, J.S., Zhang, M., and Kaspari, P.N., 2010, 

Vegetation changes in Conservation Reserve Program lands 

in interior Alaska: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v. 135, no. 1, p. 119–126.

Semere, T., and Slater, Fred, 2007, Ground flora, small mammal and bird species diversity in miscanthus (Miscanthus 

× giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) 

fields: Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 31, no. 1, p. 20–29.

Senft, R.L., Coughenour, M.B., Bailey, D.W., Rittenhouse, 

L.R., Sala, O.E., and Swift, D.M., 1987, Large herbivore 

foraging and ecological hierarchies: Bioscience, v. 37, 

no. 11, p. 789–799.

Sirotnak, J.M., Reese, K.P., Connelly, J.W., and Radford, Kirk, 

1991, Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

on wildlife in southeastern Idaho: Boise, Idaho, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Job Completion Report—

Project W-160-R-18, 45 p.

Skinner, R.M., Baskett, T.S., and Blenden, M.D., 1984, Bird 

habitat on Missouri prairies: Jefferson City, Mo., Missouri 

Department of Conservation.

Snyder, W.D., 1984, Ring-necked pheasant nesting ecology 

and wheat farming on the high plains: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 48, p. 878–888.

Snyder, W.D., 1991, Wheat stubble as nesting cover for ringnecked pheasants in northeastern Colorado: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 19, p. 469–474.

Southwick, E.E., and Southwick, Lawrence, Jr., 1992, Estimating the economic value of honey bees (Hymenoptera: 

Apidae) as agricultural pollinators in the United States: 

Journal of Economic Entomology, v. 85, no. 3, p. 621–633.

Spivak, Marla, Mader, Eric, Vaughan, Mace, and Euliss, N.H., 

Jr., 2011, The plight of the bees: Environmental Science and 

Technology, v. 45, no. 1, p. 34–38.

Stauffer, D.F., Cline, G.A., and Tonkovich, M.J., 1990, Evaluating potential effects of CRP on Bobwhite Quail in Piedmont Virginia: Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference, v. 55, p. 57–67.

Strassmann, B.I., 1987, Effects of cattle grazing and haying 

on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in 

the United States: Environmental Management, v. 11, no. 1, 

p. 35–44.

Swanson, D.A., Scott, D.P., and Risley, D.L., 1999, Wildlife 

benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program in Ohio: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 54, no. 1, p. 390–394.

Taylor, M.R., 2001, The emerging merger of agricultural and 

environmental policy—Building a new vision for the future 

of American agriculture: Virginia Environmental Law Journal, v. 20, no. 1, p. 169–190.

Taylor, R.L., Maxwell, B.D., and Boik, R.J., 2006, Indirect 

effects of herbicides on bird food resources and beneficial 

arthropods: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 

v. 116, no. 3, p. 157–164.

Thompson, T.R., Boal, C.W., and Lucia, D., 2009, Grassland 

bird associations with introduced and native grass Conservation Reserve Program fields in the Southern High 

Plains: Western North American Naturalist, v. 69, no. 4, 

p. 481–490.

Tilman, David, Hill, Jason, and Lehman, Clarence, 2006, 

Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity 

grassland biomass: Science, v. 314, no. 5805, p. 1598–1600.
References Cited 41

Towne, E.G., and Kemp, K.E., 2003, Vegetation dynamics 

from annually burning tallgrass prairie in different seasons: 

Journal of Range Management, p. 185–192.

Turner, M.G., Collins, S.L., Lugo, A.L., Magnuson, J.J., Rupp, 

T.S., and Swanson, F.J., 2003, Disturbance dynamics and 

ecological response—The contribution of long-term ecological research: Bioscience, v. 53, no. 1, p. 46–56.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, 2011, 

Biomass crop assistance program—Environmental assessment: U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service 

Agency, accessed online April 24, 2013, at http://www.fsa.

usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/finaleagiantmcanthus.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, Renewable Fuel 

Standards (RFS): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

accessed online April 22, 2013, at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

fuels/renewablefuels/index.htm.

Valdivia, Corinne, and Poulos, Christine, 2009, Factors affecting farm operators’ interest in incorporating riparian buffers 

and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri: Agroforestry Systems, v. 75, no. 1, p. 61–71.

Van Dyke, Fred, Van Kley, S.E., Page, C.E., and Van Beek, 

J.G., 2004, Restoration efforts for plant and bird communities in tallgrass prairies using prescribed burning and mowing: Restoration Ecology, v. 12, no. 4, p. 575–585.

Venuto, B.C., and Daniel, J.A., 2010, Biomass feedstock 

harvest from Conservation Reserve Program land in Northwestern Oklahoma: Crop Science, v. 50, no. 2, p. 737–743.

Vickery, P.D., and Herkert, J.R., 2001, Recent advances in 

grassland bird research—Where do we go from here?: The 

Auk, v. 118, no. 1, p. 11–15.

Vinton, M.A., Hartnett, D.C., Finck, E.J., and Briggs, J.M., 

1993, Interactive effects of fire, bison (Bison Bison) grazing and plant community composition in tallgrass prairie: 

American Midland Naturalist, v. 129, no. 1, p. 10–18.

Wachob, D.G., 1997, The effects of the Conservation Reserve 

Program on wildlife in southeastern Wyoming: Laramie, 

Wyo., University of Wyoming, Ph. D. dissertation, 123 p.

Wallmo, O.C., Carpenter, L.H., Regelin, W.L., Gill, R.B., and 

Baker, D.L., 1977, Evaluation of deer habitat on a nutritional basis: Journal of Range Management, v. 30, no. 2, 

p. 122–127.

Warner, R.E., Mankin, P.C., David, L.M., and Etter, S.L., 

1999, Declining survival of ring-necked pheasant chicks in 

Illinois during the late 1900s: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 63, no. 2, p. 705–710.

Washburn, B.E., Barnes, T.G., and Sole, J.D., 1999, No-till 

establishment of native warm-season grasses in tall fescue 

fields first-year results indicate value of new herbicide: 

Ecological Restoration, v. 17, no. 3, p. 144–149.

Weaver, J.E., 1954, North American prairie: Lincoln, Nebr., 

Johnsen Publishing Co. 

Weber, W.L., Roseberry, J.L., and Woolf, Alan, 2002, Influence of the Conservation Reserve Program on landscape 

structure and potential upland wildlife habitat: Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, v. 30, no. 3, p. 888–898.

White, P.S., and Pickett, S.T.A., 1985, Natural disturbance and 

patch dynamics—An introduction, in Pickett, S.T.A., and 

White, P.S., eds., The ecology of natural disturbance and 

patch dynamics: Orlando, Fla., Academic Press, p. 3–13.

Williams, C.K., Guthery, F.S., Applegate, R.D., and Peterson, 

M.J., 2004, The northern bobwhite decline—Scaling our 

management for the twenty-first century: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 32, no. 3, p. 861–869.

Williams, D.W., Jackson, L.L., and Smith, D.D., 2007, Effects 

of frequent mowing on survival and persistence of forbs 

seeded into a species poor grassland: Restoration Ecology, 

v. 15, no. 1, p. 24–33.

Wilson, S.D., and Gerry, A.K., 1995, Strategies for mixedgrass prairie restoration—Herbicide, tilling, and nitrogen 

manipulation: Restoration Ecology, v. 3, no. 4, p. 290–298.

Winter, Maiken, Johnson, D.H., and Shaffer, J.A., 2005, Variability in vegetation effects on density and nesting success 

of grassland birds: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 69, 

no. 1, p. 185–197.

Wright, C.K., and Wimberly, M.C., 2013, Recent land use 

change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and 

wetlands: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 110, no. 10, p. 4134–4139.

Zurbuchen, Antonio, Landert, Lisa, Klaiber, Jeannine, Müller, 

Andreas, Hein, Silke, and Dorn, Silvia, 2010, Maximum 

foraging ranges in solitary bees—Only few individuals have 

the capability to cover long foraging distances: Biological 

Conservation, v. 143, no. 3, p. 669–676.

Publishing support provided by: 

Denver Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

(970) 226-9398

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at:

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/
42 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives
Appendixes
44 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Appendix 1. Latin names of wildlife species discussed in text.

Non-game Birds

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Cassin’s sparrow Peucaea cassinii 

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Game Birds

Greater prairie-chicken Tympanuchus cupido

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Gunnison sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus

Lesser prairie-chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Northern bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus

Waterfowl

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Mammals

Beaver Castor canadensis

Bison Bison bison

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus spp.

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Moose Alces alces 

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Pronghorn antelope Antilocapra americana 

Swift fox Vulpes velox

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Insects

Beetle Coleoptera sp.

Boll weevil Anthonomus grandis

Grasshopper Orthoptera Caelifera

Western/European honey bee Apis mellifera
Appendix 2. Latin names of vegetation discussed in text. 45

Appendix 2. Latin names of vegetation discussed in text.

Native Warm-season

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

Buffalograss Bouteloua dactyloides

Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula

Silver beardgrass Bothriochloa laguroides

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum

Introduced Warm-season

Giant miscanthus Miscanthus x giganteus

Old world bluestems Bothriochloa sp.

Weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula

Introduced Cool-season

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata

Red fescue Festuca rubra

Smooth brome Bromus inermis

Tall fescue Schedonorus arundinaceus

Timothy Phleum pratense

Forbs

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Cattail Typha sp.

Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis

White clover Trifolium repens

Woody Vegetation

Eastern redcedar Juniperus virginiana

Crops

Corn Zea mays

Cotton Gossypium hirsutum

Soybean Glycine max

Winter wheat Triticum aestivum
46 Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives

Potential positive effects Potential negative effects

Disking

-Decreases dominance of aggressive, perennial grasses

-Increases wildlife diversity and abundance

-Improves seedbed for forb establishment

-Improves habitat for grassland birds

-Promotes growth of flowering plants to support insects critical for 

bird chick survival

-Releases seed species from seedbank

-Promotes areas for chick foraging and predator evasion

-May not be suitable in thick, sod-bound grasslands

-Potential for wind or water erosion

-Some areas need to be avoided (for example, waterways, draws and 

areas with noxious weeds)

Interseeding

-Increases forb abundance 

-Improves brood habitat for grassland birds

-Promotes structural diversity

-Promotes growth of flowering plants to support insects critical for 

fledgling survival

-Associated costs (fuel, seed)

-Requires prior disturbance

-Sensitive to weather and disturbance intensity

Grazing

-Decreases dominance of aggressive, perennial grasses

-Changes structural complexity

-Improves brood habitat for grassland birds

-Natural process

-Promotes grass vigor and rejuvenates existing cover

-Improves species diversity

-Reduces litter

-Allows managers to rest other pastures

-Provides forage for livestock

-Can alter/effect cover for nesting in short term 

-Decreases avian nesting habitat in short-term

-Specific timing and intensity required

-Fencing and watering facilities required

-Restricted during primary nesting season

Burning

-Decreases dominance of aggressive, perennial grasses

-Natural process

-Promotes grass vigor and rejuvenates existing cover

-Improves brood habitat for grassland birds

-Improves seedbed for forb establishment

-Removes litter

-Enhances productivity

-Suppresses undesirable woody vegetation

-Inexpensive

-Timing can be used to shift plant community

-Alters/effects cover for nesting in short term

-Specific timing and fuel load required

-Public perception

-Highly dependent on weather

-Liability for damages

-Potential for wind or water erosion 

-May not promote stand diversity

Haying

-Promotes grass vigor and rejuvenates existing cover

-Can develop a mosaic of structurally diverse areas to meet 

needs of diverse populations of avian species

-May reduce weeds

-Reduces future litter inputs

-Timing can be used to shift plant community

-Provides forage for livestock

-Alters/effects cover for nesting in short term 

-Decreases winter food availability and cover for wildlife

-Does not increase stand diversity

-Restricted during primary nesting season

Mowing

-Decreases dominance of aggressive grasses

-Weed control

-Can develop a mosaic of structurally diverse areas to meet 

needs of diverse populations of avian species

-Produces more litter

-Alters/effects cover for nesting in short term

-Reduces vegetative productivity

-Diminishes insect activity

-Lowers winter food availability and cover for wildlife

-Restricted during primary nesting season

Appendix 3. Description of Potential Effects of Managing CRP Grasslands for 

Wildlife Habitat
Appendix 2. Latin names of vegetation discussed in text. 47

Potential positive effects Potential negative effects

Herbicide treatment

-Reduces competition from existing grass for forb establishment

-Easy practice to implement

-Can decrease dominance of aggressive grasses

-Expensive to treat large areas

-Application timing important

-Application rate can be calibrated to injure but not kill plants

No management

Short Term

-Decreases soil erosion

-Increases water quality 

-Allows for vegetation regrowth between management practices

Long Term

-Decreases soil erosion

-Increases water quality

-Increases soil organic carbon

-Diminishes habitat suitability (food, cover) for grassland birds

-Litter buildup

-Vegetation becomes decadent

-Vegetative diversity reduced

-Decline in grass productivity

-Decline in forb productivity

-Encroachment of undesirable woody vegetation
Vandever and Allenr—Management of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands to Meet Wildlife Habitat Objectives—Scientic Investigations Report 2015–5070

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155070