Interactions Between Cover Crops and

Wildlife Ray Wright

Research SpecialistUniversity of Missouri -Columbia

Bradford Mission:

The Bradford Research Center Provides land, equipment and facilities for research at the plant/ soil/environmental interface through field laboratory settings.• One of our goals is to provide quality wildlife habitat while managing

a production agriculture operation.• Other goals include education of the public on systems that promote

both agriculture and the environment.

The Big Picture

Populations are expected to be nine billion in 2050, currently

we are at seven billion. Technological advances have increased

agricultural productivity, but expansion of new agricultural areas

will be limited. To provide sustainable food and fiber to sustain

our population, land management practices must be made more

efficient while protecting soil, water and the environment.

Trends In Agriculture

Farm Policy.com ; March 2013

Trends in Wildlife

Quail Harvested in Illinois

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

Year

Qu

ail

Har

vest

ed

Missouri statewide average number of quail counted per 30-mile route from 1983-2012.

Studies

Pollinator Use of Ecotypes vs. Non-Ecotype Native Plants: Missouri Department of Conservation

Alternative Native Planting for Newly Established Water Ways: Missouri Department of Conservation

Building Drought Resiliency through Soil Health: Conservation Innovation Grant

Building Potential Wildlife Habitat Through Planned Cover Cropping Systems: National Wildlife Foundation

Benefits

• Potential huge impact in acreage of available habitat.• Understanding the relationship between wildlife and cover crops is

critical for maximizing the interface between agricultural needs and wildlife needs.• Learning the challenges of conducting studies on these systems.• Developing the most cost benefitting approaches for future studies.

The Layout

• Nesting numbers and success • Incident of trap habitat where cover crops result in nest losses due to

providing habitat that is subsequently destroyed for planting commodity crop • Forage availability and impact on various wildlife and availability

population • Impacts on pollinator health and habitat

Britt Farm near Salisbury shortly after termination of cover crop.

Wildlife Habitat Assessment Guide (WHAG) results for Missouri 2014 Cover Crop Study. Higher percentages equal higher

ranking value for wildlife suitability.

Britt Farm June 3

% Seat Farm June 26

% Seat Farm August 11

% Britt Farm August 13

Assoc. Electric August 13

% Boone Co. Traditional Cropping August 19

%

Cropland Community

40/51 0.78 18/51 0.35 24/51 0.47 40/51 0.78 37/51 0.73

5/51 0.09

Other Agricultural Land

17/20 0.85 17/20 0.85 17/20 0.85 10/20 0.5 12/20 0.6 5/20 0.01

Early Succession

58/95 0.61 68/95 0.72 70/95 0.74 58/95 0.61 76/95 0.8 17/95 0.18

Bobwhite Quail (In-field)

53/100 0.53 59/100 0.59 77/100 0.77 72/100 0.72 83/100 0.83

49/100 0.49

Grand Total 168/266 0.63 162/266 0.61 162/266 0.71 180/266 0.67 208/266 0.78

147/266 0.55

.

Britt Farm Bradford Farms Associated Electric B. County Farm

B. county Farm

Seat Seat Seat

6/24 7/11 6/22 6/30 6/24/ 7/11 6/24 6/28 Point 1 0 3 * * 1.3 1.6 0 0 0 1 0Point 2 1 1.7 * * 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Point 3 4.3 1 * * 0 3 0 1 0Point 4 0.8 0.5 2 2 2Point 5 4.4 0 Point 6 2.2 2 Point 7 5 5 Point 8 3 5 AVG 1.8 2.9 3.1 2.5 .7 .8 0 1 .5 1.25 .75Grand Average

2.4 2.8 0.8 0.5 .83

Summer Call Counts: Values represent quail calls recorded at designated points on cover crop study areas. *Data separated from Bradford and recorded as B. County

Planting Technique

Cover Crop Type % Nest Success

30” Row Spacing

Summer 41

30” Row Spacing

Summer 100

30” Row Spacing

Fall 44

30” Row Spacing

Fall/Mowed 0

15” Row Spacing

None 0

Summer Cover Crop : Sunflower, Sesbania, Winter Pea, Hairy Vetch, Cereal Rye, Crimson Clover

Fall Cover Crop : Winter Pea, Hairy vetch, Cereal Rye, Crimson Clover

Incidental trap habitat where cover crops result in nest losses due to providing critical habitat that is subsequently destroyed for planting commodity crop.

Exclusion cages developed to determine wildlife grazing pressure in cover crop fields.

Cage Exclusion Study 2014 to determine the grazing pressure of wildlife on cover crops. Data reported in tons/acre.

Cover Crop Corn

Cover Crop Beans

Cover Crop Wheat Cover Crop Planting Cover Crop Planting Re Harvest

Harvest Date 31-Jul-14 31-Jul-14 31-Jul-14 15-May-14 20-Aug-14

Rep. 1: In Cage 2.0 1.2 0.6 1.4 0.9Rep. 1: Out Cage 1.1 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.8 Rep. 2: In Cage 0.3 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.6Rep. 2: Out Cage 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 Rep. 3: In Cage 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.4Rep. 3: Out Cage 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.3

Rep. 4: In Cage 1.4 Rep. 4: Out Cage 1.1 *Tons/Acre Average In Cage 1.0 1.1 0.7 1.2 0.6Average Out Cage 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6

Seat Conservation Area 2014

Crop Type 15" Milo 30" MiloBrome Grass

Sample dates 6/14/14 8/11/2014 6/14/14 8/11/2014 6/14/14 8/11/2014Coleoptera (Beetle) 0 1 0 0 0 0Aranae (Spiders) 0 0 0 0 0 3Diptera (Flies) 0 0 3 0 8 7

Hymenoptera (Ants, Bees, & Wasps) 0 2 0 0 6 1

Orthoptera (Grasshoppers & Crickets) 0 1 0 0 1 0Hemiptera (True Bugs) 0 1 0 0 0 0

Homoptera (Leafhoppers & Treehoppers) 0 0 0 1 6 1Total Number of Insects 0 5 3 1 21 12

Insect sweep collections of two cover cropping operations and one brome grass field for Seat Conservation Area, northwest Missouri, 2014.

Conclusion

Funds for this study have provided an excellent stepping stone for future studies exploring the interactions of cover crops and potential critical habitat for wildlife. Currently we are working with Columbia College interns conducting nesting studies as part of their graduation requirements. Future studies looking at these interactions are being explored by many agencies. If cover cropping systems are adopted the opportunities for managing wildlife on production agriculture farms are greater than ever before.