Ecological Impact of Pastures for Upland Birds Program (PUB) Restoration Strategies and Implementation
Request for Proposals November 2025

Introduction

Since the inception of the Pastures for Upland Birds (PUB) program in the year 2000 as a CIG grant in cooperation with USDA-NRCS and AgriLife, the methodologies, materials and manpower involved has seen constant change. The PUB program works with private landowners to control non-native grasses or replant fields coming out of agricultural row crop production and help establish native plant communities to enhance wildlife habitat. Starting in 2013 the PUB program moved fully in house within TPWD's Private Lands and Public Hunting program. Since that time, roughly $1.4 million of seed money has been put on the ground on roughly 14,000 acres of projects across the state on 238 separate projects with 61 different biologists serving as project leads. In addition, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on multiple no-till seed drills and herbicide. However, TPWD has not conducted any research on these restoration efforts to evaluate the effects of changes to herbicide control methodologies on non-native vegetation, impacts to game birds and their use of restored sites, or on insect abundance and forage production of habitat restorations.

There have been some small independent studies focused on the early days of PUB (pre-2010) regarding its impacts on songbird abundance, and a few recent independent university studies have focused on pollinator use and songbird response to restoration. However, these studies have been limited in scope and used these animal species as a proxy for habitat quality with little to no measurement of direct habitat variables (e.g., forage amount, native plant species richness and diversity in restored areas), insect abundance or prey availability. Thus, TPWD staff generally have had to rely on indirect measures and anecdotal observations when trying to convince landowners to take part in the time consuming and expensive process of habitat restoration. The goal of this proposed research would focus on comparing: (1) native plant abundance and diversity as a measure of plant material and seed availability for nesting and foraging, (2) insect abundance as a measure of prey availability for hatch year and adult game birds, and (3) use game cameras and passive acoustic recorders (ARUs) to monitor use of restored sites by game and non-game birds and mammals relative to unrestored control areas. Ideally, the results of this study would provide biologists with real numbers and hard data to present along with personal observations and field knowledge to further the case for native habitat restoration on private lands for the benefit of native Texas wildlife and game species.

Justification

The 2024 Land and Water Resource Conservation and Recreation plan contains multiple goals and associated objectives that this proposed research would address to further our knowledge of our restoration practices and the results of those practices:

• Practice, encourage, and enable science-based conservation and stewardship of natural and cultural resources.
  • Be an exemplary steward of the public's lands and waters by using the best available science for ecosystem-based management.
  • Foster conservation of healthy ecosystems on private lands
  • Maintain the highest level of scientific validity and credibility.
  • Anticipate and plan for emerging conservation issues
• Educate, inform, and engage Texans in support of conservation and recreation
  • Cultivate support for the conservation of natural and cultural resources

Research Objectives

Submitted proposals should seek to follow at least 10 PUB projects for up to 5 growing seasons, or 4 years, to track changes over time due to initial control of non-native vegetation or cessation of row crop production through (or near) the end of the establishment phase of restoration. The goal is to compare restored areas to unrestored controls to measure differences between them. In particular, the study should collect vegetation information to document the establishment of native plant material, control of exotic species, and amount of use by native game and non-game species. Proposals should include multiple control sites per ecoregion, but not necessarily equal to the number of PUB restoration sites studied (i.e., there can be less than a one-to-one number of PUB to control sites). Objectives 1 and 2 are the primary focus, and objective 3 is optional but highly encouraged to document changes in use over time and in abundance and species composition of animals on restored sites as they mature and transition from an annual to perennial plant community.

The study design should address these main objectives:

1. Compare vegetation characteristics of PUB restorations to unrestored control areas:
   1. Measure plant biomass, diversity, richness, and interspersion
   2. Measure density of plant establishment and vertical cover to estimate habitat suitability for mammals, nesting game birds and songbirds, and as foraging and escape cover
2. Collect insect biomass and compare to unrestored controls:
   1. Identify species to taxonomic Order and evaluate biomass as a measure of abundance and availability of forage for chicks, poults, and adult birds relative to non-native unrestored areas
   2. See if pollinator species abundance is higher as a proxy for increased seed production and prey availability for wildlife

Optional Objective

3. Use game cameras and acoustic recording devices (ARU) to measure use and density between restored and unrestored sites by mammals, game birds, and songbirds
   1. Measure use during nesting and breeding season
   2. Measure use during migratory and wintering season as well for migratory gamebirds such as mourning doves relative to control area

Expected Management Implications

We expect to see increased levels of insect abundance, vegetative diversity, species richness and use of restored PUB projects by game animals compared to non-native controls and/or old crop fields. This should all be reflected in the data as a change in plant community and subsequent game bird food and cover availability on the landscape achieved through the restoration process. If we can document an increase in prey abundance, wildlife use, and other measures, it would be valuable to relay this information to private landowners and have hard data to convince additional landowners interested in habitat restoration to engage in these activities on their properties. In addition, it would confirm whether our efforts are cost effective and truly reflect our aims of habitat improvement with the program. Furthermore, with the length of the project, we can possibly determine at what point the increase in abundance or diversity begins to plateau and additional management actions are needed to keep the habitat in its most productive state for the best vegetative and wildlife outcomes.

As TPWD spends limited conservation dollars on these habitat restoration projects, it is imperative to ensure we are achieving the best outcomes possible, so our dollars are spent wisely, and the results are reflected in hard data rather than anecdotes, personal observations and photo points alone.