Table Of Content

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from University of Alberta Libraries https://archive.org/details/bluejay511sask Blue Jay, founded in 1942 by Isabel M. Priestly, is a journal of natural history anc conservation for Saskatchewan and adjacent regions. It is published quarterly by the Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Box 4348, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4F 3W6. CN ISSN 0006-5099. Editor: J. Lynn Brown Associate Editors: Margaret Belcher, J. Bernard Gollop, Wayne C. Harris, Ronald^ Hooper, John H. Hudson, Bruce A. McCorquodale, Robert W. Nero, Carol A. Scott EDITORIAL INFORMATION: All items for publication should be addressed to the editor, care of SNHS (see address at top). Deadlines for each issue are two months prior to issue, i.e. 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, and 1 October. Please include author’s telephone number for editorial contact, if necessary. Typewritten manuscripts should be double spaced and submitted in duplicate. Manuscripts may be submitted in text file form on IBM 5.25 inch DSDD diskettes, which will be returned to authors when copies< have been made. The editor uses Word Perfect 5.1 and can accept manuscripts in ASCII format also. Please include a hard copy. For further assistance see “Guidelines for Authors,” Blue Jay 50: 126-128, or contact the editor. Blue Jay is abstracted by BIOSIS. Common names are used for species where possible. Bird names follow the 1983f. revision of the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list. Mammals are from Banfield’s The Mammals of Canada (1974). Since insect and plant names are not standardized, i scientific names are included, with authorities where deemed necessary. Photographs submitted should be on glossy paper. SNHS does not guarantee that any photographic submissions will be returned. Send a copy, unless you don’t want to save the original. Prints will be returned on request. Deadlines for photographic materials are one month prior to issue, i.e. 1 February, 1 May, 1 August, and 1 November. Any material printed for the Blue Jay may be reproduced without permission. Credit lines are appreciated. Use of photographs and poetry requires written permission from the photographer/author. ADVERTISING: Advertising rates may be obtained from SNHS (address at top). REPRINTS: A maximum of five reprints of an article are available to authors for a charge of $0.25 each. Contributors wishing a few extra copies of the current issue may get them at cost. Requests for reprints or extra copies should be made to the editor when the material is submitted for publication. SUBSCRIPTION: Send all renewals, new memberships and correspondence concerning changes of address to SNHS (address at top). The classes of membership in the Society are as follows: Individual (over 17) $15; Family $20; Sustaining $30; Patron $60; Life $600; Youth (under 18) $8; and Senior (over 64) $13. Sustaining and Patron memberships include the regular fee plus a donation for which a receipt is available upon request, for income tax purposes. Bulk orders (minimum of five copies to one address) are available to club members and educational institutions at the rate of $15 for the first subscription and $13 for each additional one. Outside Canada, fees are $18. We do not collect GST on memberships. Cover: Piping Plover chick. Photo by Keith Barr. Published by the Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina. Printed by Merit Printing, Regina, Saskatchewan. THIS ORGANIZATION RECEIVES FUNDING FROM Saskatchewan LOTTERIES/S\ NATIVE PRAIRIE AND BIODIVERSITY IN SASKATCHEWAN SCOTT WILSON, Department of Biology, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan. S4S 0A2 Native prairie is essential to the prairie plant diversity than just grass. conservation of biodiversity and Sas¬ katchewan has an important role to All this plant diversity directly af¬ play in the conservation of global bio¬ fects the diversity of insects, mam¬ diversity through the conservation of mals and birds. A very rough rule of its prairies. In spite of this, native thumb is that there may be four spe¬ prairie in Saskatchewan is lost every cies of herbivores and carnivores for year to cultivation, roadside improve¬ every species of plant.4 One native ment and wildlife habitat manage¬ prairie can hold 309 vascular plants, ment. and thus, many animal species. Many of the insect species have not yet been named.2'10 There are several scientific defini¬ tions of diversity, but a simple, practi¬ cal definition is simply the number of Fire has no effect on the diversity species present in an area. of mixed-grass prairie, in contrast to tail-grass prairie where fire may in¬ crease diversity.11,16 If used to re¬ The mixed-grass prairie of Sas¬ move invading shrubs, however, fire katchewan appears to have low di¬ also increases diversity in mixed- versity, compared to a tropical rain¬ grass prairie.1 forest or a coral reef. I suggest that this is a matter of scaling. If humans were the size of grasshoppers, the Heavy grazing results in the loss of prairie would look pretty diverse. native prairie species. They may be replaced by European weeds, so the total diversity does not change.3 This First, there are many kinds of example shows, surprisingly, that di¬ grass in native prairie: tussock versity alone must not be used as a grasses (e.g., spear grass) and sod single criterion for the conservation grasses (e.g., grama grass), cool of biodiversity. The biodiversity value season grasses (e.g., junegrass) and of a plot with 30 native species on it warm season grasses (e.g., little is much greater than a plot with 30 bluestem).8 One of the commonest weeds on it, because the weeds "grasses” isn’t a grass at all, but a have been spread to many parts of sedge.7 Then there are many, many the world (Europe, Asia, Australia, wildflowers.12 Several of these are ni¬ Africa, South America) whereas the trogen fixers. There are shrubs such native plants are found only on the as creeping juniper and prairie rose. Great Plains of North America. Thus, In dry areas, most of the biomass is Saskatchewan has an important role composed of lichens and clubmos- to play in the conservation of global ses (Selaginella).13 Lastly, a table¬ biodiversity. spoon of prairie soil can contain over 1,000,000 algae cells, not to mention fungi.6 So there is a lot more to Cultivation, of course, results in 51(1). March 1993 1 the loss of native prairie and its biodi¬ C.R. TOWNSEND. 1990. Ecology: in¬ dividuals, populations and communi- [ versity. Land that is abandoned from ties. Blackwell Scientific Publications, cultivation will continue to sustain low Boston. 945 pp. diversity. It may be planted to brome grass or crested wheatgrass, or it 5. BELCHER, J.W., and S.D. WILSON. 1989. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula may be invaded by an European per¬ L.) and the species composition of ennial such as leafy spurge.5 Either mixed-grass prairie. Journal of Range of these events results in the loss of Management 42:171-175. both plant and bird diversity.14,15 The 6. COUPLAND, R.T. 1973. Algae and widespread replacement of native moss populations in soil. Technical prairie along roadsides and in wildlife Report No. 23, Matador Project, Saskatoon. 31 pp. management areas with European species has a similar effect. 7. HUDSON, J.H. 1977. Carex in Sas¬ katchewan. Bison, Saskatoon. 193 Native prairie may not return to pp. land that has been cultivated for a 8. LOOMAN, J. 1982. Prairie grasses few years, due to the extermination identified and described by vegetative of both prairie plants and their seeds. characteristics. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. 244 pp. Only half of the fields near Swift Cur¬ rent abandoned from cultivation for 9. LOOMAN, P.E., and D.H. HEIN¬ 40 years contained some native RICHS. 1973. Stability of crested wheatgrass pastures under long-term plants.9 The density of natives was pasture use. Canadian Journal of extremely low: 95% of the plants Plant Science 53:501 -506. were European. 10. MAY, R.M. 1988. How many species are there on earth? Science Native prairie is very diverse com¬ 241:1441-1449. pared to cultivated land or tame 11. RICE, E.L., and R.L. PARENTI. 1978. grass pasture. Native prairie is im¬ Causes of decreases in productivity in portant to the conservation of global undisturbed tall grass prairie. Ameri¬ can Journal of Botany 65:1091 -1097. biodiversity. This diversity begins with the plants, but extends down to 12. VANCE, F.R., J.R. JOWSEY, and the soil microbes and up to the larg¬ J.S. MCLEAN. 1984. Wildflowers across the prairies. Western Producer est mammals and birds. It needs pro¬ Prairie Books, Saskatoon. 336 pp. tection in Saskatchewan. 13. VITT, D.H., J.E. MARSH, and R.B. BOVEY. 1988. Mosses, lichens and 1. ANDERSON, H.G., and A.W. ferns of northwest North America. BAILEY. 1980. Effects of annual burn¬ Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton. 296 ing on grassland in the aspen pp. parkland of east-central Alberta. Ca¬ nadian Journal of Botany 58:985-996. 14. WILSON, S.D. 1988. The suppression of native prairie by alien species intro¬ 2. BARNES, P.W., L.L. TIESZEN, and duced for revegetation. Landscape D.J. ODE. 1983. Distribution, produc¬ and Urban Planning 17:113-119. tion, and diversity of C3- and C4- dominated communities in a mixed- 15. WILSON, S.D., and J.W. BELCHER grass prairie. Canadian Journal of 1989. Plant and bird communities of Botany 61 741-751. native prairie and introduced Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. Con¬ 3. BEEBE, J.D., and G.R. HOFFMAN. servation Biology 3:39-44. 1968. Effects of grazing on vegetation 1 * and soils in southeastern South Da¬ 16. WILSON, S.D., and J.M. SHAY. 1990. kota. American Midland Naturalist Competition, fire and nutrients in a 80:96-110. mixed-grass prairie. Ecology 71:1959- 1967. 4. BEGON, M.M., J.L. HARPER, and 2 Blue Jay AGRICULTURAL POLICY: ITS EFFECTS ON NATURE, AGRICULTURE AND THE LAND IN SASKATCHEWAN INTRODUCTION KEN PIVNICK, SNHS Endangered Species and Spaces Committee, 209 7th Street East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. S7H 0W9 and FRED THORNTON, JOCE BOWMAN, and DAVID STRUTHERS, Western Resource Management Associates Limited, Box 4-B Site 2, Yorkton, Saskatchewan. Historically, people working in agri¬ Society has failed to recognize the culture and those involved with the relationship between a healthy eco¬ preservation of flora and fauna and system and the agricultural viability their natural habitats have often we need to support ourselves. All viewed the landscape of Saskatche¬ people, from urban dwellers to prairie wan from conflicting perspectives. farmers, need to understand the eco¬ Recently, however, members of both logical relationship between natural groups have started to recognize that landscapes, abundant wildlife, fertile their respective aspirations for the soil, water quality, excellent crops, land have enough in common that for stable income, ecosystem viability, either group to achieve its goals, and human well-being. both must achieve them. This has re¬ sulted from a realization that certain Several recent Canadian govern¬ indicators within Saskatchewan’s ag¬ ment studies have identified some of ricultural landscape, reflecting its the major problems and the policies overall health, are in decline. These behind them.1,2 They point out that include: the productivity of the land; modern agriculture is primarily con¬ water quality and quantity; the num¬ cerned with short-term profit in a ber of farms and rural communities; global economic arena over which in¬ the quality of rural life; and the diver¬ dividual producers have little or no sity and abundance of natural habi¬ control. Environmentally sensitive tats. Indicators that are increasing agricultural practices are perceived include: the amount of cultivated as profitable only in the long-term land; the frequency of farm bank¬ and this attitude hinders their adop¬ ruptcy; the stress of rural life; the tion. Government policies exacerbate number of children of farm families the situation by continuing to encour¬ that are permanently leaving the age traditional objectives, such as farm; the number of threatened or maximization of cultivated acres, de¬ endangered species; and the num¬ spite the attendant problems of soil ber of undesirable, introduced erosion, declining soil organic species. content, and loss of habitat. 51(1). March 1993 3 These studies generally recom¬ quota system, Saskatchewan rural mend that all sectors of the Cana¬ municipal assessment and taxation dian economy be educated on the policy and southern Saskatchewan interrelationship between the envi¬ crown land policy. In a series of arti¬ ronment, natural resource sustain¬ cles in Blue Jay, these policies will ability (including agriculture), and be examined from a "holistic” per¬ economics. They promote the crea¬ spective, defined by the fundamental tion of committees and advisory measures of biodiversity, environ¬ boards to help integrate economic mental sustainability and agricultural and environmental goals in policy suitability. The maintenance of a and practice. In addition, the studies landscape that includes endangered recommend continuing research and native prairie species and their habi¬ extension into: the reduction of soil tats can only be successfully accom¬ erosion; reduced reliance on non¬ plished with integration into the renewable energy, inorganic fertiliz¬ broader context of agriculture and ers and pesticides through more human society. sophisticated technology; and inten¬ sified monitoring of environmental The purpose of this initiative is indicators. While these studies ad¬ threefold. First, we hope to educate dress the obvious problems, they do the SNHS membership with regard not deal with the root causes and to present Saskatchewan land man¬ consequently the public is allowed to agement policy and related issues. believe that the problems can be Second, we will point out some of the solved without any fundamental important interconnections between changes in our life style and soci¬ agriculture, policy, and the land and ety’s infrastructure. As one example, all its inhabitants. Third, we hope to our society considers the economy provide tools to the membership to unhealthy if it is not growing substan¬ look beyond present land use prac¬ tially. Yet our economy must soon tices and related policy to develop begin to shrink; certainly it cannot the public awareness, public pres¬ grow indefinitely as its sustainable sure and the creativity necessary to size is largely a function of the pro¬ develop and demand land use policy ductivity and health of our environ¬ and practices which are healthy and ment. sustainable. The Saskatchewan Natural History 1. GIRT, J. 1990. Common ground: rec¬ ommendations for policy reform to in¬ Society (SNHS) Endangered Spe¬ tegrate wildlife habitat, environmental, cies and Spaces Committee is ex¬ and agricultural objectives on the amining four federal and Saskat¬ farm. Wildlife Habitat Cai ada. 56 pp. chewan government policies that re¬ 2. LEBLOND, G. 1990. Growing to¬ late directly to prairie agriculture: the gether. Report to the Federal-Provin¬ Gross Revenue Insurance Plan cial Agricultural Committee on (GRIP), the Canadian Wheat Board Environmental Sustainability. 41 pp. 4 Blue Jay AGRICULTURAL POLICY REVIEW PART 1: GROSS REVENUE INSURANCE PLAN FRED THORNTON, JOCE BOWMAN, and DAVID STRUTHERS, Western Resource Management Associates Limited, Box 4-B Site 2, Yorkton, Saskatchewan. S3N 2V4 The economic viability of prairie and Oilseeds Safety Net Committee farm operations has declined signifi¬ was established to design new in¬ cantly over the past decade. In the come support programs that would early 1980s, farmers received the meet the criteria above. The objec¬ majority of their net income from the tive was to develop a safety net pro¬ marketplace. Since 1985, however, gram that would smooth out marketplace revenues have declined fluctuations in net revenue arising and government programs have from production and marketing risks been implemented to support real¬ beyond the farmer’s control. The ized net farm income. This assis¬ committee included representatives tance has been provided by ongoing from the major producer groups programs, such as crop insurance, (Western Canadian Wheat Growers, and by ad hoc programs such as the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Special Canadian Grains Program, Committee, Canola Growers Asso¬ the Canadian Crop Drought Assis¬ ciation, National Farmers Union, tance Program, and the Canada- United Grain Growers, Saskatche¬ Saskatchewan Crop Assistance wan Wheat Pool), as well as repre¬ Program.2 sentatives from the federal and provincial governments. The Safety Net Committee recommended two Current programs (ongoing and ad hoc) have run into deficit positions. programs, the Gross Revenue Insur¬ ance Plan (GRIP) and the Net In¬ These programs were not designed come Stabilization Account (NISA). to handle the present situation which The more significant of these two is has come about as a result of inter¬ GRIP, a comprehensive insurance national grain subsidies and declin¬ program that provides: production ing farm gate prices. Spokespersons (crop yield) insurance and revenue for the government, the agriculture (price) insurance. industry, and producer groups have stressed the need for new farm The production insurance compo¬ safety net programs that meet the following criteria: nent has been available to Saskatch¬ ewan producers through the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Cor¬ - predictability; poration (SCIC) for over 30 years. In¬ - cost-sharing by governments and surance is provided on the basis of producers; and long-term average crop yields, using - resource neutrality. either area-based or individual yield records. Under the area coverage As part of the ongoing process of option, coverage levels are based on agriculture policy review, a Grains 51(1). March 1993 5 15 year moving average yields that revenue insurance only, or a com¬ SCIC has calculated for summerfal- bined program that insured crop yield low and stubble cropping in each of as well as gross revenue. 23 “risk” areas in the province. Higher coverage is offered for crops From an agro-economic perspec¬ seeded on summerfallow than for tive, the 1991 version of GRIP was crops on stubble. Under the individ¬ criticized for two reasons:1 ual coverage option, a producer’s in¬ surable yield level for each crop is 1) Market responsiveness - Ideally, determined by averaging 10 years of farmers should make their annual his/her individual yield records. In the planting decisions based on market event that a producer does not have signals. The mix of crops and live¬ 10 years of personal records, he/she stock they decide to produce should must rely, in part, on the 15 year be determined by market opportuni¬ moving average yields for his/her ties and the degree of risk they are “risk” area (area coverage). For ex¬ willing to accept. Under the 1991 ample, a producer with 2 years of in¬ GRIP program, revenue insurance dividual records would have to use 8 levels were crop-specific. This dis¬ years of area records to calculate torted cropping decisions by provid¬ his/her 10 year yield averages. Each ing a direct incentive to produce year the producer would use more of those crops with the highest revenue their own data, until such time as guarantees, even if market demand they had 10 years of personal re¬ was low or the producer had no prior cords. Production insurance pay¬ experience growing the crop. This, ments are triggered when combined with the fact that the pro¬ uncontrollable natural hazards, such gram did not include forages, re¬ as drought, reduce crop yields below duced incentives for crop guaranteed levels. diversification. The revenue insurance component 2) Moral hazard - Moral hazard oc¬ was introduced as GRIP in 1991. curs when a program or policy takes Farmers used their individual 10 year away the incentive to do the best job crop yield records (their yield guaran¬ possible with a given set of re¬ tees under production insurance) sources. Under the 1991 GRIP pro¬ and a 15 year moving average price, gram, guaranteed revenue levels indexed to the cost of farm inputs, to were higher than the expected mar¬ calculate a gross revenue insurance ket revenues for all crops. With ex¬ level per acre. As in the case of pro¬ pected prices so low that there was duction insurance, producers with little probability that market revenues less than 10 years of personal yield could exceed the GRIP guarantee, records used yield data for their risk producers had no incentive to grow a area to calculate coverage levels. good crop. Instead, producers could The program was based on individ¬ choose to accept the guarantee and ual crop commodities (i.e., each crop maximize income by minimizing ex¬ was insured individually). Payments penditures for cropping inputs such were triggered when the revenue re¬ as pedigreed seed, fertilizer, and ceived from the marketplace and pesticides. from production insurance was below the insured revenue level. With the introduction of GRIP in 1991, farmers To rectify these problems, the Sas¬ could choose between three program katchewan government changed the options: production insurance only, GRIP program for 1992. Under the 6 Blue Jay