Comparative Habitat Ecology of Texas and Masked Bobwhites

Guthery, Fred S.; King, Nina M.; Nolte, Kenneth; Kuvlesky, William P.; DeStefano, Stephen; Gall, Sally A.; Silvy, Nova J.

doi:10.2307/3803239

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that examined 1 variable at a time rather than a multivariate analysis of resource selection used logistic regression (Hutchinson and Lacki 2000), Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Collier 2000, Pechacek andKristin 2004), electivity indices, and Mann-Whitney U tests (Ticer et al 2001, Weir andHarestad 2003), and paired t-tests (Welsh andLind 2002, Scheiman et al 2003). For each resource attribute, Guthery et al (2000) used kernel density estimation to estimate the distributions of used and available values and then formed the ratio of these 2 distributions for each value (see also Guthery 1997, Koop et al 1998).…”

Section: Single-variable Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II

Thomas

Taylor

2006

Journal of Wildlife Management

326

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review 87 articles published in the Journal of Wildlife Management from 2000 to 2004 to assess the current state of practice in the design and analysis of resource selection studies. Articles were classified into 4 study designs. In design 1, data are collected at the population level because individual animals are not identified. Individual animal selection may be assessed in designs 2 and 3. In design 2, use by each animal is recorded, but availability (or nonuse) is measured only at the population level. Use and availability (or unused) are measured for each animal in design 3. In design 4, resource use is measured multiple times for each animal, and availability (or nonuse) is measured for each use location. Thus, use and availability measures are paired for each use in design 4. The 4 study designs were used about equally in the articles reviewed. The most commonly used statistical analyses were logistic regression (40%) and compositional analysis (25%). We illustrate 4 problem areas in resource selection analyses: pooling of relocation data across animals with differing numbers of relocations, analyzing paired data as though they were independent, tests that do not control experiment wise error rates, and modeling observations as if they were independent when temporal or spatial correlations occurs in the data. Statistical models that allow for variation in individual animal selection rather than pooling are recommended to improve error estimation in population‐level selection. Some researchers did not select appropriate statistical analyses for paired data, or their analyses were not well described. Researchers using one‐resource‐at‐a‐time procedures often did not control the experiment wise error rate, so simultaneous inference procedures and multivariate assessments of selection are suggested. The time interval between animal relocations was often relatively short, but existing analyses for temporally or spatially correlated data were not used. For studies that used logistic regression, we identified the data type employed: single sample, case control (used‐unused), use‐availability, or paired use‐availability. It was not always clear whether studies intended to compare use to nonuse or use to availability. Despite the popularity of compositional analysis, we do not recommend it for multiple relocation data when use of one or more resources is low. We illustrate that resource selection models are part of a broader collection of statistical models called weighted distributions and recommend some promising areas for future development.

show abstract

Section: Single-variable Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II

Thomas

Taylor

2006

Journal of Wildlife Management

326

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) is an example for which extensive knowledge exists regarding the species' ecology, life history, and habitat (Stoddard 1931, Rosene 1969, Lehmann 1984), but considerably less information exists regarding its selection of habitat (Kopp et al 1998, Guthery et al 2000 despite years of research. This research trajectory has resulted in a knowledge base that provides qualitative descriptions of bobwhite habitat but does not provide quantitative bounds of habitat suitability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This lack of habitat-selection data forced early biologists to base habitat recommendations on their best educated guess. Recent research on selection-avoidance behavior of bobwhites (Johnson and Guthery 1988, Kopp et al 1998, Guthery et al 2000 has surfaced the tenuous nature of early recommendations. For example, bobwhites initially were thought to require landscapes consisting of 5-15% woody canopy coverage (Jackson 1969, Lehmann 1984, Guthery 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because a goal of management is to create or maintain usable space, habitat-suitability bounds facilitate effective management. The objective of our study was to empirically determine the bounds of habitat suitability for 5 vegetation characteristics of bobwhite nesting cover (nesting-substrate ht and width, suitable nest-clump density, herbaceous canopy coverage, and radius of complete visual obstruction) deemed important in prior research (Lehmann 1984, Kopp et al 1998, Guthery et al 2000. Our goal was to characterize the structural properties of nest sites and their surrounding area.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Habitat‐Suitability Bounds for Nesting Cover of Northern Bobwhites on Semiarid Rangelands

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) is a species for which extensive knowledge exists regarding its ecology, life history, and habitat. Although the qualitative aspects of bobwhite habitat have been described and known for many decades, researchers have neglected to characterize bobwhite habitat quantitatively (i.e., habitat selection). Thus, biologists have been capable of identifying components that compose bobwhite habitat but have only been able to speculate on how much of each component was necessary. We documented selection‐avoidance behavior of nesting bobwhites in Brooks County, Texas, USA, during May‐August, 2004–2005. We measured 5 vegetation features (i.e., nesting‐substrate ht and width, suitable nest clump density, herbaceous canopy coverage, and radius of complete visual obstruction) at nest sites (n = 105) and at random points (n = 204). We used continuous selection functions to assess habitat use and identify bounds of suitability. Selection domains for nesting‐substrate height and radius of complete visual obstruction were 16.9–31.2 cm and 1.05‐4.35 m, respectively. Across all measurements, bobwhites selected for nest sites with a nesting‐substrate width ≥22.4 cm, suitable nest‐clump density ≥730 nest clumps/ha, and herbaceous canopy coverage ≥36.7%. This knowledge will provide an important foundation for managers to evaluate current nesting conditions on semiarid rangelands and provide a basis for habitat management aimed at creating suitable nesting habitat for bobwhites.

show abstract

“…Vegetation monitoring on the refuge has been insufficient to assess management effects with any confidence (Simms 1989), and the data that have been collected indicate no significant change in composition or density since 1985 (E. Geiger & G. McPherson, unpublished data). Surprisingly, researchers have found that captive‐bred Masked Bobwhites released on the refuge disproportionately utilize Lehmann lovegrass and mesquite sites (King 1998; Guthery et al 2000), suggesting that the fire program benefits the endangered bird only if it fails in its other stated objectives. Finally, two historical analyses concluded that large arroyos, which formed early in the twentieth century, altered the vegetation and microclimate of key breeding habitat (King 1998; Sayre 2002).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interacting Effects of Landownership, Land Use, and Endangered Species on Conservation of Southwestern U.S. Rangelands

Sayre

2005

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contemporary southwestern United States is characterized by fire-adapted ecosystems; large numbers of federally listed threatened and endangered species; a patchwork of federal, state, and private landownership; and a long history of livestock grazing as the predominant land use. I compared eight sites in southern Arizona and New Mexico to assess the interacting effects of these characteristics on conservation practices and outcomes. There was widespread interest and private-sector leadership in restoring fire to southwestern rangelands, and there is a shortage of predictive scientific knowledge about the effects of fire and livestock grazing on threatened and endangered species. It was easier to restore fire to lands that were either privately owned or not grazed, in part because of obstacles created by threatened and endangered species on grazed public lands. Collaborative management facilitated conservation practices and outcomes, and periodic removal of livestock may be necessary for conservation, but permanent livestock exclusion may be counterproductive because of interactions with land-use and landownership patterns. Resumen: El suroeste contemporáneo de Estados Unidos se caracteriza por ecosistemas adaptados al fuego;numerosas especies enlistadas federalmente como amenazadas y en peligro; un mosaico de propiedad federal, estatal y privada de la tierra; y una larga historia de pastoreo por ganado como forma predominante de uso de suelo. Comparé ocho sitios en el sur de Arizona y Nuevo México para evaluar la interacción de los efectos de estas características sobre las prácticas y resultados de conservación. Hubo interés generalizado y liderazgo del sector privado en el restablecimiento de fuego en llanuras del suroeste, y hay una carencia de conocimiento científico predictivo en relación con los efectos del fuego y el pastoreo de ganado sobre especies amenazadas y en peligro. Fue más fácil restablecer fuego en terrenos de propiedad privada o no pastoreados, debido en parte a obstáculos creados por la presencia de especies amenazadas y en peligro en terrenos públicos, pastoreados. La gestión cooperativa facilitó las prácticas y resultados de conservación, y la remoción periódica de ganado puede ser necesaria para la conservación, pero la exclusión permanente de ganado puede ser contraproducente debido a las interacciones con los patrones de propiedad y uso de suelos.Palabras Clave: Acta de Especies en Peligro,áreas ribereñas, especies amenazadas, fuego, gestión cooperativa, pastoreo de ganado

show abstract

Comparative Habitat Ecology of Texas and Masked Bobwhites

Cited by 20 publications

References 19 publications

Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II

Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II

Habitat‐Suitability Bounds for Nesting Cover of Northern Bobwhites on Semiarid Rangelands

Interacting Effects of Landownership, Land Use, and Endangered Species on Conservation of Southwestern U.S. Rangelands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About