Conserving migratory mule deer through the umbrella of sage‐grouse

Copeland, Holly E.; Sawyer, Hall; Monteith, Kevin L.; Naugle, David E.; Pocewicz, Amy; Graf, Nicholas E.; Kauffman, Matthew J.

doi:10.1890/es14-00186.1

Cited by 43 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, gathering the necessary background information is the first crucial step for long-term conservation , particularly for a species that demonstrates such variability across its range. By identifying the distribution and timing of pronghorn use across the larger landscape, land managers now have a baseline through which a prioritization process can be developed to identify those areas and routes of highest conservation value (Sawyer et al 2009, Copeland et al 2014. And although overlap with large, protected lands (e.g., national wildlife refuges) was high in this instance, it is clear that these areas are not large enough to encompass the entirety of this migratory species' needs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And although overlap with large, protected lands (e.g., national wildlife refuges) was high in this instance, it is clear that these areas are not large enough to encompass the entirety of this migratory species' needs. Future obstacles to migration could potentially extirpate routes and contribute to a loss of connectivity (Copeland et al 2014, Seidler et al 2014). Partnerships across land management agencies and other stakeholders in applying this knowledge to ongoing landscape-level conservation planning will be necessary to mitigate any future cumulative changes that have the potential to impact important pronghorn habitat or alter connectivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…behavioral changes and reductions in carrying capacity across their range due to decreased habitat and fragmentation of migration routes as a result of development, fencing, and other land-use practices (e.g., Sawyer et al 2005, Boccadori et al 2008, Beckmann et al 2012, Seidler et al 2014. The challenge of conserving migratory ungulates is due to their wide-ranging seasonal movements, which occur across both a diversity of ecosystems and varying land management priorities (Copeland et al 2014). For example, Berger (2004) estimated that 75% of the migration routes for bison (Bison bison), elk (Cervus canadensis), and pronghorn have been lost in the Greater Yellowstone region.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This contributes to challenges for long-term conservation of pronghorn, because there is uncertainty about the distribution of seasonal habitats, location of migration routes, impacts of land-use practices, and effects of other potential barriers (Berger et al 2006, White et al 2007). There is also uncertainty in how large-scale conservation efforts underway for other species (e.g., Greater Sage-Grouse) could potentially overlap efforts to conserve pronghorn (Copeland et al 2014). In this study, I documented the movements of adult female pronghorn in southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada during 2011-2013 to examine connectivity between 2 summering populations and to develop a baseline for identifying seasonal movement patterns and timing, seasonal distributions, individual fidelity to seasonal use areas, and migration distances and routes in the northern Great Basin.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seasonal Distribution and Routes of Pronghorn in the Northern Great Basin

Collins

2016

Western North American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seasonal Distribution and Routes of Pronghorn in the Northern Great Basin

Collins

2016

Western North American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The greater sage‐grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; sage‐grouse) has been the focus of much conservation attention in western North America in recent decades and has the potential to serve as an umbrella species for the conservation of other components of the sagebrush‐steppe ecosystem, especially sagebrush‐associated wildlife species (Rich and Altman , Rowland et al , Hanser and Knick , Gamo et al , Copeland et al ). Grater sage‐grouse are listed as endangered in Canada under the federal Species at Risk Act and have been petitioned ≥7 times for listing under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA; Stiver ), though the USFWS recently determined that ESA listing was not warranted (USFWS 2015 b ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying holes in the greater sage‐grouse conservation umbrella

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The umbrella species concept, wherein multiple species are indirectly protected under the umbrella of a reserve created for one, is intended to enhance conservation efficiency. Although appealing in theory and common in practice, empirical tests of the concept have been scarce. We used a real‐world, semi‐protected reserve established to protect a high‐profile umbrella species (greater sage‐grouse [Centrocercus urophasianus]) to investigate 2 potential mechanisms underlying the concept's successful application: reserve size and species similarity. We estimated how much habitat protection the established reserve provided to 52 species of conservation concern associated with vegetation communities where greater sage‐grouse occur. To illustrate the importance of reserve size, we compared the effectiveness of the established reserve to alternative greater sage‐grouse reserves of various sizes and to simulated reserves of equal size but sited with no regard for greater sage‐grouse. We further assessed whether key species’ traits were associated with different levels of protection under the umbrella reserve. The established umbrella reserve protected 82% of the state's greater sage‐grouse population and 0–63% of the habitat of the background species examined. The reserve outperformed equally sized, simulated reserves for only 12 of 52 background species. As expected, larger alternative reserves served as better umbrellas, but regardless of reserve size, not all species received equal protection. The established reserve was most effective at protecting the habitat of species that were most similar to the umbrella species (i.e., avian species, those highly associated with sagebrush plant communities, and those with widespread habitat). In contrast, the habitat of species with restricted distributions, particularly when combined with vegetation associations not closely matching the umbrella species, was not protected as well by the umbrella reserve. Such species require additional, targeted attention to achieve conservation objectives. Successful application of the umbrella species concept requires careful consideration of the characteristics of the umbrella species, the reserve delineated on its behalf, and the similarity of the umbrella species to its purported background species. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Functional attributes of ungulate migration: landscape features facilitate movement and access to forage

Monteith

Hayes

Kauffman

et al. 2018

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long‐distance migration by terrestrial mammals is a phenomenon critical to the persistence of populations, but such migrations are declining globally because of over‐harvest, habitat loss, and movement barriers. Increasingly, there is a need to improve existing routes, mitigate route segments affected by anthropogenic disturbance, and in some instances, determine whether alternative routes are available. Using a hypothesis‐driven approach, we identified landscape features associated with the primary functional attributes, stopovers and movement corridors, of spring migratory routes for mule deer in two study areas using resource selection functions. Patterns of selection for landscape attributes of movement corridors and stopovers mostly were similar; however, landscape features associated with movement corridors aligned better with areas that facilitated movement, whereas selection of stopovers was consistent with sites offering early access to spring forage. For movement corridors, deer selected for dry sites, low elevation, and low anthropogenic disturbance. For stopovers, deer selected for dry sites, with consistently early green‐up across years, south‐southwesterly aspects, low elevation, and low anthropogenic disturbance. Stopovers and movement corridors of a migratory route presumably promote different functions, but for a terrestrial migrant, patterns of habitat selection indicate that the same general habitat attributes may facilitate both movement and foraging in spring. Our findings emphasize the roles of topographical wetness, vegetation phenology, and anthropogenic disturbance in shaping use of the landscape during migration for this large herbivore. Avoiding human disturbance and tracking ephemeral forage resources appear to be a consistent pattern during migration, which reinforces the notion that movement during migration has a nutritional underpinning and disturbance potentially alters the net benefits of migration.

show abstract

Conserving migratory mule deer through the umbrella of sage‐grouse

Cited by 43 publications

References 42 publications

Seasonal Distribution and Routes of Pronghorn in the Northern Great Basin

Seasonal Distribution and Routes of Pronghorn in the Northern Great Basin

Identifying holes in the greater sage‐grouse conservation umbrella

Functional attributes of ungulate migration: landscape features facilitate movement and access to forage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About