Forb and Invertebrate Response to Treatments for Greater Sage-grouse in Wyoming Big Sagebrush

Smith, Kurt T.; LeVan, Jason R.; Beck, Jeffrey L.

doi:10.1016/j.rama.2019.05.002

Cited by 4 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, availability of forbs and invertebrates are critical for sage‐grouse chick survival (Johnson and Boyce 1990). A failure of treatments to increase forb and invertebrate production in treated Wyoming big sagebrush (Hess and Beck 2014, Smith et al 2019 b , this study) supports our finding of a neutral demographic response and lack of selection of treatments. We found no differences in forb cover or forb species richness between mowing or tebuthiuron treatments and untreated sites during each year following treatments.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Vegetation manipulation is therefore likely to influence the invertebrate community. In contrast, we found that invertebrate biomass did not differ between treatment types or between treated and untreated areas up to 5 years after treatments occurred (Smith et al 2019 b , this study). Our invertebrate biomass results were consistent with other studies in mountain big sagebrush (Pyle and Crawford 1996) and Wyoming big sagebrush (Fischer et al 1996, Rhodes et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

“…We found no differences in forb cover or forb species richness between mowing or tebuthiuron treatments and untreated sites during each year following treatments. In addition, forb DM did not differ between treatment types or between treated and untreated areas up to 4 years after treatments occurred (Smith et al 2019b), and we found no differences in forb DM 5 years after treatments in 2018. Forb cover and production typically return to pretreatment conditions within 1-5 years (Peek et al 1979, Fischer et al 1996.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…We simultaneously sampled food forb (see Kirol et al 2012 for list of food forbs) and invertebrates at the 10 treated and 10 untreated control locations within each of the 4 treatment study areas following treatment from 2014–2018. Methods followed a previous evaluation of forb and invertebrates at treatment and sage‐grouse brood‐rearing locations in our study system (Smith et al 2019 b ). We sampled forbs and invertebrates at the same 30‐m transects used for vegetation sampling.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The more widely distributed Wyoming big sagebrush (Knick et al 2003) typically responds differently to treatments than mountain big sagebrush. Specifically, forb abundance does not generally increase over the short‐term following treatments in Wyoming big sagebrush (Davies et al 2012 a , Hess and Beck 2014, Smith et al 2019 b ), and any increase in forb cover often does not persist (>5 years post treatment; Hess and Beck 2012, Riginos et al 2019). In north‐central Wyoming, mechanically treated Wyoming big sagebrush sites did not meet minimum guidelines (Connelly et al 2000 b ) for nesting and early brood‐rearing sage‐grouse habitats as much as 9 years after mowing (Hess and Beck 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Response of greater sage‐grouse to sagebrush reduction treatments in Wyoming big sagebrush

Smith,

Levan,

Chalfoun

et al. 2023

Wildlife Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vegetation treatments have been widely implemented in efforts to enhance conditions for wildlife populations. Yet the effectiveness of such efforts often lack rigorous evaluations to determine whether these practices are effective for targeted species. This is particularly important when manipulating wildlife habitats in ecosystems that are faced with multiple stressors. The sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystem has been altered extensively over the last century leading to declines of many associated species. Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata wyomingensis) is the most widely distributed subspecies, providing important habitats for sagebrush‐obligate and associated wildlife. Sagebrush often has been treated with chemicals, mechanical treatments, and prescribed burning to increase herbaceous forage species released from competition with sagebrush overstory. Despite many studies documenting negative effects of sagebrush control on greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat, treatments are still proposed as a means of improving habitat for sage‐grouse and other sagebrush‐dependent species. Furthermore, most studies have focused on vegetation response and none have rigorously evaluated the direct influence of these treatments on sage‐grouse. We initiated a 9‐year (2011–2019) experimental study in central Wyoming, USA, to better understand how greater sage‐grouse respond to sagebrush reduction treatments in Wyoming big sagebrush communities. We evaluated the influence of 2 common sagebrush treatments on greater sage‐grouse demography and resource selection. We implemented mowing and tebuthiuron application in winter and spring 2014 and evaluated the pre‐ (2011–2013) and post‐treatment (2014–2019) responses of sage‐grouse relative to these management actions. We evaluated responses to treatments using demographic and behavioral data collected from 620 radio‐marked female greater sage‐grouse. Our specific objectives were to evaluate how treatments influenced 1) sage‐grouse reproductive success and female survival; 2) sage‐grouse nesting, brood‐rearing, and female resource selection; 3) vegetation responses; and 4) forbs and invertebrates. Our results generally suggested neutral demographic responses and slight avoidance by greater sage‐grouse in response to Wyoming big sagebrush treated by mowing and tebuthiuron. Neither mowing nor tebuthiuron treatments influenced nest survival, brood survival, or female survival. Selection for nest and brood‐rearing sites did not differ before and after treatments. Females selected habitats near treatments before and after they were implemented; however, the strength of selection was lower after treatments compared with pre‐treatment periods, which may be explained by a lack of response in vegetation and invertebrates following treatments. Perennial grass cover and height varied temporally yet did not vary systematically between treatment and control plots. Forb cover and species richness varied annually but not in relation to either treatment type. Perennial gr...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Response of greater sage‐grouse to sagebrush reduction treatments in Wyoming big sagebrush

Smith,

Levan,

Chalfoun

et al. 2023

Wildlife Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Greater sage‐grouse chick mortality risk relative to livestock grazing management, environmental factors, and morphometric measurements

Berkeley,

Szczypinski,

Coons

et al. 2024

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage‐grouse) populations in the western United States have declined, necessitating conservation efforts. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and livestock producers implemented the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) to improve sage‐grouse habitat using regional‐specific management actions such as rotational grazing. We assessed the effect of SGI grazing management, the influence of brood female and chick morphometric traits, and multiple environmental and anthropogenic disturbance factors on chick mortality risk in a sage‐grouse population in central Montana, USA, from 2011–2019. We used a Kaplan‐Meier survival function to evaluate chick survival, Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate chick mortality risk as a function of brood female and chick morphometric traits, and the Andersen‐Gill formulation of the Cox proportional hazards model to assess the effects of time‐dependent habitat characteristics on chick mortality risk. Survival to 45 days post‐hatch for 510 chicks varied annually from 0.26 ± 0.07 (SE) to 0.69 ± 0.07. The 45‐day survival rate for all years combined was 0.51 ± 0.03. Chick mortality risk was not affected by changes in livestock grazing management implemented through the SGI grazing program. Brood female age and body condition, sex of chicks, vegetation, and anthropogenic variables were also unassociated with chick mortality risk. There were small protective effects of chick mass adjusted for age and mean minimum monthly temperature; greater chick mass and lower monthly temperatures correlated with reduced mortality risk. Overall, our study suggests the SGI grazing program does not confer additional benefits to sage‐grouse chicks beyond existing grazing practices. Incentivizing grazing practices that adhere to fundamental principles of rangeland ecology and maintain intact rangelands may be more effective than specific prescribed grazing systems for sage‐grouse conservation in this region.

show abstract

Surface-active arthropod community response to juniper removal and its implications for avian conservation in sagebrush ecosystems

Haab,

Hagen,

DeBano

et al. 2023

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forb and Invertebrate Response to Treatments for Greater Sage-grouse in Wyoming Big Sagebrush

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Response of greater sage‐grouse to sagebrush reduction treatments in Wyoming big sagebrush

Response of greater sage‐grouse to sagebrush reduction treatments in Wyoming big sagebrush

Greater sage‐grouse chick mortality risk relative to livestock grazing management, environmental factors, and morphometric measurements

Surface-active arthropod community response to juniper removal and its implications for avian conservation in sagebrush ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About