Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Selection Drives Reproductive Fitness Under a Conifer Removal Strategy

Sandford, Charles P.; Kohl, Michel T.; Messmer, Terry A.; Dahlgren, David K.; Cook, Avery A.; Wing, Brian R.

doi:10.1016/j.rama.2016.09.002

Cited by 43 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Coates et al [19] documented a potential ecological trap at low conifer canopy cover, while Severson [32] suggested that abrupt edges between woodlands and open sagebrush areas may pose a risk for some individuals. However our study, along with those of Baruch-Mordo et al [20] and Sandford et al [45], implies that landscape-scale conifer removal benefits sage-grouse populations as a whole. More research is needed at finer scales to fully assess the effect of conifer removal on individual grouse to better inform management planning and maximize population-level benefits.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Baruch-Mordo et al [20] found conifer expansion decreased lek occupancy, which is a proxy for population size, and recommended conifer removal near leks, while Coates et al [19] suggested that decreases in populations are in part due to decreased female survival caused by increased conifer abundance. Sanford et al [45] observed increased nest and brood success near conifer removal areas, but we provide the first empirical evidence that conifer removal may lead to increases in population-level demographic rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Better living through conifer removal: A demographic analysis of sage-grouse vital rates

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) obligate wildlife species such as the imperiled greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) face numerous threats including altered ecosystem processes that have led to conifer expansion into shrub-steppe. Conifer removal is accelerating despite a lack of empirical evidence on grouse population response. Using a before-after-control-impact design at the landscape scale, we evaluated effects of conifer removal on two important demographic parameters, annual survival of females and nest survival, by monitoring 219 female sage-grouse and 225 nests in the northern Great Basin from 2010 to 2014. Estimates from the best treatment models showed positive trends in the treatment area relative to the control area resulting in an increase of 6.6% annual female survival and 18.8% nest survival relative to the control area by 2014. Using stochastic simulations of our estimates and published demographics, we estimated a 25% increase in the population growth rate in the treatment area relative to the control area. This is the first study to link sage-grouse demographics with conifer removal and supports recommendations to actively manage conifer expansion for sage-grouse conservation. Sage-grouse have become a primary catalyst for conservation funding to address conifer expansion in the West, and these findings have important implications for other ecosystem services being generated on the wings of species conservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Better living through conifer removal: A demographic analysis of sage-grouse vital rates

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sage‐grouse avoid canopy cover at low levels (<4%, Miller, Naugle, Maestas, Hagen, & Hall, 2017) or stay and suffer demographic impacts (Coates et al., 2017). In conifer removal areas, females readily nested in restored sites (Coates et al., 2017; Severson et al., 2017) and were more successful in raising their broods (Sandford et al., 2017). We build on this knowledge to add that connectivity among population centers is reduced when conifer expansion exceeds a 10% threshold in canopy cover.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying functional connectivity: The role of breeding habitat, abundance, and landscape features on range‐wide gene flow in sage‐grouse

Row

Doherty

Cross

et al. 2018

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional connectivity, quantified using landscape genetics, can inform conservation through the identification of factors linking genetic structure to landscape mechanisms. We used breeding habitat metrics, landscape attributes, and indices of grouse abundance, to compare fit between structural connectivity and genetic differentiation within five long‐established Sage‐Grouse Management Zones (MZ) I‐V using microsatellite genotypes from 6,844 greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) collected across their 10.7 million‐km2 range. We estimated structural connectivity using a circuit theory‐based approach where we built resistance surfaces using thresholds dividing the landscape into “habitat” and “nonhabitat” and nodes were clusters of sage‐grouse leks (where feather samples were collected using noninvasive techniques). As hypothesized, MZ‐specific habitat metrics were the best predictors of differentiation. To our surprise, inclusion of grouse abundance‐corrected indices did not greatly improve model fit in most MZs. Functional connectivity of breeding habitat was reduced when probability of lek occurrence dropped below 0.25 (MZs I, IV) and 0.5 (II), thresholds lower than those previously identified as required for the formation of breeding leks, which suggests that individuals are willing to travel through undesirable habitat. The individual MZ landscape results suggested terrain roughness and steepness shaped functional connectivity across all MZs. Across respective MZs, sagebrush availability (<10%–30%; II, IV, V), tree canopy cover (>10%; I, II, IV), and cultivation (>25%; I, II, IV, V) each reduced movement beyond their respective thresholds. Model validations confirmed variation in predictive ability across MZs with top resistance surfaces better predicting gene flow than geographic distance alone, especially in cases of low and high differentiation among lek groups. The resultant resistance maps we produced spatially depict the strength and redundancy of range‐wide gene flow and can help direct conservation actions to maintain and restore functional connectivity for sage‐grouse.

show abstract

“…Because sagebrush habitats recover slowly following disturbance and limited evidence suggests that habitat treatments improve herbaceous understories important for sage‐grouse during the breeding season, we recommend that managers take caution and strive to maintain sufficient sagebrush cover when designing treatment projects to alter intact sagebrush habitats, particularly when management is focused on habitat requirements for one life stage (Dahlgren et al ; Doherty et al ; Taylor et al ). Without further research that supports treating sagebrush, managers may better focus their efforts on practices such as conifer removal, where increased suitable habitat and reproductive success for sage‐grouse has been demonstrated (Sandford et al ; Severson et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sagebrush treatments influence annual population change for greater sage‐grouse

Smith

Beck

2017

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vegetation management practices have been applied worldwide to enhance habitats for a variety of wildlife species. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp.) communities, iconic to western North America, have been treated to restore herbaceous understories through chemical, mechanical, and prescribed burning practices thought to improve habitat conditions for greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and other species. Although the response of structural attributes of sagebrush communities to treatments is well understood, there is a need to identify how treatments influence wildlife population dynamics. We investigated the influence of vegetation treatments occurring in Wyoming, United States, from 1994 to 2012 on annual sage‐grouse population change using yearly male sage‐grouse lek counts. We investigated this response across 1, 3, 5, and 10‐year post‐treatment lags to evaluate how the amount of treated sagebrush communities and time since treatment influenced population change, while accounting for climate, wildfire, and anthropogenic factors. With the exception of chemical treatments exhibiting a positive association with sage‐grouse population change 11 years after implementation, population response to treatments was either neutral or negative for at least 11 years following treatments. Our work supports a growing body of research advocating against treating big sagebrush habitats for sage‐grouse, particularly in Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis). Loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats has been identified as a significant threat for remaining sage‐grouse populations. Because sagebrush may take decades to recover following treatments, we recommend practitioners use caution when designing projects to alter remaining habitats, especially when focused on habitat requirements for one life stage and a single species.

show abstract

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Selection Drives Reproductive Fitness Under a Conifer Removal Strategy

Cited by 43 publications

References 33 publications

Better living through conifer removal: A demographic analysis of sage-grouse vital rates

Better living through conifer removal: A demographic analysis of sage-grouse vital rates

Quantifying functional connectivity: The role of breeding habitat, abundance, and landscape features on range‐wide gene flow in sage‐grouse

Sagebrush treatments influence annual population change for greater sage‐grouse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About