Nonbreeding home‐range size and survival of lesser prairie‐chickens

Robinson, Samantha G.; Haukos, David A.; Plumb, Reid T.; Lautenbach, Joseph M.; Sullins, Daniel S.; Kraft, John D.; Lautenbach, Jonathan D.; Hagen, Christian A.; Pitman, James C.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.21390

Cited by 11 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not use male prairie‐chicken data during the breeding season because of differential space use behavior between sexes during the breeding season. We combined male and female UDs because space use behavior is similar between sexes during the nonbreeding season (Robinson et al ). We did not use UDs estimated from VHF data in the third‐order analysis because the BBMM estimation creates a more representative estimate of individual space use when compared to the kernel method (Horne et al ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our research was conducted from 15 March 2013 to 14 March 2015 in the SGPR (i.e., northwest Kansas) and MGPR and SSPR ecoregions (i.e., south‐central Kansas) of Kansas, which supported approximately 88% of the range‐wide lesser prairie‐chicken population in 2017 (McDonald et al ). We collected data during 2 6‐month biological seasons, the breeding season (15 Mar–15 Sep) and nonbreeding season (16 Sep–14 Mar; Winder et al , Robinson et al ). We established study area boundaries by creating minimum convex polygons around all very high frequency (VHF) and satellite platform transmitting terminal (SAT‐PTT) locations generated from marked birds in each area, excluding dispersal events (unidirectional movements >5 km), using the minimum bounding geometry tool in ArcGIS 10.2 (Environmental Systems Research Group [ESRI], Redlands, CA, USA; Robinson et al ).…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We collected data during 2 6‐month biological seasons, the breeding season (15 Mar–15 Sep) and nonbreeding season (16 Sep–14 Mar; Winder et al , Robinson et al ). We established study area boundaries by creating minimum convex polygons around all very high frequency (VHF) and satellite platform transmitting terminal (SAT‐PTT) locations generated from marked birds in each area, excluding dispersal events (unidirectional movements >5 km), using the minimum bounding geometry tool in ArcGIS 10.2 (Environmental Systems Research Group [ESRI], Redlands, CA, USA; Robinson et al ). Each study area was comprised of 2 field sites in each ecoregion.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wheat, sorghum, and corn were the major crops in the region. Dominant fauna in northwest Kansas consisted of coyote ( Canis latrans ), swift fox ( Vulpes velox ), striped skunk ( Mephitis mephitis ), northern harrier ( Circus cyaneus ), Swainson's hawk ( Buteo swainsoni ), red‐tailed hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ), ring‐necked pheasant ( Phasianus colchicus ), white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), and mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ; Robinson et al ). The dominant land uses in this region were rotational and season‐long livestock grazing, row‐crop agriculture, CRP, oil extraction, electrical distribution, and rural towns.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dominant vegetation within the region included little bluestem, blue grama, hairy grama, sideoats grama, buffalograss, sand dropseed ( Sporobolus cryptandrus ), alkali sacaton ( S. airoides ), Louisiana sagewort ( Artemisia ludiviciana ), annual sunflower ( Helianthus annuus ), western ragweed, sand sagebrush, Russian thistle ( Salsola kali ), kochia ( Kochia scoparium ), and eastern redcedar ( Juniperus virginiana ; Lauver et al ). Dominant fauna in south‐central Kansas consisted of coyote, striped skunk, American badger ( Taxidea taxus ), northern harrier, red‐tailed hawk, ring‐necked pheasant, and white‐tailed deer (Robinson et al ).…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Lesser prairie‐chicken space use in relation to anthropogenic structures

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Southern Great Plains has been altered by conversion of native grassland to row‐crop agriculture, which is considered the primary cause of declining lesser prairie‐chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) populations. However, recent analyses indicate that direct loss of grassland has slowed while lesser prairie‐chicken populations continue to decline, suggesting that remaining grasslands potentially suffer from degradation by various land uses (e.g., increased anthropogenic disturbance). Understanding the spatial ecology of lesser prairie‐chickens relative to anthropogenic structures is important for conservation planning, habitat management, and infrastructure mitigation. We investigated effects of proximity to anthropogenic structures on home range and nest placement (second‐order selection) and within home range space use (third‐order selection) of radio‐marked lesser prairie‐chickens (n = 285) at 2 scales of selection using resource utilization functions and resource selection functions. We collected data from birds marked in the Mixed‐Grass Prairie and Short‐Grass Prairie ecoregions of Kansas, USA, from 15 March 2013 to 14 March 2016. Home range placement did not vary by region or season, and lesser prairie‐chickens placed home ranges farther from powerlines and roads than would be expected at random. As distance increased from 0 to 3 km away from roads and powerlines, the relative probability of home range placement increased 1.66 and 1.54 times, respectively. Distance to powerline was the single most consistent variable negatively affecting nest placement. As the distance from powerline increased from 0 to 3 km, the relative probability of nest placement increased 2.19 times. Distance to oil well did not influence placement of home ranges or nests. When pooled across regions, lesser prairie‐chickens exhibited behavioral avoidance of powerlines, roads, and oil wells within their home range. Lesser prairie‐chickens, on average, used space at greater intensities within their home range farther from wells, powerlines, and roads than available. Across breeding season phases, we found no evidence of increased behavioral avoidance of anthropogenic structures during the nesting or brooding phases compared to the lekking or post‐breeding phases. Within home range space use during the brooding phase was not related to powerlines, wells, or roads. Our results indicate that avoidance of anthropogenic structures may result in functional habitat loss and continued fragmentation of remaining grassland habitat. Reduction or elimination of anthropogenic development in quality lesser prairie‐chicken habitat and concentrating new development in already altered areas that are avoided by lesser prairie‐chickens and no longer considered available habitat may reduce continued habitat degradation throughout the species’ range and aid in population persistence. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lesser prairie‐chicken space use in relation to anthropogenic structures

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Demographic effects of a megafire on a declining prairie grouse in the mixed‐grass prairie

Parker

Sullins

Haukos

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have documented benefits of small, prescribed fire and wildfire for grassland-dependent wildlife, such as lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicintus), but wildlife demographic response to the scale and intensity of megafire (wildfire >40,000 ha) in modern, fragmented grasslands remains unknown. Limited available grassland habitat makes it imperative to understand if increasing frequency of megafires could further reduce already declining lesser prairie-chicken populations, or if historical evolutionary interactions with fire make lesser prairie-chickens resilient. To evaluate lesser prairie-chicken demographic response to megafires, we compared lek counts, nest density, and survival rates of adults, nests, and chicks before (2014)(2015)(2016) and after (2018-2020) a 2017 megafire in the mixed-grass prairie of Kansas, USA (Starbuck fire ~254,000 ha). There was a 67% decline in attending males on leks post-fire and a 57% decline in occupied leks post-fire. Despite population declines as indicated by lek counts, adult female breeding season survival ( Ŝ) was similar pre-( Ŝ = 0.65 ± 0.08 [SE]) and post-fire (0.61 ± 0.08), as was chick survival (pre-fire: 0.23 ± 0.07; post-fire: 0.27 ± 0.11). Nest survival appeared lower post-fire (pre-fire: 0.38 ± 0.06; post-fire: 0.20 ± 0.06), but did not differ at the 95% confidence interval.Nest density of marked females declined 73% in areas burned by megafire. Although lesser prairie-chickens persisted in the study area and we documented minimal effects on most demographic rates, reduced lesser prairie-chicken abundance and reproductive output suggests full recovery may take >3 years. Increased propensity for megafire resulting from suppression of smaller fires, compounded by climate change and woody encroachment, may impose a short-term (3-5 year) threat to already declining lesser prairie-chicken populations.

show abstract

Ecological Disturbance Through Patch‐Burn Grazing Influences Lesser Prairie‐Chicken Space Use

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across portions of the western Great Plains in North America, natural fire has been removed from grassland ecosystems, decreasing vegetation heterogeneity and allowing woody encroachment. The loss of fire has implications for grassland species requiring diverse vegetation patches and structure or patches that have limited occurrence in the absence of fire. The lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) is a declining species of prairie-grouse that requires heterogeneous grasslands throughout its life history and fire has been removed from much of its occupied range. Patch-burn grazing is a management strategy that re-establishes the fire-grazing interaction to a grassland system, increasing heterogeneity in vegetation structure and composition. We evaluated the effects of patch-burn grazing on lesser prairie-chicken space use, habitat features, and vegetation selection during a 4-year field study from 2014-2017. Female lesser prairie-chickens selected 1-and 2-year post-fire patches during the lekking season, ≥4-year post-fire patches during the nesting season, and year-of-fire and 1-year post-fire patches during post-nesting and nonbreeding seasons. Vegetation selection during the lekking season was not similar to available vegetation in selected patches, suggesting that lesser prairie-chickens cue in on other factors during the lekking season. During the nesting season, females selected nest sites with greater visual obstruction, which was available in ≥4-year post-fire patches; during the post-nesting season, females selected sites with 15-25% bare ground, which was available in the year-of-fire, 1-year post-fire, and 2-year post-fire patches; and during the nonbreeding season they selected sites with lower visual obstruction, available in the year-of-fire and 1-year post-fire patches. Because lesser prairie-chickens selected all available time-since-fire patches during their life history, patch-burn grazing may be a viable management tool to restore and maintain lesser prairie-chicken habitat on the landscape.

show abstract

Nonbreeding home‐range size and survival of lesser prairie‐chickens

Cited by 11 publications

References 36 publications

Lesser prairie‐chicken space use in relation to anthropogenic structures

Lesser prairie‐chicken space use in relation to anthropogenic structures

Demographic effects of a megafire on a declining prairie grouse in the mixed‐grass prairie

Ecological Disturbance Through Patch‐Burn Grazing Influences Lesser Prairie‐Chicken Space Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About