Counts of birds attending leks traditionally have been used as an index to the population size of greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and, more recently, as a means to estimate population size. The relationship between this index and the actual population has not been studied. We used intensive counts of individually marked and unmarked greater sage‐grouse on leks to evaluate how sex and age of birds, time of day, and time of season impact lek‐attendance patterns and lek counts. These within‐season sources of variation need to be considered when estimating detection probability of birds on leks and ultimately adjusting the lek‐count index to estimate true population parameters. On average, 42% of marked adult males, 4% of marked hens, and 19% of yearling males were observed on leks per sighting occasion with all 15 known leks being intensively counted. We discovered that lek counts as currently conducted may be useful as an index to greater sage‐grouse populations, but standardization of protocols is needed to allow for better spatial and temporal comparisons of lek‐count data. Also the probability of detecting birds on leks must be estimated in order to relate lek counts to population parameters. Lastly, we evaluated use of the bounded‐count methodology for correcting lek‐count data. We showed large biases associated with this technique and below‐nominal coverage of confidence intervals even at large numbers of counts, demonstrating the unreliability of the bounded‐count method to correct lek‐count data.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

No abstract

No abstract

and the efforts of numerous nongovernmental agencies, working groups, and individual landowners. Future management of the sagebrush biome may be more effective with a move toward maintenance of ecosystem resilience and resistance and conservation of the entire suite of sagebrush-dependent and -associated species. Table A1. Species and subspecies of Artemisia, subgenus Tridentatae, section Tridentatae, which comprise the sagebrush biome (follows Shultz, 2009).Common name Genus/species/subspecies Low or little sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ssp. arbuscula Alkali sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba Hot springs sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ssp. thermopola Bigelow sagebrush Artemisia bigelovii Black sagebrush Artemisia nova Pygmy sage Artemisia pygmaea Stiff sagebrush Artemisia rigida California silver sagebrush Artemisia cana ssp. bolanderi Plains silver sagebrush Artemisia cana ssp. cana Mountain silver sagebrush Artemisia cana ssp. viscidula Timberline sagebrush Artemisia rothrockii Snowfield sagebrush Artemisia spiciformis Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis Parish or Mohave sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. parishii Wyoming three-tip sagebrush Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola Three-tip sagebrush Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita Table B1. Examples of services provided by the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystem. Ecosystem service categories ExamplesRegulating Water purification, water infiltration and flood attenuation, carbon sequestration, wildfire resistance Provisioning Products from livestock (for example, beef, lamb, leather, wool); water for municipal, industrial, and irrigation use; mineral extraction; food from hunting wildlife CulturalRecreational opportunities such as cycling, hiking, hunting, and wildlife viewing (for example, sage-grouse [Centrocercus spp.] leks); sense of place; spiritual benefits Supporting Production of grasses, nutrient cycling spp.)-juniper (Juniperus spp.) forests, but its habitat often overlaps sagebrush communities. This species is of concern to managers of sagebrush landscapes because populations are declining, and management efforts to remove conifer can have negative consequences for pinyon jays. listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Both the Bi-State distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse and greater sagegrouse rangewide were recently found not warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Threats to sage-grouse are numerous and significant, including but not limited to invasive species, altered fire regimes, energy development, free-roaming equids, and a warming climate.