Basic Features of the New Hampshire Ruffed Grouse Census

Allison, Donald G.

doi:10.2307/3798476

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This weak relationship was likely a result of small sample sizes for brood routes and of missing data years for the harvest surveys. Allison () reported reliable estimates of grouse abundance from summer brood routes conducted on‐foot for statewide surveys extending 1,131 km in New Hampshire, USA. This resulted in sample sizes about twice as large as ours for dusky grouse and 10 times larger than our ruffed grouse brood routes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of 3 surveys for estimating forest grouse population trends

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biologists in Oregon, USA, have routinely collected information on forest grouse populations over a 31-year period (1981-2011) by 3 methods; however, it is unknown how well these methods detected variation in forest grouse abundance over time. We compared brood surveys, collection of hunter-harvested grouse parts (wings and tails), and hunter-harvest surveys to determine which annual survey was most useful as an index to forest grouse population trends in northeastern Oregon. All 3 surveys tracked both dusky (Dendragapus obscurus) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) through 2 peaks in abundance separated by 14 years; however, stochastic variation resulting from small sample sizes reduced annual correlations among the methods. Grouse wing and tail collection was more informative than the other 2 indices because it exhibited the least annual variation, as well as provided estimates of both reproductive success and population size. Usefulness of hunter surveys was limited by funding, quality control, and lack of information on reproductive success. Brood surveys were the least useful of these indices because of inadequate sample sizes, particularly for ruffed grouse. The primary advantage of the brood survey was that it was available prior to the hunting season and could potentially help forecast the number of grouse available for the autumn hunting season. We recommend that grouse wing collections be continued, that consistency of hunter surveys be emphasized, and that sample size of brood surveys be increased to provide more reliable data. Ó 2014 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of 3 surveys for estimating forest grouse population trends

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many techniques have been described for monitoring upland game bird populations, including walked line transect surveys (Guthery 1988), aerial line transect surveys (Shupe et al 1987, Rusk et al 2007), call/territorial male counts (Blackford 1958, Gullion 1966, DeMaso et al 1992), roadside and brood count surveys (Bennett & Hendrickson 1938, Kozicky et al 1952), hunter harvest surveys (Leopold 1933, Amman & Ryel 1963) and wing/tail collections (Allison 1963, Dalke et al 1963). However, consolidated documentation of methods currently used by state wildlife managers to evaluate upland game bird populations are lacking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Long-term declines of species such as the northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus (Brennan 1991, Peterson et al 2002, Link et al 2008) and the greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus (Connelly & Braun 1997, Schroeder et al 2004) highlight the importance of effective population monitoring to assist in the conservation and management of upland game birds. Many techniques have been described for monitoring upland game bird populations, including walked line transect surveys (Guthery 1988), aerial line transect surveys (Shupe et al 1987, Rusk et al 2007, call/territorial male counts (Blackford 1958, Gullion 1966, DeMaso et al 1992, roadside and brood count surveys (Bennett & Hendrickson 1938, Kozicky et al 1952, hunter harvest surveys (Leopold 1933, Amman & Ryel 1963 and wing/tail collections (Allison 1963, Dalke et al 1963. However, consolidated documentation of methods currently used by state wildlife managers to evaluate upland game bird populations are lacking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of galliform monitoring programs and methods in the United States and Canada

Sands

Pope

2010

Wildlife Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We mailed survey questionnaires to 62 upland game bird managers in the United States and Canada in 2004. We received questionnaires from 47 of the 62 (76%) upland game bird managers that were contacted and 43 (91%) respondents provided information on how monitoring data were used. Responses indicated monitoring programs (population trends and/or harvest monitoring) for 23 species of Galliformes, with 145 ± 208 personnel days/year devoted to monitoring. Estimating general population trends (e.g. up or down) was the most frequent objective (N = 41; 95%) of survey data. Other applications of data included assessments of hunting activity, evaluations of regional programs and reviews of conservation status related to Endangered Species Act petitions. The majority of respondents (i.e. 63%) with monitoring programs considered the programs within their states to be effective with respect to their objectives. Many states rely upon hunter surveys, harvest data or road counts to access demographic and population data to address major conservation and management issues. The relevance of these issues is growing and agencies must respond with management recommendations, but often must do so with limited data on the status of their populations. Comprehensive monitoring should be a major component of conservation and management planning for upland gamebird populations particularly as a tool to track and evaluate the effectiveness of management actions and inform management options.

show abstract

Basic Features of the New Hampshire Ruffed Grouse Census

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of 3 surveys for estimating forest grouse population trends

Comparison of 3 surveys for estimating forest grouse population trends

A survey of galliform monitoring programs and methods in the United States and Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About