Burning and mowing Wyoming big sagebrush: Do treated sites meet minimum guidelines for greater sage‐grouse breeding habitats?

Abstract

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) treatments are often implemented to improve breeding habitat for greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), a species of considerable conservation concern. In 2008 and 2009, we measured vegetation structure available to sage‐grouse for breeding at 19 sites that were prescribed burned during 1990–1999 and 2000–2006, 6 sites that were mowed during 2000–2006, and 25 paired, untreated reference sites in the Bighorn Basin of north‐central Wyoming, USA. We compared minimum guidelines for canopy cover and height of Wyoming big sagebrush and perennial grass in arid greater sage‐grouse breeding habitat (Connelly et al. 2000b) to measurements at our sampling sites. Sagebrush canopy cover and height at reference sites met the minimum guidelines. Sagebrush canopy cover at burned and mowed sites did not meet the minimum guideline, except for sites mowed on aridic soils measured during 2009. Burned and mowed (3 of 4 cases) sagebrush did not meet minimum height for breeding up to 19 yr and 9 yr post‐treatment, respectively. Perennial grass canopy cover and height met the minimum guidelines for breeding habitat at reference, burned, and mowed sites. Burning increased grass canopy cover, but not height, compared to reference sites in 2 of 8 instances. Because burning, but not mowing, infrequently enhanced grass cover, but not height, and sagebrush structure was reduced by both practices for long periods, managers should consider how treatments may negatively affect Wyoming big sagebrush communities for sage‐grouse and consider other practices, including continued nontreatment and improved livestock grazing, to increase grass cover and height. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

Greater sage‐grouse vital rates after wildfire

“…Most studies of the effects of fire on sage‐grouse populations and habitat have occurred following prescribed fires or multiple years after small wildfires (Lockyer et al ). Additionally, studies on the effects of fire on sage‐grouse habitat and productivity have been biased toward studies of vegetation rather than population response (Davies et al , Hess and Beck ). Prescribed fire, which generally occurs on small spatial scales, appears to have neutral or negative effects on sage‐grouse habitat (Pyle and Crawford , Connelly et al , Nelle et al , Beck et al , Rhodes et al ).…”

Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada

“…Additionally, few published studies have sought quantitatively to link nest‐site selection to nest survival (Aldridge and Boyce , Dzialak et al , Kaczor et al ). Identifying specific environmental factors selected by female sage‐grouse that influence the probability of nest survival could identify female sensitivity to specific environmental factors, such as wildfire, that promote or inhibit reproductive success (Dzialak et al , Hess and Beck ).…”

Summary of science, activities, programs, and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

“…Well-pad densities exceeding approximately 0.4 pads/section within 18 km (11 mi) of leks negatively influenced lek trends rangewide (Johnson and others, 2011), and larger leks (>25 males) did not occur in areas where well-pad densities exceeded 2.5 pads/section within 12.3 km (7.6 mi) of a lek (Tack, 2009). A recent study reported that the probability of lek persistence (that is, leks remaining active) approached 0 percent when well-pad densities exceeded approximately 6.5 pads/section (Hess and Beck, 2012).…”

“…Although treatments may have varied post-treatment effects, management treatments are typically designed to mimic natural processes, such as stimulating postdisturbance regeneration and (or) creating post-disturbance hazard levels (Baughman and others, 2010), without negative effects on public safety (for example, due to wildfire). Treated areas often have lasting effects that accumulate across the landscape and can affect resource use patterns for many years (Miller, 2008;Hess and Beck, 2012;Beck and others, 2012;Chong and Anderson, 2010). Comprehensive (accurate and inclusive) records for historic treatments have not been compiled or published at this time (making accurate assessment of historic effects impossible, currently); however, local planning and management efforts may incorporate this information when available.…”