Evaluating Survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Chicks in Strawberry Valley, Utah, by Use of Microtransmitters: Does Handling Time Negatively Influence Survival Rates?

Baxter, Jared; Hennefer, Jordan P.; Baxter, Rick J.; Larsen, Randy T.; Flinders, Jerran T.

doi:10.3398/064.073.0411

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pratt and Beck (2021) reported higher survival rates for broods with adult females compared to those with yearling females, whereas Guttery et al (2013 a ) and Dahlgren et al (2010) found the inverse to be true. Consistent with our results, other studies have found limited support for an association between female age and chick survival (Baxter et al 2013, Davis et al 2016). Mixed results have also been reported in other gallinaceous species (Riley et al 1998, Fields et al 2006, Ludwig et al 2010, Barker et al 2022).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…For example, Aldridge and Boyce (2007) estimated 56‐day chick survival at 0.12 in Alberta, Canada. Estimates from 42–49 days post‐hatch ranged from 0.25–0.60 in Great Basin populations (Dahlgren et al 2010, Baxter et al 2013, Guttery et al 2013 a ). Additionally, 112‐day chick survival estimates in Colorado, USA, varied between 0.088–0.446 (Thompson 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Greater sage‐grouse chick mortality risk relative to livestock grazing management, environmental factors, and morphometric measurements

Berkeley,

Szczypinski,

Coons

et al. 2024

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage‐grouse) populations in the western United States have declined, necessitating conservation efforts. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and livestock producers implemented the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) to improve sage‐grouse habitat using regional‐specific management actions such as rotational grazing. We assessed the effect of SGI grazing management, the influence of brood female and chick morphometric traits, and multiple environmental and anthropogenic disturbance factors on chick mortality risk in a sage‐grouse population in central Montana, USA, from 2011–2019. We used a Kaplan‐Meier survival function to evaluate chick survival, Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate chick mortality risk as a function of brood female and chick morphometric traits, and the Andersen‐Gill formulation of the Cox proportional hazards model to assess the effects of time‐dependent habitat characteristics on chick mortality risk. Survival to 45 days post‐hatch for 510 chicks varied annually from 0.26 ± 0.07 (SE) to 0.69 ± 0.07. The 45‐day survival rate for all years combined was 0.51 ± 0.03. Chick mortality risk was not affected by changes in livestock grazing management implemented through the SGI grazing program. Brood female age and body condition, sex of chicks, vegetation, and anthropogenic variables were also unassociated with chick mortality risk. There were small protective effects of chick mass adjusted for age and mean minimum monthly temperature; greater chick mass and lower monthly temperatures correlated with reduced mortality risk. Overall, our study suggests the SGI grazing program does not confer additional benefits to sage‐grouse chicks beyond existing grazing practices. Incentivizing grazing practices that adhere to fundamental principles of rangeland ecology and maintain intact rangelands may be more effective than specific prescribed grazing systems for sage‐grouse conservation in this region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greater sage‐grouse chick mortality risk relative to livestock grazing management, environmental factors, and morphometric measurements

Berkeley,

Szczypinski,

Coons

et al. 2024

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Detection probability of radio-marked chicks (Larson et al 2001, Burkepile et al 2002, Gregg et al 2007, Dahlgren et al 2010b, Steen and Haugvold 2012 is often assumed to be 100%, but lost signals are a form of imperfect detection, and right-censoring of missing signals can produce biased survival estimates (Blomberg et al 2019). Moreover, adverse reactions to handling or attaching transmitters to chicks may confound survival estimates (Amundson and Arnold 2010, Steen and Haugvold 2009, Taylor et al 2012, Baxter et al 2013, Blomberg et al 2019. Lastly, radio-marked chicks may not accurately estimate brood survival unless researchers are certain that all chicks within a brood are radio-tagged.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%