Habitat prioritization across large landscapes, multiple seasons, and novel areas: An example using greater sage‐grouse in Wyoming

Abstract

Animal habitat selection is an important and expansive area of research in ecology. In particular, the study of habitat selection is critical in habitat prioritization efforts for species of conservation concern. Landscape planning for species is happening at ever‐increasing extents because of the appreciation for the role of landscape‐scale patterns in species persistence coupled to improved datasets for species and habitats, and the expanding and intensifying footprint of human land uses on the landscape. We present a large‐scale collaborative effort to develop habitat selection models across large landscapes and multiple seasons for prioritizing habitat for a species of conservation concern. Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, hereafter sage‐grouse) occur in western semi‐arid landscapes in North America. Range‐wide population declines of this species have been documented, and it is currently considered as “warranted but precluded” from listing under the United States Endangered Species Act. Wyoming is predicted to remain a stronghold for sage‐grouse populations and contains approximately 37% of remaining birds. We compiled location data from 14 unique radiotelemetry studies (data collected 1994–2010) and habitat data from high‐quality, biologically relevant, geographic information system (GIS) layers across Wyoming. We developed habitat selection models for greater sage‐grouse across Wyoming for 3 distinct life stages: 1) nesting, 2) summer, and 3) winter. We developed patch and landscape models across 4 extents, producing statewide and regional (southwest, central, northeast) models for Wyoming. Habitat selection varied among regions and seasons, yet preferred habitat attributes generally matched the extensive literature on sage‐grouse seasonal habitat requirements. Across seasons and regions, birds preferred areas with greater percentage sagebrush cover and avoided paved roads, agriculture, and forested areas. Birds consistently preferred areas with higher precipitation in the summer and avoided rugged terrain in the winter. Selection for sagebrush cover varied regionally with stronger selection in the Northeast region, likely because of limited availability, whereas avoidance of paved roads was fairly consistent across regions. We chose resource selection function (RSF) thresholds for each model set (seasonal × regional combination) that delineated important seasonal habitats for sage‐grouse. Each model set showed good validation and discriminatory capabilities within study‐site boundaries. We applied the nesting‐season models to a novel area not included in model development. The percentage of independent nest locations that fell directly within identified important habitat was not overly impressive in the novel area (49%); however, including a 500‐m buffer around important habitat captured 98% of independent nest locations within the novel area. We also used leks and associated peak male counts as a proxy for nesting habitat outside of the study sites used to develop the models. A 1.5...

Quantifying functional connectivity: The role of breeding habitat, abundance, and landscape features on range‐wide gene flow in sage‐grouse

“…Time lags exist from when a barrier to dispersal first arises on the landscape and when the influence of that barrier on functional connectivity can be detected (Landguth et al., 2010). For sage‐grouse, the topography of the terrain can have a strong influence on habitat use and distribution (Davis, Reese, Gardner, & Bird, 2015; Fedy et al., 2014), and these imposed restrictions to movement or barriers have likely remained static for millennia. Indeed, in other large‐scale landscape genetic evaluations of sage‐grouse, areas with higher landscape ruggedness, a measure of sharp changes in elevation, restricted gene flow (Row et al., 2015).…”

“…Thus, many resistance features have likely been created or modified since human settlement. Sage‐grouse rely on sagebrush for both food and shelter and sagebrush is a strong predictor of sage‐grouse habitat across seasons and spatial scales (Connelly, Knick, Schroeder, & Stiver, 2004; Doherty et al., 2016; Fedy et al., 2014), and it influences functional connectivity (Row et al., 2015). Similarly, we found that areas with low sagebrush cover impeded gene flow in three of the five MZs.…”

“…Fish and Wildlife Service 2013) and around known sage‐grouse leks as they represent areas of importance for breeding and early brood rearing habitat (Doherty et al., 2016; Fedy et al., 2014). However, our analyses and resulting resistance surfaces point to several measures that can be taken to help improve and maintain functional connectivity for sage‐grouse.…”

Hierarchical population monitoring of greater sage-grouse (<em>Centrocercus urophasianus</em>) in Nevada and California—Identifying populations for management at the appropriate spatial scale

“…Pending leks either lacked consistent breeding activity during the prior 3-5 surveys, or had not been surveyed during the past 5 years but were active previously. We buffered these leks using five spatial scales (500-m, 1,000-m, 1,500-m, 3,200-m, and 6,400-m), which represented patch and landscape scales commonly used by sage-grouse for habitat selection (Coates and others, 2013;Fedy and others, 2014). For each buffered lek, we summarized climate, vegetation, and terrain indices, and we used these in part to inform the clustering of the leks at each hierarchical scale.…”

Protocolo estandarizado para el seguimiento poblacional del pavón, Oreophasis derbianus: propuesta de métodos de campo y analíticos

“…Para entender estas dinámicas se deben cumplir algunos puntos fundamentales: (1) las estimaciones de la presencia y abundancia de las especies deben ser robustas; (2) estas estimaciones deben ser espacial y temporalmente representativas, y (3) deben ser comparables en espacio y tiempo (e.g., Williams et al 2012). Sin embargo, tales condiciones básicas rara vez son alcanzadas en estudios o programas de monitoreo (Sutherland 2006, Fuller 2012, Fedy et al 2014, lo que es particularmente cierto en el caso de algunas especies de fauna tropical amenazada. Esto es debido a que sus tamaños poblacionales son generalmente reducidos y, en ocasiones, también por su naturaleza elusiva, lo que implica tener que invertir grandes esfuerzos de muestreo para obtener tamaños de muestra suficientes.…”