Incorporating within- and between-patch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood-rearing greater sage-grouse

Dzialak, Matthew R.; Olson, Chad V.; Webb, Stephen L.; Harju, Seth M.; Winstead, Jeffrey B.

doi:10.1186/s13717-015-0032-2

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While movement patterns are often used to distinguish active phases from rest, or search behavior from traveling (van Beest & Milner, ; Dzialak, Olson, Webb, Harju, & Winstead, ), identifying these behavioral states typically relies on more complicated modeling procedures to detect potential underlying mechanisms within behavior identification (Jonsen, Myers, & James, ; Kerk et al., ). Considerable progress has been made in developing methods that can categorize behaviors based on simple movement metrics (Edelhoff, Signer, & Balkenhol, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search and foraging behaviors from movement data: A comparison of methods

Bennison

Bearhop

Bodey

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Search behavior is often used as a proxy for foraging effort within studies of animal movement, despite it being only one part of the foraging process, which also includes prey capture. While methods for validating prey capture exist, many studies rely solely on behavioral annotation of animal movement data to identify search and infer prey capture attempts. However, the degree to which search correlates with prey capture is largely untested. This study applied seven behavioral annotation methods to identify search behavior from GPS tracks of northern gannets (Morus bassanus), and compared outputs to the occurrence of dives recorded by simultaneously deployed time–depth recorders. We tested how behavioral annotation methods vary in their ability to identify search behavior leading to dive events. There was considerable variation in the number of dives occurring within search areas across methods. Hidden Markov models proved to be the most successful, with 81% of all dives occurring within areas identified as search. k‐Means clustering and first passage time had the highest rates of dives occurring outside identified search behavior. First passage time and hidden Markov models had the lowest rates of false positives, identifying fewer search areas with no dives. All behavioral annotation methods had advantages and drawbacks in terms of the complexity of analysis and ability to reflect prey capture events while minimizing the number of false positives and false negatives. We used these results, with consideration of analytical difficulty, to provide advice on the most appropriate methods for use where prey capture behavior is not available. This study highlights a need to critically assess and carefully choose a behavioral annotation method suitable for the research question being addressed, or resulting species management frameworks established.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search and foraging behaviors from movement data: A comparison of methods

Bennison

Bearhop

Bodey

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To test whether northern pintails preferred certain rice paddies over others, we developed RSFs using a use vs. availability design (e.g. [51]). We defined available rice paddies as those that contained surface water at the time of selection.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Day and night use of habitats by northern pintails during winter in a primary rice-growing region of Iberia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss of natural wetlands is a global phenomenon that has severe consequences for waterbird populations and their associated ecosystem services. Although agroecosystems can reduce the impact of natural habitat loss, drivers of use of such artificial habitats by waterbirds remain poorly understood. Using the cosmopolitan northern pintail Anas acuta as a model species, we monitored home-range and fine-scale resource selection across the agricultural landscape. Individuals were tracked using GPS-GSM transmitters, and a suite of environmental and landscape features were measured throughout the winter seasons. Spatial patterns of habitat use were analysed using generalized linear mixed effect models by integrating field-observations with GPS telemetry. All birds used rice fields as foraging grounds at night and commuted to an adjacent reservoir to roost during daylight. Home-ranges and maximum foraging distances of nocturnally foraging birds increased with decreasing availability of flooded fields, and were positively correlated with moonlight levels. Birds selected flooded rice paddies (water depth range: 9–21 cm) with standing stubble and substrate with pebbles smaller than 0.5 cm in diameter. Density of rice seeds, rice paddy size, and other environmental and landscape features did not emerge as significant predictors. Our findings indicate that nocturnal foraging of northern pintails within rice fields is driven primarily by straw manipulation, water level and substrate pebble size. Thus, the presence of standing stubble in flooded paddies with soft bottoms should be prioritized to improve foraging areas for dabbling ducks. These management procedures in themselves would not increase economic costs or affect rice production and could be applied for dabbling-duck conservation throughout the world.

show abstract

“…Different behavioral states influence a female's activity levels and time spent in each activity. Females expressing different behavior may show differences in habitat selection throughout the day (Roever et al 2014) as suggested by previous research showing differences in sage-grouse habitat selection during different times of the day (Dunn andBraun 1986, Sveum et al 1998), at night (Dzialak et al 2011), and within and between patches (Dzialak et al 2015). Aside from changing behavioral state, the time spent therein may change throughout the day (Walker et al 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Due to variation in sage-grouse productivity across years from environmental stochasticity (Taylor et al 2012), survival of broodless females (i.e., females without a brood) may become even more important during years of low reproductive success. Different sage-grouse reproductive states can influence habitat selection (Gregg et al 1993, Kirol et al 2015, Smith et al 2018) but little is known about how sage-grouse behavior influences habitat selection (but see Dzialak et al 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking microhabitat selection, range size, reproductive state, and behavioral state in greater sage‐grouse

Gelling

Pratt

Beck

2022

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A female's reproductive status influences her behavior which affects habitat selection and range size; however, reproduction and behavior are generally unaccounted for in habitat selection studies. Range size, daily activity, and habitat selection between reproductive states have rarely been investigated in a connected manner. We focused on broodrearing and broodless (i.e., females without young) greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Our objectives were as follows: 1) identify differences between reproductive state (females with broods 0-2 weeks, broods 3-5 weeks, and broodless females) and behavioral state (foraging, day roosting, and night roosting) in microhabitat selection, 2) evaluate daily activity for brood-rearing and broodless females, and 3) contrast daily and seasonal range sizes for each reproductive state. We collected Global Positioning System location and accelerometer data every 5 min from female sage-grouse in Carbon County, Montana, and Park County, Wyoming, USA, in 2018-2019. We sampled microhabitat for 36 females at 276 bird-use and random plots, estimated ranges for 38 females, and measured activity for 43 females. Females with broods 0-2 weeks selected against visual obstruction and for perennial grasses at night roosts, females with broods 3-5 weeks selected for visual obstruction when foraging and against visual obstruction and annual grasses but for sagebrush cover at night roosts; however, broodless females showed no selection. Patterns of daily activity differed between females with broods 0-2 weeks and broodless females; females with

show abstract

Incorporating within- and between-patch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood-rearing greater sage-grouse

Cited by 15 publications

References 52 publications

Search and foraging behaviors from movement data: A comparison of methods

Search and foraging behaviors from movement data: A comparison of methods

Day and night use of habitats by northern pintails during winter in a primary rice-growing region of Iberia

Linking microhabitat selection, range size, reproductive state, and behavioral state in greater sage‐grouse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About