Land-Use Patterns Surrounding Greater Prairie-Chicken Leks in Northwestern Minnesota

Abstract

To better manage wildlife populations, managers must know which combination of land uses creates optimal habitat. We used spatial analysis at a landscape scale to describe land-use patterns and patch characteristics surrounding leks of greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus L.) in the Agassiz Beach Ridges (ABR) landscape (2,467 km2) in northwest Minnesota. We hypothesized that types and patterns of land use favorable to greater prairie-chickens would be associated positively with lek versus non-lek points, and particularly more stable (traditional) leks. Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), we analyzed landuse proportions and patch characteristics within an 810-ha area (1.6-km radius) surrounding traditional leks, temporary leks, and randomly located non-lek points. We found locations of greater prairie-chicken leks were strongly dependent on land use as revealed by a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; P < 0.001). A discriminant function analysis and univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that several land-use characteristics were associated most strongly with leks: smaller amounts of residential-farmstead, smaller amounts and smaller patches of forest, and greater amounts of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands. Comparisons between traditional and temporary leks revealed that traditional leks were surrounded by a lesser proportion of forest and cropland than were temporary leks (P < 0.001). Univariate ANOVAs showed that traditional leks also were associated with larger patches of grassland (P < 0.001), and grassland (P = 0.016) and forest patches (P = 0.017) having more irregular shapes. Our study suggests efforts to manage and conserve greater prairiechicken populations in the Tallgrass Prairie Region should focus on landscape-scale land-use patterns in addition to local habitat characteristics. Landscape-scale efforts could include enlarging grasslands around traditional leks by completing prairie restorations and CRP plantings, while local-scale strategies should seek to improve the quality of habitat in existing and new grassland areas.

Age‐Specific Survival and Probable Causes of Mortality in Female Lesser Prairie‐Chickens

“…The probability of colonization of unoccupied lek sites by greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido L.) decreased to b 2% as the proportion of woodland increased N 20% (McNew et al, 2012). Lek sites of greater prairie-chickens in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Kansas were negatively associated with forest landcover (Merrill et al, 1999;Niemuth, 2003;Gregory et al, 2011). Forest cover was cited as a strong predictor of greater prairie-chicken lek presence with mean percent forest cover two to three times greater at random points than at lek sites (Merrill et al, 1999;Niemuth, 2003); only 9% forest cover renders prairie unsuitable for greater prairie-chicken leks (Gregory et al, 2011).…”

“…Lek sites of greater prairie-chickens in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Kansas were negatively associated with forest landcover (Merrill et al, 1999;Niemuth, 2003;Gregory et al, 2011). Forest cover was cited as a strong predictor of greater prairie-chicken lek presence with mean percent forest cover two to three times greater at random points than at lek sites (Merrill et al, 1999;Niemuth, 2003); only 9% forest cover renders prairie unsuitable for greater prairie-chicken leks (Gregory et al, 2011). Additionally, greater prairie-chickens select prairie for nesting where tree cover is minimal and nest survival increases as distance to nearest tree increases (McKee et al 1998;Matthews et al, 2013;Hovick et al, 2015).…”

Wild Birds, a Source of Reticuloendotheliosis Virus Infection for the Endangered Attwater's Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri)?

“…McKee et al (1998) found nest success decreased substantially when more than 5% woody cover was present at nest sites. Merrill et al (1999) found no traditional booming grounds within 1 mi (1.6 km) of any town or forest patch greater than 75 ac (30 ha), although Toepfer (STCP, personal communication) has since observed several booming grounds within 1 mi (1.6 km) of towns in the Merrill et al (1999) study area following a substantial GPC population increase.…”

“…Toepfer (1988) and Niemuth (2003Niemuth ( , 2005 found landscapes surrounding GPC booming grounds in Wisconsin contained more grass and less forest than unused random points. Similarly, Merrill et al (1999) found Minnesota booming grounds occurred in landscapes containing less residential farmstead, smaller amounts and smaller patches of forest, and greater amounts of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands, which provide suitable grasslands for prairie-chickens (Toepfer 2003). Toepfer (2003) reported that increasing the treeless area from 140−540 acres (57-219 ha) around a Wisconsin booming ground by removal of scattered trees increased annual survival of cocks from this booming ground by at least 20% compared to males from control booming grounds.…”

“…Similarly, Horkel and Silvy (1980) found booming grounds on narrow, linear areas such as roads and pipeline rights-of-way were less stable than more typical circular-shaped leks. Stable GPC booming grounds appear to have greater male visitation on average than unstable booming grounds (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1973, Schroeder and Braun 1992, Merrill et al 1999. Merrill et al (1999) found traditional GPC booming grounds were surrounded by proportionately less forest and cropland (i.e., more grass) than were temporary booming grounds.…”