Short-Term Response of Sage-Grouse Nesting to Conifer Removal in the Northern Great Basin

Severson, John P.; Hagen, Christian A.; Maestas, Jeremy D.; Naugle, David E.; Forbes, James T.; Reese, Kerry P.

doi:10.1016/j.rama.2016.07.011

Cited by 42 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, removing conifers in and adjacent to large, intact shrubland may expand nesting habitat more quickly than isolated patched cuts deep in conifer woodland. Our findings, combined with growing experimental evidence of space use and fitness consequences of conifer expansion and removal (Severson , Coates et al , Prochazka et al , Severson et al ), lend support to the inclusion of conifer removal as a proactive strategy for addressing a key threat to sage‐grouse habitat (Baruch‐Mordo et al , USFWS ).…”

Section: Management Implicationssupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Although lacking adequate study designs to conclusively attribute observed responses to conifer removal, previous research has indicated possible benefits, including increased population size and habitat availability, as a result of removing conifer in sage‐grouse habitat (Commons et al , Frey et al ). Sage‐grouse in our study area have shown potential increases in nest survival and female survival at a landscape scale and increased use of nesting and seasonal habitat following conifer removal (Severson , Severson et al ). However, more experimental studies assessing both changing space use and population demographics are needed to verify the efficacy of conifer removal for sage‐grouse management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of conifer expansion on greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat selection

Severson¹,

Hagen²,

Maestas

et al. 2016

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expansion of conifer woodlands into sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems is a primary threat to the greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the Great Basin, southeast Oregon, USA. Conifer removal to restore sage‐grouse habitats has been widely implemented, yet limited information exists on the effects of conifer expansion on sage‐grouse habitat selection. Our objective was to evaluate the landscape‐scale effects of conifer expansion on selection of sites for nesting and to estimate direction, magnitude, and scale of effects. We classified 160 nests and 167 available sites with random forests during 2010–2011 to assess effects of conifer cover and tree clustering at multiple scales along with other vegetation and topographic covariates on selection of nesting habitat. Relative probability of nesting was negatively associated with >3% conifer cover within 800 m of nests. When trees were present within 800 m of nests, sage‐grouse nested where trees were clustered rather than dispersed, suggesting selection for more open habitat. Results further indicated that sage‐grouse are nesting in landscapes susceptible to conifer expansion that have yet to be invaded. Sage‐grouse are expected to lose nesting habitat as conifer expansion continues, but management intervention may be a possible solution to increase habitat availability where open space for nesting is a limiting factor. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Management Implicationssupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of conifer expansion on greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat selection

Severson¹,

Hagen²,

Maestas

et al. 2016

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, although nest survival of sage‐grouse was not monitored prior to the Holloway fire, the rates we observed in this study were considerably lower than those observed by concurrent studies of sage‐grouse nest survival in Oregon and elsewhere in the Great Basin. Nest survival for the 27‐day incubation period in the Warner Mountains, approximately 140 km west of our study area, were 51% and 53%, in 2013 and 2014, respectively (Severson ). At the Sheldon‐Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge complex, approximately 110 km west of our study area, 28‐day nest survival was 45% during 2013 and 2014 (Street et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Greater sage‐grouse vital rates after wildfire

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) have been subject to long‐term and continuing declines in population and habitat since European settlement of western North America. Increased wildfire activity constitutes a primary threat to the species in western portions of their range, with documented declines in wildfire‐affected populations. Following a 187,000‐ha wildfire in southeastern Oregon and northern Nevada, USA, we used global positioning system (GPS) telemetry to monitor nest initiation, nest survival, nesting habitat, and adult survival of female sage‐grouse during 2013 and 2014. We used known‐fate models in Program MARK to estimate daily nest survival and monthly adult survival in relation to temporal patterns, physiological characteristics of females, and habitat and land‐cover characteristics. We assessed habitat characteristics using geographic information system (GIS)‐derived measures of post‐fire habitat condition and land cover. Nest initiation rate following the fire was comparable to that observed in unaltered habitat. We observed nesting rates of 90% and 100% during 2013 and 2014, respectively, and renesting rates of 23% and 57% during the same years. Daily nest survival was consistently low in comparison to rates observed in concurrent studies in the region, for first nests during both years, and for second nests during 2013, but survival markedly increased for second nests during 2014. Sage‐grouse generally did not leave the fire perimeter to nest, with 64% and 73% of nests located in the fire boundary during 2013 and 2014, respectively. Approximately 27% of nests were located in burned habitat during 2013, and 20% of nests in 2014 were located in burned habitat. Adult survival varied by month, and although patterns of monthly survival were similar between years, monthly survival rates were significantly reduced from the beginning of the study through the end of the first post‐fire growing season. Our results indicate that sage‐grouse continue to use fire‐affected habitat in the years immediately following wildfire and sage‐grouse experienced lower nest survival and adult female survival than other populations during the same period. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…Sage‐grouse avoid canopy cover at low levels (<4%, Miller, Naugle, Maestas, Hagen, & Hall, 2017) or stay and suffer demographic impacts (Coates et al., 2017). In conifer removal areas, females readily nested in restored sites (Coates et al., 2017; Severson et al., 2017) and were more successful in raising their broods (Sandford et al., 2017). We build on this knowledge to add that connectivity among population centers is reduced when conifer expansion exceeds a 10% threshold in canopy cover.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Row

Doherty

Cross

et al. 2018

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional connectivity, quantified using landscape genetics, can inform conservation through the identification of factors linking genetic structure to landscape mechanisms. We used breeding habitat metrics, landscape attributes, and indices of grouse abundance, to compare fit between structural connectivity and genetic differentiation within five long‐established Sage‐Grouse Management Zones (MZ) I‐V using microsatellite genotypes from 6,844 greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) collected across their 10.7 million‐km2 range. We estimated structural connectivity using a circuit theory‐based approach where we built resistance surfaces using thresholds dividing the landscape into “habitat” and “nonhabitat” and nodes were clusters of sage‐grouse leks (where feather samples were collected using noninvasive techniques). As hypothesized, MZ‐specific habitat metrics were the best predictors of differentiation. To our surprise, inclusion of grouse abundance‐corrected indices did not greatly improve model fit in most MZs. Functional connectivity of breeding habitat was reduced when probability of lek occurrence dropped below 0.25 (MZs I, IV) and 0.5 (II), thresholds lower than those previously identified as required for the formation of breeding leks, which suggests that individuals are willing to travel through undesirable habitat. The individual MZ landscape results suggested terrain roughness and steepness shaped functional connectivity across all MZs. Across respective MZs, sagebrush availability (<10%–30%; II, IV, V), tree canopy cover (>10%; I, II, IV), and cultivation (>25%; I, II, IV, V) each reduced movement beyond their respective thresholds. Model validations confirmed variation in predictive ability across MZs with top resistance surfaces better predicting gene flow than geographic distance alone, especially in cases of low and high differentiation among lek groups. The resultant resistance maps we produced spatially depict the strength and redundancy of range‐wide gene flow and can help direct conservation actions to maintain and restore functional connectivity for sage‐grouse.

show abstract

Short-Term Response of Sage-Grouse Nesting to Conifer Removal in the Northern Great Basin

Cited by 42 publications

References 37 publications

Effects of conifer expansion on greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat selection

Effects of conifer expansion on greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat selection

Greater sage‐grouse vital rates after wildfire

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About