Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in Utah by David K. Dahlgren Renee Y. Chi Terry A. Messmer Utah State University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparison of Basal and Aerial Cover for Total Vegetation Cover and Total Ground Cover on Oil & Gas Well Sites in Southwest Wyoming 2013 Joint Conference.
Advertisements

Livestock & Wildlife Interaction. Interactions NegativePositive It Depends on….?
Native Habitat Restoration In The Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas Anthony D. Falk *Masters candidate, Texas A&M University Kingsville, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife.
Coastal Bend Prescribed Burn Association Prescribed Burning for Wildlife Clifford Carter Ranch Consultant.
Gunnison Sage-grouse Ecology, San Juan County Utah Sarah G. Lupis, Sharon Ward, and Terry A. Messmer Utah State University Extension, Jack H. Berryman.
Wildlife Management Principles. Goals What are some goals related to the management of wildlife habitats?
Global Mapping Technology Corvallis, Oregon Products and Training for GPS/GIS/SURVEY Tel:
Results from the 2013 Breeding Season for Lesser Prairie-Chickens in Kansas and Colorado.
FIELD METHODS Strategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments Troy Wirth and David Pyke USGS – Biological Resources Division Forest and Rangeland.
Relating Post-Treatment Vegetation Responses to Habitat Requirements of Gunnison Sage-grouse Dr. Joe Brummer Colorado State University Department of Soil.
Sheep for Sage-Grouse Michael Guttery Utah State University.
Grazing and Grazing Management. Positive Impacts Proper management – Reduced erosion – Improved water quality – Food for wildlife – Habitat and cover.
FIVE CREEKS RANGELAND RESTORATION PROJECT FALL 2008 Burns District, BLM.
Thesis  Erin Harrington  Advisors  Bobbi Low  Phil Myers.
Juniper Control Aspen Restoration. Aspen, Northern Great Basin.
Watersheds Capture, Store And Safely Release Water.
Reining in the Wild Horses  Data & story from DASL  Reference: Eagle, Asa, Garrot et al. (1993). Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21(2),  Research.
2 Recognized by John C. Fremont as an area of interior drainage 145,546 square miles Precipitation, generally 7-12 inches annually Recognized by John.
Livestock & Wildlife Interaction. Interactions NegativePositive It Depends on….?
Land Surface Models & Surface Water Hydrology Cédric DAVID.
UTCFWRU Landscape dynamics of bird and small mammal communities in sagebrush-dominated mountain meadows: A hierarchical, multi- scale study Elizabeth J.
USE OF DOGS IN WILDLIFE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT 1 David K. Dahlgren, R. Dwayne Elmore, Deborah A. Smith, Aimee Hurt, Edward B. Arnett, and John W. Connelly.
Using Birds to Guide Post-fire Management in the Plumas & Lassen National Forests Ryan D. Burnett, Nathaniel Seavy, and Diana Humple 4/21/2011.
Tree distribution patterns in the southwest Jemez Mountains Kamal Humagain 1, Robert Cox 1, and James Cain 2 1 Texas Tech University 2 New Mexico State.
A multi-scale approach to assess sage-grouse nesting habitat Comparing nest site selection and nest success Dan Gibson Erik Blomberg Michael Atamian Jim.
ConocoPhillips DOGM Earthday Award Nomination Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Project: Price River Drainage Wet Meadow Enhancement.
STRATIFICATION PLOT PLACEMENT CONTROLS Strategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments Troy Wirth and David Pyke USGS – Biological Resources.
Final Project - Many choices!  Work on your own data (graduate or senior project)  Tundra fire regimes (Dr. Higuera)  Fine scale habitat maps (Ginny.
Distance Sampling – Part I Ecological MethodologyLEC-02 Althoff.
The Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology, ESA Finding, Threats, and Solutions STATE LAND USE PLANNING ADVISORY COUNCIL April 13, 2012.
Birds on the Edge Forest edge effects on bird assemblage size and composition in the Chuckanut Mountains Drew Schwitters Department of Environmental Sciences,
 Comparing Vegetation in a Riparian Zone to an Upland Area in a Colorado Montane Forest By: Abby Branson Vegetation Ecology, Summer 2013 Mountain Research.
Extent and Mask Extent of original data Extent of analysis area Mask – areas of interest Remember all rasters are rectangles.
Diel and Seasonal Elk Habitat Selection and Use in the Jemez Mountains Roberts, Caleb; Cox, Robert; Cain, James; Wallace, Mark (1)Elk habitat selection.
Annual Variation in Northern Bobwhite Survival and Cause-specific Mortality in Relation to Ground Cover and Phenology of Raptor Migration R. Douglas Holt,
Distance–based Habitat Associations of Northern Bobwhite in Kansas Brian E. Flock, Phillip S. Gipson, Roger D. Applegate, Warren B Ballard.
Factors Affecting Gunnison Sage- grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Conservation in San Juan County, Utah Phoebe R. Prather Ph.D. Defense Department of Wildland.
Breeding Bird Response to Riparian Buffer Width 10 years post-harvest Scott Pearson Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Jack Giovanini, Jay Jones,
Oregon’s Sage-grouse Action Plan Land use and development Strengthening Oregon’s land use rules will provide more protection for sage-grouse habitat with.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Normalized Difference Vegetation Index for Restoration Monitoring Bruce K. Wylie 1, Steve Boyte.
Photo by Mike Danzenbaker.  Proposed rules to add Gunnison sage-grouse to the list of threatened and endangered species and designate critical habitat.
Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative Mule Deer.
Estimating Greater Sage-grouse Juvenile Survival in Utah Utah State University David Dahlgren Terry Messmer David Koons.
Population Ecology and Habitat Relationships of Northern Bobwhites in Southwestern Ohio Robert J. Gates, Adam K. Janke, Marjorie R. Liberati Mark J. Wiley.
LIVESTOCK & WILDLIFE INTERACTION. Interactions NegativePositive It Depends on….?
Chapter 6 Conducting & Reading Research Baumgartner et al Chapter 6 Selection of Research Participants: Sampling Procedures.
Ecological Techniques Quadrats, Transects and Measuring Abiotic Factors.
Everything is the same but my animals are behaving differently. Or My animals aren’t responding correctly to changes in my management.
The Effect of Fuel Treatments on the Invasion of Nonnative Plants Kyle E. Merriam 1, Jon E. Keeley 1, and Jan L. Beyers 2. [1] USGS Western Ecological.
Habitat: Livestock & Wildlife. Habitat “The place or environment where an organism or community of organisms live and grow."
Cuevas, Ma. Fernanda (1,2) ; Ricardo Ojeda (1) and Fabián M. Jaksic (2) (1) Grupo de Investigaciones de la Biodiversidad (GIB), IADIZA, CCT-Mendoza CONICET,
Brandon Flack M.S. Student Utah State University Major Advisor: Dr. Terry A. Messmer.
Conserving Birds & Their Habitats Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions: Design, Methods and Products Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory David.
Brought to you by the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission with information from, “Sage-Grouse Habitat in Idaho” by-Jeffrey K Gillan and Eva K. Strand and.
Sage-Grouse 101 David Dahlgren, PhD Utah State University.
Some Wildlife Census Techniques
Establishment of Milkweed Seeds under Different Conditions
Research and Conservation on the Lower Brule Indian Reservation
Local Working Groups: Sage-Grouse
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ungrazed deep grassland
Golden-cheeked Warbler Population Viability and Habitat Suitability
Fire in Juniper Invaded Sagebrush Steppe
Grazing Management and Fire
Species Diversity Comparison North and South Slopes
Analysis to Inform Management
Restore New Mexico Collaborative Monitoring Program
Relationship Between NO3 and Salinity:
The effects of Canopy Cover on Herbaceous Vegetation
Grazing & Recovery after Fire
Presentation transcript:

Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in Utah by David K. Dahlgren Renee Y. Chi Terry A. Messmer Utah State University

Outline 1. Introduction 2. Study Area 3. Methods: Vegetation Treatment, Sage-grouse Use, Data Analysis 4. Results: Vegetation response and Sage-grouse Use 5. Discussion 6. Management Implications

Introduction MOU – WAFWA 1999 (Connelly et al appendix 1) Objective 4: “Conduct management experiments on a sufficient scale to demonstrate that management of habitats can stabilize and enhance sage grouse distribution and abundance” ~ 30% of sagebrush lands in the Western U.S. are privately owned (Connelly et al. 2004) 50% of Utah’s remaining sage-grouse populations occur on private land, and all 4 major populations (Box Elder, Rich, Uintah, and Wayne counties) depend on large portions of non-federal land NRCS- Farm Bill and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)

Study Area: Parker Mountain Vegetation Characteristics Sage-grouse Use (elevations) Livestock Grazing Precipitation Regimes Parker Lake Pasture - Brood-rearing habitat - preliminary conditions

Methods: Treatment -Spike, Dixie harrow, Lawson aerator, and control ha plots (4 reps) -Plots randomly assigned treatment - 5 random 20m transects per plot - mosaic treatment pattern - Artemesia tridentata vaseyana only - treated vs. untreated transects -Shrub (all) Canopy – Line Intercept Method (Canfield 1941) with one exception - Grass and Forb cover – variation of the Point Intercept Method (Levy and Madden 1933) and post-treatment Daubenmire Frames - Seed mix in Dixie

Dixie Harrow Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher Photo by Larry Greenwood rcenotes/rn75.html

Lawson Aerator Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

Methods – Use Pellet Count 40.5 ha Plot Transect - 16 total plots (D, L, S, C) -3 random transects per plot -2 samples (August 2003 and 2004) -Distance to Center -Cluster Size Estimated Distance to Edge

Methods – Use Birddog Survey Parker Mountain Sage Boomer…a.k.a. Parker My Little Buddy III…a.k.a. Buddy 40.5 ha plot Transect -Cover entire plot ~1.5 dog hours -2 surveys per year July and Aug 2003 and Unkown adult, male, hen, chicks (1 of 2 dogs) and 2004 (Utah Chukar Foundation)

Time Line July-pretreatment sampling Spike and control August-pretreatment sampling Mechanicals and control Fall-Spike application July-pretreatment sampling grass and forb for mechanicals Fall-Dixie harrow and Lawson aerator application June and July-post treatment sampling all plots July and August-Birddog Surveys and Pellet counts Regular Grazing Regimes Parker Lake Pasture rested, except for incidental late fall grazing

Methods: Data Analysis -Vegetation Treatment -2 analyses: 1) Spike vs. Control and 2) Mechanical Treatments vs. Control -BACI (Underwood 1994) and proc MIXED (SAS Institute Inc ) -Change in Before to After Means -Variables -Shrub Cover (all), Grass Cover, Forb Cover -Sage-grouse Use -Pellet Counts: Program DISTANCE with Z test comparing treatments -Variables: Pellet Cluster Density -Distance to edge data: histogram format 10m increments -Dandelion cover (Daubenmire data): ANOVA with a P <0.05 comparing treatments -Birddog Surveys: ANOVA with a P <0.05 comparing treatments -Variables: Total Grouse and Total Broods

Results: Treatment Spike Vs. Control Grass Cover: no difference(F = 1.03, P = 0.35) Forb Cover: difference (F = 15.91, P = 0.01) Shrub Cover: no difference (F = 1.00, P =0.36) Mechanicals Vs. Control Grass Cover: no difference (F = 2.94, P = 0.10) Forb Cover: difference (F = 5.58, P = 0.03) Dixie to Control (t = -2.41, P = 0.02) Dixie to Lawson (t = 3.26, P < 0.01) Shrub Cover: difference(F = 5.42, P = 0.03) Dixie to Control(t = 2.28, P = 0.03) Lawson to Control(t = 3.20, P < 0.01) Dandelion Cover (all plots)(F = 2.60, P = 0.10) moderate

Results – Use – Pellet Count - Pellets found in ARNO, ARTR, ARCA, Aspen, and Treatment, but only ARNO, ARTR, and Treatment used in analysis Comparisons: P value C-S 0.01 C-D0.43 C-L0.59 S-D0.11 S-L0.03 D-L0.69

Results – Use Birddog Survey Comparisons: P value C-S <0.01 C-D0.14 C-L0.09 S-D0.03 S-L0.05 D-L0.79 Total Sage-grouse

Results – Use Birddog Survey Comparisons: P value C-S <0.01 C-D0.30 C-L0.19 S-D<0.01 S-L<0.01 D-L0.77 Brood Use

Results-Distance to Edge Plot typeDrop off Dixie harrow (treated)20-30m Dixie harrow (untreated)20-30m Lawson aerator (treated)>80m Lawson aerator (untreated)30-40m Tebuthiuron (treated)40-50m Tebuthiuron (untreated)20-30m Control20-30m

Results: Distance to Edge examples of histograms

Discussion - Shrub Canopy decreased to within sage-grouse brood rearing guidelines (10 – 25% ) (Connelly et al. 2000) Treatment

Discussion - Forb Cover increased with Spike and Dixie compared to control Treatment

Discussion -Lawson aerator problems -Distance to Edge data suggest sage-grouse prefer edge habitat (< 30m) while using treatment areas, and adjacent intact sagebrush -Sage-grouse in general and broods specifically preferred Spike plots…Why? -Increased forb cover, specifically dandelion cover -Partial kill of sagebrush resulting in a “feathered effect” creating increased edge -Shrub cover 15-25% and forb response

Management Implications All treatments can achieve shrub canopy guidelines for brood-rearing habitat if initial conditions are > 25% Shrub canopy Dixie harrow and Spike can be used to increase forb cover, which is the most important component of brood-rearing habitat

Management Implications >When applying spike a low rate (we used 0.3 active ingredient) should be used to have a partial sagebrush kill >We recommend when using Dixie harrow or Lawson aerator treatment should be widths not exceeding 60m, and intact sagebrush should be at least 60m, and in a mosaic design maximizing edge

Management Implications Caution should be exercised when conducting these management techniques at different elevations, precipitation regimes, subspecies of big sagebrush, or soil substrates Additionally, local sage-grouse seasonal habitats should be known and delineated, as these treatments may not be appropriate for winter or nesting habitat

Take Home Message Our results suggest a brood-rearing habitat management strategy that, when shrub canopy limits the understory, creates a mosaic of small- scale treatments that maximized edge, creating resource patches that are particularly attractive to broods

Acknowledgements Terry MessmerPARM UDWRCommittee members Susan DurhamRuss Norvell Lee RindlesbacherRon Daigle Terron PickettChris Perkins Kevin LabrumRenee Chi Dwayne ElmoreTrapping Team Volunteers Paper Published in The Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4): For copies me at: