Results from the 2013 Breeding Season for Lesser Prairie-Chickens in Kansas and Colorado

– Red Hills (SC Kansas) ~ 40, 000 acres Mixed Grass Large pasture grasslands – NW Kansas ~ 80,000 acres Short Grass Mosaic – Colorado Sand Sage, Grassland, CRP, Ag, Cattle Short Grass ~ 50,000 acres

Capture – Lek sites – Fitted with VHF and GPS transmitters Methods

Tracking – VHF: 4 times a week Triangulation – SAT: ~8 GPS pts/day Argos Methods

Monitor females – Survival and location Locate nests – Same location for 3+ days – VHF transmitters – GPS transmitters Monitor nests – Radio telemetry – Monitor GPS locations – Remotely monitored – Monitored until hatched or failed

Methods Vegetation measurements – Estimate % cover Litter Grass Forbs Bare ground Shrubs – Visual obstruction reading (VOR) Robel pole – Same measurements taken at paired random points

Spring 2013 Lesser Prairie-Chicken trapping results from Kansas and Colorado. Total No. Captured No. Males Captured No. Females Captured No. of Leks Trapped KS Red Hills NW Kansas SE Colorado Total Results

Average daily, weekly, and monthly movements (km) of GPS marked adult female Lesser Prairie-Chickens. Avg. Daily Movements Avg. Weekly Movements Avg. Monthly Movements NW Kansas1.85(0.03)12.87(0.39)52.71(2.79) RH Kansas1.13(0.03)7.44(0.36)33.38(2.78) E Colorado1.48(0.05)9.99(0.64)45.14(4.91) Results

 April ◦ Random movement pattern  May ◦ Nest initiation ◦ Centralization  June ◦ Nest was depredated  6 km move  3 days  Localizes again 6 km

Results

Successful Nest Results  Nest Depredation Vs.

Results 15 km 11 km

Figure 2. Derived breeding season (Mar-Aug,2013) survival estimates of female lesser prairie-chickens for each region studied. Figure 3. Female lesser prairie-chicken survival probabilities for three periods during the 2013 breeding season (Mar-Aug) in Kansas and E Colorado. Figure breeding season (Mar-Aug) mortality distribution for female lesser prairie-chickens by week in NW Kansas. Figure 5. Derived breeding season (Mar-Aug, 2013) survival estimates for adult and juvenile female lesser prairie-chickens.

Results 61 nests monitored – Red Hills — 20 (8 successful) – Colorado — 4 (1 successful) – Northwest — 37 (6 successful) 35 (57.4%) nests lost to predation 6 renest attempts – 66.6% lost to predation

Results Table 1. Average distance (km) from lek-of-capture to nest site across Kansas and Colorado. Total No. of NestsAvg. Distance (km)SE NW Kansas KS Red Hills SE Colorado

Results

Visual Obstruction (dm) Daily Survival Rate

Results Predictions – Greater VOR – Greater grass Females selected for areas of greater visual obstruction – Mean VOR at nests = 1.33 dm – Mean VOR at paired points = 0.65 dm – p < % Grass cover not selected at a significant level – p = % Bare ground was avoided – Mean % bare ground at nests= 4.06 – Mean % bare ground at paired points=14.0

Broods

Chicks

Classify vegetative land cover type for LEPC range during 1950’s and 1960’s using aerial photography

Aerial Photography-Classification Collect photos from period in 1950’s and 1960’s within range of LEPC Mosaic photos using Agisoft Georeference Transportation shapefiles “Head’s Up Digitizing” Anderson 1 Classification Scheme Agriculture Rangeland Urban/Built- Up Water

Agisoft Mosaic 1 Photograph327 Photographs Logan County, KS 1955

Study Objectives Use occupancy models to quantify LEPC presence on CRP and native prairie habitat Estimate population parameters in different landscapes

Forecasting Can learn about causes of population change Also forecast about the future of LEPC Predict what might happen given climate change and changes in CRP

Surveys for LEPC Surveys conducted twice from March 20 to April 20 since 1964 Began with 3 routes, increased to 17 Observer stops every 1.6 km and listens for booming males Once the 16 km route is finished Returns to identified leks, Flushes and Counts LEPC

Incorporating Covariates Incorporate habitat designations from GIS and remote sensing work Use climate indicies to account for changes in climate Palmer Drought Severity Index Spring and summer temperature

Hierarchical Model

Expected Results Estimates of occupancy and lek attendance Quantify how changes to CRP affects chickens Predict how changes in CRP will change lek abundance

Integrated Population Modeling Integrated population modeling combines multiple sources of data to make inference Count data Harvest data Banding data Telemetry data Data “talk” to each other to provide more precise estimates

Integrated Population Modeling LEPC project has quite a bit of data Nest success Counts of leks Radio and Satellite-telemetry Combine information to make better inference

Integrated Population Modeling Kno wn Fate Nest Succe ss Lek Cou nts Adult Survi val Fecun dity N ad ults Habi tat Data N you ng Immigra tion Habi tat Data

Expected Results Population estimates and growth rates for chickens utilizing different habitats Predictions of how changes to habitat will affect abundance and growth rates

More data in coming years Chick and brood survival – Population recruitment – Habitat selection and movements – Invertebrates Patch relationships – Nests – Movements – Area Water use Fence impacts Historical landscapes Occupancy Analyses Future Directions Investigate differences in populations Determine space use Relate to landscape features – Frequency of habitat use – Movements between habitat patches – Duration of patch use – Patch size, shape, or juxtaposition Anthropogenic impacts