Sage-grouse
Wildfires change plant community structure and impact wildlife habitat and population dynamics. Recent wildfire‐induced losses of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) in North American shrublands are outpacing natural recovery and leading to substantial losses in habitat for sagebrush‐obligate species such as Greater Sage‐grouse. Managers are considering restoration strategies that include planting container‐grown sagebrush to improve establishment within areas using more conventional seeding methods. Although it is thought that planting sagebrush provides initial structural advantages over seeding, empirical comparisons of sagebrush growth are lacking between individuals established post‐fire using both methods. Using a Bayesian hierarchical approach, we evaluated sagebrush height and canopy area growth rates for plants established in 26 seeded and 20 planted locations within the Great Basin. We then related recovery rates to previously published nesting habitat requirements for sage‐grouse. Under average weather conditions, planted or seeded sagebrush will require 3 or 4 years, respectively, and a relatively high density (≥ 2 plants/m2) to achieve the minimum recommended canopy cover for sage‐grouse (15 %). Sagebrush grown in warmer and drier conditions met this cover goal months earlier. Although planted sagebrush reached heights to meet sage‐grouse nesting requirements (30 cm) one year earlier than seeded plants, seeded individuals were ~19 cm taller with 410 cm2 more canopy area than planted sagebrush after 8 years. However, big sagebrush establishment from seed is unreliable. Strategically planting small, high density patches of container‐grown sagebrush in historic sage‐grouse nesting habitat combined with lower density seedings in larger surrounding areas may accelerate sage‐grouse habitat restoration.
View article.
Grazing by domestic livestock is a ubiquitous land use in the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) biome of western North America. Widespread, long‐term population declines in greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) have elicited concern about potential negative effects of livestock management practices on sage‐grouse populations. We evaluated how recently implemented rotational grazing systems affected sage‐grouse nesting habitat quality as part of a large‐scale, replicated, natural experiment in central Montana, USA. We used Bayesian methods to assess support for effects of rotational grazing management and rest from grazing on daily survival rates of nearly 500 sage‐grouse nests monitored over 6 years, and mixed effects models to test for effects of rotational grazing and rest on vegetation structure. Though nests on rotationally grazed ranches displayed a trend toward greater daily survival rates, the evidence for an effect was weak. There was no evidence that rest from grazing (≥12 months) increased daily survival rates. Furthermore, rotational grazing systems and rest had negligible effects on herbaceous vegetation height and cover relative to other grazing strategies used in the study area. Results do not support the hypothesis that rotational grazing systems or rest from grazing increase nest success in the northern Great Plains. Estimated nest success, however, was comparable to range‐wide averages, suggesting concealing cover for nests is unlikely to be limiting growth of this population regardless of grazing strategy. In light of these results and recent research questioning reported relationships between grass height and nest survival, maximization of hiding cover may be overemphasized in grazing management guidelines and policies. Rather, our findings suggest a variety of locally appropriate grazing strategies focused on fundamental range health principles may provide adequate habitat quality for nesting sage‐grouse.
They gobble up air, rub their wings across their chest feathers, and make a popping noise. It’s the mating call of the sage grouse – and the sound of dawn every spring in Oregon’s high desert. But sage grouse are in trouble across the West because humans keep carving up the desert for their own uses.
Description: Management of expanding pinyon-juniper woodlands in sagebrush habitats has become a prominent strategy for sagebrush conservation, with spatially targeted tree removal efforts designed to benefit sage-grouse increasing over the past decade. This webinar will highlight recent literature on wildlife response to pinyon-juniper management across the West, and new science and tools for considering sagebrush- and woodland-obligate songbirds, like pinyon jay, in conifer management. Knowledge gained from wildlife studies will be put into context of emerging remote sensing analyses that provide a comprehensive picture of continued woodland change.
Presenters: Jason Tack, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Missoula, MT; Jeremy Maestas, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, West National Technology Support Center, Portland, OR.
CE Credits: This webinar was approved by the Society for Ecological Restoration for 1 Continuing Education Credit (CEC).
To receive credit you’ll need to reference pre-approval code 16067645 and upload your webinar certificate (automatically emailed from Joint Fire Science Program JFSP following your attendance) at ser.submittable.com
View conference recordings.
The 2020 Natural Areas Virtual Conference- Sierra to sagebrush: Integrating management and stewardship across landscapes was an engaging virtual format providing as much research, technique and practical application of science as you have come to expect at a Natural Areas Conference.
The 47th Natural Areas Conference is focused on the unique ecological and management dynamics that distinguish the Nevada-California borderlands, the Great Basin and Sierra mountains. This conference is designed to bring together land and resource managers, scientists, and policy makers to share and discuss creative ideas that cross disciplines, ecosystems, and jurisdictional boundaries. These interactions are critical to solving landscape scale issues in the region.
View article.
This study employed meta‐analyses of studies published from 1991 to 2019 to help resolve the role of fine‐scale vegetation structure in nest site selection and nest success across the geographic range of greater sage‐grouse and evaluate the validity of established habitat management objectives. Our approach tested habitat relationships at a range‐wide extent and a grain size closely matching scales at which agencies make management decisions. We found moderate, but context‐dependent, effects of shrub characteristics and weak effects of herbaceous vegetation on nest site selection. None of the tested vegetation characteristics were related to variation in nest success, suggesting nesting habitat–fitness relationships have been inappropriately extrapolated in developing range‐wide habitat management objectives. Our findings reveal surprising flexibility in habitat use for a species often depicted as having very particular fine‐scale habitat requirements, and cast doubt on the practice of adopting precise management objectives for vegetation structure based on findings of individual small‐scale field studies.
View article.
This study estimates biome‐wide mesic resource productivity from 1984 to 2016 using remote sensing to identify patterns of food availability influencing selective pressures on sage‐grouse. We linked productivity to abiotic factors to examine effects of seasonal drought across time, space, and land tenure, with findings partitioned along gradients of ecosystem water balance within Great Basin, Rocky Mountains and Great Plains regions. Precipitation was the driver of mesic resource abundance explaining ≥70% of variance in drought‐limited vegetative productivity. Spatiotemporal shifts in mesic abundance were apparent given biome‐wide climatic trends that reduced precipitation below three‐quarters of normal in 20% of years. Drought sensitivity structured grouse populations wherein landscapes with the greatest uncertainty in mesic abundance and distribution supported the fewest grouse. Privately owned lands encompassed 40% of sage‐grouse range, but contained a disproportional 68% of mesic resources. Regional drought sensitivity identified herein acted as ecological minimums to influence differences in landscape carrying capacity across sage‐grouse range. Our model depictions likely reflect a new normal in water scarcity that could compound impacts of demographic bottlenecks in Great Basin and Great Plains. We conclude that long‐term population maintenance depends on a diversity of drought resistant mesic resources that offset climate driven variability in vegetative productivity. We recommend a holistic public–private lands approach to mesic restoration to offset a deepening risk of water scarcity.
View article.
This study quantified which reptile species may benefit from the protection of intact sage‐grouse habitat and which may be affected by recent (since about 1990) habitat restoration actions targeting sage‐grouse. Of 190 reptile species in the United States and Canadian provinces where greater sage‐grouse occur, 70 (37%) occur within the range of the bird. Of these 70 species, about a third (11 snake and 11 lizard species) have >10% of their distribution area within the sage‐grouse range. Land cover similarity indices revealed that 14 of the 22 species (8 snake and 6 lizard species) had relatively similar land cover associations to those of sage‐grouse, suggesting greater potential to be protected under the sage‐grouse conservation umbrella and greater potential to be affected, either positively or negatively, by habitat management actions intended for sage‐grouse. Conversely, the remaining 8 species are less likely to be protected because of less overlap with sage‐grouse habitat and thus uncertain effects of sage‐grouse habitat management actions. Our analyses of treatment databases indicated that from 1990 to 2014 there were at least 6,400 treatments implemented on public land that covered approximately 4 million ha within the range of the sage‐grouse and, of that, >1.5 million ha were intended to at least partially benefit sage‐grouse. Whereas our results suggest that conservation of intact sagebrush vegetation communities could benefit ≥14 reptiles, a greater number than previously estimated, additional research on each species’ response to habitat restoration actions is needed to assess broader claims of multi‐taxa benefits when it comes to manipulative sage‐grouse habitat management.
Access the report.
This report is part of an ongoing process of annual monitoring. It describes current conditions but is not an analysis or a description of a change of conditions. Although annual reports were produced for the years 2016 and 2017, the 2019 report also includes information from 2018. The 2019 report shows that:
- FS projects improved habitat for sage-grouse on nearly 480,000 acres from 2016-2019.
- Fires burned approximately 260,000 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat on National Forest System lands in 2016-2019.
- Data on habitat degradation are available from 2015-2018, and cumulative anthropogenic disturbance was at 0.03% on greater sage-grouse biologically significant units.
- Greater sage-grouse numbers in western states continue to cycle and are currently within the natural range of variability.
This study compared trends of sagebrush-obligate songbirds from the Breeding Bird Survey and sage-grouse lek counts in 2 sage-grouse populations in Wyoming from 1996–2013. Our evaluation was focused on similarities among population performance of the umbrella species and the species under that umbrella. Sagebrush-obligate songbird and both sage-grouse populations occupied habitat within and outside of protected core areas. Trends of sagebrush-obligate songbirds were not parallel or consistently similar in trajectory to sage-grouse in either core or non-core areas. Our results indicated core areas were successful at maintaining higher sage-grouse trends compared to areas not protected under the core area policy. However, sagebrush-obligate songbird trends did not follow the same pattern. This suggests that protection of only the best sage-grouse habitat may not be a sufficient conservation strategy for other sagebrush-obligate birds.