1 / 25

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

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

andrew
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in UtahbyDavid K. DahlgrenRenee Y. ChiTerry A. MessmerUtah State University

  2. 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

  3. Introduction • MOU – WAFWA 1999 (Connelly et al. 2004 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)

  4. Study Area: Parker Mountain Vegetation CharacteristicsSage-grouse Use (elevations)Livestock GrazingPrecipitation RegimesParker Lake Pasture- Brood-rearing habitat- preliminary conditions

  5. Methods: Treatment • Spike, Dixie harrow, Lawson aerator, and control • 16- 40.5 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

  6. Dixie Harrow Photo by Larry Greenwood http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/rn75.html Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

  7. Lawson Aerator Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

  8. Methods – Use Pellet Count 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 40.5 ha Plot

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

  10. Time Line June and July-post treatment sampling all plots August-pretreatment sampling Mechanicals and control July-pretreatment sampling Spike and control 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 July-pretreatment sampling grass and forb for mechanicals Fall-Dixie harrow and Lawson aerator application July and August-Birddog Surveys and Pellet counts Fall-Spike application Regular Grazing Regimes Parker Lake Pasture rested, except for incidental late fall grazing Regular Grazing Regimes

  11. 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. 2002-2003) • 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

  12. 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

  13. 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-D 0.43 C-L 0.59 S-D 0.11 S-L 0.03 D-L 0.69

  14. Results – Use Birddog Survey Total Sage-grouse Comparisons: P value C-S <0.01 C-D 0.14 C-L 0.09 S-D 0.03 S-L 0.05 D-L 0.79

  15. Results – UseBirddog Survey Brood Use Comparisons: P value C-S <0.01 C-D 0.30 C-L 0.19 S-D <0.01 S-L <0.01 D-L 0.77

  16. Results-Distance to Edge Plot type Drop 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 Control 20-30m

  17. Results: Distance to Edge • examples of histograms

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

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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. Acknowledgements Terry Messmer PARM UDWR Committee members Susan Durham Russ Norvell Lee Rindlesbacher Ron Daigle Terron Pickett Chris Perkins Kevin Labrum Renee Chi Dwayne Elmore Trapping Team Volunteers Paper Published in The Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):975-985 For copies e-mail me at: DKD@cc.usu.edu

More Related