slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in Utah by David K. Dahlgren Renee Y. Chi Terry A. Messmer Utah Sta PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in Utah by David K. Dahlgren Renee Y. Chi Terry A. Messmer Utah Sta

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

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


  • 399 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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

outline
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
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)
study area parker mountain
Study Area: Parker Mountain

Vegetation CharacteristicsSage-grouse Use (elevations)Livestock GrazingPrecipitation RegimesParker Lake Pasture- Brood-rearing habitat- preliminary conditions

methods treatment
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
dixie harrow
Dixie Harrow

Photo by Larry Greenwood http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/rn75.html

Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

lawson aerator
Lawson Aerator

Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

methods use pellet count
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

methods use birddog survey

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

time line
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

methods data analysis
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
results treatment
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
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

results use birddog survey
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

results use birddog survey15
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

results distance to edge
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

results distance to edge17
Results: Distance to Edge
  • examples of histograms
discussion
Discussion

Treatment

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

Treatment

discussion19
Discussion

Treatment

- Forb Cover increased with Spike and Dixie compared to control

Treatment

discussion20
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
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 implications22
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 implications23
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
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
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