Abstract

A recurrent challenge in the conservation of wide‐ranging, imperiled species is understanding which habitats to protect and whether we are capable of restoring degraded landscapes. For Greater Sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), a species of conservation concern in the western United States, we approached this problem by developing multi‐scale empirical models of occupancy in 211 randomly located plots within a 40 million ha portion of the species' range. We then used these models to predict sage‐grouse habitat quality at 826 plots associated with 101 post‐wildfire seeding projects implemented from 1990 to 2003. We also compared conditions at restoration sites to published habitat guidelines. Sage‐grouse occupancy was positively related to plot‐ and landscape‐level dwarf sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula, A. nova, A. tripartita) and big sagebrush steppe prevalence, and negatively associated with non‐native plants and human development. The predicted probability of sage‐grouse occupancy at treated plots was low on average (0.09) and not substantially different from burned areas that had not been treated. Restoration sites with quality habitat tended to occur at higher elevation locations with low annual temperatures, high spring precipitation, and high plant diversity. Of 313 plots seeded after fire, none met all sagebrush guidelines for breeding habitats, but approximately 50% met understory guidelines, particularly for perennial grasses. This pattern was similar for summer habitat. Less than 2% of treated plots met winter habitat guidelines. Restoration actions did not increase the probability of burned areas meeting most guideline criteria. The probability of meeting guidelines was influenced by a latitudinal gradient, climate, and topography. Our results suggest that sage‐grouse are relatively unlikely to use many burned areas within 20 years of fire, regardless of treatment. Understory habitat conditions are more likely to be adequate than overstory conditions, but in most climates, establishing forbs and reducing cheatgrass dominance is unlikely. Reestablishing sagebrush cover will require more than 20 years using past restoration methods. Given current fire frequencies and restoration capabilities, protection of landscapes containing a mix of dwarf sagebrush and big sagebrush steppe, minimal human development, and low non‐native plant cover may provide the best opportunity for conservation of sage‐grouse habitats.

Highlights

  • Habitat loss is a major barrier to recovery of many imperiled species

  • Plot-scale predictors of sage-grouse occupancy Sage-grouse occupancy (SGOCC) at the 1-ha plot level was best predicted by a non-linear interaction between dwarf sagebrush (A. arbuscula, A. nova, A. tripartita) cover, Wyoming big Response variable n plots logb Bootstrap results N*

  • Across the Great Basin, we found that recent, plot-level sage-grouse occupancy was better predicted by plot-level canopy cover of dwarf sagebrush species (e.g., A. arbuscula, A. nova, A. tripartita) than by big sagebrush cover

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Protection of intact habitats and restoration of degraded areas, which can be paramount to persistence, is often extremely challenging for species that have broad distributions, large home ranges, and complex habitat requirements. One such species, the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter sage-grouse), is a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Persistence of sage-grouse depends on protecting or carefully managing remaining habitat and restoring areas that have degraded habitat quality (Stiver et al 2006, Connelly et al 2011b) Putting this ‘‘protect what’s left and fix what’s broken’’ paradigm into practice, requires understanding the characteristics of highquality habitat and knowing whether we are capable of restoring those characteristics within degraded areas. Sage-grouse habitat associations have been well documented at local or statescales (Connelly et al 2011c) and published guidelines of sage-grouse habitat requirements exist (Connelly et al 2000, Stiver et al 2010), the generality of these local-scale habitat associations and guidelines is not well documented

Objectives
Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call