Microhabitat Selection for Nesting and Brood-Rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in Xeric Big Sagebrush

Understanding selection of breeding habitat is critical to conserving and restoring habitats for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), particularly in xeric landscapes (≤25 cm annual precipitation). We monitored radio-marked female sage-grouse in south-central Wyoming in 2008 and 2009...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.) Calif.), 2012-02, Vol.114 (1), p.75-89
Hauptverfasser: Kirol, Christopher P, Beck, Jeffrey L, Dinkins, Jonathan B, Conover, Michael R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 89
container_issue 1
container_start_page 75
container_title The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)
container_volume 114
creator Kirol, Christopher P
Beck, Jeffrey L
Dinkins, Jonathan B
Conover, Michael R
description Understanding selection of breeding habitat is critical to conserving and restoring habitats for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), particularly in xeric landscapes (≤25 cm annual precipitation). We monitored radio-marked female sage-grouse in south-central Wyoming in 2008 and 2009 to assess microhabitat use during nesting and brood rearing. For each model we grouped variables into three hypothesis sets on the basis of the weight of support from previous research (a priori information). We used binary logistic regression to compare habitat used by grouse to that at random locations and used an information-theoretic approach to identify the best-supported models. Selection of microhabitat for nests was more positively correlated with mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) than with Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis) and negatively correlated with cheatgrass. Nesting hens also selected microhabitats with greater litter cover. Microhabitat for brood-rearing had more perennial grass and sagebrush cover than did random locations. Microhabitat variables most supported in the literature, such as forb cover and perennial grass cover, accounted for only 8% and 16% of the pure variation in our models for early and late brood rearing, respectively. Our findings suggest sage-grouse inhabiting xeric sagebrush habitats rely on sagebrush cover and grass structure for nesting as well as brood-rearing and that at the microhabitat scale these structural characteristics may be more important than forb availability. Therefore, in xeric sagebrush, practices designed to increase forb production by markedly reducing sagebrush cover, as a means to increase sage-grouse productivity, may not be justified.
doi_str_mv 10.1525/cond.2012.110024
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1017959419</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1525/cond.2012.110024</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1525/cond.2012.110024</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b423t-1438a68f13fefe5f907b2087b9937758f2bcffbd56b30735a20261ce789bf3ec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkD1PwzAURS0EEqWwM1piYUnwR5zEI62gIBWQKEhskZ08t67SuNjp0H-PS5hYYLKe37lPVwehS0pSKpi4qV3XpIxQllJKCMuO0IhKXiaCMnmMRoRQkoiMsVN0FsKaxJllbITMk629Wylte9XjBbRQ99Z12DiPnyH0tlti1TV44p1rkldQ_vCj97hfAZ55UD14vFBLSGbe7QJg2-EP8LbGE7v8Xmi_C6tzdGJUG-Di5x2j9_u7t-lDMn-ZPU5v54nOGO8TmvFS5aWh3IABYSQpNCNloaXkRSFKw3RtjG5ErjkpuFCMsJzWUJRSGw41H6Pr4e7Wu89d7F9tbKihbVUHsV5FCS2kkFlUM0ZXv9C12_kutosUkXmWF0JEigxUtBSCB1Ntvd0ov49QdRBfHcRXB_HVID5GkiGyDr3z_-HTgdfWuQ7-DnwBgaKSlg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1009646755</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Microhabitat Selection for Nesting and Brood-Rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in Xeric Big Sagebrush</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Kirol, Christopher P ; Beck, Jeffrey L ; Dinkins, Jonathan B ; Conover, Michael R</creator><creatorcontrib>Kirol, Christopher P ; Beck, Jeffrey L ; Dinkins, Jonathan B ; Conover, Michael R</creatorcontrib><description>Understanding selection of breeding habitat is critical to conserving and restoring habitats for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), particularly in xeric landscapes (≤25 cm annual precipitation). We monitored radio-marked female sage-grouse in south-central Wyoming in 2008 and 2009 to assess microhabitat use during nesting and brood rearing. For each model we grouped variables into three hypothesis sets on the basis of the weight of support from previous research (a priori information). We used binary logistic regression to compare habitat used by grouse to that at random locations and used an information-theoretic approach to identify the best-supported models. Selection of microhabitat for nests was more positively correlated with mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) than with Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis) and negatively correlated with cheatgrass. Nesting hens also selected microhabitats with greater litter cover. Microhabitat for brood-rearing had more perennial grass and sagebrush cover than did random locations. Microhabitat variables most supported in the literature, such as forb cover and perennial grass cover, accounted for only 8% and 16% of the pure variation in our models for early and late brood rearing, respectively. Our findings suggest sage-grouse inhabiting xeric sagebrush habitats rely on sagebrush cover and grass structure for nesting as well as brood-rearing and that at the microhabitat scale these structural characteristics may be more important than forb availability. Therefore, in xeric sagebrush, practices designed to increase forb production by markedly reducing sagebrush cover, as a means to increase sage-grouse productivity, may not be justified.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-5422</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-5129</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2732-4621</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1525/cond.2012.110024</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CNDRAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Waco: University of California Press</publisher><subject>Animal behavior ; Animal nesting ; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana ; biological soil crust ; Bird nesting ; Breeding ; Brood rearing ; Centrocercus urophasianus ; Female animals ; Females ; Forbs ; grass cover ; Grasses ; Greater Sage-Grouse ; Habitat ; Habitat selection ; Habitat utilization ; Habitats ; Landscape ; Litter ; Microenvironments ; microhabitat selection ; Microhabitats ; Modeling ; Mountains ; nest occurrence ; Nesting ; Nests ; Ornithology ; Precipitation ; Regression analysis ; RESEARCH PAPERS ; Shrubs ; Studies ; Wyoming</subject><ispartof>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.), 2012-02, Vol.114 (1), p.75-89</ispartof><rights>2012 by The Cooper Ornithological Society. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.</rights><rights>2012 by The Cooper Ornithological Society</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2012 by The Cooper Ornithological Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b423t-1438a68f13fefe5f907b2087b9937758f2bcffbd56b30735a20261ce789bf3ec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b423t-1438a68f13fefe5f907b2087b9937758f2bcffbd56b30735a20261ce789bf3ec3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27922,27923</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kirol, Christopher P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Jeffrey L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dinkins, Jonathan B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conover, Michael R</creatorcontrib><title>Microhabitat Selection for Nesting and Brood-Rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in Xeric Big Sagebrush</title><title>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)</title><description>Understanding selection of breeding habitat is critical to conserving and restoring habitats for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), particularly in xeric landscapes (≤25 cm annual precipitation). We monitored radio-marked female sage-grouse in south-central Wyoming in 2008 and 2009 to assess microhabitat use during nesting and brood rearing. For each model we grouped variables into three hypothesis sets on the basis of the weight of support from previous research (a priori information). We used binary logistic regression to compare habitat used by grouse to that at random locations and used an information-theoretic approach to identify the best-supported models. Selection of microhabitat for nests was more positively correlated with mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) than with Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis) and negatively correlated with cheatgrass. Nesting hens also selected microhabitats with greater litter cover. Microhabitat for brood-rearing had more perennial grass and sagebrush cover than did random locations. Microhabitat variables most supported in the literature, such as forb cover and perennial grass cover, accounted for only 8% and 16% of the pure variation in our models for early and late brood rearing, respectively. Our findings suggest sage-grouse inhabiting xeric sagebrush habitats rely on sagebrush cover and grass structure for nesting as well as brood-rearing and that at the microhabitat scale these structural characteristics may be more important than forb availability. Therefore, in xeric sagebrush, practices designed to increase forb production by markedly reducing sagebrush cover, as a means to increase sage-grouse productivity, may not be justified.</description><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal nesting</subject><subject>Artemisia tridentata vaseyana</subject><subject>biological soil crust</subject><subject>Bird nesting</subject><subject>Breeding</subject><subject>Brood rearing</subject><subject>Centrocercus urophasianus</subject><subject>Female animals</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Forbs</subject><subject>grass cover</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>Greater Sage-Grouse</subject><subject>Habitat</subject><subject>Habitat selection</subject><subject>Habitat utilization</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Landscape</subject><subject>Litter</subject><subject>Microenvironments</subject><subject>microhabitat selection</subject><subject>Microhabitats</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>Mountains</subject><subject>nest occurrence</subject><subject>Nesting</subject><subject>Nests</subject><subject>Ornithology</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>RESEARCH PAPERS</subject><subject>Shrubs</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Wyoming</subject><issn>0010-5422</issn><issn>1938-5129</issn><issn>2732-4621</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkD1PwzAURS0EEqWwM1piYUnwR5zEI62gIBWQKEhskZ08t67SuNjp0H-PS5hYYLKe37lPVwehS0pSKpi4qV3XpIxQllJKCMuO0IhKXiaCMnmMRoRQkoiMsVN0FsKaxJllbITMk629Wylte9XjBbRQ99Z12DiPnyH0tlti1TV44p1rkldQ_vCj97hfAZ55UD14vFBLSGbe7QJg2-EP8LbGE7v8Xmi_C6tzdGJUG-Di5x2j9_u7t-lDMn-ZPU5v54nOGO8TmvFS5aWh3IABYSQpNCNloaXkRSFKw3RtjG5ErjkpuFCMsJzWUJRSGw41H6Pr4e7Wu89d7F9tbKihbVUHsV5FCS2kkFlUM0ZXv9C12_kutosUkXmWF0JEigxUtBSCB1Ntvd0ov49QdRBfHcRXB_HVID5GkiGyDr3z_-HTgdfWuQ7-DnwBgaKSlg</recordid><startdate>201202</startdate><enddate>201202</enddate><creator>Kirol, Christopher P</creator><creator>Beck, Jeffrey L</creator><creator>Dinkins, Jonathan B</creator><creator>Conover, Michael R</creator><general>University of California Press</general><general>American Ornithological Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201202</creationdate><title>Microhabitat Selection for Nesting and Brood-Rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in Xeric Big Sagebrush</title><author>Kirol, Christopher P ; Beck, Jeffrey L ; Dinkins, Jonathan B ; Conover, Michael R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b423t-1438a68f13fefe5f907b2087b9937758f2bcffbd56b30735a20261ce789bf3ec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal nesting</topic><topic>Artemisia tridentata vaseyana</topic><topic>biological soil crust</topic><topic>Bird nesting</topic><topic>Breeding</topic><topic>Brood rearing</topic><topic>Centrocercus urophasianus</topic><topic>Female animals</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Forbs</topic><topic>grass cover</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>Greater Sage-Grouse</topic><topic>Habitat</topic><topic>Habitat selection</topic><topic>Habitat utilization</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Landscape</topic><topic>Litter</topic><topic>Microenvironments</topic><topic>microhabitat selection</topic><topic>Microhabitats</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>Mountains</topic><topic>nest occurrence</topic><topic>Nesting</topic><topic>Nests</topic><topic>Ornithology</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>RESEARCH PAPERS</topic><topic>Shrubs</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Wyoming</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kirol, Christopher P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Jeffrey L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dinkins, Jonathan B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conover, Michael R</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kirol, Christopher P</au><au>Beck, Jeffrey L</au><au>Dinkins, Jonathan B</au><au>Conover, Michael R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Microhabitat Selection for Nesting and Brood-Rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in Xeric Big Sagebrush</atitle><jtitle>The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.)</jtitle><date>2012-02</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>114</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>75</spage><epage>89</epage><pages>75-89</pages><issn>0010-5422</issn><eissn>1938-5129</eissn><eissn>2732-4621</eissn><coden>CNDRAB</coden><abstract>Understanding selection of breeding habitat is critical to conserving and restoring habitats for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), particularly in xeric landscapes (≤25 cm annual precipitation). We monitored radio-marked female sage-grouse in south-central Wyoming in 2008 and 2009 to assess microhabitat use during nesting and brood rearing. For each model we grouped variables into three hypothesis sets on the basis of the weight of support from previous research (a priori information). We used binary logistic regression to compare habitat used by grouse to that at random locations and used an information-theoretic approach to identify the best-supported models. Selection of microhabitat for nests was more positively correlated with mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) than with Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis) and negatively correlated with cheatgrass. Nesting hens also selected microhabitats with greater litter cover. Microhabitat for brood-rearing had more perennial grass and sagebrush cover than did random locations. Microhabitat variables most supported in the literature, such as forb cover and perennial grass cover, accounted for only 8% and 16% of the pure variation in our models for early and late brood rearing, respectively. Our findings suggest sage-grouse inhabiting xeric sagebrush habitats rely on sagebrush cover and grass structure for nesting as well as brood-rearing and that at the microhabitat scale these structural characteristics may be more important than forb availability. Therefore, in xeric sagebrush, practices designed to increase forb production by markedly reducing sagebrush cover, as a means to increase sage-grouse productivity, may not be justified.</abstract><cop>Waco</cop><pub>University of California Press</pub><doi>10.1525/cond.2012.110024</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0010-5422
ispartof The Condor (Los Angeles, Calif.), 2012-02, Vol.114 (1), p.75-89
issn 0010-5422
1938-5129
2732-4621
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1017959419
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Free E- Journals
subjects Animal behavior
Animal nesting
Artemisia tridentata vaseyana
biological soil crust
Bird nesting
Breeding
Brood rearing
Centrocercus urophasianus
Female animals
Females
Forbs
grass cover
Grasses
Greater Sage-Grouse
Habitat
Habitat selection
Habitat utilization
Habitats
Landscape
Litter
Microenvironments
microhabitat selection
Microhabitats
Modeling
Mountains
nest occurrence
Nesting
Nests
Ornithology
Precipitation
Regression analysis
RESEARCH PAPERS
Shrubs
Studies
Wyoming
title Microhabitat Selection for Nesting and Brood-Rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in Xeric Big Sagebrush
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T14%3A32%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Microhabitat%20Selection%20for%20Nesting%20and%20Brood-Rearing%20by%20the%20Greater%20Sage-Grouse%20in%20Xeric%20Big%20Sagebrush&rft.jtitle=The%20Condor%20(Los%20Angeles,%20Calif.)&rft.au=Kirol,%20Christopher%20P&rft.date=2012-02&rft.volume=114&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=75&rft.epage=89&rft.pages=75-89&rft.issn=0010-5422&rft.eissn=1938-5129&rft.coden=CNDRAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1525/cond.2012.110024&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E10.1525/cond.2012.110024%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1009646755&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=10.1525/cond.2012.110024&rfr_iscdi=true