Wintering Greater Sage-Grouse Preferentially Select Shrub Microhabitat Characteristics within the Home Range

In temperate landscapes, habitat selection is constrained by resource availability during winter. Most studies of habitat selection by greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus “sage-grouse”) have focused on breeding and summer rather than winter habitat. We focused on winter microhabitat when...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Rangeland ecology & management 2024-05, Vol.94 (1), p.1-6
Hauptverfasser: Wanner, Caitlyn P., Pratt, Aaron C., Beck, Jeffrey L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 6
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Rangeland ecology & management
container_volume 94
creator Wanner, Caitlyn P.
Pratt, Aaron C.
Beck, Jeffrey L.
description In temperate landscapes, habitat selection is constrained by resource availability during winter. Most studies of habitat selection by greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus “sage-grouse”) have focused on breeding and summer rather than winter habitat. We focused on winter microhabitat when available habitat was influenced by snow conditions. Our objectives were to 1) identify what microhabitat characteristics sage-grouse select during winter and 2) evaluate whether sage-grouse selected microhabitat at the home range (third order) or the population range (second order) scale. In summer 2020, we measured shrub characteristics and herbivore dung counts at 90 sage-grouse locations from the previous 2019/2020 winter in northwest Colorado and southcentral Wyoming and compared them with 90 paired, available locations within sage-grouse home ranges and 90 unpaired, available locations within the population range. We found strong support for sage-grouse selecting for winter microhabitat at the home-range scale because we observed similar differences in shrub characteristics between sage-grouse use locations and available locations at both scales and no differences between randomly available habitat. Compared with available locations within home ranges, wintering sage-grouse selected areas of 57.1% greater big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. Nutt.) canopy cover, 23.7% taller big sagebrush, and 110.6% more visual obstruction at use locations. Sage-grouse dung piles were 7.1 × higher at used locations than available locations within home ranges, further indicating that habitat use was less random within home ranges. In winter, microhabitat selection focused on higher cover and height of big sagebrush like previous observations from nearby studies of microhabitat selected by sage-grouse during nesting and brood-rearing.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.rama.2024.01.008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153667916</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1550742424000101</els_id><sourcerecordid>3153667916</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b325t-11d563a8ca91db3b09f9675ee65c92743ccdb8a76ce79948eaeec6697090cf4e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1OwzAQhCMEEqXwApx85JJg58eJJS6oghapCERBHK2Ns2lcpUmxXVDfHodwRpx2DjOzmi8ILhmNGGX8ehMZ2EIU0ziNKIsoLY6CCcsyFmY0Lo5_NA3zNE5PgzNrN5QmnLF8ErTvunNodLcmc4PgJVnBGsO56fcWybPBGg12TkPbHsgKW1SOrBqzL8mjVqZvoNQOHJk1YEANTdZpZcmXdo3uiGuQLPotkhfo1ngenNTQWrz4vdPg7f7udbYIl0_zh9ntMiyTOHMhY1XGEygUCFaVSUlFLXieIfJMiThPE6WqsoCcK8yFSAsERMW5yKmgqk4xmQZXY-_O9B97tE5utVXYttChnyUTliWc54Jxb41Hq99irV8rd0ZvwRwko3JAKzdyQCsHtJIy6dH60M0YQj_iU6ORVmnsFFbaeD6y6vXfcTrGS933Hf7n4ze3tpOC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3153667916</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Wintering Greater Sage-Grouse Preferentially Select Shrub Microhabitat Characteristics within the Home Range</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wanner, Caitlyn P. ; Pratt, Aaron C. ; Beck, Jeffrey L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wanner, Caitlyn P. ; Pratt, Aaron C. ; Beck, Jeffrey L.</creatorcontrib><description>In temperate landscapes, habitat selection is constrained by resource availability during winter. Most studies of habitat selection by greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus “sage-grouse”) have focused on breeding and summer rather than winter habitat. We focused on winter microhabitat when available habitat was influenced by snow conditions. Our objectives were to 1) identify what microhabitat characteristics sage-grouse select during winter and 2) evaluate whether sage-grouse selected microhabitat at the home range (third order) or the population range (second order) scale. In summer 2020, we measured shrub characteristics and herbivore dung counts at 90 sage-grouse locations from the previous 2019/2020 winter in northwest Colorado and southcentral Wyoming and compared them with 90 paired, available locations within sage-grouse home ranges and 90 unpaired, available locations within the population range. We found strong support for sage-grouse selecting for winter microhabitat at the home-range scale because we observed similar differences in shrub characteristics between sage-grouse use locations and available locations at both scales and no differences between randomly available habitat. Compared with available locations within home ranges, wintering sage-grouse selected areas of 57.1% greater big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. Nutt.) canopy cover, 23.7% taller big sagebrush, and 110.6% more visual obstruction at use locations. Sage-grouse dung piles were 7.1 × higher at used locations than available locations within home ranges, further indicating that habitat use was less random within home ranges. In winter, microhabitat selection focused on higher cover and height of big sagebrush like previous observations from nearby studies of microhabitat selected by sage-grouse during nesting and brood-rearing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1550-7424</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-5028</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.rama.2024.01.008</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>the Society for Range Management</publisher><subject>administrative management ; Artemisia tridentata ; brood rearing ; canopy ; Centrocercus urophasianus ; Colorado ; Dung counts ; feces ; herbivores ; home range ; Home-range-scale microhabitat selection ; microhabitats ; Population-scale microhabitat selection ; rangelands ; Shrubs ; snow ; summer ; winter ; Winter habitat ; Wyoming</subject><ispartof>Rangeland ecology &amp; management, 2024-05, Vol.94 (1), p.1-6</ispartof><rights>2024 The Society for Range Management</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b325t-11d563a8ca91db3b09f9675ee65c92743ccdb8a76ce79948eaeec6697090cf4e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0236-7343</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wanner, Caitlyn P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pratt, Aaron C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Jeffrey L.</creatorcontrib><title>Wintering Greater Sage-Grouse Preferentially Select Shrub Microhabitat Characteristics within the Home Range</title><title>Rangeland ecology &amp; management</title><description>In temperate landscapes, habitat selection is constrained by resource availability during winter. Most studies of habitat selection by greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus “sage-grouse”) have focused on breeding and summer rather than winter habitat. We focused on winter microhabitat when available habitat was influenced by snow conditions. Our objectives were to 1) identify what microhabitat characteristics sage-grouse select during winter and 2) evaluate whether sage-grouse selected microhabitat at the home range (third order) or the population range (second order) scale. In summer 2020, we measured shrub characteristics and herbivore dung counts at 90 sage-grouse locations from the previous 2019/2020 winter in northwest Colorado and southcentral Wyoming and compared them with 90 paired, available locations within sage-grouse home ranges and 90 unpaired, available locations within the population range. We found strong support for sage-grouse selecting for winter microhabitat at the home-range scale because we observed similar differences in shrub characteristics between sage-grouse use locations and available locations at both scales and no differences between randomly available habitat. Compared with available locations within home ranges, wintering sage-grouse selected areas of 57.1% greater big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. Nutt.) canopy cover, 23.7% taller big sagebrush, and 110.6% more visual obstruction at use locations. Sage-grouse dung piles were 7.1 × higher at used locations than available locations within home ranges, further indicating that habitat use was less random within home ranges. In winter, microhabitat selection focused on higher cover and height of big sagebrush like previous observations from nearby studies of microhabitat selected by sage-grouse during nesting and brood-rearing.</description><subject>administrative management</subject><subject>Artemisia tridentata</subject><subject>brood rearing</subject><subject>canopy</subject><subject>Centrocercus urophasianus</subject><subject>Colorado</subject><subject>Dung counts</subject><subject>feces</subject><subject>herbivores</subject><subject>home range</subject><subject>Home-range-scale microhabitat selection</subject><subject>microhabitats</subject><subject>Population-scale microhabitat selection</subject><subject>rangelands</subject><subject>Shrubs</subject><subject>snow</subject><subject>summer</subject><subject>winter</subject><subject>Winter habitat</subject><subject>Wyoming</subject><issn>1550-7424</issn><issn>1551-5028</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkM1OwzAQhCMEEqXwApx85JJg58eJJS6oghapCERBHK2Ns2lcpUmxXVDfHodwRpx2DjOzmi8ILhmNGGX8ehMZ2EIU0ziNKIsoLY6CCcsyFmY0Lo5_NA3zNE5PgzNrN5QmnLF8ErTvunNodLcmc4PgJVnBGsO56fcWybPBGg12TkPbHsgKW1SOrBqzL8mjVqZvoNQOHJk1YEANTdZpZcmXdo3uiGuQLPotkhfo1ngenNTQWrz4vdPg7f7udbYIl0_zh9ntMiyTOHMhY1XGEygUCFaVSUlFLXieIfJMiThPE6WqsoCcK8yFSAsERMW5yKmgqk4xmQZXY-_O9B97tE5utVXYttChnyUTliWc54Jxb41Hq99irV8rd0ZvwRwko3JAKzdyQCsHtJIy6dH60M0YQj_iU6ORVmnsFFbaeD6y6vXfcTrGS933Hf7n4ze3tpOC</recordid><startdate>20240501</startdate><enddate>20240501</enddate><creator>Wanner, Caitlyn P.</creator><creator>Pratt, Aaron C.</creator><creator>Beck, Jeffrey L.</creator><general>the Society for Range Management</general><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0236-7343</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240501</creationdate><title>Wintering Greater Sage-Grouse Preferentially Select Shrub Microhabitat Characteristics within the Home Range</title><author>Wanner, Caitlyn P. ; Pratt, Aaron C. ; Beck, Jeffrey L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b325t-11d563a8ca91db3b09f9675ee65c92743ccdb8a76ce79948eaeec6697090cf4e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>administrative management</topic><topic>Artemisia tridentata</topic><topic>brood rearing</topic><topic>canopy</topic><topic>Centrocercus urophasianus</topic><topic>Colorado</topic><topic>Dung counts</topic><topic>feces</topic><topic>herbivores</topic><topic>home range</topic><topic>Home-range-scale microhabitat selection</topic><topic>microhabitats</topic><topic>Population-scale microhabitat selection</topic><topic>rangelands</topic><topic>Shrubs</topic><topic>snow</topic><topic>summer</topic><topic>winter</topic><topic>Winter habitat</topic><topic>Wyoming</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wanner, Caitlyn P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pratt, Aaron C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Jeffrey L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Rangeland ecology &amp; management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wanner, Caitlyn P.</au><au>Pratt, Aaron C.</au><au>Beck, Jeffrey L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Wintering Greater Sage-Grouse Preferentially Select Shrub Microhabitat Characteristics within the Home Range</atitle><jtitle>Rangeland ecology &amp; management</jtitle><date>2024-05-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>6</epage><pages>1-6</pages><issn>1550-7424</issn><eissn>1551-5028</eissn><abstract>In temperate landscapes, habitat selection is constrained by resource availability during winter. Most studies of habitat selection by greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus “sage-grouse”) have focused on breeding and summer rather than winter habitat. We focused on winter microhabitat when available habitat was influenced by snow conditions. Our objectives were to 1) identify what microhabitat characteristics sage-grouse select during winter and 2) evaluate whether sage-grouse selected microhabitat at the home range (third order) or the population range (second order) scale. In summer 2020, we measured shrub characteristics and herbivore dung counts at 90 sage-grouse locations from the previous 2019/2020 winter in northwest Colorado and southcentral Wyoming and compared them with 90 paired, available locations within sage-grouse home ranges and 90 unpaired, available locations within the population range. We found strong support for sage-grouse selecting for winter microhabitat at the home-range scale because we observed similar differences in shrub characteristics between sage-grouse use locations and available locations at both scales and no differences between randomly available habitat. Compared with available locations within home ranges, wintering sage-grouse selected areas of 57.1% greater big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. Nutt.) canopy cover, 23.7% taller big sagebrush, and 110.6% more visual obstruction at use locations. Sage-grouse dung piles were 7.1 × higher at used locations than available locations within home ranges, further indicating that habitat use was less random within home ranges. In winter, microhabitat selection focused on higher cover and height of big sagebrush like previous observations from nearby studies of microhabitat selected by sage-grouse during nesting and brood-rearing.</abstract><pub>the Society for Range Management</pub><doi>10.1016/j.rama.2024.01.008</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0236-7343</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1550-7424
ispartof Rangeland ecology & management, 2024-05, Vol.94 (1), p.1-6
issn 1550-7424
1551-5028
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153667916
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects administrative management
Artemisia tridentata
brood rearing
canopy
Centrocercus urophasianus
Colorado
Dung counts
feces
herbivores
home range
Home-range-scale microhabitat selection
microhabitats
Population-scale microhabitat selection
rangelands
Shrubs
snow
summer
winter
Winter habitat
Wyoming
title Wintering Greater Sage-Grouse Preferentially Select Shrub Microhabitat Characteristics within the Home Range
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T06%3A56%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Wintering%20Greater%20Sage-Grouse%20Preferentially%20Select%20Shrub%20Microhabitat%20Characteristics%20within%20the%20Home%20Range&rft.jtitle=Rangeland%20ecology%20&%20management&rft.au=Wanner,%20Caitlyn%20P.&rft.date=2024-05-01&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=6&rft.pages=1-6&rft.issn=1550-7424&rft.eissn=1551-5028&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.rama.2024.01.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3153667916%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3153667916&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1550742424000101&rfr_iscdi=true