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

IF 2.4 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Caitlyn P. Wanner , Aaron C. Pratt , Jeffrey L. Beck
{"title":"Wintering Greater Sage-Grouse Preferentially Select Shrub Microhabitat Characteristics Within the Home Range","authors":"Caitlyn P. Wanner ,&nbsp;Aaron C. Pratt ,&nbsp;Jeffrey L. Beck","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In temperate landscapes, habitat selection is constrained by resource availability during winter. Most studies of habitat selection by greater sage-grouse (<em>Centrocercus urophasianus</em> “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 (<em>Artemisia tridentata</em> 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742424000101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

越冬大草原松鸡优先选择家园范围内的灌木微生境特征
在温带地区,栖息地的选择受到冬季资源可用性的限制。大多数关于大松鸡(Centrocercus urophasianus "sage-grouse")栖息地选择的研究都侧重于繁殖和夏季栖息地,而不是冬季栖息地。在可用栖息地受积雪条件影响的情况下,我们重点研究了冬季微生境。我们的目标是:1)确定鼠兔在冬季选择的微生境特征;2)评估鼠兔是在家园范围(三阶)还是种群范围(二阶)范围内选择微生境。2020 年夏季,我们在科罗拉多州西北部和怀俄明州中南部测量了上一个 2019/2020 年冬季的 90 个沙鸡地点的灌木特征和食草动物粪便计数,并与沙鸡家园范围内的 90 个配对可用地点和种群范围内的 90 个未配对可用地点进行了比较。我们发现,这有力地支持了沙鸡在家园范围内对冬季微生境的选择,因为我们观察到沙鸡在两个范围内的使用地点和可用地点之间的灌木特征存在相似的差异,而随机可用生境之间则没有差异。与家园范围内的可利用地点相比,越冬的鼠尾草选择了冠层覆盖率高57.1%的大鼠尾草(Artemisia tridentata spp. Nutt.)区域、高23.7%的大鼠尾草区域以及视觉障碍高110.6%的使用地点。使用地点的沙鸡粪堆比家园范围内的可用地点高出7.1倍,这进一步表明家园范围内栖息地使用的随机性较小。在冬季,鼠兔对微生境的选择主要集中在覆盖度和高度较高的大灌木丛上,这与之前在附近对鼠兔在筑巢和育雏期间选择微生境的研究结果一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rangeland Ecology & Management
Rangeland Ecology & Management 农林科学-环境科学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Rangeland Ecology & Management publishes all topics-including ecology, management, socioeconomic and policy-pertaining to global rangelands. The journal''s mission is to inform academics, ecosystem managers and policy makers of science-based information to promote sound rangeland stewardship. Author submissions are published in five manuscript categories: original research papers, high-profile forum topics, concept syntheses, as well as research and technical notes. Rangelands represent approximately 50% of the Earth''s land area and provision multiple ecosystem services for large human populations. This expansive and diverse land area functions as coupled human-ecological systems. Knowledge of both social and biophysical system components and their interactions represent the foundation for informed rangeland stewardship. Rangeland Ecology & Management uniquely integrates information from multiple system components to address current and pending challenges confronting global rangelands.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信