The importance of seasonal resource selection when managing a threatened species: targeting conservation actions within critical habitat designations for the Gunnison sage-grouse
M. B. Rice A D E , A. D. Apa B and L. A. Wiechman C D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 W Prospect Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.
B Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 711 Independent Avenue, Grand Junction, CO 81505, USA.
C Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Colorado, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.
D Present address: US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: rice1min@gmail.com
Wildlife Research 44(5) 407-417 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17027
Submitted: 28 July 2016 Accepted: 16 June 2017 Published: 25 September 2017
Journal Compilation © CSIRO 2017 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Context: The ability to identify priority habitat is critical for species of conservation concern. The designation of critical habitat under the US Endangered Species Act 1973 identifies areas occupied by the species that are important for conservation and may need special management or protection. However, relatively few species’ critical habitats designations incorporate habitat suitability models or seasonal specificity, even when that information exists. Gunnison sage-grouse (GUSG) have declined substantially from their historical range and were listed as threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in November 2014. GUSG are distributed into eight isolated populations in Colorado and Utah, and one population, the Gunnison Basin (GB), has been the focus of much research.
Aims: To provide season-specific resource selection models to improve targeted conservation actions within the designated critical habitat in the GB.
Methods: We utilised radio-telemetry data from GUSG captured and monitored from 2004 to 2010. We were able to estimate resource selection models for the breeding (1 April–15 July) and summer (16 July–30 September) seasons in the GB using vegetation, topographical and anthropogenic variables. We compared the seasonal models with the existing critical habitat to investigate whether the more specific seasonal models helped identify priority habitat for GUSG.
Key results: The predictive surface for the breeding model indicated higher use of large areas of sagebrush, whereas the predictive surface for the summer model predicted use of more diverse habitats. The breeding and summer models (combined) matched the current critical habitat designation 68.5% of the time. We found that although the overall habitat was similar between the critical habitat designation and our combined models, the pattern and configuration of the habitat were very different.
Conclusions: These models highlight areas with favourable environmental variables and spatial juxtaposition to establish priority habitat within the critical habitat designated by USFWS. More seasonally specific resource selection models will assist in identifying specific areas within the critical habitat designation to concentrate habitat improvements, conservation and restoration within the GB.
Implications: This information can be used to provide insight into the patterns of seasonal habitat selection and can identify priority GUSG habitat to incorporate into critical habitat designation for targeted management actions.
Additional keywords: Centrocercus minimus, Colorado, critical habitat, Gunnison sage-grouse, resource selection, species distribution.
References
Aldridge, C. L., Saher, D. J., Childers, T. M., Stahlnecker, K. E., and Bowen, Z. H. (2012). Crucial nesting habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse: a spatially explicit hierarchical approach. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76, 391–406.| Crucial nesting habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse: a spatially explicit hierarchical approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Allouche, O., Tsoar, A., and Kadmon, R. (2006). Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa, and the true skill statistic (TSS). Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 1223–1232.
| Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa, and the true skill statistic (TSS).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Anderson, D. R. (2008). ‘Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences: a Primer on Evidence.’ (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC: New York.)
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2013). Lme4: linear mixed effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0–4. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 [Accessed 01 June 2014].
Boyce, M. S., Turner, M. G., Fryxell, J., and Turchin, P. (2003). Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park. Ecoscience 10, 421–431.
| Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bukowski, B. E., and Baker, W. L. (2013). Historical fire in sagebrush landscapes of Gunnison sage-grouse range from land survey records. Journal of Arid Environments 98, 1–9.
| Historical fire in sagebrush landscapes of Gunnison sage-grouse range from land survey records.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2002). ‘Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: Practical Information-Theoretic Approach.’ (Springer-Verlag: New York).
Camaclang, A. E., Maron, M., Martin, T. G., and Possingham, H. P. (2015). Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species. Conservation Biology 29, 482–492.
| Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clark, J. A., Hoekstra, J. M., Boersma, P. D., and Kareiva, P. (2002). Improving U.S. endangered species act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology 16, 1510–1519.
| Improving U.S. endangered species act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Connelly, J. W., Schroeder, M. A., Sands, A. R., and Braun, C. E. (2000). Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, 967–985.
Connelly, J. W., Rinkes, E. T., and Braun, C. E. (2011). Characteristics of greater sage-grouse habitats: a landscape species at micro- and macro-scales. In ‘Studies in Avian Biology; Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats’. (Eds S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly.) pp. 69–83. (University of California: Berkeley, CA.)
Cunningham, R., Lindenmayer, D., Barton, P., Ikin, K., Crane, M., Michael, D., Okada, S., Gibbons, P., and Stein, J. (2014). Cross-sectional and temporal relationships between bird occupancy and vegetation cover at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Applications 24, 1275–1288.
| Cross-sectional and temporal relationships between bird occupancy and vegetation cover at multiple spatial scales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis, A. J., Hooten, M. B., Phillips, M. L., and Doherty, P. F. (2014). An integrated modeling approach to estimating Gunnison sage-grouse population dynamics: combining index and demographic data. Ecology and Evolution 4, 4247–4257.
Davis, A. J., Phillips, M. L., and Doherty, P. F. (2015). Nest success of Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado, USA. PLoS One 10, e0136310.
Doherty, K. E., Naugle, D. E., and Walker, B. L. (2010). Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: the importance of managing at multiple scales. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1544–1553.
| Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: the importance of managing at multiple scales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dzialak, M. R., Olson, C. V., Harju, S. M., Webb, S. L., and Winstead, J. B. (2012). Temporal and hierarchical spatial components of animal occurrence: conserving seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse. Ecosphere 3, 30.
| Temporal and hierarchical spatial components of animal occurrence: conserving seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fedy, B. C., Doherty, K. E., Aldridge, C. L., O’Donnell, M., Beck, J. L., Bedrosian, B., Gummer, D., Holloran, M. J., Johnson, G. D., Kaczor, N. W., Kirol, C. P., Mandich, C. A., Marshall, D., McKee, G., Olson, C., Pratt, A. C., Swanson, C. C., and Walker, B. L. (2014). Habitat prioritization across large landscapes, multiple seasons, and novel areas: an example using Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming. Wildlife Monographs 190, 1–39.
| Habitat prioritization across large landscapes, multiple seasons, and novel areas: an example using Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Giesen, K. M., Schoenberg, T. J., and Braun, C. E. (1982). Methods for trapping sage grouse in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10, 224–231.
Gillies, C. S., Hebblewhite, M., Nielsen, S. E., Krawchuk, M. A., Aldridge, C. L., Frair, J. L., Saher, D. J., Stevens, C. E., and Jerde, C. L. (2006). Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 887–898.
| Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Greenwald, N. D., Suckling, K. F., and Pimm, S. L. (2012). Critical habitat and the role of peer review in government decisions. Bioscience 62, 686–690.
| Critical habitat and the role of peer review in government decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Guisan, A., Tingley, R., Baumgartner, J. B., Naujokaitis-Lwis, I., Sutcliffe, P. R., Tulloch, A. I. T., Regan, T. J., Brotons, L., McDonald-Madden, E., Mantyka-Pringle, C., Martin, T. G., Rhodes, J. R., Maggini, R., Setterfield, S. A., Elith, J., Schwartz, M. W., Wintle, B. A., Broennimann, O., Austin, M., Ferrier, S., Kearney, M. R., Possingham, H. P., and Buckley, Y. M. (2013). Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology Letters 16, 1424–1435.
| Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gunnison County (2014). Gunnison County notice of intent to sue. Available at http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/docuentcenter/view/3623 [Accessed 5 January 2017].
Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee (GSRSC) (2005). ‘Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan.’ (Colorado Division of Wildlife: Denver, CO.)
Hausleitner, D. (2003). Population dynamics, habitat use and movements of greater sage-grouse in Moffat county, Colorado. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Hupp, J. W., and Braun, C. E. (1989). Topographic distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter. The Journal of Wildlife Management 53, 823–829.
| Topographic distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Johnson, C. J., Seip, D. R., and Boyce, M. S. (2004). A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 238–251.
| A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kalen, S. (2014). Landscape shifting paradigm for the endangered species act: an integrated critical habitat recovery program. Natural Resources Journal 55, 47–104.
Klar, N., Fernández, N., Kramer-Schadt, S., Herrmann, M., Trinzen, M., Büttner, I., and Niemitz, C. (2008). Habitat selection models for the European wildcat conservation. Biological Conservation 141, 308–319.
| Habitat selection models for the European wildcat conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Knapp, C. N., Cochran, J., Chapin, S. F., Kofinas, G., and Sayre, N. (2013). Putting local knowledge and context to work for Gunnison sage-grouse conservation. Human–Wildlife Interactions 7, 195–213.
Manly, B. F. J., McDonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., McDonald, T. L., and Erickson, W. P. (2002). ‘Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies.’ (Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.)
McAlpine, C. A., Rhodes, J. R., Bowen, M. E., Lunney, D., Callaghan, J. G., Mitchell, D. L., and Possingham, H. P. (2008). Can multiscale models of species’ distribution be generalized from region to region? A case study of koala. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 558–567.
| Can multiscale models of species’ distribution be generalized from region to region? A case study of koala.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., and Stafford, S. G. (2000). ‘Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research.’ (Springer-Verlag: New York.)
Murphy, D. D., and Weiland, P. S. (2016). Guidance on the use of best available science under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Environmental Management 58, 1–15.
| Guidance on the use of best available science under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Northrup, J. M., Hooten, M. B., Anderson, C. R., and Wittemyer, G. (2013). Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use-availability design. Ecology 94, 1456–1463.
| Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use-availability design.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Oyler-McCance, S. J., Burnham, K. P., and Braun, C. E. (2001). Influence of changes in sagebrush on Gunnison sage grouse in southwestern Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist 46, 323–331.
| Influence of changes in sagebrush on Gunnison sage grouse in southwestern Colorado.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Core Team (2013). ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna.) Available at http://www.R-project.org/.
Rice, M. B., Apa, A. D., Phillips, M. L., Gammonly, J. H., Petch, B. F., and Eichhoff, K. (2013). Analysis of regional species models based on radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77, 821–831.
| Analysis of regional species models based on radio-telemetry datasets from multiple small-scale studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Salzman, J. (1990). Evolution and application of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The Harvard Environmental Law Review 14, 311–342.
Sawyer, H., Nielson, R. M., Lindzey, F. G., Keith, L., Powell, J. H., and Abraham, A. A. (2007). Habitat selection of Rocky Mountain elk in a nonforested environment. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 868–874.
| Habitat selection of Rocky Mountain elk in a nonforested environment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schielzeth, H. (2010). Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 103–113.
| Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schroeder, M. A., Aldridge, C. L., Apa, A. D., Bohne, J. R., Braun, C. E., Bunnell, S. D., Connelly, J. W., Deibert, P. A., Gardner, S. C., Hilliard, M. A., Kobriger, G. D., McAdam, S. M., and McCArthy, Schroeder, M. A., Aldridge, C. L., Apa, A. D., Bohne, J. R., Braun, C. E., Bunnell, S. D., Connelly, J. W., Deibert, P. A., Gardner, S. C., Hilliard, M. A., Kobriger, G. D., McAdam, S. M., and McCArthy, (2004). Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. The Condor 106, 363–376.
| Distribution of sage-grouse in North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Scott, J. M., Goble, D. D., and Wiens, J. A. (2010). Conservation-reliant species and the future of conservation. Conservation Letters 3, 91–97.
| Conservation-reliant species and the future of conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shirk, A. J., Raphael, M. G., and Cushman, S. A. (2014). Spatiotemporal variation in resource selection: insights from the American marten (Martes americana). Ecological Applications 24, 1434–1444.
| Spatiotemporal variation in resource selection: insights from the American marten (Martes americana).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stanley, T. R., Aldridge, C. L., Saher, D. J., and Childers, T. M. (2015). Daily nest survival rates of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus): assessing local- and landscape-scale drivers. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127, 59–71.
| Daily nest survival rates of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus): assessing local- and landscape-scale drivers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stokland, J. N., Halvorsen, R., and Stoa, B. (2011). Species distribution modeling- effect of design and sample size of pseudo-absence observations. Ecological Modelling 222, 1800–1809.
| Species distribution modeling- effect of design and sample size of pseudo-absence observations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson, T. R. (2012). Dispersal ecology of greater sage-grouse in northwestern Colorado: evidence from demographic and genetics methods. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2014a). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse as a Threatened or Endangered Species. Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register 79, 69192–69310.
USFWS (2014b). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Gunnison Sage-grouse. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register 79, 69312–69363.
USFWS (2015). Critical habitat: what is it? USFWS Endangered Species Program, Falls Church, VA. Available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/saving/CriticalHabitatFactSheet.html [accessed May 15, 2015.]
Wakkinen, W. L., Reese, K. P., Connelly, J. W., and Fischer, R. A. (1992). An improved spotlighting technique for capturing sage-grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20, 425–426.
Walker, B. L., Apa, A. D., and Eichhoff, K. (2016). Mapping and prioritizing seasonal habitats for greater sage-grouse in northwestern Colorado. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80, 63–77.
| Mapping and prioritizing seasonal habitats for greater sage-grouse in northwestern Colorado.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wiens, T. S., Dale, B. C., Boyce, M. S., and Kershaw, G. P. (2008). Three way k-fold cross validation of resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling 212, 244–255.
| Three way k-fold cross validation of resource selection functions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wisdom, M. J., Meinke, C. W., Knick, S. T., and Schroeder, M. A. (2011). Factors associated with extirpation of sage-grouse. In ‘Studies in Avian Biology; Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats’. (Eds S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly.) pp. 69–83. (University of California: Berkeley, CA.)
Young, J. R., Braun, C. E., Oyler-McCance, S. J., Hupp, J. W., and Quinn, T. W. (2000). A new species of sage-grouse (Phasianidae: centrocercus) from southwestern Colorado. The Wilson Bulletin 112, 445–453.
| A new species of sage-grouse (Phasianidae: centrocercus) from southwestern Colorado.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
