Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in

Utah

byDavid K. Dahlgren

Renee Y. ChiTerry A. Messmer

Utah State University

Outline

1. Introduction

2. Study Area

3. Methods: Vegetation Treatment, Sage-grouse Use, Data Analysis

4. Results: Vegetation response and Sage-grouse Use

5. Discussion

6. Management Implications

Introduction

• MOU – WAFWA 1999 (Connelly et al. 2004 appendix 1)

Objective 4: “Conduct management experiments on a sufficient scale to demonstrate that management of habitats can stabilize and enhance sage grouse distribution and abundance”

• ~ 30% of sagebrush lands in the Western U.S. are privately owned (Connelly et al. 2004)

• 50% of Utah’s remaining sage-grouse populations occur on private land, and all 4 major populations (Box Elder, Rich, Uintah, and Wayne counties) depend on large portions of non-federal land

• NRCS- Farm Bill and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)

Study Area: Parker Mountain

Vegetation Characteristics

Sage-grouse Use (elevations)

Livestock Grazing

Precipitation Regimes

Parker Lake Pasture- Brood-rearing habitat- preliminary conditions

Methods: Treatment-Spike, Dixie harrow, Lawson aerator, and control

-16- 40.5 ha plots (4 reps)

-Plots randomly assigned treatment

- 5 random 20m transects per plot

- mosaic treatment pattern

- Artemesia tridentata vaseyana only

- treated vs. untreated transects

-Shrub (all) Canopy – Line Intercept Method (Canfield 1941) with one exception

- Grass and Forb cover – variation of the Point Intercept Method (Levy and Madden 1933) and post-treatment Daubenmire Frames

- Seed mix in Dixie

Dixie Harrow

Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

Photo by Larry Greenwood http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/rn75.html

Lawson Aerator

Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

Methods – Use

Pellet Count

40.5 ha Plot

Transect

- 16 total plots (D, L, S, C)

-3 random transects per plot

-2 samples (August 2003 and 2004)

-Distance to Center

-Cluster Size

Estimated Distance to Edge

Methods – Use Birddog Survey

Parker Mountain Sage Boomer…a.k.a. Parker

My Little Buddy III…a.k.a. Buddy

40.5 ha plot

Transect

-Cover entire plot ~1.5 dog hours

-2 surveys per year July and Aug 2003 and 2004

-Unkown adult, male, hen, chicks

-2003 (1 of 2 dogs) and 2004 (Utah Chukar Foundation)

Time Line

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

July-pretreatment sampling Spike and control

August-pretreatment sampling Mechanicals and control

Fall-Spike application

July-pretreatment sampling grass and forb for mechanicals

Fall-Dixie harrow and Lawson aerator application

June and July-post treatment sampling all plots

July and August-Birddog Surveys and Pellet counts

Regular Grazing Regimes Regular Grazing Regimes

Parker Lake Pasture rested, except for incidental late fall grazing

Methods: Data Analysis-Vegetation Treatment

-2 analyses: 1) Spike vs. Control and 2) Mechanical Treatments vs. Control

-BACI (Underwood 1994) and proc MIXED (SAS Institute Inc. 2002-2003)

-Change in Before to After Means

-Variables

-Shrub Cover (all), Grass Cover, Forb Cover

-Sage-grouse Use

-Pellet Counts: Program DISTANCE with Z test comparing treatments

-Variables: Pellet Cluster Density

-Distance to edge data: histogram format 10m increments

-Dandelion cover (Daubenmire data): ANOVA with a P <0.05 comparing treatments

-Birddog Surveys: ANOVA with a P <0.05 comparing treatments

-Variables: Total Grouse and Total Broods

Results: TreatmentSpike Vs. Control

Grass Cover: no difference (F = 1.03, P = 0.35)

Forb Cover: difference (F = 15.91, P = 0.01)

Shrub Cover: no difference (F = 1.00, P =0.36)

Mechanicals Vs. Control

Grass Cover: no difference (F = 2.94, P = 0.10)

Forb Cover: difference (F = 5.58, P = 0.03)

Dixie to Control (t = -2.41, P = 0.02)

Dixie to Lawson (t = 3.26, P < 0.01)

Shrub Cover: difference (F = 5.42, P = 0.03)

Dixie to Control (t = 2.28, P = 0.03)

Lawson to Control (t = 3.20, P < 0.01)

Dandelion Cover (all plots) (F = 2.60, P = 0.10) moderate

Results – Use – Pellet Count- Pellets found in ARNO, ARTR, ARCA, Aspen, and Treatment, but only ARNO, ARTR, and Treatment used in analysis

Sage-grouse Pellet Cluster Density by Treatment, Parker Mountain, Utah, 2003 and 2004.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Control (n=135) Dixie (n=225) Lawson (n=207) Spike (n=433)

Treatment Type

Clu

ster

s/A

cre

Comparisons:

P value

C-S 0.01

C-D 0.43

C-L 0.59

S-D 0.11

S-L 0.03

D-L 0.69

Results – Use Birddog Survey

Comparisons:

P value

C-S <0.01

C-D 0.14

C-L 0.09

S-D 0.03

S-L 0.05

D-L 0.79

Total Sage-grouse Flushed with Birddogs by Treatment (2 surveys each year combined), Parker Mountain, Utah, 2003

and 2004.

05

1015202530354045

Control (n=6) Dixie (n=79) Lawson (n=109) Spike (n=252)

Treatment Type

# o

f g

rou

se

Total Sage-grouse

Results – UseBirddog Survey

Comparisons:

P value

C-S <0.01

C-D 0.30

C-L 0.19

S-D <0.01

S-L <0.01

D-L 0.77

Brood Use

Sage-grouse Broods Flushed with Birddogs by Treatment (2 surveys each year combined), Parker Mountain, Utah,

2003 and 2004.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Control (n=1) Dixie (n=6) Lawson (n=7) Spike (n=38)

Treatment Type

# o

f B

roo

ds

Results-Distance to Edge

Plot type Drop offDixie harrow (treated) 20-30mDixie harrow (untreated) 20-30mLawson aerator (treated) >80mLawson aerator (untreated) 30-40mTebuthiuron (treated) 40-50mTebuthiuron (untreated) 20-30mControl 20-30m

Results: Distance to

Edge

• examples of histograms

Pellet Count 03-04 Dixie ARTR Histogram for Distance to Edge

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A0-10 B11-20 C21-30 D31-40 E41-50 F51-60

Meters

Fre

qu

en

cy

Pellet Count 03-04 Dixie TMNT Histogram of Distance to Edge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A0-10 B11-20 C21-30 D31-40 E41-50

Meters

Fre

qu

ency

DiscussionShrub Cover Response to Tebuthiuron Treatment, Parker

Mountain, Utah, 2000-2004.

0

5

10

15

2025

30

35

40

45

2000_7 2002_6 2002_7 2003_6 2003_7 2004_6 2004_7

Year_Month

Per

cen

t C

ove

r

Control

Tebuthiuron

Shrub Cover Response to Mechanical Treatment, Parker Mountain, Utah, 2001-2004.

0

5

10

15

2025

30

35

40

45

2001_8 2002_6 2002_7 2003_6 2003_7 2004_6 2004_7

Year_Month

Per

cen

t C

ove

r

Control

Dixie

Lawson

- Shrub Canopy decreased to within sage-grouse brood rearing guidelines (10 – 25% ) (Connelly et al. 2000)

Treatment

Treatment

DiscussionForb Cover Response to Tebuthiuron Treatment, Parker

Mountain, Utah, 2000-2004.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000_7 2002_6 2002_7 2003_6 2003_7 2004_6 2004_7

Year_Month

Per

cen

t C

ove

r

Control

Tebuthiuron

Forb Cover Response to Mechanical Treatment, Parker Mountain, Utah, 2000-2004.

0

2

4

6

810

12

14

16

18

2000_7 2001_8 2002_6 2002_7 2003_6 2003_7 2004_6 2004_7

Year_Month

Per

cen

t C

ove

r

Control

Dixie

Lawson

- Forb Cover increased with Spike and Dixie compared to control

Treatment

Treatment

Discussion

-Lawson aerator problems

-Distance to Edge data suggest sage-grouse prefer edge habitat (< 30m) while using treatment areas, and adjacent intact sagebrush

-Sage-grouse in general and broods specifically preferred Spike plots…Why?

-Increased forb cover, specifically dandelion cover

-Partial kill of sagebrush resulting in a “feathered effect” creating increased edge

-Shrub cover 15-25% and forb response

Management Implications

• All treatments can achieve shrub canopy guidelines for brood-rearing habitat if initial conditions are > 25% Shrub canopy

• Dixie harrow and Spike can be used to increase forb cover, which is the most important component of brood-rearing habitat

Management Implications>When applying spike a low rate (we used 0.3 active ingredient) should be used to have a partial sagebrush kill

>We recommend when using Dixie harrow or Lawson aerator treatment should be widths not exceeding 60m, and intact sagebrush should be at least 60m, and in a mosaic design maximizing edge

Management Implications

• Caution should be exercised when conducting these management techniques at different elevations, precipitation regimes, subspecies of big sagebrush, or soil substrates

• Additionally, local sage-grouse seasonal habitats should be known and delineated, as these treatments may not be appropriate for winter or nesting habitat

Take Home Message

Our results suggest a brood-rearing habitat management strategy that, when shrub canopy limits the understory, creates a mosaic of small-scale treatments that maximized edge, creating resource patches that are particularly attractive to broods

Acknowledgements

Terry Messmer PARM

UDWR Committee members

Susan Durham Russ Norvell

Lee Rindlesbacher Ron Daigle

Terron Pickett Chris Perkins

Kevin Labrum Renee Chi

Dwayne Elmore Trapping Team

Volunteers

Paper Published in

The Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):975-985

For copies e-mail me at:

DKD@cc.usu.edu