Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in Utah by David K. Dahlgren Renee Y. Chi Terry A. Messmer Utah State University

1
Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush
management in Utah byDavid K. DahlgrenRenee
Y. ChiTerry A. MessmerUtah State University
2
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
3
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 Utahs 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)

4
Study Area Parker Mountain
Vegetation CharacteristicsSage-grouse Use
(elevations)Livestock GrazingPrecipitation
RegimesParker Lake Pasture- Brood-rearing
habitat- preliminary conditions
5
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

6
Dixie Harrow
Photo by Larry Greenwood http//www.blm.gov/nstc/r
esourcenotes/rn75.html
Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher
7
Lawson Aerator
Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher
8
Methods Use Pellet Count
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

40.5 ha Plot
9
Methods Use Birddog Survey
Parker Mountain Sage Boomera.k.a. Parker

• 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)

Transect
40.5 ha plot
My Little Buddy IIIa.k.a. Buddy
10
Time Line
June and July-post treatment sampling all plots
August-pretreatment sampling Mechanicals and
control
July-pretreatment sampling Spike and control
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
July-pretreatment sampling grass and forb for
mechanicals
Fall-Dixie harrow and Lawson aerator application
July and August-Birddog Surveys and Pellet counts
Fall-Spike application
Regular Grazing Regimes
Regular Grazing Regimes
Parker Lake Pasture rested, except for incidental
late fall grazing
11
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
  lt0.05 comparing treatments
• Birddog Surveys ANOVA with a P lt0.05 comparing
  treatments
• Variables Total Grouse and Total Broods

12
Results Treatment
Spike 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 lt 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 lt 0.01) Dandelion Cover
(all plots) (F 2.60, P 0.10) moderate
13
Results Use Pellet Count

• Pellets found in ARNO, ARTR, ARCA, Aspen, and
  Treatment, but only ARNO, ARTR, and Treatment
  used in analysis

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
14
Results Use Birddog Survey
Total Sage-grouse
Comparisons P value C-S lt0.01 C-D 0.14 C-L 0.09
S-D 0.03 S-L 0.05 D-L 0.79
15
Results UseBirddog Survey
Brood Use
Comparisons P value C-S lt0.01 C-D 0.30 C-L 0.19
S-D lt0.01 S-L lt0.01 D-L 0.77
16
Results-Distance to Edge

• Plot type Drop off
• Dixie harrow (treated) 20-30m
• Dixie harrow (untreated) 20-30m
• Lawson aerator (treated) gt80m
• Lawson aerator (untreated) 30-40m
• Tebuthiuron (treated) 40-50m
• Tebuthiuron (untreated) 20-30m
• Control 20-30m

17
Results Distance to Edge

• examples of histograms

18
Discussion
Treatment
- Shrub Canopy decreased to within sage-grouse
brood rearing guidelines (10 25 )
(Connelly et al. 2000)
Treatment
19
Discussion
Treatment
- Forb Cover increased with Spike and Dixie
compared to control
Treatment
20
Discussion

• Lawson aerator problems
• Distance to Edge data suggest sage-grouse prefer
  edge habitat (lt 30m) while using treatment areas,
  and adjacent intact sagebrush
• -Sage-grouse in general and broods specifically
  preferred Spike plotsWhy?
• 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

21
Management Implications

• All treatments can achieve shrub canopy
  guidelines for brood-rearing habitat if initial
  conditions are gt 25 Shrub canopy
• Dixie harrow and Spike can be used to increase
  forb cover, which is the most important component
  of brood-rearing habitat

22
Management Implications
gtWhen applying spike a low rate (we used 0.3
active ingredient) should be used to have a
partial sagebrush kill
gtWe 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
23
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

24
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

25
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_at_cc.usu.edu