Results from the 2013 Breeding Season for Lesser Prairie-Chickens in Kansas and Colorado

1. Results from the 2013 Breeding Season for Lesser Prairie-Chickens in Kansas and Colorado

2. Red Hills (SC Kansas) • ~ 40, 000 acres • Mixed Grass • Large pasture grasslands • NW Kansas • ~ 80,000 acres • Short Grass • Mosaic • Colorado • Sand Sage, Grassland, CRP, Ag, Cattle • Short Grass • ~ 50,000 acres

3. Methods • Capture • Lek sites • Fitted with VHF and GPS transmitters

4. Methods • Tracking • VHF: 4 times a week • Triangulation • SAT: ~8 GPS pts/day • Argos

5. Methods • Monitor females • Survival and location • Locate nests • Same location for 3+ days • VHF transmitters • GPS transmitters • Monitor nests • Radio telemetry • Monitor GPS locations • Remotely monitored • Monitored until hatched or failed

6. Methods • Vegetation measurements • Estimate % cover • Litter • Grass • Forbs • Bare ground • Shrubs • Visual obstruction reading (VOR) • Robel pole • Same measurements taken at paired random points

7. Results

8. Results

9. Results

10. Results • April • Random movement pattern • May • Nest initiation • Centralization • June • Nest was depredated • 6 km move • 3 days • Localizes again 6 km

11. Results

12. Results • Nest Depredation • Successful Nest Vs.

13. Results 11 km 15 km

15. Figure 2. Derived breeding season (Mar-Aug ,2013) survival estimates of female lesser prairie-chickens for each region studied. Figure 3. Female lesser prairie-chicken survival probabilities for three periods during the 2013 breeding season (Mar-Aug) in Kansas and E Colorado. Figure 4. 2013 breeding season (Mar-Aug) mortality distribution for female lesser prairie-chickens by week in NW Kansas. Figure 5. Derived breeding season (Mar-Aug, 2013) survival estimates for adult and juvenile female lesser prairie-chickens.

19. Results • 61 nests monitored • Red Hills — 20 • (8 successful) • Colorado — 4 • (1 successful) • Northwest — 37 • (6 successful) • 35 (57.4%) nests lost to predation • 6 renest attempts • 66.6% lost to predation

20. Results

21. Results

22. Results

23. Results Daily Survival Rate Visual Obstruction (dm)

24. Results • Predictions • Greater VOR • Greater grass • Females selected for areas of greater visual obstruction • Mean VOR at nests = 1.33 dm • Mean VOR at paired points = 0.65 dm • p < 0.0001 • % Grass cover not selected at a significant level • p = 0.115 • % Bare ground was avoided • Mean % bare ground at nests= 4.06 • Mean % bare ground at paired points=14.0

27. Broods

28. Chicks

29. Classify vegetative land cover type for LEPC range during 1950’s and 1960’s using aerial photography

30. Aerial Photography-Classification • Collect photos from period in 1950’s and 1960’s within range of LEPC • Mosaic photos using Agisoft • Georeference • Transportation shapefiles • “Head’s Up Digitizing” • Anderson 1 Classification Scheme • Agriculture • Rangeland • Urban/Built-Up • Water

31. Agisoft Mosaic 1 Photograph 327 Photographs Logan County, KS 1955

36. Study Objectives • Use occupancy models to quantify LEPC presence on CRP and native prairie habitat • Estimate population parameters in different landscapes

37. Forecasting • Can learn about causes of population change • Also forecast about the future of LEPC • Predict what might happen given climate change and changes in CRP

38. Surveys for LEPC • Surveys conducted twice from March 20 to April 20 since 1964 • Began with 3 routes, increased to 17 • Observer stops every 1.6 km and listens for booming males • Once the 16 km route is finished • Returns to identified leks, • Flushes and • Counts LEPC

39. Incorporating Covariates • Incorporate habitat designations from GIS and remote sensing work • Use climate indicies to account for changes in climate • Palmer Drought Severity Index • Spring and summer temperature

40. Hierarchical Model

41. Expected Results • Estimates of occupancy and lek attendance • Quantify how changes to CRP affects chickens • Predict how changes in CRP will change lek abundance

42. Integrated Population Modeling • Integrated population modeling combines multiple sources of data to make inference • Count data • Harvest data • Banding data • Telemetry data • Data “talk” to each other to provide more precise estimates

43. Integrated Population Modeling • LEPC project has quite a bit of data • Nest success • Counts of leks • Radio and Satellite-telemetry • Combine information to make better inference

44. Integrated Population Modeling Immigration Nadults Nyoung Nest Success Fecundity Adult Survival Known Fate Habitat Data Lek Counts Habitat Data Habitat Data

45. Expected Results • Population estimates and growth rates for chickens utilizing different habitats • Predictions of how changes to habitat will affect abundance and growth rates

46. Future Directions • More data in coming years • Chick and brood survival • Population recruitment • Habitat selection and movements • Invertebrates • Patch relationships • Nests • Movements • Area • Water use • Fence impacts • Historical landscapes • Occupancy Analyses • Investigate differences in populations • Determine space use • Relate to landscape features • Frequency of habitat use • Movements between habitat patches • Duration of patch use • Patch size, shape, or juxtaposition • Anthropogenic impacts