1 / 33

By: Sarah G. Lupis, Terry A. Messmer, and Todd Black

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Use of Conservation Reserve Program Fields in Utah and Response to Emergency Grazing. By: Sarah G. Lupis, Terry A. Messmer, and Todd Black. Presented By: Wesley Wiegreffe. Introduction: Ranges. Historical Range: (Young et al. 2000) Gunnison Basin of Colorado

ekram
Download Presentation

By: Sarah G. Lupis, Terry A. Messmer, and Todd Black

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Use of Conservation Reserve Program Fields in Utah and Response to Emergency Grazing By: Sarah G. Lupis, Terry A. Messmer, and Todd Black Presented By: Wesley Wiegreffe

  2. Introduction: Ranges • Historical Range: (Young et al. 2000) • Gunnison Basin of Colorado • Northern New Mexico • Northeastern Arizona • Current Range and Numbers: • Eight Populations • < 5000 breeding birds • Colorado and Utah

  3. Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus)

  4. Introduction: Utah Range • San Juan County • Inhabit 13,625 km² in within Utah • 90% of range privately owned and in agricultural production (Mitchell and Maxfield 2000)

  5. Introduction: Conservation • San Juan County Gunnison Sage-Grouse Working Group • Conservation Reserve Program • Food Security Act 1985 • 21,600 acres • Cost: $1.2 million / Income: $1.0 million

  6. Introduction: Conditions • 2002 – Severe Drought • CRP opened to domestic grazing of livestock • Option every five years • Must have 40% loss in moisture • (D. Christenson, Farm Service Agency)

  7. Introduction: Effects • Grazing may be factor in range declines₁ • Destruction of sage-brush (Artemisia spp.)₂ • Deterioration of habitat by grazing₂ • Trampled eggs₂ • Avoidance of grazed areas₂ 1(Johnsgaurd 1973, Connelly and Braune1997) 2( Beck and Mitchell 2000)

  8. Introduction: Effects • Possible Positive Direct Effects (Beck & Mitchell 2000) • Use of light-moderate grazed areas • Stimulated food growth • Recovery of forbs under rest-rotation system

  9. Objectives • Study grouse habitat-use patterns relative to other available habitats • Determine if CRP achieve desired vegetation cover conditions • Monitoring of Gunnison-Sage Grouse response to grazing practice

  10. Study Area • 2,417 kms² • Active lek sites • Grassland and • sagebrush • 60% CRP

  11. Methods: Radiotelemetry • Capture (Mar and Apr 2001 & 2002) • 10:00 pm – 6:00am • Spotlighting • Net/Net gun from vehicle • Necklace-style radio collar (19 hrs on/15 hrs off)

  12. Methods: Radiotelemetry • Located Birds May and Sept 2001 and 2002 3x a week • Radio receivers, 3-element handheld Yagi antennae, omni antennae • Minimized nest abandonment • Visual identification with binoculars • Recorded: date, time, sex, # birds, cover • Nest successful: > 1 egg hatched • Brood successful: > 1 chick survive 50 days posthatch

  13. Methods: CRP Usage • Data analyzed at two scales: • Landscape scale • Bird-use (selected) sites • land used in greater proportion than available • Vegetation Sampling • Two perpendicular 20 meter transects • Visual estimation of cover using Daubenmire frame • (Daubenmire 1959)

  14. Methods:Grazing Response • Field Boundaries Mapped • ArcView GIS 3.2 • Natural Recourse Conservation Service provided: • CRP field location • Biomass estimates • Stocking rates • Measured vegetation on both grazed and ungrazed fields

  15. Methods: Data Analysis • Landscape scale • Chi Squared Analysis – goodness of fit • Observed usage vs. Expected usage • Equal access to all parts of Concentrated Zone assumed • All test considered significant at p < 0.05

  16. Results: Birds & Nests • 2001 • Captured 4 Males/1 Female • 1 Male Death • 2002 • Captured 3 Males/5 Females • 1 Male Death • Three Hens Nested • All nests successful • 2 broods successful

  17. Results: Vegetation Data

  18. Results: Brood Cover • 2001 • Chi Squared: 0.058 • P< 1 • CRP not selected for • 2002 • Chi Squared: 7.674 • P< 0.10 • CRP not selected for

  19. Results: Male Cover • 2001 • Chi Squared: 0.194 • P < 1 • CRP not selected for • 2002 • Chi Squared: 7.856 • P < 1 • CRP not selected for

  20. Results: Stocking Rates & Biomass Four Fields Grazed in 2002 (provided by NRCS)

  21. Results: Male Response • Before in all fields: 43% (18/42) occurrence • Cattle Present: • Field 1 – 18% (2/11) • Field 2 – 0% • Field 3 – 0% • Field 4 – 38% (3/8) • Avoidance of grazed fields during and after

  22. Results: Broodless Response • Before in all fields: 56% (14/25) occurrence • Cattle Present: • Field 1 – 8% (1/12) • Field 2 – 5% (1/19) • Field 3 – 0% • Field 4 – 0% • Avoidance of grazed fields during and after

  23. Results: Brood Response • Brooding Hen Located in Field 1 throughout study • Before: 50% • After: 72.7% (8/11)

  24. Results: Brood Cover Usage

  25. Conclusions • No statistical evidence to support that Gunnison Sage-Grouse select for CRP lands • CRP did not meet the guidelines recommended for cover by the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangwide Steering Committee 2005) • Less shrub present (3-10%) than recommended (10-40%)

  26. Conclusions • Gunnison Sage-Grouse movement and habitat usage were related to actual presence of livestock and only temporarily displaced • Decrease in use of land during occupation of cattle • 2003-2004 return to CRP land that was previously grazed (S. Ward, Utah State University, Unpublished Data)

  27. Management Implications • CRP has provided protection for Greater Sage-Grouse in Washington (Schroeder at al. 2000) and it provides year-round protection (Hays et al. 1998) • This paper further supports need for sustained CRP land over long term and sagebrush management

  28. Management Implications • Loss of CRP land could result in loss of habitat, increasing mortality by concentrating birds in marginable habitat • Seasonal Livestock grazing of CRP lands should rotate usage to provide areas for breeding in spring and summer • Livestock grazing could be used as a method to increase sage canopy cover (Crawford et al. 2004)

  29. Connection to Class Material • Gunnison Sage-Grouse are listed as an endangered species by both IUCN and ESA • Narrow Geographic Range • Few Populations • Small Populations • This study represents an effort to manage for this species based on its: • Ecology • Impact of Humans

  30. Connection to Class Material • Example of National Conservation • Conservation Reserve Program is a service provided by the Farm Service Agency, which is a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture • Type of Protected Area • Habitat/Species Management Area – land set aside for scientific research, management and monitoring but can be harvested

  31. Connection to Class Material • CRP manages for the defragmentation of this population of this population of Gunnison Sage-Grouse • Leasing of CRP land could result in an example of the Tragedy of the Commons • Extirpation of population by cattle • Cost to rancher communized while the profits are privatized

  32. Questions?

More Related