Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation

Abstract Recent research suggested greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage‐grouse) fence collision may be widespread, and fence‐marking methods have been developed for reducing prairie‐grouse collision in sagebrush‐steppe habitats. However, research also suggested sage‐grouse...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bryan S. Stevens, David E. Naugle, Brian Dennis, John W. Connelly, Tim Griffiths, Kerry P. Reese
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2013-06-01
Series:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.273
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850257277706043392
author Bryan S. Stevens
David E. Naugle
Brian Dennis
John W. Connelly
Tim Griffiths
Kerry P. Reese
author_facet Bryan S. Stevens
David E. Naugle
Brian Dennis
John W. Connelly
Tim Griffiths
Kerry P. Reese
author_sort Bryan S. Stevens
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Recent research suggested greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage‐grouse) fence collision may be widespread, and fence‐marking methods have been developed for reducing prairie‐grouse collision in sagebrush‐steppe habitats. However, research also suggested sage‐grouse collision was highly variable, and managers implementing mitigation desire targeting tools to prioritize mitigation efforts as a function of risk. We fit collision‐risk models using widely available covariates to a sage‐grouse fence‐collision data set from Idaho, USA, and developed spatially explicit versions of the top model for all known sage‐grouse breeding habitats (i.e., within 3 km of leks) in 10 of 11 western states where sage‐grouse are found. Our models prioritize breeding habitats for mitigation as a function of terrain ruggedness and distance to nearest lek, and suggest that a relatively small proportion of the total landscape (6–14%) in each state would result in >1 collision over a lekking season. Managers can use resulting models to prioritize fence‐marking by focusing efforts on high risk landscapes. Moreover, our models provide a spatially explicit tool to efficiently target conservation investments, and exemplify the way that researchers and managers can work together to turn scientific understanding into effective conservation solutions. © The Wildlife Society, 2013
format Article
id doaj-art-9c186de4045c465585edd4f33199bfe6
institution OA Journals
issn 2328-5540
language English
publishDate 2013-06-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Wildlife Society Bulletin
spelling doaj-art-9c186de4045c465585edd4f33199bfe62025-08-20T01:56:28ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402013-06-0137240941510.1002/wsb.273Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementationBryan S. Stevens0David E. Naugle1Brian Dennis2John W. Connelly3Tim Griffiths4Kerry P. Reese5Departments of Fish and Wildlife Sciences and Statistical SciencesUniversity of IdahoP.O. Box 441136Moscow, ID83844USAWildlife Biology ProgramUniversity of MontanaMissoula, MT59812USADepartments of Fish and Wildlife Sciences and Statistical SciencesUniversity of IdahoP.O. Box 441136Moscow, ID83844USAIdaho Department of Fish and Game1345 Barton RoadPocatello, ID83204USAUnited States Department of AgricultureNatural Resources Conservation Service10 E Babcock StreetBozeman, MT59718USADepartment of Fish and Wildlife SciencesUniversity of IdahoP.O. Box 441136Moscow, ID83844USAAbstract Recent research suggested greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage‐grouse) fence collision may be widespread, and fence‐marking methods have been developed for reducing prairie‐grouse collision in sagebrush‐steppe habitats. However, research also suggested sage‐grouse collision was highly variable, and managers implementing mitigation desire targeting tools to prioritize mitigation efforts as a function of risk. We fit collision‐risk models using widely available covariates to a sage‐grouse fence‐collision data set from Idaho, USA, and developed spatially explicit versions of the top model for all known sage‐grouse breeding habitats (i.e., within 3 km of leks) in 10 of 11 western states where sage‐grouse are found. Our models prioritize breeding habitats for mitigation as a function of terrain ruggedness and distance to nearest lek, and suggest that a relatively small proportion of the total landscape (6–14%) in each state would result in >1 collision over a lekking season. Managers can use resulting models to prioritize fence‐marking by focusing efforts on high risk landscapes. Moreover, our models provide a spatially explicit tool to efficiently target conservation investments, and exemplify the way that researchers and managers can work together to turn scientific understanding into effective conservation solutions. © The Wildlife Society, 2013https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.273avian collisionCentrocercus urophasianuscollision mitigationfence collisionfence markersinfrastructure marking
spellingShingle Bryan S. Stevens
David E. Naugle
Brian Dennis
John W. Connelly
Tim Griffiths
Kerry P. Reese
Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation
Wildlife Society Bulletin
avian collision
Centrocercus urophasianus
collision mitigation
fence collision
fence markers
infrastructure marking
title Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation
title_full Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation
title_fullStr Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation
title_full_unstemmed Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation
title_short Mapping sage‐grouse fence‐collision risk: Spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation
title_sort mapping sage grouse fence collision risk spatially explicit models for targeting conservation implementation
topic avian collision
Centrocercus urophasianus
collision mitigation
fence collision
fence markers
infrastructure marking
url https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.273
work_keys_str_mv AT bryansstevens mappingsagegrousefencecollisionriskspatiallyexplicitmodelsfortargetingconservationimplementation
AT davidenaugle mappingsagegrousefencecollisionriskspatiallyexplicitmodelsfortargetingconservationimplementation
AT briandennis mappingsagegrousefencecollisionriskspatiallyexplicitmodelsfortargetingconservationimplementation
AT johnwconnelly mappingsagegrousefencecollisionriskspatiallyexplicitmodelsfortargetingconservationimplementation
AT timgriffiths mappingsagegrousefencecollisionriskspatiallyexplicitmodelsfortargetingconservationimplementation
AT kerrypreese mappingsagegrousefencecollisionriskspatiallyexplicitmodelsfortargetingconservationimplementation