Demographic Consequences of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands for Lesser Prairie-Chickens

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSullins, Daniel S.en
dc.contributor.authorKraft, John D.en
dc.contributor.authorHaukos, David A.en
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Samantha G.en
dc.contributor.authorReitz, Jonathan H.en
dc.contributor.authorPlumb, Reid T.en
dc.contributor.authorLautenbach, Joseph M.en
dc.contributor.authorLautenbach, Jonathan D.en
dc.contributor.authorSandercock, Brett K.en
dc.contributor.authorHagen, Christian A.en
dc.contributor.departmentFish and Wildlife Conservationen
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-02T14:54:03Zen
dc.date.available2020-07-02T14:54:03Zen
dc.date.issued2018-11en
dc.description.abstractKnowledge of landscape and regional circumstances where conservation programs are successful on working lands inagricultural production are needed. Convertingmarginal croplands to grasslands using conservation programs such as the United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) should be beneficial for many grassland-obligate wildlife species; however, addition of CRP grasslands may result indifferent population effects based on regional climate, characteristics of the surrounding landscape, or species planted or established. Within landscapes occupied by lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), CRP may provide habitat only for specific life stages and habitat selection for CRP may vary between wet and dry years. Among all study sites, we captured and fitted 280 female lesser prairie-chickens with very high frequency (VHF)- and global positioning system (GPS) transmitters during the spring lekking seasons of 2013-2015 to monitor habitat selection for CRP in regions of varying climate. We also estimated vital rates and habitat selection for 148 individuals, using sites in northwest Kansas, USA. The greatest ecological services of CRP became apparent when examining habitat selection and densities. Nest densities were approximately 3 times greater in CRP grasslands than native working grasslands (i.e., grazed), demonstrating a population-level benefit (CRP = 6.0 nests/10 km(2) +/- 1.29 [ SE], native working grassland = 1.7 nests/10 km(2) +/- 0.62). However, CRP supporting high nest density did not provide brood habitat; 85% of females with broods surviving to 7 days moved their young to other cover types. Regression analyses indicated lesser prairie-chickens were approximately 8 times more likely to use CRP when 5,000-ha landscapes were 70% rather than 20% grassland, indicating variation in the level of ecological services provided by CRP was dependent upon composition of the larger landscape. Further, CRP grasslands were 1.7 times more likely to be used by lesser prairie-chickens in regions receiving 40 cm compared to 70 cm of average annual precipitation and during years of greater drought intensity. Demographic and resource selection analyses revealed that establishing CRP grasslands in northwest Kansas can increase the amount nesting habitat in a region where it may have previously been limited, thereby providing refugia to sustain populations through periods of extreme drought. Nest survival, adult survival during breeding, and nonbreeding season survival did not vary between lesser prairie-chickens that used and did not use CRP grasslands. The finite rate of population growth was also similar for birds using CRP and using only native working grasslands, suggesting that CRP provides habitat similar to that of native working grassland in this region. Overall, lesser prairie-chickens may thrive in landscapes that are a mosaic of native working grassland, CRP grassland, with a minimal amount of cropland, particularly when nesting and brood habitat are in close proximity. (C) 2018 The Wildlife Societyen
dc.description.adminPublic domain – authored by a U.S. government employeeen
dc.description.notesAny use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the United States Government. We thank R. D. Rodgers for providing comments and edits on a previous draft of the manuscript. B. Anderson, S. Baker, S. Bard, G. Brinkman, K. Broadfoot, R. Cooper, J. Danner, J. Decker, E. D. Entsminger, R. M. Galvin, N. Gilbert, A. Godar, G. Gould, B. Hardy, S.P. Hoffman, D. Holt, B. M. Irle, T. Karish, A. Klais, H. Kruckman, K. Kuechle, S. J. Lane, E. A. Leipold, J. Letlebo, E. Mangelinckx, L. McCall, A. Nichter, K. Phillips, J. K. Proescholdt, J. Rabon, T. Reed, A. Rhodes, B. E. Ross, D. Spencer, A. M. Steed, A. E. Swicegood, P. Waldron, B. A. Walter, I. Waters, W. J. White, E. Wiens, J. B. Yantachka, and A. Zarazua, provided much needed assistance with data collection. We greatly appreciate the logistic and technical support provided by J. C. Pitman, J. Kramer, M. Mitchener, D. K. Dahlgren, J. A. Prendergast, C. Berens, G. Kramos, A. A. Flanders, and S. Hyberg. Funding for the project was provided by Kansas Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (Federal Assistance Grant KS W-73-R-3); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Services CRP Monitoring, Assessment, and Evaluation (12-IA-MRE CRP TA#7, KSCFWRU RWO 62); and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative.en
dc.description.sponsorshipKansas Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (Federal Assistance Grant) [KS W-73-R-3]; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Services CRP Monitoring, Assessment, and Evaluation [7, KSCFWRU RWO 62]; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiativeen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21553en
dc.identifier.eissn1937-2817en
dc.identifier.issn0022-541Xen
dc.identifier.issue8en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/99228en
dc.identifier.volume82en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsCreative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/en
dc.subjectConservation Reserve Programen
dc.subjectdemographyen
dc.subjectlandscape effectsen
dc.subjectlesser prairie-chickenen
dc.subjectnest densityen
dc.subjectpopulationen
dc.subjectresource selectionen
dc.subjectstrategic conservationen
dc.subjectsurvivalen
dc.titleDemographic Consequences of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands for Lesser Prairie-Chickensen
dc.title.serialJournal of Wildlife Managementen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
dc.type.dcmitypeStillImageen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
jwmg.21553.pdf
Size:
801.76 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Fish and Wildlife Conservation