Strategic conservation for lesser prairie-chickens among landscapes of varying anthropogenic influence

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSullins, Daniel S.en
dc.contributor.authorHaukos, David A.en
dc.contributor.authorLautenbach, Joseph M.en
dc.contributor.authorLautenbach, Jonathan D.en
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Samantha G.en
dc.contributor.authorRice, Mindy B.en
dc.contributor.authorSandercock, Brett K.en
dc.contributor.authorKraft, John D.en
dc.contributor.authorPlumb, Reid T.en
dc.contributor.authorReitz, Jonathan H.en
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, J. M. Shawnen
dc.contributor.authorHagen, Christian A.en
dc.contributor.departmentFish and Wildlife Conservationen
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-12T17:46:08Zen
dc.date.available2020-06-12T17:46:08Zen
dc.date.issued2019-10en
dc.description.abstractFor millennia grasslands have provided a myriad of ecosystem services and have been coupled with human resource use. The loss of 46% of grasslands worldwide necessitates the need for conservation that is spatially, temporally, and socioeconomically strategic. In the Southern Great Plains of the United States, conversion of native grasslands to cropland, woody encroachment, and establishment of vertical anthropogenic features have made large intact grasslands rare for lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). However, it remains unclear how the spatial distribution of grasslands and anthropogenic features constrain populations and influence conservation. We estimated the distribution of lesser prairie-chickens using data from individuals marked with GPS transmitters in Kansas and Colorado, USA, and empirically derived relationships with anthropogenic structure densities and grassland composition. Our model suggested decreased probability of use in 2-km radius (12.6 km(2)) landscapes that had greater than two vertical features, two oil wells, 8 km of county roads, and 0.15 km of major roads or transmission lines. Predicted probability of use was greatest in 5-km radius landscapes that were 77% grassland. Based on our model predictions, similar to 10% of the current expected lesser prairie-chicken distribution was available as habitat. We used our estimated species distribution to provide spatially explicit prescriptions for CRP enrollment and tree removal in locations most likely to benefit lesser prairie-chickens. Spatially incentivized CRP sign up has the potential to provide 4189 km2 of additional habitat and strategic application of tree removal has the potential to restore 1154 km(2). Tree removal and CRP enrollment are conservation tools that can align with landowner goals and are much more likely to be effective on privately owned working lands.en
dc.description.adminPublic domain – authored by a U.S. government employeeen
dc.description.notesWe thank Kent Fricke, three anonymous reviewers, and the associate editor for providing reviews that improved the quality of the manuscript. We thank K. Schultz and A. Chappell for capturing and providing GPS data from lesser prairie-chickens captured on the Cimarron National Grasslands. 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, and A. A. Flanders. 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. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.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 [12-IA-MRE CRP TA, KSCFWRU RWO 62, 7]; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiativeen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108213en
dc.identifier.eissn1873-2917en
dc.identifier.issn0006-3207en
dc.identifier.otherUNSP 108213en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/98835en
dc.identifier.volume238en
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.subjectGrasslanden
dc.subjectPrairie grouseen
dc.subjectRandom Foresten
dc.subjectSpecies distributionen
dc.subjectWorking landsen
dc.titleStrategic conservation for lesser prairie-chickens among landscapes of varying anthropogenic influenceen
dc.title.serialBiological Conservationen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
dc.type.dcmitypeStillImageen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S0006320719302691-main.pdf
Size:
3.71 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Fish and Wildlife Conservation