The importance of seasonal resource selection when managing a threatened species: targeting conservation actions within critical habitat designations for the Gunnison sage-grouse

Abstract Context. The ability to identify priority habitat is critical for species of conservation concern. The designation of critical habitat under the US Endangered Species Act 1973 identifies areas occupied by the species that are important for conservation and may need special management or protection. However, relatively few species’ critical habitats designations incorporate habitat suitability models or seasonal specificity, even when that information exists. Gunnison sage-grouse (GUSG) have declined substantially from their historical range and were listed as threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in November 2014. GUSG are distributed into eight isolated populations in Colorado and Utah, and one population, the Gunnison Basin (GB), has been the focus of much research. Aims. To provide season-specific resource selection models to improve targeted conservation actions within the designated critical habitat in the GB. Methods. We utilised radio-telemetry data from GUSG captured and monitored from 2004 to 2010. We were able to estimate resource selection models for the breeding (1 April–15 July) and summer (16 July–30 September) seasons in the GB using vegetation, topographical and anthropogenic variables. We compared the seasonal models with the existing critical habitat to investigate whether the more specific seasonal models helped identify priority habitat for GUSG. Key results. The predictive surface for the breeding model indicated higher use of large areas of sagebrush, whereas the predictive surface for the summer model predicted use of more diverse habitats. The breeding and summer models (combined) matched the current critical habitat designation 68.5% of the time. We found that although the overall habitat was similar between the critical habitat designation and our combined models, the pattern and configuration of the habitat were very different. Conclusions. These models highlight areas with favourable environmental variables and spatial juxtaposition to establish priority habitat within the critical habitat designated by USFWS. More seasonally specific resource selection models will assist in identifying specific areas within the critical habitat designation to concentrate habitat improvements, conservation and restoration within the GB. Implications. This information can be used to provide insight into the patterns of seasonal habitat selection and can identify priority GUSG habitat to incorporate into critical habitat designation for targeted management actions.

[1]  Stuart L. Pimm,et al.  Critical Habitat and the Role of Peer Review in Government Decisions , 2012 .

[2]  M. Hooten,et al.  An integrated modeling approach to estimating Gunnison sage-grouse population dynamics: combining index and demographic data , 2014, Ecology and evolution.

[3]  B. Walker,et al.  Mapping and prioritizing seasonal habitats for greater sage‐grouse in Northwestern Colorado , 2016 .

[4]  Omri Allouche,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS) , 2006 .

[5]  H. Schielzeth Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients , 2010 .

[6]  A. Davis,et al.  Nest Success of Gunnison Sage-Grouse in Colorado, USA , 2015, PloS one.

[7]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species , 2015, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  C. Aldridge,et al.  Daily nest survival rates of Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus): assessing local- and landscape-scale drivers , 2015 .

[9]  U. Fish Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants , 1987 .

[10]  Mevin B Hooten,et al.  Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use-availability design. , 2013, Ecology.

[11]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans: Key Findings and Recommendations of the SCB Recovery Plan Project , 2002 .

[12]  J. Wiens,et al.  Conservation‐reliant species and the future of conservation , 2010 .

[13]  Temporal and hierarchical spatial components of animal occurrence: conserving seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse , 2012 .

[14]  B. Manly,et al.  Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. , 1994 .

[15]  Anthony D. Apa,et al.  DISTRIBUTION OF SAGE-GROUSE IN NORTH AMERICA , 2004 .

[16]  C. Braun,et al.  A NEW SPECIES OF SAGE-GROUSE (PHASIANIDAE: CENTROCERCUS) FROM SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO , 2000 .

[17]  RYAN M. NIELSON,et al.  Habitat Selection of Rocky Mountain Elk in a Nonforested Environment , 2007 .

[18]  C. Aldridge,et al.  Crucial Nesting Habitat for Gunnison Sage-Grouse: A Spatially Explicit Hierarchical Approach , 2012 .

[19]  Cameron L. Aldridge,et al.  Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[20]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Cross-sectional and temporal relationships between bird occupancy and vegetation cover at multiple spatial scales. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[21]  S. Cushman,et al.  Spatiotemporal variation in resource selection: insights from the American marten (Martes americana). , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[22]  J. Connelly,et al.  Characteristics of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats: A Landscape Species at Micro-and Macroscales , 2011 .

[23]  Jan Bogaert,et al.  Multivariate statistics for wildlife and ecology research , 2001 .

[24]  Cameron L. Aldridge,et al.  Habitat prioritization across large landscapes, multiple seasons, and novel areas: An example using greater sage‐grouse in Wyoming , 2014 .

[25]  K. Burnham,et al.  INFLUENCE OF CHANGES IN SAGEBRUSH ON GUNNISON SAGE GROUSE IN SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO , 2001 .

[26]  H. Possingham,et al.  Can multiscale models of species’ distribution be generalized from region to region? A case study of the koala , 2008 .

[27]  Eve McDonald-Madden,et al.  Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions , 2013, Ecology letters.

[28]  P. Weiland,et al.  Guidance on the Use of Best Available Science under the U.S. Endangered Species Act , 2016, Environmental Management.

[29]  C. Braun,et al.  Topographic Distribution of Sage Grouse Foraging in Winter , 1989 .

[30]  F. Chapin,et al.  Putting local knowledge and context to work for Gunnison sage-grouse conservation , 2013 .

[31]  Trevor S. Wiens,et al.  Three way k-fold cross-validation of resource selection functions , 2008 .

[32]  M. Rice,et al.  Analysis of regional species distribution models based on radio‐telemetry datasets from multiple small‐scale studies , 2013 .

[33]  R. Halvorsen,et al.  Species distribution modelling—Effect of design and sample size of pseudo-absence observations , 2011 .

[34]  D. Naugle,et al.  Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat: The Importance of Managing at Multiple Scales , 2010 .

[35]  M. Wisdom,et al.  Factors Associated with Extirpation of Sage-Grouse , 2011 .

[36]  W. Baker,et al.  Historical fire in sagebrush landscapes of the Gunnison sage-grouse range from land-survey records. , 2013 .

[37]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park , 2003 .

[38]  C. Niemitz,et al.  Habitat selection models for European wildcat conservation , 2008 .

[39]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales , 2004 .

[40]  J. Connelly,et al.  Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. , 2000 .