Greater sage‐grouse juvenile survival in Utah. Issue 5 (29th May 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Caudill, Danny; Messmer, Terry A.; Bibles, Brent; Guttery, Michael R.
• Is Part Of: Journal of wildlife management. Volume 78:Issue 5(2014)
• Page Start: 808
• Page End: 817
• Publication Date: 2014-05-29
• Subjects: Wildlife management -- Periodicals; Zoology -- Periodicals; 333.954
• DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.724
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-541X

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en"> <title>ABSTRACT</title> <sec id="jwmg724-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <p>Greater sage‐grouse (<italic>Centrocercus urophasianus</italic>; sage‐grouse) adult hen and juvenile survival have been shown to have significant influence on population growth rates. However, assessing the sensitivity of population growth rates to variability in juvenile survival has proven difficult because of limited information concerning the potentially important demographic rate. Sage‐grouse survival rates are commonly assessed using necklace‐type radio transmitters. Recent technological advances have lead to increased interest in the deployment of dorsally mounted global positioning system (GPS) transmitters for studying sage‐grouse ecology. However, the use of dorsally mounted transmitters has not been thoroughly evaluated for sage‐grouse, leading to concern that birds fitted with these transmitters may experience differential mortality rates. We evaluated the effect of transmitter positioning (dorsal vs. necklace) on juvenile sage‐grouse survival using a controlled experimental design with necklace‐style and suture‐backpack very high frequency (VHF) transmitters. To evaluate the effects of temporal variation, sex, and transmitter type on juvenile sage‐grouse survival, we monitored 91 juveniles captured in south‐central Utah from 2008 to 2010. We instrumented 19 females with backpacks, 14 males with backpacks, 39 females with necklaces, and 19 males with necklaces. We used Program MARK to analyze juvenile survival data. Although effects were only marginally significant from a statistical perspective, sex (<italic>P</italic> = 0.103) and transmitter type (<italic>P</italic> = 0.09) were deemed to have biologically meaningful impacts on survival. Dorsally mounted transmitters appeared to negatively affected daily survival (<italic>β</italic><sub>transmitter type</sub> = −0.55, SE = 0.32). Temporal variation in juvenile sage‐grouse daily survival was best described by a quadratic trend in time, where daily survival was lowest in late September and was high overwinter. An interaction between the quadratic trend in time and year resulted in the low point of daily survival shifting within the season between years (27 vs. 17 Sep for 2008 and 2009, respectively). Overall (15 Aug–31 Mar) derived survival ranged 0.42–0.62 for females and 0.23–0.44 for males. For all years pooled, the probability death was due to predation was 0.73, reported harvest was 0.16, unreported harvest was 0.09, and other undetermined factors was 0.02. We observed 0% and 6.8% crippling loss (from hunting) in 2008 and 2009, respectively. We recommend the adoption of harvest management strategies that attempt to shift harvest away from juveniles and incorporate crippling rates. In addition, future survival studies on juvenile sage‐grouse should use caution if implementing dorsally mounted transmitters because of the potential for experimental bias. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.</p> </sec> </abstract>