A meta‐analysis of lesser prairie‐chicken nesting and brood‐rearing habitats: Implications for habitat management. (5th August 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hagen, Christian A.; Grisham, Blake A.; Boal, Clint W.; Haukos, David A.
• Is Part Of: Wildlife Society bulletin. Volume 37:Number 4(2013:Dec.)
• Page Start: 750
• Page End: 758
• Publication Date: 2013-08-05
• Subjects: Wildlife management -- Periodicals; Wildlife conservation -- Periodicals; 333.9540973
• DOI: 10.1002/wsb.313
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0091-7648

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en"> <title>ABSTRACT</title> <sec id="wsb313-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <p>The distribution and range of lesser prairie‐chicken (<italic>Tympanuchus pallidicinctus</italic>) has been reduced by >90% since European settlement of the Great Plains of North America. Currently, lesser prairie‐chickens occupy 3 general vegetation communities: sand sagebrush (<italic>Artemisia filifolia</italic>), sand shinnery oak (<italic>Quercus havardii</italic>), and mixed‐grass prairies juxtaposed with Conservation Reserve Program grasslands. As a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act, there is a need for a synthesis that characterizes habitat structure rangewide. Thus, we conducted a meta‐analysis of vegetation characteristics at nest sites and brood habitats to determine whether there was an overall effect (Hedges' <italic>d</italic>) of habitat selection and to estimate average (95% CI) habitat characteristics at use sites. We estimated effect sizes (<italic>d</italic><sub><italic>i</italic></sub>) from the difference between use (nests and brood sites) and random sampling sites for each study (<italic>n</italic> = 14), and derived an overall effect size (<italic>d</italic><sub>++</sub>). There was a general effect for habitat selection as evidenced by low levels of variation in effect sizes across studies and regions. There was a small to medium effect (<italic>d</italic><sub>++</sub> = 0.20–0.82) of selection for greater vertical structure (visual obstruction) by nesting females in both vegetation communities, and selection against bare ground (<italic>d</italic><sub>++</sub> = 0.20–0.58). Females with broods exhibited less selectivity for habitat components except for vertical structure. The variation of <italic>d</italic><sub>++</sub> was greater during nesting than brooding periods, signifying a seasonal shift in habitat use, and perhaps a greater range of tolerance for brood‐rearing habitat. The overall estimates of vegetation cover were consistent with those provided in management guidelines for the species. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.</p> </sec> </abstract>