This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Antelope, Sage Grouse, and
Neotropical Migrants
Reg. ~othwell'
The momentum this Partners in Flight initiative has
developed is very impressive. I'm encowaged because, although
it will have its costs, I see it as a potential aid to existing wildlife
management efforts. Here, I will discuss some types of
information that are routinely used by wildlife and habitat
managers for other species. If this same information is made
available for the species that are the subject of the Partners in
Flight program, it can be readily plugged in to existing systems.
Wyoming is experiencing some of the same confusion,
concern, and mixed emotions that are probably being
experienced elsewhere regarding biological diversity and
neotropical migmnb. The concerns over migratory nongame
birds are not limited to the general public and federal agencies.
Among other things state wildlife managers wonder how we can
spread already small budgets even thinner, and they are wonied
that emphasis on these species may impact, conflict wit4 or
compromise traditional management of the "had and butter"
species - game birds and big game. In a frontier state like
Wyoming where we do not have a large population and o w
funding options are limited, these are big concerns. Granted,
even in Wyoming, where we have a surprisingly aclive mngame
pro-gram, there is much additional woik necessary. But, the
d e c k in neotmpical miis becoming an important issue
to the general public and at an international level, focusing
attention on the biological divefiity issue. In addition, matry
federal agencies have made a commitment to address neotropical
mi-grants and biological diversity in documents such as this
BLM publication entitled "Fish and Wildlife 2000". As
managers we should be, and many of us are, managing more
on an ecosystem basis with emphasis on those species that are
economically important, are on the lkeatened or Endangered
Species lists, are appmaching candidacy, or get a lot of public
attention.
I question whether this new initiative will involve a lot of
profound changes in our management h c t i o n Rather, I see
the smng interest in these species as being more impetus to
manage habitats correctly and in a more holistic manner. These
neotropicd mirequk habitat conditions similar to those
necessary within seasonal mnges of big game and game birds.
' S f a f f Biologist, Wyoming Game and Fish D e p a m e n t ,
Cheyenne, WY
They were all here and thriving under natural conditions before
we began our environmental pillaging (albeit, perhaps in
different relative abundances). And, they all are suffering from
the very same habitat impacts. For example, am I referring to
big game, game birds, or songbirds when I say the major
influences on summer breeding habitat in rangelands include
extensive shrub eradication, agricultural land conversion, rural
and u&m development, and overgrazing?
Many people think mainly of bird species that use forested
habitats when they think of neotropical migratory birds. But,
many of these species are in-habitants of grasslands and
rangelands on their summer ranges in North America.
Shrublands, particularly sagebrush habitat, are extremely
important, parhcularly in the West. Johnson et al. (1980) found
that the number of bird species and their population densities
sagebrush and other shrublands are intermediate to numbers and
densities in all other habitats in North America Smith, Nydegger
and Yensen (1984) found that the big sagebrush-winterfat mosaic
had the Righest bird densities of all habitats on the BLM Snake
River Birds of Prey Area in southwestern Idaho. And, Medin's
(1990) research in Nevada's Snake Range showed that
sage-bmsh communities are some of the most valuable nongame
bird breeding habitat in the Great Basin.
To illustrate the compatibility of game and nongame
management, let me give ranges of some habitat characteristics
of several rangeland species (Table 1). Similar comparisons can
be made for grasslands, deciduous forests and conifer habitats.
I want to first point out that in the limited time I had to do
literature searching for this presentation, I had dEculty finding
habitat characterizations for nongame birds. That's one reason
the number of species I used is so limited.
Total vegetation cover: The literature shows
that, of the rangeland species, the lark bunting
has a high percent cover requirement; sage
grouse and mountain plover tolerate little
vegetation cover (Table 1). Pronghorn are
associated with all these species in Wyoming. I[
suspect there's a lot of overlap between species
within extremes demonstrated by these. But, the
infomation is not compiled anywhere I looked,
and I question whether it's available for many
species.
Table b
- Habitat Characteristics, Movements, and Areas Occupied by Shrubland Wildlife Species Documented in the Literature.
VSr.
m
Shrlh
w
Shrh Density
m
Shlrh
W a Rmet
Terrimwf
Heisht <cn)
Y-t
t-ts
PlDyGHDlW
Y o a h a 1978
Autrieth 19T8
Kinschy e t el. 1978
P l m r e t el. 19M
S d t r a e t at. 197J
Mitchell S N L i e l : 1971
Kitchen 1974
Kitchen L O'bare 1982
Beytesa 1%9
50
50
-
2.5
5
2.5
10
5-20
-
c
76
1.000
40-60
7-15
2.5-3.2
2 45
165-PW ha
nursery L bachelor herds
Seasma1 n v m m t s
uinter h n e rwn
1149-2256 ha
Unrr hne
440-1200 ha
18-160 km
loaltm I m z
Cole 1956
U e n t l a d 19611
1= 27.9
renges
F G E GRCUSE
1rrst s i t s
Uinter
Nesting & brmds i n mid-
mner
Varies i n this r a w frm
4ur-sqrt
Slrrer
B m d i w season m l a
Winter & nesting hebitat
Wartin 19iV
UaLLested 6 Schledrailw 1974
u s l l a r 9 1 b Schledrailer 1974
Eng L SehledPiler 1972
1058-3140 ha.
1.6-2.5 b
2.5-2.6 kn
Postovit 1981
Eol-o
e t el. 1984
P e s t w i t 1981
T-m
1991
Uintcr
Wt s i t e
Brmd rearing
Breeding season
West sites.
R
s
d for r r s t i n g
up t o 5-11.W
100-400 1
1.87 !m
Hart et at. 1950
Marks b Marks 1987
narks &Marks 1987
G i a e n 1987
.75-2.52 ha
cx=i . m > 3
Yest s i t e s
F w l e s frrm lek t o nestsite
p.neP
,'
-
Spring
fall
Brmd r e a r i w dr slnner
westing
Lek s i tea
B r d rearing h s m r
Oix 1%1
Ciesen 1987
Mrdle 19n
Wrdlc 19n
Brmd reaflng L r-r
ermd rearing & amnr
Uimer
Lark Bmting/Finch e t al. 1987
Lark B m t i n g i l l ~ l f o l k 1945
90
2
0.7-0.75
Saae Sprrou. saga Thrasher
Brewr's SparrWRich 1980
Brarer's SperrwIBest 19i7
ha
1 mV1.25 hae
1 breeding pir/
0.9-1.6 ha
HEP nrdel
100%nest assoc. wlsagebrush
i n axntaim
*over e n t i r e study arm
1 breeding pair/
1.0-1.2
ha
Bmer's Sprra/Castrale
VcSper
sprrw
Uestem Mesdartark
B r ~ e r ' sS p r r o y
vesper sparmu
Yestem lleadoulark
BM'S
Sprra
v ~ p Spamw
r
Hertern &adoulark
1982
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
11.8
44
5.8
61.4
0.0
0.0
,
r
27-63
3.5/km2" O / d b
1~.8/lo~
57.6/kmZb
~
P . 3 f d a 27.1/db
a shr&by habitat
s h d l e s r hebitat
7.0-7.Wha
4.5-5.0fie
2.0-3.5/ha
6.0-7.0/ha
17 yr otd p l d
2.5-3.5/hs
1.0-3.5/hs
4.0-5.5/hs
3.01hs
4 year old chained
4 year o l d burned
0.15 ha
HEP dl
0.49-1 -34 ha
Relative cover; st.
ebsOl~t~17.5Z
.
Shrub cover is the most well-documented
habitat for the species we're dealing with here.
However, it is also deficient when it comes to
nongame birds. It can be seen that ranges of
shrub cover for nongame birds fall within those
of game species. (Table 1 and Figure 1). I
should note here that I had to juke with the
following data to get it in common units of
measurement. Also, for shrub cover, it wasn't
always clear whether it was relative or absolute,
so I adjusted those where it appeared necessary.
The symbol ?<- is my speculation that this
range of a particular habitat characteristic
extends some distance in that direction.
Colmbian
Sharptailed
troU5e
---.
I
I
4.2
24
?
Brewer's*
sparrw
Vesper*
sparrou
I-I---.
-2
7.4
h t e d
I(esdarlark
2.3
Antelope
I----I
M
Sage G r m e
10
Colthian
Sharptai 1
9
2
Lark Bmting
I---*
1
Brewer's sparrou
1
5.8
-
Vesper Sparrou
1 3.7- 1
Im
* F r a me study m r e s m e
?
44
1
44
WTE:
to shrub treabpnts.
The syllbol ---* indicates the range of this value probably extends smz distance i n the
d i r e c t i m specified.
-
Figure 2.
Ranges in Shrub Density (# ShrubslHa) Documented
for Various Shrubland Wildlife Cited in Table 1.
Shrub heights: Where data are available, show
similar overlap, with shrub using nongame birds
falling in the mid to high end. (Table 1 and
Figure 3).
-
35
35
Grasshopper Sparrou
1 11
- 1
Sage Thrasher
---* 7
1
1 -I 1 1
Sage sparrw
MOTE:
I50
44
The -1
---* indicates the range of this value probably extends sme distanse i n the
d i r e c t i m specified.
-
Figure 1.
Ranges in Percent Shrub Cover for Shrubland Wildlife
Cited.
Shrub density data are also limited, but, again,
there is a wide range given for game species
and, where I could find it for nongame, it falls
in the low end of that range (Table 1 and Figure
2). I'm sure more data would show a wider
range for antelope, the lark bunting and
grasshopper sparrow using densities at the low
end of the spread, and other shrub using
nongame birds occupying higher density habitats.
I
o
10
M
30
40
50
60
m
so
w
I
roo
shllb Height t n )
-
Figure 3.
Ranges of Shrub Heights for Shrubland Wildlife
Species Cited in Table 1.
The key is collecting the right information and getting it to
the wildlife and land managers. And, this is one area where the
Partners in Flight and state and federal nongame programs can
help. In Wyoming, where field biologists are dealing with 7-8
big and trophy game species, an equal number of resident game
birds, a variety of migratory game birds, and a host of other
responsibilities, including almost nonstop involvement in
environmentalprotection, state wildlife biologists are wondering
how they can wedge another focus in, or find the time to
determine what these species need. To put this further in
perspective, I might also add that attendance at this workshop
is more than double the size of our entire Department (330
positions) and Wyoming ranks 9th among the states in size. The
kind of information I just discussed is needed to convince the
managers that your needs and their needs are compatible, and
it provides them with stronger arguments in their efforts to
promote proper habitat management.
If managers are aware of who's in trouble and have this
informationavail-able, they'll use it. Prescriptions and guidelines
for management of ellc, sage grouse, turkey, deer, moose, and
so on are readily available. And, they are generally accepted by
wildlife and land managers. Those people are building on and
refining these criteria as more information becomes available.
Comparable information for nongame birds or related groups of
these species, parlicular1y those we need to be concerned about,
is needed. With this in-formation, we can m o b h the most
important and effective ground level constituenciesof this effort.
LITERATURE CITED
Arnold, T. and K. Higgins. 1986. Effects of shrub coverages on
birds of North Dakota mixed-grass prairies. Can. Field-Natur.
100:10-14.
Authrieth, R. 1978. Guidelinesfor the management of pronghorn
antelope. Proc. Bienn Pronghorn Antelope Workshop
8:472-526.
Bayless, S. 1969. Winter food habits, range use and home range
of antelope in Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:538-55 1
Best, L. 1972. First year effects of sagebrush control on two
sparrows. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:534-544.
Bredehoft, R 1981. Baggs sharp-tail study. Job Completion
Rept. Wyo. Game & Fish Dept, Cheyenne.
Castrale, J. 1982. Effects of two sagebrush control methods on
nongame birds. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:945-952.
Cole, G. 1956. The pronghorn antelope - it's range use &d food
habits in central Montana with special reference to wheat.
Mont. State Col. Exper. Sta. Bull. 516.
Colenso, B., M. Boyce, and J. Tate, Jr. 1980. Developing criteria
for reclamation of sage grouse habitat on a surface coal mine
in northeastern Wyoming. pp 27-3 1 in Symposium on surface
mine hydrology, sedimentation and reclamation Lexington,
KY.
Dix, R 1961. An application of the point-centered quarter
method in plytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:776-778.
Eng, R. and P. Schladweiler. 1972. Sage grouse winter
movements and habitat use in Central Montana. J. Wildl.
Manage. 36:141-146.
Finch, D., S. Anderson, and W. Hubert. 1987. Habitat suitability
models: lark bunting. USFWS, Nat Ecol. Cent. Biological
Rept. 82(10.137). Washington
Giesen, K. 1987. Population characteristics and habitat use by
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in northwest Colorado. Final
Rept., Colo. Div. Wildl. Fed Aid Proj. W-152-R, Denver.
Hart, C., 0. Lee, and J. Low. 1950. The sharp-tailed grouse in
Utah, Utah Dept. Fish & Game, Salt Lake City.
Hayden-Wing, L., L.D. Constan, J. Hull, M. Jackson, and T.
Segerstrom. 1985. Movement patterns and habitat affinities
of a sage grouse population in northeastern Wyoming. pp.
207-226 in Issues and technology in the management of
impacted western wildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute,
Boulder, CO.
Johnsgard, P. 1973. Grouse and quails of North America. Univ.
of Neb. Press, Lincoln
Johnson, R , L. Haigh, M. RBey, and J. Simpson 1980.
Brushladsteppe bird populations. pp 98-112 in'R DeGraff
(ed.). Management of western forests and grasslands for
nongame birds. USFS Intermta For. & Range Exper. Sta
Gen. Tech Rept. INT-86.
Kinschey, R., C. Sundstrom and J. Yoakum. 1978.
Rangdwildlife interrelationships-pronghorn antelope. Proc.
Bienn. Pronghorn Antelope Workshop 9:216-219.
Kitchen, D. 1974. Social behavior and ecology of the pronghorn
antelope. Wildl. Monogr. 38.
. and B. O ' G m 1982. Pronghorn pp. 960-971 in
J. Chapman and G. Feldhammer (eds). Wild mammals of
North America. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
Klebenow, D. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood rearing
habitat in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:649-662.
Marks, J. and V. Marks. 1987. Habitat selection by Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse in westcentral Idaho. U.S. Bur. Land
Manage., Boise District, Idaho.
Martin, N. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage
grouse o c m n c e . J. Wildl. Manage. 34:313-320.
. 1976. Life history and habitat requirements of sage
grouse in relation to sagebrush treatment. Proc. West. Assoc.
State Game and Fish Comm 56:289-294.
McArdle, B. 1977. The effect of sagebrush reduction practices
on sharp-tailed grouse in southeastern Idaho. MS. Thesis.
Utah State Univ., Logan
Medin, D. 1990. Birds of an upper sagebrush-grass zone habitat
in eastcentral Nevada.USFS Intermtn For. & Range Exper.
Sta. Gen Tech Rept. INT 433.
Mitchell, G. and S. Smoliak 1971. Pronghorn antelope range
characteristics and food habits in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage.
35~238-250.
Patterson, R. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books,
Denver, CO.