Evaluating Vital Rate Contributions to Greater Sage-grouse Population Dynamics to Inform Conservation

Species conservation efforts often use short-term studies that fail to identify the vital rates that contribute most to population growth. Although the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage-grouse) is a candidate for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and is sometimes referred to as an umbrella species in the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) biome of western North America, the failure of proposed management strategies to focus on key vital rates that may contribute most to achieving population stability remains problematic for sustainable conservation. To address this dilemma, we performed both prospective and retrospective perturbation analyses of a life cycle model based on a 12-yr study that encompassed nearly all sage-grouse vital rates. To validate our population models, we compared estimates of annual finite population growth rates (λ) from our female-based life cycle models to those attained from male-based lek counts. Post-fledging (i.e., after second year, second year, and juvenile) female survival parameters contributed most to past variation in λ during our study and had the greatest potential to change λ in the future, indicating these vital rates as important determinants of sage-grouse population dynamics. In addition, annual estimates of λ from female-based life cycle models and male-based lek data were similar, providing the most rigorous evidence to date that lek counts of males can serve as a valid index of sage-grouse population change. Our comparison of fixed and mixed statistical models for evaluating temporal variation in nest survival and initiation suggest that conservation planners use caution when evaluating short-term nesting studies and using associated fixed-effect results to develop conservation objectives. In addition, our findings indicated that greater attention should be paid to those factors affecting sage-grouse post-fledging females. Our approach demonstrates the need for more long-term studies of species vital rates across the life cycle. Such studies should address the decoupling of sampling variation from underlying process (co)variation in vital rates, identification of how such variation drives population dynamics, and how decision makers can use this information to re-direct conservation efforts to address the most limiting points in the life cycle for a given population

New Associate Editors

New associate editors are Dwayne Elmore and David Dahlgren. Dwayne Elmore is a professor, wildlife extension specialist, and Bollenbach Chair in wildlife biology in the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Oklahoma State University. Specific areas of interest include wildlife habitat relationships, Galliform ecology and management, and thermal ecology. Current research projects are focused on how management and human activity affect various species of grouse and quail. He works with stakeholder groups including private landowners, NGOs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and multiple state wildlife agencies to provide technical assistance on land management issues. David Dahlgren completed his master’s and doctoral degrees as well as a post-doctoral fellowship while researching sage-grouse reproductive habitat and ecology at Utah State University (USU). Following his formal education, in 2010 he began working for the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism as their upland game specialist, a statewide coordinator position covering pheasants, quail, and prairie-chicken management and research. His time in Kansas reemphasized for him the importance of local communities, private producers and landowners, and inter-agency coordination for wildlife conservation and management. In 2013, he returned to USU and began a position as an extension associate working in the Community-based Conservation Program. In 2016, he began an assistant professorship within the Department of Wildland Resources at USU as an extension specialist with an emphasis on wildlife and rangeland habitat. He has a beautiful wife (Lacey), and 3 wonderful girls (Maylee–10; Adalou–8; and Phoebe–6). He is owned by 4 birddogs, one of which is a young German Wirehaired Pointer, his first non-German shorthair pup. He also loves fly-fishing and any time when he can get a fishing pole with a hooked fish at the other end into one of his daughters’ hands

What Wildlife Managers Should Know When Using Radio Telemetry Data

This fact sheet includes a history of wildlife radio-telemetry; a description of GPS technology, telemetry bias, and sage-grouse; using marked individuals to represent the population, and services that are available to manager

North American Forest Grouse Harvest Regulations

This bulletin reviews North American forest grouse harvest regulations. Forest grouse are a highly sought-after wildlife resource across North America, both for their intrinsic value and as game species. Their unique breeding displays and the habitat they rely on are part of North America’s incredible natural heritage. Most forested landscapes in the upper latitudes of North America have the potential to provide habitat for one or more forest grouse species. This includes a large variety of vegetation types including the aspen forests of the upper Midwest, the coniferous boreal forest of Canada, the Pacific coastal rain forests that extend from Alaska to California, the Intermountain Rockies as far north as the Yukon and as far south as New Mexico and Arizona, and the mixed forests of the southern Appalachians. Across nearly the entire distribution of these forest grouse species, states and provinces have regulated harvest. Eastern states and provinces generally have shorter seasons and non-aggregated bag limits compared to western states and provinces, which tend to have more liberal season lengths, earlier start dates, and most often have aggregated bag limits for multiple forest grouse species. North American forest grouse species have different life-history strategies and yet, in many cases, harvest regulations are combined. Thus, harvest management strategies for forest grouse, especially for western states and provinces, may warrant increased evaluation to ensure appropriate harvest management and conservation of these species into the future

Attitudes Towards End-of-life Care: An Educational Intervention in Long-term Care

Background: Nursing assistants provide the most consistent care to dying patients in long-term care facilities; however, they receive little training to do so. Nursing assistants are significant, yet under recognized members of the health care team. Purpose: To provide a brief educational intervention to nursing assistants in long-term care facilities with a goal of increasing comfort and improving attitudes towards caring for palliative care patients. Review of Evidence: Symptom management, stress related to the role as a provider, goals of care, time limitations, and fear, are the most significant challenges nursing assistants experience. Few studies have examined education, age, and years of experience as contributing factors that may influence a nursing assistant’s attitudes towards end-of-life care. Project Design: A pre- and post-test design was used to evaluate the impact of an educational session on the attitudes of nursing assistants towards end-of-life care. Methods: A paper survey and brief educational session was provided to a convenience sample of nursing assistants in four long-term care facilities in the Southeastern United States (N=42). Results: Nursing assistants had more positive attitudes after the educational intervention (p \u3c.001, d= 0.5678). There was a potential relationship between age and attitudes (p = .105, η2= .124), however, years of experience was not a statistically significant variable (p = .642, η2= .050). Conclusion: Additional education is warranted to improve attitudes and knowledge for nursing assistants to influence overall quality of care provided to residents at end-of-life

Forest Grouse in the Fall

This bulletin describes the two types of forest grouse that inhabit mountain forests and rangelands in Utah, the ruffed grouse and the dusky grouse. It tells the species differences such as breeding, survival and reproduction, and broods. It includes tips for forest grouse hunters

What Does a Sage-Grouse Eat?

Although sage-grouse may eat only sagebrush during the winter, knowing that they need to eat other foods at other times of the year helps wildlife managers implement projects that will ensure a balanced diet. By knowing what a sage-grouse eats and when, we can determine what we need to do to maintain and improve populations and their habitats

Effects of livestock grazing on rangeland biodiversity: A meta-analysis of grouse populations

Livestock grazing affects over 60% of the world’s agricultural lands and can influence rangeland ecosystem services and the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat, resulting in changes in biodiversity. Concomitantly, livestock grazing has the potential to be detrimental to some wildlife species while benefiting other rangeland organisms. Many imperiled grouse species require rangeland landscapes that exhibit diverse vegetation structure and composition to complete their life cycle. However, because of declining populations and reduced distributions, grouse are increasingly becoming a worldwide conservation concern. Grouse, as a suite of upland gamebirds, are often considered an umbrella species for other wildlife and thus used as indicators of rangeland health. With a projected increase in demand for livestock products, better information will be required to mitigate the anthropogenic effects of livestock grazing on rangeland biodiversity. To address this need, we completed a data-driven and systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to determine the current knowledge of the effects of livestock grazing on grouse populations (i.e., chick production and population indices) worldwide. Our meta-analysis revealed an overall negative effect of livestock grazing on grouse populations. Perhaps more importantly, we identified an information void regarding the effects of livestock grazing on the majority of grouse species. Additionally, the reported indirect effects of livestock grazing on grouse species were inconclusive and more reflective of differences in the experimental design of the available studies. Future studies designed to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on wildlife should document (i) livestock type, (ii) timing and frequency of grazing, (iii) duration, and (iv) stocking rate. Much of this information was lacking in the available published studies we reviewed, but is essential when making comparisons between different livestock grazing management practices and their potential impacts on rangeland biodiversity