Appendix B. Supplementary information on the quantification of monoterpene concentrations in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) samples, including methods, materials, and a table of gas chromatograph retention times.

Supplementary information on the quantification of monoterpene concentrations in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) samples, including methods, materials, and a table of gas chromatograph retention times

Appendix C. Methods and materials used to quantify total phenolic concentrations in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) samples.

Methods and materials used to quantify total phenolic concentrations in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) samples

Appendix E. A cross-tabulation of patch type by habitat type for analyzing the selection of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitat type by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus).

A cross-tabulation of patch type by habitat type for analyzing the selection of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitat type by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Appendix A. A photograph of diagnostic bite marks left by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on sagebrush (Artemisia spp.).

A photograph of diagnostic bite marks left by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)

Appendix D. Model-selection tables for hierarchical analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat selection at each of three spatial scales.

Model-selection tables for hierarchical analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat selection at each of three spatial scales

dryad_data

Data used for analysis for manuscript and figures

Models explaining fix success rate (FSR) of snapshot and traditional micro-GPS receivers at 37 stationary test sites.

<p>Models explaining fix success rate (FSR) of snapshot and traditional micro-GPS receivers at 37 stationary test sites.</p

Relationship between duration (hr) from the start of the stationary tests and micro-GPS accuracy (log of location error [LE]).

<p>Traditional micro-GPS receivers (left) displayed consistent performance across the entire 0range of duration time, whereas snapshot micro-GPS receivers (right) generated large LE values at the start of each stationary test before leveling to a more consistent performance.</p

Micro-GPS receivers deployed in this study.

<p>(A) G10 UltraLITE GPS Logger (snapshot GPS receivers) weighed 11 g. (B) FLR V GM502030 GPS Logger (traditional GPS receivers) weighed 14–16 g.</p

Performance of micro-GPS receiver during stationary tests for locations in burrows and above ground.

<p>Mean values (±SE) of (A) fix success rate (%) and (B) location error (m) for traditional and snapshot micro-GPS receivers placed on the ground surface and in burrows at a depth of 25 cm.</p