Download Conservation biogeography of a rare prairie grouse Michael A. Patten

Conservation biogeography
of a rare prairie grouse
Michael A. Patten
University of Oklahoma
Oklahoma Biological Survey,
Department of Biology, and
Sutton Avian Research Center
Conservation Biogeography
 use of biogeographical techniques and principles to
guide conservation planning
 for example, island biogeography
• species-area relationships
• degree of isolation
 areas of endemism
 patterns of species richness
 trait variation across space
 can consider the past and future, too
Examples include:
o forecasts
o reserve selection
o invasive species
Single species or entire
communities.
Does one size fit all?
lower panel: Smith-Patten and Patten (2015, Biotropica 47:128–135)
The Lesser Prairie-Chicken
o a medium-sized grouse
endemic to southern
shortgrass and mixed
grass prairies
o endemic to the southcentral United States
(i.e., it is found nowhere
else, and never has been)
photos by Noppadol Paothong
Lekking
o lek mating system
o as with other open-country
grouse, males gather
communally to display to
females . . . and to squabble
with other males
o the goal is to lure a female to mate . . .
at which point the male continues to
display and the female heads off to
• build a nest
• guard her eggs
• (with luck) raise her young
photos by Greg W. Lasley, Noppadol Paothong, and Joel Sartore
Data Collection
Sample Sizes
• 898 radiotagged birds (>1000 banded)
 550 in Oklahoma, 1999–2014
 348 in New Mexico, 2000–2005
• 267 nests
 142 in Oklahoma, 1999–2014
 125 in New Mexico, 2000–2005
• >60,000 individual tracking locations
• ~18,000 vegetation samples
 6483 vegetation and general cover transects
 10488 “cone of vulnerability” and microclimate
 737 1-m2 grass and forb plots
The Data
o survivorship and cause of mortality
o movements (and home range)
o habitat use (including for leks and broods)
– woody vegetation
– “cone of vulnerability”
– grasses and forbs
– microclimate
o nest placement
o demography (clutch size, nest success,
reproductive effort, etc.)
o mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites
o nutrition (blood screening)
Southern Shortgrass Prairie
Habitat Loss
Samson et al. (2004, Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:6–15)
Population Decline
• total world population
numbers 20,000–35,000
• population has declined
by >90% in the past century
trend from Hagen et al. (2009, Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1325–1332)
The U.S. Endangered Species Act
almost exactly a year ago
today . . .
the species was listed as
threatened under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act
Capitol Hill Outsider (2014)
Controversy
Ecoregions
Ecoregions
23.3 birds / km2
13.0 birds / km2
18.1 birds / km2
10.4 birds / km2
Ecoregions
STRUCTURE plot
for 13 microsatellite loci
plot from Oyler-McCance, DeYoung, Hagen,
Johnson, Larsson, and Patten (in prep., targeted
for Conservation Genetics)
Selectivity
Patten et al. (2005, Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1270–1278)
40
o
Mean Exposure Angle ( )
Microclimate
occupied
random
30
20
10
0
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
2003
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
2004
Larsson et al. (2013, Southwestern Naturalist 58:135–149)
Patten et al. (2005, Journal of Wildlife Management
69:1270–1278)
Predator Avoidance
depredations
angle
temperature
20
30
o
Mean Exposure Angle ( )
14
20
12
15
10
10
8
5
6
4
0
summer '03 autumn '03 winter '03/04 spring '04
Larsson et al. (2013, Southwestern Naturalist 58:135–149)
summer '04 autumn '04
o
25
16
Mean Apparent Temperature ( C)
18
Woody Vegetation and Adult Survival
1.0
shrub cover <10%
shrub cover 10–20%
shrub cover >20%
Probability of Survival
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
200
400
600
Days
Patten et al. (2005, Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1270–1278)
800
1000
Too Many Shrubs
cedar photos by Donald H. Wolfe
Loss of Shrub Cover
Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project <http://www.sagestep.org/>
Too Few Shrubs
tebuthiuron
untreated
10
Number of Nests
8
6
4
2
0
5
10
15
20
Mean Shrub Cover (%)
Patten and Kelly (2010, Ecological Applications 20:2148–2156)
25
30
Solutions
The Prairie Has Changed
The Future
photos by Donald H. Wolfe
Pruett et al. (2009, BioScience 59:257–262)
Avoidance of Highways
Pruett et al. (2009, Conservation Biology 23:1253–1259)
Avoidance of Power Lines
Pruett et al. (2009, Conservation Biology 23:1253–1259)
Highways + Power Lines
Pruett et al. (2009, Conservation Biology 23:1253–1259)
Avoidance Behavior*
< 100 m
100–500 m
transmission line
6 (88–129)
156 (398–471)
Highway 412
24 (25–48)
182 (125–165)
Lesser Prairie-Chicken
Highway 283
20 (135–181) 166 (586–674)
Greater Prairie-Chicken
transmission line
0 (16–35)
5 (83–121)
no evidence of avoidance > 500 m from any feature
Pruett et al. (2009, Conservation Biology 23:1253–1259)
*Behaviour
Other Manmade Features
transmission lines
buildings
roads (any type)
improved roads
unimproved roads
center-pivot fields
nests
birds
oil or gas wellheads
0
200
400
600
800
meters (± SE)
data from Robel et al. (2004, Transactions of the N. Am. Wildlife Natural Resources Conference 69:251–266)
1000
1200
1400
Nest Placement
center-pivot
improved road
unimproved road
building
wellhead
tranmission line
transmission
line
0
500
1000
meters
data from Pitman et al. (2005, Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1259–1269)
1500
2000
And so on . . .
Hagen et al. (2011, Studies in Avian Biology 39:63–75
Winder et al. (2014, Ecosphere 5[1]:3)
Planning Tools
Correlations
Truism 1: Where there is a powerline or a
road there typically is a fence.
Truism 2: And where there is a fence
there typically is:
habitat loss
o livestock
o woody vegetation encroachment
o
Spellerberg (1998, Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7:317–333)
Fence Collisions
Fence Collisions
Determining Cause of Death
o radio-transmitters on our Lesser PrairieChickens equipped with a mortality switch
o recovered carcasses are examined to determine
one of four causes of death:
o
o
o
o
raptor kill
mammal kill
collision — fence, power line, or car
other (or unknown) — this category has included, for
example, drowning in a stock tank
o note that collisions are associated with habitat
fragmentation
Mortality Cause
n = 260
New Mexico
Oklahoma
vehicle
powerline
fence
mammal
raptor
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
proportion of mortalities
data from Wolfe et al. (2007, Wildlife Biology 13[supp. 1]:95–104)
0.5
1.0
Survival by Sex
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Probability of Survival
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
♂
0.0
0
1.0
200
400
600
800
1000
Days
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Probability of Survival
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
♀
0.0
0
200
400
Days
600
800
Patten et al. (2005, Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:235–249)
♂♂ and predation
predation
male mortality
Proportion of males killed
16
14
25
20
12
15
10
8
10
6
5
4
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Month
Proportion of females killed
collisions
female mortality
15
30
12
24
9
18
12
6
6
3
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Month
Patten et al. (2005, Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:235–249)
Nov
0
Dec
Prairie-chicken kills due to collisions
18
36
♀♀ and collisions
Nov
Dec
Prairie-chicken kills due to predation
18
Life-history Evolution
o Lifetime reproductive value
o a species-specific trait
o roughly constant among populations
o Trade-offs
o both fecundity and lifespan contribute
o r selection vs. K selection
o common in birds
Predictions! Higher mortality of Oklahoma ♀♀
o larger clutch sizes
o more fledglings
o attempt more nests in a season
Fecundity
12
clutch size
fledglings
frequency
10
8
6
4
2
0
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Mean nest attempts
/ year (± SE)
1.07 ± 0.04
1.55 ± 0.11
0.15
0.94
Proportion re-nesting
in same year
adapted from Patten et al. (2005, Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:235–249)
Fragmentation
Patten et al. (2005, Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:235–249)
Land Tenure
o mean parcel size
o roads / 10-km2
o fencing
New Mexico
~1300 ha
8.0 ± 2.3
sections*
Oklahoma
~180 ha
14.5 ± 1.7
¼-sections
o land tenure differences have a historical basis (Homestead
Act vs. Spanish Land Grant)
o land tenure in the Texas Panhandle is much more like that
in Oklahoma than in New Mexico
Patten et al. (2005, Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:235–249)
*1 section ≈ 260 ha and is 1.6 km per side
Plasticity?
13
New Mexico
Oklahoma
2002 (7)
Mean Clutch Size
12
2003 (4)
11
2001 (7)
2000 (5)
10
9
2002 (25)
2003 (13)
8
2001 (15)
1999 (2)
2000 (2)
7
0
2
4
6
8
10
Cumulative Precipitation (cm)
Patten et al. (2005, Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:235–249)
12
14
16
Nutrition?
13
clutch size
12
11
10
9
8
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0
2.0
2
4
6
8
10
vitamin E
retinol (vitamin A)
13
clutch size
12
11
10
9
New Mexico ♀♀
have higher levels of
vitamin A but lay
smaller clutches.
8
0
2
4
6
8
0
2
lutein
4
6
zeaxanthin
13
12
clutch size
Only vitamin A (as
retinol) is correlated
with clutch size . . .
but in the “wrong”
direction:
11
10
9
8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
canthaxanthin
2.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
xanthophylls
12
14
16
Sutton Avian Research Center unpubl. data
In summary . . .
o ♀♀ in Oklahoma die from fence collision far
more often than do ♀♀ in New Mexico
o more roads more fences more collisions
(ultimately a result of historic land parceling)
o
survivorship in Oklahoma has (apparently)
selected for clutch size and re-nesting rate
o larger clutches do not appear to be the result
of variation in rainfall or nutrition
2500
Oklahoma
New Mexico
The fate of the mixed
grass prairie population?
Population Size
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2004
Probability of Extinction
1.0
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Year
0.8
100% of
simulations
forecast a
population
crash in
Oklahoma,
yielding
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
2005
5
10
15
20
Years 2022
Patten et al. (2005, Evolutionary Ecology Research 7:235–249)
25
30
2018
Management Strategies
Option 1: Increase fecundity
 Requires clutch sizes approaching 30 (!).
 Requires 3 successful nests / year.
 i.e., reproductive output must double.
Option 2: Reduce ♀ mortality
 At current Ne, raising adult ♀
survivorship to the level of that
elsewhere (e.g., New Mexico) would
ensure population persistence.
Pruett et al. (2011, Conservation Genetics 12:1205–1214)
Management Strategies
Option 1: Increase fecundity
 Requires clutch sizes approaching 30 (!).
 Requires 3 successful nests / year.
 i.e., reproductive output must double.
Option 2: Reduce ♀ mortality
 At current Ne, raising adult ♀
survivorship to the level of that
elsewhere (e.g., New Mexico) would
ensure population persistence.
Pruett et al. (2011, Conservation Genetics 12:1205–1214)
Reducing mortality
Reducing Mortality
see Baines and Andrew (2003, Biological Conservation 110:169–176)
Fence marking
Wolfe et al. (2009, Ecological Restoration 27:141–143)
Does marking work?
efficacy not assessed fully, but . . .
all except one collision 2007–2014
have been along unmarked fences!
Stevens et al. (2012, Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:141–143)
Winder et al. (2015, Ecosphere in press)
o kernel HR estimators
o land cover from aerial
photos & GIS layers
o software estimates of
habitat proportions & edge
Home Range (ha)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
Extent of Contiguous Habitat (ha)
Patten et al. (2011, Studies in Avian Biology 39:51–62)
Wrapping Up
One size does not fit all!
A single, all-encompassing plan that
would benefit each Lesser PrairieChicken population in the same way
cannot be devised.
Instead, we must consider geographic
variation among populations to guide
management and conservation.
Thank You
Save the
prairie chicken!