The status of sage grouse populations and habitats has been a concern to sportsmen and biologists for >80 years. Despite management and research efforts that date to the 1930s, breeding populations of this species have declined throughout much of its range. In May 1999, the western sage grouse (C. urophasianus phaios) in Washington was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act because of population and habitat declines (C. Warren, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication). Sage grouse populations are allied closely with sagebrush (Artemisia spp.). Despite the well-known importance of this habitat to sage grouse and other sagebrush obligates, the quality and quantity of sagebrush habitats have declined for at least the last 50 years. Braun et al. (1977) provided guidelines for maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Since publication of those guidelines, much more information has been obtained on sage grouse. Because of continued concern about sage grouse and their habitats and a significant amount of new information, the Western States Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee, under the direction of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, requested a revision and expansion of the guidelines originally published by Braun et al. (1977). This paper summarizes the current knowledge of the ecology of sage grouse and, based on this information, provides guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats.

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Connelly_et_al_2000.pdf

Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats.

Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity

Degradation, fragmentation, and loss of native sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) landscapes have imperiled these habitats and their associated avifauna. Historically, this vast piece of the Western landscape has been undervalued: even though more than 70% of all remaining sagebrush habitat in the United States is publicly owned, <3% of it is protected as federal reserves or national parks. We review the threats facing birds in sagebrush habitats to emphasize the urgency for conservation and research actions, and synthesize existing information that forms the foundation for recommended research directions. Management and conservation of birds in sagebrush habitats will require more research into four major topics: (1) identification of primary land-use practices and their influence on sagebrush habitats and birds, (2) better understanding of bird responses to habitat components and disturbance processes of sagebrush ecosystems, (3) improved hierarchical designs for surveying and monitoring programs, and ...

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Knick_et_al_2003.pdf

Teetering on the edge or too late? conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats

Population declines of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and alterations and loss of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) have prompted petitions to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. Our objectives were to present an unbiased assessment from an ecological perspective of the current status and the potential factors that influenced the long-term conservation of greater sage-grouse populations and the sagebrush ecosystems on which they depend. We reviewed the primary literature, and conducted new analyses and presented results on data collected for greater sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitats. Our approach was large-scale, and was intended to identify regional patterns of disturbances, land use practices, and population trends. A blind review of this document was conducted by the Ecological Society of America. In addition, members of the National Sagegrouse Conservation Planning Framework Team and representatives from each state and province in the current range of greater sage-grouse reviewed the document for completeness and technical accuracy. In this chapter, we present the background, objectives, perspective, and geographical and temporal scope for the Conservation Assessment. Because 70% of the lands dominated by sagebrush cover are managed by public agencies, we summarized the primary legislation directing the historical disposition and governing the use of public lands. We also presented information on the administrative jurisdiction of sagebrush habitats because many of the stressors on sagebrush ecosystems involve land use and management practices. However, we did not provide management recommendations. Rather, this document was intended as an objective scientific presentation of the individual and cumulative influences on greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Range-wide Conservation Assessment Background and Rationale Historically, greater sage-grouse occurred in parts of 12 states within the western United States and 3 Canadian provinces (Fig. 1.1) (Schroeder et al. 2004). Greater sage-grouse populations have declined throughout much of their former range and have been extirpated from Nebraska, and British Columbia (Connelly and Braun 1997, Schroeder et al. 1999, Schroeder et al. 2004). The historical distribution of greater sage-grouse in Arizona currently is being questioned. Estimates of regional declines ranged from 17 to 47% (Connelly and Braun 1997). Greater sage-grouse currently occupy 670,000 km, or 56%, of their potential pre-settlement range, which once covered approximately 1,200,000 km (Schroeder et al. 2004). Current distributions of “fringe” populations are fragmented and increasingly disjunct from core regions of the distribution (e.g., Mono Lake, California; eastern Washington; southern Utah) (Schroeder et al. 1999). Despite widespread concerns regarding the species’ status and declining numbers, there has been no definitive range-wide assessment of sage-grouse populations and habitats. The greater sage-grouse is entirely dependent on sagebrush ecosystems that dominate much of western North America. The sagebrush biome, comprised primarily of 20 taxa encompassing 11 major Artemisia species and subspecies groups (McArthur and Plummer 1978, McArthur and Sanderson 1999), covers approximately 480,000 km (118.6 million acres) and Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats Connelly et al. Introduction 1 2 includes 14 states (Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota) (sagebrush habitats in Oklahoma and Kansas were outside of the pre-settlement range of greater sage-grouse were not included in this assessment) and 3 provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan) (Fig. 1.2). Vegetation and wildlife communities vary greatly across the range covered by sagebrush as a function of differences in underlying soils, climate, elevation, and geographic location (Miller and Eddleman 2001). The relatively simple structure and floristic characteristics of sagebrush landscapes (West 1996, West and Young 2000) mask complex community dynamics, disturbance regimes, and system resiliency. Three fundamental characteristics of the landscape that early European explorers once described as a vast sea of sagebrush (Fremont 1845) have been altered from pre-settlement conditions. First, the total land area dominated by sagebrush has been reduced in many regions of the sagebrush biome. For example, approximately 75% of the shrubsteppe habitats occurring on deep, loamy soils in the state of Washington and virtually all of the basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) habitats in southern Idaho have been converted to agricultural croplands (Hironaka et al. 1983, Noss et al. 1995, McDonald and Reese 1998, Vander Haegen et al. 2000). Second, the composition of sagebrush communities has been changed, primarily through alterations in the understory vegetation and soils. Replacement of native perennial bunchgrasses by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), an exotic annual, has profoundly altered the fire regime and led to extensive loss of large expanses of sagebrush habitats (d’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, West and Young 2000, Brooks and Pyke 2001). Finally, the configuration of sagebrush habitats within the larger context of the landscape has been changed. The increased edge in landscapes fragmented by roads, power-lines, fences, and other linear features promote spread of exotic invasive species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003), facilitates predator movements (Tewksbury et al. 2002), and isolates wildlife populations (Saunders et al. 1991, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Changes in quantity, composition, and configuration of sagebrush habitats have consequences on the ecological processes within the sagebrush ecosystem and the resources available to support wildlife (Wisdom et al. 2002). Few pristine and intact sagebrush ecosystems remain (Noss and Peters 1995, Noss et al. 1995, West 1996, Mac et al. 1998). Over 350 species of flora and fauna depend on sagebrush habitats for all or part of their existence; a high proportion of the endemic and imperiled species in the western United States are found within the sagebrush distribution. The Great Basin ecoregion contains the second highest number of imperiled endemic species in the United States (Chaplin et al. 2000:166). The Columbia Basin population of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) and Gunnison sagegrouse (Centrocercus minimus) are highly dependent on sagebrush habitats and currently are candidate species for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). The current range occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse has been reduced to 5,000 km from its pre-settlement distribution of 45,000 km Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats Connelly et al. Introduction 1 3 primarily because of habitat loss and alteration (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, Schroeder et al. 2004). Petitions filed to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act are based on concerns for long-term conservation because of potential threats to the species and the sagebrush habitats on which it depends (Wambolt et al. 2002). Public perception has progressed beyond the prediction that the “much-maligned sagebrush will be regarded with increasing favor by land managers” (McArthur and Plummer 1978) to genuine concern about these ecosystems (Braun et al. 1976, Knick 1999) to requests for legal action (Chapter 2). A decision to give the greater sage-grouse protected status across its entire range has significant consequences for management and use of a large part of the western United States. Less than 1% of the 668,412 km currently occupied by greater sage-grouse, and very little sagebrush habitat is legally protected (Caicco et al. 1995, Stoms et al. 1998, Scott et al. 2001, Wright et al. 2001, Knick et al. 2003). Multiple-use management dominates approximately 70% of the sagebrush habitats, which are owned publicly (Box 1990, Poling 1991). Consumptive uses that potentially influence sagebrush habitats include livestock grazing, mining, energy development, conversion to agriculture, and urbanization. Non-consumptive uses, such as use of off-road vehicles for recreation, also have the potential to influence habitats and populations of sage-grouse. Greater sage-grouse also are legally hunted in 10 states, and some populations are also subject to subsistence hunting by Native Americans. Objectives and Perspective of the Conservation Assessment Our primary objective was to document the current status and the potential factors that influence the long-term conservation of greater sage-grouse populations and the sagebrush ecosystems on which they depend. We based our analysis throughout this document on an ecological perspective of the dynamics inherent in sagebrush ecosystems and the requirements of greater sage-grouse. In contrast, land-use perspectives have goals to maximize a particular function that may have objectives competing with other resource use. For example, evaluation of sagebrush communities primarily based on their ability to provide forage for livestock may result in extensive alterations that are unsuitable for greater sage-grouse and other species dependent on sagebrush habitats (Schneegas 1967, Klebenow 1970, Braun et al. 1976, Reynolds and Trost 1981, Crawford et al. 2004). An ecological perspective is critical to providing a common denominator within which land uses can be evaluated in relation to disturbance and resiliency of the system. We have used ecological terms to describe population or habitat patterns and processes rather than value-laden terms which may have alternate connotations. Commonly used terms, such as “decadent” or “catastrophic” evoke an attitude that somet

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=govdocs

Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats

Plants release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in response to wounding and herbivore attack, some of which trigger responses in neighboring unattacked plants in the laboratory under conditions that are not likely to occur in the real world. Whether plants ‘eavesdrop’ on the volatile emissions of their neighbors in nature is not known. The best documented field study of between-species signaling via above-ground VOCs involves increases in fitness parameters of native tobacco (Nicotiana attenuata) transplanted adjacent to clipped sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata tridentata). Clipped sagebrush releases many biologically active VOCs, including methyl jasmonate (MeJA), methacrolein and a series of terpenoid and green leaf VOCs, of which MeJA, while active under laboratory conditions, is not released in sufficient quantities to directly elicit induced resistance in the field. Here we demonstrate, with laboratory and field-based experiments, that priming (rather than direct elicitation) of native N. attenuata’s induced chemical defenses by a sagebrush-released VOC bouquet can account for earlier findings. With microarrays enriched in N. attenuata herbivore-regulated genes, we found transcriptional responses in tobacco growing adjacent to clipped sagebrush foliage, but failed to detect the direct elicitation of defensive chemicals or proteins. However, we observed an accelerated production of trypsin proteinase inhibitors when Manduca sexta caterpillars fed on plants previously exposed to clipped sagebrush. This readying of a defense response, termed priming, results in lower total herbivore damage to plants exposed to clipped sagebrush and in a higher mortality rate of young Manduca caterpillars. Our study demonstrates priming of plant defense responses as a mechanism of plant–plant signaling in nature, and provides an example for the analysis of between-plant signaling under ecologically realistic conditions. Although we describe priming as a potential mechanism for signaling between plants in nature, we critically discuss the ecological relevance of the particular interaction.

Priming of plant defense responses in nature by airborne signaling between Artemisia tridentata and Nicotiana attenuata.

Recovery of big sagebrush communities after burning in south-western Montana.

Samples of current year's growth of leaves and stems were collected in February 1983 from basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. tridentata), Wyoming big sagebrush (A.t. wyomingensis Beetle and Young), mountain big sagebrush (A.t. vaseyana [Rydb.] Beetle), and black sagebrush (A. nova Nels.) on a mule deer (Odocoikus hemionus hemionus) winter range near Gardiner, Montana. Samples were from both lightly and heavily used plants (form classes) within each taxon. Crude terpenoids were separated into 3 groups: headspace vapors, volatile, and nonvolatile crude terpenoids. Compounds in each group are thought to stimulate the sensory organs of mule deer. Individual compounds were identified and quantified for comparison with preference ranks among taxa and between utilization form classes. Seven compounds were selected by discriminant analysis as indicators among the 4 taxa, with methacrolein+ethanol, p-cymene, and the sesquiterpene lactones the most probable preference determinants. Seven other compounds were found useful for separating plants within taxa into form classes. Chemical differences between the 2 form classes, however, were less distinguishable than were those among the 4

/pdf/crude-terpenoid-influence-on-mule-deer-preference-for-581r1suzac.pdf

Crude terpenoid influence on mule deer preference for sagebrush.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/22790/21582

Consequences of Treating Wyoming Big Sagebrush to Enhance Wildlife Habitats

Four Wyoming big sagebrush (A rtenmsiatridentatassp. wyomingensis Beetle and Young) control treatments: burning, spraying with 2,4-D, rotocutting, and plowing, along with no control (rest) were compared in southwestern Montana. Production data (excluding sagebrush) were collected 10 years and sagebrush canopy cover and understory basal cover were collected 8 years during the period 1963-1981. Sagebrush canopy was most effectively reduced by burning while plowing with seeding was least effective. Rest alone resulted in a 29%o reduction in sagebrush canopy during the study period. By 1981, burning provided the most production from the dominant forage species (bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum (Pursh) Scribn.) and important vegetal classes, although burning and spraying were equally successful when production was totaled for all years sampled. Understory basal cover did not prove useful to evaluate treatment effectiveness. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) maintains an undeniably important role on rangelands in the Western United States. Big sagebrush occupies nearly 60 million hectares in this region (Beetle 1960). Relatively recent taxonomic advancements in the big sagebrush complex initiated by Beetle (1960) and Beetle and Young (1965) have encouraged research to expand our knowledge about the taxa in such diverse areas as further taxonomic refinement, ecological relationships, forage relationships, and manipulation of sagebrush ecosystems. Welch and McArthur (1979) emphasize the nature of big sagebrush by recognizing its aggressive, productive, and persistent habits which, along with its low preference for forage by cattle, are undoubtedly responsible for its having been the subject of many control projects. Blaisdell et al. (1982) emphasize that no one control technique will likely prove optimum under all conditions as big sagebrush control often is reported without consideration for inter-taxon variation. This complicates interpretation of many previous studies. In addition, few reports are available that follow vegetal reaction to big sagebrush control for more than a few years. This may partially explain apparent contradictions in the literature regarding effectiveness of various control and post-control techniques to suppress big sagebrush. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 4 brush control treatments and no-control (rest) for Wyoming big sagebrush over the period 1963-1981. Effectiveness is evaluated through comparisons among treatments for forage production, sagebrush canopy cover, and basal cover of understory species. Study Area and Methods The study site is located in southwestern Montana approximately 27 km west of Dillon and 3 km northeast of Bannack at an elevation of 1,890 m on the west flank of Badger Pass. The area is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and has been grazed by domestic livestock since the mid-1800's. The topography is moderately rolling, varying in slope from 0-8%. The site comprises a Wyoming big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass habitat type and has been dominated by those species throughout the study period. Although basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. tridentata) is found nearby, it occupies more mesic soils Authors are associate professor and professor emeritus, Animal and Range Sciences Department, Montana State University, Bozeman, 59717. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Butte, Mont., District, Bureau of Land Management for the use and protection of the study site. Manuscript accepted 21 October 1985. resulting from drainage patterns and deeper soil development (Beetle and Young 1965, Barker and McKell 1983). Clay loams predominate in surface and subsurface soils with loams being less common. The solum extends 30 to 35 cm to a strongly calcareous C horizon. Erosion had thinned or completely removed the A horizon. The average annual precipitation is approximately 310 mm with peak precipitation occurring in May and June. We utilized a randomized complete block design of 4 replicates in the experiment. Treatment plots were 27 m X 46 m in 2 replicates and 31 m X 46 m in the other 2 replicates. Most treatment plots were separated by roadways seeded to crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.) Analysis of variance was used to evaluate relationships among measured factors. Livestock grazing was excluded from the study site by an exclosure fence after May, 1963. Chemical, plow, and rotocut treatments were applied on 18-19 June, 22 June, and 6 July 1963, respectively. The burn treatment was accomplished after 4 September 1964 after being attempted in the autumn of 1963 when fuel conditions prohibited burning. Chemical treatment consisted of an application of 2,4-D ester in water at the rate of approximately 1.68 kg/ha with a surfactant from a ground sprayer. Plowing was accomplished with a disc plow similar to the popular Brushland plow of the era (Larson 1982) which Blaisdell et al. (1982) considered very effective. Plowed plots were broadcast seeded with approximately 9 kg/ ha of bluebunch wheatgrass seed from a local source, a practice considered necessary with this severe treatment (Blaisdell et al. 1982). The rotary cutter used was similar to the Bush Hog (Larson 1982). Burning was difficult due to a barely adequate fuel base (Beardall and Sylvester 1976) and some sagebrush plants had to be burned individually. witnin each treatment replicate, 6 permanent 15.24-m transect lines (Canfield 1941) were randomly established to determine Wyoming big sagebrush crown cover by line intercept. Data were taken in tenths of feet (approximately 3 cm units). Openings in the live canopy larger than 3 cm (0.1 ft.) were recorded as nonsagebrush intercepts. It should be emphasized that this method gives lower values than those obtained by line intercepts of sagebrush plant perimeters or by the Daubenmire (1959) method. Intercepts of such perimeters ignore open spaces and dead branches within the perimeter. This is important in comparing other research results with ours and when reading such publications as Britton and Ralphs (1979) which set cover standards for sagebrush control operations. We believe our method accurately measures changes in live sagebrush cover, significant in considering the ecological status of big sagebrush through time. It is unfortunate that most management publications set sagebrush cover standards without defining the measurement basis. Along each of the 15.24-m transects, 2 permanent 1.22-m transects were randomly selected to read basal cover of all plants. These data were recorded in hundredths of feet (approximately 3-mm units) of line intercept by species, litter, rock, and bare ground. Production data in each treatment replicate were obtained by clipping 5 circular plots of 0.5 m2 randomly spaced on a diagonal line beginning and ending no closer than 6 meters from the treatment corners. During the randomization process, the centers of the 0.5-M2 plots were located at least 2.13 m apart to avoid disturbance of plants when clipping adjacent plots. In each year when production data were collected, the diagonal sampled in the rectangular 314 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 39(4), July 1986 This content downloaded from 40.77.167.87 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 07:01:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms treatment was alternated to minimize effects of previous sampling. Plant material was oven dried at 650 C for 1 week before weighing. All measurements were taken as close to the peak of standing crop production as practical. Thus, grass and shrub phenology were similar each year at the time data were taken. Canopy and basal cover were recorded 8 years and production 10 years during the 18-year study. Results and Discussion Wyoming big sagebrush canopy cover provides a partial basis for evaluation of treatment effectiveness throughout the study period (Figures 1 and 2). The homogeneity of the sagebrush cover in the 1963 pretreatment data is evident by the lack of statistical significance among the treatment means. There was a significant reduction in sagebrush canopy cover the first year after application of the sagebrush control treatments (1965 for burn and 1964 for other treatments). The longevity of this reduction has varied considerably among the treatments. The 18 years of the study allowed ample opportunity for sagebrush reoccupation under a variety of weather conditions. Burning completely destroyed the stands of Wyoming big sagebrush. There was essentially no re-establishment of sagebrush through 1970, 6 years after burning, in spite of the availability of sagebrush seeds from rest (untreated) plots and plants growing outside the study exclosure. Up to 1967, only the spray technique had been as effective as burning in sustaining reductions of sagebrush canopy. From 1970 on, burned plots had significantly less sagebrush canopy than any other treatment. Although some reoccupation of sagebrush on the burned plots was evident by 1981, its canopy cover was still less than 2% compared to 10.5-16% in the other treatments. The apparent success of burning in this study may agree with the observations and data of Harniss and Murray (1973), who REST (no treatment) o2 a a a 15.6 14.9 16.116.7 a a b b 16 15 I4~~ 13.3 12.9 b0. b1

/pdf/an-18-year-comparison-of-control-methods-for-wyoming-big-42bnptgocm.pdf

Carl L. Wambolt

Papers

Recovery of big sagebrush communities after burning in south-western Montana.

Crude terpenoid influence on mule deer preference for sagebrush.

Consequences of Treating Wyoming Big Sagebrush to Enhance Wildlife Habitats

An 18-year comparison of control methods for Wyoming big sagebrush in southwestern Montana.

Long-term recovery of Wyoming big sagebrush after four treatments