Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development
Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development
复制标题
DOI：
10.2193/2006-454
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Graham, Jon M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Doherty, Kevin E.;Naugle, David E.;Graham, Jon M.
最近的能源开发导致了西部灌木草原生态系统的快速和大规模的变化，而没有完全了解其对野生动物种群的潜在影响。我们模拟了雌性圣松鸡对冬季栖息地的使用，（Centrocercus urophasianus）在粉河流域（PRB）的怀俄明州和蒙大拿州，美国，1）确定景观特征，影响鼠尾草松鸡栖息地选择，2）评估选择发生的规模，3）空间描绘冬季栖息地质量的地理信息系统，（4）评价煤层气开发对冬季栖息地选择的影响。我们开发了一个模型，冬季栖息地选择的基础上435航空搬迁的200 radiomarked女性鼠尾草，松鸡在2005年和2006年的冬天。蒿属植物百分比景观上的覆盖是一个重要的预测因子，利用圣松鸡在冬季。在4-km（2）尺度上，鼠尾草-松鸡和蒿属植物之间的生境选择强度最强。在0.65平方公里的尺度上，圣松鸡避开针叶林栖息地，在4平方公里的尺度上避开河岸区。韧性指数表明，鼠尾草鸡选择温和的地形在冬季。在控制了植被和地形之后，增加了一个量化4 km（2）内CBNG威尔斯密度的变量，使模型拟合度提高了6.66个赤池信息标准点（赤池wt = 0.965）。4平方公里区域内每增加一口井的优势比（0.877; 95%CI = 0.834-0.923）表明，在其他适宜的冬季栖息地，鼠尾草松鸡避免了CBNG的发展。与联邦土地上每4 km（2）允许的最大密度为12.3个威尔斯井的栖息地相比，在4 km（2）区域内缺乏CBNG威尔斯井的山艾树栖息地中，山艾树栖息地的可能性高出1.3倍。我们验证了该模型与74个位置从74 radiomarked个人在2004年和2007年的冬天。这种冬季栖息地模型的基础上植被，地形，CBNG回避是高度预测（验证R-2 = 0.984）。我们的空间明确的模型可以用来确定区域，提供最好的剩余栖息地越冬鼠尾草松鸡在PRB，以减轻能源开发的影响。
Recent energy development has resulted in rapid and large-scale changes to western shrub-steppe ecosystems without a complete understanding of its potential impacts on wildlife populations. We modeled winter habitat use by female greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming and Montana, USA, to 1) identify landscape features that influenced sage-grouse habitat selection, 2) assess the scale at which selection occurred, 3) spatially depict winter habitat quality in a Geographic Information System, and 4) assess the effect of coal-bed natural gas (CBNG) development on winter habitat selection. We developed a model of winter habitat selection based on 435 aerial relocations of 200 radiomarked female sage-grouse obtained during the winters of 2005 and 2006. Percent sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) cover on the landscape was an important predictor of use by sage-grouse in winter. The strength of habitat selection between sage-grouse and sagebrush was strongest at a 4-km(2) scale. Sage-grouse avoided coniferous habitats at a 0.65-km(2) scale and riparian areas at a 4-km(2) scale. A toughness index showed that sage-grouse selected gentle topography in winter. After controlling for vegetation and topography, the addition of a variable that quantified the density of CBNG wells within 4 km(2) improved model fit by 6.66 Akaike's Information Criterion points (Akaike wt = 0.965). The odds ratio for each additional well in a 4-km(2) area (0.877; 95% CI = 0.834-0.923) indicated that sage-grouse avoid CBNG development in otherwise suitable winter habitat. Sage-grouse were 1.3 times more likely to occupy sagebrush habitats that lacked CBNG wells within a 4-km(2) area, compared to those that had the maximum density of 12.3 wells per 4 km(2) allowed on federal lands. We validated the model with 74 locations from 74 radiomarked individuals obtained during the winters of 2004 and 2007. This winter habitat model based on vegetation, topography, and CBNG avoidance was highly predictive (validation R-2 = 0.984). Our spatially explicit model can be used to identify areas that provide the best remaining habitat for wintering sage-grouse in the PRB to mitigate impacts of energy development.