Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions?
Abstract Collision with infrastructure such as fences is widespread and common for many species of grouse. Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) fence‐collision has been documented and fence‐marking methods have been recommended for mitigating prairie‐grouse collision in rangeland habitats...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2012-06-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.142 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846120352636207104 |
|---|---|
| author | Bryan S. Stevens Kerry P. Reese John W. Connelly David D. Musil |
| author_facet | Bryan S. Stevens Kerry P. Reese John W. Connelly David D. Musil |
| author_sort | Bryan S. Stevens |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Collision with infrastructure such as fences is widespread and common for many species of grouse. Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) fence‐collision has been documented and fence‐marking methods have been recommended for mitigating prairie‐grouse collision in rangeland habitats. We tested a marking method in greater sage‐grouse breeding habitat and modeled collision as a function of fence marking and control covariates, in Idaho (USA) in 2010. Our results suggested collision risk decreased with fence marking, increased with lek‐count indices of local abundance, and decreased with increasing distance from lek. We found an approximate 83% reduction in collision rates at marked fences relative to unmarked fences. Our results also suggested marking may not be necessary on all fences, and mitigation should focus on areas with locally abundant grouse populations and fence segments <2 km from known leks. Nonetheless, collision still occurred at marked fences <500 m from large leks and moving or removing fences may be necessary in some areas if management is to eliminate collision. © 2012 The Wildlife Society. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4d106020b32b470698093bf0d4de2ee3 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-4d106020b32b470698093bf0d4de2ee32024-12-16T11:25:55ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402012-06-0136229730310.1002/wsb.142Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions?Bryan S. Stevens0Kerry P. Reese1John W. Connelly2David D. Musil3Departments of Fish and Wildlife Resources and Statistics, P.O. Box 441136, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USADepartment of Fish and Wildlife Resources, P.O. Box 441136, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USAIdaho Department of Fish and Game, 1345 Barton Road, Pocatello, ID 83204, USAIdaho Department of Fish and Game, 324 South 417 E Suite 1, Jerome, ID 83338, USAAbstract Collision with infrastructure such as fences is widespread and common for many species of grouse. Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) fence‐collision has been documented and fence‐marking methods have been recommended for mitigating prairie‐grouse collision in rangeland habitats. We tested a marking method in greater sage‐grouse breeding habitat and modeled collision as a function of fence marking and control covariates, in Idaho (USA) in 2010. Our results suggested collision risk decreased with fence marking, increased with lek‐count indices of local abundance, and decreased with increasing distance from lek. We found an approximate 83% reduction in collision rates at marked fences relative to unmarked fences. Our results also suggested marking may not be necessary on all fences, and mitigation should focus on areas with locally abundant grouse populations and fence segments <2 km from known leks. Nonetheless, collision still occurred at marked fences <500 m from large leks and moving or removing fences may be necessary in some areas if management is to eliminate collision. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.142avian collisionCentrocercus urophasianuscollision mitigationfence managementgreater sage‐grouseIdaho |
| spellingShingle | Bryan S. Stevens Kerry P. Reese John W. Connelly David D. Musil Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions? Wildlife Society Bulletin avian collision Centrocercus urophasianus collision mitigation fence management greater sage‐grouse Idaho |
| title | Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions? |
| title_full | Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions? |
| title_fullStr | Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions? |
| title_short | Greater sage‐grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions? |
| title_sort | greater sage grouse and fences does marking reduce collisions |
| topic | avian collision Centrocercus urophasianus collision mitigation fence management greater sage‐grouse Idaho |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.142 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bryansstevens greatersagegrouseandfencesdoesmarkingreducecollisions AT kerrypreese greatersagegrouseandfencesdoesmarkingreducecollisions AT johnwconnelly greatersagegrouseandfencesdoesmarkingreducecollisions AT daviddmusil greatersagegrouseandfencesdoesmarkingreducecollisions |