4.2 Article

Habitat selection by nesting and brood-rearing sharp-tailed grouse

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 4, Pages 326-336

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Z09-016

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation
  2. Ministry of Environment
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  4. University of Northern British Columbia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Breeding success is a critical component of population stability and is often influenced by the habitats used during the breeding season. Current hypotheses suggest that sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus (L., 1758)) select nest and brood-rearing habitats that provide both lateral and overhead cover to avoid detection by predators. We examined the selection of nesting and brood-rearing habitats of sharp-tailed grouse at three spatial scales (landscape, patch, and site) in northeastern British Columbia using standard and conditional logistic regression models and an information-theoretic approach. At the patch and site scales, our results validate our predictions, as nesting females selected shrub-steppe habitats, greater shrub and grass cover, taller vegetation, and greater residual vegetation compared with random sites. Brood-rearing females selected for agricultural habitats during the early brood-rearing period (0-14 days), but did not show selection of any habitat type or site attribute during the late brood-rearing period (15-49 days). We suggest that the selection of shrub-dominated habitats by nesting females supports the hypothesis that females select sites and habitats that maximize concealment. We further suggest that selection of shrub-dominated habitat is occurring in response to changes in habitat conditions and availability, as natural grassland communities have diminished across the landscape.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available