Study

Availability of foods of sage grouse chicks following prescribed fire in sagebrush-bitterbrush

  • Published source details Pyle W.H. & Crawford J.A. (1996) Availability of foods of sage grouse chicks following prescribed fire in sagebrush-bitterbrush. Journal of Range Management, 49, 320-324.

Summary

Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus formerly inhabited much sagebrush-dominated habitat throughout North America but are declining over most of their range. To help inform best management practice, a study was conducted to assess the influence of prescribed spring or autumn burns on sage grouse chick food availability at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon, northwest USA.

Within dense sagebrush Artemisia tridentata vaseyana-bitterbrush Purshia tridentata stands, in each of four blocks, three 25 x 40 m plots were established and randomly assigned as controls (unburned), or an autumn (November 1987) or spring (March 1988) burn. In summer 1987, the blocks had high shrub cover (36-53%) and low forb cover (2-10%), and as such were of limited use for sage grouse broods.

Responses of selected plant and arthropod taxa important as food for sage grouse chicks were evaluated. Vegetation response (including grass and forb cover) was evaluated during June 1988 and 1989. Relative insect abundance was sampled in 15 randomly located pitfall traps per plot (10 days in mid-June 1988 and 1989).

Spring and autumn burning decreased shrub cover (1989: control 35%; autumn burn 10%; spring 5%) but forb cover and diversity increased. Regards important food plants, autumn burning increased ‘dandelion’ (Cichorieae) frequency in 1989; others (e.g. slender phlox Microsteris gracilis and desert-parsley Lomatium spp.) were little affected by burning. Primary food insects e.g. ground-dwelling June beetles (Scarabaeidae)and darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) were not influenced by burning.
 
Whilst prescribed burning may increase forbs available to sage grouse chicks, the authors highlight that broods still require sagebrush for cover.
 
 
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at: http://uvalde.tamu.edu/jrm/jul96/pyle.htm

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust