Factors affecting habitat use by Appalachian ruffed grouse

被引:0
|
作者
Whitaker, Darroch M. [1 ]
Stauffer, Dean F.
Norman, Gary W.
Devers, Patrick K.
Allen, Thomas J.
Bittner, Steve
Buehler, David
Edwards, John
Friedhoff, Scott
Giuliano, William M.
Harper, Craig A.
Tefft, Brian
机构
[1] Virginia Tech, Dept Fisheries & Wildlife Sci, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
[2] Virginia Dept Game & Inland Fisheries, Verona, VA 24482 USA
[3] W Virginia Dept Nat Resources, Elkins, WV 26241 USA
[4] Maryland Dept Nat Resources, Clear Spring, MD 21722 USA
[5] Univ Tennessee, Dept Forestry Wildlife & Fisheries, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
[6] W Virginia Univ, Div Forestry, Morgantown, WV 26506 USA
[7] Kentucky Dept Fish & Wildlife, Moorehead, KY 40351 USA
[8] Univ Florida, Dept Wildlife Ecol & Conservat, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[9] Rhode Isl Dept Environm Management, Div Fish & Wildlife, W Kingston, RI 02892 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT | 2006年 / 70卷 / 02期
关键词
ACGRP; Appalachian Mountains; Bonasa umbellus; habitat use; landscape composition; resource selection; ruffed grouse; strength of selection;
D O I
10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[460:FAHUBA]2.0.CO;2
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
A goal of many resource selection studies is to identify those habitats selected by a species. However, favorability of a particular habitat feature is likely contingent on such factors as landscape composition, predation risk, and an individual's resource needs. Thus, habitat selection may vary depending on context, and identifying causes of variability in habitat use could increase our understanding of functional aspects of a species' habitat ecology. Clear-cuts afford ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) important escape cover, whereas access routes (roads and trails) and mesic bottomlands are viewed as important foraging areas for this species. We present a study of factors influencing strength of selection (i.e., use-availability) for these 3 habitat features by individual ruffed grouse. We analyzed radiotelemetry data from > 1,000 ruffed grouse monitored on 10 study sites in the central and southern Appalachians. Five sites were typified by mixed-mesophytic forests, and 5 were predominantly oak-hickory forests. Selection for clear-cuts was positively related to selection for access routes, but it was inversely related to selection for mesic bottomlands. Selection for mesic bottomlands and selection for access routes were positively related in oak-hickory forests, but they were unrelated in mixed-mesophytic forests. Clear-cuts were more strongly selected in mixed-mesophytic forests, and within each forest type, use of clear-cuts was strongest by adult males. Mesic bottomlands were only selected in oak-hickory forests, and within these forests they were most strongly selected by adult females. Following poor, hard-mast crops, use of access routes by female grouse increased. Use of clear-cuts and bottomlands increased for some or all sex and age classes of grouse following closure of hunting, suggesting that hunting discouraged use of these covers. Animals typically face a trade-off between survival and condition to maximize fitness, and our observations suggest that (relative to one another) male grouse favor refuging habitats whereas females favor foraging areas. At a landscape scale, grouse in areas having oak-hickory forests selected foraging habitats more strongly, whereas those inhabiting mixed-mesophytic forests made greater use of escape cover. Our findings indicate that habitat management prescriptions for Appalachian grouse can be tailored by forest type.
引用
收藏
页码:460 / 471
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] LONGEVITY RECORD FOR APPALACHIAN RUFFED GROUSE
    STOLL, RJ
    DAVIS, JA
    BIRD-BANDING, 1974, 45 (03): : 270 - 271
  • [2] RUFFED AND BLUE GROUSE HABITAT USE IN SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO
    STAUFFER, DF
    PETERSON, SR
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1985, 49 (02): : 459 - 466
  • [3] SPRING HOME RANGE AND HABITAT USE BY FEMALE RUFFED GROUSE
    MAXSON, SJ
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1978, 42 (01): : 61 - 71
  • [4] Ruffed Grouse population ecology in the Appalachian region
    Krausman, Paul R.
    WILDLIFE MONOGRAPHS, 2007, (168) : 1 - 36
  • [5] Summer habitat use by Ruffed Grouse with broods in central Pennsylvania
    Scott, JG
    Lovallo, MJ
    Storm, GL
    Tzilkowski, WM
    JOURNAL OF FIELD ORNITHOLOGY, 1998, 69 (03) : 474 - 485
  • [6] FACTORS AFFECTING RUFFED GROUSE DRUMMING COUNTS IN SOUTHWESTERN WISCONSIN
    RODGERS, RD
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1981, 45 (02): : 409 - 418
  • [7] HOME RANGE, MOVEMENTS, AND HABITAT USE BY REINTRODUCED RUFFED GROUSE IN NORTHERN MISSOURI
    KURZEJESKI, EW
    ROOT, BG
    WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN, 1989, 17 (02) : 106 - 111
  • [8] Response of ruffed grouse to forest management in the southern Appalachian mountains
    Dimmick, RW
    Sole, JD
    Minser, WG
    Hale, PE
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTY-SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, 1998, : 294 - 302
  • [9] HABITAT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR RUFFED GROUSE FOR A MULTIPLE USE AREA IN MICHIGAN
    BERNER, A
    GYSEL, LW
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1969, 33 (04): : 769 - &
  • [10] HABITAT USE, HOME RANGE, AND SURVIVAL OF TERRITORIAL-MALE RUFFED GROUSE
    THOMPSON, FR
    FRITZELL, EK
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1989, 53 (01): : 15 - 21