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
  • [21] 'RUFFED GROUSE'
    CORDING, R
    POETRY, 1988, 152 (06) : 327 - 328
  • [22] Ruffed grouse brood habitat use in a mixed hardwood forest: Implications for forest management in the Appalachians
    Jones, Benjamin C.
    Kleitch, Jennifer L.
    Harper, Craig A.
    Buehler, David A.
    FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2008, 255 (10) : 3580 - 3588
  • [23] Effect of prescribed burning of clearcuts on ruffed grouse brood habitat
    Whitaker, DM
    Stauffer, DF
    Norman, GW
    Chandler, WB
    Proceedings of the Fifty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2004, : 312 - 322
  • [24] 'Ruffed Grouse'
    Davison, P
    STAND, 2000, 2 (02): : 58 - 58
  • [25] Importance of early successional habitat to ruffed grouse and American woodcock
    Dessecker, DR
    McAuley, DG
    WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN, 2001, 29 (02) : 456 - 465
  • [26] Ruffed grouse status, hunting, and response to habitat management in Missouri
    Kurzejeski, EW
    Thompson, FR
    USDA FOREST SERVICE NORTH CENTRAL FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION RESEARCH PAPER, 1999, (333): : 1 - +
  • [27] Ruffed grouse winter habitat use in mixed softwood-hardwood forests, Quebec, Canada
    Blanchette, Pierre
    Bourgeois, Jean-Claude
    St-Onge, Sylvain
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 2007, 71 (06): : 1758 - 1764
  • [28] Home range and habitat use of male ruffed grouse in managed mixed oak and aspen forests
    McDonald, JE
    Storm, GL
    Palmer, WL
    FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 1998, 109 (1-3) : 271 - 278
  • [29] HABITAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERENNIAL AND TRANSIENT DRUMMING SITES OF RUFFED GROUSE
    THOMPSON, FR
    FRITZELL, EK
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1989, 53 (03): : 820 - 823
  • [30] DYNAMICS OF DEPREDATION ON ARTIFICIAL GROUND NESTS IN HABITAT MANAGED FOR RUFFED GROUSE
    YAHNER, RH
    MAHAN, CG
    DELONG, CA
    WILSON BULLETIN, 1993, 105 (01): : 172 - 179