Search

Context Numerous wildlife species use a polygynous mating system, where males use auditory courtship behaviors to secure breeding opportunities. The acoustic adaptation hypothesis, risk reward, and landscape of fear theories suggest spatial variation in male auditory courtship will be influenced by areas in landscapes where sound transmission is increased, and predation risk is reduced. However, it is often unclear what landscape features drive spatial variation in courtship behaviors. Objectives We quantified the influence of predation risk, land cover type, and resource selection on spatial trends in the auditory courtship behavior (gobbling activity) of Eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Methods We used 53,025 gobbles coupled with GPS locations from 111 turkeys and 36 coyotes (Canis latrans), and distance metrics associated with hunter activity and land cover type, to investigate influences of predation risk, resource selection, and land cover type on spatial variation in gobbling activity in Georgia, USA. Results Distance to public access during hunting was the most influential predictor of gobbling activity, wherein the expected number of daily gobbles increased by 40% for every 500 m farther from public access. Daily gobbles decreased by 22% for every 500 m farther away from private property during hunting. We failed to find significant effects of land cover type and coyote use but found limited evidence that areas with increased predicted probability of turkey use was associated with increased gobbling. Conclusions Predation risk associated with increased anthropogenic disturbance had the greatest influence on gobbling activity. Our findings suggest that altering hunter access by closing roads to vehicle use, reducing hunter activity, or creating refuge areas on the landscape could positively influence gobbling activity.

Human enterprise has led to large‐scale changes in landscapes and altered wildlife population distribution and abundance, necessitating efficient and effective conservation strategies for impacted species. Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter sage‐grouse) are a widespread sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) obligate species that has experienced population declines since the mid‐1900s resulting from habitat loss and expansion of anthropogenic features into sagebrush ecosystems. Habitat loss is especially evident in North Dakota, USA, on the northeastern fringe of sage‐grouse’ distribution, where a remnant population remains despite recent development of energy‐related infrastructure. Resource managers in this region have determined a need to augment sage‐grouse populations using translocation techniques that can be important management tools for countering species decline from range contraction. Although translocations are a common tool for wildlife management, very little research has evaluated habitat following translocation, to track individual behaviors such as habitat selection and fidelity to the release site, which can help inform habitat requirements to guide selection of future release sites. We provide an example where locations from previously released radio‐marked sage‐grouse are used in a resource selection function framework to evaluate habitat selection following translocation and identify areas of seasonal habitat to inform habitat management and potential restoration needs. We also evaluated possible changes in seasonal habitat since the late 1980s using spatial data provided by the Rangeland Analysis Platform coupled with resource selection modeling results. Our results serve as critical baseline information for habitat used by translocated individuals across life stages in this study area, and will inform future evaluations of population performance and potential for long‐term recovery., Decades of human enterprise have impacted populations of greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the western United States. Although translocation is a viable management option to restore populations in areas where habitat has recovered, quantitative planning tools are needed to promote success of restoration efforts. We developed seasonal resource selection models for translocated sage‐grouse and evaluated habitat changes since the late 1980s to help guide future translocation decisions that will benefit population recovery.

Mapping suitable habitat is an important process in wildlife conservation planning. Species distribution reflects habitat selection processes occurring across multiple spatio‐temporal scales. Because habitat selection may be driven by different factors at different scales, conservation planners require information at the scale of the intervention to plan effective management actions. Previous research has described habitat selection processes shaping the distribution of greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage‐grouse) at the range‐wide scale. Finer‐scale information for applications within jurisdictional units inside the species range is lacking, yet necessary, because state wildlife agencies are the management authority for sage‐grouse in the United States. We quantified seasonal second‐order habitat selection for sage‐grouse across the state of Utah to produce spatio‐temporal predictions of their distribution at the southern periphery of the species range. We used location data obtained from sage‐grouse marked with very‐high‐frequency radio‐transmitters and lek location data collected between 1998 and 2013 to quantify species habitat selection in relation to a suite of topographic, edaphic, climatic, and anthropogenic variables using random forest algorithms. Sage‐grouse selected for greater sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) cover, higher elevations, and gentler slopes and avoided lower precipitations and higher temperatures. The strength of responses to habitat variables varied across seasons. Anthropogenic variables previously reported as affecting their range‐wide distribution (i.e., roads, powerlines, communication towers, and agricultural development) were not ranked as top predictors at our focal scale. Other than strong selection for sagebrush cover, the responses we observed differed from what has been reported at the range‐wide scale. These differences likely reflect the unique climatic, geographic, and topographic context found in the southern peripheral area of the species distribution compared to range‐wide environmental gradients. Our results highlight the importance of considering appropriateness of scale when planning conservation actions for wide‐ranging species., We used random forest algorithms to map seasonal habitat selection for greater sage‐grouse at the southern periphery of their range. Results will provide scale‐appropriate information for management decisions at the state jurisdiction level in Utah.

While the functional response of predators is commonly measured, recent work has revealed that the age and sex composition of prey killed is often a better predictor of prey population dynamics because the reproductive value of adult females is usually higher than that of males or juveniles.Climate is often an important mediating factor in determining the composition of predator kills, but we currently lack a mechanistic understanding of how the multiple facets of climate interact with prey abundance and demography to influence the composition of predator kills.Over 20 winters, we monitored 17 wolf packs in Yellowstone National Park and recorded the sex, age and nutritional condition of kills of their dominant prey—elk—in both early and late winter periods when elk are in relatively good and relatively poor condition, respectively.Nutritional condition (as indicated by per cent marrow fat) of wolf‐killed elk varied markedly with summer plant productivity, snow water equivalent (SWE) and winter period. Moreover, marrow was poorer for wolf‐killed bulls and especially for calves than it was for cows.Wolf prey composition was influenced by a complex set of climatic and endogenous variables. In early winter, poor plant growth in either year t or t − 1, or relatively low elk abundance, increased the odds of wolves killing bulls relative to cows. Calves were most likely to get killed when elk abundance was high and when the forage productivity they experienced in utero was poor. In late winter, low SWE and a relatively large elk population increased the odds of wolves killing calves relative to cows, whereas low SWE and poor vegetation productivity 1 year prior together increased the likelihood of wolves killing a bull instead of a cow.Since climate has a strong influence on whether wolves prey on cows (who, depending on their age, are the key reproductive components of the population) or lower reproductive value of calves and bulls, our results suggest that climate can drive wolf predation to be more or less additive from year to year., The impacts of large carnivores on their prey are importantly impacted by the composition of the prey killed. Here the authors show that climate and elk population size interact in important ways to determine when wolves kill cows, bulls or calves.

Imperfect detection is ubiquitous among wildlife research and is therefore commonly included in abundance estimation. Yet, the factors that affect observation success are largely unknown for rare and elusive species, such as large carnivores. Here, we took advantage of intensive ground‐based monitoring effort and an extensive GPS data set (2000–2018) and developed a winter sightability model for gray wolves (Canis lupus) in northern Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA. Our resulting sightability model indicated that observation success was positively affected by the topographic nature of where wolves were in relation to observer locations (viewshed), areas being less forested (openness), and wolf group size, and negatively affected by distance from observer locations. Of these, viewshed had the strongest effect on the probability of observing a wolf, with the odds of observing a wolf being four times more likely when wolves were in the predicted viewshed. Openness was the next most influential covariate, and group size was the least influential. We also tested whether a wolf being harvested from a pack when they were outside of Yellowstone National Park had an effect on wolf sightability. We did not, however, find support for human‐induced mortality affecting wolf sightability inside of Yellowstone National Park. Our results indicate that the ability to observe wolves was greatly affected by ecological and landscape‐level factors, a finding that is likely to generally extend to other large carnivores. As such, our sightability model highlights the importance of considering landscape structure and variation in large carnivore use of the landscape when conducting observational‐based studies.

A "landscape of fear" (LOF) is a map that describes continuous spatial variation in an animal9s perception of predation risk. The relief on this map reflects, for example, places that an animal avoids to minimize risk. Although the LOF concept is a potential unifying theme in ecology that is often invoked to explain the ecological and conservation significance of fear, quantified examples of a LOF over large spatial scales are lacking as is knowledge about the daily dynamics of a LOF. Despite theory and data to the contrary, investigators often assume, implicitly or explicitly, that a LOF is a static consequence of a predator9s mere presence. We tested the prediction that a LOF in a large-scale, free-living system is a highly-dynamic map with "peaks" and "valleys" that alternate across the diel (24-hour) cycle in response to daily lulls in predator activity. We did so with extensive data from the case study of Yellowstone elk (Cervus elaphus) and wolves (Canis lupus) that was the original basis for the LOF concept. We quantified the elk LOF, defined here as spatial allocation of time away from risky places and times, across nearly 1000-km2 of northern Yellowstone National Park and found that it fluctuated with the crepuscular activity pattern of wolves, enabling elk to use risky places during wolf downtimes. This may help explain evidence that wolf predation risk has no effect on elk stress levels, body condition, pregnancy, or herbivory. The ability of free-living animals to adaptively allocate habitat use across periods of high and low predator activity within the diel cycle is an underappreciated aspect of animal behavior that helps explain why strong antipredator responses may trigger weak ecological effects, and why a LOF may have less conceptual and practical importance than direct killing.

Delineation, protection, and restoration of habitats provide the basis for endangered and threatened species recovery plans. Species recovery plans typically contain guidelines that provide managers with a scientific basis to designate and manage critical habitats. As such, habitat guidelines are best developed using data that capture the full diversity of ecological and environmental conditions that provide habitat across the species’ range. However, when baseline information, which fails to capture habitat diversity, is used to develop guidelines, inconsistencies and problems arise when applying those guidelines to habitats within an ecologically diverse landscape. Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage‐ grouse) populations in Utah, USA, reflect this scenario—published range‐wide habitat guidelines developed through a literature synthesis did not include data from the full range of the species. Although all sage‐ grouse are considered sagebrush obligates (Artemisia spp.), the species occupies a diversity of sagebrush communities from shrub‐dominated semideserts in the southwest to more perennial grass‐dominated sagebrush‐steppe in the northeast portions of their distribution. Concomitantly, local ecological site and environmental conditions may limit the ability of managers to achieve broader range‐wide habitat guidelines. We combined microsite habitat vegetation parameters from radiomarked sage‐grouse nest and brood locations with state‐wide spatially continuous vegetation, climatic, and elevation data in a cluster analysis to develop empirically based sage‐grouse habitat guidelines that encompass the range of ecological and environmental variation across Utah. Using this novel approach, we identified 3 distinct clusters of sage‐grouse breeding (i.e., nesting and early brood‐rearing) and late brood‐rearing habitats in Utah. For each cluster, we identified specific vegetation recommendations that managers can use to assess sage‐grouse breeding and late brood‐rearing habitat. Our results provide relevant guidelines to Utah’s sage‐grouse populations and are feasible given the unique ecological variation found therein. This approach may have application to other species that occupy diverse habitats and physiographic regions.

Many ecosystems contain sympatric predator species that hunt in different places and times. We tested whether this provides vacant hunting domains, places and times where and when predators are least active, that prey use to minimize threats from multiple predators simultaneously. We measured how northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus elaphus) responded to wolves (Canis lupus) and cougars (Puma concolor), and found that elk selected for areas outside the high-risk domains of both predators consistent with the vacant domain hypothesis. This enabled elk to avoid one predator without necessarily increasing its exposure to the other. Our results demonstrate how the diel cycle can serve as a key axis of the predator hunting domain that prey exploit to manage predation risk from multiple sources. We argue that a multi-predator, spatiotemporal framework is vital to understand the causes and consequences of prey spatial response to predation risk in environments with more than one predator.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209968.].

A ‘landscape of fear’ (LOF) is a map that describes continuous spatial variation in an animal’s perception of predation risk. The relief on this map reflects, for example, places that an animal avoids to minimize risk. Although the LOF concept is a potential unifying theme in ecology that is often invoked to explain the ecological and conservation significance of fear, quantified examples of a LOF over large spatial scales are lacking as is knowledge about the daily dynamics of a LOF. Despite theory and data to the contrary, investigators often assume, implicitly or explicitly, that a LOF is a static consequence of a predator’s mere presence. We tested the prediction that a LOF in a large-scale, free-living system is a highly-dynamic map with ‘peaks’ and ‘valleys’ that alternate across the diel (24-hour) cycle in response to daily lulls in predator activity. We did so with extensive data from the case study of Yellowstone elk(Cervus elaphus)and wolves(Canis lupus)that was the original basis for the LOF concept. We quantified the elk LOF, defined here as spatial allocation of time away from risky places and times, across nearly 1000-km2of northern Yellowstone National Park and found that it fluctuated with the crepuscular activity pattern of wolves, enabling elk to use risky places during wolf downtimes. This may help explain evidence that wolf predation risk has no effect on elk stress levels, body condition, pregnancy, or herbivory. The ability of free-living animals to adaptively allocate habitat use across periods of high and low predator activity within the diel cycle is an underappreciated aspect of animal behavior that helps explain why strong antipredator responses may trigger weak ecological effects, and why a LOF may have less conceptual and practical importance than direct killing.

The extent to which prey space use actively minimizes predation risk continues to ignite controversy. Methodological reasons that have hindered consensus include inconsistent measurements of predation risk, biased spatiotemporal scales at which responses are measured and lack of robust null expectations.We addressed all three challenges in a comprehensive analysis of the spatiotemporal responses of adult female elk (Cervus elaphus) to the risk of predation by wolves (Canis lupus) during winter in northern Yellowstone, USA.We quantified spatial overlap between the winter home ranges of GPS‐collared elk and three measures of predation risk: the intensity of wolf space use, the distribution of wolf‐killed elk and vegetation openness. We also assessed whether elk varied their use of areas characterized by more or less predation risk across hours of the day, and estimated encounter rates between simultaneous elk and wolf pack trajectories. We determined whether observed values were significantly lower than expected if elk movements were random with reference to predation risk using a null model approach.Although a small proportion of elk did show a tendency to minimize use of open vegetation at specific times of the day, overall we highlight a notable absence of spatiotemporal response by female elk to the risk of predation posed by wolves in northern Yellowstone.Our results suggest that predator–prey interactions may not always result in strong spatiotemporal patterns of avoidance., This study reveals a near absence of spatiotemporal response by elk to wolf predation risk, challenging the notion that predators exert costly behavioural changes in their prey.

Diversity among scientists can foster better science ( 1 , 2 ), yet engaging and retaining a diversity of students and researchers in science has been difficult ( 3 ). Actions that promote diversity are well defined ( 4 ), organizations are increasingly focused on diversity ( 5 ), and many institutions are developing initiatives to recruit and enroll students from underrepresented minority (URM) groups (racial, ethnic, gender, sexual identity, or persons with disabilities). Yet representation of URM groups in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields lag behind demographics in society at large ( 3 – 5 ), and many URM students feel unwelcome in academic departments and in scientific fields. Why is progress so limited ( 6 , 7 )? We see a widespread and under-acknowledged disconnect between initiatives aimed at increasing diversity in academic and professional institutions and the experience of URM students (including many of us authors) ( 6 , 7 ). We argue that failure to grasp foundations of this disconnect is the crux of why diversity initiatives fail to reach the students that they were made to recruit. We believe that addressing this will resonate with other individuals and groups and help advance discussion in the scientific community.

Anthropogenic infrastructure can negatively affect wildlife through direct mortality and/or displacement behaviors. Some tetranoids (grouse spp.) species are particularly vulnerable to tall anthropogenic structures because they evolved in ecosystems void of vertical structures. In western North America, electric power transmission and distribution lines (power lines) occur in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) landscapes within the range of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage-grouse). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended using buffer zones near leks to mitigate the potential impacts of power lines on sage-grouse. However, recommended buffer distances are inconsistent across state and federal agencies because data are lacking. To address this, we evaluated the effects of power lines on sage-grouse breeding ecology within Utah, portions of southeastern Idaho, and southwestern Wyoming from 1998-2013. Overall, power lines negatively affected lek trends up to a distance of 2.7 and 2.8 km, respectively. Power lines died not affect lek persistence. Female sage-grouse avoided transmission lines during the nesting and brooding seasons at distances up to 1.1 and 0.8 km, respectively. Nest and brood success were negatively affected by transmission lines up to distances of 2.6 and 1.1 km, respectively. Distribution lines did not appear to affect sage-grouse habitat selection or reproductive fitness. Our analyses demonstrated the value of sagebrush cover in mitigating potential power line impacts. Managers can minimize the effects of new transmission power lines by placing them in existing anthropogenic corridors and/or incorporating buffers at least 2.8 km from active leks. Given the uncertainty we observed in our analyses regarding sage-grouse response to distribution lines coupled with their role in providing electric power service directly to individual consumers, we recommend that buffers for these power lines be considered on a case-by-case basis. Micrositing to avoid important habitats and habitat reclamation may reduce the potential impacts of new power line construction.

Historically, the plains bison (Bison bison Linnaeus) was the most numerous and influential grazer on the Great Plains. Today 500000 bison occupy North America among more than 100000000 cattle. In an attempt to restore their historical ecological role, bison are translocated onto landscapes previously manipulated for cattle use through water and fence development. We hypothesized that bison would use these landscapes similarly to cattle, thus maintaining homogenous grazing and reducing the restoration potential of bison at a landscape scale. We quantified differences between bison populations at different locations and spatial scales (American Prairie Reserve, Malta, Montana, USA, and Grasslands National Park, Val Marie, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2010‐2011) and bison and cattle at similar locations and spatial scales using behavioral observations, movement analyses, and resource selection functions. Bison and cattle differed in all behaviors (grazing, standing, bedded, moving, other); however, landscape attributes resulted in behavior differences within species. Cattle spent a higher proportion of time grazing (45‐49%) than bison (26‐28%) and increased time at water. Bison moved at a 50‐99% faster rate than cattle, and first passage time movement analyses identified selection of bison foraging patches (11690 ha) larger than cattle foraging patches (48‐615 ha). Similar to cattle, bison avoided most vegetation communities in relation to riparian communities and selected areas closer to water. Cattle selected for high plant biomass, whereas bison selected for intermediate plant biomass. This study has implications when bison and cattle are used to meet prairie restoration objectives. For bison, large landscapes that include variation in topography and vegetation communities are required. Furthermore, limiting manmade water sources may facilitate bison grazing patterns that more closely approximate historical bison use. For livestock, reduced movement and increased time spent grazing encourage grazing practices that increase heterogeneous grazing at a pasture scale.

T he winter range of Rocky Mountain elk ( Cervus canadensis ) throughout the Intermountain West is threatened by invasive plant species including spotted knapweed ( Centaurea maculosa ) and cheatgrass ( Bromus tectorum ). These species have direct impacts on pasture and grasslands resulting in substantial forage losses and costs associated with prevention and miti- gation. Invasive species cost the United States $ 120 billion annually, with knapweed estimated to cost $ 14 million annually to the economy of Montana. 1 Knapweed and cheat- grass are aggressive invaders, and are generally more common in disturbed sites resulting from overgrazing, fire, cultiva- tion, or other forms of ground disturbance, but can invade and transform relatively undisturbed rangeland. 2,3 The biochemical and physiological characteristics of knapweed allow it to outcompete native plants through greater resource acquisition and inhibition of native plant growth and seed germination. 4 Similarly, cheatgrass may inhibit native grass germination by rapidly outcompeting natives for soil moisture 5 and nitrogen 6 and increase fine dry fuels leading to increased fire intervals that favor cheatgrass dominance. DOI: 10.2458/azu_rangelands_v34i2_kohl

The link between individual variation in resource selection (e.g., functional response) and fitness creates a foundation for understanding wildlife-habitat relationships. Although many anthropogenic activities adversely affect these relationships, it is largely unknown whether projects implemented to benefit wildlife populations actually achieve this outcome. For sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) obligate species such as the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage-grouse), expansion of juniper (Juniperus spp.) and pinyon-pine (Pinus spp.; conifers) woodlands into sagebrush ecosystems has been identified as a conservation threat. This threat is intensified when a sagebrush ecosystem is bounded by naturally unsuitable habitats. As such, federal, state, and private land managers have implemented landscape-level management to remove conifers on thousands of hectares of sagebrush habitat across the western United States. Despite the scale of contemporary conifer treatments, little was previously known whether sage-grouse will occupy these manipulated landscapes and whether occupancy has consequences on fitness components. To address these questions, we monitored nest and brood success rates for 96 radio-marked sage-grouse from 2012-2015 that inhabited conifer-dominated landscapes in the Box Elder Sage-grouse Management Area in Utah where mechanical conifer removal projects were completed. We then linked sage-grouse resource selection to individual nest (n = 95) and brood (n = 56) success by incorporating random-slope Resource Selection Functions as explanatory predictors in a logistic brood success model. Using the novel approach of random slope covariates, we demonstrated that sage-grouse selected for nest and brooding sites closer to conifer removal areas and that the probability of individual nest and brood success declined (β = −0.10 and β = −0.74, respectively) as sage-grouse females selected sites farther from conifer removal areas. Our research provided the first evidence that mechanical conifer removal treatments can increase suitable available breeding habitats for female sage-grouse and that individuals who occupied these areas experienced enhanced nest and brood success.