Ruffed Grouse Nesting Ecology and Brood Habitat in Western North Carolina PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Ruffed Grouse Nesting Ecology and Brood Habitat in Western North Carolina PDF full book. Access full book title Ruffed Grouse Nesting Ecology and Brood Habitat in Western North Carolina by . Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Ruffed grouse Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) population densities are lower in the southern Appalachians compared to more northern parts of grouse range. Southern forests lack an aspen (Populus spp.) forest component, which provides year-round habitat in the North. The absence of aspen and low productivity have been cited as possible causes for low grouse densities in the southern Appalachians. In addition, habitat quality in the eastern United States may be decreasing as forests mature. These factors contribute to concerns that the region may be experiencing long-term ruffed grouse population declines. Productivity and breeding habitat must be characterized to foster better forest management strategies and ensure viable ruffed grouse populations in the southern Appalachians. The objective of this study was to quantify productivity and characterize habitat at nest and brood locations in the Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina. Radio-collared hens were monitored in April-July 2000 and 2001 to determine nesting rate, clutch size, nesting chronology, and nest survival. Habitat characteristics were measured at nests (n=19), and brood locations (n=115) for 14 hens. Invertebrate samples (n=932) were taken at each brood and random location during the first 6 weeks post-hatch to determine food availability for young ruffed grouse chicks. Nest and brood locations were paired with random locations to compare used versus available habitat. Mean incubation initiation dates varied between years (P=0.0050) and ranged from 10 April to 29 April. Hen incubation rate (84%), Mayfield nest survival (76%), mean clutch size (10.1 eggs/nest), and egg hatching success (95%) did not differ between years or age classes (P>0.05). Hens selected nest locations with more dense vertical cover (83%) than random. No chicks (n=48) survived past 4 weeks post-hatch (n=5 broods) in 2000. In contrast, all broods (n=9) had at least one chick survive through the entire brooding season in 2001. Brood habitat selection differed between years (P
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Ruffed grouse Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) population densities are lower in the southern Appalachians compared to more northern parts of grouse range. Southern forests lack an aspen (Populus spp.) forest component, which provides year-round habitat in the North. The absence of aspen and low productivity have been cited as possible causes for low grouse densities in the southern Appalachians. In addition, habitat quality in the eastern United States may be decreasing as forests mature. These factors contribute to concerns that the region may be experiencing long-term ruffed grouse population declines. Productivity and breeding habitat must be characterized to foster better forest management strategies and ensure viable ruffed grouse populations in the southern Appalachians. The objective of this study was to quantify productivity and characterize habitat at nest and brood locations in the Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina. Radio-collared hens were monitored in April-July 2000 and 2001 to determine nesting rate, clutch size, nesting chronology, and nest survival. Habitat characteristics were measured at nests (n=19), and brood locations (n=115) for 14 hens. Invertebrate samples (n=932) were taken at each brood and random location during the first 6 weeks post-hatch to determine food availability for young ruffed grouse chicks. Nest and brood locations were paired with random locations to compare used versus available habitat. Mean incubation initiation dates varied between years (P=0.0050) and ranged from 10 April to 29 April. Hen incubation rate (84%), Mayfield nest survival (76%), mean clutch size (10.1 eggs/nest), and egg hatching success (95%) did not differ between years or age classes (P>0.05). Hens selected nest locations with more dense vertical cover (83%) than random. No chicks (n=48) survived past 4 weeks post-hatch (n=5 broods) in 2000. In contrast, all broods (n=9) had at least one chick survive through the entire brooding season in 2001. Brood habitat selection differed between years (P
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Ruffed grouse Languages : en Pages : 205
Book Description
Ruffed grouse populations are lower in the Appalachians compared to the Great Lakes states, the geographic core of grouse distribution. Theories to explain lower numbers in the Appalachians include inadequate foods, lower reproduction, lower survival, and loss of habitat. To provide insight into ruffed grouse ecology in the Appalachians, habitat use, reproduction, and survival were studied on Nantahala National Forest in western North Carolina. Radiotagged grouse (n = 276) were monitored through the year. Seasonal 75% kernel home ranges (n = 172) averaged 15-59 ha across sexes, ages, and seasons. Home range size was related to habitat with smaller ranges occurring where 6-20-year-old mixed oak (SUBXER2) and forest roads (ROAD) were interspersed with other habitats. Across seasons, sexes and ages, SUBXER2 and ROAD were among preferred habitats. Compared to males, females used greater diversity of habitats, including>40-year-old stands. Use of older stands may have been influenced by food availability (i.e., hard mast). Nests (n = 44) were located to determine fate. The majority of nests (86%) were on mid and upper slopes in mature stands>40-years old. Proportion of successful nests was 81%. Mayfield nest survival was 0.83 (+ 0.084 SE) and did not differ between juveniles and adults. Nesting rate was 73% and did not differ between juveniles and adults. One female renested, though high nest success precluded opportunities for documenting extent of renesting. Mean first nest clutch was 10.1 eggs. Broods (n = 35) were monitored intensively following hatch. Brood sites had greater herbaceous ground cover, vertical cover, midstory stem density, and invertebrate density compared to random sites. Mean home range size was 24.3 ha (" 4.0 SE) using 75% kernel methods and 40.0 ha (" 4.0 SE) using MCP. Preferred habitats were mixed oak 0-5, 6-20, and>80-years old, forest roads, and edges of maintained clearings. Mean annual survival of grouse>3 months old was 0.39 (" 0.052 SE). Of mortalities, 43% were from mammalian predators, 27% avian, 13% unknown predation, 11% hunter harvest and 7% other causes. Scavenging prior to transmitter recovery may have inflated mammalian predation rates. Relatively low hunter harvest did not appear to be additive to natural mortality. Spring population density, estimated from drumming counts, decreased from 11.4 grouse/100ha in 2000 to 5.88 grouse/100 ha in 2004. Fall population density indexed by catch per unit effort also decreased during the study from 0.96 grouse/100 trap-days in 1999 to 0.19 grouse/100 trap-days in 2003. The fall population index was inversely related to annual survival (r2 = 0.76, P = 0.054). The inverse relationship may have been a function of habitat availability. Annual recruitment indexed by proportion of juveniles in fall captures was less than reports from the northern core of ruffed grouse range. Overall percentage of juveniles in fall captures was 59.6%, ranging from 46.2-66.7%. Recommendations to increase grouse density include creating a diversity of forest types and age classes interspersed across the landscape. Alternative regeneration techniques such as shelterwood, irregular shelterwood, and group selection can be used to intersperse food and cover, thus improving grouse habitat.
Author: Dean F. Stauffer Publisher: Hancock House Publishing ISBN: 9780888396679 Category : Ruffed grouse Languages : en Pages : 176
Book Description
A comprehensive overview of all aspects of grouse ecology and management in the central and southern Appalachians, summarizing findings of the Appalachian Cooperative Grouse Research Project. Topics covered include basic biology and ecology re nesting and brood survival; survival factors; food habits and nutrition; home ranges and dispersal; population and habitat management; the future of grouse in the region. The ecology and management of ruffed grouse is well understood for their core range where aspen is dominant and integral to their well-being. But, what of ruffed grouse that occur where aspen doesn't provide for their annual needs? Ecology and Management of Appalachian Ruffed Grouse presents a comprehensive overview of all aspects of grouse ecology and management in the central and southern Appalachians and summarizes the findings of the Appalachian Cooperative Grouse Research Project. From 1996 through 2002, investigators captured, released and followed the fate of over 3000 grouse on 12 study sites from Rhode Island to North Carolina. The primary goal was to understand factors, including hunting, that affect grouse survival, but in the process a substantial amount of additional information was discovered about grouse ecology in the Appalachians. The book covers the following topics: basic biology and ecology related to nesting and brood survival; factors affecting survival; food habits and nutrition effects on ecology; home ranges and dispersal; roosting ecology; population and habitat management; and, grouse management on private lands and the future of grouse in the central and southern Appalachians. This book should appeal to serious students of grouse ecology and management, game bird enthusiasts, and those individuals who are interested in natural history of birds in general.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Ruffed grouse Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) historically have been considered a bird of early successional habitats. Over the past 60 years, forests of the southern Appalachians have matured, as a result of reduced timber harvest. Because of pressure from special interest groups, the U.S. Forest Service no longer uses the clearcutting method of regeneration. Use of forest stands created by alternative silvicultural techniques by grouse is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to determine grouse use of various forest types and stand ages, including stands regenerated by shelterwood, 2-aged shelterwood, and group selection early after harvest. Eighty-five grouse were captured in Fall 1999 and Spring 2000 with interception and mirror traps with a trap success rate of 1.2 birds/100 trap nights. Mesic pole stands(11-39 years old) were preferred over mature stands (>40 years old) and sapling stands (>10 years old) for year-round habitat use. Males had an average annual home range of 43 ha (106ac) a fall-winter range of 51 ha (126ac), and a spring-summer range of 32 ha (79 ac). Females had an average annual home range 66 ha (163 ac), a fall-winter range of 64 ha (158 ac), and a spring-summer range of 46 ha (114 ac). Male grouse had an average day-use area of 1.5 ha (4 ac), while females typically stayed within 0.8 ha (2 ac). A spring drumming census suggested there were 2 birds/100 ha in 1999 and 4 birds/100 ha in 2000. Drumming logs were most often located on ridge tops in mature stands with a dense mid-story of mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) or flame azalea (Rhododendron calendulaceum). Vegetation and topographic sampling suggested microsite selection did not affect trap success, however, traps located in edge habitat were more successful than traps in mature stands. The annual mortality rate was 62%. Ten mortalities were believed to be caused by avian predators, 18 by mammalian predators, 6 grouse were killed by hunters, and 9 by other causes. Management recommendations should prescribe timber harvests in mesic forest stands to benefit ruffed grouse. Cuts should be separated both in time and space and be positioned near mature oak-hickory and/or northern hardwood stands when possible. Cuts should be located on mid- to lower slopes to provide early successional habitat, while leaving selected ridge tops uncut to provide suitable drumming log habitat. Logging roads and openings should be planted in a clover and annual grass mixture to establish quality herbaceous openings used by grouse for winter feeding and spring/summer brood rearing.
Author: Publisher: ISBN: Category : Grouse Languages : en Pages : 40
Book Description
S2The Appalachian Cooperative Grouse Research Project (ACGRP) was a Multistate cooperative effort initiated in 1996 to investigate the apparent decline of ruffed grouse (Bonus umbellus) and improve management throughout the central and southern Appalachian region (i.e., parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina, USA). Researchers have offered several hypotheses to explain the low abundance of ruffed grouse in the region, including low availability of early-successional forests due to changes in land use, additive harvest mortality, low productivity and recruitment, and nutritional stress. As part of the ACGRP, we investigated ruffed grouse population ecology. Our objectives were to estimate reproductive rates, estimate survival and cause-specific mortality rates, examine if ruffed grouse harvest in the Appalachian region is compensatory, and estimate ruffed grouse finite population growth. We trapped >3,000 ruffed grouse in autumn (Sep-Nov) and spring (Feb-Mar) from 1996 to September 2002 on 12 study areas. We determined the age and gender of each bird and fitted them with necklace-style radiotransmitters and released them at the trap site. We tracked ruffed grouse >- 2 times per week using handheld radiotelemetry equipment and gathered data on reproduction, recruitment, survival, and mortality. Ruffed grouse population dynamics in the Appalachian region differed from the central portion of the species' range (i.e., northern United States and Canada). Ruffed grouse in the Appalachian region had lower productivity and recruitment, but higher survival than reported for populations in the Great Lakes region and southern Canada. Population dynamics differed between oak (Quercus spp.)-hickory (Carya spp.) and mixed-mesophytic forest associations within the southern and central Appalachian region. Productivity and recruitment were lower in oak-hickory forests, but adult survival was higher than in mixed-mesophytic forests. Furthermore, ruffed grouse productivity and recruitment were more strongly related to hard mast (i.e., acorn) production in oak-hickory forests than in mixed-mesophytic forests. The leading cause of ruffed grouse mortality was avian predation (44% of known mortalities). Harvest mortality accounted for 12% of all known mortalities and appeared to be compensatory. Population models indicated ruffed grouse populations in the Appalachian region are declining ([lambda] = 0.78-0.95), but differences in model estimates highlighted the need for improved understanding of annual productivity and recruitment. We posit ruffed grouse in the Appalachian region exhibit a clinal population structure characterized by changes in life-history strategies. Changes in life history strategies are in response to gradual changes in forest structure, quality of food resources, snowfall and accumulation patterns, and predator communities. Management efforts should focus on creating a mosaic of forest stand ages across the landscape to intersperse habitat resources including nesting and brood cover, adult escape cover, roosting sites, and, most importantly, food resources. Land managers can intersperse habitat resources through a combination of?c1earcutting, shelterwood harvest, group selection, and timber stand improvement including various thinnings and prescribed fire). Managers should maintain current ruffed grouse harvest rates while providing high quality hunting opportunities. We define high quality hunting as low hunting pressure, low vehicle traffic, and high flush rates. Managers can provide high quality hunting opportunities through use of road closures in conjunction with habitat management.S3.
Author: National Agricultural Library (U.S.) Publisher: ISBN: Category : Agricultural conservation Languages : en Pages : 404
Book Description
"The bibliography is a guide to recent scientific literature covering effects of agricultural conservation practices on fish and wildlife. The citations listed here provide information on how conservation programs and practices designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, as well as those intended for other purposes (e.g., water quality improvement), affect various aquatic and terrestrial fauna"--Abstract.
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: Dean F. Stauffer
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: 
Author: Deretha A. Freiling
Author: National Agricultural Library (U.S.)
Author: Gardiner Bump