Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

F.R. Quamen

Publications and source records attributed to F.R. Quamen.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Summary of science, activities, programs, and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

The Greater Sage-Grouse, has been observed, hunted, and counted for decades. The sagebrush biome, home to the Greater Sage-Grouse, includes sagebrush-steppe and Great Basin sagebrush communities, interspersed with grasslands, salt flats, badlands, mountain ranges, springs, intermittent creeks and washes, and major river systems, and is one of the most widespread and enigmatic components of Western U.S. landscapes. Over time, habitat conversion, degradation, and fragmentation have accumulated across the entire range such that local conditions as well as habitat distributions at local and regional scales are negatively affecting the long-term persistence of this species. Historic patterns of human use and settlement of the sagebrush ecosystem have contributed to the current condition and status of sage-grouse populations. The accumulation of habitat loss, persistent habitat degradation, and fragmentation by industry and urban infrastructure, as indicated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) findings, presents a significant challenge for conservation of this species and sustainable management of the sagebrush ecosystem. Because of the wide variations in natural and human history across these landscapes, no single prescription for management of sagebrush ecosystems (including sage-grouse habitats) will suffice to guide the collective efforts of public and private entities to conserve the species and its habitat. This report documents and summarizes several decades of work on sage-grouse populations, sagebrush as habitat, and sagebrush community and ecosystem functions based on the recent assessment and findings of the USFWS under consideration of the Endangered Species Act. As reflected here, some of these topics receive a greater depth of discussion because of the perceived importance of the issue for sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse populations. Drawing connections between the direct effects on sagebrush ecosystems and the effect of ecosystem condition on habitat condition, and finally the connection between habitat quality and sage-grouse population dynamics remains an important goal for science, management, and conservation. This effort is necessary, despite the perception that these complicated, indirect relations are difficult to characterize and manage, and the many advances in understanding and application developed toward this end have been documented here to help inform regional planning and policy decisions.

Arizona;California;Colorado;Montana;Nebraska;Nevad

Effects of CRP field age and cover type on ring-necked pheasants in eastern South Dakota

Loss of native grasslands to tillage has increased the importance of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands to maintain ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) populations. Despite the importance of CRP to pheasants, little is known about the effects of CRP field age and cover type on pheasant abundance and productivity in the northern Great Plains. Therefore, we assessed effects of these characteristics on pheasant use of CRP fields. We stratified CRP grasslands (n=42) by CRP stand age (old [10-13 yrs] vs. new [1-3 yrs] grasslands) and cover type (CP1 [cool-season grasslands] vs. CP2 [warm-season grasslands]) in eastern South Dakota and used crowing counts and roadside brood counts to index ring-necked pheasant abundance and productivity. Field-age and cover-type effects on pheasant abundance and productivity were largely the result of differences in vegetation structure among fields. More crowing pheasants were recorded in old cool-season CRP fields than any other age or cover type, and more broods were recorded in cool- than warm-season CRP fields. Extending existing CRP contracts another 5-10 years would provide the time necessary for new fields to acquire the vegetative structure used most by pheasants without a gap in habitat availability. Cool-season grass-legume mixtures (CP1) that support higher pheasant productivity should be given equal or higher ratings than warm-season (CP2) grass stands. We also recommend that United States Department of Agriculture administrators and field staff provide broader and more flexible guidelines on what seed mixtures can be used in CRP grassland plantings in the northern Great Plains. This would allow landowners and natural resource professionals who manage pheasant habitat to plant a mosaic of cool- and warm-season CRP grassland habitats.

Wildlife Society Bulletin