Hierarchical Habitat Selection by Nebraska Pheasant Hunters Lyndsie Wszola University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Dissertations & Theses in Natural Resources Natural Resources, School of 8-2017 Mapping the Ecology of Information: Hierarchical Habitat Selection by Nebraska Pheasant Hunters Lyndsie Wszola University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natresdiss Part of the Behavioral Economics Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Wszola, Lyndsie, "Mapping the Ecology of Information: Hierarchical Habitat Selection by Nebraska Pheasant Hunters" (2017). Dissertations & Theses in Natural Resources. 157. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natresdiss/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations & Theses in Natural Resources by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. MAPPING THE ECOLOGY OF INFORMATION: HIERARCHICAL HABITAT SELECTION BY NEBRASKA PHEASANT HUNTERS by Lyndsie Wszola A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Major: Natural Resource Sciences Under the Supervision of Professor Joseph J. Fontaine Lincoln, Nebraska August, 2017 MAPPING THE ECOLOGY OF INFORMATION: HIERARCHICAL HABITAT SELECTION BY NEBRASKA PHEASANT HUNTERS Lyndsie Wszola, M.S. University of Nebraska, 2017 Advisor: Joseph J. Fontaine Hunting regulations are assumed to moderate the effects of hunting consistently across a game population. A growing body of evidence suggests that hunter effort varies temporally and spatially, and that variation in effort at multiple spatial scales can affect game populations in unexpected ways. We set out to determine the causes of variation in hunting effort among ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) hunters at four spatial scales: among regions within the state of Nebraska, among sites within a given region, among access points at a given site, and among habitat patches within a site. At each scale, pheasant hunters used direct and indirect information about pheasant relative abundance to make spatial decisions, but the sources of information used varied with scale. At the state scale, pheasant hunter use was positively correlated with relative pheasant abundance, and percent coverage of wetlands, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands, and row crops. Within a given region, hunters were most likely to hunt CRP grasslands, as opposed to wildlife management areas, corroborating evidence that hunters associate CRP with pheasant abundance. Sites surrounded by a higher concentration of row crops, a potential food source for pheasants, also received higher use. At the access point scale, hunter space use was positively correlated with proximity to roads and public access signs, but declined near occupied structures and livestock, indicating that hunters responded to the spatial distribution and content of public access infrastructure. Within fields, hunter space use was positively correlated with pheasant detections, and negatively associated with correlates of metabolic cost and distance from crop fields. Our findings indicate that hunters are strongly influenced by cues of public land access and pheasant abundance, suggesting that if it is desirable to direct or mitigate the flow of hunter effort through public lands, this objective may be accomplished by managing the cues available to hunters without explicitly limiting access to public lands. i DEDICATION To Penny and Zach, for long walks and long talks, respectively. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the mentorship, hard work, patience and trust of more people than it is possible to name here. To my advisor, Dr. Joseph Fontaine, you have been an incredible mentor. Thank you for constantly challenging me to think critically and reminding me to laugh at myself. Thank you to Dr. Jeff Lusk for helping me to place my work in context, and for your invaluable advice about writing and publishing. To Dr. Chris Chizinski, thank you for helping me develop my skills and interest in computational ecology. To Dr. Erica Stuber, thank you for keeping your door open, and talking through spatial statistics problems with me. To Karie Decker, thank you for your insights into the state of the field, and for providing guidance and direction at crucial times. To Lindsey Messinger, thank you for always making time for me, and for all the chats on dog walks and early morning swims. To the people of Culbertson, thank you for welcoming us into your community. We could not have done any of this without you. To the Southwest NGPC personnel, thank you for your help and expertise. Thanks especially to TJ Walker, Adam Kester, Chad Taylor, Brian Piernicky, and Brian Gaston, for showing me around when I first arrived in the Southwest and directing hunters to me. Thank you to all of our landowners across the state of Nebraska, for allowing us to work on your property and taking time out of your busy days to stop and talk with us about our work. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my hunter volunteers, for spending your precious time in the field collecting data for me. I especially want to thank one of my first volunteers, who invited me to Thanksgiving dinner, introduced me to many other hunters, and showed me what an upland hunting mentor should be. Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do. iii Thank you to all of the many technicians and field personnel who collected the data contained in this document. Thank you also to our amazing lab research professionals. Jenny Foggia, thank you for your data curating, analysis help, and writing advice. Annie Madsen and Matt Strassburg, thank you for your impeccable stewardship of data and equipment. To all the students of the Nebraska co-op, thanks for being there when I needed help, but also when I needed to go out and celebrate over a beer. Thanks especially to Alexis Fedele and Brian Harmon, for going through everything with me. Thank you to our amazing co-op unit professional staff, Valerie Egger, Caryl Cashmere, and Wilma Gerena, for your help, organization, and patience with all things administrative. This project would not have been possible without funding. Special thanks to Jeff Lusk, Scott Taylor, and Karie Decker with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission for your roles in securing funding and investing in future generations of scientists and wildlife managers. Funding for this project was provided by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Projects W-98-R, administered by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Cooperating partners include the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Finally, thank you to all of my friends and family, especially those back on the east coast who supported me moving across the country to follow my passion, and who have cheered me on these last three years. Thank you most especially to my two best friends, Zach and Penny, for being there with me every step of the way. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………v List of Figures………………………………………………………………………….....ix INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1 METHODS………………………………………………………………………………..4 Study system………………………………………………………………………………4 Scale 1: Habitat selection in response to county-scale variation……………………….…6 Scale 2: Habitat selection in response to within-county habitat variation……………….12 Scale 3: Access point selection…………………………………………………………..15 Scale 4: Hunter selection of habitat patches within fields...……………………………..21 RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………..26 Scale 1: Habitat selection in response to county-scale variation………………………...26 Scale 2: Site selection in response to within-county habitat variation………………….…29 Scale 3: Access point selection…………………………………………………………..30 Scale 4: Hunter selection of habitat patches within fields……………………………….30 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………....31 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..41 TABLES AND FIGURES……………………………………………………………….50 APPENDIX 1: HUNTER COUNT DATA SHEETS……………………………………67 APPENDIX 2: HUNTER SURVEY QUESTIONAIRES……………………………….70 v List of Tables Table 1: Distribution of land ownership categories (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Conservation Partners Lands, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Open Fields and Waters, United States Forest Service, Natural Resource Districts, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) surveyed. Counts are broken down by study region and arranged by study year.………….............50 Table 2: Sample sizes of bus routes conducted, interviews collected, and percent of interviews which were with pheasant hunters during the 2014-2016 pheasant hunting seasons. Counts are broken down by study region and arranged by study year.........................................................................................................51 Table 3: Sample sizes and origin distribution of cars counted on bus routes during the 2014-2016 pheasant hunting seasons. Counts are broken down by study region and arranged by study year……………………..............................................51 Table 4: Distance to metropolitan areas, hectares of public land