DOCSLIB.ORG

Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird Commu- Nities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Birds in a Sagebrush Sea: Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird Commu- Nities BBBIIRRDDSS IINN AA SSAAGGEEBBRRUUSSHH SSEEAA MANAGING SAGEBRUSH HABITATS FOR BIRD COMMUNITIES by Christine Paige and Sharon A. Ritter Partners in Flight, Western Working Group 1999 Research and writing by: Christine Paige, Ravenworks Ecology, 612 Lolo Street, Missoula, MT 59802 Revision and editing by: Sharon A. Ritter, Idaho Partners in Flight, 142 West Hills Way, Hamilton, MT 59840 Editing and layout/design by: Pam Peterson, Nongame Program, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise, ID 83725 Project funding by: USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Idaho State Offices USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 USDA Forest Service, Regions 1 and 4 Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Program Ravenworks Ecology Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Jack Connelly, Mike Denny, David Dobkin, Randy Hill, Mabel Jankovsky-Jones, Lou Jours, Julie Kaltenecker, Steve Knick, Ron Lambeth, Peter Lessica, Paul Makela, Robert McQuivey, Chris Merker, Bob Moseley, Mike Pellant, Tim Reynolds, Terry Rich, John Rotenberry, Steve Shelly, Michael Schroeder, Chuck Trost, Helen Ulmschneider, Matthew Vander Haegen, and Brian Woodbridge for contributing information and ideas to the development of this document. We owe a special debt to our reviewers for their insightful comments and corrections on the drafts: Loren Anderson, Al Bammann, Jon Beals, Carol Beardmore, Steve Bouffard, Kathy Cheap, Mike Denny, Kim Dickerson, Kristi Dubois, Katy Duffy, Ana Egnew, Jim Hagenbarth, Neil Hedges, Gary Herron, Randy Hill, Nancy Hoffman, Gary Ivey, Bill and Nancy LaFramboise, Ron Lambeth, Tracy Lloyd, Paul Makela, Chris Merker, Alan Peterson, Joe Petzold, Charley Rains, Tim Reynolds, Terry Rich, Bill Roney, John Rotenberry, Michael Schroeder, Dan Svingen, and Helen Ulmschneider. Any errors or omissions in this report are solely the authors’. Cover photos: Sagebrush landscape -Terry Rich; sage sparrow - Matt Vander Haegen, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Please cite this publication as: Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird commu- nities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, ID. For additional copies, contact: IDFG Nongame Program, P.O. Box 25, Boise, Idaho 83707-0025; (208) 334-2920. While supplies last and to cover printing and postage, please send $4.00 each for 1-3 copies, $3.00 each for 4-9 copies, $2.75 each for 10-19 copies, $2.50 each for 20 or more copies. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 2 ECOLOGY OF SAGEBRUSH HABITAT ......................................................................................................... 3 Climate .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Wildlife Dependence on Sagebrush .............................................................................................................. 5 THE SAGEBRUSH LANDSCAPE BEFORE EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT ................................................... 5 Wildfire Patterns ........................................................................................................................................... 6 CHANGES IN SAGEBRUSH COUNTRY ........................................................................................................ 7 Influence of Livestock Grazing .................................................................................................................... 7 Non-native Grasses and Sagebrush Habitat Conversion .............................................................................. 8 HOW TO HELP BIRDS IN SAGEBRUSH HABITATS ................................................................................... 9 General Sagebrush Habitat Management ................................................................................................... 10 Sagebrush .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Understory Grasses and Forbs .................................................................................................................... 14 Biological Soil Crusts ................................................................................................................................. 15 Grazing ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Water Developments................................................................................................................................... 16 Insecticides.................................................................................................................................................. 17 Recreation ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Prescribed Fire and Wildfire ....................................................................................................................... 18 Habitat Fragmentation ................................................................................................................................ 19 Invasion of Non-native Grasses and Forbs ................................................................................................. 20 Farming ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Mining and Oil/Gas Development .............................................................................................................. 21 Residential and Urban Development .......................................................................................................... 22 SUMMARY OF BIRD MANAGEMENT GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 24 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX I. SAGEBRUSH BIRDS OF CONCERN..................................................................................... 33 SAGEBRUSH OBLIGATE SPECIES ....................................................................................................... 33 Sage Grouse .......................................................................................................................................... 33 Sage Thrasher ....................................................................................................................................... 34 Sage Sparrow ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Brewer’s Sparrow ................................................................................................................................. 36 SHRUBLAND SPECIES ............................................................................................................................ 37 Green-tailed Towhee ............................................................................................................................ 37 Black-throated Sparrow ........................................................................................................................ 38 Lark Sparrow ........................................................................................................................................ 38 SHRUBLAND AND GRASSLAND SPECIES ......................................................................................... 39 Swainson’s Hawk ................................................................................................................................. 39 Ferruginous Hawk ................................................................................................................................ 40 Prairie Falcon ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse ........................................................................................................... 41 Loggerhead Shrike ............................................................................................................................... 42 GRASSLAND SPECIES ............................................................................................................................ 43 Long-billed Curlew .............................................................................................................................. 43 Burrowing Owl ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Short-eared Owl ................................................................................................................................... 44 Vesper Sparrow .................................................................................................................................... 45 PRIMARILY DRY WOODLAND SPECIES ...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Assessment for Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes Montanus) in Wyoming
    SPECIES ASSESSMENT FOR SAGE THRASHER (OREOSCOPTES MONTANUS ) IN WYOMING prepared by 1 2 1 REBECCA S B USECK , DOUGLAS A. K EINATH , AND MATTHEW H. M CGEE 1 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3023 2 Zoology Program Manager, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3013; [email protected] prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office Cheyenne, Wyoming December 2004 Buseck, Keinath, and McGee – Oreoscoptes montanus December 2004 Table of Contents SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 NATURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 4 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy and Distribution ..................................................................................................... 6 Habitat Requirements............................................................................................................. 8 General .............................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationships of the Starlings (Sturnidae: Sturnini) and the Mockingbirds (Sturnidae: Mimini)
    THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE STARLINGS (STURNIDAE: STURNINI) AND THE MOCKINGBIRDS (STURNIDAE: MIMINI) CHARLESG. SIBLEYAND JON E. AHLQUIST Departmentof Biologyand PeabodyMuseum of Natural History,Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 USA ABSTRACT.--OldWorld starlingshave been thought to be related to crowsand their allies, to weaverbirds, or to New World troupials. New World mockingbirdsand thrashershave usually been placed near the thrushesand/or wrens. DNA-DNA hybridization data indi- cated that starlingsand mockingbirdsare more closelyrelated to each other than either is to any other living taxon. Some avian systematistsdoubted this conclusion.Therefore, a more extensiveDNA hybridizationstudy was conducted,and a successfulsearch was made for other evidence of the relationshipbetween starlingsand mockingbirds.The resultssup- port our original conclusionthat the two groupsdiverged from a commonancestor in the late Oligoceneor early Miocene, about 23-28 million yearsago, and that their relationship may be expressedin our passerineclassification, based on DNA comparisons,by placing them as sistertribes in the Family Sturnidae,Superfamily Turdoidea, Parvorder Muscicapae, Suborder Passeres.Their next nearest relatives are the members of the Turdidae, including the typical thrushes,erithacine chats,and muscicapineflycatchers. Received 15 March 1983, acceptedI November1983. STARLINGS are confined to the Old World, dine thrushesinclude Turdus,Catharus, Hylocich- mockingbirdsand thrashersto the New World. la, Zootheraand Myadestes.d) Cinclusis
    [Show full text]
  • Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna
    United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Fire in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Ecosystems Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42- volume 1 Effects of Fire on Fauna January 2000 Abstract _____________________________________ Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. Fires affect animals mainly through effects on their habitat. Fires often cause short-term increases in wildlife foods that contribute to increases in populations of some animals. These increases are moderated by the animals’ ability to thrive in the altered, often simplified, structure of the postfire environment. The extent of fire effects on animal communities generally depends on the extent of change in habitat structure and species composition caused by fire. Stand-replacement fires usually cause greater changes in the faunal communities of forests than in those of grasslands. Within forests, stand- replacement fires usually alter the animal community more dramatically than understory fires. Animal species are adapted to survive the pattern of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity that characterized their habitat in presettlement times. When fire frequency increases or decreases substantially or fire severity changes from presettlement patterns, habitat for many animal species declines. Keywords: fire effects, fire management, fire regime, habitat, succession, wildlife The volumes in “The Rainbow Series” will be published during the year 2000. To order, check the box or boxes below, fill in the address form, and send to the mailing address listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Protocol and Habitat Evaluation for Leconte's
    Survey Protocol and Habitat Evaluation for LeConte’s (Toxostoma lecontei) and Bendire’s (Toxostoma bendirei) Thrasher Prepared by: The Desert Thrasher Working Group Survey Protocol and Habitat Evaluation Contents Objective 3 Field Gear and Materials Checklist: 4 Conducting the Survey 6 Thrasher Survey Form 8 Target Species Sighting Form 10 Habitat Evaluation Form 12 Data entry 16 Analysis of Area Search Data: Site-Level Models 17 Appendix 1. Species Descriptions 19 LeConte’s Thrasher 19 Bendire’s Thrasher 20 Appendix 2. Training Materials 22 Appendix 3. Bird and Plant Abbreviations and Codes 25 Appendix 4. Sample Survey Form 33 Appendix 5. Sample Sighting Form 34 Appendix 6. Group Code Examples 35 Appendix 7. Sample Habitat Evaluation Form 37 Appendix 8. Invasive Plant Identification Resources. 38 Recommended Citation: DTWG, the Desert Thrasher Working Group. 2018. Survey Protocol and Habitat Evaluation for LeConte’s and Bendire’sThrashers. The Protocol Subteam with the Desert Thrasher Working Group included: Dawn M. Fletcher, Lauren B. Harter, Christina L. Kondrat-Smith, Christofolos L. McCreedy and Collin A. Woolley. Cover photo art by: Christina Kondrat-Smith 2 Survey Protocol and Habitat Evaluation Objective The objectives of these surveys are to estimate distribution, determine population trends over time, and to identify habitat preferences for Bendire’s and LeConte’s Thrashers. Recommended Survey Times: Consider local elevation and latitude when designing a survey schedule, as researchers will need to balance surveying early (which helps to minimize confusion of adults with juveniles, and which may maximize exposure to peak singing season) with surveying late (which can minimize the possibility of completely missing late-arriving, migratory Bendire’s Thrashers).
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Banding Manual, Vol. II
    MTAB 51 July 26, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO : All Banders FROM : Chief, Bird Banding Laboratory Office of Migratory Bird Management Laurel, Maryland 20708 SUBJECT : I. Tabulation of encounters 2. Computer-generated banding schedules 3. Requests for permit revisions 4. Request to not band certain birds 5. BBL slide file needs 6. Permit inactivation 7. A new bride 8. Inland Bird Banding Association meeting I. A tabulation of 1981 banding totals and 1977 banding and recovery totals of species is enclosed. These data are provided primarily to aid in research planning. We may be able to revise this report next year and ask now for suggestions from banders about what data would be most useful to them. 2. Banders may computer-produce banding schedules for the BBL. Any computer- or mini computer-generated schedules (with or without cards or tape) must be BBL-approved in advance of actual schedule submission to the BBL. 3. Please inform all subpermittees that any request for auxiliary marking authorization or changes in permits must come from the master bander. We want requests in writing, please. When requesting permits for a new subpermittee, please furnish the name of the person. We do not send out application forms with the applicant's name blank. 4. Banders are reminded not to use U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bands on resident game birds (Sp. No. 288 through 31 1.0). Do not band parakeets, rock doves and vultures, or unidentifiable migratory birds such as Empidonax flycatchers, and certain warblers, gulls, and ducks. 5. We would appreciate slides of auxiliary markers from various projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Table and Recommended Band Sizes the Table on the Left Is from the USGS Bird Banding Laboratory
    Species Table and Recommended Band Sizes The table on the left is from the USGS Bird Banding Laboratory. If there is more than one size listed then the first one is the preferred recommended size. The table on the right may be used to find the National Band & Tag Company butt-end band style that matches the federal band size you are looking for. This Size Chart should be used as a guide only! We cannot be responsible for incorrect sizes being ordered based on this chart. Please measure your bird’s leg for accurate sizing, if you are unsure we will gladly send samples. Common Federal Federal NB&T Inside Inside Name Band Size Size Size Dia. (IN) Dia. (MM) Abert's Towhee 1A, 2, 1D 0A None .078 1.98 Acadian Flycatcher 0A, 0 0 None .083 2.11 Acorn Woodpecker 2, 3 1 1242-3 .094 2.39 Adelaide's Warbler 0A, 0 1B None .109 2.77 Adelie Penguin 9 1P None .112 2.84 African Collared-Dove 3A 1A 1242-4 .125 3.17 African Penguin 9 1D None .138 3.50 African Silverbill 0, 1C, 1 2 1242-5 .156 3.96 Akekee 1B, 1C, 1 3 1242-6 .188 4.78 Akepa 0 3B None .203 5.16 Akiapolaau 1A 3A 1242-7 .219 5.56 Akikiki 0, 1C, 1 4 1242-8 .250 6.35 Akohekohe 1A 4S 1242-8 .250 6.35 Alaska Marbled Murrelet 3B, 3 4A None .281 7.14 Alder Flycatcher 0, 0A 4AS None .281 7.14 Aleutian Canada Goose 7B 5 1242-10 .313 7.95 Aleutian Tern 2, 1A, 1D 5A None .344 8.73 Allen's Hummingbird X 6 1242-12 .375 9.53 Altamira Oriole 3 7A 1242-14 .438 11.13 American Avocet 4, 4A 7AS 1242-14 .438 11.13 American Bittern M: 7A F: 6 7 1242-16 .500 12.70 American Black Duck 7A 7B None .531 13.49 American
    [Show full text]
  • Of Bendire's Thrasher
    BREEDING HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND TERRITORY SIZE OF BENDIRE’S THRASHER (Toxostoma bendirei) Photo taken by Cody Bear Sutton Hildago Co, New Mexico Final Report to New Mexico Department of Game & Fish Martha J. Desmond (Principal Investigator) Cody Bear Sutton (Graduate Student) Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Ecology New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 880 BREEDING HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND TERRITORY SIZE OF BENDIRE’S THRASHER (Toxostoma bendirei) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................3 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................6 Study Area ........................................................................................................................6 Breeding Surveys .............................................................................................................7 Territory Mapping ............................................................................................................9 Abiotic/temporal Measurements ....................................................................................10 Territory Scale Measurements .......................................................................................10 Landscape Scale Measurements .....................................................................................11 DATA ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • SAGE THRASHER Oreoscoptes Montanus
    A-72 SAGE THRASHER Oreoscoptes montanus Description The sage thrasher is distinguished from other thrashers by its smaller size, short and straight bill, and relatively short tail. Plumage on the upper body is drab, brownish-gray with slightly darker feathers forming indistinct streaks, particularly on the crown. The bird has a pale line behind the ear-coverts, a face pattern formed by whitish supercilium, and a whitish malar region bordered by a black streak at the sides of the throat. The wings are slightly browner than the back and have two narrow white wing-bars. The tail is browner than the rest of the body and has white tipped outer rectrices. The under-parts of the body are off-white, streaked with dark brown blotches. The bill is black with a grayish lower mandible. The plumage remains similar throughout the year but flanks appear pale cinnamon when plumage is fresh in the fall (Reynolds et al. 1999). Life history & Sage thrashers arrive on breeding grounds in March and April (Dillon 1998; behavior Reynolds et al. 1999). Breeding in Colorado typically begins in late May and early June (Dillon 1998). The birds are conspicuous during breeding through An opportunistic activity and song, but are secretive around their nests (Reynolds et al. ground forager and 1999). Adults will fly until they are within 10 meters of the nest and then shrub nester. typically travel on ground the remaining distance. During summer the sage thrasher feeds primarily on ground insects such as ants and beetles, but also feeds on other arthropods, arachnids, plant material, berries and small fruit.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Report of Region-Wide Surveys in 2017-2018
    Survey methods, habitat models, and future directions for conservation of Bendire's and LeConte's Thrashers: Comprehensive report of region-wide surveys in 2017-2018. Photo by Bobby Wilcox Prepared by the Great Basin Bird Observatory, [email protected] Submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Agreement #L17AC00185) Recommended Citation: E.M. Ammon1, D.M. Fletcher1, L.B. Harter1,C.C. Borgman2, E. Duvuvuei3, G. Geupel4, D. Jongsomjit4, E. Juarez5, C.L. Kondrat5, E. Masters6, and R. Norvell7 2020. Survey methods, habitat models, and future directions for conservation of Bendire's and LeConte's Thrashers: A comprehensive report of region-wide surveys in 2017-2018. GBBO Gen. Tech. Report 2019-1. Great Basin Observatory, Reno, NV. 1 Great Basin Bird Observatory, 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds, 3 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 4 Point Blue Conservation Science, 5 Arizona Game and Fish Department 6 Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 7 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Region-Wide Desert Thrasher Monitoring, Final Report by GBBO, 11/1/2019 Table of Contents Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • American Ornithological Union (AOU) Bird Species List 1
    American Ornithological Union (AOU) Bird Species List 1 Alpha Alpha Species Code Species Code Western Grebe WEGR Glaucous-winged Gull GWGU Clark's Grebe CLGR Hybrid Gull HYGU Red-necked Grebe RNGR Great Black-backed Gull GBBG Horned Grebe HOGR Slaty-backed Gull SBGU Eared Grebe EAGR Western Gull WEGU Least Grebe LEGR Yellow-footed Gull YFGU Pied-billed Grebe PBGR Lesser Black-backed Gull LBBG Common Loon COLO Herring Gull HERG Yellow-billed Loon YBLO California Gull CAGU Arctic Loon ARLO Unidentified Gull UNGU Pacific Loon PALO Ring-billed Gull RBGU Red-throated Loon RTLO Band-tailed Gull BTGU Tufted Puffin TUPU Mew Gull MEGU Atlantic Puffin ATPU Black-headed Gull BHGU Horned Puffin HOPU Heermann's Gull HEEG Rhinoceros Auklet RHAU Laughing Gull LAGU Cassin's Auklet CAAU Franklin's Gull FRGU Parakeet Auklet PAAU Bonaparte's Gull BOGU Crested Auklet CRAU Little Gull LIGU Whiskered Auklet WHAU Ross' Gull ROGU Least Auklet LEAU Sabine's Gull SAGU Ancient Murrelet ANMU Gull-billed Tern GBTE Marbled Murrelet MAMU Caspian Tern CATE Kittlitz's Murrelet KIMU Royal Tern ROYT Xantus' Murrelet XAMU Crested Tern CRTE Craveri's Murrelet CRMU Elegant Tern ELTE Black Guillemot BLGU Sandwich Tern SATE Pigeon Guillemot PIGU Cayenne Tern CAYT Common Murre COMU Forster's Tern FOTE Thick-billed Murre TBMU Common Tern COTE Razorbill RAZO Arctic Tern ARTE Dovekie DOVE Roseate Tern ROST Great Skua GRSK Aleutian Tern ALTE South Polar Skua SPSK Black-naped Tern BNTE Pomarine Jaeger POJA Least Tern LETE Parasitic Jaeger PAJA Sooty Tern SOTE Long-tailed Jaeger LTJA
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Biology of the Sage Thrasher
    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses 1970 Breeding Biology of the Sage Thrasher John Wayne Gooding Central Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons, and the Ornithology Commons Recommended Citation Gooding, John Wayne, "Breeding Biology of the Sage Thrasher" (1970). All Master's Theses. 1337. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/1337 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BREEDIKG BIOLOGY OF THE SAGE THRASHER A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty Central Washington State College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by John Wayne Gooding August, 1970 Ll) S7 7/. .31 SP ECIAL C.QfilCTION Libnny Cc1tiral Washington State Cflllc ge Ellensburg, Washington APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ________________________________ Jared Verner, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN _________________________________ Philip C. Dumas _________________________________ Stamford D. Smith TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..... 1 Materials and Methods . • ii Results .... • 6 Dis cues ion 23 Summary ..... 28 Literature Cited .. 29 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As with most investigatione, this one wa.l!! not accomplished solely as the reeult of the author's own efforte. Thanks go to the membere of my graduate com­ mittee, Dr. JBred Verner (chairman), Dr. Philip C. Dumae and Dr. Stamford D. Smith, and also to fellow graduate students Donald F. Ma,rtin, Gary G. Beneon and Mark R.
    [Show full text]
  • Nesting of the Sage Thrasher, Sage Sparrow, and Brewer's Sparrow In
    Condor 83:61-64 @ The Cooper Ornithological Society 1981 NESTING OF THE SAGE THRASHER, SAGE SPARROW, AND BREWER’S SPARROW IN SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO TIMOTHY D. REYNOLDS ABSTRACT.-1 examined the territory size, mating success, nest placement, nest development, and nesting success of the three passerine species restrict- ed to the sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) habitat in southeastern Idaho. Territories defended by male Sage Thrashers (Oreoscoptes montanus) were larger than those defended by either Sage Sparrows (Amphispizu belli) or Brewers’ Sparrows (Spizellu breweri). All but one of the territorial Sage Thrashers (n = 19) were successful in securing mates and nesting. Fifty-three percent of the territorial Sage Sparrows (n = 30) and only 23% of the dis- playing Brewers’ Sparrows (n = 30) secured mates and nested. Thrashers nested either on the ground below sagebrush or in the branches of sagebrush plants. Brewers’ and Sage sparrows nested only in the shrub canopy of sage- brush. Average incubation and nesting periods (rounded to the nearest whole day) for the Sage Thrasher, Sage Sparrow, and Brewers’ Sparrow were 15 (n = 9) and 12 (n = 7) days, 14 (n = 5) and 10 (n = 7) days, and 11 (n = 1) and 9 (n = 1) days respectively. Sage Thrashers (n = 49) and Sage Sparrows (n = 17) had a similar probability of nesting success (0.45 and 0.40, respectively), while the Mayfield success rate for Brewers’ Sparrows (n = 7) was only 0.09. Male Sage Sparrows that attracted mates had established larger territories than those that failed to mate. Brewers’ Sparrows nested about 10 days later than the other species, which may have resulted in their lower nesting suc- cess, since nest site requirements of all species were similar.
    [Show full text]