Long-term wildlife monitoring is imperative for understanding population changes that can inform managers. However, working with population data collected by different organizations, across multiple jurisdictions, and over long time periods can be challenging due to different data management approaches and organizational priorities. Through this project, we aimed to collaborate with eleven state wildlife agencies to standardize greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population data collected across the sagebrush biome.
Background
Each state wildlife agency that manages sage-grouse maintains a database of breeding site locations (leks) and counts of birds collected during the breeding season at each lek. These data help state and federal agencies manage sage-grouse populations and can inform habitat management by understanding when, where, and why populations decline. Monitoring of sage-grouse began as early as the 1950s, but the data structure and monitoring protocols greatly varied until states established a coordinated effort in 1982.1 However, these monitoring protocols did not specify data standards for combining and using data collected across state boundaries. Therefore, we sought to standardize sage-grouse population data, supporting a collaborative environment between state and federal agencies that improve management across jurisdictional boundaries.
Methods
Researchers at USGS and Colorado State University (CSU) worked with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) and state wildlife agencies to develop data-sharing agreements detailing the use and handling of sensitive sage-grouse data. Sage-grouse are a species of conservation concern and require protection of lek sites due to birds returning to the same locations for generations. We examined all state data for errors and differences in formatting, terminology, and definitions before proposing a method to standardize and correct errors. Our approach included developing software to systematically standardize the data using repeatable science, ensuring identical definitions (for example, survey method), and correcting all errors (for example, typographic errors, blank records, missing values).
Results
We produced a standardized, range-wide sage-grouse database of populations monitored by states since the 1950s. We published all standardized field names and values used within data, as well as standardized terminology and changes made to the data.2 We highlighted analyses of monitoring efforts by state wildlife agencies, occurrences of abandoned lek sites, and revisitation statistics during years following lek abandonment. Lastly, we outlined broad considerations for long-term monitoring, which can inform similar studies of other flora and fauna.
Research Implications
Our efforts to create a unified sage-grouse population database have significantly improved the usability of sage-grouse population data documented across agencies since the early 1950s. These data present one of the most geographically extensive and comprehensive wildlife monitoring efforts for any species to date, and provide a significant resource to inform wildlife and habitat management.
Future co-production
Each year, we work with all partners to update the standardized database, which includes incorporating the current breeding season’s count data, newly digitized historical data, and data quality improvements. During this process, software is updated and released to the public.
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey (Ecosystem Mission Area, Status and Trends Program, Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Partners
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nevada Department of Wildlife, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Colorado State University.
References
1. Autenrieth, R., Molini, W., Braun. C., Sage Grouse management practices. Western States Sage Grouse Committee Technical Bulletin 1:1-42. 1982.
2. O'Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Aldridge, C.L., Heinrichs, J.A., Monroe, A.P., Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., Christiansen, T.J., Cook, A.A., Espinosa, S.P., Foster, L.J., Griffin, K.A., Kolar, J.L., Miller, K.S., Moser, A.M., Remington, T.E., Runia, T.J., Schreiber, L.A., Schroeder, M.A., Stiver, S.J., Whitford, N.A., Wightman, C.S., Synthesizing and analyzing long-term monitoring data: A greater sage-grouse case study: Ecological Informatics, 2021, v. 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101327
- Overview
Long-term wildlife monitoring is imperative for understanding population changes that can inform managers. However, working with population data collected by different organizations, across multiple jurisdictions, and over long time periods can be challenging due to different data management approaches and organizational priorities. Through this project, we aimed to collaborate with eleven state wildlife agencies to standardize greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population data collected across the sagebrush biome.
Sources/Usage: Public Domain.A heat map of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) annual peak male counts from 2022 using the standardized sage-grouse lek database. The color ramp uses light purple (fewest number of males counted on leks) to red (greatest number of males counted on leks), reflecting local minimum and maximum counts of males. Any use of trade, firm, logos, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. (author: O'Donnell) Background
Each state wildlife agency that manages sage-grouse maintains a database of breeding site locations (leks) and counts of birds collected during the breeding season at each lek. These data help state and federal agencies manage sage-grouse populations and can inform habitat management by understanding when, where, and why populations decline. Monitoring of sage-grouse began as early as the 1950s, but the data structure and monitoring protocols greatly varied until states established a coordinated effort in 1982.1 However, these monitoring protocols did not specify data standards for combining and using data collected across state boundaries. Therefore, we sought to standardize sage-grouse population data, supporting a collaborative environment between state and federal agencies that improve management across jurisdictional boundaries.
Methods
Researchers at USGS and Colorado State University (CSU) worked with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) and state wildlife agencies to develop data-sharing agreements detailing the use and handling of sensitive sage-grouse data. Sage-grouse are a species of conservation concern and require protection of lek sites due to birds returning to the same locations for generations. We examined all state data for errors and differences in formatting, terminology, and definitions before proposing a method to standardize and correct errors. Our approach included developing software to systematically standardize the data using repeatable science, ensuring identical definitions (for example, survey method), and correcting all errors (for example, typographic errors, blank records, missing values).
Sources/Usage: Public Domain.An assessment of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) lek monitoring (1990–2019) using the national standardized database (std_grsg_lekdb) and software (grsg_lekdb) depicting the number of leks counted per year (A), mean peak number of males per lek (active, inactive, and other conservation statuses associated with leks are not distinguished here) with standard deviation (grey) (B), and total number of males counted per year (C) range-wide.(2) Results
We produced a standardized, range-wide sage-grouse database of populations monitored by states since the 1950s. We published all standardized field names and values used within data, as well as standardized terminology and changes made to the data.2 We highlighted analyses of monitoring efforts by state wildlife agencies, occurrences of abandoned lek sites, and revisitation statistics during years following lek abandonment. Lastly, we outlined broad considerations for long-term monitoring, which can inform similar studies of other flora and fauna.
Research Implications
Our efforts to create a unified sage-grouse population database have significantly improved the usability of sage-grouse population data documented across agencies since the early 1950s. These data present one of the most geographically extensive and comprehensive wildlife monitoring efforts for any species to date, and provide a significant resource to inform wildlife and habitat management.
Future co-production
Each year, we work with all partners to update the standardized database, which includes incorporating the current breeding season’s count data, newly digitized historical data, and data quality improvements. During this process, software is updated and released to the public.
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey (Ecosystem Mission Area, Status and Trends Program, Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Partners
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nevada Department of Wildlife, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Colorado State University.
References
1. Autenrieth, R., Molini, W., Braun. C., Sage Grouse management practices. Western States Sage Grouse Committee Technical Bulletin 1:1-42. 1982.
2. O'Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Aldridge, C.L., Heinrichs, J.A., Monroe, A.P., Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., Christiansen, T.J., Cook, A.A., Espinosa, S.P., Foster, L.J., Griffin, K.A., Kolar, J.L., Miller, K.S., Moser, A.M., Remington, T.E., Runia, T.J., Schreiber, L.A., Schroeder, M.A., Stiver, S.J., Whitford, N.A., Wightman, C.S., Synthesizing and analyzing long-term monitoring data: A greater sage-grouse case study: Ecological Informatics, 2021, v. 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101327
- Publications
- Software
- Partners