Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 127–139 | Cite as

Landscape characteristics explain large-scale variation in demographic traits in forest grouse

  • Unni S. Lande
  • Ivar Herfindal
  • Tomas Willebrand
  • Pål F. Moa
  • Torstein Storaas
Research Article

Abstract

The effects of landscape composition on species and populations have become increasingly important due to large and rapid habitat changes worldwide. In particular, concern is raised for several forest-dwelling species such as capercaillie and black grouse, because their habitats are continuously changing and deteriorating from human development. Conservation of these species is linked to sustainable forest management that seeks to benefit multiple species, which demands knowledge about demographic rates in relation to forest composition and structure. We related the spatial variation in adult density and chick production of capercaillie and black grouse to landscape characteristics from 13 areas within the boreal forest of Norway. Linear mixed effects models showed that black grouse and capercaillie had similar associations to landscape characteristics. Adult density of both species was positively related to the proportion of old forest (>80 years), but only if the area had large proportions of mid to high productive forests. Chick production was negatively related to the proportion of old forest, but positively to habitat diversity and more so for black grouse compared to capercaillie. However, the result for chick production suggest that other forest types also are important, and that forest grouse needs a variety of habitats during their life history stages. Management that seeks to simultaneously conserve populations of black grouse and capercaillie needs to ensure a matrix of various forest types. A special focus must be on the critical life history of local populations to successfully preserve viable populations, for black grouse and capercaillie this implies protection of old and mid to high productive forest while keeping a heterogeneous landscape.

Keywords

Adult density Chick production Forest composition Landscape heterogeneity Tetrao tetrix Tetrao urogallus Wildlife ecology 

Supplementary material

10980_2013_9960_MOESM1_ESM.docx (79 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 79 kb)

References

  1. Angelstam P (2004) Habitat thresholds and effects of forest landscape change on the distribution and abundance of black grouse and capercaillie. Ecol Bull 51:173–187Google Scholar
  2. Aune-Lundberg L, Strand G-H (2010) CORINE land cover classes examination of the content of CLC classes in Norway. Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute Report 05/10Google Scholar
  3. Baines D, Andrew M (2003) Marking of deer fences to reduce frequency of collisions by woodland grouse. Biol Conserv 110:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2011a) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes R package version 0999375-41. Available from http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/. Accessed Nov 2013
  5. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2011b) mlmRev: examples from multilevel modelling software review R package version 099875-1Google Scholar
  6. Bjørneraas K, Herfindal I, Solberg EJ, Sæther B-E, van Moorter B, Rolandsen CM (2012) Habitat quality influences population distribution individual space use and functional responses in habitat selection by a large herbivore. Oecologia 168:231–243PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollmann K, Graf RF, Suter W (2011) Quantitative predictions for patch occupancy of capercaillie in fragmented habitats. Ecography 34:276–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braunisch V, Suchant R (2007) A model for evaluating the ‘habitat potential’ of a landscape for capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: a tool for conservation planning. Wildl Biol 13:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Caizergues A, Rätti O, Helle P, Rotelli L, Ellison L, Rasplus JY (2003) Population genetic structure of male black grouse (Tetrao tetrix L) in fragmented vs continuous landscapes. Mol Biol 12:2297–2305Google Scholar
  12. Conover MR (2007) Predator-prey dynamics: the role of olfaction. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, Marquéz JR, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ, Münkemüller T, McClean C, Osborne PE, Reineking B, Schröder B, Skidmore AK, Zurell D, Lautenbach S (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freckleton RP (2011) Dealing with collinearity in behavioural and ecological data: model averaging and the problems of measurement error. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. George TL, Zack S (2001) Spatial and temporal considerations in restoring habitat for wildlife. Restor Ecol 9:272–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gjerde I, Wegge P (1989) Spacing pattern habitat use and survival of capercaillie in fragmented winter habitat. Ornis Scand 20:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gjertsen AK (2007) Accuracy of forest mapping based on Landsat TM data and a kNN-based method. Remote Sens Environ 110:420–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graf RF, Bollmann K, Suter W, Bugmann H (2005) The importance of spatial scale in habitat models: capercaillie in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Ecol 20:703–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graf RF, Bollmann K, Sachot S, Suter W, Bugmann H (2006) On the generality of habitat distribution models: a case study with capercaillie in three Swiss regions. Ecography 29:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graf RF, Bollmann K, Bugmann H, Suter W (2007) Forest and landscape structure variables as predictors for capercaillie occurrence. J Wildl Manag 71:356–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gregersen F, Gregersen H (2008) Old bilberry forest increases likelihood of Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus lek occupancy in Southern Norway. Ornis Norvegica 31:105–115Google Scholar
  23. Gregersen F, Gregersen H (2009) Ongoing population decline and range contraction in Norwegian forest grouse. Ornis Norvegica 32:179–189Google Scholar
  24. Güthlin D, Storch I, Küchenhoff H (2013) Landscape variables associated with relative abundance of generalist mesopredators. Landscape Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9911-z Google Scholar
  25. Helle P, Jokimäki J, Lindén H (1990) Habitat selection of the male Capercaillie in northern Finland: a study based on radiotelemetry. Suom Riista 36:72–81Google Scholar
  26. Herfindal I, Haanes H, Solberg EJ, Røed KH, Høgda KA, Sæther B (2013) Moose body mass variation revisited: disentangling effects of environmental conditions and genetics. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2783-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. IUCN (2010) IUCN red list of threatened species version 20103. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed Sept 2010
  28. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:101–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kålås JA, Viken Å, Henriksen S, Skjelseth S (eds) (2010) The 2010 norwegian red list for species. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre Norway, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  30. Kangas A, Kurki S (2000) Predicting the future of Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Finland. Ecol Model 134:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klaus S (1991) Effects of forestry on grouse populations: case studies from the Thuringian and Bohemian forests Central Europe. Ornis Scand 22:218–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Lindén H (2000) Landscape fragmentation and forest composition effects on grouse breeding success in boreal forests. Ecology 81:1985–1997Google Scholar
  33. Kvasnes MAJ, Storaas T, Pedersen HC, Bjørk S, Nilsen EB (2010) Spatial dynamics of Norwegian tetraonid populations. Ecol Res 25:367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lande US, Herfindal I, Finne MH, Kastdalen L (2010) Use of hunters in wildlife surveys: does hunter and forest grouse habitat selection coincide? Eur J Wildl Res 56:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ludwig T, Storch I, Graf RF (2009) Historic landscape change and habitat loss: the case of black grouse in Lower Saxony Germany. Landscape Ecol 24:533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ludwig GX, Alatalo RV, Helle P, Siitari H (2010) Individual and environmental determinants of early brood survival in black grouse Tetrao tetrix. Wildl Biol 16:367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miettinen J, Helle P, Nikula A (2005) Lek area characteristics of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in eastern Finland as analysed from satellite-based forest inventory data. Scand J For Res 20:358–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miettinen J, Helle P, Nikula A, Niemelä P (2008) Large-scale landscape composition and capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) density in Finland. Ann Zoo Fenn 45:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miettinen J, Helle P, Nikula A, Niemelä P (2010) Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) habitat characteristics in north boreal Finland. Silva Fenn 44:235–254Google Scholar
  40. Moen A (1999) National atlas of Norway: vegetation. Norwegian Mapping Authority, HønefossGoogle Scholar
  41. National Forest Inventory (2008) Resultatkontroll skogbruk/miljø. Rapport 2007 Oppdragsrapport fra Skog og landskap 14Google Scholar
  42. Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  43. Oliver T, Roy DR, Hill JK, Brereton T, Thomas CD (2010) Heterogeneous landscapes promote population stability. Ecol Lett 13:473–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paillet Y, Berges L, Hjalten J, Odor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Romermann M, Bijlsma RJ, De Bruyn L, Fuhr M, Grandin U, Kanka R, Lundin L, Luque S, Magura T, Matesanz S, Meszaros I, Sebastia MT, Schmidt W, Standovar T, Tothmeresz B, Uotila A, Valladeres F, Vellak K, Virtanen R (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24:101–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pellikka J, Kuikka S, Lindén H, Varis O (2005) The role of game management on wildlife populations: uncertainty analysis of expert knowledge. Eur J Wildl Res 51:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Puschmann O (2005) Nasjonalt referansesystem for landskap Beskrivelse av Norges 45 landskapsregioner. NIJOS rapport 10Google Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna. Available from http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed Sept 2011
  48. Ranta E, Lindström J, Linden H (1995) Synchrony in tetraonid population-dynamics. J Anim Ecol 64:767–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rolstad J, Wegge P (1987) Distribution and size of capercaillie leks in relation to old forest fragmentation. Oecologia 72:389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rolstad J, Wegge P (1989) Capercaillie populations and modern forestry: a case for landscape ecological studies. Finn Game Res 46:43–52Google Scholar
  51. Rolstad J, Wegge P, Larsen BB (1988) Spacing and habitat use of capercaillie during summer. Can J Zool 66:670–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rolstad J, Rolstad E, Wegge P (2007) Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus lek formation in young forest. Wildl Biol 13:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rolstad J, Wegge P, Sivkov AV, Hjeljord O, Storaunet KO (2009) Size and spacing of grouse leks: comparing capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) in two contrasting Eurasian boreal forest landscapes. Can J Zool 87:1032–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sæther B, Bakke Ø (2000) Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81:642Google Scholar
  55. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global biodiversity outlook 3. MontréalGoogle Scholar
  56. Seiskari P (1962) On the winter ecology of capercaillie Tetrao urogallus and black grouse Lyrurus tetrix in Finland. Finn Game Res 22:1–119Google Scholar
  57. Selås V (2001) Autumn population size of capercaillie in relation to bilberry production and weather: an analysis of Norwegian game reports. Wildl Biol 7:17–25Google Scholar
  58. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Singer JD (1998) Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models hierarchical models and individual growth models. J Educ Behav Stat 24:323–355Google Scholar
  60. Sirkiä S, Pelikka J, Lindén H (2010) Balancing the needs of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and moose (Alces alces) in large-scale human land use. Eur J Wildl Res 56:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sirkiä S, Helle P, Linden H, Nikula A, Norrdahl K, Suorsa P, Valkeajärvi P (2011) Persistence of Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) lekking areas depends on forest cover and fine-grain fragmentation of boreal forest landscapes. Ornis Fennica 88:14–29Google Scholar
  62. Solvang H, Pedersen HC, Storaas T, Hagen BR (2009) Rapport for skogsfugltakseringen 2005–2008 Grouse Management Project (2006–2011). Oppdragsrapport 1Google Scholar
  63. Spidsø TK, Hjeljord O, Dokk JG (1997) Seasonal mortality of black grouse Tetrao tetrix during a year with little snow. Wildli Biol 3:205–209Google Scholar
  64. Storch I (1995) Annual home ranges and spacing patterns of capercaillie in central Europe. J Wildli Manag 59:392–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Storch I (2007) Grouse status survey and conservation action plan 2006–2010. Gland Switzerland: IUCN and Fordingbridge, UK: World Pheasant Association. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/edocs/2007-034.pdf. Accessed Nov 2013
  66. Storch I, Woitke E, Krieger S (2005) Landscape-scale edge effects in predation risk in forest-farmland mosaic in central Europe. Landscape Ecol 20:927–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Summers RW, Proctor R, Thorton M, Avey G (2004a) Habitat selection and diet of the Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus in Abernathy Forest Strathspey Scotland. Bird Study 51:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Summers RW, Green RE, Proctor R, Dugan D, Lambie D, Moncrieff R, Moss R, Baines D (2004b) An experimental study of the effects of predation on the breeding productivity of capercaillie and black grouse. J Appl Ecol 41:513–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Swenson JE, Angelstam P (1993) Habitat separation by sympatric forest grouse in Fennoscandia in relation to forest succession. Can J Zool 71:1303–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thiel D, Unger C, Kéry M, Jenni L (2007) Selection of night roosts in winter by capercaillie Tetrao urogallus in Central Europe. Wildl Biol 13:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wallgren M, Bergström R, Danell K, Skarpe C (2009) Wildlife community patterns in relation to landscape structure and environmental gradients in a Swedish boreal ecosystem. Wildl Biol 15:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang G, Hobbs NT, Boone RB, Illius AW, Gordon IJ, Gross JE, Hamlin KL (2006) Spatial and temporal variability modify density dependence in populations of large herbivores. Ecology 87:95–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wegge P, Kastdalen L (2007) Pattern and causes of natural mortality of capercaillie Tetrao urogallus chicks in a fragmented boreal forest. Ann Zoo Fenn 44:141–151Google Scholar
  74. Wegge P, Kastdalen L (2008) Habitat and diet of young grouse broods: resource partitioning between Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) in boreal forests. J Ornithol 149:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wegge P, Rolstad J (2011) Clearcutting forestry and Eurasian boreal forest grouse: long-term monitoring of sympatric capercaillie Tetrao urogallus and black grouse T tetrix reveals unexpected effects on their population performances. For Ecol Manag 261:1520–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wegge P, Storaas T (1990) Nest loss in capercaillie and black grouse in relation to the small rodent cycle in south east Norway. Oecologia 82:527–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wegge P, Larsen BB, Gjerde I, Kastdalen L, Rolstad J, Storaas T (1987) Natural mortality and predation of adult capercaillie in southeast Norway. In: Lovel T, Hudson P (eds) Proceedings of the IV international symposium on Grouse Lam Germany, pp 49–56Google Scholar
  78. Wegge P, Olstad T, Gregersen H, Hjeljord O, Sivkov AV (2005) Capercaillie broods in pristine boreal forest in northwestern Russia: the importance of insects and cover in habitat selection. Can J Zool 83:1547–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Willebrand T (1988) Demography and ecology of a Black Grouse (Lyrurus tetrix L.) population. PhD thesis, University of Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  80. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Unni S. Lande
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ivar Herfindal
    • 4
  • Tomas Willebrand
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pål F. Moa
    • 5
  • Torstein Storaas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Wildlife ManagementHedmark University CollegeElverumNorway
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Forest SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Organic Food and FarmingBioforsk - Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental ResearchTingvollNorway
  4. 4.Department of Biology, Centre for Biodiversity DynamicsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  5. 5.Department of Agriculture and Information TechnologyNorth Trøndelag University CollegeSteinkjerNorway

Personalised recommendations