Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1417–1433 | Cite as

Hierarchical population structure in greater sage-grouse provides insight into management boundary delineation

  • Todd B. CrossEmail author
  • David E. Naugle
  • John C. Carlson
  • Michael K. Schwartz
Research Article

Abstract

Understanding population structure is important for guiding ongoing conservation and restoration efforts. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a species of concern distributed across 1.2 million km2 of western North America. We genotyped 1499 greater sage-grouse from 297 leks across Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota using a 15 locus microsatellite panel, then examined spatial autocorrelation, spatial principal components analysis, and hierarchical Bayesian clustering to identify population structure. Our results show that at distances of up to ~240 km individuals exhibit greater genetic similarity than expected by chance, suggesting that the cumulative effect of short-range dispersal translates to long-range connectivity. We found two levels of hierarchical genetic subpopulation structure. These subpopulations occupy significantly different elevations and are surrounded by divergent vegetative communities with different dominant subspecies of sagebrush, each with its own chemical defense against herbivory. We propose five management groups reflective of genetic subpopulation structure. These genetic groups are largely synonymous with existing priority areas for conservation. On average, 85.8 % of individuals within each conservation priority area assign to a distinct subpopulation. Our results largely support existing management decisions regarding subpopulation boundaries.

Keywords

Centrocercus urophasianus Microsatellites Non-invasive sampling Genetic diversity Spatial principal components analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research would not be possible without the many state, federal, and NGO biologists and technicians who have spent countless hours working tirelessly in the field and behind desks for the conservation of the greater sage-grouse. We would specifically like to acknowledge Jake Chaffin (BLM, now USFS), Ben Deeble (Montana Audubon), Brad Fedy (University of Waterloo), Rick Northrup (MTFWP), Sara Oyler-McCance (USGS), Aaron Robinson (NDGFD), Travis Runia (SDGFP), Dale Tribby (BLM), Catherine Wightman (MTFWP), and David Wood (BLM). Our molecular genetic analyses and manuscript preparation would not have been possible without the assistance of Kevin McKelvey, Kristy Pilgrim, Cory Engkjer and the tireless laboratory efforts of Kara Bates, Nasreen Broomand, Taylor Dowell, Scott Hampton, Randi Lesagonicz, Inga Ortloff, Sara Schwarz, Kate Welch, and Katie Zarn, all of the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation. Use of trade names does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The views in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Montana and Dakotas Bureau of Land Management (07-IA-11221643-343, 10-IA-11221635-027, 14-IA-11221635-059), the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (12-IA-11221635-132), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service—Sage Grouse Initiative (13-IA-11221635-054).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10592_2016_872_MOESM1_ESM.docx (892 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 891 kb)

References

  1. Aldridge CL, Nielsen SE, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Connelly JW, Knick ST, Schroeder MA (2008) Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence. Divers Distrib 14:983–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen AW, Cook JG, Armbruster MJ (1984) Habitat suitability index models: Pronghorn. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.65:1–22Google Scholar
  3. Blickley JL, Word KR, Krakauer AH, Phillips JL, Sells SN, Taff CC, Wingfield JC, Patricelli GL (2012) Experimental chronic noise is related to elevated fecal corticosteroid metabolites in lekking male greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). PLoS One 7:e50462CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradbury J, Vehrencamp S, Gibson R (1989) Dispersion of displaying male sage grouse. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun CE (1998) Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proc West Assoc State Fish Wildl Agencies 78:139–156Google Scholar
  6. Braun CE, Oedekoven OO, Aldridge CL (2002) Oil and gas development in western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse. Trans N Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 67:337–349Google Scholar
  7. Bush KL, Vinsky MD, Aldridge CL, Paszkowski CA (2005) A comparison of sample types varying in invasiveness for use in DNA sex determination in an endangered population of greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus uropihasianus). Conserv Genet 6:867–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bush KL, Dyte CK, Moynahan BJ, Aldridge CL, Sauls HS, Battazzo AM, Walker BL, Doherty KE, Tack J, Carlson J (2011) Population structure and genetic diversity of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in fragmented landscapes at the northern edge of their range. Conserv Genet 12:527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrd DW, McArthur ED, Wang H, Graham JH, Freeman DC (1999) Narrow hybrid zone between two subspecies of big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata (Asteraceae). VIII. Spatial and temporal pattern of terpenes. Biochem Syst Ecol 27:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caizergues A, DuBois S, Loiseau A, Mondor G, Rasplus JY (2001) Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in black grouse (Tetrao tetrix). Mol Ecol Notes 1:36–38CrossRefGoogle 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 Ecol 12:2297–2305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carrol SP, Hendry AP, Reznick DN, Fox CW (2007) Evolution on ecological time-scales. Funct Ecol 21:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carstens B, Brunsfeld S, Demboski J, Good J, Sullivan J (2005) Investigating the evolutionary history of the Pacific Northwest mesic forest ecosystem: hypothesis testing within a comparative phylogeographic framework. Evolution 59:1639–1652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen C, Durand E, Forbes F, François O (2007) Bayesian clustering algorithms ascertaining spatial population structure: a new computer program and a comparison study. Mol Ecol Notes 7:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comer P, Kagan J, Heiner M, Tobalske C (2002) Current distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the Western United States (excluding NM and AZ). Interagency Sagebrush Working Group. http://SAGEMAP.wr.usgs.gov
  16. Connelly JW, Schroeder MA, Sands AR, Braun CE (2000) Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildl Soc Bull 28:967–985Google Scholar
  17. Connelly JW, Knick ST, Schroeder MA, Stiver SJ (2004) Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife AgenciesGoogle Scholar
  18. Connelly JW, Hagen CA, Schroeder MA (2011a) Characteristics and dynamics of Greater Sage-Grouse populations. In: Knick ST, Connelly JW (eds) Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, 38th edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 53–67Google Scholar
  19. Connelly J, Rinkes E, Braun C (2011b) Characteristics of greater sage-grouse habitats: a landscape species at micro and macro scales. In: Knick ST, Connelly JW (eds) Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, 38th edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 69–83Google Scholar
  20. Copeland HE, Doherty KE, Naugle DE, Pocewicz A, Kiesecker JM (2009) Mapping oil and gas development potential in the US Intermountain West and estimating impacts to species. PLoS One 4:e7400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Core Team R (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  22. Coulon A, Fitzpatrick J, Bowman R, Stith B, Makarewich C, Stenzler L, Lovette I (2008) Congruent population structure inferred from dispersal behaviour and intensive genetic surveys of the threatened Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma cœrulescens). Mol Ecol 17:1685–1701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalke PD, Pyrah DB, Stanton DC, Crawford JE, Schlatterer EF (1963) Ecology, productivity, and management of sage grouse in Idaho. J Wildl Manag 27:811–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis DM, Reese KP, Gardner SC, Bird KL (2015) Genetic structure of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in a declining, peripheral population. Condor 117:530–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doherty KE, Naugle DE, Walker BL, Graham JM (2008) Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development. J Wildl Manag 72:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunn PO, Braun CE (1985) Natal dispersal and lek fidelity of sage grouse. Auk 102:621–627Google Scholar
  27. Dyer RJ (2014) GSTUDIO: Analyses and functions related to the spatial analysis of genetic marker data. R package version 3.2.1Google Scholar
  28. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edminster FC (1954) American game birds of field and forest: their habits, ecology, and management. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. El Mousadik A, Petit R (1996) High level of genetic differentiation for allelic richness among populations of the argan tree [Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels] endemic to Morocco. Theor Appl Genet 92:832–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Emmons SR, Braun CE (1984) Lek attendance of male sage grouse. J Wildl Manag 48:1023–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Evett IW, Weir BS (1998) Interpreting DNA evidence: statistical genetics for forensic scientists. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Finch DM, Boyce DA, Chambers JC, Colt CJ, Dumroese K, Kitchen SG, McCarthy C, Meyer SE, Richardson BA, Rowland MM, Rumble MA, Schwartz MK, Tomosy MS, and Wisdom MJ. 2016 Conservation and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse: An assessment of USDA Forest Service Science. RMRS-GTR, 348: 1–54Google Scholar
  36. Francois O, Ancelet S, Guillot G (2006) Bayesian clustering using hidden Markov random fields in spatial population genetics. Genetics 174:805–816CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Frye GG, Connelly JW, Musil DD, Forbey JS (2013) Phytochemistry predicts habitat selection by an avian herbivore at multiple scales. Ecology 94:308–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Galpern P, Manseau M, Hettinga P, Smith K, Wilson P (2012) ALLELEMATCH: an R package for identifying unique multilocus genotypes where genotyping error and missing data may be present. Mol Ecol Resour 12:771–778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gesch D, Oimoen M, Greenlee S, Nelson C, Steuck M, Tyler D (2002) The National Elevation Dataset. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68:5–11Google Scholar
  40. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1991) Mate choice in lekking sage grouse revisited: the roles of vocal display, female site fidelity, and copying. Behav Ecol 2:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. Am J Heredity 86:485–486Google Scholar
  42. Green JS, Flinders JT (1960) Habitat and Dietary Pygmy Rabbit. Soc Range Manag 33:136–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Green GA, Livezey KB, Morgan RL (2001) Habitat selection by northern sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus) in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. N West Nat 82:111–115Google Scholar
  44. Hagen CA, Connelly JW, Schroeder MA (2007) A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildl Biol 13:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Holderegger R, Di Giulio M (2010) The genetic effects of roads: a review of empirical evidence. Basic Appl Ecol 11:522–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holloran MJ, Anderson SH (2005) Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holloran MJ, Kaiser RC, Hubert WA (2010) Yearling greater sage-grouse response to energy development in Wyoming. J Wildl Manag 74:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2011) Relative effects of road mortality and decreased connectivity on population genetic diversity. Biol Conserv 144:3143–3148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jaeger DM, Runyon JB, Richardson BA (2016) Signals of speciation: volatile organic compounds resolve closely related sagebrush taxa, suggesting their importance in evolution. New PhytologistGoogle Scholar
  50. Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA (2007) CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23:1801–1806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Jombart T, Ahmed I (2011) adegenet 1.3-1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27:3070–3071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Kahn N, St. John J, Quinn TW (1998) Chromosome-specific intron size differences in the avian CHD gene provide an efficient method for sex identification in birds. Auk 115(4):1074–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Knick ST, Dobkin DS, Rotenberry JT, Schroeder MA, Vander Haegen WM, Van Riper C III (2003) Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Latch EK, Dharmarajan G, Glaubitz JC, Rhodes OE Jr (2006) Relative performance of Bayesian clustering software for inferring population substructure and individual assignment at low levels of population differentiation. Conserv Genet 7:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lomolino MV, Riddle BR, Brown JH, Whittaker RJ (2006) Biogeography. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  56. Manel S, Joost S, Epperson BK, Holderegger R, Storfer A, Rosenberg MS, Scribner KT, Bonin A, Fortin MJ (2010) Perspectives on the use of landscape genetics to detect genetic adaptive variation in the field. Mol Ecol 19:3760–3772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. McArthur ED, Plummer AP (1978) Biogeography and management of native western shrubs: a case study, section Tridentatae of Artemisia. Gt Basin Nat Mem 2:229–243Google Scholar
  59. McKelvey K, Schwartz M (2005) dropout: a program to identify problem loci and samples for noninvasive genetic samples in a capture-mark-recapture framework. Mol Ecol Notes 5:716–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Monsen SB, Shaw NL (2000) Big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) communities—ecology, importance and restoration potential. In: Billings Land Reclamation Symposium, 2000: Striving for Restoration, Fostering Technology, and Policy for Reestablishing Ecological Function: March 20-24, 2000, Sheraton Billings Hotel, Billings, Montana. Bozeman: Montana State University, Publication No. 00-01Google Scholar
  61. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (2014) Metadata for Greater sage-grouse core areas. http://fwp.mt.gov/gisData/metadata/sgcore.htm
  62. Murphy T, Naugle DE, Eardley R, Maestas JD, Griffiths T, Pellant M, Stiver SJ (2013) Trial by fire. Rangelands 35:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015a) Outcomes in conservation: sage grouse initiative. U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2015Google Scholar
  64. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015b) Sage grouse initiative 2.0: Investment Strategy, FY 2015–2018. U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 2015Google Scholar
  65. Naugle DE, Aldridge CL, Walker BL, Cornish TE, Moynahan BJ, Holloran MJ, Brown K, Johnson GD, Schmidtmann ET, Mayer RT (2004) West Nile virus: pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecol Lett 7:704–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Naugle DE, Walker BL, Doherty KE (2006) Sage grouse population response to coal-bed natural gas development in the Powder River Basin: interim progress report on region-wide lek-count analyses. University of Montana, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
  67. Naugle DE, Doherty KE, Walker BL, Copel HE, Holloran MJ, Tack JD (2011) Sage grouse and cumulative impacts of energy development. In: Naugle DE (ed) Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North America. Island, Washington, pp 55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MH, Wagner H (2015) VEGAN: Community Ecology Package. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html
  69. Oyler-McCance SJ, St. John J (2010) Characterization of small microsatellite loci for use in non-invasive sampling studies of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). Conserv Genet Resour 2:17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Oyler-McCance SJ, Taylor SE, Quinn TW (2005) A multilocus population genetic survey of the greater sage-grouse across their range. Mol Ecol 14:1293–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Parris KM, Schneider A (2009) Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of roadside habitats. Ecol Soc 14:29–50Google Scholar
  72. Patterson RL (1952) The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, DenverGoogle Scholar
  73. Piertney SB, Höglund J (2001) Polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in black grouse (Tetrao tetrix). Mol Ecol Notes 1:303–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Proctor MF, McLellan BN, Strobeck C, Barclay RM (2005) Genetic analysis reveals demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding vulnerably small populations. Proc R Soc B 272:2409–2416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Remington TE, Braun CE (1985) Sage grouse food selection in winter, North Park, Colorado. J Wildl Manag 49:1055–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ricketts TH (1999) Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment. Island PressGoogle Scholar
  78. Robinson AC (2014) Management plan and conservation strategies for greater sage-grouse in North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, BismarkGoogle Scholar
  79. Rosentreter R (2004) Sagebrush identification, ecology, and palatability relative to sage grouse. In: Shaw NL, Monsen SB, Pellant M (eds) Sage grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings; 4–7 June 2001; Boise, ID. Proceedings RMRS-P-000. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. CollinsGoogle Scholar
  80. Rousset F (2008) Genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Rowland MM, Wisdom MJ, Suring LH, Meinke CW (2006) Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for sagebrush-associated vertebrates. Biol Conserv 129:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schrag A, Konrad S, Miller S, Walker B, Forrest S (2011) Climate-change impacts on sagebrush habitat and West Nile virus transmission risk and conservation implications for greater sage-grouse. GeoJournal 76:561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schroeder MA, Aldridge CL, Apa AD, Bohne JR, Braun CE, Bunnell SD, Connelly JW, Deibert PA, Gardner SC, Hilliard MA (2004) Distribution of sage grouse in North America. Condor 106:363–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schulwitz S, Bedrosian B, Johnson JA (2014) Low neutral genetic diversity in isolated greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations in Northwest Wyoming. Condor 116:560–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS (2009) Why sampling scheme matters: the effect of sampling scheme on landscape genetic results. Conserv Genet 10:441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Segelbacher G (2002) Noninvasive genetic analysis in birds: testing reliability of feather samples. Mol Ecol 2:367–369Google Scholar
  87. Segelbacher G, Paxton RJ, Steinbrück G, Trontelj P, Storch I (2000) Characterization of microsatellites in capercaillie Tetrao urogallus (AVES). Mol Ecol 9:1919–1952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Semple K, Wayne R, Gibson R (2001) Microsatellite analysis of female mating behaviour in lek-breeding sage grouse. Mol Ecol 10:2043–2048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Shafer A, Cullingham CI, Cote SD, Coltman DW (2010) Of glaciers and refugia: a decade of study sheds new light on the phylogeography of northwestern North America. Mol Ecol 19:4589–4621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Short Bull AR, Cushman SA, Mace R, Chilton T, Kendall KC, Landguth EL, Schwartz MK, McKelvey K, Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2011) Why replication is important in landscape genetics: American black bear in the Rocky Mountains. Mol Ecol 20:1092–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Slabbekoorn H, Ripmeester EA (2008) Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Mol Ecol 17:72–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Smith R (2012) Conserving Montana’s sagebrush highway: long distance migration in sage grouse. Master’s Thesis, The University of MontanaGoogle Scholar
  93. Smits JEG, Fernie KJ (2013) Avian wildlife as sentinels of ecosystem health. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 36:333–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Soltis DE, Gitzendanner MA, Strenge DD, Soltis PS (1997) Chloroplast DNA intraspecific phylogeography of plants from the Pacific Northwest of North America. Plant Syst Evol 206:353–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stanton DJ, McArthur ED, Freeman DC, Golenberg EM (2002) No genetic substructuring in Artemisia subgenus Tridentatae despite strong ecotypic subspecies selection. Biochem Syst Ecol 30:579–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. State of Montana (2014) Executive order creating the Montana sage grouse oversight team and the Montana sage grouse habitat conservation program. Executive Order No. 10-2014, pp1–29Google Scholar
  97. State of Montana (2015) Executive order amending and providing for implementation of the Montana sage grouse conservation strategy. Executive Order No. 12–2015, pp 1–38Google Scholar
  98. Stiver SJ, Apa AD, Bohne JR, Bunnell SD, Deibert PA, Gardner SC, Hilliard MA, McCarthy CW, Schroeder MA (2006) Greater Sage-grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife, CheyenneGoogle Scholar
  99. Sturges HA (1926) The choice of a class interval. J Am Stat Assoc 21:65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Taylor SE, Oyler-McCance SJ, Quinn TW (2003) Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Mol Ecol Notes 3:262–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thacker ET, Gardner DR, Messmer TA, Guttery MR, Dahlgren DK (2012) Using gas chromatography to determine winter diets of greater sage-grouse in Utah. J Wildl Manag 76:588–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) 12-month findings for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Fed Reg 75:13910–14014Google Scholar
  103. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, February 2013Google Scholar
  104. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2015) 12-Month finding on a petition to list greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an endangered or threatened species. Fed Reg 80:59858–59942Google Scholar
  105. Walker BL, Naugle DE, Doherty KE (2007) Greater sage-grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss. J Wildl Manag 71:2644–2654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wallestad R, Eng RL (1975) Foods of adult sage grouse in Central Montana. J Wildl Manag 39:628–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wallestad R, Schladweiler P (1974) Breeding season movements and habitat selection of male sage grouse. J Wildl Manag 38:634–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wambolt CL (1996) Mule deer and elk foraging preference for 4 sagebrush taxa. J Range Manag 49:499–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Webb SL, Olson CV, Dzialak MR, Harju SM, Winstead JB, Lockman D (2012) Landscape features and weather influence nest survival of a ground-nesting bird of conservation concern, the greater sage-grouse, in human-altered environments. Ecol Process 1:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wiens JA (2007) Foundation papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, p 582Google Scholar
  112. Wright S (1949) The genetical structure of populations. Ann Eugen 15:323–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zink RM (2014) Comparison of patterns of genetic variation and demographic history in the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): relevance for conservation. Open Ornithol J 7:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd B. Cross
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David E. Naugle
    • 2
  • John C. Carlson
    • 3
  • Michael K. Schwartz
    • 1
  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish ConservationRocky Mountain Research StationMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.College of Forestry and ConservationUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  3. 3.Bureau of Land ManagementMontana State OfficeBillingsUSA

Personalised recommendations