Assessing Effects of Vegetation Characteristics and Management of the Conservation Reserve Program on Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Quality, Resource Selection, and Demographics throughout the Species’ Northern Range
Investigators: Elisabeth Teige
Project Supervisor: Dr. David Haukos
Funding: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA - Farm Service Agency, USGS – Fort Collins Science Center
Cooperators: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA - Farm Service Agency, USGS – Fort Collins Science Center
Objectives: Review the effects of CRP on prairie grouse. Conducting vegetation assessment of available LEPC nesting habitat on variously managed CRP. Understanding the selection of CRP by LEPC across multiple scales. Evaluate the demographic effects of the CRP on LEPC
Location: Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado
Expected Completion: November 2026
Status: On going, initiated Fall 2023
(Noted Figures to come soon!)
Progress and Results
Since 1985, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been one of the most successfully implemented conservation efforts in the United States and has been valuable for increasing grasslands across the central and intermountain plains. CRP is a federal conservation tool where landowners voluntarily plant former row-crop land with grassland species for 10-15 years, receiving monetary compensation with some flexibility on management practices allowed after planting, including grazing. CRP has recently expanded to allow enrollment of working rangelands. CRP is used by various wildlife including grasslands birds, providing nesting and reproductive habitat, a critical stage in grassland birds’ annual lifecycle. With the severe decline of grassland bird species, the grasslands provided by CRP could help mitigate population declines.
One species that relies on CRP for several aspects of their annual life cycle is the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). Lesser prairie-chickens are dependent on the CRP in the western portion of their range, notably during extreme events such as intensive drought, wildfire, or after translocation. However, with the various vegetation plantings and flexibility with the management of CRP grasslands there is considerable variation in vegetation composition and structure as well as juxtaposition of CRP fields within and among landscapes. While previous research indicates a pattern of use of CRP by lesser prairie-chickens, specific characteristics of CRP fields selected by lesser prairie-chickens are unknown. Understanding and investigating the intricate interaction of CRP and lesser prairie-chickens will provide insight into management opportunities for the threatened and endangered species at multiple scales.
The project objectives are to 1) review our current understanding of the effects of CRP on prairie grouse, 2) evaluate current CRP practices and management effects on the availability of lesser prairie-chicken nesting habitat, 3) use 10 years of existing research of lesser prairie-chickens to establish characteristics of selected CRP fields relative to availability of CRP on the landscape, and 4) determine the area and quality of lesser prairie-chicken habitat provided by CRP throughout the species range using demographic metrics.
CRP is generally thought to broadly benefit prairie grouse species but literature on the direct effects of CRP on prairie grouse demography, resource selection, and space use is scattered throughout time and across the United States. We conducted a literature review of the direct effects of CRP on Tympanuchus and Centrocercus spp. (Figure 1). The number of studies investigating the effects of CRP were most numerous for lesser prairie-chicken, followed by sharp-tailed grouse, greater prairie-chicken, Gunnison sage-grouse, and lastly greater sage-grouse (Figure 2A). No studies were found for Attwater’s prairie-chicken. Of the 69 studies, a majority of CRP effects were positive for prairie grouse metrics. Of the overall 145 species specific metrics tallied, 67% were positive outcomes, 30% were neutral, and 3% were negative (Figure 3). Greater than half (68%) of studies included CRP as binary present/absence variable, 17% included CRP field vegetation measurements, and 6% included a management variable (i.e., grazing, hayed, etc.), 5% included a policy variable (i.e., age of field, expiration, etc.), and 4% of studies had CRP variable that did not fall into the other categories (Figure 2B). Literature on response to emergency grazing and haying, initial seed planting, and current composition of CRP fields on prairie grouse species dynamics are lacking and could be useful for implementing CRP to support imperiled prairie grouse.
CRP vegetation can vary due to seed planting and management. Understanding how these factors interact with climatic conditions can provide insight into management practices that would be beneficial for the lesser prairie-chicken. Using random vegetation surveyed during the breeding season (March 15–Sept. 15) across the lesser prairie-chicken range in Kansas and Colorado from 2013–2024, we evaluated the availability of nesting and brood-rearing habitat on differing Conservation Practice types within CRP grasslands and investigated the influence drought conditions on the probability of vegetation being reproductive habitat. We used nesting and brood-rearing guidelines for lesser prairie-chickens from Lautenbach et al. 2017. Using 16,953 surveyed vegetation locations, we found that overall 35% of all CRP location met nesting habitat guidelines, while only 24% of non-CRP private native grasslands met nesting guidelines (Figure 4). Overall, CP 25 met nesting guidelines proportionally the most, with 42% of points meeting nesting guidelines. Across the three lesser prairie-chicken ecoregions in our study area (Mixed-grass Prairie, Sand Sagebrush Prairie, and the Short-grass/CRP Mosaic), we found that the Short-grass/CRP Mosaic Ecoregion had the most locations meeting nesting guidelines with 42% and the Sand Sagebrush Prairie Ecoregion had the least with 29% (Figure 5). From data collected in 2024 we found that fields grazed in 2022 had a similar percentage of locations meeting nesting guidelines as fields that were rested, but fields that were actively grazed in 2024 had only 29% of locations meeting nesting guidelines (Figure 6). When we investigated drought conditions on the probability of surveyed vegetation locations meeting nesting requirements we found that CRP is very resistant to drought condition and vegetation in CRP has a similarly higher likelihood of meeting nesting guidelines regardless of drought conditions compared to native working grassland locations where the likelihood of a location in that cover type of meeting nesting requirements increased as drought decreased (Figure 7).
For locations meeting brood-rearing guidelines we found that overall 17% of all CRP locations met brood-rearing guidelines, while 30% of non-CRP private native grasslands met brood-rearing guidelines (Figure 8). Overall, CP 88 met brood-rearing guidelines proportionally the most, with 34%. Across the lesser prairie-chicken ecoregions, we found that the Mixed-grass and the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion had similar amount of available brood-rearing habitat with 20% of locations per Ecoregion, however the Short-grass/CRP Mosaic Ecoregion had the least locations meeting brood-rearing guidelines with 13% of locations (Figure 9). From data collected in 2024 we found that CRP fields across management period (grazed in 2022, grazed in 2024, or rested over the time period) had a similar percentage of locations meeting brood-rearing guidelines (17-21%), with CP 88 having the greatest number of brood-rearing locations out of the other CPs (Figure 10). When we investigated drought conditions on the probability of surveyed vegetation locations meeting brood-rearing requirements we found that CRP and native working grasslands’ likelihood of a location in that cover type of meeting brood-rearing requirements increased as drought decreased, with native working grassland having a greater likelihood of meeting the brood-rearing requirements than CRP (Figure 11).
For both nesting and brood-rearing guidelines, the structural component of herbaceous cover was met across CPs but the compositional requirements of bare ground cover ≤10% for nesting, and between 7–37% for forb cover for brood-rearing, was the limiting factor. Often bare ground was exceeded, and forb cover requirements were not met. Information from this study can provide insight into the effect that management, seed planting and precipitation can have on available nesting and brood-rearing habitat.
Distinguishing which CRP fields are selected by Lesser-prairie chickens from those that are not selected can illuminate characteristics of CRP fields that may help with target conservation of the species. Using a hierarchical selection framework, we evaluated lesser prairie-chicken selection of CRP fields at a landscape, field, and vegetation within field scales. We found that across the lesser prairie-chicken northern range, the probability of using CRP increased as the surround CRP increased (Figure 12) although that relationship varied with Ecoregion (Figure 13). At the field scale, we found that generally Conservation Practices (CPs) were relatively evenly selected for compared to their availability across the landscape, with CP 10 and CP 2 being selected slightly more than available (Figure 14). When we investigated CRP fields that were used and ones that were available to lesser prairie-chickens, we found that vegetation locations meeting nesting and brood-rearing guidelines were similar among the two groups (Figure 15).
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands provides a vital resource for lesser prairie-chickens and likely plays a vital role in population persistence. The CRP grasslands provide much needed nesting habitat and can be critical for lesser prairie-chicken survival during times of ecological stress such as drought. If the CRP were to cease the implications on lesser prairie-chicken population would likely be dramatic and detrimental.
