Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Ecological Restoration
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Ecological Restoration

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
Restoration ArticleRestoration Notes

Variability in Sagebrush Cover due to Method of Determination and its Implications for Habitat Restoration

Autumn D. Watkinson, M. Anne Naeth and Shelley D. Pruss
Ecological Restoration, June 2022, 40 (2) 87-91; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.40.2.87
Autumn D. Watkinson
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 751 General Services Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: autumnly{at}ualberta.ca
M. Anne Naeth
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shelley D. Pruss
Species Conservation, Conservation Programs Branch, Parks Canada, Government of Canada, Elk Island National Park, Fort Saskatchewan, AB, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aldridge, C.L.
    1998. The status of Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) in Canada. Proceedings of the 5th Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Workshop. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Natural History Occasional Paper 24:197–205.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Aldridge, C.L.
    2000. Reproduction and habitat use by sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in a northern fringe population. MSc Thesis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  3. ↵
    1. Aldridge, C.L.
    2005. Identifying habitats for persistence of greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Alberta, Canada. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
  4. ↵
    1. Aldridge, C.L. and
    2. R.M. Brigham
    . 2002. Sage-grouse nesting and brood habitat use in southern Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66:433–444.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Booth, D.T.,
    2. S.E. Cox,
    3. T.W. Meikle and
    4. C. Fitzgerald
    . 2006. The accuracy of ground-cover measurements. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:179–188.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Booth, D.T.,
    2. S.E. Cox,
    3. T.W. Meikle and
    4. H.R. Zuuring
    . 2008. Ground-cover measurements: Assessing correlation among aerial and ground-based methods. Environmental Management 42:1091–1100.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Boyd, C.S.,
    2. J.D. Bates and
    3. R.F. Miller
    . 2007. The influence of gap size on sagebrush cover estimates with the use of line intercept technique. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:199–202.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Breckenridge, R.P.,
    2. M. Dakins,
    3. S. Bunting,
    4. J.L. Harbour and
    5. R.D. Lee
    . 2012. Using unmanned helicopters to assess vegetation cover in sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and Management 65:362–370.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Canfield, R.H.
    1941. Application of the line-intercept method in sampling range vegetation. Journal of Forestry 39:388–394.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Dunn, P.O. and
    2. C.E. Braun
    . 1986. Summer habitat use by adult female and juvenile Sage-Grouse. The Journal of Wildlife Management 50:228–235.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Environment Canada. 2014. Amended recovery strategy for the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 53 pp.
  12. ↵
    1. Hanley, T.
    1978. A comparison of the line-interception and quadrat estimation methods of determining shrub canopy coverage. Journal of Range Management 31:60–62.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Jones, P.F.,
    2. R. Penniket,
    3. L. Fent,
    4. J. Nicholson and
    5. B. Adams
    . 2005. Silver sagebrush community associations in southeastern Alberta, Canada. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:400–405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. McArthur, E.D. and
    2. R. Stevens
    . 2004. Composite shrubs. Pages 493–537 In: S.B. Monsen, R. Stevens, and N.L. Shaw (comps), Restoring western ranges and wildlands. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
  15. ↵
    1. Meyer, S.E.
    2008. Artemisia L. Pages 274–280 In: K.R. Bonner and R.P Karrfalt (eds), The Woody Plant Seed Manual. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 727. Washington, DC.
  16. ↵
    1. Paige, C.
    2015. Hi-Res Maps Sharpen Focus on Sage Grouse Habitat. Science to Solutions, Sage Grouse Initiative https://tinyurl.com/y7frpqn5. Accessed 15 March 2020.
  17. ↵
    1. Peterson, J.G.
    1970. The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management 34:147–155.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Seefeldt, S.S. and
    2. D.T. Booth
    . 2006. Measuring plant cover in sagebrush steppe rangelands: A comparison of methods. Environmental Management 37:703–711.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Wallestad, R. and
    2. C. Pyrah
    . 1974. Movement and nesting of Sage-Grouse hens in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:630–633.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Wambolt, C.L.,
    2. M.R. Frisina,
    3. S.J. Knapp and
    4. R.M. Frisina
    . 2006. Effect of method, site and taxon on line-intercept estimates of sagebrush cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:440–445.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Watkinson, A.,
    2. M.A. Naeth and
    3. S.D. Pruss
    . 2021. Modeling Artemisia cana landscape cover as a function of planting density and age to inform restoration of sagebrush habitats. Rangeland Ecology & Management 76:22–29.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ecological Restoration: 40 (2)
Ecological Restoration
Vol. 40, Issue 2
June 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ecological Restoration.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Variability in Sagebrush Cover due to Method of Determination and its Implications for Habitat Restoration
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ecological Restoration
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ecological Restoration web site.
Citation Tools
Variability in Sagebrush Cover due to Method of Determination and its Implications for Habitat Restoration
Autumn D. Watkinson, M. Anne Naeth, Shelley D. Pruss
Ecological Restoration Jun 2022, 40 (2) 87-91; DOI: 10.3368/er.40.2.87

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Variability in Sagebrush Cover due to Method of Determination and its Implications for Habitat Restoration
Autumn D. Watkinson, M. Anne Naeth, Shelley D. Pruss
Ecological Restoration Jun 2022, 40 (2) 87-91; DOI: 10.3368/er.40.2.87
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Sagebrush Size and Relative Contributions to Landscape Cover
    • Differences in Sagebrush Cover due to Method of Measurement
    • An Integrated Method of Cover Determination
    • Author Contributions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The Muddy Creek Design for Beaver Dam Analogs
  • Blueberry and Huckleberry Fruit Production for Wildlife Habitat Quality after Restoring Fire to Oak Forests
  • When Less Is More
Show more Restoration Notes

Similar Articles

UW Press logo

© 2025 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire