Restoration Potential: Still common throughout much of sagebrush country and has a high probability of being sustained wherever large areas (e.g., > 130 hectares observed in Washington, Vader Haegen, pers. comm.) of sagebrush and other preferred native shrubland exist for breeding. Likely to return to areas where sagebrush and other native vegetation restored. However, sagebrush habitats can be very difficult to reclaim once invaded by cheatgrass and other noxious non-natives, leading to an escalation of fire frequency and fire intensity that permanently converts shrub-steppe to annual grassland. There are no simple prescriptions for eliminating cheatgrass, medusahead, and other noxious weeds. Land reclamation of severely degraded sites to restore native habitat may be expensive and long-term, requiring weed control, control of disturbances, and repeated reseeding of sagebrush and native understory plants (see Paige and Ritter 1998).
Preserve Selection and Design Considerations: Not found in all seemingly suitable habitats (Rich 1978); unknown factors may be influencing site selection. In eastern Washington, was not found in sagebrush patches smaller than 130 hectares (1/2 section), suggesting it is area-sensitive (Vander Haegan, pers. comm.). Minimum patch sizes, however, have not been studied elsewhere for this species. Knick and Rotenberry (1995) found a preference for sites with high sagebrush cover, spatially similar patches, large patch size, low disturbance, and little fragmentation; thresholds or ranges, however, were not quantified.
Management Requirements: Requires large areas of sagebrush and other preferred shrubland habitats, tall sagebrush shrubs for nesting or song perches, and low percent grass cover to facilitate foraging on ground. Decrease in abundance within a couple of breeding seasons after reduction or removal or sagebrush (Wiens and Rotenberry 1985). Breeding adults show high site tenacity and return to previous breeding locations even after the habitat has been manipulated which can lead to biased conclusions about habitat preferences and effects of management activities (Wiens et al. 1986).
GRASS COVER: Abundance is negatively correlated with grass cover (Rotenberry and Wiens 1980) and densities decline in crested wheatgrass plantings (Reynolds and Trost 1980). Foraging success likely reduced by continuous cover of crested wheatgrass, cheatgrass or other non-native grasses (Paige an Ritter 1998).
GRAZING: Negative impacts not likely from light to moderate grazing that does not affect shrub cover. Negative response to heavy grazing (Saab et al. 1995). In Idaho, sheep grazing produced no significant change in number of nests between grazed and ungrazed habitats dominated by sagebrush (Reynolds and Trost 1980). Density varies parallel to variations in sagebrush cover (Wiens 1985), so may be expected to respond relative to how grazing management affects shrub cover.
FIRE: Effect of burns variable, but not shown to be beneficial. Fire that kills and removes sagebrush cover over large areas are detrimental. Fire that selectively removes the tallest sagebrush shrubs alters nest placement, but where burns result in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas, sage sparrow persists at least in the first season after the burn (Winter and Best 1985). Appeared resilient to prescribed burn in sagebrush in eastern Idaho that removed nearly 50 percent of the sagebrush habitat in a mosaic pattern. Density was lower on burned plots, but significantly so only in the second year post-burn, and then increased again. Clutch size, daily nestling survival, and fledging success were not significantly different between burned and unburned plots (Peterson and Best 1987a). In northern California, fire suppression allows shrub communities to become tall, dense shrublands, reducing habitat (Burridge 1995 cited in Martin and Carlson 1998).
Management Research Needs: More research needed on responses to various grazing regimes and prescribed burn patterns. Understanding of minimum patch sizes, fragmentation effects, spatial juxtaposition of habitat patches and other aspects of landscape ecology needed. Study of extent of brood parasitism and impact of predation in relation to human alterations of habitat needed.
Biological Research Needs: Further research is needed on the life history and ecology, particularly during migration and wintering. Little is known of specific life history and ecology of subspecies other than NEVADENSIS.
