A an}
‘

may...
a

a?
e 4.... . gs.“

VJ .L
. . h»?
Emmam

 

«in. A I ..
. . a :6... \
1min??? ..v
5‘}. TI;
... 41.

52.}.
1.31.9

ﬂy!
3.

. INA...!
5.7 I . .

so} 1...??? ... .
~ ..Plzﬂdiig .. .
.. $u-ix12 PI Hafnrn .

$5.15!.

WWW»?
r

 

It‘ll!!!) Iv
‘ \ l.71..4.0§!x||.“l|.
) .vrtdlrl.‘02.xé€t. A .

. Raﬁ»

Jr. {fir

w ....I; .
.141...”

.164. I

:74!”

1.1.27 .
...‘n. ill I. .

. . a ﬁo¢..m§..:;ﬁﬁ...uw ,1 ....,..-....
325.921. .. . , . . .

 

. . ID! i
‘ .l 1 I. . .
- .3... .» ......«mfm... ma}: ..L......r ... . .

 

 

                                        

I 2: LIBRARY WWWllllllllllmllllllllW1
54/ (7 Michigan State 3 1293 01572 2063
7 3 University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Causes of Mortality and Factors Affecting Survival
of Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Northern
Michigan

presented by K .

Allison Gormley

has been accepted toWards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Fish. & Wildl.

Eamom

Major professor

Date May 29, 1996

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to romovo thII checkout from your rooord.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or before date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afﬂmatlvo ActlaVEquol Opportunlty InotltuIIon
Wanna-9.1

—————-—‘f _ .__.____________

CAUSES OF MORTALITY AND FACTORS AFFECTING
SURVIVAL OF RUFFED GROUSE (BONASA UMBELLUs)
IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN
By

Allison Gonnley

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial ﬁalﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1 996

ABSTRACT
CAUSES OF MORTALITY AND FACTORS AFFECTING
SURVIVAL OF RUFFED GROUSE (BONASA UMBELLUS)
IN NORTHERN MICHIGAN
By

Allison Gormley

Concerns about the declining numbers of ruﬁ‘ed grouse (1.3M umbellus) led to
the initiation of the Michigan Ruﬂ‘ed Grouse Project. Objectives were to determine causes
of mortality and grouse survival rates. Research was conducted May 1993 -August 1995
on 2 areas in Michigan. Each area was composed of a site closed to hunting and one open
to hunting under normal harvest regulations. Ruﬂ‘ed grouse were ﬁtted with radio
transmitters on each site each year and the Kaplan-Meier estimator (Pollock et al. 1989)
was used to determine survival rates. Factors that could cause survival to differ between
paired sites were quantiﬁed and evaluated. Avian predation was the greatest cause of
grouse mortality. Survival was signiﬁcantly greater for birds on the closed sites in 1993 (P

< 0.05), but not in 1994. Hunting appeared to have little or no eﬂ‘ect on grouse survival.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to ﬁrst and foremost express my gratitude to my major professor, Dr. Scott
R. Winterstein, for all the guidance, support, wisdom, encouragement, and patience he has
given me during my graduate work. I am also grateﬁil to my committee members, Drs.
Rique Campa and Don Beaver, for their support, advice, and willingness to be involved in
my graduate work.

I acknowledge and thank the agencies responsible for ﬁnding this project, the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, the Ruffed Grouse Society,
and Michigan State University. Without the interest and concern of these agencies this
project would not have been possible. I greatly appreciate the cooperation of the U. S.
Forest Service in providing assistance with maps, data on federal lands, and other
technical support.

I acknowledge and thank John Urbain of the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources for all his eﬁ‘orts on behalf of this project. I have greatly appreciated his
support and assistance in providing supplementary data. A special thanks goes to my
fellow graduate student Meg Clark, who was in charge of the Pigeon River study area, for
her many eﬂ‘orts and contributions to the project. I also thank her for her cooperation and
friendship.

Wildlife biologists Larry Robinson of the Michigan DNR and Phil Huber of the

US. Forest Service have been a great source of information and help with ﬁeld work. I
thank Tom Cooley of the Michigan DNR Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center for
performing necropsies on numerous collected grouse. I also recognize and thank Jeff
Greene, Dan Soults, and Bill Green of the Michigan DNR for their help and support.

This project was extremely labor intensive and could not have been carried out
without the eﬂ‘orts of many undergraduate interns and ﬁeld technicians. I extend my most
sincere THANKS to Bryan Knowles, Bob Goodwin, Brad Smith, Heather Catlin, Joe
Bonem, Jen Bock, Keith Copi, Jeﬁ‘ Pype, Rich Doneen, Craig Cook, Dave Denomme,
Brian Anderson, Mark Ledebuhr, Kevin Shinn, and all those who worked at the Pigeon
River sites for all the hard work they put into this project. I especially want to thank
Bryan Knowles, Bob Goodwin, and Heather Catlin for their support and ﬁiendship, and to
say to Bob and Heather -- “Put on your shaggin’ shoes!”

The ﬁiendship and support of my fellow graduate students has been invaluable to
me during my work here at MSU. Kristie Sitar, Linda Briggs, Peter F ritzell, Shawn Sitar,
Wendy Sangster, Mark Moore, and Ann Krause have all made graduate school interesting,
enjoyable, and, most importantly, bearable during the rough times!

I most sincerely thank my mom for her tremendous support and encouragement,
which was always just a phone call away day or night. I would not have made it through
my graduate work without her pep talks and advice. I also thank my entire family for their
support of my endeavors.

Finally, I thank God for giving me the opportunity and ability to obtain a graduate

degree.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xiv
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 4
STUDY AREA AND SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 5
METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 9
Vegetation Analysis .............................................................................................. 9
Determination of Raptor Populations .................................................................. 15
Trapping Grouse ................................................................................................. 16
Handling Birds .................................................................................................... 18

Radio Telemetry ................................................................................................. l9
Mortality Diagnostics ......................................................................................... 19
Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................. 20
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 22
Vegetation Analysis ............................................................................................ 22
Michigan Ruﬂ‘ed Grouse HSI Model ....................................................... 22

Woodland Hawks Nesting Habitat Model ................................................ 29

Raptor Surveys ................................................................................................... 31
Trapping ............................................................................................................. 33

Sex and Age Ratios ............................................................................................ 3 5
Year-end Status of Radio-tagged Grouse ............................................................ 37
Sources of Mortality ........................................................................................... 39
Survival .............................................................................................................. 47

HNF 1993 and 1994 ................................................................................ 49

PRCSF 1993 and 1994 ............................................................................ 56

Page

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 63

Vegetation Analysis and Raptor Abundance ........................................................ 63

Ruffed Grouse Habitat ............................................................................ 64

Woodland Hawks Nesting Habitat ........................................................... 66

Raptor Surveys ....................................................................................... 67

Trapping ............................................................................................................. 68

Sources of Mortality ........................................................................................... 70

Seasonal Changes in Non-hunting Mortality ........................................................ 72

Survival .............................................................................................................. 73

All Birds ................................................................................................. 73

Age and Sex Classes ............................................................................... 75

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................. 77
APPENDICES

A Data collected on vegetation stands sampled on Huron National Forest
(HNF) and Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) study areas, 1994
and 1995 ...................................................................................................... 79

B. Ruﬂ‘ed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation stands sampled on
Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River Country State Forest
(PRCSF) study areas, 1994 and 1995 ......................................................... 100

C. Raptor survey data collected on Huron National Forest (HNF) and
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) study areas, 1994 and
1995 .......................................................................................................... 113

D. Ruﬁ‘ed grouse trapping record for Huron National Forest (HNF) and
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1993 and
1994 .......................................................................................................... 121

E. Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight,
wing cord length, and fate data collected on ruffed grouse trapped on
Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River Country State Forest
(PRCSF) study areas, 1993 and 1994 ......................................................... 125

F. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River Country State Forest
(PRCSF) study areas, 1993 and 1994 ......................................................... 138

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................ 191

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Vegetation types and dominant tree species within each type sampled on HNF

and PRCSF study areas ....................................................................................... 10
Number of stands sampled and plot sizes used on HNF and PRCSF areas, 1994

and 1995 ............................................................................................................ 14
Average ruﬁ'ed grouse H81 and range of H81 values for vegetation categories

sampled on HNF and PRCSF areas, 1994 and 1995 ............................................ 23
Vegetation composition (% area) of HNF and PRCSF study areas ........................... 24
Nesting woodland hawks habitat analysis variables, HNF area ................................. 3O
Nesting woodland hawks habitat analysis variables, PRC SF area ............................. 30
Raptor species identiﬁed and numbers seen on survey routes on HNF and

PRCSF study areas, 1994 and 1995 .................................................................... 32
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on raptor indices of HNF and PRC SF open and

closed sites, 1994 and 1995 ................................................................................ 33
Trapping results for HNF and PRCSF areas, 1993 and 1994 .................................... 35
Age-sex class distribution of ruffed grouse trapped on HNF and PRCSF areas,

1993 and 1994 .................................................................................................... 36
End of year status for radio-tagged ruffed grouse on HNF and PRCSF areas

in 1993 and 1994 ................................................................................................ 38
Distribution of ruffed grouse mortalities by source on HNF and PRC SF areas,

1993 and 1994 .................................................................................................... 40
Categories and numbers of non-hunting grouse mortalities used in analysis of

HNF and PRCSF areas, 1993 and 1994 .............................................................. 42

Vii

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Al.

A4.

Bl.

BZ.

B3.

B4.

C1.

C2.

Page

Comparison of the non-hunting mortality categories Avian Predation and
Other between paired sites and same sites on HNF and PRC SF areas,
1993 and 1994 .................................................................................................... 43

Number of non-hunting grouse mortalities and birds at risk by season on
HNF and PRCSF areas, 1993 and 1994 .............................................................. 44

Sample sizes used to calculate survival probabilities for ruffed grouse on
HNF and PRCSF areas, 1993 and 1994 .............................................................. 48

Results of the log-rank test on survival curves for ruﬂ‘ed grouse on HNF open
and closed sites, 1993 and 1994 .......................................................................... 52

Results of the log-rank test on survival curves for ruﬁ‘ed grouse on PRC SF
open and closed sites, 1993 and 1994 ................................................................. 58

Data collected on vegetation stands sampled on Huron National Forest (HNF)
open site, 1994 and 1995 .................................................................................... 79

. Data collected on vegetation stands sampled on Huron National Forest (HNF)

closed site, 1994 and 1995 .................................................................................. 84

. Data collected on vegetation stands sampled on Pigeon River Country State

Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994 and 1995 .......................................................... 90

Data collected on vegetation stands sampled on Pigeon River Country State
Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994 and 1995 ....................................................... 95

Ruﬂ‘ed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation stands sampled on Huron
National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994 and 1995 .............................................. 100

Ruﬂ’ed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation stands sampled on Huron
National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994 and 1995 ............................................ 103

Ruﬁ‘ed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation stands sampled on Pigeon
River Country State Forest (PRC SF) open site, 1994 and 1995 ........................ 107

Ruﬁ‘ed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation stands sampled on Pigeon
River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994 and 1995 ...................... 110

Raptor survey data collected on Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994 ..... 113
Raptor survey data collected on Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, l994...114

C3.

C4.

C5.

C6.

C7.

C8.

D1.

D2.

El.

E2.

E3.

E4.

E5.

Page
Raptor survey data collected on Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1995 ..... 115
Raptor survey data collected on Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1995...] 16

Raptor survey data collected on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF)
open site, 1994 ................................................................................................. 117

Raptor survey data collected on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF)
closed site, 1994 ............................................................................................... 118

Raptor survey data collected on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF)
open site, 1995 ................................................................................................. 119

Raptor survey data collected on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF)
closed site, 1995 ............................................................................................... 120

Ruﬁ‘ed grouse trapping record for Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1993 .............................................. 121

Ruffed grouse trapping record for Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1994 .............................................. 123

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord
length, and fate data collected on ruﬁ‘ed grouse trapped on Huron National
Forest (HNF) open site, 1993 ........................................................................... 125

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord
length, and fate data collected on ruﬁ‘ed grouse trapped on Huron National
Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993 ......................................................................... 126

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord
length, and fate data collected on ruﬂ‘ed grouse trapped on Pigeon River Country
State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993 ............................................................... 127

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord
length, and fate data collected on ruffed grouse trapped on Pigeon River Country
State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1993 ............................................................ 128

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord
length, and fate data collected on ruﬂ‘ed grouse trapped on Huron National
Forest (I-H\IF) open site, 1994 ........................................................................... 129

Page

E6. Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord

E7.

E8.

F1.

F2.

F3.

F4.

F5.

F6.

F7.

F8.

F9.

length, and fate data collected on ruﬁ‘ed grouse trapped on Huron National
Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994 ......................................................................... 132

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord
length, and fate data collected on ruffed grouse trapped on Pigeon River Country
State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994 ............................................................... 134

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord
length, and fate data collected on ruﬁ‘ed grouse trapped on Pigeon River Country
State Forest (PRC SF) closed site, 1994 ............................................................ 136

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on Huron National
Forest (HNF) open site, 1993 ........................................................................... 138

Kaplan—Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993 ................................................... 139

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993 ................................................... 140

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993 ................................................... 141

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993 ................................................... 142

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on Huron National
Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993 ......................................................................... 143

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993 ................................................ 145

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993 ................................................ 146

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993 ................................................ 147

F10. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on

Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993 ................................................ 148

F11.

F12.

F13.

F14.

F15.

F16.

F17.

F18.

F19.

F20.

F21.

F22.

F23.

F24

Page

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993 ................................................. 149

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) open site, 1993 ............................ 151

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993 ............................ 152

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) open site, 1993 ............................ 153

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993 ............................ 154

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1993 ............................................... 155

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1993 .......................... 156

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) closed site, 1993 .......................... 157

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1993 .......................... 158

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) closed site, 1993 .......................... 159

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on Huron National
Forest (HNF) open site, 1994 ........................................................................... 160

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994 ................................................... 162

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994 ................................................... 163

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994 ................................................... 165

F25.

F26.

F27.

F28.

F29.

F30.

F31.

F32.

F33.

F34.

F35.

F36.

F37.

F38.

Page

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994 ................................................... 166

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on Huron National
Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994 ......................................................................... 168

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994 ................................................ 170

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994 ................................................ 172

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994 ................................................ 174

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994 ................................................ 176

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRC SF) open site, 1994 ................................................. 17 8

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994 ............................ 180

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994 ............................ 181

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994 ............................ 182

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) open site, 1994 ............................ 183

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRC SF) closed site, 1994 ............................................... 184

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) closed site, 1994 .......................... 186

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994 .......................... 188

xii

Page

F39. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994 .......................... 189

F40. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruﬁ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994 .......................... 190

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Location of Michigan ruffed grouse research project study areas ............................... 6
Location of open and closed sites on HNF and PRCSF study areas ............................ 8
Modiﬁed cloverleaf trap, not drawn to scale ............................................................ 17
Average ruffed grouse HSI score by age of aspen stands on HNF ............................ 27
Average ruﬁ‘ed grouse HSI score by age of aspen stands on PRCSF ........................ 28
Percent within season non-hunting mortality on HNF, 1993 and 1994 ...................... 45
Percent within season non-hunting mortality on PRCSF, 1993 and 1994 .................. 46
Survival curves for ruffed grouse on HNF, 1993 and 1994 ...................................... 50
Survival curves for adult (AHY) and juvenile (HY) grouse on HNF, 1993

and 1994 ............................................................................................................ 53
Survival curves for male (M) and female (F) grouse on HNF, 1993 and 1994 .......... 55
Survival curves for ruffed grouse on PRCSF, 1993 and 1994 ................................... 57
Survival curves for adult (AHY) and juvenile (HY) grouse on PRCSF, 1993

and 1994 ............................................................................................................ 59
Survival curves for male (M) and female (F) grouse on PRCSF, 1993 and 1994 ...... 61

xiv

INTRODUCTION

The ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) is a very important gamebird throughout

 

Michigan. Since 1958 it has been pursued by an average of 175,000 hunters each year.
As many as 843,000 grouse have been harvested statewide in a single year (J. Urbain,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, pers. commun.)

It has long been known that grouse populations are cyclic. Work done by Criddle
(1930), Leopold and Ball (1933), Marshall and Gullion (1965), and Moulton (1975)
showed that the average grouse cycle lasts from 6 to 10 years. Schorger (1945) noted
that attempts to discover the causes of death or decline of the ruffed grouse began around
1880. Since that time numerous mechanisms have been proposed and studied to explain
the known cyclic pattern of grouse populations (Criddle 1930, Leopold and Ball 1933,
Schorger 1945, Allin 1964, Gullion 1970, Archibald 1977, Rusch et al. 1978, Keith and
Rusch 1986). No mechanism has yet been proven to be the cause of ﬂuctuations in grouse
numbers.

Studies have shown that natural mortality factors affect sex and age classes of
ruﬁ‘ed grouse differentially and cause seasonal variations in mortality rates. In central
Wisconsin, Small et al. (1991, 1993) determined annual survival rates for adults to be
higher than for juveniles. In Rochester, Alberta, Rusch and Keith (1971) found the

average rate of survival from hatching to the following spring to be 28% and the average

2
annual survival rate of adults to be 29%. They also found that females suffer higher

mortality than males during late summer, while males suﬂ‘er higher mortality than females
during the fall and spring.

On the Ashland Wildlife Research Area, Missouri, Thompson and Fritzell (1989)
found mean survival during the spring-summer interval to be greater than survival during
the fall-winter interval. Small et al. (1991) observed mortality rates to be highest during
winter and early spring in central Wisconsin. Conversely, Rusch et al. (1978) found
highest rates of mortality to occur during the summer and fall on the Narcisse Wildlife
Management Area, Manitoba.

It is known that the Michigan grouse population has undergone a severe decline
and that during 1992-1993 was at an extremely low point in its current cycle, which began
with a peak in 1989 (J. Urbain, Michigan DNR, pers. commun.) Drumming surveys
statewide showed a decrease from 1.26 average drums/stop in 1990 to 0.66 average
drums/st0p in 1993. Data collected from hunting cooperators showed a steady decrease
in hunting success ﬁ'om 1989 to 1993. The ﬂush rate per hour of ruﬂ‘ed grouse hunting in
1993 was 0.92, this is the lowest ﬂush rate since the Michigan DNR began record keeping
in 1958. In addition, the number of grouse harvested statewide in 1993 was the lowest for
the 36 years and the 1992 statewide harvest was the second lowest (J. Urbain, Michigan
DNR, pers. commun.) In 1993 the harvest was 63% below the 36-year average, and in
1992 it was 48% below the average. The lack of knowledge about Michigan’s grouse
population and the concern of hunters, wildlife managers, and other conservationists about

the diminishing numbers of grouse led to the initiation of the Michigan Ruﬁ‘ed Grouse

3
Research Project in 1993. The project is a 5-year study and will examine numerous

aspects of ruﬁ‘ed grouse survival, movements, and habitat requirements.

OBJECTIVES

The speciﬁc objectives of this study are to determine for populations in northern
Michigan:

1. The primary causes of ruﬂ‘ed grouse mortality;

2. Ifcauses of mortality change seasonally; and

3. The impacts of age and gender on mortality.

STUDY AREA AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Research was conducted on 2 study areas, in the northeast lower peninsula of
Michigan, from May 1993 to August 1995. One area was located within the Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRC SF), and the other was in the Maltby Hills region of the Huron
National Forest (HNF). Criteria used in selecting study areas included: 1) that there must
be a predominance of good quality grouse habitat on the area, and 2) that historical
hunting efforts in these areas must be average or above average for the State.

The PRC SF overlaps Cheboygan and Otsego counties, and is approximately 80 km
northwest of the HNF area, which extends into Oscoda, Alcona, and Ogemaw counties
(Figure 1). Both study areas have a similar climate, due to their geographical proximity.
PRCSF is at 45°10'N latitude, 84°27'W longitude, and has an elevation of 282 m. HNF is
at 44°25'N latitude, 84°1'W longitude, and has an elevation of 274 m. The mean summer
temperature for PRCSF is 21.2 C; the mean winter temperature is -6.3 C. The known
temperature extremes for the period of 1982 through 1992 are 37.8 C and -36.7 C
(NOAA 1982-1992). In HNF the mean summer temperature is 22.5 C, the mean winter
temperature is -5.3 C, and the recorded extreme temperatures between 1982 and 1992 are
38.9 C and -35 C (NOAA 1982-1992).

Each area was composed of 2 sites, one closed to grouse hunting and one open to

hunting under normal harvest regulations. Each site was roughly 100 kmz. In each area

   

 

 

 

:\\\\\>:\\\\\\§\\ NOOna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Location of Michigan ruffed grouse research project study areas.

7

the open and closed sites were within approximately 3 km of each other to minimize
geographic, soil, and climatic differences (Figure 2). This positioning also expedited travel
between a pair of sites by project ﬁeld personnel. Within a pair, the site selected to be
closed to hunting was the one which had the greater number of county roads, rivers, and
surrounding private lands which could be conveniently used to denote the boundaries of
the site. The boundaries of the closed sites were posted in compliance with all appropriate
laws and regulations prior to the start of the 1993 hunting season. Since the initial

posting, signs were replaced as necessary.

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N
Cheboygan Co. T
, PRCSF open site
/ PRCSF closed site
/
..4.
Otsego Co.
Oscoda Co. Alcona Co.
\ .
HNF open site
‘ HNF closed site
Ogemaw Co.
p I
40 km

Figure 2. Location of open and closed sites on HNF and PRCSF study areas.

METHODS

Vegetation Analysis

An analysis of vegetation types on the study sites was conducted to assess the
habitat quality of each site for ruﬂ‘ed grouse and to measure the degree of similarity of the
paired sites in relation to quantity and quality of ruffed grouse habitat. Data collected
were also used to compare paired sites with respect to habitat quality for nesting
woodland hawks.

The 4 study sites were stratiﬁed based on compartment map cover types and
mouse ecology. Eight vegetation types were deﬁned (Table 1). The Aspen cover type
was sampled in 3 age classes: Young Aspen (1-10 years old), Medium-Aged Aspen (11-
29 years old), and Old Aspen ( 230 years old). On the HNF sites the Jack Pine vegetation
type was divided into 2 age classes: Young Jack Pine (330 years old) and Old Jack Pine
(>30 years old). Due to the small amount of Jack Pine present in PRCSF, a single Jack
Pine vegetation type encompassing all ages was sampled there. On all sites the Pines
cover type was divided into 2 age classes: Young Pines (s30 years old) and Old Pines
(>30 years old). Since there is no Oak cover type on the PRCSF sites, this category was
not sampled there. Only Upland Hardwoods >30 years old were sampled on all sites,
because there were no young Upland Hardwoods. The cover type Other was not sampled

on any site, because it does not include mouse habitat. Therefore, 11 categories of

10

 

 

.295
856 ucam
gee

88o

swan 95...:
..er

.850

3.5438. madame
82% x85

Oman. €13
69382

858.3 mug
E Egan

magma £3
:25 .88

3.28280 mead
330.22; 805.5:

 

 

232.50 9.2264

.865 63m awomn new ”.2: co BEES me: some 555 888m no...

non

38322 new;

5.9:

53.5 0:226.
3832a: 9.233

2% m. :8. elm:
9.3 35.:

 

ﬁlllllmﬁceowes j 3
x0282. E230

25m ”slam
\ 329.59 .9
«320:6 xoﬁ
9.9932 mag
86 xoﬁ

 

 

 

an 915%
05a 9:?
394%... may
use no.
3:5
88322 REE

saunas.“ ﬂame
semen 50:25.

84.34:. Has
2%.: 3..

amalgam mag
:3 2E;

1:28 3:2
Eoco x83

gnaw Hug
ease Scam

AIIIIIIIEezEamEn 3:... o

union 63.3
«get 1.92%.
=25 Logan

6:5 x02.

«$8228 mama

gonna 5853

120.382. 141:2: on.

:33 953:5

 

 

950

88:2“: 2%:

:82

23:28 use monk co_§oao> .F can...

 

1 l
vegetation were sampled on the HNF sites and 9 categories were sampled on the PRC SF

sites. Ages of all vegetation stands sampled were obtained ﬁ'om forest inventory data
sheets provided by the US. Forest Service and the Michigan DNR.

Vegetation sampling was based on the Michigan HSI model for ruﬂ‘ed mouse
(Hammill and Moran 1986) and incorporated some aspects of a model for predicting
nesting habitat of woodland hawks (Mosher et al. 1986). Measurements taken for the
ruﬁ‘ed mouse model included: stem densities of deciduous trees, conifers, aspen, and
deciduous shrubs; height of deciduous trees and shrubs; height of lowest branch on
coniferous trees; and distance from center of stand to nearest winter food source (mature
aspen). Variables measured for the woodland hawks nesting habitat model included: log
distance to water, log distance to forest opening, canopy height, and number of trees dbh
2 21 cm.

The Michigan ruﬂ‘ed mouse HSI model is composed of 5 variables (Vl-Vs). V1 is
the equivalent stem density (ESD) of the stand. The ESD is calculated using the equation:

ESD = d + 4c + 0.55,
in which d = number of deciduous stems/ha, c = number of conifer stems/ha, and s =
number of deciduous shrub stems/ha. V2 is the height of deciduous trees. V3 is the height
of lowest conifer branches. V4 is the height of deciduous shrubs. V5 is interspersion, i.e.
the distance between the stand and a source of winter food (mature aspen). Deciduous
trees are deﬁned as having a woody, single-stemmed mowth form and a height 2 0.9 m.
Deciduous shrubs are deﬁned as having a woody, multi-stemmed mowth form, a dbh s
2.54 cm, and a height 2 0.9 m. Conifers are deﬁned as having a single-stemmed mowth

form and a height 2 0.9 m.

12
To calculate the HSI for a stand the value for each variable is converted to a

suitability index (SI) value using ﬁgures provided in the model. The HSI is then calculated

ﬁ'om the equation:

 

HSI = SI d (81,) + 4c(SI,) + 0.SS(SI4) SI
1 d + 4c + 0.58 5’

in which d, c, and s are the same values used in the ESD equation. The model gives the
meatest weight equally to the ESD variable (V1) and to the interspersion variable (V5).

The nesting woodland hawks habitat model consists of 2 individual models, an
ecological model and a management model. Although it contains fewer variables, Mosher
et al. found the management model to be nearly as accurate as the ecological model.
Therefore, the management model is the more practical and eﬁicient model to use.

This study used the following variables from the management model to compare
paired Sites with respect to nesting habitat for woodland hawks: log distance to water, log
distance to forest opening, canopy height, number of trees with dbh 21-40 cm, and number
of trees with dbh > 41 cm. The variable water was deﬁned as a permanent water source
of any size. Forest opening was deﬁned as a break in the stand continuity, such as a
clearing, trail, or stream. The geomaphical location of the 2 study areas and amount of
recreational use they receive results in each of them having a large number of roads and
trails and permanent water sources. Therefore, the variables water and forest opening
were not considered to be limiting to woodland hawks on the sites and were not directly
measured.

The model required a minimum value of 10 m for the canopy height variable for a

stand to be considered useful to nesting woodland hawks. An average canopy height

13

value was calculated for each stand sampled using height measurements recorded for trees
2 10 m. Ifthere were no tree heights 2 10 m recorded for a stand, then that stand
received a zero for the average canopy height value. An average canopy height value was
calculated for each vegetation category on each site by averaging the values of all stands
within the vegetation category. If the average canopy height value for a vegetation
category was < 10 m, then that category was noted as having an inadequate average
canopy height value. Height measurements were taken of deciduous trees only using a
Haga altimeter. Because the density of both medium- and large-sized trees were equally
important in the model, the size classes were lumped together for ease of data collection.
Stem density was determined for trees with dbh 2 21 cm.

Sampling was conducted from May to October 1994 and May to August 1995.
Ten to 22 stands of each aspen age class were sampled on each site. Two to 10 stands of
all other vegetation types were sampled. The number of stands sampled in a given
category depended on how many stands of that type were present on a site. All stands
were randomly selected. Three randomly selected plots were used to sample each stand.
Plot sizes varied according to vegetation type. However, for a given vegetation type plot
size was consistent for paired sites. The number of stands sampled and plot size used for
each vegetation type on each site are given in Table 2.

The ruffed mouse HSI was calculated for each stand sampled. An average HSI
score was calculated for each vegetation type on each site. One stand sampled in the Old
Aspen category in the HNF closed site was not used in the average HSI calculation,
because the age of the stand was not precisely known. Three stands sampled in the Old

Aspen category in the PRCSF open site and 2 stands in this category in the closed site

l4

 

 

 

 

we 3 .20...
N x N e v 8332:: Bass...
No.3 9 3 8:5 20
N x w o N mesa 83>
N x v or N 2E 62.
N x v o v 39:50 2233
N x 9 or m 3332a: 22::
..N x or 3 N :82 20
mm x N «N 3 :82 82.5285.
N x N 3 or :82 9E
AEV mum 38.0 :80 at 5:830)
8E 029:8 85% .0 .oz

 

mwoma

 

 

 

 

ONF mo .20...
N x N n v mooozEwI 2226..
N x 2. n w 85¢ 20
N x v m N mega 23>
me or or 9. 2E .82. 20
..N x or or m use .82. 83>
..N x or n m ”8:30 0:233
N x or w w 930
N x 2. or m 3832:... 22::
N x 3 8 up :83. 20
...N x N a 3 :82 83.528:
N x N or o_. :82 EE
:5 Ba 88.0 :80 8». Sacra;
SE 3.2.3 mocmﬁ :0 .oz
“.2:

 

.33 05 39 .maEa mmoma Eu ”.2... :0 com: mode 8.: 2o 029:3 85$ .6 .3532 .N 63:...

15
were not used in average HSI calculations, because the stands consisted of mixed-aged

aspen. In the HNF closed site 1 Upland Hardwoods stand and 1 Old Pines stand were of
unknown age, however, these stands were used to calculate average HSI values, because
the stands were known to be at least 30 years old. Similarly, in the PRCSF, 1 Young
Pines and 2 Old Pines mixed-aged stands in the open site and 2 Young Pines mixed-aged
stands in the closed site were used in calculations, because the dominant vegetation was of
the assigned category. An overall HSI for each site was calculated by multiplying the
average HSI for each vegetation type by the percent area of the vegetation type and
summing over all vegetation types on the site.

Determination of Raptor Populations

Raptors have been found to be a major predator of ruffed grouse (Eng and Gullion
1962, Marshall and Gullion 1965, Gullion and Marshall 1968, Rusch et al. 1978, Gullion
1981, Bergerud 1985). Therefore, a survey of the raptor population in each of the 4 study
sites was conducted.

Based on a review of raptor census work done by Nice and Nice (1921),
Craighead and Craighead (1956), Winterbottom (1972), Vian and Bliese (1974), and Bart
(1977) the following survey procedure was used in each of the 4 sites. A 45-km ﬁxed
route was driven weekly between 9am and 12noon at a speed of 24 km/h. There were 2
observers (the driver and the data recorder) per route. Each person was responsible for
observing 1 side of the road, however, each was not restricted to viewing only their
designated side. Brief stops and binoculars were used as necessary to identify unknown
birds. The number of raptors observed perched and ﬂying during each route was

recorded. Whenever possible the species was determined and recorded.

16
The survey was conducted from mid-May to mid-December in 1994 on all sites,

and in 1995 on the PRCSF sites. In 1995 on the HNF sites the survey was terminated in
mid-November, because heavy snowfall made roads inaccessible. Due to the effect of
weather on raptor behavior, surveys were conducted only during fair weather. Surveys
were postponed one day when inclement weather, such as rain or snow showers, occurred
on a scheduled survey day.

The collected data were used to create an index of the raptor population on each
of the 4 sites. This index was the number of raptors seen per week and was used to
compare paired sites with respect to potential predation on grouse by raptors. It should
be noted that this survey method did not speciﬁcally provide data on the numbers of

northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) and great horned owls (Bubo virgﬂ' 'anus) present

 

on each site. These 2 species are known to be the primary avian predators of ruﬂ‘ed
grouse.
Trapping Grouse

Grouse were trapped ﬁom 1 August to 15 October of each year. The purpose of
trapping was to radio-tag approximately 60 birds in each of the 4 study sites.

Grouse were trapped using modiﬁed cloverleaf traps (Figure 3). Each trap
consisted of: (1) two 15 in leads constructed from poultry wire 46 cm high, (2) 4 funnels
made of 2.5 cm square woven light poultry wire on 30x41 cm steel ﬁ'ames, (3) 4 kidney-
shaped bodies constructed of either 2. 5 cm square heavy poultry wire or 5x10 cm welded
wire, and (4) 4 lids made from 2.5 cm square heavy poultry wire on 91x91 cm steel

frames.

 

 

   

funnel lead

lid ”my

Figure 3. Modiﬁed cloverleaf trap, not drawn to scale.

Traps were placed primarily in 10-30-year-old aspen (Pom spp.) stands. These
stands were selected during a period of habitat scouting conducted each summer. Older
aspen stands and mixed hardwood stands were also used for trapping. Due to the
tendency of grouse to travel along edges, traps were positioned perpendicular to stand
edges. When it was not possible to place a trap perpendicular to an edge, due to such
things as landscape contours or heavy slash being present, the trap was placed parallel to
the edge in an attempt to intercept birds moving toward the edge. Traps were also placed
parallel to an edge bordering a road if birds were observed crossing the road to enter the
stand.

During the trapping period, 1-3 traplines consisting of 12-22 traps were placed in
each of the 4 study sites. The exact number of traplines and traps depended on the
location of individual traps within each site. Each trap line was monitored by a team of 2
persons. The traps were checked daily. Because the birds are most active just before
sunset, the traps were checked during the period 1 hour before sunset to 1 hour after
sunset. This minimized the time birds spent in the traps, which reduced the amount of

stress and injury sustained by the birds, and it also reduced the risk of predation in the

l8
trap. When traps were checked for birds, minor repairs (e.g., adjusting funnels or lids)

were made and any trap requiring major repairs (e. g., wire needing to be reattached to
ﬁ'arnes) was noted on the data sheet. Major repairs were made on the following day.

The length of time a trap was set in a particular location depended on a
combination of several factors. These included: productivity of the trap, location, weather,
and how long the trap had already been set in its present location. In general, if a trap had
been set for 10 days during fair-good weather and had not caught a bird it was moved.
However, if a trap was set in what was considered to be a stand with high trapping
potential it may have been left up for longer than 10 days, even if it did not catch a bird
within the ﬁrst 10 days. Traps that were productive, catching birds every 5-10 days, were
left up for longer time periods. The time period a trap was set in any location depended
ultimately on the researcher's judgment, having considered all factors affecting the traps
success or failure.

Handling Birds

When birds were caught a standard protocol for handling them and recording data
was followed. For each bird trapped the procedure was as follows: (1) a leg band was
placed on the bird and its number recorded, (2) weight (to nearest 5 g), gender, age (HY -
hatch year or AHY-aﬁer hatch year), and wing cord length (to nearest mm) were
recorded, (3) if the bird's weight was greater than 350 g, it was ﬁtted with a radio
transmitter, (4) the condition of the bird was also noted (e.g., injured by trap). A body
weight of 350 g was chosen for radio-tagging, because this ensured that radio transmitters
were <5% of a bird’s body weight. Transmitters (Lotek Engineering, Inc., Ontario and

Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc., Isanti, Minnesota) were of a collar design, were

19
equipped with an 8-hour mortality sensor, and weighed 10-12 g. All data were taken as

quickly and emciently as possible to minimize handling time and stress caused to the birds.
All trapping , handling, and marking procedures were reviewed and approved by the All-
University Committee on Animal Use and Care (AUF # 10/93-400-03).
Radio Telemetry

Each grouse ﬁtted with a radio transmitter was tracked starting on the day
following capture. Triangulation (White and Garrott 1990) and U. S. Forest Service or
Michigan DNR compartment maps were used to determine each bird's location and the
vegetation type occupied. Bearings were taken from 2 points to determine the location of
each bird. Birds were monitored at least every other day from the time of capture through
mid-December. During the winter and early spring (mid-December through April) the
birds were tracked weekly. Winter tracking involved determining only general locations
of the birds, due to frequent poor weather conditions and many roads on the study sites
being inaccessible. From 1 May until the radios ceased ﬁmctioning the birds were located
3-4 times each week. At this time triangulation was again used to determine more precise
locations and cover types occupied.
Mortality Diagnostics

As soon as a mortality signal was received ﬁom a radio transmitter, the remains of
the bird were located and collected. This procedure was followed at all times of the year.
The location of the bird and a description of the site were recorded. The site description
included such things as: distance to nearest perching tree, standing water, road, or
mammal den(s); presence of tracks or raptor whitewash; and vegetation type. At the

mortality site any fur, foreign feathers, raptor pellets, and/or scat present were also

20
collected to aid in determining cause of death. The remains were sent to the Mchigan

DNR Rose Lake Wildlife Research Area for necropsy. Cause of death was determined
when possible.
Statistical Analysis

Paired sites were evaluated with regard to quality and quantity of grouse habitat. A
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to compare each vegetation type between paired
sites based on HSI scores of sampled stands. For this and all other tests, or = 0.05.
Overall comparability was determined based on the average ruffed grouse HSI score and
corresponding amount (ha) of each vegetation type.

Each pair of sites was also evaluated for their comparability of potential predation
on grouse by raptors. This was accomplished through the use of the raptor survey data
and woodland hawks nesting habitat data collected on each site. A Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test was used to compare raptor indices of paired sites within years and of same
sites between years.

The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the woodland hawks
nesting habitat variables canopy height and stem density within vegetation categories
between paired sites. All stands sampled were used in these comparisons. Overall
comparison of paired sites was based on calculated averages for each variable in each
vegetation category on each site.

A chi-square test was used to compare causes of mortality between paired sites
within years and same sites between years. Survival probabilities were calculated for
ruﬂ‘ed grouse on each study site using the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator (Pollock

et al. 1989). Actual calculations were carried out using the program KAPLAN ( T. G.

21
Kulowiec, Missouri Department. of Conservation). The log-rank test was used to

compare survival curves of paired sites within years and of same sites between years.
Survival curves of paired sites were also compared by gender and by age within years.

These comparisons were also done for same sites between years.

 

RESULTS

Vegetation Analysis

Two-hundred-ﬁfteen stands were sampled in the HNF study area and 200 stands
were sampled in the PRCSF area. Data collected on each stand are given in Appendix A.
The SI values and HSI score calculated for each stand sampled are given in Appendix B.

Michigan Ruﬂ‘ed Grouse Hg Model--

 

 

HSI scores range in value from 0 to 1; quality increases as the HS] score
approaches 1. In this study a high quality vegetation category on a site would have an
average HSI score 2 0.50.

The quality of grouse habitat within vegetation categories was found to be similar
on the 2 HNF sites. Open and closed site average HSI scores for the 3 aspen types were,
respectively, 0.22 and 0.14 for Young Aspen, 0.62 and 0.50 for Medium-Aged Aspen, and
0.06 and 0.07 for Old Aspen (Table 3). The open site received a relatively higher average
HSI score than the closed site for Young Jack Pine (0.52 vs. 0.16) and a lower average
score for Lowland Hardwoods (0.06 vs. 0.22). All other vegetation types received
comparable average HSI scores. Results of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on HSI values
within each vegetation type between the paired sites showed no signiﬁcant differences at or
= 0.05 (Table 3).

The quantity (% area) of quality grouse habitat is not equivalent between the HNF

22

23

.8 new E .2 mo:.u> .8. N 033 com 89.3.33 0.. 26.. ..cm

8 w Net... can: :96 9.8 33.9 .>> .N 8.880....» 05 3 828...... 88 new 3 A 8+5 :2.) 528 88 33.9 N .82 >o§z>>.ccm.2-coxoo__>>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8888. .. .88....

888 8.: Na... 8... 882.3: 8226..
.8888. .8888.

8.... 8.8 , 28 8... 8:5 so
3.8.8.... .2888. .8888. .5888.

8.... 88. 8... N2. 8825.8: 88.26.. 8.... 8.8 88 8... .88.“. 88>
.8888. .8888. .8888. 8.8.8....

8.8 8...... a... 88 8c... 20 88... 8.8. ...... 88 8... .2... ...o
.8888. .2888. .8888. .8888.

8.... 88 3.... 88 8:5 88> to... 8.8 8.... 8... .8... .2... 88>
.8888. .8888. .8888. .8888.

888 8.8 88 R8 85 x8... 8.... 8.8 88 88 2880 8233
.8888. .8888. .8888. .8888.

.88 8.8 88 8... 99.8.. 8225.. 8.... 8.8 8... B... 980
.2888. .8888. .8888. .8888.

8.8 8.8 88 88 883...... 82.... 88... 88: 8... 88 888...... 82....
.8888. 8.78.... .8888. .8888.

8.... ~88. ...... $8 :82 ...o 8...... ~58- ...... 8... :82 20
88.78.... .8388. .8388. 88.788.

8.... .11 88 88 :82 82.5282 «8... 8... 8... 8... :82 888.28....
.8888. .8888. 88.78.... .8388.

8...... N...... 2... 8... :82 83> 8.... N.. 3... «N8 :82 88>

n. x>> 830.0 :30 .5828 a x>> 803.0 :80 E328

.o .N 89.8... c0333; .8 .N .098... co..u.oao>

.mI omeo>< .m: 3803..
88018 a2:

 

.33 new 39 .388 ...womn. new H.2... co 80.888... 82.0528 c0320? .o. 829 .w... ..o 09.8 can 5... 3.85 not... 3803.. .m 0...:

24
open and closed sites. On the open site the categories Medium-Aged Aspen and Young

Jack Pine had an average HSI score 2 0.50 (Table 3). These 2 vegetation categories
comprise 40.9% of the total open site area (Table 4). On the closed site only Medium-
Aged Aspen had an average HSI score 2 0.50; this category comprises 14.4% of the total
closed site area. The quantity of the open and closed site that had an average HSI value 2

0.30 was 43.3% and 14.4%, respectively.

Table 4. Vegetation composition (% area) of HNF and PRCSF study areas.

 

 

 

HNF PRCSF

Vegetation type Open Closed Vegetation type Open Closed
Young Aspen 3.5 9.0 Young Aspen 9.4 7.6
Medium-Aged Aspen 40.4 14.4 Medium-Aged Aspen 15.4 10.1
Old Aspen 6.8 18.6 Old Aspen 8.8 7.0
Upland Hardwoods 7.9 26.7 Upland Hardwoods 23.6 19.6
Oaks 19.2 11.5 Lowland Conifers 14.7 17.4
Lowland Conifers 2.4 0.4 Jack Pine 1.7 5.6
Young Jack Pine 0.5 6.0 Young Pines 0.4 3.4
Old Jack Pine 3.1 2.5 Old Pines 11.9 21.0
Young Pines 0.7 1.2 Lowland Hardwoods 7.9 4.5
Old Pines 11.8 5.1 Other 6.3 3.8
Lowland Hardwoods 1.5 0.9

Other 2.2 3.7

 

The overall HSI score for the HNF open site was 0.31 and for the closed site was
0.14. The diﬂ‘erence in these values is due to the quantity of quality grouse habitat on the
sites. The large amount (40.4% area) of Medium-Aged Aspen on the open site taken in
conjunction with its high HSI score of 0.62 is the primary factor responsible for the overall
site value of 0.3 1. The high score of Lowland Conifers (0.39) on the open site is
diminished by its low percent area of 2.4%. Likewise, although Young Jack Pine scored
0.52 on the open site it makes up only 0.5% of the site.

On the PRC SF area grouse habitat quality was not equivalent on the sites. The

25
average HSI scores for Young Pines and Lowland Hardwoods were substantially greater

on the closed than on the open site (Table 3). The open site had greater average scores
for Medium-Aged Aspen, Old Aspen, and Lowland Conifers than did the closed site. All
other vegetation categories on the sites received similar average HSI scores. HSI scores
for stands in the Old Aspen category were signiﬁcantly different between the open and
closed sites (P < 0.01) (Table 3). On the open site the average HSI score for Old Aspen
(0.47) was similar to the score for Medium-Aged Aspen (0.52). This was due to the high
density of young deciduous and coniferous trees present on most of the Old Aspen stands
sampled on the open site. On 5 of the 18 sampled stands these densities caused the stands
to receive a stem density SI of 1.0. On the closed site, only 2 of 16 Old Aspen stands
received a stem density SI of 1.0. These were both due to the presence of a high density
of young conifers.

The quantity (% area) of quality grouse habitat on the PRC SF open site is not
equivalent to that on the closed site. On the open site the categories Medium-Aged Aspen
and Lowland Conifers had an average HSI score 2 0.50 (Table 3). These categories make
up 30.1% of the total open site area (Table 4). There was no vegetation category on the
closed site that had an average HSI score 2 0.50. However, the quantity of the open and
closed site that had an average HSI score 2 0.30 was 38.9% and 35.4%, respectively.
These values are comparable.

The overall HSI score for the PRCSF open site was 0.27 and for the closed site
was 0.21. There are 2 primary reasons for the open site receiving a slightly higher overall

score. The ﬁrst is the signiﬁcantly greater average HSI for Old Aspen on the open site.

26

The second is a combination of the percent area and average HSI value for Medium-Aged
Aspen on the open site. The open site contained approximately 1/3 more Medium-Aged
Aspen than did the closed and the HSI score for Medium-Aged Aspen on the open site
was greater than on the closed. Although there are differences within the vegetation
categories between the 2 sites, the overall HSI scores are similar.

Because aspen is the vegetation type of primary importance to ruffed grouse in
Michigan, the quality of aspen as grouse habitat was examined in more detail than the
other vegetation types. Sampled aspen stands were divided into 5 year age classes. An
average HSI score was calculated for each age class on each site.

On the 2 HNF sites 1-20 year old aspen stands sampled in 5-year age classes had
similar average HSI scores within age categories (Figure 4). Age classes 21 to 30 years
old on the open site had substantially greater average HSI scores than did those on the
closed site. Average HSI scores for aspen on the open and closed site followed a similar
trend. Average HSI scores increased from age class 1-5 years old to age class 11-15 years
old. From age 16 to 30 average HSI scores decreased. After age 30 the scores were
sporadically distributed. Average HSI scores of zero on the open and closed sites were
due to stands within the given age class having a stem density SI value of zero. On the
closed site an 88-year-old stand had a high HSI, because it is succeeding to a conifer
stand. There was a large number of young conifers present, which resulted in the stand
receiving a high SI value for stem density.

For the PRCSF open and closed sites, plots of average HSI score versus age of

aspen sampled do not follow any trend (Figure 5). Stands with high HSI scores are

27
1.00 1

“9°” If
0.80 i ICIosed ‘
0.70 a
0.60 ‘

 

0.50 -
0.40 -
0.30 -
0.20 -

Average HSI score

0.10 r

000‘ a b b b ea

 

1-5 6- 11- 16— 21-26—31-36-41-46-51-56—61-66-71-76— 81-86-
1015202530354045505560657075808590

Age of stands (years)

a Unless otherwise noted, blank values had an average HSI score of 0.00.
b No stands of this age class were present on the open site.
c No stands of this age class were present on the closed site.

Figure 4. Average ruffed grouse HSI score by age of aspen stands on HNF, 1994 and 1995.

Average HSI score

1.00«
0.90 -
0.00 -
0.70 .
0.60 J
0.501
0.40 -
0.30 -
0.20 -
0.10-

 

0.00 i

28

bc c be be

1-5 6- 11-16-21-26-31-36-41-46-51-56-61-66—71-76-81-86-
1015202530354045505560657075808590

Age of stands (years)

 

a Unless otherwise noted, blank values had an average HSI score of 0.00.
bNostandsofthis agedass were present on the open site.
cNostandsofthisage Glassware presentonthedosedsite.

Figure 5. Average ruffed grouse HSI score by age of aspen stands on PRCSF, 1994 and 1995.

29

distributed across all age classes, as are stands with low scores. Average HSI scores of 0
for age classes on both sites are due to stands having a stem density SI value 3 0.02.

Woodland Hawks Nesting Habitat Model--

 

 

Titus and Mosher (1981) found that woodland hawks nested in habitat with an
average medium- and large-sized tree density of 8-148 stems/ha and a canopy height 215
m. Based on these reported values and the vegetation data collected, the HNF open and
closed sites are comparable in habitat quality for nesting woodland hawks. In some of the
vegetation categories one site attained an adequate value for a variable while the other site
did not (Table 5). However, there was no vegetation category that met both the stem
density and canopy height requirements for either site. Results of a Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test showed a signiﬁcant diﬁ‘erence between sites for average stem density (P =
0.0348) and average canopy height (P = 0.0094) in the Young Pines category. 'In this
category, the open site had an adequate average canopy height value, while the closed site
did not. Although there was a signiﬁcant difference between the sites for average stem
density, both the open and closed sites had a poor average stem density value.

The PRC SF sites are also comparable in woodland hawks nesting habitat. There
was no vegetation category on either site that received an adequate value for both
variables (Table 6). The canopy height variable in the Upland Hardwoods category was
signiﬁcantly diﬁ‘erent between the open and closed sites. This difference did not eﬁ‘ect the
comparability of the sites, because both sites received a canopy height value greater than
15 m, which was found by Titus and Mosher to be a requirement of nesting woodland

hawks.

30

Table 5. Nesting woodland hawks habitat analysis variables, HNF area 1994 and 1995.

 

Average medium- and

 

 

 

large-sized tree density Average canopy height
(no. of stems dbh 2 21 smile) for deciduous trees 2 10 m
Vegetation category Open Closed P valE‘ Open Closed P value‘
Young Aspen 20 0 0.465 -" — 0.484
Medium-Aged Aspen 6 39 0.080 12 14 0.159
Old Aspen 1009 777 0.660 20 18 0.131
Upland Hardwoods 658 764 0.653 19 19 0.741
Oaks 1090 460 0.234 15 14 0.721
Lowland Conifers 624 297 0.343 15 10 0.343
Young Jack Pine 0 28 1.000 - - 1.000
Old Jack Pine 656 436 0.393 - — 0.912
Young Pines 786 413 0.035 15 - 0.009
Old Pines 1020 789 0.352 15 15 0.478
Lowland Hardwoods 350 67 1.000 - 12 1.000

 

' P values from Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on stands sampled.
° Average canopy height for deciduous trees was inadequate (i.e., <10 m).

Table 6. Nesting woodland hawks habitat analysis variables, PRCSF area 1994 and 1995.

 

Average medium- and

 

 

 

large-sized tree density Average canopy height
(no. of stems dbh 2 21 cmlha) for deciduous trees 2 10 m
Vegetation category Open Closed P value' Open Closed P value'
Young Aspen 0 8 0.1 19 -" — 0.289
Medium-Aged Aspen 41 99 0.407 11 — 0.818
Old Aspen 208 193 0.465 15 16 0.562
Upland Hardwoods 295 243 0.308 20 17 0.006
Lowland Conifers 350 188 0.109 11 1 1 1.000
Jack Pine 176 150 0.536 - — 0.887
Young Pines 183 83 0.147 - —- 0.516
Old Pines 244 266 0.739 10 12 0.912
Lowland Hardwoods 183 133 1.000 1 1 - 0.486

 

‘ P values from Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on stands sampled.
° Average canopy height for deciduous trees was inadequate (i.e., <10 m).

3 1
Raptor Surveys

The survey was conducted in the HNF area for 29 weeks in 1994 and 27 weeks in
1995. In the PRCSF area the survey was earned out for 30 weeks in 1994 and 31 weeks
in 1995. On the 2 study areas 10 species of raptors were identiﬁed (Table 7). Survey data
collected on each site are given in Appendix C.

On the HNF in 1994 the number of raptors observed on the open site was 51 (f =
1.76 raptors/week) and on the closed site was 44 (f = 1.52 raptors/week). In 1995 on
the open site 65 raptors were observed (1? = 2.41 raptors/week) and 64 were seen on the
closed site (i = 2.37 raptors/week). No signiﬁcant diﬁ‘erences were detected between
paired site indices within years or same site indices between years by the Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test (Table 8). Based on the collected data the HNF open and closed sites are
comparable in raptor numbers.

0n the PRCSF in 1994 25 raptors were observed on the open site (i = 0.83
raptors/week) and 29 were seen on the closed site (a? = 0.97 raptors/week). In 1995 on
the open site 25 raptors were observed (if = 0.81 raptors/week) and on the closed site 5
were seen (if = 0.16 raptors/week). Results of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test show a
signiﬁcant difference between the open and closed sites in 1995 and between the closed
site in 1994 and 1995 (Table 8). These diﬁ‘erences are due to the small number of raptors

observed on the closed site in 1995.

32

.835 not... :0 >65 2 be... .38 8.83 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

... mN 8 8 8N mN 3. E 2..“ B .38
n2 N 2 NN 8 2 2 2 «N $55.5 8.08m
. o o o F o o o o a.|8> % .30 8.58
N o o o n o o o o @438. jag...“ 298 28
o o N o o n o F o 38% o .385 8E2. £2.82
: F o v N o o n F jug.“ m J83 .268. =885<
3 o N N. n N N .... t amazed ||®8s .56... 82.3.88
N o o N o a v o o ﬁllings»... g 3.32. 823.888”.
8 N N ON 2 v m t o m. 8an» '98.: in: 8.5.8”.
. o o o F o o o o 3:38 3.. .8 “c.8280 .8532
9 c o n o a o F F El... o8 .Ije. .8< .555: 9.880
4 c c F a F o c N 83': .8 Lila]. .8< €61 8:55.825
8.0on 88.0 :80 88.20 :80 .3820 :80 88.0 :80 8.8.5
.... “.momn. ...z... mmomn. “.2...
.38. 82 33

comm .oz

 

.39 can 32. 63.5 >33 mwomn. one “.2... co 852 .62...» :6 zoom 235:: can 352.02 8.0on .231 N 03......

33

Table 8. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on raptor indices of HNF and PRCSF
open and closed sites. 1994 and 1995.

 

 

 

 

HNF PRCSF
Indices tested Z P value 2 P value
open 1994 vs. closed 1994 -0.32 0.749 0.02 0.984
open 1995 vs. closed 1995 -0.07 0.944 -3.47 0.001
open 1994 vs. open 1995 1.48 0.139 -0.31 0.757
closed 1994 vs. closed 1995 1.87 0.095 3.12 0.002

 

Trapping

A daily record of the number of traps set and grouse caught on each site each year
is given in Appendix D. In 1993 the trapping rate on the HNF open site was 1 grouse/27
trap nights; on the closed site the rate was 1 grouse/26 trap nights. On the PRCSF open
site in 1993 the trapping rate was 1 grouse/30 trap nights; on the closed site the rate was 1
grouse/4O trap nights. In 1994 the trapping rate increased on the HNF sites. The rate on
the open site was 1 grouse/ 12 trap nights and on the closed site was 1 grouse/17 trap
nights. On the PRCSF sites in 1994 the trapping rate was similar to the 1993 rate. The
open site had a rate of 1 grouse/29 trap nights and the closed site had a rate of 1
grouse/37 trap nights. The increased trapping rate on the HNF sites in 1994 is believed to
be primarily due to an increase in the local grouse population.

Data collected on all radio-tagged and banded birds are given in Appendix E.
Included in these tables is 1 bird trapped on the HNF closed site in 1993 that was
recaptured on the closed site by night-lighting on 3 October 1994. At that time the radio
transmitter was replaced and the bird was added to the 1994 data set. In addition, 1 bird
trapped on the PRCSF Open site in 1993 and 2 birds trapped on the PRCSF closed site in

1993 were alive with functioning transmitters at the start of the 1994 trapping season.

34
These 3 birds were used in the 1994 data set independently ﬁom the 1993 data set. It

should be noted that during the spring of 1994 1 bird on the HNF closed site and 1 bird on
the PRC SF closed site were recaptured on nest to replace their radio transmitters. During
the spring and summer of 1995 11 birds on the HNF open site, 5 birds on the HNF closed
site, and 3 birds on the PRC SF closed site were recaptured on nest or by night-lighting to
replace their radio transmitters.

Data were not collected on every trapped grouse. Five birds escaped while being
removed from a trap and 2 were immediately released due to their being severely injured
by the trap. Five grouse were euthanized due to their sustaining extreme injuries. Also,
11 birds were found dead or partially eaten in traps. The number of trapped birds that
were radio-tagged, banded only, or unable to be used in the study for one of the above
reasons are given in Table 9. Birds that were banded only include those that weighed
<3 50 g, were injured by the trap, or were trapped after all the radio transmitters had been
put into use. In 1993 56 of the grouse trapped on the HNF area and 64 on the PRC SF
area were radio-tagged. In 1994 144 of the grouse trapped on the HNF area and 89 on
the PRC SF area were radio-tagged.

Some grouse were trapped more than one time. In this study the number trapped
given in tables represents the number of individual birds caught, and, therefore, does not
include recaptured birds. Of the 51 grouse trapped in 1993 on the HNF closed site 4 (1
AHY, 3 HY) were recaptured. Of the 42 birds trapped on the PRCSF open site in 1993 5
(2 AHY, 3 HY) were recaptured; on the closed site 1 (AHY) of the 32 grouse trapped

was recaptured. Of the 106 birds trapped on the HNF open site in 1994 12 (2 AHY, 10

35
HY) were recaptured and on the closed site 10 (3 AHY, 7 HY) of the 89 grouse were

recaptured. In 1994 on the PRCSF open site 7 (3 AHY, 4 HY) of the 56 birds were
caught a second time and on the closed site 5 (2 AHY, 2 HY, 1 UNK) of the 47 grouse

were recaptured.

Table 9. Trapping results for HNF and PRCSF areas, 1993

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and 1994.
1993
HNF PRCSF

Open Closed Open Closed
No. trapped 37 51 42 32
No. radio-tagged 20 36 36 28
No. banded only 17 10 2 2
No. escaped 0 1 0 0
No. released 0 0 2 0
No. euthanized 0 2 2 0
No. dead in trap 0 2 0 2

1994
HNF PRCSF

Open Closed Open Closed
No. trapped 106 89 56 47
No. radio-tagged 74 70 47 42
No. banded only 27 15 7 4
No. escaped 2 1 1 0
No. released 0 0 0 0
No. euthanized 0 1 0 0
No. dead in trap 3 2 1 1

Sex and Age Ratios

The age-sex class distribution of radio-tagged and banded only grouse on each site
in each year is given in Table 10. The sex ratio of birds trapped on each site each year was
approximately 1:1. However, the number of male versus female grouse trapped on the
HNF closed site in 1994 was signiﬁcantly diﬂ‘erent (x2 = 4.25, P = 0.0393).

The ratio of adults (AHY) to juveniles (HY) on the study areas varied greatly. On

the HNF sites the ratio favored juveniles in 1993 and 1994. In both years the ratio on the

Table 10. Age-sex class distribution of ruffed grouse trapped on
HNF and PRCSF areas, 1993 and 1994.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1993
HNF PRCSF
Age/Sex Open Closed Open Closed
AHYIM 2 7 1 1 13
AHYIF 7 8 9 7
AHYIUNK 0 0 0 0
WM 13 6 6 3
HY/F 5 12 11 7
HYIUNK 7 8 1 0
UNK/M 0 3 0 0
UNKIF 3 2 0 0
Sex ratio (M:F) 1:1 1:1.4 1:1.2 1:0.9
Age ratio (AHY:HY) 1:2.8 1:1.7 1:0.9 ' 1:0.5 ’
1994
HNF PRCSF
Age/Sex Open Closed Open Closed
AHYIM 10 20 15 13
AHYIF 9 11 8 10
AHYIUNK 0 0 1 2
HYIM 32 31 13 4
HY/F 39 22 12 1 1
HYIUNK 9 1 3 2
UNKIM 1 1 1 4
UNKIF 1 0 1 2
Sex ratio (M:F) 1:1.1 1:0.6 ' 1:0.7 1:1.1
Age ratio (AHYzHY) 124.2 " 1:1.7 1:1.2 " 1:0.7 '

 

' Signiﬁcant difference from a 1:1 sex ratio for M:F or 1:2 age ratio
for AHYzHY detected by the chi square test at a = 0.05.

37
open site was skewed toward juveniles more so than the ratio on the closed site. In 1994

on the HNF open site the number of juveniles was signiﬁcantly greater than the number of
adults (X2 = 8.91, P = 0.0028). The age ratio on the PRCSF open site favored adults in
1993 and juveniles in 1994. The numbers of adults and juveniles on the open site were
signiﬁcantly different in 1993 (x2 = 6.3, P = 0.0116) and 1994 (x2 = 3.89, P = 0.0499).
The age ratio on the PRC SF closed site favored adults in 1993 and 1994. The numbers of
adults and juveniles on the closed site were signiﬁcantly diﬂ‘erent in 1993 (X2 = 15.0, P =
0.0001) and 1994 (X2 = 12.96, P = 0.0003). An age ratio of 1 :2 was used for
comparisons based on the ﬁndings of Palmer and Bennett (1963) and Fischer and Keith
(1974).
Year-end Status of Radio-tagged Grouse

Because birds were trapped from August to October of each year, the 1993 study
year is the period 5 August 1993 to 4 August 1994 and the 1994 year is the period 5
August 1994 to 4 August 1995. The status of radio-tagged grouse at the end of each year
of the study is given in Table 11. In 1993 on the HNF 95% of the grouse radio-tagged on
the open site and 83% of the birds radio-tagged on the closed site were known to have
died. On the PRCSF in 1993 64% of the birds on the open site and 50% of the birds on
the closed site were known to have died. In 1994 on the HNF area 59% of the birds
radio-tagged on the open site and 65% of the birds on the closed site were known to have
died. On the PRCSF in 1994 48% of the birds on the open site and 45% of the birds on
the closed site were known to have died. Censored observations on each site in each year

are primarily due to premature radio failures and signals lost at a point in time beyond the

38

Table 11. End of year status for radio-tagged ruffed grouse on HNF and

PRCSF areas in 1993 and 1994.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1993
HNF PRCSF

Open Closed Open Closed

No. of grouse radio-tagged 20 36 36 28
Status on 4 August 1994:

Alive 0 1 2 4

Mortality 19 30 23 14

Censored 1 5 1 1 10

Time'I 0 2 2 4

Radio failure" 1 2 3 5

Transmitter lost/removedc 0 0 2 0

Unknown“l 0 1 4 1

1994
HNF PRCSF

Open Closed Open Closed

No. of grouse radio-tagged 74 71 48 44
Status on 4 August 1995:

Alive 21 1 1 4 8

Mortality 44 46 23 20

Censored 9 14 21 16

Time 4 2 3 3

Radio failure 3 8 4 4

Transmitter lost/removed 0 0 2 3

Unknown 2 4 12 6

 

' Transmitters lasting >8 months before censoring occurred.

° Transmitters that sent a false mortality signal or interference only and those
disappearing within 2 months of a bird's capture date.
° Transmitters that fell off within 1 week of a bird's capture date and those

that

were removed when a bird was recaptured due to the bird being injured.
° Includes transmitters that were censored after 6 months of use.

39
expected life of the transmitter batteries (Table 11).

Sources of Mortality

Ruﬁ'ed grouse mortalities on the HNF and PRC SF areas were assigned to 1 of 7
sources. Mortality sources identiﬁed on the areas were Avian Predation, Mammalian
Predation, Hunting, Trauma, Disease/Malnutrition, Stress, and No Diagnosis. Hunting
includes birds that were retrieved by hunters, as well as those that died of gunshot wounds
and were collected by project ﬁeld personnel. Trauma includes deaths due to drowning,
suffocation (e.g., by an acorn), and collisions with automobiles or houses. This source
also includes deaths due to unknown causes of trauma. Pneumonia was the only identiﬁed
Disease. Stress is composed of deaths that occurred within 5 days of capture and are
thought to be solely due to trapping stress. The source No Diagnosis is composed of
deaths due to unidentiﬁed factors (e.g., when a radio was found with no teeth/mandible
marks on it and no remains of the bird were present).

Avian Predation was the greatest cause of grouse mortality on the HNF and
PRCSF areas in 1993 and on PRCSF in 1994 (Table 12). The HNF open site in 1994 was
the only site and year combination in which Mammalian Predation was greater than Avian
Predation. For this site and year the number of mortalities due to Mammalian Predation
was 1 greater than the number due to Avian Predation. Avian Predation accounted for
23%-65% of the mortalities on the 4 sites in 1993 and 1994.

Mammalian predators took a substantially smaller number of birds than did avian
predators on HNF and PRCSF areas in 1993 and PRCSF in 1994. On the HNF area in

1994 Mammalian Predation accounted for 3 .5 times the number of mortalities due to

40
Mammalian Predation in 1993. This change may be due at least in part to the increased

sample size on the HNF in 1994. Although the number of mortalities due to Mammalian
Predation tripled on the HNF area in 1994, the percent of deaths due to Mammalian
Predation in 1994 was roughly twice that of 1993, 23% and 12%, respectively. The
sources Trauma, Disease/Malnutrition, Stress, and No Diagnosis individually accounted

for less than 22% of the mortalities on all sites.

Table 12. Distribution of ruffed grouse mortalities by source on HNF and PRCSF areas.
1993 and 1994.

 

No. of grouse mortalities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1993 1994

Source of HNF PRCSF HNF PRCSF

mortality Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed
Avian Predation 9 18 10 4 10 20 9 13
Mammalian Predation 3 3 3 4 11 10 2 2
Hunting' 3 0 6 0 8 0 5 0
Trauma” 2 1 2 1 4 1 3 1
Disease/Malnutrition 1 0 1 1 3 6 0 0
Stress" 0 5 1 3 6 3 2 0
No Diagnosis 1 5 0 1 4 6 2 4

Total 19 30 23 14 44 48 23 20
‘ Birds that died of gunshot wounds and were retrieved by hunters or collected by project
ﬁeld personnel.
" Includes deaths due to such things as: drowning and collisions with automobiles or
houses.
° Deaths within 5 days of capture that were thought to be solely due to trapping stress.

 

Hunting accounted for a small amount of grouse mortality on the HNF open site in
1993 and 1994, 16% and 14%, respectively. On the PRC SF open site Hunting was the
second greatest cause of grouse mortality. In 1993 Hunting was responsible for 26% of
the PRCSF open site mortalities, and for 22% in 1994. Although Hunting was second to

Avian Predation in number of mortalities on the PRC SF open site, the number of Hunting

41
mortalities was roughly ‘/2 the number of avian mortalities. On the HNF open site the

percents of radio-tagged grouse harvested in 1993 and 1994 were 15% and 8%,
respectively. On the PRC SF open site the percents of radio-tagged birds harvested in
1993 and 1994 were 17% and 10%, respectively.

Because Hunting was not a source of mortality on the closed sites, only non-
hunting mortality sources were used for comparisons of paired sites within years and same
sites between years. Three categories of non-hunting mortality were deﬁned; they were
Avian Predation, Mammalian Predation, and Other. The mortality sources Trauma,
Disease/Malnutrition, and No Diagnosis were combined into the category Other. With 3
exceptions, birds that died within 5 days of capture were removed ﬁom the data set prior
to analysis. Three grouse (l on the PRCSF closed site in 1993, 1 on the HNF open site in
1994, and 1 on the HNF closed site in 1994) that died within 5 days after being recaptured
and having their radio transmitters replaced were not removed ﬁ'om the data set. It is
assumed that the procedure of recapture and transmitter replacement did not have an
effect on them, since this procedure was performed on 19 other grouse without effecting
their behavior or survival. Two birds that died 6 days after capture on the PRCSF Open
site in 1994 were removed from the data set, because their deaths were caused by their
radio collars twisting and choking them. The number of grouse mortalities in each
category that were used in further analyses are given in Table 13.

The 3 categories of non-hunting mortality were compared between paired sites
within years and same sites between years using a chi-square test. The comparisons of

HNF open 1994 vs. closed 1994 (X2 = 2.67, P = 0.2634) and HNF closed 1993 vs. closed

42
1994 (X2 = 1.63, P = 0.4429) were the only 2 that had 320% of their expected frequencies

<5. In all comparisons no signiﬁcant differences were detected. However, because the
chi-square requirement that expected ﬁequencies not be too small was not met by all the
comparisons, most of the results cannot be meaningfully interpreted. To produce reliable
results the category Mammalian Predation was combined with the category Other. This
combination was based on the knowledge that avian predation is a primary cause of
grouse mortality and that in this study Avian Predation was the greatest cause of grouse

mortality.

Table 13. Categories and numbers‘I of non-hunting grouse mortalities used in analysis
of HNF and PRCSF areas, 1993 and 1994.

 

No. of grouse mortalities

 

 

 

 

 

 

1993 1994
HNF PRCSF HNF PRCSF
Category Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed
Avian Predation 9 15 10 4 10 19 9 13
Mammalian Predation 2 3 2 3 10 7 2 1
Other 4 4 3 3 10 11 3 4

Total 15 22 15 10 3O 37 14 18
‘ Excluding birds that died within 5 days of capture.

A chi-square test was used for all comparisons except PRCSF open 1993 vs.
closed 1993 and PRCSF closed 1993 vs. closed 1994. For these 2 comparisons the Fisher
Exact test was used. The results of the tests are given in Table 14. No signiﬁcant
differences were detected in any comparison.

Data from paired sites were pooled within years to examine seasonal trends in
sources of non-hunting mortality, since no signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erences had been found between

paired sites. The 4 seasons were deﬁned as follows: autumn, 5 August-30 November;

43
winter, 1 December-28 February; spring, 1 March-31 May; and summer, 1 June-4 August.

The number of non-hunting mortalities that occurred in each season by category, area, and

year and the number of birds at risk in each season are given in Table 15.

Table 14. Comparison of the non-hunting mortality categories Avian Preda-
tion and Other between paired sites and same sites on HNF and PRCSF
areas, 1993 and 1994.

 

 

 

 

HNF PRCSF
Comparison x7 P value x2 P value
Avian Predation and Other
compared between:
open 1993 and closed 1993 0.03 0.872 - 0.183 ‘
open 1994 and closed 1994 1.52 0.218 0.01 0.923
open 1993 and open 1994 1.92 0.165 0.07 0.798
closed 1993 and closed 1994 0.99 0.321 - 0.103 '

 

' P value from Fisher Exact test.

On the HNF area in 1993 the amount of non-hunting mortality per season
increased steadily from autumn to summer (Figure 6). In 1994 the amount of non-hunting
mortality was fairly stable, around 23%, from autumn to spring, then it decreased to 10%
in summer. On the PRC SF the greatest amount of non-hunting mortality occurred during
winter in 1993 and 1994 (Figure 7). Non-hunting mortality on PRC SF increased from
autumn to winter then decreased to summer. There was no mortality during summer on
the PRCSF in 1993 and 1994. There having been only 3 birds at risk in summer 1993 on
the HNF may be the cause for the high percent of mortality in summer 1993.

With only 2 exceptions Avian Predation was the greatest cause of mortality in all
seasons on both areas. On HNF in 1994 the percent mortality due to Avian Predation was

slightly less than that due to Other in autumn (9% vs. 10%) and was less than Mammalian

44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o o o 3 v F a N 3 8558
o N F m 4N t v N o No 2:8
9 F o NF 3 t n 4 2 8 .252.
9 v N N No 8 9 ... : ..NV 522
.28 850 8.38: 888... 3a.. .28 850 8.58... 828$. 3.2. .588

:EEEEwE cu_>< «a .02 CREE—:52 :m_>< «a .02

moi—atop: 50 .OZ moE—wtoE 50 62
use"... ".2...
32

o o c o : N F o F n 8558
N o P F 2 a P N ... 3 28w
: N n o 8 2 m o a «N 85.2,
N. 4 P a. 8 3 P n 2 N4 5:22
.28 .26 888... 888:. an... .28 850 8.82s. 8..an 8.: cause

cazaEEmz :w_>< an .02 :E—mEEwE :u_>< «a .02

 

8.5286 he .62

 

«03:55.: no .02

 

 

“30¢...

«am ..

“.2:

.39 new 83 .303
qumn. can “.2... so common .6 gm... 8 m2... was 32.35.: 3:05 3.83-5: ..o 28:52 .9 038.

45

0.70 - 1993

 
      
    
  

1.1

0.60 4

            
   

I
.II

0.50 ~

I)“
il
l.

0.40 -

0.30 ~

0.20 ~

%wlthhseasonmortallty

   
   

iiiiiiimWiilliliiilllilliliiiiiiiit

j .

0.10 J

Minimumwill11111111111lllllwmi'

.niiiiiiililiii

 

“HHHHHJHIHWHHWm;.Lilli.iiiiiiiii'i‘iiliiw'l'ﬂilfiiiiilii

 

   

‘ iiiiii‘lilllitliiti1111111111111

     

0.00 4
Autumn Winter Spring Summer

0.70 ‘1
1994
0.60 «
0.50 .

0.40 -

0.30 ‘

96wlthlnseasonmorﬂty

0.20 r

i
i

0.10 i

Willi]

iiili
11

till

 

Autumn Winter Swing SUMm.r

 

IAvian Predation Other
I Mammalian Predation ITotal

 

 

Figure 6. Percent within season non-hunting mortality on HNF, 1993 and 1994.

0.35 ~ 1 993

_o
8
‘1!

.°
to
at
1
1: it

1iiHWHiiiiimiilwiiililiiiIiiilillnllllilmim.
WIiIllHilliHHlHiliiiiiliiii 1: 7H Willi! 55'7'1 .1 i 1.

 

 

 

Autumn Winter Spring Summer

0.35 - 1 994

iii iiiiliiilllii

“WiiHiH|i|lHiilHHEiHiii'

 

 

 

Autumn Winter Spring Summer

 

IAvian Predation IOther
IMammalian Predation ITotal

 

 

 

Figure 7. Percent within season non-hunting mortality on PRCSF, 1993 and 1994.

47
Predation in the spring (10% vs. 11%). The range for the amount of mortality in each

season that was due to Avian Predation was zero to 36%. The highest percent, 36%,
occurred on the HNF in spring 1993.

The amount of mortality in each season due to Mammalian Predation and to Other
ﬂuctuated throughout each year on HNF and PRC SF. The percent of mortality in each
season attributed to each of these 2 categories was low in all seasons and years. The
range for mortality due to Mammalian Predation was zero to 14%. The highest percent
occurred on HNF in spring 1993. The range for mortality due to Other was zero to 18%.
The greatest percent of Other mortality occurred on HNF in winter 1993.

Survival

Survival probabilities were calculated for all birds on each site each year using the
Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator (Pollock et al. 1989). Probabilities were also
calculated for adult, juvenile, male, and female grouse on each site each year. With 3
exceptions, birds that died within 5 days of capture were removed ﬁ'om the data set prior
to analysis. Three grouse (1 on the PRCSF closed site in 1993, 1 on the HNF open site in
1994, and 1 on the HNF closed site in 1994) that died within 5 days after being recaptured
and having their radio transmitters replaced were not removed ﬁom the data set. It is
assumed that the procedure of recapture and transmitter replacement did not have an
eﬁ‘ect on them, since this procedure was performed on 19 other grouse without effecting
their behavior or survival. One bird on the PRCSF open site in 1993 that died 7 days after
capture was removed ﬁ'om the data set. This was because its death occurred early in the

study year when the sample size was very small and, therefore, had an exaggerated eﬁ‘ect

48

on the survival curve. For the same reason 1 bird on the HNF closed site in 1994 that died
6 days after capture was removed from the data set. Also, 2 birds that died 6 days after
capture on the PRC SF open site in 1994 were removed, because their deaths were caused
by their radio collars twisting and choking them. The sample size used to generate each

survival curve is given in Table 16.

Table 16. Sample sizes used to calculate survival probabilities for ruffed grouse on HNF
and PRCSF areas, 1993 and 1994.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample size
1993 1994
HNF PRCSF HNF PRCSF
Data set Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed
all birds 19 28 29 24 68 81 41 40
adults (AHY) 9 13 18 17 17 24 21 24
juveniles (HY) 7 12 13 7 47 37 18 13
males (M) 8 12 1 1 13 32 34 20 18
females (F) 12 14 18 11 33 28 17 21

 

Although 5 August is the ﬁrst day of the 1993 and 1994 study years, the starting
date of all survival analyses is 13 August. This is the earliest date on which a radio-tagged
bird was present on all sites in 1993 and 1994. It should be noted that the earliest date on
which a male grouse was radio-tagged on the HNF open and closed sites in 1993 was 1
September and 14 August, respectively. Also, the earliest date on which a juvenile bird
was radio—tagged on the HNF closed site in 1993 was 17 August, on the PRCSF closed
site in 1993 it was 27 August, and on the PRCSF closed site in 1994 it was 14 August.
Therefore, survival analyses involving these 5 data sets start on a date other than 13
August. All analyses were run with a cumulative start, i.e., when an analysis starting date

was later than the ﬁrst capture date in the data sets all observations prior to the starting

49
date were used, but survival probabilities were calculated from the analysis starting date.

The ending date for analyses of the 1993 data set is 15 May 1994. This date was
chosen for 2 reasons. One is that the small sample sizes obtained on each site in 1993
were reduced to extremely low numbers by summer 1994. The second reason is that this
date is approximately the time most grouse hens have begun nesting. Therefore, survival
probabilities were calculated ﬁom autumn to the breeding season. The ending date for
analyses of the 1994 data set is 4 August 1995. However, for comparisons of same sites
between years the ending date of 15 May 1995 was used for the 1994 data set.

The calculated survival probabilities are given in Appendix F. All survival curve
comparisons were tested using the log-rank test and or = 0.05. It should be noted that
1993 survival curves for adults, juveniles, males, and females on HNF and PRCSF are
heavily inﬂuenced by the small 1993 sample sizes. Therefore, results of survival curve
comparisons involving these data sets should be interpreted with caution.

m. 129; J ii"

In 1993 birds on the closed site had a higher survival rate than did birds on the
open site (Figure 8). Curves for the 2 groups diverged during the winter; survival for
birds on the open site decreased at a greater rate than for birds on the closed site. The
survival rate for birds on the open site went to zero on 12 May 1994. On 15 May 1994
the survival rate for birds on the closed site was 0.23.

In 1994 survival curves for the open and closed sites diverged early in autumn
(Figure 8). The curve for birds on the open site quickly dropped ﬁ'om 1.00 on 15 August

to 0.77 on 18 August 1994. The 2 curves began to converge at the end of the winter. On

0.23

50

1993

 

 

0.9 -
0.7 4
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 i
0.3 4
0.2 -

0.8 -
0.1 4

n n.
0 o
828. - 38
83$ . 8.8
828 . mama
. 825
3:2
I 82$
SEN
t 8:8
835
- 83a
86:2
T 82:.
8E:
. 3:22
8. 3
Bo . 8:2:
839 t 32:2
85 . ENS
828 325

 

 

 

 

 

L-e—Open mum-Closed I

Figure 8. Survival curves for ruffed grouse on HNF, 1993 and 1994.

51
4 August 1995 the survival rates for birds on the open and closed sites were 0.32 and

0.28, respectively.

Results of tests on comparisons between paired sites within years and same sites
between years are given in Table 17. Signiﬁcant differences were detected between
survival curves for grouse on the open vs. closed site in 1993 (x2 = 3.88, P = 0.0489) and
1993 vs. 1994 birds on the open site (x2 = 12.22, P = 0.0005).

Adult grouse on the closed site had a greater survival rate than did adults on the
open site and juveniles on both the open and closed sites in 1993 (Figure 9). Juvenile
grouse on the closed site had a greater survival rate than did adults and juveniles on the
open site. Adult grouse on the Open site experienced a large decrease in survival ﬁ'om 12
to 31 January 1994. During this period the survival rate dropped from 0.64 to 0.11. The
rate for adults birds on the open site went to zero on 4 May 1994. Survival for juvenile
grouse on the open site rapidly decreased ﬁom 0.69 on 30 October to 0.17 on 18
November 1993. The rate for this group of birds went to zero on 31 December 1993. On
15 May 1994 the survival rate for adult birds on the closed site was 0.27 and for juveniles
was 0.20.

Adult grouse on the open site had a greater survival rate than did adults on the
closed site and juveniles on both the open and closed sites in 1994 (Figure 9). The
survival curve for adult birds on the open site decreased very slowly during the year.
Juveniles on the open site had a rapid decrease in survival ﬁom 13 August to 1 September
1994. During this time the rate went from 1.00 to 0.61. The rate for this group of birds
was fairly stable from 10 October 1994 to 15 May 1995. Curves for adults and juveniles

on the closed site followed a similar decreasing trend throughout the year. On 4 August

52

Table 17. Results of the log-rank test on survival curves for
ruffed grouse on HNF open and closed sites, 1993 and 1994.

 

 

Survival curves tested X2 P
open 1993 vs. closed 1993 3.88 0.049
open 1994 vs. closed 1994 1.76 0.184
open 1993 vs. open 1994 12.22 <0.001
closed 1993 vs. closed 1994 0.90 0.342
open 1993: adult vs. juvenile 5.17 0.023
closed 1993: adult vs. juvenile 0.16 0.692
open 1994: adult vs. juvenile 2.61 0.106
closed 1994: adult vs. juvenile 0.12 0.728
1993: open adult vs. closed adult 0.31 0.578
1993: open juvenile vs. closed juvenile 4.68 0.031
1994: open adult vs. closed adult 2.97 0.085
1994: open juvenile vs. closed juvenile 0.36 0.550
open: 1993 adult vs. 1994 adult 13.04 <0.001
open: 1993 juvenile vs. 1994juvenile 4.07 0.044
closed: 1993 adult vs. 1994 adult 0.60 0.437
closed: 1993 juvenile vs. 1994juvenile 0.65 0.420
open 1993: male vs. female 0.00 0.971
closed 1993: male vs. female 0.02 0.883
open 1994: male vs. female 0.71 0.399
closed 1994: male vs. female 1.04 0.307
1993: open male vs. closed male 1.14 0.285
1993: open female vs. closed female 2.10 0.148
1994: open male vs. closed male 3.09 0.079
1994: open female vs. closed female 0.00 0.958
open: 1993 male vs. 1994 male 5.61 0.018
open: 1993 female vs. 1994 female 6.97 0.008
closed: 1993 male vs. 1994 male 0.08 0.776

closed: 1993 female vs. 1994 female 2.09 0.149

 

53

' 0.27
0.20

 

 

 

8117/93
9111/93 ~
1018193
10131193 ~
11125193
12/20/93
1114194
218/94
315/94
3130/94
4124/94
511 5194

 

 

 

7E” 0.55
3
0.29
0.28
0.25
0.1
OTUYITIITFrII
monotonic.“
géiggésssgsgss
233:-ggﬁSeSett3

 

[+AHY-0pon +HY—Open +Al-iY-Closed +HY-croeed]

Figure 9. Survival curves for adult (AHY) and juvenile (HY) grouse on HNF, 1993 and 1994.

54
1995 the survival rates for adult and juvenile grouse on the open site was 0.55 and 0.25,

respectively. At this time the survival rates for adult and juvenile birds on the closed site
were 0.29 and 0.28, respectively.

Results of tests on all adult and juvenile comparisons are given in Table 17.
Signiﬁcant differences were detected between survival curves for adult vs. juvenile birds
on the open site in 1993 (X2 = 5.17, P = 0.0229), juvenile birds on the open site vs. closed
site in 1993 (X2 =4.68, P = 0.0306), 1993 vs. 1994 adults on the open site (X2 = 13.04, P
= 0.0003), and 1993 vs. 1994 juvenile birds on the open site (x2 = 4.07, P = 0.0436).

Survival curves for male and female grouse on the open and closed sites in 1993
tended to follow a similar decreasing trend (Figure 10). Male birds on the open site
experienced a rapid decrease in survival between 30 October and 1 November 1993.
During these 3 days the survival rate went ﬁom 0.83 to 0.50. The rate for male birds on
the open site went to zero on 4 May 1994. The rate for female birds on the open site went
to zero on 12 May 1994. On 15 May 1994 the survival rate for male and female grouse
on the HNF closed site was 0.30 and 0.13, respectively.

On the open and closed sites in 1994 survival curves for male and female grouse
diverged early in the autumn (Figure 10). The survival curve for female grouse on the
open site was the ﬁrst to begin decreasing. The curves began to converge early in
February 1995. On 4 August 1995 male birds on the open site had the greatest survival
rate of 0.47. At this time female birds on the open site and both male and female birds on
the closed site had the same survival rate of 0.27.

Signiﬁcant differences were detected between survival curves for 1993 vs. 1994

male grouse on the open site (x2 = 5.61, P = 0.0179) and 1993 vs. 1994 female birds on

55

 

 

 

911199
9117199 J
1013199 4

10119199
1114193

11120199 1
1219193 1

12122199 4
117194 -
1129194
219194

2124194

3112194

3129194

4113194

5115194

0.47

 

0.1 '1
0 r t

[—e—M-Open +F—Open +M-Cloeed +F-Closed]

 

 

Figure 10. Survival curves for male (M) and female (F) grouse on HNF, 1993 and 1994

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

b—M-Opon +F-Opon +M-Closed +F-CIosod]

 

Figure 10. Survival curves for male (M) and female (F) grouse on HNF, 1993 and 1994

56
the open site or2 = 6.97, P = 0.0083) (Table 17).

PRCSF 1993 a_nd 12951;-

In 1993 grouse on the closed site had a greater survival rate than did birds on the
open site (Figure 11). The survival rate for birds on the open site began decreasing on 30
August 1993, while for birds on the closed site the rate did not decrease until 2 October
1993. On 15 May 1994 the survival rate for birds on the open site was 0.25 and for birds
on the closed site was 0.63.

In 1994 survival curves for grouse on the open and closed sites were similar to
each other (Figure 11). Survival for birds on the Open site decreased only 5 days earlier
than for birds on the closed site (28 August vs. 2 September 1994). On 4 August 1995
the survival rate for birds on the open site was 0.31 and for birds on the closed site was
0.32.

Results of tests on comparisons between paired sites within years and same sites
between years are given in Table 18. A signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erence was detected between
survival curves for grouse on the open vs. closed site in 1993 (X2 = 4.99, P = 0.0254).

Adult grouse on the closed site had the greatest survival rate of all age classes in
1993 (Figure 12). Juvenile birds on the closed site had a greater rate than did adults and
juveniles on the open site. Juveniles on the open site had the poorest survival. The rate
for this group of birds went to zero on 23 January 1994. On 15 May 1994 the survival
rate for adult birds on the open site was 0.30. On this date the rate for adults and
juveniles on the closed sites was 0.69 and 0.51, respectively.

Adult grouse on the open site had a greater survival rate than did all other age

classes in 1994 (Figure 12). The rate for this group of birds was greater than for all others

0.63
0.25

57
1993

 

 

0.9 1
0.3 -
0.7 -
0.3 -
0.5 .
0.4 1
0.3 «
0.2 .
0.1 -

2 4|
3. 3
0 0
33%. 1 83m
35$ .. 855
33$ T 83%
{as
35$
T 83%
3:3 . 83$
33a . 85$
1 8:3
359
1 3:»
8:3. . 83a
8:5. 1 869
.. 355
35:
.. 3:5.
8:: 1 Egg:
333. 1 SE:
. 3&5:
Sag
r ENS
8&3 . 35m
835 335

 

 

 

0.2 1
0.1 -

0

.355-

 

 

[+Open +Closed]

Figure 11. Survival curves for ruffed grouse on PRCSF, 1993 and 1994.

58

Table 18. Results of the log-rank test on survival curves for
ruffed grouse on PRCSF open and closed sites, 1993 and
1994.

 

 

Survival curves tested X2 P
open 1993 vs. closed 1993 4.99 0.025
open 1994 vs. closed 1994 0.02 0.891
open 1993 vs. open 1994 1.44 0.230
closed 1993 vs. closed 1994 2.20 0.138
open 1993: adult vs. juvenile 0,66 0,415
closed 1993: adult vs. juvenile 0.27 0.601
open 1994: adult vs. juvenile 1.39 0.238
closed 1994: adult vs. juvenile 0.00 0.949
1993: open adult vs. closed adult 3.12 0.077
1993: open juvenile vs. closed juvenile 2.82 0.093
1994: open adult vs. closed adult 0.47 0.492
1994: open juvenile vs. closed juvenile 0.30 0.586
open: 1993 adult vs. 1994 adult 1.75 0.186
open: 1993 juvenile vs. 1994juvenlle 0.37 0.542
closed: 1993 adult vs. 1994 adult 1.87 0.172
closed: 1993 juvenile vs. 1994juvenile 0.34 0.560
open 1993: male vs. female 0.10 0.754
closed 1993: male vs. female 0.09 0.766
open 1994: male vs. female 0.74 0.388
closed 1994: male vs. female 3.84 0.050
1993: open male vs. closed male 3.15 0.076
1993: open female vs. closed female 2.53 0.112
1994: open male vs. closed male 0.00 0.959
1994: open female vs. closed female 0.91 0.341
open: 1993 male vs. 1994 male 0.00 0.971
open: 1993 female vs. 1994 female 1.44 0.231
closed: 1993 male vs. 1994 male 2.12 0.145

closed: 1993 female vs. 1994 female 0.37 0.541

 

59

1 1993

0.9 q I l_
0.3 « | _

' I
0.7 - | . 0.69
0.3 1
0.5 1 0.51

0.4 1 L

0.3 1 0.30
0.2 1

 

 

9118/93 4

11’1190 1

E
é

1103193 .
12115I93
1/6/94
1I28I94
2J19I94
3113794
414194
4/26/94
5I15194

0.45
0.41

_ 0.30
0.24

 

 

o

[+AHY-0pen +HY-Open +AHY-crosed +HY-croeed]

 

8/14/94
91394
90394
10I13I94

 

 

Figure 12. Survival curves for adult (AHY) and juvenile (HY) grouse on PRCSF, 1993 and 1994.

60
throughout the year. As in 1993, juvenile birds on the closed site had the second greatest

survival rate and juveniles on the open site had the lowest. Survival for juvenile grouse on
the open site was lower than all other age classes throughout the year. On 4 August 1995
survival for adult and juvenile grouse on the open site was 0.45 and 0.24, respectively.
Survival for adult and juvenile birds on the closed site at this time was 0.30 and 0.41,
respectively.

Results of tests on all age class survival curve comparisons are given in Table 18.
No signiﬁcant differences were detected in any comparison.

Female grouse on the closed site in 1993 had a greater survival rate than did males
on the closed site and both sexes on the open site (Figure 13). Male birds on the closed
site had the second greatest survival rate. As on the closed site, female grouse on the
open site had a greater survival rate than did male birds on the open site. Male grouse had
a greater survival rate than did females on both the open and closed sites until 5 February
and 23 January 1994, respectively. On 15 May 1994 the survival rate for male and female
birds on the open site was 0.17 and 0.29, respectively. At this time the rate for male birds
on the closed site was 0.56 and for female birds was 0.73.

Female grouse had a greater survival rate during the year than did male grouse on
the open and closed sites in 1994 (Figure 13). Female birds on the closed site had the
greatest survival rate of all sex classes in 1994. Male birds on the closed site had the
lowest survival rate. Survival for males on the open and closed sites decreased roughly 25
days earlier than for females on both sites. On 4 August 1995 the survival rate for male

and female grouse on the open site was 0.24 and 0.28, respectively. At this time on the

”E
0.3 1 ‘
0.7 1 0.73

0.8 1
0.5 1

_ 0.56

survival

0.4 1
0.3 1 - 0.29

0.2 1 0.17

 

 

3113193
9121” .
9122/93 -
10I12I93 1
11I1I93 1
1121/93 1
1211M 1
12/31/93 1
100/94 1
2/9/94
3/1/94 1
3I21I94 1
4110/94 1
4130]“
5/15l94

0.9 1
0.8 1
0.7 1
0.6 1
0.5 1
0.4 1
0.3 1 -
0.2 4 ' 0.24

i ééiiétéiiéé

0 r
, é
[+M-Open +F-Open +M-Closed +F-Closed]

1 | ( 1994

survival

0.49

 

 

10112194 4
1111194 1
11121194 ~

12I31I94 1

§
§

 

Figure 13. Survival curves for male (M) and female (F) grouse on PRCSF, 1993 and 1994.

62
closed site the survival rate for male birds was 0.16 and for females was 0.49.

Results of tests on all male and female survival curve comparisons are given in
Table 18. A signiﬁcant difference was detected between survival curves for male and

female birds on the closed site in 1994 (X2 = 3.84, P = 0.050).

DISCUSSION

Vegetation Analysis and Raptor Abundance

The design of this study, having paired sites, 1 open and 1 closed to hunting,
allowed for the determination of the amount and effect of hunting as a source of ruffed
grouse mortality. To accomplish this the comparability of the paired sites had to be
evaluated for grouse habitat and potential predation on grouse by raptors. These 2 factors
are critically important to grouse survival and, therefore, could cause differences in grouse
survival rates between paired sites.

Extensive vegetation sampling based on the Michigan ruffed grouse HSI model
(Hammill and Moran 1986) was conducted on each site to evaluate the habitat for grouse.
Although this model has not been thoroughly tested, there is evidence that it is valid.
Roloﬂ‘ (1994) found a positive signiﬁcant correlation between HSI score and an index of
ruffed grouse populations in Alcona County, Michigan. In addition, of the aspen stands
sampled in this study, grouse were trapped and often found in stands having relatively high
HSI scores.

The nesting woodland hawks habitat vegetation data and the raptor survey data
were used to evaluate the amount of potential predation on grouse by raptors on each site.
The model for predicting woodland hawks nesting habitat (Mosher et al. 1986) was

developed in western Maryland and northeastern Wisconsin. A raptor model speciﬁc to

63

64
Michigan could be developed. Although such a model would have been beneﬁcial to this

study, it was beyond the means of this project to create a raptor habitat model. It is felt
that the model used was adequate for the intended purpose, which was to determine if the
paired sites were comparable in woodland hawk nesting habitat quality.

Igﬂed m H_alLita.--

The open sites on the HNF and PRCSF areas had a greater overall HSI score than
the closed sites. Two conclusions can be drawn ﬁ'om this ﬁnding regarding the impact of
hunting on the resident grouse populations. One is that the open sites having higher
overall HSI scores than the closed ensured that any potential eﬂ‘ect of hunting on the
grouse population was not masked by poorer habitat quality. The second is that the better
habitat quality on the open sites may have compensated for the effect of hunting on the
grouse populations. There are direct and indirect eﬂ‘ects of hunting on a grouse
population. A direct effect is the harvesting of birds, an indirect effect is the movement of
birds by hunters, especially those with dogs, ﬁ'om areas of secure cover. The indirect
eﬂ‘ect results in birds being at a greater risk of predation by natural predators. The higher
habitat quality on the open sites compared to the closed sites could counteract both of
these eﬁ‘ects. Data from 1993 and 1994 showed that there was little or no eﬁ‘ect of
hunting on the grouse p0pulations on the HNF and PRCSF areas. It cannot be determined
at this time which, if either, of these 2 possible scenarios is occurring on the HNF and
PRC SF areas. The remaining years of this study may provide data that will lead to an
answer to this question. It should be noted, however, that since the difference between

the overall HSI score for the PRCSF open and closed sites was small and hunting

65
appeared to have no direct eﬂ‘ect in 1993 and no eﬂ‘ect in 1994, habitat quality on the

PRC SF open site probably did not compensate for any effect of hunting on the grouse
population.

The overall HSI scores for the open and closed sites on HNF and PRCSF areas
were fairly low (< 0.50). However, these values reﬂect the quality and quantity of all
habitat types on the study areas. It is known that aspen is the primary habitat of ruffed
grouse in the Lake States (Gullion 1972, Gullion and Svoboda 1972). Therefore, it was
most important that paired sites were comparable in aspen habitat quality.

Gullion and Svoboda (1972) recognized that 1-10 year old aspen stands provide
quality brood habitat, 10-12 year old stands provide good quality cover for wintering and
breeding grouse, 13-25 year old stands have the highest value for wintering and breeding
cover, and that beyond 25 years aspen is useful as a winter food source and nesting cover
for hens. In the Michigan ruffed grouse HSI model the variables stem density and
interspersion are equally given the greatest weight. Adequate stem density is required for
breeding cover and adequate interspersion for wintering cover. Therefore, in this study it
is expected that the category Medium-Aged Aspen (1 1-29 years old) would receive the
highest HSI scores.

On the HNF open and closed sites the vegetation category Medium-Aged Aspen
did have the highest HSI scores of all categories (Table 3). The distributions of average
HSI score versus age class of aspen on the 2 HNF sites followed the expected trend in
change in habitat quality over time (Figure 4). Therefore, although overall HSI scores for

both sites were low, each site does provide primary grouse habitat for breeding, nesting,

66
brood rearing, and winter cover.

On the PRC SF open and closed sites there was no consistent pattern to the
distribution of average HSI score versus age class of aspen (Figure 5). Stands that had
high and low HSI scores were distributed throughout all age classes. Campa et al. (1993)

suggested that in PRCSF white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgim'anus) and elk (Cervus

 

M) browsing may eﬂ‘ect the regeneration and development of aspen stands.
Vegetation data collected in this study support their suggestion. Due to this atypical
distribution of habitat quality versus age class of aspen, grouse on the PRC SF area are
probably using aspen stands of all ages to meet each of their life history requirements.

VIM H_a£_ks ILcstiag Hamstr-

Mosher et al. (1986) found the 4 variables distance to water, distance to forest
openings, canopy height, and number of medium- and large-sized trees to be useful in
predicting nesting habitat. It was assumed that all vegetation categories on each site met
the requirements for distance to water and to forest openings. Most of the vegetation
categories on each site met the requirements for either canopy height or average stem
density of medium- and large-sized trees, but no category met the requirements of both
variables. Therefore, although each site does not provide premium nesting habitat, they
do provide habitat useﬁil to woodland hawks. The quality of nesting habitat for woodland
hawks was similar for paired sites on the HNF and PRC SF areas.

The HNF open and closed sites were comparable in numbers of raptors seen on

paired sites in 1994 and 1995. Although not signiﬁcantly different, the numbers of raptors

67
seen on the 2 sites in 1995 were greater than in 1994.

Besides the change in the number of raptors seen on the 2 HNF sites from 1994 to
1995, there was also a change in the species composition. In 1994 buteos, such as red-
tailed and broad-winged hawks, were the most often seen raptors. In 1995 a greater
number of accipiters were seen than in 1994 (13 vs. 4). Among the species of accipiters
seen on the HNF open site in 1995 was 1 northern goshawk. Buteos are not particularly
great threats to ruﬁ‘ed grouse, since they tend to soar above open lands to search for prey.
Accipiters, especially goshawks, are greater threats to grouse, since they hunt within
forests. Eng and Gullion (1962) found that goshawk predation was the single most
important factor causing the reduction of grouse numbers on the Cloquet Research Forest.
Although only 1 northern goshawk was seen during the survey routes on the HNF area,
goshawks were seen on the area by ﬁeld personnel while conducting other ﬁeld work. In
addition, based on observations by ﬁeld personnel it is behaved that great horned owls
were numerous on the 2 HNF sites during 1993 and 1994.

The PRC SF open and closed sites were comparable in number of raptors observed
in 1994, but not in 1995. There were signiﬁcantly fewer raptors seen on the closed site in
1995 versus 1994. No explanation could be found for this difference.

Due to the proximity of paired sites to one another, it is possible that a raptor
observed on one site was seen at another time on the site’s pair. However, it is felt that if
this did occur it had a minimal impact on the indices for paired sites. Because the raptor
survey was not conducted in 1993 no comparisons could be made between the number of

raptors seen and the amount of avian predation on each site during the 1993 and 1994

68
study years. However, during the remaining years of the study a relationship between the

number of raptors observed and amount of avian predation on each site may become
apparent.
Trapping

The trapping success rate on the HNF increased from 1993 to 1994. The
increased trapping rate is believed to be primarily due to an increase in the size of the local
grouse population. The age ratio of trapped birds on the 2 HNF sites favored juveniles in
1993 and 1994. On the HNF open site in 1994 the number of juvenile grouse trapped was
signiﬁcantly greater than the number of adults. The greater number of juveniles than
adults suggests that the HNF population is increasing.

DeStefano and Rusch (1986) suggested that lily-pad (i.e., cloverleaf) traps are
biased in favor of juveniles, because they found the percent of juveniles retrapped to be
greater than the percent of adults. On the HNF and PRCSF open and closed sites in 1994
a greater percent of juvenile grouse were retrapped than adult grouse. The percents of
retrapped grouse in 1993 are not considered, because the total number of grouse
retrapped on each area was low (0-5 birds). The 1994 ﬁndings of this study support the
suggestion that the traps are biased toward juvenile birds. However, it is behaved that the
HNF grouse population is increasing. Drumming count data for northern lower Michigan
show that grouse numbers had increased slightly from 1993 to 1994 and had increased
markedly from 1994 to 1995 (J . Urbain, Michigan DNR, pers. commun.)

On the PRCSF open and closed sites the trapping success rate was similar for 1993

and 1994. Age ratios favored adults on the PRCSF open and closed sites in 1993 and on

69
the closed site in 1994. On the open site in 1994 the age ratio signiﬁcantly favored

juveniles. This ﬁnding in conjunction with that of the drumming survey suggests that the
grouse population on the PRC SF may also be starting to increase.

Factors that may be responsible for the greater number of juveniles than adults
include such things as an increase in number of breeding females, clutch size, nest success,
and/or chick survival. While grouse numbers increased in Rochester, Alberta from 1966
to 1968 Rusch and Keith (1971) found mean clutch size to remain constant. It is unlikely
that clutch size is able to change quickly enough to respond to short term changes in
population numbers. Data from Bump et al. (1947) showed that the percent of females
with broods increased as the number of birds per km2 decreased. This suggests that when
grouse populations are low there is an increase in the number of females breeding and/or
in nest success and/or in chick survival. Similarly, Bergerud (1985) stated that there is
compensatory reproduction when breeding numbers are reduced. Although no data
directly relating to any one of these factors was gathered in this study, an increase in
overall breeding success seems to be the most likely cause for the increase in juvenile
grouse numbers.

The sex ratios of grouse trapped on all 4 sites in 1993 and 1994 were
approximately 1:1, with the exception of the HNF closed site in 1994. There was a
signiﬁcantly greater number of male than female grouse trapped on the HNF closed site in
1994. These ﬁndings are in accord with other studies (Marshall and Gullion 1965, Bendell

and Zwickel 1979, and DeStefano and Rusch 1986).

‘70
Sources of Mortality

Avian predation was the greatest cause of ruﬁ‘ed grouse mortality on the HNF and
PRC SF areas in 1993 and 1994. The amount of avian predation was on average 3 times
greater than mammalian predation on each site in 1993 and 1994. Small et al. (1991)
found the amount of avian predation to be approximately 2.2 times greater than the
amount of mammalian predation, while Marshall and Gullion (1965) found avian predators
to take 6.4 times the number of grouse as did mammalian predators. Based on these
studies, the diﬂ‘erences between the amount of avian and mammalian predation on the
HNF and PRCSF areas were reasonable.

The amounts of grouse mortality in this study attributable to disease, trauma (e.g.,
collisions with automobiles and houses, suffocation by acorns, and drowning), and no
diagnosis were similar to other studies (Eng and Gullion 1962, Marshall and Gullion
1965, Small et al. 1991). Although mortalities due to stress (i.e., deaths within 5 days of
capture that were thought to be due solely to trapping stress) were not used in any
analyses, it is worth noting that the amount of mortality caused by trapping on the 4 study
sites averaged 8.9% during the 2 study years. This amount is comparable to the 8%
mortality due to research (e.g., trapping injuries, predator kills in trap, radio-tagging) that
Marshall and Gullion (1965) observed in their study.

' Hunting accounted for a small percentage of the grouse mortalities on the HNF
open site in 1993 and 1994, 16% and 14%, respectively. Avian predation, mammalian
predation, and the combination trauma/no diagnosis each accounted for more grouse

deaths than did hunting on the HNF open site. The percentages of mortality due to

7 l
hunting on the HNF open site are similar to the 15% found by Eng and Gullion (1962).

On the PRC SF open site hunting was second to avian predation in number of grouse
mortalities in both years, and was responsible for 26% of the total mortality in 1993 and
22% in 1994. These percentages are higher than those of the HNF open site. However,
they are in accord with the percent hunting mortality of 27% found by Marshall and
Gullion (1965) and 28% found by Small et al. (1991).

The relatively high amount of hunting mortality on the PRC SF may be due to 2
related factors. One is that PRC SF is a very popular recreational area for residents
throughout lower Michigan, much more so than the HNF area. Although the amount of
hunter eﬁ‘ort is not exactly known for either the HNF or PRCSF open site, it is assumed
that the PRCSF site receives more hunting pressure than does the HNF. This assumption
is based on observations made by ﬁeld personnel working on both areas during the study.
A second reason is that there are more well maintained roads throughout the PRCSF than
the HNF area. Fischer and Keith (1974) found that hunting mortality was greater on areas
with better road access. This in conjunction with the assumed greater hunting pressure
may be responsible for the higher percentages of mortality due to hunting on the PRC SF

In northern lower Michigan there is an autumn grouse hunt from 15 September to
14 November and a December hunt ﬂour 1 December to 1 January. The 2 week break in
November is due to the white-tailed deer ﬁrearm season. On the HNF open site in 1993 3
radio-tagged grouse were harvested, 2 during the autumn hunt and 1 during the December
hunt. Similarly, Rusch et al. (1984) found that during the 4 month (October-January)

hunting season on the Navarino Wildlife Area, Wisconsin harvest rates were highest in

72
October and decreased by approximately 50% in each successive month. All harvested

radio-tagged grouse on the HNF in 1994 and on PRC SF in 1993 and 1994 were shot
during the autumn hunting season. With one exception, all of these birds were taken
during the ﬁrst 4 weeks of the autumn hunt. Data provided by the Michigan DNR
indicated that most hunter eﬂ‘ort on the HNF and PRC SF areas in 1993 and 1994 occurred
during the autumn hunt (J. Urbain, Michigan DNR pers. commun.) It appears that the
majority of hunter eﬁ‘ort and success in northern lower Michigan takes places early in the
hunting season. This is in agreement with Kubisiak (1984) and Small et al. (1991) who
found that most hunter eﬂ‘ort and grouse kill occurred during the ﬁrst 2-3 weeks and 6
weeks of the hunting season, respectively.
Seasonal Changes in Non-hunting Mortality

Avian predation was the greatest cause of non-hunting mortality in all seasons on
the HNF and PRCSF in 1993 and 1994. The percent of within season mortality due to
avian predators followed a similar trend on HNF and PRCSF in 1993 and 1994; it
increased from autumn to winter and decreased from winter to summer. On the Cloquet
Forest in Minnesota Eng and Gullion ( 1962) found that the amount of predation on grouse
by goshawks decreased starting in May. They point out that the decrease in predation was
due to the arrival of migrant birds, which increased the number of prey species available,
and to the development of vegetative cover, which provided protection for grouse. While
avian predation in this study includes raptors other than goshawks, Eng and Gullion’s
explanation for decreased late spring and summer mortality is applicable.

Many researchers have examined season trends in total predation (avian and

73
mammalian combined) and have found that the greatest amount of predation on grouse

occurs during the autumn-spring period (Gullion and Marshall 1968, Rusch and Keith
1971, Small et al. 1991). The amount of mortality due to predation on the HNF and
PRCSF in 1993 and 1994 was greatest during winter and spring and least in summer. The
seasonal trend of predation (avian and mammalian) on grouse followed that of avian
predation. Although data from the HNF and PRC SF support the ﬁndings of other studies
it appears that mortality due to predation is unimportant relative to that due to avian
predation alone.

Survival

All. Birds-

In 1993 survival curves for grouse on the HNF and PRCSF closed sites were
signiﬁcantly different than for birds on the open sites (P < 0.05); birds on the closed sites
had greater survival rates. Survival rates for birds on the 4 sites were similar in 1994 and
ranged ﬁ'om 0.28 to 0.32. The signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erence in 1993 survival rates may be due in
part to the smaller sample sizes obtained in 1993 versus 1994. The smaller the number of
birds at risk at a given point in time the greater the eﬂ‘ect of a mortality event on the
survival rate at that time point. Therefore, for most of the year each grouse mortality in
1993 had a greater impact on the 1993 survival rate than mortality events in 1994 had on
the 1994 survival rate. This was also true of the PRCSF open and closed 1993 survival
curves and especially so of the adult, juvenile, male, and female survival curves for birds
on the HNF and PRCSF areas in 1993.

During the 1993 autumn hunting season survival for grouse on the PRCSF open

74
site decreased slightly more than it did for birds on the closed site. There were 2 periods

of marked decrease in survival for birds on the PRCSF open and closed sites in 1993
(approximately mid-September to mid-October 1993 and during January 1994). During
both of these periods survival decreased more for birds on the open site than for birds on
the closed site. Other than during these 2 periods the curves for birds on both sites were
similar. Therefore, it is probable that hunting had little direct effect on survival of birds on
the open site. On the HNF in 1993 and 1994 and the PRC SF in 1994 survival curves were
similar for birds on open and closed sites during the autumn hunting season.

During the December hunting season in 1993, on the HNF survival curves for birds
on the open and closed sites diverged; survival for birds on the open site decreased at a
greater rate than for birds on the closed site. However, since survival continued to
decrease at a greater rate for birds on the open site than on the closed beyond the
December hunting season (approximately to 1 February 1994), hunting most likely did not
directly aﬁ‘ect the survival of birds on the open site. In 1994 on the HNF during the
December hunt survival for birds on the open site was fairly constant, while survival
decreased for birds on the closed site. On the PRCSF in 1993 and 1994 survival curves
for birds on the open and closed sites were similar during the December hunting season.

Based on the survival data for grouse on the paired sites and the relatively low
amounts of mortality due to hunting it appears that hunting has little if any direct eﬁ‘ect on
grouse survival in northern lower Michigan. Monschein (1974) and Fischer and Keith
(1974) also concluded that there was no evidence that hunting pressure had a signiﬁcant

negative effect on grouse populations. Conversely, in his review paper Bergerud (1985)

75
concluded that autumn hunting is additive and reduces the spring breeding population size.

Kubisiak (1984) suggested that heavy early season hunting may be a major factor
depressing grouse populations. He found that during 1971-1983 grouse populations were
signiﬁcantly lower on a hunted versus unhunted area. While this was true of the HNF and
PRC SF areas in 1993, it was certainly not true in 1994. The year-end survival rates for
grouse on paired sites in 1994 were nearly equivalent. As previously stated, the 1993
sample sizes may partially be responsible for the differences in survival rates between
paired sites in 1993.

Ass 994 531 M.“

On most of the 4 sites in both years survival was similar for adults and juveniles
and for males and females. These ﬁndings support those by Rusch and Keith (1971),
Fischer and Keith (1974), and DeStefano and Rusch (1986). However, several signiﬁcant
differences were found. On the HNF in 1993 survival for adults on the open site was
signiﬁcantly greater than for juveniles, and survival for juveniles on the closed site was
signiﬁcantly greater than for juveniles on the open site. On the PRC SF in 1994 survival
for females on the closed site was signiﬁcamly greater than for males. These differences
suggest that juveniles and males may tend to have reduced survival.

During the hunting seasons survival was similar for adult and juvenile grouse on
the HNF and PRC SF open sites. Juvenile curves were considerably lower than adult
curves during the 1994 hunting seasons due to their having undergone a large decrease in
survival prior to the start of the autumn hunting season. The cause of the early autumn

decrease in survival for juveniles on the open sites in 1994 is not known. However, age

76

alone does not seem to be the responsible factor, since during this time survival for
juveniles on the closed sites did not decrease. Studies by DeStefano and Rusch (1986)
and Small et al. (1991) also found that hunting did not differentially eﬂ'ect adult and
juvenile grouse.

With the exception of PRC SF in 1993, on the open sites male grouse experienced
a decrease in survival 2-6 times greater than did females during the autumn hunting
season. On the PRCSF open site in 1993 male and female birds underwent a comparable
decline in survival during the autumn hunt. During the 1993 and 1994 December hunting
seasons survival was similar for both sexes on HNF and PRC SF. Across both years and
areas the percents of male radio-tagged grouse harvested (1? = 18%) tended to be greater
than that of females (1? = 8%). Fischer and Keith (1974) and DeStefano and Rusch (1986)
both concluded that there was no differential vulnerability by sex to hunting. However,
DeStefano and Rusch also stated that among juvenile birds males were more susceptible to
hunting than females. Of the 20 harvested grouse on the HNF and PRCSF open sites in
1993 and 1994 9 (45%) were juvenile males. Therefore, the combination of the 2 factors
juvenile and male may be responsible for the difference in survival between the sexes on

the HNF and PRC SF open sites during the autumn hunting season.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Hunting appears to have had no direct and probably limited indirect eﬂ'ect on the
HNF and PRC SF grouse populations. While there was a signiﬁcant difference between
survival curves for birds on open and closed paired sites in 1993, no differences were
found for birds on the paired sites in 1994. The yearly survival rates (autumn to autumn)
for birds on paired sites in 1994 were extremely comparable. Survival during the autumn
and December hunts were similar for birds on paired sites in 1993 and 1994.

Palmer and Bennett (1963) concluded that as much as 50% of the grouse
population in Michigan could be safely harvested. At the time of their study the grouse
season in northern lower Michigan was from 1 October to 10 November. Since the time
of their study the grouse season has been lengthened by 6 weeks, approximately doubling
the season length. Even with this increase in season length, the percents of radio-tagged
grouse harvested in 1993 and 1994 on the HNF (15% and 8%, respectively) and PRCSF
(17% and 10%, respectively) open sites were considerably lower than the 50% harvest
proposed by Palmer and Bennett. Although it is possible that not every radio-tagged bird
harvested was reported, the number, if any, of unreported harvests is assumed to be small.
This assumption is based on the large amount of publicity this study has had throughout
Michigan and the positive support for the project expressed by the public, especially

hunters. Data ﬁ'om this study indicate that increasing the length of the hunting season had

77

78

no obvious eﬂ‘ect on grouse populations.

On the HNF and PRC SF areas avian predation was found to be the greatest
mortality factor in 1993 (J? = 43%) and 1994 (a? = 42%). For the grouse populations on
the study areas to withstand heavy predation such as this, adequate cover must be
available to them. Gullion (1981) noted the importance of quality habitat for cover,
speciﬁcally ﬁ'om goshawks, and stated that as effective as goshawks are as grouse
predators the eﬁ‘ect of their predation can be lessened if grouse have proper cover.
Gullion (1972) also stated that the best cover is a canopy of deciduous trees, which allows
grouse to see raptors before they themselves are seen. The Michigan ruffed grouse HSI
score is based on the food and cover requirements of ruﬂ‘ed grouse. Therefore, the low
values (< 0.50) for overall HSI scores for the HNF and PRCSF open and closed sites
indicate that the amount of quality cover for grouse on each site is not at a maximum.
While it is understood that both the HNF and PRCSF areas are by no means managed
exclusively for ruﬁ'ed grouse, improvement of habitat for grouse on each area would
beneﬁt resident grouse populations. A method of habitat improvement is rotational clear
cutting of aspen stands. For example, clear cutting a block of 10 acres out of a 40 acre
aspen stand approximately every 10 years would provide grouse with the 3 age classes of

aspen required to meet all their life history needs.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Data collected on vegetation stands sampled on Huron National Forest (HNF) and
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF) study areas, 1994 and 1995.

79

 

 

 

 

«.« «.:: «.: 1 «.« «.« 88:. ~82 «.« :88 m: «: «.8:
«.« «.«: m: 1 E «.« «.«8: ~88 «.« :88 «.: e: :8:
«.« «.8: we 1 «.«: «.« «.88 «.88 «.« 688 «.8 o: «:8:
«.« «.«: «.: 1 «.« :8 «.89 :88 «.« «.88 o: 8 98:
«.« «.«: N: «.: «.« «.« :88 :88 «8N «.88 «a. 8 «:8:
«.« «.«: «.« 1 «.« «.« «.8: :88 «.« «.88: :8 «: «.8:
«.« «.«: «.« 1 «.«: «.« «.«8 88: «.« «.88 «.8: «a «.8:
«.« «.«: «.: «.« :.: «.« 88 «.88 N8 :88 :8 o: 8.8:
«.« «.:: m: 1 «.« «.« «.88 «.8:« «.« $8: 3 a: «:8:
«.« «.«: «.: 1 «.« «.« «.88 88: «.« «.88 «.8 8 «:8:
«.« «.« :..: a: me «.« «.«8: 5.8:. «.8« :88 «.«: 8 «.8:
«.« «.«: «.: 1 «.« «.« «.88 «.88 «.« «.88 «.v a: «.m:
«.« «.«: 1 1 «.«: «.« «.« «.88 «.« ~88 «.«: :~ :.«::
«.« «.4: «.~ 1 so: «.« «.89 «.88 «.« 5.88 was «: :.«::
«.« «.«: :.~ 1 «.« «.« :88 «.82 «.« :88 :N: N: :-:::
2 -228:
«.« :.«: :.~ 1 «s «.« «.8«: «.88 «.« 688 «.v «: 8.8:
«.« «.« 1 .. :N «.« «.« :88: «.« «.«8 «.« : «:8:
«.« «.«: h: 1 «.« «.« «.88 «.88 «.« «.88 :.«: a «:8:
«.« «.« a: 1 «.« «.« ~88 «.88 «.« ~88: «.« « :8:
«.« «.« o: 1 «.4 «.« «8N «.88 «.« «.88 «.« m «:8:
«.« «.« m: 1 «.« «.« :82 «.88 «.« «.88: «.« « «.8:
«.« «.« 1 .. Z :8 «.« «.88: «.« 5.8:. :.«: « 8.8:
«.« «.« N: 1 m: «.« «.8« :88: «.« 68: «.w: « «.8:
«.« «.«: :.: 1 «.« «.« «.8« «.88 «.« «.88. «.88. a «.«:
«.« «.« an: .1 «.« «.« «.88 «.88 «.« «.8«: «.4 N 8.8:
813: e 8:
:5 E o: N nag» 5:29 «8.: Eu 3 N 92:.» comma 32:00 2.3203 35 A23 2.3m
853 80.: 26. «3:23.. :3: «cab 35 09:.
89 s «88.8.3 8:8 3888 £28 :88
8:835 «5 £92..

 

.88 «8 :8: .37. «one C2.: :83“. .2582 «as: «e 8358 8:3» «2:589 8 88:8 3.5 .:< 28:

 

 

 

«.« «.8 :.: 1 «.1 «.«B «.«8 ~8: «.« «.88 :.:. E :«8:
«.« «.«: «.: .. :.m: ~88 ~8 ~8 «.« ~84: «a. :« «:8:
«.« 8.8 ~: «.« :.«: «.«:m «.8«: ~88 «.«: «.83 ~.« 8 «:18:
«.« «.«: ~: 1 «.:: ~8: «.8: «.84: «.« ~88 ~« 8 «.8:
«.« «.«: «.« 1 «a. ~8: «.8«: ~8« «.« «.88 3.: 8 :8:
«.« «.: :.: 1 «.«: ~«8 ~8~ ~8: «.« «.88 ~:.« 8 «.8:
«.« :.8 «.: ~« «.8 «.«8 «.«8 ~8: ~88 ~«8: :.4 «a. «.:::
mnoozﬁth “Ema:
«.« «.«: «.: «.: «.« «.8: ~88 «.88 «.«8 ~88 «.« 8 8.8:
«.« «.8 1 1 «.8 «.«8 «.« ~8« «.« «.«:«: «.« E 8.8:
«.« «.8 ~: 1 «.«: «.«8 «.«8 «.«8 «.« «.88 :.v 8 8.8:
«.« «.«: «.: «.« «.«: «.«8 «.«8 ~8: ~84 «.«3: :.: 8 :.8:
«.« «.«: «.: 1 «.«: «.«:v «.8» ~8« «.« «.«:8 «.8 «« :18:
«.« «.8 a: 1 «.«: «.«8 «.«8 ~«:.« «.« «.«:«: «.«: E «:8:
«.« «.«: «.: 1 «.«: «.«8 ~88 «.«8 «.« ~88 E. :v «.8:
«.« «.«: «.: «.8 «.~: «.8: ~««: «.«8: «.«: «.«8: «.« :« «.8:
«.« «.«: «.: 1 «.:: «.«8 «.8«: «.8: «.« «.8: «.2 8 ««.«:
«.« «.8 ~: «.« ~«: ~«8 ~««« «.«:m «.8: ~«8« «.«: 8 ««.:::
«.« «.«: :.: «.« «.«: «.«:N «.8 «.«3 «.«8 «.8« ~8 Q. «:-::
«.« «:.: 4.: 1 «.« ~8 ~««« «.«8: «.« «.«8: «.4 8 «.«:
«.« «.8 :.: «.: «.«: «.8« «.8 «.8: «.«:«: ~88 «.« 8 3.8:
|«I|l«e «< «.0
«.« «.: «.: 1 «a. «.« ~8~ ~88 «.« ~88 «.:.« 8 8.8:
«.« «.8: ~: 1 I «.« «.88 ~88 «.« ~«8« «.8 8 «:.8:
«.« «.:: «.: «.« «.« «.« ~88: «.88: «.88 ~88 «.: 8 «.8:
88838111211; 8 E 8.2
«5 E «: N «28 «2.2.. 82: so 8 N «28 =88 8:8 «8888 «:5 Es «88
853 «we: 32 «3:28.. can moo: cum ou<
8e 2 «88.8.. 388 €8.88. £88 .88
8:85 «5 :88:

 

583 .:< «.8:

81

 

 

 

«.« «.« «.: «.: «.: «.« «.88 «.8 «.88 ~8« .8 v: «.8:
«.« «.« «.8 - «.« «.« ~88 «.8: «.83 «.«8 ~8 :.: 8.8:
«.« «.« «.: «.« «.8 «.« ~88 ~8: «.«8 «.«8: «.«: 8: 2-8:
9.5 x092 ucao>
«.« 8.8: 1 «.« «.«: ~8« «.« ~8: ~88: «.«8 «.«: 8 8.8:
«.« we: «.: «.« «.« «.8: «.8 ~8« ~«8 «.«8: «.« 8 8.8:
«.« :8: ~: 8.: «.:: «.8: «.8 «.«8 «.88. «.«8: «.8 8 «.8:
«.« «.8 «.8 «.: «a: «.« «.8 «.88 «.88 ~8«: ¢.«: 8 «.8:
«.« «.«: «.: «.: «.8: «.«8 ~8« «.«8 ~8: «.«8 «.«: 8 8.8:
Ectcou “Ewan...
«.« «.« ~: «.: «.:. «.« «.888 «.«: ~«8 «.88 «.8 8 So:
«.« «s: «.: «.« «.«: «.8« ~88 «.«v ~8:. «.88 «.:: 8 8-8:
«.« «.«: 1 1 «.«: «.«8: «.« «.8 «.« ~o8~ E. 8 «.8:
«.« «.8 8.: 1 «.:: «.«8 «.88 ~88 «.« «.«8 «.« 8 «:8:
«.« «.8 ~: 1 «.«: «.«:v «.8« «.«8 «.« ~o8« «.8 8 «.8:
«.« «.8 «.: 1 «.8: «.8:. «.88 ~«8 «.« ~88 «.8 8 «.8:
«.«8 «.8: «.: «.: «.« «.8 «.88 «.« «.8 «.«8: :.:. 8 «8::
«.88 «.« «.: 1 «.« «.«: ~88: «.« «.« ~88 «.« 8 3::
8nd
«.« «.«: «.8 8.: «.« ~8: «.«8 «.8 «.«8 ~88 «.« 8 :.8:
«.« 3.: 1 «.« «.« «.«8 «.« «.88 «.«8 «.88 «.8 8 «.8:
5:83 Illmqudmauoozeaz _
AEV E o: N «a...» 5255 «cob 50 :m N 22:8 :88 52:00 8.033% 85 8.5 2.5
858 88 so. 8328.. «8 «8a 8% «2
89 2 8828:. 388 38.55 £88 :88
8:820 :5 £92..

 

6.28. .:< 28:

82

 

o.0« :d: v: 0.0 0.v od0o: 0.0:0 o.o «.08 o.o0:: o.00 :0 8:0:
908 vd: 0.: :.m :.m odv0 «.0No: od «.03: odoum You «0 ::-o0:
od dd: 0.: oé dd od0: «.0o:: «.0v«: «00¢ od00: «.«v 0w 0:.00:
od «.0: 0.: v.0 0.0 odm0 «.90: «d :v 0.0«: . 0.00o: 0d: v0 0.00:
od o.«: o. : 0.0 o.0 odov: odv «.08 «.03 odvo 00¢ 0:. 380:
85a 0.0
o.0u od: 0.: v.« «.v 0.000 odoo: od o.oo:: 0.080 06 mm o:.v«:
od «N: 0.: «.0 «.« «.00 0.000 odo: 0.000 odoov oN 0N «~8«:
o.0w0 «.0: 1 0.0 «.0 0.000 od od odod «.000 0d 0m om.0«:
od 0.0: 1. 0.: 0d: odov od «00¢ «.00~« o.oo« «.« «m o:-o«:
od 98 «.: «.: o.:. «.00: «.003 0.000 «.«8 odo0~ ad on .100:
o.0«: o.0: «.: 0.: :.« odom odom od o.oo« «.003 o.0: mm 0.00:
od o.0: I 0.0 d.« «dmw od «.000 odo:.: «.00m «.0 on 0:00:
lﬂdlalmoch c o>
o.o o.:: v: 0N 0.0 «.8: 0.80 «.00 «.000 «.03: «.:: 00 :.:-«0:
o.0w od o.: :.m «.0 «.0w 0.00: od odwo «.03 0.0 v0 ::-N0:
o.0« od 0.: «.0 «.0 odov 0.03 od odoo 0.000 «N 0:. 8.0::
od00 od v.: «.0 0.: «00¢ 0.000 dd odoo «.03: 0.3 v0 :~.0::
od 0.3 0.: 0.0 «.0 od00 «dim «.«:N «.000 od0:: :.0 00 o :.0::
od od 0.: «N 0.0 «d«: 0.908 0.00 0.0«« 0.030 v.0v N« :10: :
od v.3 0.: :.0 :.:. «.000 0.000 «.08 «.000 0.000: o.0w «0 :10: :
od o.0: «.: o... 0.0 «.00 odoov: «.000 0.000 «.0mv0 0.0: 00 0.0::
od o.0: 0.: o.: «.0 0.00: od~0v: odom «.000 odcom 0.00 mm «0::
od o.:: :.: o.« 06 odm: 0.000: odov odou «.0N0 «d «0 «.3:
0:5 x02. 20
«:5 E o: N 02.8 :0ch 88: Eo :N N 02.8 :33 5:88 «3:280 85 8.5 0:80
858 08: 30. «30:28.. :30 «ooh cum oo<
«8o 2 «3:28.. 388 3.8.58 :88 .88
8:885 :5 29¢:

 

 

 

€88o .:< 28:

83

00.0500 820 0 05 «o «:0 5 0:320 203 0:030 0500000208 02..

 

 

0.0 0.: 0.: .. 0.0 0.00m: «.000 0.000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 +3 0:02
0.00: 0.0 0.: .. 0.0 0.0 0.00: 0.0 0.0 0.0000: 0.0 +0: «.0:
0.00« 0.0: 0.: I 0.0 0.00: «.00: 0.0 0.0 «.000 0.: :« 0«.««:
0.0«: 0.0 0.: .. 0.0 0.0 «.0000: 0.0 0.0 0.002.: «.: +0 :«.««:
«a c

0.0 0.00 0.: 0.0 «.0 0.000: 0.000 0.00 0.0«:: 0.0000 0.0 0v «.3:
0.0 0.0 0.: 0.0: 0.: 0.08 0.000: «.000 «.000 «.0: 0N0 00 0.«0:
00% 0.0: «.: 0.« 0.0 0.00:: 0.0«0: 0.0 0.0«0 0.000: 0.0: 00 #«0:

.808. glad.
«EV E o: N 03:0 5:80 0020 So :« N 0300 00000 00:08 00030600 85 «0.5 0:80
8500 89.0 26. 00000.80 .30 820 050 on<
080 3 82.280 3008 «2005300 «00:00 530
80805 E0 20.2..

l.\\

 

 

 

«0.0080 .:< 200.:

 

 

0.0 «.0: :.0 I 0.0 0.0 «.000 0.0000 0.0 0.080 0.0: «: 00.00:
0.0 0.0: :.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.000 «.0000 0.0 «.0000 0.0 0: 00.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.0 0.: 0.0: 0.0 0.80: «.0000 «.00 0.080 «.00: 0: 0:-00:
0.0 0.0: 0.0 I «.0 0.0 0.800 0.000: 0.0 0.0000 0.0 00 :.00
0.0 0.0: «.: I 0.« 0.0 0.800 0.800 0.0 0.00:: 0.0 0: :0.«:
0.0 0.0: «.: 0.: 0.0 0.000 0.0000 0.000: 0.00 0.08: 0.«
0.0 «.:: :.0 I 0.0 0.0 «.0000 0.00:0 0.0 «.0000 0.0:
0.0 0.«: «.: I 0.0: 0.0 0.80 «.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0:
0.0 0.:0 0.: I :.0 0.« 0.80: 0.000 0.0 0.0000 0::
0.0 0.0 0.: I 0.0 0.0 «.0000 «.0000 0.0 0.00:« 0.0 0 00.00:
0.0 0.0 0.: I 0.: 0.0 0.000« «.0000: 0.0 0.000 :.0 : 00.00:
0.0 0.0 0.: I «.: 0.0 0.000« 0.0000: 0.0 0.000 «.« : 0:.00:
0.0 0.0 0.: I 0.0 0.0 0.00«0 0.00:0: 0.0 0.00«: 0.0: 0 00-00:
0.0 0.0 «.: I 0.0 0.0 0.000« «.0000: 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0 0.00:
0.0 0.0 0.: I 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.80« 0.0 0.00:0 0.0: 0 0.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: I «.0 0.0 0.80 0.0000: 0.0 0.0000 0.0 « 00.00:
0.0 0.0 «.: I 0.0 0.0 0.80: 0.800: 0.0 0.000 0.0 0 «:.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: :.0 0.0 0.0 «.0000 0.0000 «.00 0.00«0: «.0 0: 0«.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: I 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.800 0.0 0.000: 0.0 « 0:.00
0.0 0.:: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 «.0000 0.80: «.00 «.0000: 0.0 0: :00:
0.0 0.0 «.: I 0.0 0.0 0.800 0.0000 0.0 0.00:0 0.« 0: 0:0:
0.0 o.:: 0.: I :.0 0.0 0.80: 0.00«0 0.0 «.0000 0.0 0 00r«:
0.0 0.0 0.: I «.0 0.0 0.800 «.000« 0.0 0.08: :.0 0 «00.0:
0.0 0.0 0.: I 0.: 0.0 «.0000 0.0000 0.0 0.000 0.0: 0 «00.0:
0.0 0.:: :.0 .I 0.0 0.0 0.800 «.0000 0.0 «.0000 0.0 « 0:.0:
:2 c >
«E: E o: N 02:0 5:8: 002: E0 :« N 02:0 :83 00:08 00000600 :05 «0:5 0:80
02:00 82: >6. 002.0000 :00 002: 00.0 ou<
08: s 380.80 0008 30053010080 520
80805 :5 200:

 

 

 

.000: 0:0 vow: 6:0 0000.0 C210 «00.6”. .3282 :05... :o 003800 00:30 :o_:0:ouo> :0 0802.00 300 .N< 030:.

85

 

 

 

o.o o.0« «.: I «.0: 0.80 0.0:0 «.0«« o.o «00:0 0.0 0« 0.8:
o.o o.o« 0.: I 0.«: o.o«0 «.030 0.0«: o.o «.0000 0.0 00 :«.00:
o.o o.0: :.« 0d 0.0: odoo: o.o0« o.o«: o.o0 «.0««: «.0 0« 0«.00:
o.o o.o« «.: 0d :.0: o.o00 0.0«0 o.oo« 0.0:0« o.o0«: 0.0 00 :«.00:
o.o o.0: «.: I :.3 odoo: o.oo0: 0.000 o.o «.0«« 0.0 00 0:-«0
o.o o.«: «.: I :.«: o.oo0: «.00« 0.000 o.o o.o«« 0.0 00 «-«0
o.o o.0: 0.: .0.: o.o: o.o00 0.000 «.0«0 0.0: «.0o:« «.«: 00 0:.00
o.o o.0: 0.: I 0d: o.o00 «.0o0« 0.000 o.o o.oo«« 0.0« 00 0.«:
o.o o.0: 0.: I o.o: 980 «.0««: 0.00« o.o «.00«0 «.0: o0 :: :.0:
o.o o.:« 0.: 0.: 0d: o.o0o: «.08: «.000 «.0« «.03« 0.« :.:: 0«.0:
o.o o.«: 0.« I o.«: odo0 o.o«0 0.0«: o.o «.0«0: :.:« 00 0:0:
o.o o.0: :.: «.o :.0: o.o«« 0.00 0.00« 0.0: 0.0:«« 0.3 «0 «:.0:
o.o o.0: «.: I «.0 o.oo«: «.00« «.00« o.o «.00«0 «.:: «0 0.0:
0.
o.o 0.0: 0.« I 0.0 o.o «.00«0 «.00«0 o.o «.0000 0.0: 3 0«.0 :«
o.o o.:: 0.: I «.« o.o o.oo0: 0.00 :0 o.o odoo0 0.0: :: o«.«:«
o.o o.0: «.: I 0d: o.« 9800 o.oo00 o.o o.oo00 0.0 :« «0.00:
o.o 0.3 0.« I «.0 o.o 0.00:: «.000: o.o o.oo00 0.« o« 3.00:
o.o 0.: : 0.: I o.0 o.o «.0000 0.0000 o.o «.003 «. :0 3 0«.00:
o.o o.«: 0.: 0.: «.« o.o o.oo00 «.00o« «.00 «.0000 «.00 3 0.00:
o.o o.o I «.o 0.0 o.o o.o «.0000 0.00««« «.08: o.« 3 :.00:
o.o o.0: 0.: I 0.« o.« o.oo0 «.003 o.o 0.000: «.3 0« ««.00:
o.o 0.«: 0.: I 0.0 o.o «.0000 o.o000 o.o 0.00:« o.0: 0: «:13:
o.o o.0: «.: I :.0 o.« o.oo«« o.oo0: o.o «.00«0 :.0 0« 00.«0:
o.o o.0: 0.: I 0.0 o.« o.oo00: «.0000 o.o o.oo00 o.« «« 0.«0:
o.o o.0: 0.« 0d 0.0 o.o odoo: 0.000: «.00 «.000« «.0 0« 0.:0:
€008: 083.808.0303
E: E o: N 08:0 5:80 000.: E0 :« N 03:0 :0000 60:8 002.0600 :05 :05 0:30
8500 08.: 26. 0:30.80 :00 0000 000 00<
08: 2 0800.80 0008 000.0200 £050 £20
8:805 E: 20.01

 

€008: .0< 200:

 

 

 

0.000 0.0: «.: 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 o.o 0.000: 0.0000 0.0 0« 00-00:
0.00: 0.00 :.: I :.:: 0.000 0.00: 0.0 o.o «.000 0.«: :0 0:00:
0.00: 0.0: :.: 0.0 «.0: 0.000 «.00: o.o 0.000 «.03: 0.0 0« 0«-00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0: o.o0« 0.0«0 «.00: 0.00 0.000: 0.0 «« 00.00:
0.00: 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.:: 0.80 0.000 0.0 «.03 0.000: «.« «0 0.00:
E00.
o.o 0.0: 0.0 I «.0 0.000 0.000: 0.0«: o.o o.o0«: 0.:0 0.5 00.0:0
0.0 o.«: 0.: I 0:: 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.0 «.0000 :.0 0« 00.00:
0.00 0.0: 0.: I 0.0: 0.000 0.00«: o.o 0.0 0.0000 0.0: «0 00.00:
0.80 0.00 0.: I 0.0: 0.00:: 0.0 :0 o.o 0.0 0.0000 «. :0 0« 0.00
0.0 0.00 :.: I 0.0: 0.000: 0.00 «.00 0.0 0.0«:0 0.0 00 0:30
o.o 0.00 «.: I 0.3 0.000 0.0:0 «.00: 0.0 0.0:0: :.00 00 0:..:0
o.o 0.00 0.: I 0.0: 0.000 «.000 0.0: o.o 0.00:0 o.«: 00 0:00
o.o 0.0: 0.: I «.« 0.80 odoo: 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.00 00 0.00
0.0 0. :0 0.: 0.0 0.0: 0.000 0.0«00 0.0: 0.00: 0.0000 0.00 00 0 :.0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: I 0.0: 0.000 «.003 «.000 0.0 0.0000 0.0: 00 0:-«:
jar 0:0
0.0 0.00 0.: 0.« 0.0: 0.80: «.000 «.000 «.00 0.83 0.0: 0« :000:
0.0 0.0: 0.: :.0 0.« 0.80 0.0000 0.00:0 o.o00 0.0«0: 0.0 00 00.00:
o.o 0.0: 0.0 I «. :: 0.000 0.0000 «.000 0.0 0.0«:0 o.«: «0 0.00:
o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.00: 0.000: «.0000 0.00 0.0«0: 0.0: 00 :0.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.00: 0.0000 0.00«: 0.00 «.000 0.0 00 0 :-00:
o.o 0.0: 0.: I «.0: 0.000 0.000: «.00« 0.0 0.0:00 «.0 00 00.:0:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.80 0.0000 0.0«« «.00: 0.000: 0.0 00 0.:0:
€0.80 3
05 E o: N 02:0 5:20 0000 50 :0 N 02:0 :0000 30:00 00000600 :05 :05 0:05
00.500 000:: 26. 0:30.000 :00 0000 00.0 00<
32 2 2.2.280 .328 30:05 £050 £20
8:805 :5 £00:

 

6.28: .0< .30:

87

 

0.0 0.0 :.: 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0000 0.0 «.00«0 0.000 0.0: 0: 00:0
0.«00 0.0 0.: 0.0 «.0 0.0 «.000 0.0 0.00«0 «.000: 0.0 0: 3.000
0.000 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000« «.000 0.0 0: 3.000
0.0«3 0.0 :.: 0.0 0.0 0.00: 0.000 0.0 «.0000 0.000 0.0 3 0.000
0.0«3 0.0 0.: «.0 0.0 0.0 «.000 0.0 0.0 :00 0.0«« :.0 0: 0.000
0.00 0.0 0.: «.0 0.: 0.00: 0.00 0.0 0.00:: «.000 0.0 0: 0«.00:
0.000 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00:: 0.0 «.000 «.00« 0.0 0: 00.00:
0.0 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0000 0.0: 0.0000 0.0«« «.« 0: ::-«0:
0.000 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.0« :0 «.000 «.00 0: «0.00:
0.0 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.000 0.000: 0.: 00 «.00:
0|||0II|:_n_ .60.. 55>
0.0 0.3 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.000 «.0000 0.00 0.00« 0.000: 0.0 0« 00.00:
0.0«0 0.0 0.: 0.: «.: 0.0 «.0000: 0.0 0.0000 «.00: 0.: 0« 0:00:
0.00 0.: : 0.: 0.0 «.0 0.00: «.0000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0« 00.00:
0.0« 0.0 0.: «.: :.0 0.000 0.000: 0.0 0.00«0 «.000 0.0 0« :.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.« 0.000 «.0000 0.00: 0.000: «.000: 0.: «« 00.00:
0.0 0.0: I «.0 0.0: 0.000 0.0 0.0: «.00«0 «.00: 0.0 00 00.00:
0.0« 0.0: I «.: 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.0«: 0.0: 00: 00.00:
30:: o 0:
0.0«0 0.0 :.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.00: 0.000: 0.00 0: :.0:0
00 0.«: 0.: 0.0 :.0 0.000 0.0000 0.000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 00 :0.0:0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00:« «.000 «.000 0.000: :.0: 0: 00:0
6.280 00.00
AEV E 0: N 02:0 00:20 0080 E0 :0 N 02:0 :0000 30:00 00002000 :05 :05 0:80
858 82. to. 380.80 .30 8.5 £0 .3
008 2 00000600 80:8 3:020:00 E050 E30
8:305 :5 20.0:

 

 

 

05:80 .0< 030:

88

 

 

 

o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0 o.00« 0.000: 0.00 «.000 «.08: 0:: 00 «:-00:
o.0« o.0: «.: 0.0: 0.0 0.000: 00:00 o.o «.08 «.0000 0.0 00 8.3:
0.000 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.000: o.o«0 o.o «.000 0.000: 0.« 00 00-8:
o.o o.«: 0.: 0.0 0:: 0.000 0.000 «.000 «.08 0.000: 0.0 8: «-:0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.0 :.0 0.000 0.80 0.0: o.o«0 0.00: :.0 0« :«.00:
I850 0.0
0.0 o.o 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.800 «00:0 «.00«0 0.00:: 0.00« 0.0 « 000:0
0.000 0.0 «.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 o.o 0.800 0.000 0.«: 0: ::.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.80 «.00 0.80 o.oo«: 0.000 0.0 8 0:00:
0.0 0.0 0.: «.: 0.0 0.80 0.00: 0.00: «.080 0.00:0 «.:: on 0.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: «.: 0.0 o.o «.000: 0.000 00:0 0.0000 0.«: 0: 0.00:
0.0 o.o 0.: «.o «.0 o.o «.000 «.00: 0.000 0.800 0.00 :0 00.00:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.: «.0 0.80 «.000 «.00 «.000: 0.000: 0.8 00 0:00:
o.o o.o 0.: «.o 0.0 0.0 0.00«0 «.000 0.80 0.00«0 0.0 0: 0:.00:
005n— mcao>
0.08: o.o 0.: 0.0 :.N o.o«« «.00«0 o.o «.000 00:00 0.0: 00 «.80
00:0: o.o 0.: 0.0 0.: 0.000 «.00: 0.0 «.000: 0.000: 0.0 00 0.80
0.«0 0:: 0.: :.« 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 «.08: 0.0000 0.0 00 00.00:
0.80 o.o 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.00: 0.000: 0.0 «.0000 0.0««0 0.0 00 :.00:
o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0 o.o0« 0.8:: 0.80 0.00:. «.00«: 0.«: 00 00.00:
0.08: 0.0: o.: 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.80: «.000: «.0 00 «0.00:
0.0 o.o 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.000 00:0 0.00: «.000 0.0000 0:0 00 :«.00:
0.0 0.0: «.: :.0 0.0 0.80 0.000 «.00 0.000 «.0000 0:: 00 0:-«0:
0.000 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.: o.o«« 0.80 o.: «00:: «.0000 0.0: 00 0.«0:
0.0 0.0: 0.: :.0 o.« 0.000 0.000: «.000 «.000 0.000: 0.0 0« 0:00:
35 v.0 _. 0.
:5 E o: N 02:0 .053 82. so :0 N 02:0 5%. 0:08 0:80.80 :05 0:0 0:30
09:00 000.: 26. 0:30.000 :00 0000 050 02
Be 2 033.80 0:28 3.5523 £080 £20
8:805 :5 £00...

 

3E8: .0< 0.00:

89

 

00.0800 000.0 m 05 00 .30 5 E0020 225 0830 95280208 02 .

 

 

 

 

0.00 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.80 «.00 0.080 0.0 0.5 0.00:

0.00 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000: 0.0 «000 0.800 0.: «0 0.0:

0.00 o.:: 0.: u 00 0.80 «00000 0.0 0.0 0000:: 0.: +0: o0.«:
03926.31 0:226...

0.0 0.0: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 «080: 0.000: 0.000 «.000: :.0 0.5 0:-0:0

0.000 0.«: :.: «0 0.0 0.80 0.00 0.0 «.000 0.000 00: 00 00.80

80:8. 35 o

:5 E 0: ~ 0200 5005 800 so :0 N 0.5.0 8000 00:8 002.008 A05 35 .880

858 800 so. 008280 .30 800 00.0 00...

Be 2 030280 00:8 3.5583 3.080 530

8:505 05 20.0:

 

30:80 0.0 0.00:

 

 

 

 

o.o o.o: I «.o «.0 o.o o.o 0.0000 «.000 o.o 0.0 :0 00.0
o.o o.o: 0.: «.: o.o: 0.000 o.o0« «.08 «.80: «.000 m. :0 00 0«.0
o.o o.:: o.0 :.o 0.0 o.o o.oo0: o.oo00 «.00 0.080 0.«: 00 8-0
o.o o.0: «.: o.o 0.0 0.00: 0.00 :0 o.ooo o.o00 0.80: 0.0 00 00.0
o.o o.0: o.0 o.o 0.0 0.00: 0.000« 0.002 «.80: o.oo0: 0.0 00 00.0
o.o o. :: 0.: 0.0 o.o o.o 0.000 «.80: 0.800 0.000 0.00 0: :0-:
502 000982005.
o.o o.o 0.: 0.o 0.0 o.o «.800 «.080 0.00: o.oo0: 0.0 c: 00.0:
o.o o.o 0.: I 0.: o.o «.80 odoow o.o 0.00«0 0.0: 0 00.0:
o.o o.o 0.: I 0.: o.o 0.00« 0.00:0 o.o 0.000: 0.0: 0 00.0:
o.o ad 0.: I 0.: o.o «.800 0.0000 o.o «.800 06: 0 00.0:
o.o o.o 0.: I «.: o.o 0.800 o.80« o.o o.o00: 0.0 0 ::.0:
o.o o.o 0.: I 0.: o.o 0.800 «.0000 o.o 0.080 0.0: 0 0.0:
o.o o.o o.: 0.: 0.: o.o «.8 «.0000 0.80 0.00: 0.0: : «o.0:
o.o o.0: :.0 o.o 0.« o.o «.800 «.800 o.oo0 0.800 0.«: 0 00.0:
o.o o.o I 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0000 0.00 :0 0.80 0.0: « 09::
o.o o.o: 0.: I 0.0 o.o odoo: odoo:: o.o 0.00:0 0.0: o 006:
o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 cd 0.00«: 0.800 «.80: 0.800 0. :: o «..o:
o.o o.o :.: I «.0 o.o 0.00 :0 «.800 o.o odoo: 0.0: 0 00.0
o.o o.o I I o.: o.o o.o 0.000: o.o o.o 0.0: 0 00.0
o.o o.o «.: 0d 0.: o.o 0.008: 068:: 0.80 0.000« 0.: 0 00.0
o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.00 :0 0.0000: 0.000 0.800 0.0 o 0.0
o.o o.o :. : 0.o 0.: o.o o.oo0 0.0000 0.000 0.00: :.0 0 00.0
o.o o.o I 0.0 0.0 o.o o.o c.0000 o.oo00 0.00: 0.0 0 0:4.
o.o o.o I .I 0.: o.o o.o 0.800 o.o o.o «.0 0 00.0
o.o o.o 0.: 0d 0.0 o.o 0.0000 0.0000 0.80: 0.000« 0.0 o 00.0
'0'; 0< .. o>
:8: 8 c: M 0:80 5:0... 002: 80 :0 N 0.8.0 8800 .888 032.2000 :05 :05 0:80
8500 08.: 26. 032.230 5:. 000.: 00.0 oo<
08. o. 0080.80 0.28 3.5500. 0.080 50:0
88.0.0 .5. £0.01

 

000: 0:0 000: .000 :08 $0000. :83“. 0:30 0.58 .020 080.0. co 8.0500 008:0 800.002, 8 8.00:8 800 .0< 0.00:

91

 

 

 

 

0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 «.00: 0.000: 0.000: 0000: 0.0«0: 0.0 :0 0:.0:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.00: «.000: 0.00: 0.00 «.000: «.0 00 8.0:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 00: «.000 0000 0.0000 «.000 0.000: 0.0 00 00.0:
0.0 0.0: 0.0 0.0 0.« «.000 0.80 0.00« 0000 0.000: 00 :0 00.0:
0.0 0.«: 0.: 0.0 0.0 «.00: «.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.: 00 00-0:
0.0 0.«: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.000 «000 0.00: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0 0« 0.0
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 «.000 «000 «.000 00:00 0.000 0.0 00: 00.0
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 0.0: «.00: 0.00 «.00: 00000 0.80: 0.: :0 0:.0
0.0 0.0: 0.0 0.0 0.0: 0.80 0.80 «.00 «.000« 0.80 00 00 0.0
0.0 0.0: :.: 0.0 «.0: 0.80 0.0: 0.0«: «.0000 «000 0.0 00 00..«
0.0 0.«: .. 0.0 :.0 0000 0.0 «.00: «00:: 00:0 0.0: :« 0-«
0.0 0.0: 0.0 0.0 0.0 «.00: «000 0.0000 0000: «.000 00: 0« 00.0
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 «.« «.00: 0.000 «000: «.080 «.00«: 0.0 00 00-0
|0|I|8 0< 0.0
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 «.00 0.000 0.00« 0.0000 0.00:0 0.0 00 ««-«:
0.0 0.0: 0.: «.0 :.0 0.0 0.80: «.0000 «.000 0.080 0.: 0: 0-«:
0.0 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.: 0.0 «.0000: «.0000 0.080 0000 «.0 0: 00.0:
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 :.0 0.0 0.00: 0.800 0.80 «.000: «.:: 0: 0:.0:
0.0 o.:: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.80 0.80: «.000: 0.00«0 0.« :0 :0.::
0.0 o.:: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.80: 0.800 «.000 0.800 0.«: 0: 00.0:
0.0 o.:: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000: 0.00:0 0.000: «.000: 0.0: 0: 00.0
0.0 0.0 .. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000: 0.80: 0.80 0.0 0: 00.0
0... o.:: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.80 «.0000 0.80 «.000: 0.0 0: «0.«
0.0 00: 0.: «.0 0.0 0.0 0.00: 0.000: «.0000 0000 0.0: 00 0:-«
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.80 «000: 0.080 «.000 :.0 00 0.«
0.0 0.0: 0.: 0.0 «.0 0.00: 0.80 0.80: «.000 «.000 «.:: 0: «0.0
.0008. jg; 0< 0.8
.E. E 0: N 02..» 6:20 08.. so :0 N 0.5.0 8000 5.08 0080.80 .0... .05 20:0
8500 000.: 32 0:26.30 :30 000.: 00.0 090.
08. 2 0800.80 .0008 3.8500. 3.08.. 60:0
85:05 .5. 0.0.0..

 

.0008. .00. 0.00..

92

 

 

 

 

o.o 0.0: I :.0 0.0 0.000 o.o 0.00 0.000: 0.000 :.0 00: :0.o:
o.o o.o 0.0 06 0.: 0.00: 0.000 o.o 0.800: 0.80 «..0 000 00.0
o.om o.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.800: 0.000 :.0 00 00.0
0.0::00 Deman—
o.m«.: o.:0 I I 0.0: 0.000 o.o o.o o.o 0.0000 0. :0 000 0.0:
o.o o.o0 0.: I 0.0 0.000 0.000 o.o o.o 0.0000 0.00 000 :00:
o.o 0.00 :.: 0.0 0.«. o.o00 0.000 0.00 0.00: 0.0000 0.0 000 00.0:
0.80 0.00 0.: I 0.0 0.80 0.00: o.o o.o 0.0000 :.mm 000 0.0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.0 o.:: 0.000 0.00: 0.0: 0.0: o.o00: 0.0 000 00.3
o.o 0.0: 0.: I o. :: 0.000 0.00 o.o o.o 0.0000 :.0 000 :00
o.o 0.0: I I 0.0 0.000 o.o o.o o.o 0.00«0 :.00 000 :00
o.oo«. 0.0: I I 0. :: 0.000 o.o od o.o 0.000: 0.00 000 8.0
9000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00: o.o 0.0: 0.0000 :.00 000 00.0
0009.003... 080.0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00: 0.00:0 0.0 000 00.0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: :.: 0.0: 0.000 0.000: 0.00:: «.00«. 0.0000 0.0 000 00.0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.: 0.0: 0.00: 0.00: 0.000 odoo: 0.0a: o.o: 0000 00.0
800040 003.080.:
o.o 0.0: 0.0 o.« 0.0 0.000 0.00: 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0 00 00.0:
o.o o.o 0.: ad 0.: 0.8: 0.0:0: 0.000 0.000: 0.0000 0.: «.0 00.0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: «..o 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000: 0.0000 0.0: cm «.04.:
o.o 0.0: 0.: :.0 0.0 0.00: 0.000: 0.000 0.80 0.80: 0.0 00 00.0:
o.o 0.0: o.: 0.0 0.0: 0.80 0.80 0.000: 0.0000 0.000 o.:m 00 :00:
.0008. j: 0< 0.
A8. 8 o: N 0880 02.0.5 08.: 80 :0 0 0.8.0 8300 .888 0:30.000 :05 .083 0:80
8500 008: 26. 0.600.000 .30 000.: 00.0 0?.
08. 2 088.80 8:08 .0588. 0.080 20:0
8:805 8.. 0.0.0...

 

3.08. .00. 0.00:

93

 

 

 

o.o0: o.o :.: m. :: 0.0 0.000 0.000 o.o 0.0 :V 0.80: :.0 00 00-0:
o.o o.0: :.: 0.0 :.v o.o0: o.o0? o.o¢ o.o0: 0.000 0.00 00 3-0:
o.o o.0: I 0.0 0.0 0.80 o.o 00:0 0.00:: 0.00: v.0v 8 00.0:
o.o 0.0: 0.: 0.0 ad: o.o00 0.8 0.09 0.03: 0.00: 0.00 000 0.10
o.o 0.0: 0.0 0.0 0.v 0.08 o.o00 0.8 0.00 :0 ad? 0.0: 8 v0.0
o.o o.0: I 0.0 0.0: o.oom o.o 0.00:. o.oo0: 0.00 :.0 m0 910
o.o o.o 0.: 0.0 0.0 o.oo: 0.00 0.000: 0.080 0.80 0.0 we 00.0
o.o 0.0: 0.: 06 :.v 0.000 0.00 0.000 Q80: 0.0 :0 06 000 00.0
o.o o.: 0.0 0.0 0. :: 0.00: 0.00 0.00: odoo: 0.000 0.0 :o 00.0
o.o o.o 0.: 0.0 0.: o.o« 0.0000 0.08: odoo: 0.000: 0.0: 00 00+
3:5 20
o.o 0.0: I 0.0 0.3 0.000 o.o o.oo: 0.000 0.00: 0.« 0 00.0
o.o o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.00: 0.00 9800 0.00:: 0.09 :.00 000 «0.0
lululuoﬁg 50>
0.00 o.o :.: o.0 0.0 0.000 0.00: o.o 0.000: 0.00: 0.0: 000 00.0:
o.o0 o.0: 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.00 o.oo: o.o 0.000 0.00:0 #0 8 v0.0:
o.o o.o: 0.: 0.: :.0 ode: o.o00 0.000 0.0000 0.00: xc: xc: 00.0:
o.o o.«: I 0.: we o.oo: o.o 0.00% 0.08: 0.00 0.0 00 :To
o.o o. :: .0 0.0 0.0 0.00: 0.80 0.80 0.09 0.030 0.0 00 :90
o.o o.o: o.:. 0.0 0.0 0.80 0.00 0.000 0.08: 0.000 0.0 00 00.0
o.o o.o o.: 0.0 0.: 0.000 0.00: 0.00: 0.000: 0.800 «.0 :0 00.0
05.”. x00...
0.8: 90: o.: :.m 0.0 0.000 0.80 o.o 0.80:. 98¢: 0.«: 3: 0.0:
528V I; :50
:5 E o: N 025 5:80 so: So :0 N £53 :33 32:8 26:28:. $5 35 9.80
858 «ooh 26. 32.20% :3 80.: 3.0 02
woo: 0: 32.208 82:8 3.5523 0:33 60:0
8:33 :5 29oz

 

6.28. .2 2%:

94

 

 

 

 

.28» Engage 358.com .

.3383 303 m 2: :o 05 5 «some... 203 257. 96:83:00 02 _.
0.00 0.0: 0.: I :.o o.o 0.00000 o.o o.o 0.000 0.0 xca 00.0:
0.00: o.0: :.: 0.0 0.0: 0.000 0.09 o.o 0.000: 0.0000 0.: 00 00.0:
o.o o.0: v.0 I 0.0 0.00 o.oo0o: o.o o.o 0.000: 0.0 .3: 00.0:
o.o o.o v: I 0.0 o.o 0.080: 0.80 o.o 0.000« :.o: 3:: 0:.0:

mu m

25 E o: N o.::... 5:20 38: Eu :0 N o.:...» :83 .228 263.0% $5 3.5 9.80
853 80b 26. 2.320% 5.. 89.: cum 02
82 2 25338 3.28 Ewes». £28 5.5
8:83 :5 22a:

 

3.203 .2 can:

95

 

 

 

9o 93 3 3 98 9o 982 988 988 $8. 9: 8 8.:
9o 92 9m 90 99 9o 99: 982 988 988 3 R 93
9° 9° 3 3 to 90 988 688 5.8 $08 92 3 8.8
9° 9° 3 .. 9.. 9o 38 ~88 9o 98mm 98 a 8.8
9° 9° .. 9o 3 9° 9° 988 98m 98m 99 3 8.8
9o 98 3 9m 3. 98¢ 98» 98» 982 98v 9m 8 2.8
9o 9o 5 to 3. 98¢ 9o8~ 988 98¢ 98% 3 9 :.8
9° 9° 3 9o 3 9o 38 N88 98¢ 28? 9a : 8.8
90 9S 3 3 3. 90 988 688 98m 982 92 2 8-5
.ﬂllqlllllc 2 8 $528.2
90 9o .1 9o 9“ 9o 38, 382 ~8« 38 99 a 8.2.
9o 9o 3 to 5. 9o 988 988 998 988 9» a 8.8
9° 9° we to 9m 9o 989 988. 98m 982 v.2 h ”.8
9o 92 9. 9o «.« 98 5.8 989. 98 998 9a a 8.?
9o 9: 9v 3 3. 9o 98¢ 988 98? 689 9c o 3.:
9° 9° 3 5 3 9o 98%.. 988? 98m $2 3 u :1?
9° 9° 3 to 1 90 ~83 989: 98? 9° 3 N 8.:
9o 98 «.« 3 9... 9o 988 982 98¢ 988 3 m 8.:
9° 9° 3 .. 9. 9o 988 988. 9a 5.8 2: m 9.3
9° 9° 3 9o 9m 9o >88 982: 98m 98m 3 m 8.9.
9° 9° 3 9o 0.« 9o 38 38: 98v 998 3 o 8.:
9o 9o I I 9m 9° 9° 985 9a 988 E o 8.:
9o 9: Z to 9,. 9o 982. 988 998? 988 92 h 3.:
9° 9° 5 to 2 9o 5.83 988 98.8? 98 92 e 8.8
9o 9o 3 9o 3 98 98m 93 5.8“ 98 to v 8.8
90 9o ... N.» 9' 9o 9.. 98: 5.8 9o 3 m 8.8
mg ucso>
AEV E or N can» coca... 80: £0 Pm N as...» :83 55.8 30333 85 :25 28w
858 82“ >6. 258.08 ﬁg 82“ cum 23
.88 2 «88.8.. 8:8 3.5.53 £22. .55
8:85 :5 22¢:

 

.82 8a 32 .2.» 83.0 Ewomav ~83". 83m 888 32a 885 8 8358 «.88... 8:882, 8 883.8 8.5 .2 as:

 

 

 

0.0 0.55 0.? 0... 0.5 0.0 E 0.00? 0.000 0.005 0.055 0.0.. F0 30¢
0.0 0.0? I 0.0 «.3 0.000 0.0 0.000 5.000 5.005 10.. 00 00-:
0.0 0.5V «a 0.0 5.0 0.050 0.0% 5.000 0.000« 0.0:. 0.0 00 00-5v
0.0 0.0? 0.? v.5 «.9 5.000 5.00.. 0.000 0.00 5.003 5.: 00 0.9.
0.0 0.0? 0. r 0.0 5.0 0.000 5.000 0.000? 0.00v 0.005 0.00 00 3.00‘
0.0 0.00 0. r 0. r 5.0 5.000 0.009. 0.00v 0.000 5000? v.0 00 0 ....wv
0.0 0.0? 0.9 0.? 0.0? 0.00 0.005 5.000 0.000 0.30 0.« 00 00.3
0.0 0.0? 0.? 0.0 0.0 5.0% 0.050 0.00 0.000? 5.03 «.55 00 00.3
0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00? 5.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0 00 00.00
0.0 0.5? 0.5 0.0 N. 5 0.00. 0.9. 0.03 0.000 5.0000 0.? 05 50.00
0.0 0.1. I 0.« 0.5. 0.0 0.0 0.000? 5.00 0.00: 0.00 00 0.50
0.0 0.00 5. F 2 0.0 0.000 5.000? 0.005 0.0000? 5.000 0.0 00 9.00
0009.. 20
0.0 0.3 5.? we 0.v 5.00 0.000 5.0000 5.000? 5.000? v.05 0.. r000
0.0 0.0? I v.0 0.0? 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.003 5.000 0.0 0.. 50.9
0.0 0.9 0. F «a 0.« 5.00 5.000 5.0000 5.09. 0.000« 0.00 3 «0.0V
0.0 0.0? we 0.« 0.0? 5.00 5.000 0.000« 5.00 5.000 «.0« 00 00.0?
0.0 0.0 1F 0.« 0.? 5.000 0.09. 0.0000 5.000 0.003 0.9 00 90.00
0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.0000 0.0000 5.003 0.0000 0.00 00 09.50
0.0 0.0 0.? 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.000 0.009. 5.003 5.000? 0.0. 0? 70¢
0.0 0.0? N... 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.000? 5.003. 0.00? 0.0000 v.0? «N 30¢
0.0 0.0? 09 5.0 0.5 5.00.. 5.03 0.03? 0.0000 0.000? ~00 00 00.0..
0.0 0.09 5.. ...F 0.0 0.00? 0.00v 5.000 0.000.. 5.000 Pdv 50 09.00.
0.0 0.0 0.0 v.0 0.« 0.0 0.0000 0.000? 0.005 0.0000 0.50 3 070v
0.0 0.0? 0... 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.000 0.0005 5.000? 0.00:. 5.5 50 $1?
0.0 0.3. Na 0.? 5.0? 5.00 5.000 0.003 0.03 5.000 «.00 v0 v0.3.
05:80 3 2 8 a .2
E. E or N an...» 20:80 800 E0 3 N 02:» 00000 5.08 00032000 505 8.5 0:30
858 8o: 26. 0:03.80 .30 800 050 00<
008 2 32.280 80:8 3.355 5:050 E80
8:85 05 220:

 

6.280 .2 285

 

 

«Di-coo» .‘< 0‘0'L.

97

 

 

 

0.003 0.0 0. 3 0.3 ¢.3 5.003 5.0000 0.0 0.00¢0 0.005 0.00 55 ¢3¢
0.0 0.03 0. 3 ¢.¢ 0.0 0.000 0.0000 5.00 0.0053 0.00¢ 0.3 503 000¢
0.003 0.0 0.3 ¢._. 5.0 5.000 0.0000 0.0 5.00..¢ 0.000 0.00 03 90¢
0.0 0.0.. 0. 3 ¢.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 3¢ 0.00 0.0000 0.000 5.00 ¢0.. 03-50
II|||I||.:£.:oo 0:226
0.0 0.03 0. 3 I 0.0 5.00¢ 5.000 5.00 0.0 5.0¢00 0. 30 000 00¢
0.0 0.03 I 0.0 0. 3 0.003 0.0 0.0 0.000 5.0000 0.53 000 00.5¢
0.0 0.5.. 0. 3 I 0.0 0.050 0.0¢ 0.0.. 0.0 5.0000 ¢.03 000 00.5¢
0.0 0.03 I I ¢.03 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.005.. 0.0¢ 000 0T5¢
0.0 0.53 0. 3 0.3 0.0 0.0 30 0.050 5.00¢ 5.000 0.0 ..00 0.¢ 000 079
0.0 0.03 0. 3 0.0 3.0 5.00 0.000 5.00 5.000 5.0000 0.03 000 70¢
0.003 0.03 I 0.0 0.3 5.00¢ 0.0 0.0 00.0 5.0003 0.03 05 0000
0.0 0.03 0.0 I 0.03 5.00 5.00 5.003 0.0 0.003 0.0¢ 000 3000
0.0 0.53 0.3 I 0. 3.. 0.000 0.053 0.0 0.0 5.0000 0.03 000 0¢.50
0.00¢ 0.03 I 0.0 0.03 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0000 ¢.00 000 5-50
3320... 0:0.
0.0 0. 30 0. 3 0.0 0. 3 5.000 0.000 5.000 0.050 5.0¢0 0.3 000 000¢
0.0 0.03 0. 3 I ¢.5 0.00 0.00003 5.000 0.0 0.0000 0.03 .000 300¢
E02 0.091.005.
0.0 0.0.. ¢.3 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.050 5.000 0.003 0.000 5.0 0¢ 000¢
0.0 0.03 0. 3 0.3 0.0 0.00 5.0003 0.003 5.0¢0 5.003 ...05 0¢ 030¢
0.0 0.3 0.3 3... 0.0 5.000 0.0500 0.0003 5.03 5.0000 3.0 30 00¢
0.0 0.03 0. 3 ¢.« «.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.033 0.5 ¢5 500¢
05:8. 3
:5 E 0.. N 02:0 5:80 80: Eu ..0 N 02:» :33 30:8 0:26.000 .05 3:5 0:80
858 800 26. 0:30.30 :00 080 00.0 02
Bo. 2 «33.8.. .228 .2328». 0.28 520
00:30.0 ..5 £0.01

 

6.28. .2 use.

98

 

 

o.o o.o 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.8. 0.8 0.8. 0.08 0.80 0.0. 000 2.0..
o.o 0.0. 0.. ...o 0.0 5.8 0.80 0.08 0.800 0.02. 0.. 3 0-2.
o.o o.o 0.. ..o 0.. o.o 0.8.. 0.8: 0.8: 0.8.. 0.: 0 55.2.
0.8 0.0. 0.. 0.. 0.0 0.8 0.08 0.0 0.88 0.80.. 0.0 8 0.1:.
o.o o.o Z 0.. I 0.00 0.8. o.o 0.8..0 o.o 0.00 0. 00.8
0.0 o.o 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.80 0.80 o.o 0.080 0.80 0.0. .. 00-8
0.00 o.o 0.. 0.0 0.. 0.08 0.000 0.0 0.8: 0.08 0.50 000 84.0
0.050 o.o I 0.0 0.. o.o o.o o.o 0.080 0.8. 0.2 2 30.8
005n— umao>
o.o o.: 0.. 3 E. o.o 0.8. 0.80 5.080 0.80 0.: a 00.0..
0.0 o.: 3 0.0 :0 0.00.. 0.8 0.00.. 0.88 5.8 0.0 8 03-00
a... o.o I 3. 0.0 0.8. o... 5.8. 0.80 0.008 :0 8 8.3.
0.00 o.o I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.850 o.o 0.8 00 00.9.
0.8. o.: I :0 :0. 0.08 0.0 o.o 0.80. 0.8. :0 00 00.9.
0.8 o.o I ...v 0.0 5.8 0.0 o.o 0.800 0.80 0.0 ..0 5.18
0.00. o.o 0.. 0.. 0.0 o.o 0.08 0.0 0.800 0.80 0.0. 8 2-50
0.0 o.«. I 0.. 0.0 0.80 o.o 0.0 0.8.0 0.08 0.0. 00 8.8
0.0 0.0. 0.. I. ...0 ....8 0.80 0.8. 0.08 0.000 5.0 2. 50.00
o.o 0.0. ..N 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.08 0.8. 0.08 0.85 0.: 000 8.8
05¢ x02.
0.0 o.: I 0.0 0.8 0.8. 0.0 5.8 5.83.. 0.8 0.0. 05 00.0..
0.0 0.0. 0.. o... 0.0 0.80 0.8:. 0.8 0.8.0 5.8: 0.: 05 8.8.
0.0 0.0. 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.8. 0.0000 0.8 0.008 0.08. 0.0 8 2.0..
0.0 o.: 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.8. 0.82 5.8. 0.008 0.80 0.9 8 .10..
6.88. 3034
.E. E 9 N 8...» 8:05 82. Eu .0 N 820 =88 8:8 88280 .0... .2... 2.30
858 8.5 3o. «88.8.. ...... 82. 8.0 o?
08. 2 38280 8.28 3.5.8.». 0.88 530
88.0.0 .E. 20.2..

 

 

 

SE8. ...< 28..

99

 

 

0:80 0000.00x.E 3:000:02“. ..
.00_0E00 80.0 0 05 .0 .60 :. E000... 0:03 0E3... 0505000000 020

 

 

 

 

0.00 0.0 5.3 I 3.¢ 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.0 553 0..0¢
0.05 0.0 0.0 I ¢.0 0.0 0.000¢0 0.0 0.0 5.000.. 0. 3 000 05-3
0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 ¢.0 5.000 0.00303 0.0 0.0003 0.0003 0.0 .5 0¢0¢
0.00 0.03 I 0.0 3. .... 5.000 0.0 0.0 5.00¢ 5.0003 0.0.. 000 0000
J00oo>>0001 0:0.30
0.0 0.0.. 0.3 0.¢ 0.0.. 0.003 5.003 5.003 5.0003 0.000 0.0 30 0.00
0.0 0.0 I 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0.0003 5.00¢ 0.3 30 0¢0¢
0.0 0. 3 0. 3 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.003 5.000 5.0003 0.000 0.0 00 00.0¢
0.0 0.0.. 0. 3 0.03 ¢.0 0.000 0.000 5.00 0.050 0.003 0.03 55 0¢0¢
0.0 0.3 0. 3 0.0 0.5 5.03 5.000 0.053 0.0053 5.000 0.0 05 ¢0.0¢
0.00 0.00 ¢... 0.0 0.0 5.000 0.003 0.0 0.0030 0.0030 5.0 00 05-;
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.050 00¢ 0.0 0.0 30 0.03 0.3 ¢0 00.3
0.0 0.03 0. 3 ¢.3 0.0 5.00 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.055 3. 30 00 00.00
0.0 0.03 5.0 3.3 ¢.03 0.003 0.0¢ 5.000 5.0000 0.0003 0.0.. 05 ¢0.00
0.0 0.03 0.3 ¢.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.0003 0.000 0.0.. 00 3.00
Ill;:.n.
.E. E 03 N 02:0 8:05 0000 E0 30 N 02:0 :0000 82:00 2.000.000 .0... .00». 0:80
00500 000:. )0. 0030.000 :00 000:. 00.0 00<
000. 0. 0030.000 .00.:00 .0§E0«0. 3.050 580
88.0.0 .5. 20.0:

 

.088. ...< 280

 

APPENDIX B

Ruﬁ‘ed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation stands sampled on
Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRC SF)
study areas, 1994 and 1995.

100

Table B1. Ruffed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation
stands sampled on Huron National Forest (HNF) open site,
1994 and 1995.

 

 

 

.. .7

 

 

 

 

 

Young Aspen

Sl values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
109—39 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 1.00
113-2 0.49 0.51 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
153-6 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
153-20 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
159-9 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
159-10 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.28 1.00
159-11 0.32 1.00 0.29 0.00 0.66 1.00
159-13 0.32 1.00 0.29 0.00 0.71 1.00
159-15 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
160-28 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Medium-Aged Aspen

Sl values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
111-1 0.76 0.82 0.91 0.00 1.00 1.00
113-1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
115-1 0.34 0.34 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
115-8 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
152-6 0.06 0.16 0.00 0.92 0.00 1.00
152-10 0.60 0.72 1.00 0.00 0.02 1.00
153-10 0.13 0.19 0.96 0.00 0.02 1.00
153-23 0.13 0.14 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
155-3 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
155-5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
155-16 0.77 0.81 1.00 0.75 0.00 1.00
158-6 0.59 0.61 1.00 0.00 0.17 1.00
158-10 0.84 0.84 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
160-1 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
169-7 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
170-9 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
170-15 0.64 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.77 1.00
173-25 0.40 0.41 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Old Aspen

Sl values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
108-14 0.17 0.20 1.00 0.84 0.00 1.00
110-5 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
111-10 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
111-23 0.37 0.39 1.00 0.36 0.78 1.00
116-25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.22 1.00
152-5 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
154-3 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 1.00
159-12 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
160-4 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.16 1.00
160-14 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
160-20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 1.00
170-27 0 00 0 00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

170-33 0.19 0.19 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

101
Table 81. (eont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upland Hardwoods
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
111-5 0.52 0. 52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
155-4 0.00 0. 00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
155-11 0.49 0. 49 1. 00 0.00 1.00 1.00
169-5 0.05 0.05 1. 00 0.00 0. 56 1.00
170-46 0.07 0.08 1. 00 0.71 0. 69 1. 00
172-12 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.33 1. 00
172-31 0.00 0. 00 1.00 0.00 0. 00 1.00
173-6 0.23 0. 23 1.00 1.00 0 00 1.00
174-1 0.36 0.37 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00
Oaks
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
114-4 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00
116-3 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.90 0. 00 0. 00
156-2 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0. 00 1.00
156-6 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.64 1.00
159-19 0.13 0.17 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
161-3 0.00 0.00 1. 00 0.00 0.00 1.00
161-7 0.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 0.00 1.00
167-7 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.97 0.56 1.00
Lowland Conifers
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
110-13 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 1.00
158-3 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1. 00 1.00
173-4 0.92 1. 00 1. 00 0.92 0.63 1. 00
173—26 0.00 0. 00 1. 00 0.49 0.00 1. 00
173-27 0.04 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Young Jack Pine
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
152-17 0.09 0.18 0.00 1.00 0. 00 1. 00
167-21 0.51 1.00 0.00 0.53 1. 00 1. 00
168-3 0.94 1.00 0.00 0.97 0. 00 1. 00
Old Jack Pine
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
114-2 0.00 0. 00 0.13 0.45 0.00 1. 00
115-2 0.18 0. 35 0.48 0.74 0. 04 1. 00
115-3 0.14 0.25 0.81 0.18 0.53 1.00
116—1 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.93 1. 00
116—4 0.06 0. 25 0. 00 0.51 0.20 1. 00
116-19 000 0.00 0.52 0.29 0.48 1. 00
116-21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0. 00 0. 00
116-24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.75
152-11 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.69 0 00 1.00

167-14 0.05 0.17 0.00 0.48 0.00 1.00

Table 81 . (oont‘d)

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Young Pines
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
155-15 0.08 0.21 1.00 0.30 0.00 1.00
156-9 0.10 0.42 1.00 0.90 0.73 0.26
169-4 0.03 0.26 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00
170—10 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.00 1.00
17320 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
173-22 0.20 0.27 1.00 0.35 0.46 1.00
174-10 0.11 0.42 0.00 0.35 1.00 1.00
Old Pines
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
152-14 0.00 0.02 0.93 0.00 0.00 1.00
153-9 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.33 0.00 1.00
153-19 0.05 0.08 1.00 0.17 0.04 1.00
160-11 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.16
161-4 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.75
167-4 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.50 0.00
167-5 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
174-2 0.08 0.30 0.75 0.00 0.09 1.00
Lowland Hardwoods
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
172-21 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26
172-28 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
173-2 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.60
173-19 0.11 0.12 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

 

103

Table 82. Ruffed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation
stands sampled on Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1994 and 1995.
Young Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
15-16 1.00 1. 00 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00
16427 0.00 0. 28 0.00 0.00 0. 00 1.00
16-527 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.00 0. 44 1.00
17-36 0.26 0.90 0. 31 0.00 0. 00 1.00
18-14 0.11 1.00 0. 00 0.00 0.67 1.00
18-21 0.44 1.00 0.39 0.45 1.00 1.00
50—15 0.01 0.73 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.00
186-73 0.17 1.00 0.16 0.23 0.36 1.00
189-17 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 1.00
189-26 0.10 1. 00 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.00
190-2 0.00 0. 73 0. 00 0.00 0.00 1.00
190-4 0.09 1.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 58 1.00
193-20 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 1.00
195-13 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 1.00
195-40 000 1.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 1.00
199-56 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Medium-Aged Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
15-10 0.00 0. 00 1.00 0.00 0.36 1.00
15-11 0.15 0.16 1.00 0.00 0.56 1.00
16-26 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00
16-31 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0. 61 1.00
17-31 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.64 1.00
49-1 0.45 0.45 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
186-14 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.97 1. 00 1.00
186-56 0.24 0.24 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00
189-25 0.73 0.73 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00
191-6 0.00 0. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00
192-8 0.83 0.96 0. 82 0.00 1. 00 1. 00
192-38 0.05 0.19 0. 34 0.00 0.00 1. 00
194-47 0.37 0. 48 1. 00 0.00 0.00 1. 00
195-22 0.16 0.16 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
196-1 0.98 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.00 1.00
196-6 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00
196-24 0.99 0. 99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
199-41 0.40 0. 40 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
199—47 0.42 0.44 1.00 0.00 0.63 1. 00
212-20 0.61 0. 62 1. 00 0.00 0. 00 1. 00
213—24 0.68 0. 68 1. 00 0.00 1. 00 1. 00
Old Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
15—5 0.00 0. 00 1.00 0.00 0. 00 1.00
15-12 0.00 0. 00 1.00 0.67 0. 00 1. 00
15-13 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1. 00

15—26 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.78 0.00 1.00

Table B2. (cont'd)

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Aspen (cont'd)

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
16-111 0.11 0.11 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
17-4 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
49—15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.78 0.96 1.00
52-7 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
52-18 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.80 1.00
186-71 0.90 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
186-75 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
189-24 0.02 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
190-5 000 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
191-9 000 0.00 1.00 0.49 0.33 1.00
191-32 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
192-18 0.03 0.03 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00
192-21 000 0.00 1.00 0.45 0.00 1.00
195-9 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
195-30 0.31 0.39 1.00 0.68 0.00 1.00
199-81 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Upland Hardwoods

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
17-14 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
18-13 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.00 1.00
49-2 0.49 0.51 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
50-13 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
51-12 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.58 1.00
51-19 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
52-4 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
194-26 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.89
194-53 0.08 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
212-28 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Oaks

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
186-6 000 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.32
186-29 000 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.00 1.00
186-76 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.32
189-15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
198-33 0.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00
212-3 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
212-21 0.03 0.04 1.00 0.72 0.00 1.00
213-1 000 0.00 0.00 0.85 1.00 0.00
Lowland Conifers

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
186—38 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.75
186-40 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.00 1.00
186-66 0.29 0.64 1.00 0.46 0.00 1.00

105
Table 82. (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lowland Conifers (cont'd)

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
190-1 0.52 1.00 0.00 0.78 0.20 0.75
196-39 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.57 0.27 1.00
199-10 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00
199-52 0.15 0.27 1.00 0.38 0.31 1.00
Young Jack Pine

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
185-7 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
185-37 0.00 0.63 0.00 1.00 0.00 000
197-11 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
198-45 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
199-79 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.89
200-4 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
2006 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
200-11 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
200-14 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
212-2 0.88 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Old Jack Pine

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
192-15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.68 0.00 1.00
197-3 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
197-12 0.07 0.28 0.00 0.42 0.64 1.00
198-21 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
198-37 0.00 0.32 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
198-42 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 1.00
199-1 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00
199-59 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96
200-5 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
200-7 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Young Pines

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
185-14 0.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.06 1.00
165-16 0.25 0.39 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.00
185-24 0.06 0.17 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
186-3 0.26 0.29 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00
186—8 0.50 0.79 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00
192-12 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.87 0.00 1.00
196-11 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.00
212—25 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Old Pines

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
185-21 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.23 0.10 1.00

191-7 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.23 0.00 1.00

Table B2. (cont'd)

106

 

 

 

 

 

Old Pines (cont'd)

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
197-22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
197-30 0.05 0.39 0.11 0.00 0.73 0.75
199-17 0.03 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
200-22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
212-12 0.63 0.66 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00
Lowland Hardwoods

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
17-20 0.56 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
18-8 0.07 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.89
189-6 0.02 0.11 0.15 0.84 0.27 0.89

 

107

Table 83. Ruffed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation
stands sampled on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF)
open site, 1994 and 1995.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Young Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
3-48 0.18 1.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00
6-83 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
7-12 0.92 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.00 1.00
7-29 0.02 0.08 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
8-9 0.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
8-32 0.24 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60 1.00
8-38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
9-34 0.01 0.31 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00
10-7 0.26 1.00 0.00 0.53 1.00 1.00
10-56 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 1.00
11-62 0.78 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.00 1.00
12-47 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00
12-67 0.05 0.39 0.00 0.91 0.00 1.00
14—8 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
14-11 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
14-32 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
14-44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
15-69 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
17-83 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.67 1.00 1.00
Medium-Aged Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
1-31 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00
2-63 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2-68 0.22 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00
2-90 0.16 0.17 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00
3-75 0.42 0.52 1.00 0.79 0.00 1.00
6-48 0.13 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
6-87 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7-4 0.58 0.63 1.00 0.92 0.00 1.00
7-14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00
7-57 0.83 0.90 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00
8-36 0.23 0.28 0.91 0.77 0.00 1.00
8-69 0.74 0.97 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00
10-42 0.22 0.51 0.15 0.87 0.97 1.00
11-21 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00
13-15 0.08 0.20 0.34 1.00 0.00 1.00
15-33 0.59 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 1.00
17-9 0.71 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
17-77 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
Old Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
2-95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
446 0.59 0.87 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00

7-9 0.02 0.04 0.99 0.49 0.00 1.00

Table 83. (cont'd)

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Aspen (cont'd)
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
7-56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
8-2 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00
8-13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
8-86 0.61 0.68 1.00 0.89 0.97 1.00
9-5 0.70 0.86 1.00 0.77 0.10 1.00
12-59 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.43 1.00
12-80 0.08 0.16 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00
14—54 0.16 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00
15-80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 1.00
16-10 0.37 0.40 1.00 0.98 0.27 1.00
16-21 0.86 0.87 1.00 0.99 0.00 1.00
16-54 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.70 0.00 1.00
17-57 0.39 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
17-60 0.34 0.68 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
18-57 0.19 0.23 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Mixed-Aged Aspen
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
5-44 0.22 0.26 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.00
17-44 0.36 0.38 1.00 0.96 0.77 1.00
18-49 0.06 0.06 1.00 0.85 0.00 1.00
Upland Hardwoods
SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
453 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.00
7-60 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9—21 0.05 0.11 0.41 0.00 0.00 1.00
9—31 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
11-63 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.58 0.90 1.00
14-4 0.00 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15-53 0.35 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
15-81 0.09 0.10 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
18-6 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.26
Lowland Conifers
81 values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
2-28 0.81 1.00 0.18 0.91 1.00 0.89
5-46 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10—31 0.06 0.42 0.00 0.15 0.00 1.00
17-2 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.00 0.60
Jack Pine
SI values
ﬁnd HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
5-53 0.16 0.64 0.00 0.37 0.00 1.00
6-66 0.02 0.03 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00
6-91 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.39 1.00 1.00

Table 83. (cont'd)

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jack Pine (cont'd)

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
9-41 0.48 0.97 0.00 0.76 0.00 1.00
13-38 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.00 1.00
17-64 0.44 0.75 0.62 0.75 1.00 0.89
18-22 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.75
Young Pines

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
5-24 0.23 0.40 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7-38 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.46 0.00 1.00
Old Pines

Sl values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
4-28 0.27 0.56 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
5-27 0.24 0.43 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00
5-56 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.05 0.00 1.00
8-23 0.49 0.76 1.00 0.55 0.33 1.00
8-40 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.56 0.00 1.00
9-24 0.38 0.61 0.00 0.67 1.00 1.00
9-42 0.28 0.50 1.00 0.52 0.00 1.00
16-35 0.03 0.10 0.45 0.21 0.00 1.00
17-34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
17-55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32
Lowland Hardwoods

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
15-13 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
18-32 0.17 0.17 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
18-36 0.15 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.26
18-37 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.17 0.89

 

110

Table 84. Ruffed grouse HSI score and SI values for vegetation
stands sampled on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF)
closed site, 1994 and 1995.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Young Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
37-24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.00
40-21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 1.00
40-36 0.35 0.87 0.00 1.00 0.70 1.00
41-15 0.31 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.60 1.00
41-63 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
41-67 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
43-22 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
44-15 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
47-25 0.54 0.67 0.84 0.37 1.00 1.00
47-35 0.04 0.89 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
47-41 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 1.00
47-48 0.83 0.88 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00
47-62 0.17 1.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 1.00
48-3 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
49-9 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 1.00
49-35 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Medium-Aged Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
37-50 0.06 0.24 0.01 0.43 1.00 1.00
38—28 0.09 0.39 0.05 1.00 0.00 1.00
40-11 0.34 0.89 0.00 1.00 0.57 1.00
40-13 0.21 0.40 0.00 0.64 0.00 1.00
40-26 0.15 0.29 0.43 0.97 0.00 1.00
40-27 0.09 0.50 0.19 0.00 0.00 1.00
40—35 0.27 0.27 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
41-7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
41-36 0.40 0.43 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00
41-54 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.00 1.00
42-44 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
43-10 0.28 0.62 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
43-18 0.45 0.48 1.00 0.96 0.67 1.00
43-33 0.88 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00
43-44 0.40 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
46-4 0.26 1.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 1.00
47-46 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00
48-31 0.13 0.88 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.00
48-38 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.71 0.00 1.00
49—32 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.93 0.00 1.00
49—57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
49-61 0.30 0.53 0.11 0.87 0.57 1.00
Old Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
36-45 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.67 1.00

37-1 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.71 0.00 1.00

Table 84. (cont'd)

lll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Aspen (cont'd)

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
39-37 0.21 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
39-53 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
40-30 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.03 1.00
41-39 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.98 0.33 1.00
42-18 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.98 0.93 1.00
43-14 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.71 0.83 1.00
46-9 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
47-39 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.00 1.00
47-50 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
48-14 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.00 1.00
48-37 0.34 0.39 1.00 0.87 0.33 1.00
49-6 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.95 0.00 1.00
49-10 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
49-29 0.33 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Mixed-Aged Aspen

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
49-21 0.360 0.360 1.000 0.000 0.333 1.000
49-55 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Upland Hardwoods

Sl values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
37-7 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.65 0.00 0.00
37-48 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
39-21 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
39-38 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.46
40-1 0.17 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
43-12 0.15 0.16 1.00 0.86 0.17 1.00
47-16 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
47-28 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 1.00
47-32 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.47 0.00 1.00
48-9 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lowland Conifers

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
37-15 0.51 1.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 1.00
40-10 0.52 1.00 0.00 0.86 1.00 0.60
40-38 0.06 0.54 0.00 0.09 0.23 1.00
41-4 0.37 1.00 0.00 0.72 0.47 0.60
43-4 0.23 0.62 0.61 0.38 0.07 1.00
43-16 0.96 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00
46-20 0.14 1.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.00
48-32 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Table 84. (cont'd)

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jack Pine

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
34-70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 1. 00 1.00
35-47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0. 00 1.00
36-20 0.44 0.58 1.00 0.75 0. 00 1.00
37-17 0.38 1.00 0.00 0.84 0. 33 0. 46
39-47 0. 06 1. 00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0. 89
40-23 0. 00 0. 01 1. 00 0.00 0.00 0.60
40-32 0. 64 0. 86 0. 00 1.00 0.00 0. 75
41-61 0. 01 0. 85 0.00 0.08 0. 00 1. 00
42-13 0.01 0.11 0.97 0.00 0. 00 1. 00
46-22 0.92 1.00 0.06 0.96 0. 23 1.00
Young Pines

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
35-51 0. 00 0.50 0.00 0.77 0.00 0. 00
37-33 0. 01 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.00 0. 75
37-53 0.81 1.00 0.00 0.83 0.17 1 00
38-21 0.57 0. 68 0.00 0.64 0. 00 1. 00
41-45 0.78 1. 00 0.74 0.91 0.10 0.89
41-77 0.18 0.62 0. 00 0.70 0.07 1.00
47-5 0.97 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.87 1.00
49-17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 1.00
Old Pines

SI values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
36-1 0.09 0.14 1.00 0.60 0.47 1.00
36-24 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
36-30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 1. 00
41-28 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 1. 00
41-70 0.37 0. 81 0.73 0.39 0 00 1.00
42-24 0.27 0. 39 1.00 0.67 0.30 1.00
42-43 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
46-29 0.03 0. 04 0.29 0.71 1.00 1.00
49—48 0.32 0. 45 0.61 0.78 0. 00 1.00
50-3 0.01 0.06 1.00 0.10 1. 00 1.00
Lowland Hardwoods

Sl values
Stand HSI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
39-36 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0. 89
40-18 0.74 1.00 0.00 0.58 1.00 1. 00
41-73 0.72 1. 00 0.00 0.00 1. 00 0. 72
49-19 0.15 0. 37 0.00 0.00 0. 70 0.89

 

APPENDIX C

Raptor survey data collected on Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River Country
State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1994 and 1995.

TableC1. RaptorsurveydlhoolectedonHuonNatioruFaut(HNF)openslte.1994.

 

No.0fraptorsobeerved

 

Unknown Total

33
5

i}?
3. i

33

Rod-

g3
§§

is

 

6116194

7110194
7114194

7122194
7128194

8111194

113

8118194

911194

9116194

1016194

10113194

10120194

10127194

1113194
11110194

11117194

11123194

1211194

1218194

51

24

17

Tdal

 

lehCZ. RWWMIMMHWNMFW (HNF)cloeedsle, 1994.

 

No.0fraptorsobeerved

 

BaldBuredSpecies
OwlUnImownTotal

g3
i

52

 

512484
61184

811484
812184

71584

711 284
711 984

712684

114

8110194

911484

101484

1011184

1011984
1012584
111284
111884

1111584
1112284
1112984
121684

°3

 

Table 03. Raptorsuveydstacoleeteden Huron NatIoneI Foraet(HNF)openslte,19%.

 

No.0fraptorsobserved

Red-Breed-
mmmmmmwwm

 

Red-

Suvey slimedCeopers

HMHMWWEaﬁOMUWTM

HawkI-lakaoshawkHM

Dd.

 

511%

811195

811%

781%
711 31%

7120“

”271%

115

811%
811885

911485
912115

1015195

10112195
1011985
1012685
111285
118195

°$

‘38

1111685
Total

 

 

Table C4. Raptorsurveyddecolleetedon Huron Natimal Foneet (HNF)eloeed “10.1%.

 

No.0fraptorsobeerved
Red- Broad-

 

Red-

NortherntalledelullderedwlngedAmeriean

Northern BaldBl'red Species

Survey shimedCoopeI‘e

MW Kestrel HUMEIQIO OMUnlmowanal

HakaoehewkHawk

Hawk

 

511%

8113“

710%

7111“

711 885
712585

116

811585

9112195
9119195

101485

101101%

10117195

10124195

10/31I%

1117M

°$

°Sl

1 1124195
Total

 

 

 

llllllll I. . liqru .lql-.ll\ Ill-ﬁ- li‘lJAH ‘15 Eerullihc lzliv >823. .xanﬁ-st Arno 8sa‘kr

TebleCS. RaptueuveydeheoleetedonPlgeonRNquﬂyStdeFaeeNPRCSanwm, 1994.

 

Nodmtersobeerved

 

deBIredSpeciee

Unknown Tdal

Owl

i

is

 

5131194

8115194

718194

711 384
7120194

712784

811094
811 5194
812484
91184

117

911484
912184

1015194

1011284
1011984
1012884
111284
1118194

11117194

1112184

1112984

121784

“’8

1211484
Total

 

TebIeCG.RaptusuveyduaeoleotedelgeonRNuComeStateFaeet(PRCSF)doeedene.1994.

 

No.0fraptorsobeerved

 

Unknown Total

3??

E?
i

is

 

61784

811484
611984

612784

715194
711 284

711 784

712584

81184

118

811784

911284
9119194

912784

1013194

1011084

1011784

1012484

111184

11884
1111684

11/21/94
11/30/94
121684

°ﬂ

1211384
Total

 

 

TebIeC7.RaptoruxveychheoleotedonPlgeoancmSUeFaed(PRCSF)openelte,1995.

 

No.01nptoreobeerved

 

Unknown Tobi

3

E

E3

 

511%

611215
5119/95

612715

713195

7110195
7117195

7124M

7131/95

119

811585
8121M

911185

911815

101285

1011085
1011685

1012485

1013185

1115195
11113195
11120195
11/26195
1214/95

1211185

°1Q

Tdal

 

Table 08. Raptor survey chta collected on Pigeon River Country sue Forest (PRCSF) eloeed site. 1995.

 

No.0fraptorsobeerved
Red- Broad-

 

Red-

WWWWWWWWM

Sunny shinned Cooper‘s

HanierEue OwlUnknownTotal

Hawk Hawk Keurel

HawkI-Iakaoehawkl-lawk

 

511785
5124195
5131195

611485

6121M

71585

7112M
7119/95

712%

120

8110195
811685

9113195

912785

1014195

10111/%

1011885

10125195

111185

111885

11115195
1112285
11130195
1216/95

1211385

 

 

APPENDIX D

Ruﬂ‘ed grouse trapping record for Huron National Forest (HNF) and Pigeon River
Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1993 and 1994.

121

Table D1. Ruffed grouse trapping record for Huron National Forest (HNF) and
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1993.

 

1993
HNF PRCSF
Open Closed Open Closed
No. of No. of No.01 No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of
traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse

 

 

 

Date set trapped set trapped set trapped set trapped
814 -' - - - 23 0 23 0
815 - - 12 2 23 2 23 0
816 12 0 12 0 23 2 23 0
817 12 0 24 0 22 0 23 1
818 12 0 24 0 22 0 23 1
819 23 0 24 4 23 0 23 0
8110 23 0 24 0 23 2 23 1
8111 23 0 24 0 34 0 23 0
8112 25 0 24 1 34 0 23 0
8113 25 3 24 0 34 0 23 0
8114 11 0 24 1 34 1 23 0
8115 13 0 12 0 34 2 23 0
8116 13 0 24 0 24 0 23 0
8117 13 0 25 7 26 0 26 0
8118 24 1 25 1 26 2 26 0
8119 24 9 25 0 26 0 26 0
8120 24 3 25 1 26 0 26 2
8121 23 2 12 0 26 0 27 0
8122 23 0 12 0 26 1 27 0
8123 23 0 12 2 26 0 27 0
8124 23 0 12 1 26 1 27 0
8125 25 0 25 0 26 3 27 0
8126 26 0 28 1 26 1 27 0
8127 29 0 14 0 26 0 27 3
8128 14 7 29 2 26 2 27 0
8129 28 0 14 0 27 2 15 0
8130 28 0 14 0 27 0 15 0
8131 28 1 14 0 36 0 15 1
9/1 32 4 14 0 38 0 15 1
912 32 0 16 0 38 2 15 2
913 33 1 29 2 38 4 15 0
914 34 0 29 0 38 1 15 0
915 34 2 29 1 38 1 15 0
916 37 0 29 1 38 1 15 0
917 37 0 16 1 38 1 15 0
918 37 0 16 0 38 1 15 1
919 37 0 16 0 36 5 15 0
9110 37 0 29 0 36 0 15 0
9111 37 0 29 4 36 1 15 0
9112 37 1 29 0 36 3 15 0
9113 37 3 29 0 36 1 15 0
9114 - - 29 2 - - - -
9115 - - 29 1 - - - -
9116 - - 29 4 - - - -
9117 - - 19 0 - - 23 1
9118 - - 19 1 - - 34 3

122
Table D1. (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

1993
HNF PRCSF
Open Closed Open Closed

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of

traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse
Date set trapped set trapped set trapped set trapped
9119 - - 19 1 - - 34 2
9120 - - 19 0 - - 34 1
9121 - - 28 0 - - 34 3
9122 - - 32 0 - - 31 2
9123 - - 34 0 - - 31 4
9124 - - 34 4 - - 31 2
9125 - - 34 1 - - 31 0
9126 - - 34 1 - - 31 1
9127 - - 34 0 - - 31 0
9128 - - 34 3 - - 31 0
9129 - - 34 0 - - 31 0
9130 - - 34 1 - - - -
Total 1008 37 1343 51 1239 42 1266 32

 

' No traps were set.

123

Table D2. Ruffed grouse trapping record for Huron National Forest (HNF) and
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1994.

 

 

 

 

 

1994
HNF PRCSF
Open Closed Open Closed

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of

traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse
Date set trapped set trapped set trapped set trapped
816 25 0 -' - - - - -
817 25 7 - - 6 0 23 1
818 26 4 - - 6 0 28 0
819 38 0 5 0 12 0 28 0
8110 37 5 17 2 16 0 26 2
811 1 37 7 17 0 22 0 28 0
8112 39 3 18 2 22 1 28 1
8113 39 3 17 3 22 2 28 0
8114 39 0 17 1 27 0 27 2
8115 39 3 17 1 29 2 28 1
8116 39 1 17 1 30 1 28 0
8117 39 0 17 3 30 1 28 0
8118 39 0 18 0 30 1 28 0
8119 39 3 18 2 30 0 28 0
8120 39 2 18 0 30 2 28 0
8121 39 0 18 1 29 0 28 0
8122 39 1 18 1 29 0 28 0
8123 39 6 18 0 29 0 28 1
8124 37 1 18 1 30 0 28 0
8125 37 5 18 1 30 0 29 3
8126 37 3 18 2 33 0 29 1
8127 36 2 19 0 33 0 17 3
8128 36 0 19 0 32 0 17 0
8129 36 1 19 4 33 0 17 0
8130 38 8 19 0 33 0 17 0
8131 38 5 19 0 35 0 17 0
911 38 5 19 0 33 9 17 0
912 40 3 19 0 33 0 17 0
913 40 6 19 1 35 0 17 0
914 40 2 19 0 35 2 17 0
915 40 3 20 0 35 1 17 0
916 40 7 20 1 35 2 17 1
917 40 7 20 0 35 4 17 1
918 18 1 28 3 35 1 17 0
919 18 2 33 0 35 4 17 1
9110 18 0 33 3 34 0 17 0
911 1 - - 33 4 34 1 17 0
9112 - - 40 1 33 0 17 0
9113 - - 40 9 33 2 17 1
9114 - - 40 1 34 1 17 0
9115 - - 40 1 34 0 17 0
9116 - - 40 1 33 1 17 1
9117 - - 40 1 33 2 17 1
9118 - - 40 3 32 1 17 0
9119 - - 40 1 34 3 17 0
9120 - - 40 5 38 1 19 0

124
Table D2. (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 994
HNF PRCSF
Open Closed Open Closed

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of

traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse traps grouse
Date set trapped set trapped set trapped set trapped
9121 - - 42 4 38 0 19 0
9122 - - 42 6 38 3 29 0
9123 - - 42 4 18 2 29 4
9124 - - 42 2 17 1 29 1
9125 - - 42 0 19 2 29 1
9126 - - 42 0 18 0 29 1
9127 - - 42 0 18 1 32 2
9128 - - 42 0 18 0 32 0
9129 - - 42 2 17 0 32 0
9130 - - 32 1 18 0 32 1
1011 - - 32 3 18 1 32 1
1012 - - 32 5 18 1 32 1
1013 - - 32 2 18 0 32 1
1014 - - - - 18 0 32 0
1015 - - - - - - 32 0
1016 - - - - - - 33 1
1017 - - - - - - 32 1
1018 - - - - - - 33 3
1019 - - - - - - 32 0
10110 - - - - - - 32 1
1011 1 - - - - - - 30 3
10112 - - - - - - 27 1
10113 - - - - - - 22 1
10114 - - - - - - 22 0
10115 - - - - - - 22 2
10116 - - - - - - 21 0
10117 - - - - - - 16 0
Total 1283 106 1528 89 1632 56 1755 47

 

' No traps were set.

APPENDIX E

 

Band number, date entered study, date exited study, age, sex, weight, wing cord length,
and fate data collected on ruffed grouse trapped on Huron National Forest (HNF) and
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1993 and 1994.

125

TﬁleE1. mmmmmmmmmwmmmmmm.wm
ddaooleotedmnmedgromehmpedeuonWFaeeNHNﬁopenekeJm.

 

 

Date Date Wlng

Band entered noted Weight cord

no. snidy study Age Sex (9) (mm) Fate

1 9113193 11119193 HY UNK 455 57 mortality mammalian predator
2 9113193 —' HY UNK 425 95 —'
3 9119193 1131194 AHY F 390 95 mortality avian predator
4 9119193 —- HY M 339 57 --—-
5 9119193 -- HY F 295 99 ——
9 9119193 — HY UNK 270 59 -—--
7 9119193 —- HY UNK 299 59 ——
9 9119193 — HY um< 310 99 ——
9 9119193 — HY UNK 315 92 ——
10 9119193 - HY M 325 91 -—
11 911193 914193 HY M 445 94 mortality mamrnaiian predator
12 911193 12131193 HY M 450 95 mortality flew lntosomething
13 915193 514194 AHY M 530 90 mortality: nodiagnosis
101 9113193 914193 AHY F 599 95 mortality: avian predator
192 9119193 1113194 AHY F 405 59 mortality: pneumonia
103 9119193 9129193 AHY F 545 97 mortality shot
104 9120193 1113194 AHY F 430 94 mortality. neck constriction
105 9129193 —- HY M 395 94 ——
109 9129193 -- HY F 375 93 ——
197 9121193 1131194 AHY F 525 71 mortality avian predator
109 9121193 12112193 UNK F 430 91 rnortﬂlty. shot
109 9129193 - HY M 405 54 -—
110 9129193 - HY M 390 92 ——
111 9129193 -- HY F 390 59 -——
112 9129193 1219193 AHY F 430 92 rnortailty avian predator
113 9131193 — HY M 329 99 ——
114 9129193 - HY UNK 399 59 ...—-
115 9129193 -- HY M 395 59 ——
119 911193 19131193 HY M 510 93 mortality avianpredator
117 911193 9111193 HY F 430 93 mortality marnmaiian predator
119 913/93 1014193 HY F 500 95 censored
119 915193 9129193 HY M 495 59 mortality: shot
120 9112193 1111193 HY M 490 59 mortality: avian predator
121 9113193 1129194 AHY M 529 94 mortuity: avian predator
122 9113193 313194 UNK F 455 59 mortaiity avian predator
123 9113193 5112194 UNK F 455 59 mortality avian predator
193 9129193 - HY M 390 54 ——

 

'EWW'MMMWWM’MmHMMMWmN.

126

TabIeEZ. mmwdmmmduwmqemmmmwmrate
duaoolectedmmﬂedgetnetrmpedonHuenNdionaiForeeuHNHdoeedelte, 1993.

 

 

Dds Dds Wing

8nd eritered aided Weight cord

no. study study Age Sex (_g) (mm) Fate

2601 81583 --' HY UNK 250 55 -——
2992‘ 915193 9119193 HY F 399 59 mortality stress
2603" 881% 1111183 HY M 515 62 mortdlty avian predator
2604 81983 — HY UNK 360 54 ~—
2605 81983 91783 AHY F 510 58 mortality. avian predator
2606 9112193 1219193 AHY F 520 57 mortality: no diagnosis
2607 8118193 4884 AHY F 570 60 censored
2999‘ 9123193 7117194 AHY F 540 90 mortality: nodiagnosis
2609 812383 411984 HY F 570 65 mortality. avian predator
2610 812483 512984 UNK M 470 67 mortality. avian predator
2611 812683 911683 HY M 480 66 mortality munmailan predator
2612 91383 81484 HY M 430 56 alive
2613 91383 31184 AHY F 420 57 censored
2614 91583 19122193 AHY F 420 62 mortality. no diagnosis
2615 916193 9110193 AHY M 500 60 mortality avian predator
2616 91783 51484 HY F 500 62 mortality avian predator
2617 911 183 -- HY F 420 54 ---
2618 9111193 911283 HY M 440 64 mortality. stress
2619 911483 -— HY F 320 51 ~—
2620 911483 9116193 UNK M 470 55 mortality no diagnosis
2621 911583 211484 HY F 435 57 mortally avian predator
2622 911683 912083 HY F 450 57 mortality stress
2623 9116M 9120193 UNK F 480 55 mortality: hit by car
2624 911683 711884 AHY M 560 60 mortality avian predator
2625 9118193 111261“ AHY M 540 62 mortality. avian predator
2626 911983 3114194 AHY F 560 62 mortality mammalian predator
2627 9125193 1112883 AHY M 540 56 mortality: avian predator
2626 9128M 1211583 HY F 435 60 mortality. avian predator
2629 9126193 1011583 HY F 475 58 censored
2630 9126193 211484 UNK M 540 61 mortality avian predator
2631 9130193 11784 AHY M 570 65 mortality: no diagnosis
2701 811483 1111193 AHY M 530 60 mortality avian predator
2702 811783 — HY UNK 420 70 -—-
2703' 811783 5884 HY UNK 450 61 mortality: mammalian predator
2704 9117193 -- HY UNK 410 64 -——-
2705 9117193 6128193 HY F 460 65 censored
2706 811783 -- HY UNK 340 68 ——
2707 811783 512184 HY M 460 64 censored
2708 811783 -- HY M 420 62 --—
2709 81201” -— HY F 390 56 ——
2710 812883 -- HY UNK 400 56 —-—
2711 9129193 913083 HY UNK 420 65 mortality. avian predator
2712 911183 9114193 HY F 390 62 mortality. stress
2713 911 183 9113193 AHY F 430 58 mortality: stress
2714 9124193 9130193 AHY M 600 68 mortality. avian predator
2715 912683 113184 UNK F 490 62 mortality: avian predator

 

'Entrieswlthout'dateoutofstudy’and'fate‘dataareblrdsthatwerebandedonly.
”murdwaabandedone/5193.uwaaretrappedandradio-taggedons/14193.
°Thisbirdwasbandedon8883.itwasretrappedandradlo-taggedon912883.
‘Thlsbkdwaempturedonneston5123l94Jtsradiotransmiuerwasreplaced.
‘Thlaotdwaabandedone/17i93.twaaretappedandmdio-mogedone/27193.

 

 

 

Dds Dds
steered earned Weight
study study Age Sex (9) Fate
811% 112384 HY F 455 60 mortality. evict predator
811883 311284 AHY F 555 60 censored
884% 81484 AHY F 515 60 alive
612583 912083 AHY F 475 59 mortality. mammalian pram
91121% 9120193 HY F 4% 60 censored
911283 91151% HY M 400 55 mortality: shot
911283 91151% AHY M 490 59 mortality: 91101
911483 121181% HY F 490 55 censored
91283 11484 AHY M 535 99 mortality. mammeIan preddor
91283 1213183 AHY F 520 63 mortality avian predator
91383 1013193 AHY F 4% 58 mortality: snot
981% 91161% HY M 470 55 mortality: snot
914193 5116194 AHY M 535 99 censored
91783 1213183 AHY M 480 65 mortality: avian predator
981% 918193 AHY M 540 61 censored
919193 91101% AHY M 510 62 mortalky marnrnsisn preddor
815193 68384 AHY F 480 60 unwed
881% 111984 HY M 340 55 censored
881% 8113193 AHY M 575 63 mortally. avian predict
61683 121311% HY F 485 59 mortality avian predator
811083 613083 AHY F 515 56 mortality traurnslsutiocstlon
8110193 101183 HY M 400 55 censored
811483 81484 AHY F 395 64 alive
8115/% 111184 AHY M 530 66 mortally. avian predator
81181% 91131% HY F 430 55 triortaiity. avian predator
812283 911783 AHY F 470 59 morality traumalsuftocdlon
81251% 91201% HY F 460 60 censored
6126193 1112193 HY M 510 62 censored
81251% —' HY UNK 440 59 -—-
81281% 91131% HY F 35 59 mortality pulmonary congestion
81261% - HY F 375 57 —-
981% 215194 AHY M 475 66 mortality avian predator
91383 916/% HY F 415 63 mortality stem
951% 111161% HY F 410 59 mortality. avian predator
911183 1111783 AHY M 575 60 mortality avian predator
981% 101683 HY F 405 56 mortality: shot
812983 91283 HY M 450 62 censored
812983 1011183 AHY M 510 60 mortality. shot
bended

'Entrleswithou'deteoutotstudy’and'fate'dmarebirdsthdwere

128

TwleE4. mmwmummdummape.mwammcadmwm
ducohdsdmmﬂsdgrmnshppedeigeonRNqum-ysmteFueGWRCSﬁdoeedsue.19%.

 

 

Date Due Wing

801d entered sxled Weight cord

no. study study Age Sex (2) (mm) Fate

6001 881% 112384 AHY M 440 59 mortality. mammalian predator
6002 81201% 812183 HY F 335 54 mottaﬂty: stress
6003 812083 812183 AHY F 415 60 mortality stress
$04 812783 81484 HY F 430 56 alive
$05 812783 612884 HY F 425 59 censored
$06 812783 101783 AHY F 4$ 56 mortally avian preducr
$09 911883 6110194 AHY F 470 57 censored
6010 91181% 128193 AHY M 490 58 mortality no diagnosis
6011 911883 9120193 HY M 4$ 59 morality. stress
6012 91211% —' AHY M - - —-—
$13 91211% 511784 AHY M 540 57 niortailty: avian predator
$14 912283 111984 HY M 505 54 mortality. exposure/manualtion
$15 912283 411784 AHY M $0 62 censored
$16 91231% 1130194 HY M 525 59 mortality: rnamrnaiian predator
$17 912383 — AHY M 590 65 ——-
$18 9124/% 101283 HY F 465 56 mortality drowned
6101 81783 101483 AHY M 550 $ mortality: avian predator
6102 811083 12123193 AHY F 445 59 censored
9193“ 9131193 5122194 HY F 399 57 mortality mammalian predator
6104 91183 712384 AHY F 570 64 censored
6105 91283 915193 HY F 400 $ mortality. mammalian predator
6106 981% 81484 AHY M 530 63 alive
6107 91883 212084 AHY M 520 66 censored
6106 911983 10121% AHY F 415 54 mortality. avian predator
6109 91191% 121383 HY F 470 56 censored
6110 91211% 814194 AHY M 570 59 alive
6211 912483 1211883 AHY M 510 62 censored
6301 91201% 111184 AHY M 6$ 59 censored
$02 912383 81484 AHY F 445 59 alive
$03 9123/% 612984 AHY M 570 61 censored

 

‘Emieewmm'dateanoretudyandtate'dataareurdauetmeandedonly.
’ThbbirdensmceptundonneetonS/ZOIMJtsmdbhansmitterwesreplaced.

129

TableES. mm.mmm,mmdtedsunyage.sex.wdgmmcadbngmam19te
datacolectedonmftedgrousetappedeumnNdimaIForest(HNF)opensﬂe,1994.

 

 

Date Due Wing

Band entered exited Weight cord

no. study study Age Sex (L (m) Fate

14 81784 7123195 HY M 350 55 censored
15 81884 —' HY UNK 300 55 -——-
16 81884 9126194 HY M 340 $ mortality. abscess. sultocetlon
17 61884 -- HY M 280 50 ——
18 8110194 8116194 HY F 420 65 mortality: mammalian predator
19 811184 811784 HY UNK 3$ 55 mortality avian predator
20 811184 -- HY UNK 300 62 ——
21 811184 8118194 HY F 350 $ mortality no diagnosis
22 811184 -— HY F 330 58 ——
24 811184 811384 HY M 370 $ mortality: stress
25 8113194 811484 HY F 350 $ mortality. stress
26 8116194 - HY F 320 52 ——
27 8123194 91184 HY F 395 64 mortality mammaim predator
28 812384 911884 HY F 405 58 mortality shot
29 812994 31285 AHY F 590 62 mortality rnamrnallan predator
30 8126194 4118195 HY M 460 58 mortality avian predator
31‘ 9129194 914195 HY F 410 or alive
32 8126194 412485 AHY F 515 64 censored
33 812984 101484 HY F 370 55 mortality mammalian predator
34 813084 -- HY F 390 53 -—
35" 813084 814195 HY M 435 59 alive
36 8130194 — HY F 360 59 —-
37 8130194 — HY UNK 430 55 —--
38 8130194 12113194 HY F 470 55 censored
39 813184 31151% HY F 400 57 rnortallty mammalian predator
40 91184 6124195 AHY F 575 61 censored
41 91184 —- HY F 3$ 55 —--
42 913194 1218194 HY M 470 $ mortality. avian predator
43 91484 1012784 AHY M 555 59 mortality. avian predator
44 91684 814195 HY M 500 59 alive
45 91684 814195 HY M 575 61 alive
46 916194 -- HY M 455 56 --—
47 916194 312285 HY M 480 57 mortality avian predator
48 91684 1011084 HY M 430 58 mortality no diagnosis
49 91784 9115194 HY M 355 57 mortality mammalian predator
50 91784 - HY M 470 59 ——
51 91784 911284 HY M 450 57 mortality: stress
52 91784 —- HY F 400 58 —-
53 91784 11112194 AHY M 545 61 mortality shot
54 91784 — HY M 440 56 ——
124 817194 512785 AHY F 415 58 mortality. no diagnosis
125 81784 -— HY UNK 270 56 -———
126 81784 -- HY UNK 300 57 -——
127 81784 -— HY UNK 270 56 ----
126 81784 — HY UNK 230 52 —--
129 81784 — HY F 225 52 ---—
130 811084 — HY F 315 61 -—
131 811084 — HY F 285 59 --—
132 811084 811484 HY F 365 $ mortality: stress
133 8110194 912784 HY F 395 $ mortalltyﬂewlntosideofhouse
134 811184 91584 HY F 320 50 mortality trauma
135 811184 81485 HY M 350 65 alive
136 811284 1016194 AHY F 490 52 mortality mammalian predator

 

‘55

130

 

 

Table as. (cont'd)

Dds Date Wing
Band entered oidtod Weight cord
no. study study Age Sex Q (m) Fate
137 9113194 —- HY UNK 399 59 ——
139 9113194 -- HY F 329 99 -—-
139 9115194 9113194 HY F 379 59 censored
149' 9115194 914195 HY F 399 92 alive
141 9115194 9123194 HY F 399 91 momlrty avian predator
142 9119194 9125194 HY M 449 99 mortatrty trauma. surrocetion
143' 9119194 914195 HY F 399 54 alive
144 9119194 9122194 HY F 399 99 mortality stress
145 612084 21785 HY M 350 55 censored
149' 9129194 914195 HY F 429 59 alive
147' 9122194 9129195 AHY F 445 59 mortality unknown
149 9123194 914195 AHY M 595 94 alive
149 9123194 3129195 HY F 359 54 mortality avian predator
159 9123194 19129194 AHY M 419 55 censored
151 9123194 914195 AHY M 549 59 alive
152 9124194 11117194 HY F 399 57 mortality avian produor
153 9125194 - HY M 399 54 —-
154 9125194 914195 AHY M 549 59 alive
155 9125194 4125195 AHY F 419 99 mortality mammalian prom
159" 9125194 914195 AHY F 479 59 alive
157 9127194 9119194 HY M 429 59 mortality ehot
159 9127194 914195 HY M 419 99 alive
159 9139194 911194 HY F 379 59 mortality pulmortary congestion
199 9139194 — HY M 399 59 ——
191 9139194 — AHY M 529 94 —-
192 9131194 912194 HY F 439 99 mortality mammalian predator
193 9131194 919195 HY F 54 censored
194' 9131194 9121195 HY F 419 59 mortality mammalian predator
195 911194 9112194 HY F 499 91 mortality avian predator
199 911194 913194 HY F 449 59 mortality stress
197 911194 914195 AHY M 479 95 alive
199' 912194 914195 AHY F 495 59 alive
199‘ 912194 914195 HY F 479 91 alive
179 912194 — AHY M 429 99 —
171 913194 7117195 HY M 419 59 mortality avian predator
172 913194 914195 HY M 475 92 alive
173‘ 913194 914195 UNK F 445 57 alive
174 913194 1911194 UNK M 495 99 mortality shot
175 913194 19119194 HY M 395 55 mortality shot
179 914194 119195 HY M 459 55 censored
177 915194 914195 HY M 495 59 alive
179 915194 5129195 HY F 355 59 mortality mammalian predator
179 91594 914195 HY M 445 59 alive
199 919194 1919194 HY F 375 59 mortality: shot
181 91684 029% HY M 435 $ mortality pulmomry congestion
192 919194 914195 AHY M 499 99 alive
193 99194 9119194 HY M 495 55 mortality trauma
194 919194 - HY M 439 55 --—

 

‘Enhbswﬂitom'dateunotsmdymdhte'dataambirdsﬂutmbandedmly.

“ This bird was recaptured by night-lighting on 9114195. its radio transmitter was replaced.
° Title bird was recaptured by night-lighting on 611285, its radio transmitter was replaced.

‘Titahtdmmcspnaodorrrtooton912195,tomdrooammidorwaorepiocod.
'Thlsbirdwasrecsptuedonneston6l185.ltemdiouansmluerwasmplaced.

13 1
Tattle £5. (corfd)

 

rThisblrdwasrecapturedonneston6123195.ltsradiotrartsmitterwasreplaced.
'ThisblrdwasrecapturedmnestonS/Z685Jtsmdioﬂansmluerwasmpbced.
"Thisbirdwasrecaptured bynlght-lightingon81385. itsradio transmitterwas replaced.
'ThiablrdwasrecapturedonnedonS/1985Jtsradlotransmitterwas replaced.
’Thisbirdwasrecepturedonneeton611585.ltsradiotransmltterwasreplaced.
'ThbHrdwasncaptuodbymgra4ighdngm7129195,tomdiotansmiuawaonpaced.
'Thisbkdwasmcaptuedonneston611285,lsmdb9ar'tsmitterwasmplaced.

 

132

TabisEB. mw.mmm.mwedm,age.mmgmmcadbngmamm
datacollectedonrufledgrousetrappedonHuronNationai Forest(HNF)cloeedsite.1994.

 

 

on Date Wing

Band entered exited Weight cord

no study study Age Sex Q (m) Fate

2001 911284 911684 HY F 455 64 mortality: mammalian predator
2002 912084 1012284 AHY M 510 57 mortality no diagnosis
2003 9120194 914195 HY F 515 55 alive
2004 912184 1012384 AHY F 520 59 mortality abecesdsutfocetlon
2612' 101384 81485 AHY M 570 59 alive
2$3 916194 101684 HY F $5 55 csrtsored
2934 919194 —‘ HY M 499 59 —-
2635 91884 911984 HY M 510 61 moruity pul'nomry congestion
2637 9110194 1011684 HY F 460 58 censored
2$8 911184 1011984 HY M 490 56 mortality avian pram
26$ 911384 111284 HY F 370 55 censored
2640 911684 312585 HY F 420 55 censored
2641 911784 612185 AHY F 465 59 mortality avian predator
$42 911884 581% HY M 515 57 mortality. mammalian predator
$43 9116194 1112884 AHY M 555 $ mortality avian predator
2644 911984 614195 HY M 520 57 alive
$45 912184 12110194 HY F 470 56 censored
$46 912184 81485 AHY M ' 520 61 alive
2647 9123194 1213184 AHY M 570 61 mortality avian predator
$46 912484 3125195 AHY M 550 55 censored
$49 101184 111785 AHY M 650 66 mortality mammalian predator
2650 101284 -- HY M 550 $ ---
2661 101284 121184 HY M $0 $ mortality avian predator
2652 101284 10130194 HY F 470 56 censored
2653 1013194 -- HY M 550 59 ——
$77 912984 1111184 AHY M 610 65 mortalltyavlanpredator
2716 611084 513195 AHY F 490 56 mortaﬁty mammahn predator
2717 811284 1124195 AHY F 440 54 mortality no diagnosis
2718 811284 1213184 HY UNK 335 50 rnortallty no diagnosis
2719 811384 — HY F $0 50 ~—
2720 8113194 1111384 HY M 455 58 mortality trauma/abscess
2721 811384 -— AHY M $0 56 -—--
2722 611484 612084 AHY M 535 62 mortality pulmonary congesh'on
2724° 811584 81485 AHY F 530 58 alive
2725 6116194 612084 AHY M 470 56 mortality: stress
2729'I 9117194 914195 HY F 399 59 alive
2727 611784 118195 AHY F 465 58 censored
2726 6119194 612184 AHY F 430 66 mortality mammalian predator
2729 611984 — HY F 315 55 --—
2730 612184 31185 HY M 430 55 mortality no diagnosis
2731 812284 912684 HY F 370 56 mortality avian predator
2732 612484 412185 AHY F 465 61 censored
2733 6125194 31185 AHY M 435 $ mortality mammalian predator
2734 612684 1213184 HY F 390 56 mortality avian predator
2735 612684 612984 AHY M 4$ $ rnortallty avian predator
2736 612984 6130194 HY M 435 59 mortality: stress
2737 612984 91184 HY M 4$ 64 rnortallty strea
2736 612984 91184 AHY F 455 59 mortality pulmonary congestion
2739' 612984 614195 AHY M 440 61 alive
2740 91384 121484 AHY M 490 62 mortality mammalian predator
2741 916194 98194 HY M 510 59 mortality mammalian predator
2742 911084 1112484 AHY M 550 56 mortality avian predator
2743 911084 -— UNK M 500 59 —-

 

T899 ES. (add)

133

 

 

Date Due Wing

Band entered exited Weight cord

no. study study Age star (9) (mm) Fate

2744 9111194 9117194 HY M 4m 90 mortality trauma
2745' 9111194 922195 HY F 410 59 mortality no diaprioaia
2749 9113194 1013194 HY F 370 55 censored
2747 9113194 914195 HY M 470 59 alive
2749 9113194 — HY F 445 57 ——--
2749 9113194 2114195 HY M 470 90 mortality rnanrnalian predator
2750 9113194 2114195 HY F 415 57 mortality avian predator
2751 9113194 12125194 AHY M 495 59 mortality: avian predator
2752 9113194 311195 HY M 510 59 mortality avian predator
2753 9113194 - HY M 345 53 ——
2754 9114194 1219194 AHY M 445 57 mortality mammalian predator
2755 9115194 10123194 HY F 395 59 mortality avian prod-tor
2755 9119194 — HY M 545 90 ——
2757 9120194 — HY M 440 59 —-
2759 9120194 3111195 HY M 495 57 censored
2759 9120194 914195 AHY M 550 59 sllve
2790 9121194 914195 HY M 490 51 alive
2791 9122194 1013194 HY M 450 59 censored
2792 9122194 5115195 HY F 405 57 mortality: avian predator
2793 9122194 9119195 HY F 390 53 censored
2794 9122194 — HY M 420 59 ——
2795 9122194 - HY M 445 57 ——
2799 9193194 1117195 HY M 445 54 mortally avian predator
2797 9123194 12125194 AHY M 590 59 mortality avian produor
2799 9123194 914195 HY M 535 59 alive
2799 9124194 - AHY F 470 57 _
2770 9129194 11112194 HY F 430 57 censored
2771 9130194 1124195 HY F 490 59 mortality avian predator
2772 101184 101584 HY M 530 60 mortality pulmonary congestion
2773 1011194 12131194 HY M 570 59 mortality: avian predator
2774 1012194 5110195 HY M 515 94 mortality avian predator
2775 1012194 111195 AHY F 470 59 mortality. no diagnosis
2779 1013194 — HY M 535 90 ——

 

iThis19$tlirdvirasrecspmrsdlayniglit-Bgtitlngon101384and7l13195.itsradiotrarrsmlttervrras
replacedonbotllccoesions.

”Enuieovnuiorn'datounoratudyaid'mdatamurdoduwarabandodmiy.
‘Thisbirdwasreospturedonmeton61985,itsmdbtensmitterwasreplaced.

‘This birdwas recaptured bynight-lightingon 711785. its radio transmitterwas replaced.
'ThbbkdwasnceptuedbyniglﬂJigtMmB/ZMJtsmdbhansnﬁuuwesmpbced.

'ThlsbirdwasrecaptuedmnestonS/1785Jtsmdiohansmﬂbrwasreplaced.

 

134

TwleET. MnunbaﬁlsmsdsunydueodhdsunyagmsmmigmwhgcadbmmAmm
ddscollectedonrufiedgrousetrappedonPigeon RiverCountryStateForest(PRCSF)openslte,1994.

 

 

Date Date Wing
Band entered exited Weimt cord
no. study study Age Sex (1) (mm) Fate
4003' 81584 8124194 AHY F 515 60 censored
46$ 611284 1011284 AHY M 530 50 mortdlty mammalian predator
4610 811384 8128194 HY M 4$ 50 rnortailty unknown cause
4611 811384 121784 HY F 365 40 censored
4612 8115194 612184 AHY M 490 60 mortality collar twisted
4614 811584 812184 HY M 360 40 mortality collar twisted
4615 811684 101184 HY M 360 60 mortality: snot
4616 8118194 9115194 AHY M 460 65 censored
4617 6120194 1125195 AHY F 430 75 mortality avian predator
4618 8120194 91484 HY UNK 360 60 censored
4619 91184 101984 HY M 500 60 nrortality: shot
4620 91184 913194 AHY M 500 72 mortality stress
4921 911194 —' AHY M 500 90 -—-
4622 91184 412185 AHY M 450 65 censored
4624 914194 915194 HY F 465 57 censored
46$ 91584 212285 UNK F 465 59 momtlty avian predator
46$ 91784 — HY F 545 60 —--
4627 916194 91984 HY M 455 56 censored: transmitter removed
4626 91784 1111784 HY M 580 60 mortaMy avian predator
46$ 917194 911784 HY M 530 59 mortality shot
4630 917194 -- HY M 550 56 --—
4631 911184 411885 AHY UNK 510 60 censored
4633 911384 111785 AHY M 535 62 censored
4634 911384 1211984 AHY F 5$ 59 mortality unknown cause
4707 914194 1111084 AHY F 420 65 mortality avian predator
4720 91184 61485 HY F 360 56 dive
4721 91184 718195 HY UNK 450 62 censored
4723 91184 1011284 HY UNK 46 57 censored
4724 91184 — HY F 455 59 ----
47$ 91184 91284 HY F 390 57 mortality stress
4726 916194 911284 AHY F 420 57 censored: transmitter removed
4727 91884 6123195 AHY M 515 60 censored
4726 911684 814195 AHY M 520 64 alive
47$ 91984 — HY M - - ---
4730 9884 -- HY F — — —-
4731 98194 — AHY M 520 55 ---—
4732 9884 81485 HY F 410 54 alive
4733 911784 311485 AHY F 460 58 censored
4734 911784 1111084 HY M 465 62 mortality avian predator
4735 911684 1018194 HY M 5$ 62 censored
4736 9119194 112585 AHY M 500 60 censored
4737 911984 9126194 AHY F 460 61 mortality trauma
4736 9119194 21185 AHY M 520 62 mortality avian preddor
47$ 912284 1012284 HY F 470 59 censored
4740 912184 1211684 AHY M 515 65 censored
4741 912284 10115194 UNK M 540 60 mortality shot
4742 912284 1011484 HY M 540 60 mortality shot
4743 912384 412585 AHY M 530 58 mortality: mammalian predator
4744 9123194 81485 AHY M 535 58 alive
4745 912484 114195 AHY F 510 56 censored
4746 9125194 5119195 HY F 475 57 mortality avian predator
4747 9l$84 1011984 HY F 475 56 censored
4748 912784 212285 HY F 575 61 rnortallty avian predator

 

135
Table E7. (cont‘d)

 

 

on Date Wing
Band entered ended Weight cord
no. study study Age Sex (_g) (mm) Fate
4749 101184 1011284 AHY F 4$ 65 censored
4750 101284 4121M HY M 515 57 mortality avian predator

 

'Thb1993Wmdiwwﬂrafmcdonthatdnshﬂofﬂn1mmpplngm.
bEntrieswltliotit'ddsctltotshldyand'fwe'dataarebirdsttistmreberldedonly.

136

TablsE6. Burdnunbawddemeddudyddeodbdshnyagesuwdglkwhgcadlmgthandm
datacolectedonrul'ledgousetrmpedonPigsoanverCountryStateForest(PRCSF)closedslte.1994.

 

 

Dds Dds Wing

Band entered exited Weight cord

no. study study Age Sex (9) (mm) Fate

6004r 815/94 8115194 AHY F 430 56 censored
6106 61784 912684 AHY M 500 -— censored: transmitter removed
6110 101784 81485 AHY M 585 60 alive
6112 6123/94 2128/95 AHY F 4% 55 mortality avian predator
6113 811084 912484 AHY F 460 61 mortality unknown cause
6114 811484 211785 UNK F 445 57 mortality: avian predator
6115 8114194 1013084 HY M 445 62 mortality avian predator
6116 8125194 81485 AHY F 555 57 alive
6117 812584 1013194 HY F 415 54 censored
6118 81$84 8128194 UNK M 500 57 mortality: collar twisted
6120 8126194 612784 HY F 415 56 censored: transmitter removed
5121 9127194 —" HY F 490 55 ——
6122 612784 8126194 UNK M 510 60 mortality mammalian predator
6123 812784 -- AHY M 505 56 -—
6124" 91684 814195 AHY F 500 57 alive
61$ 91784 911884 AHY M 420 50 censored
61$ 919194 412485 AHY M 5% 70 mortality avian predator
6127 911384 -- HY UNK 4% 55 ——
6128 911684 121184 AHY M 605 60 mortalityavimpreddor
61$ 911784 912384 HY F 400 50 mortality avian predator
6130 912384 81485 HY F 4% 57 alive
6131 912384 101184 AHY UNK 575 62 mortally avian predator
6132 912384 111784 AHY M 510 60 morality unknown predator
6133 9123194 1111 194 HY M 440 57 censored
6134 912484 1012284 HY F 430 58 censored
6135 912784 814195 AHY M 540 — alive
6136 913084 211195 AHY M 535 56 lriortality avian predator
6137 101184 31151$ UNK M 5% 57 mortality unimown cause
5139‘ 1013194 914195 HY F 470 59 alive
61$ 1011184 71285 AHY F 475 56 cornered
6140' 1011284 21185 AHY F 505 56 censored
6141 10113194 10115194 HY M 5% 62 censoredztransmitterremoved
5142' 10115194 914195 HY F 470 55 alive
6143 1011584 1111684 HY UNK 495 57 censored
$02' 61584 12884 AHY F 445 59 censored
6304 8110194 5120195 AHY F 460 70 mortality unknown cause
6305 811284 912194 AHY M 430 75 mortality mammalian predator
$06 8115194 9110194 AHY M 450 60 censored
$07 91$84 21185 AHY M 475 60 mortality avian predator
63$ 912684 2122195 HY F 500 59 censored
$09 912784 1212084 AHY M 555 63 censored
$11 1018194 814195 UNK F 515 57 alive
$12 101684 1011984 AHY F 5% 56 censored
$13 1018194 1125195 HY F 535 63 mortality avian predator
6314 1018194 11885 HY F 470 59 mortality avhn predator
$15 1011084 12115194 AHY UNK 455 56 mortality avianpredator
$16 1011184 - UNK M 550 60 --—
6317 1011184 1112284 HY M $0 60 rnortallty avianpredator

 

 

'Tlus1$3NMWaﬂvewﬂlaMncdonkrgtanemRtumﬂusmnofﬂn1994Mppimsuson.

“Emiaavwm'datoanolatudyandtato'dataamblrdsuetmbandodmy.
cThlsbirdwasrecspturedonnestcn6/1l95.itsradiotrarismltterwasreplaced.
'TNsbirdwasncqiuedonnestonmJtsmdbhansminerwasmphced.

137
Table 59. (oorlrd)

 

'Thisbird'sactusliuewesmortalltyduetothscoilarclioldngit. Sincethisnotanaturalceussotdsathand
thebirdlvedvvelbsyondeayskhasbeenclassitiedascensored.
'ﬂisbkdwasmcsphuedonnsstonSBMSJsmdiotansmlterwasrepiaced.

 

APPENDIX F

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruﬂ‘ed grouse radio-tagged on Huron National Forest
(HNF) and Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) study areas, 1993 and 1994.

138

Table F1. Kaplan—Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on Huron
National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993.

 

 

N0. at N0. N0. N0. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5 [t]) SE.
1 8113193 2 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00

6 8118193 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 00E+00

7 8119193 5 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00

8 8120193 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
9 812183 8 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
16 8128/93 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
20 911193 12 0 0 3 1.0000 0.00E+00
22 913193 13 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
23 914193 13 1 0 0 0.9231 7.10E-02
24 915193 14 0 0 2 0.9231 6.84E-02
30 9111193 14 1 0 0 0. 8571 8665-02
31 9112193 14 0 0 1 0.8571 8.66E-02
32 9113193 17 0 0 3 0.8571 7.86E-02
39 9120193 17 1 0 0 0. 8067 8.60E-02
40 9121193 16 0 0 0 0.8067 8.87E-02
45 9126193 16 1 0 0 0.7563 9.33E-02
46 9127193 15 0 0 0 0. 7563 9.64E—02
53 1014/93 15 0 1 0 0. 7563 9645-02
54 1015193 14 0 0 0 0. 7563 9.98E-02
80 10131193 14 1 0 0 0.7023 1.02E-01
81 1111/93 13 1 0 0 0.6483 1.07E-01
82 1112193 12 0 0 0 0.6483 1.11E-01
98 11118193 12 1 0 0 0.5942 1.09E-01
99 11119193 11 0 0 0 0.5942 1.14E-01
118 1218193 11 1 0 0 0.5402 1.10E-01
119 1219193 10 0 0 0 0.5402 1.16E-01
122 12112193 10 1 0 0 0.4862 1.10E-01
123 12113193 9 0 0 0 0.4862 1.16E-01
141 12131193 9 1 0 0 0.4322 1.09E-01
142 111194 8 0 0 0 0.4322 1.15E—01
154 1113194 8 2 0 0 0. 3241 9.42E—02
155 1114194 6 0 0 0 0.3241 1.09E-01
167 1126194 6 1 0 0 0.2701 9425-02
168 1127194 5 0 0 0 0.2701 1 .03E—01
172 1131194 5 2 0 0 0.1621 6635-02
173 211194 3 0 0 0 0.1621 8.57E-02
203 313194 3 1 0 0 0.1080 5.89E-02
204 314194 2 0 0 0 0.1080 7.22E-02
265 514194 2 1 0 0 0.0540 3.72E-02
266 515194 1 0 O 0 0.0540 5.25E-02
273 5112194 1 1 0 0 0.0000 0.00E+00

 

139

Table F2. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged 0n

Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993.

 

 

N0. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added ( S‘ [tn 8. E.
1 8113193 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00

6 811 8193 2 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.00E+00

7 8119193 4 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.00E+00

8 8120193 5 0 0 1 1 .0000 0. 00E+00

9 8121193 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.00E+00
16 8128193 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
23 914/93 7 1 0 0 0.8571 1.22E-01
24 915193 7 0 0 1 0.6571 1228-01
32 9113193 8 0 0 1 0.8571 1.15E-01
39 9120193 6 1 0 0 0.7500 1335-01
40 9121193 7 0 0 0 0.7500 1.42E-01
116 1216193 7 1 0 0 0.6429 1.45E-01
119 128193 6 0 0 0 0.6429 1.57E—01
154 1113194 6 2 0 0 0.4286 1.32E-01
155 1114194 4 0 0 0 0.4286 1.62E-01
167 1126194 4 1 0 0 0.3214 1325-01
168 1127194 3 0 0 0 0.3214 1.53E—01
172 1131194 3 2 0 0 0.1071 5.85E-02
173 211194 1 0 0 0 0.1071 1.01 E-01
$5 514194 1 1 O 0 0.0000 0.00E+00

 

140

Table F3. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5” [t]) SE.
1 8113193 1 O 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
20 911/93 4 0 0 3 1.0000 0.00E+00
22 913193 5 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.00E+00
24 915193 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0. 00E+00
30 911 1193 6 1 0 0 0.8333 1.39E-01
31 9112193 6 0 0 1 0.8333 1.39E-01
45 9126193 6 1 0 0 0.6944 1 .57E-01
46 9127193 5 0 0 0 0.6944 1 .72E-01
53 1014/93 5 0 1 0 0.6944 1.72E-01
54 1015193 4 0 0 0 0.6944 1.92E-01
80 10131193 4 1 0 0 0.5208 1.80E-01
81 1111193 3 1 0 0 0.3472 1.62E-01
82 1 112193 2 0 0 0 0.3472 1.98E-01
98 11118193 2 1 0 0 0:1736 1.12E-01
99 11119193 1 0 0 0 0.1736 1.58E-01
141 12131193 1 1 0 0 0.0000 0.00E+00

 

141

Table F4. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged 0n

Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added 1 5‘ [tn 8. E.
1 911193 2 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00

5 91583 4 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
12 911283 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
13 911383 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
26 9126193 6 1 0 0 0.8333 1 .395—01
27 912783 5 0 0 0 0.8333 1.52E-01
61 1013183 5 1 0 0 0.6667 1.72E—01
62 111183 4 1 0 0 0.5000 1.77E—01
63 1112193 3 0 0 0 0.5000 2.04E-01
122 1213183 3 1 0 0 0.3333 1.57E-01
123 11184 2 0 0 0 0.3333 1925-01
148 1126194 2 1 0 0 0.1667 1.08E-01
149 1127194 1 0 0 0 0.1667 1.525-01
246 514194 1 1 0 0 0.0000 0.00E+00

 

142

Table F5. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1993.

 

 

N0. at N0. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added ( S‘ [1]) S. E.
1 8113193 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00

6 8118193 2 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00

7 8119193 4 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.00E+00

8 8120193 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
9 612183 7 0 0 2 1.0000 0008-00
16 8128193 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
20 91183 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
22 913193 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
23 914193 10 1 0 0 0.9000 9.00E-02
24 915193 9 0 0 0 0.9000 9.49E-02
30 911183 9 1 0 0 0.8000 1.19E-01
31 9112193 8 0 0 0 0.8000 1.26E-01
32 9113193 10 0 0 2 0.8000 1.13E-01
39 9120193 10 1 0 0 0.7200 1 .20E-01
40 9121/93 9 0 0 0 0.7200 1.27E-01
53 101483 9 0 1 0 0.7200 1.27E-01
54 101583 8 0 0 0 0. 7200 1 .35E-01
118 1218193 8 1 0 0 0.6300 1.355-01
119 1219193 7 0 0 0 0.6300 1455-01
122 1211283 7 1 0 0 0.5400 1.38E-01
123 12113193 6 0 0 0 0.5400 1.50E—01
154 1113194 6 2 0 0 0.3600 1.18E—01
155 111484 4 0 0 0 0.3600 1.44E-01
172 113184 4 2 0 0 0.1800 8.15E-02
173 211194 2 0 0 0 0.1800 1.15E-01
203 31384 2 1 0 0 0.0900 6.07E-02
204 31484 1 0 0 0 0.0900 8.59E-02
273 5112194 1 1 0 0 0.0000 0.00E+00

 

 

143

Table F6. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on Huron
National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (§ [1]) SE.
1 8113193 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

2 8114193 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005400

5 811 7193 5 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00

6 811883 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
11 8123193 8 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005000
12 8124193 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
14 8126193 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
15 8127193 1 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
16 8128193 12 0 1 1 1.0000 0.005+00
22 913193 13 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005100
24 915193 14 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005+00
26 917193 15 1 0 1 0.9333 6225-02
27 918193 14 0 0 0 0. 9333 6445-02
34 9115193 15 0 0 1 0.9333 6225-02
35 9116193 16 1 0 1 0.8750 7735-02
36 9117193 15 0 0 0 0.8750 7.995-02
37 9118193 16 0 0 1 0.8750 7735-02
38 9119193 17 0 0 1 0.8750 7.505-02
43 912483 18 0 0 1 0.8750 7295-02
44 9125193 19 0 0 1 0.8750 7.105-02
45 9126193 20 0 0 1 0.8750 6925-02
47 9128193 24 0 0 4 0. 8750 6. 31 5-02
49 9130/93 25 2 0 1 0.8050 7.1 1E-02
50 1011193 23 0 0 0 0.8050 7.415-02
64 10115193 23 0 1 0 0.8050 7.415-02
65 10116193 22 0 0 0 0.8050 7.585-02
71 10122193 22 1 0 0 0.7684 7885-02
72 10123193 21 0 0 0 0. 7684 8075-02
81 1111193 21 1 0 0 0.7318 8275—02
82 1 112193 20 0 O 0 0.7318 8475-02
91 1 111 1193 20 1 0 0 0.6952 8585-02
92 11112193 19 0 0 0 0.6952 8.81 E—02
106 11126193 19 1 0 0 0.6586 8835-02
107 1 1127193 18 0 0 0 0.6586 9. 075-02
108 11128193 18 1 0 0 0.6220 9015-02
109 11129193 17 0 0 0 0.6220 9285-02
1 19 1219193 17 1 0 0 0.5855 9145-02
120 12110193 16 0 0 0 0.5855 9425-02
125 12115193 16 1 0 0 0. 5489 9225-02
1$ 1211683 15 0 0 0 0.5489 9525-02
148 11784 15 1 0 0 0.5123 9245-02
149 118194 14 0 0 0 0.5123 9565-02
172 1131194 14 1 0 0 0.4757 9215-02
173 211194 13 0 0 0 0.4757 9555—02
186 2114194 13 2 0 0 0.4025 8635-02
187 2115194 1 1 0 0 0 0.4025 9385-02
201 311194 1 1 0 1 0 0.4025 9. 385—02
202 312194 10 0 0 0 0.4025 9845-02
214 3114194 10 1 0 0 0.3623 9155-02
215 3115194 9 0 0 0 0.3623 9.645-02

144
Table F6. (cont'd)

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added ( 5‘ m) S. E.
236 41584 9 0 1 0 0.3623 9645-02
237 41684 8 0 0 0 0.3623 1025-01
250 411984 8 1 0 0 0.3170 9265-02
251 412084 7 0 0 0 0.3170 9905-02
265 51484 7 1 0 0 0.2717 6765-02
266 51584 6 0 0 0 0.2717 9475-02
270 51984 6 1 0 0 0.2264 6135-02
271 511084 5 0 0 0 0.2264 6.91 E-02
276 511584 5 0 5 0 0.2264 8.91 E-02

 

145

Table F7. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5 [1]) 8.5.
1 8113193 2 0 0 0 1.0000 00051-00

2 8114193 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

6 8118193 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
11 803193 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
22 913193 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
24 915193 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
26 917193 7 1 0 0 0.8571 1225-01
27 918193 6 0 0 0 0.8571 1 .325—01
35 9116193 7 0 0 1 0.8571 1225-01
37 9118193 8 0 0 1 0.8571 1.155-01
38 9119193 9 0 0 1 0.8571 1.085-01
43 904193 10 0 0 1 0. 8571 1025-01
44 905193 11 0 0 1 0.8571 9775-02
49 913083 12 1 0 1 0.7857 1055-01
50 1011193 11 0 0 0 0.7857 1.105-01
71 1002193 11 1 0 0 0.7143 1.155-01
72 1003193 10 0 0 0 0.7143 1215-01
81 1111193 10 1 0 0 0.6429 1.21 5-01
82 110193 9 0 0 0 0.6429 1285-01
106 11126193 9 1 0 0 0.5714 1.255—01
107 1107193 8 0 0 0 0.5714 1.325-01
108 1108193 8 1 0 0 0.5000 1255-01
109 1109193 7 0 0 0 0.5000 1.345-01
119 1219193 7 1 0 0 0.4286 1225-01
120 12110193 6 0 0 0 0.4286 1.325-01
148 117194 6 1 0 0 0.3571 1.175-01
149 118194 5 0 0 0 0.3571 1 .285-01
201 311194 5 0 1 0 0.3571 1.285-01
202 30194 4 0 0 0 0.3571 1435-01
214 3114194 4 1 0 0 0.2679 1.15501
215 3115194 3 0 0 0 0.2679 1.325-01
236 415194 3 0 1 0 0.2679 1 .325-01
237 41684 2 0 0 0 0.2679 1 .625—01
276 5115194 2 0 2 0 0.2679 1.625-01

 

146

Table F8. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Fore“ (HNF) closed site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (S‘ [t]) SE.
1 811783 2 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00

7 803193 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
10 80683 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

1 1 812783 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
12 812883 6 0 1 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
18 913193 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
22 917193 7 0 0 1 1 .0000 0. 005+00
30 9115193 8 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
31 9116193 8 1 0 0 0.8750 1 .095-01
32 911 783 7 0 0 0 0.8750 1 .1 75-01
43 908193 10 0 0 3 0.8750 9785-02
45 9130193 10 1 0 0 0.7875 1.155-01
46 101183 9 0 0 0 0.7875 1 .215—01
60 10115193 9 0 1 0 0. 7875 1 .215—01
61 10116193 8 0 0 0 0. 7875 1 .285-01
87 11111193 8 1 0 0 0.6891 1.365-01
88 11112193 7 0 0 0 0.6891 1.455—01
121 1211583 7 1 0 0 0.5906 1435-01
122 12116193 6 0 0 0 0.5906 1.545-01
182 2114194 6 1 0 0 0.4922 1.435—01
183 2115194 5 0 0 0 0.4922 1.575—01
246 411 9194 5 1 0 0 0.3938 1 .375—01
247 400194 4 0 0 0 0.3938 1 .535—01
261 51484 4 1 0 0 0.2953 1.24E-01
262 51584 3 0 0 0 0.2953 1435-01
266 519194 3 1 0 0 0.1969 1 .025-01
267 5110194 2 0 0 0 0.1969 1255-01
272 5115194 2 0 2 0 0.1969 1.255—01

 

147

Table F9. Kaplan—Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ m) S. E.
1 811483 1 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.00E+00

4 811783 2 0 0 1 1.0000 0008-00

1 1 812483 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 8126193 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
21 91383 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
34 911683 6 1 0 1 0.6333 1395-01
35 911783 5 0 0 0 0.8333 1 .525-01
36 911883 6 0 0 1 0.8333 1 .395-01
42 912483 7 0 0 1 0.8333 1.$E-01
43 912583 8 0 0 1 0.8333 1205-01
46 9128193 10 0 0 2 0.8333 1065-01
46 913083 1 1 1 0 1 0.7576 1 .125-01
49 101183 10 0 0 0 0.7576 1.185—01
80 111183 10 1 0 0 0.6818 1225-01
81 1112193 9 0 0 0 0.6816 1265-01
90 1111183 9 1 0 0 0.6061 1.275—01
91 1111283 6 0 0 0 0.6061 1345-01
105 11126193 6 1 0 0 0.5303 1265-01
106 1 112783 7 0 0 0 0.5303 1.375-01
107 1112883 7 1 0 0 0.4545 1.275—01
106 1112983 6 0 0 0 0.4545 1.375-01
147 11784 6 1 0 0 0.3766 1225-01
148 116194 5 0 0 0 0.3788 1345-01
185 211484 5 1 0 0 0.3030 1.135-01
166 211584 4 0 0 0 0.3030 1.$E-01
275 511584 4 0 4 0 0.3030 1 .$E—01

 

148

Table F10. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site. 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) S. E.
1 8113193 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

5 611783 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00

6 8118193 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00

1 1 6123193 6 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
16 812883 6 0 1 0 1.0000 0.005+00
22 91383 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
24 91583 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
26 91783 8 1 0 1 0.8750 1.09E—01
27 918193 7 0 0 0 0.6750 1 .17E—01
34 911583 8 O 0 1 0.6750 1.095-01
36 911983 9 0 0 1 0.6750 1035-01
45 9126193 1 0 0 0 1 0.6750 9765-02
47 912883 12 0 0 2 0.8750 6935-02
64 1011583 12 0 1 0 0.8750 8.93E-02
65 1011683 11 0 0 0 0.8750 9335-02
71 1012283 11 1 0 0 0.7955 1085-01
72 1012383 10 0 0 0 0. 7955 1145-01
119 12883 10 1 0 0 0.7159 1215-01
120 1211083 9 0 0 0 0.7159 1275-01
125 1211583 9 1 0 0 0.6364 1265-01
126 1211683 8 0 0 0 0.6364 1.365-01
172 113184 6 1 0 0 0.5568 1315-01
173 21184 7 0 0 0 0.5566 1405-01
166 211484 7 1 0 0 0.4773 1.30E-01
187 211584 6 0 0 0 0.4773 1.41 E-01
201 31184 6 0 1 0 0.4773 1 .41E-01
202 31284 5 0 0 0 0.4773 1545-01
214 311484 5 1 0 0 0.3818 1345-01
215 311584 4 0 0 0 0.3816 1.50E—01
236 41584 4 0 1 0 0.3818 1.50E-01
237 41684 3 0 0 0 0.3818 1735-01
250 411984 3 1 0 0 0.2545 1275-01
251 412084 2 0 0 0 0.2545 1.555-01
$5 51484 2 1 0 0 0.1273 6.41 E-02
266 51584 1 0 0 0 0.1273 1195-01
276 511584 1 0 1 0 0.1273 1.19E-01

 

 

Table F11. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

149

Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (§ m) S. E.
1 6113193 5 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

2 8114193 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0. 005+00

3 8115193 6 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00

6 8116193 10 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
10 6122193 1 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005000
12 804193 12 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 805193 14 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
14 806193 15 0 0 1 1 .0000 0. OOE+00
16 608193 16 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
17 809193 17 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005+00
16 8130193 17 1 0 0 0.9412 5545-02
19 8131193 16 0 0 0 0.9412 5715-02
21 90193 16 0 0 2 0.9412 5385-02
22 913193 21 0 0 3 0.9412 4965-02
23 914193 22 0 0 1 0.9412 4875-02
24 915193 23 0 0 1 0.9412 4. 765-02
25 916193 24 0 0 1 0.9412 4665-02
26 917193 25 0 0 1 0.9412 4.575-02
30 911183 26 0 0 1 0.9412 4.48E-02
31 9112193 27 0 0 1 0.9412 4395-02
32 9113193 27 2 0 0 0.8715 6.01 E-02
33 9114193 26 0 0 1 0.6715 6135-02
35 9116193 26 1 0 0 0.6379 6625-02
36 9117193 25 1 0 0 0.8044 7.115—02
37 911883 24 0 0 0 0.8044 7265-02
39 900193 24 1 2 0 0.7709 7. 535-02
40 901193 21 0 0 0 0.7709 8055-02
50 1011193 21 0 1 0 0.7709 8055-02
51 100193 20 0 0 0 0.7709 6255-02
52 1013193 20 1 0 0 0.7324 6475-02
53 1014193 19 0 0 0 0.7324 8695-02
55 1016193 19 1 0 0 0.6936 8815-02
56 1017193 16 0 0 0 0.6936 9055-02
60 1011 1193 16 1 0 0 0.6553 9075-02
61 10112193 17 0 0 0 0.6553 9. 335-02
62 1 10193 1 7 0 1 0 0.6553 9335-02
83 1113193 16 0 0 0 0.6553 9625-02
96 11116193 16 1 0 0 0.6143 9545-02
97 1 1117193 15 1 0 0 0.5734 9675-02
96 11116193 14 0 0 0 0.5734 1.005-01
128 12118193 14 0 1 0 0.5734 1005-01
129 12119193 13 O 0 0 0.5734 1.045-01
141 12131193 13 3 0 0 0.4410 9155—02
142 11184 10 0 0 0 0.4410 1.045—01
145 114194 10 1 0 0 0.3969 9755-02
146 11584 9 0 0 0 0.3969 1.035-01
152 1111194 9 1 0 0 0.3526 9465-02
153 1112194 8 0 0 0 0.3528 1.005-01
160 1119194 6 0 1 0 0.3528 1 .005—01

Table F11. (cont'd)

150

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [tn SE.
161 100194 7 0 0 0 0. 3526 1.075—01
164 1123194 7 1 0 0 0.3024 9555-02
165 112484 6 0 0 0 0.3024 1.035-01
177 215194 6 1 0 0 0.2520 6905-02
176 216194 5 0 0 0 0.2520 9.75E-02
212 3112194 5 0 1 0 0.2520 9755-02
213 3113194 4 0 0 0 0.2520 1095-01
276 5115194 4 0 4 0 0.2520 1.095-01

 

 

 

151

Table F12. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) nifted grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ m) 8.5.
1 8113193 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

2 6114193 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

3 8115193 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005100

6 8118193 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
10 612283 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
12 604193 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 605193 8 0 0 1 1.0000 0005-1-00
17 609193 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
16 8130193 9 1 0 0 0.6669 9685-02
19 6131193 8 0 0 0 0.8669 1.055-01
21 90193 10 0 0 2 0.6869 9375-02
22 913193 12 0 0 2 0.8669 8555-02
23 914193 13 0 0 1 0.8689 6225-02
26 91783 14 0 0 1 0.8869 7925-02
30 9111193 15 0 0 1 0.6689 7655-02
36 911783 15 1 0 0 0.6296 6645-02
37 9118193 14 0 0 0 0.6296 9155-02
39 90083 14 1 0 0 0.7704 9675-02
40 90183 13 0 0 0 0.7704 1.025-01
52 1013193 13 1 0 0 0.7111 1.065-01
53 1014193 12 0 0 0 0.7111 1.105-01
60 10111193 12 1 0 0 0.6519 1115-01
61 10112193 11 0 0 0 0.6519 1.165—01
97 11117193 11 1 0 0 0.5926 1.145—01
96 11116193 10 0 0 0 0.5926 1205-01
141 12131193 10 2 0 0 0.4741 1.095-01
142 11184 6 0 0 0 0.4741 1225-01
145 114194 6 1 0 0 0.4146 1.125—01
146 115194 7 0 0 0 0.4148 1205-01
152 1111194 7 1 0 0 0.3556 1.065-01
153 1112194 6 0 0 0 0.3556 1.175-01
177 215194 6 1 0 0 0.2963 1.015-01
176 216194 5 0 0 0 0.2963 1.115—01
212 3112194 5 0 1 0 0.2963 1.115—01
213 3113194 4 0 0 0 0.2963 1245-01
276 5115194 4 0 4 0 0.2963 1.245-01

 

152

Table F13. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged
on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) SE.
1 8113193 3 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

3 8115193 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

8 8116193 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 612583 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
14 806193 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
16 608193 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
22 913193 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005000
24 915193 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005400
25 916193 1 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
31 911283 12 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
32 911383 12 2 0 0 0. 8333 9825-02
33 911483 1 1 0 0 1 0.8333 1.035-01
35 911683 11 1 0 0 0.7576 1.125-01
36 9117193 10 0 0 0 0.7576 1.1 85-01
39 900193 10 0 2 0 0. 7576 1.185-01
40 901193 8 0 0 0 0. 7576 1 .325-01
50 101183 8 0 1 0 0.7576 1.32E-01
51 1012193 7 0 0 0 0.7576 1.41 5-01
55 1016193 7 1 0 0 0.6494 1.455-01
56 101783 6 0 0 0 0.6494 1575-01
62 110193 6 0 1 0 0.6494 1575-01
63 1 113193 5 0 0 0 0.6494 1.725-01
96 11116193 5 1 0 0 0.5195 1.615—01
97 1111783 4 0 0 0 0.5195 1805-01
126 12116193 4 0 1 0 0.5195 1805-01
129 12119193 3 0 0 0 0.5195 2065-01
141 12131193 3 1 0 0 0.3463 1.625-01
142 111194 2 0 0 0 0.3463 1.965-01
160 1119194 2 0 1 0 0.3463 1.985-01
161 100194 1 0 0 0 0. 3463 2805-01
164 103194 1 1 0 0 0.0000 0.005+00

 

 

153

Table F14. Kaplan—Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site. 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5“ [11) SE.
1 6113193 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.00E+00
3 8115193 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
14 806193 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
17 6129193 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
21 90193 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005400
22 913193 6 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
23 91483 9 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005-+00
26 917193 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
30 911183 11 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
35 911683 11 1 0 0 0.9091 8265-02
36 9117193 10 0 0 0 0.9091 8675—02
50 101183 10 0 1 0 0.9091 8.67E-02
51 100193 9 0 0 0 0. 9091 9145-02
60 1011183 9 1 0 0 0.8061 1165-01
61 10112193 8 0 0 0 0.6081 1255-01
82 1112193 8 0 1 0 0.6061 1.25E-01
83 1113193 7 0 0 0 0.6061 1345-01
97 11117193 7 1 0 0 0.6926 1455—01
96 11118193 6 0 0 0 0.6926 1.575—01
141 1213183 6 1 0 0 0.5772 1.53E-01
142 11184 5 0 0 0 0.5772 1.685-01
145 11484 5 1 0 0 0.4618 1525-01
146 11584 4 0 0 0 0.4618 1.69E—01
152 111 1194 4 1 0 0 0.3463 1.405-01
153 111284 3 0 0 0 0.3463 1825-01
160 1119194 3 0 1 0 0.3463 1.625-01
161 100194 2 0 0 0 0.3463 1.965-01
177 215194 2 1 0 0 0.1732 1.11E-01
178 21684 1 0 0 0 0.1732 1575-01
276 5115194 1 0 1 0 0.1732 1.575-01

 

154

Table F15. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (,§ m) 6.5
1 8113193 3 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005-+00

2 811483 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
3 811583 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00

6 811883 7 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
10 612283 8 0 0 1 1.0000 00051-00
12 812483 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 8125193 1 1 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
16 6128193 12 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
18 813083 12 1 0 0 0.9167 7.64E—02
19 813183 11 0 0 0 0.9167 7.98E-02
21 91283 12 0 0 1 0.9167 7.64E-02
22 913193 13 0 0 1 0.9167 7345-02
24 91583 14 0 0 1 0.9167 7.07E-02
25 916193 15 0 0 1 0.9167 6.83E-02
31 9112193 16 0 0 1 0.9167 6.62E-02
32 911383 16 2 0 0 0.8021 6925-02
33 9114/93 15 0 0 1 0.8021 9.21E-02
36 911783 15 1 0 0 0. 7486 9.69E-02
37 911883 14 0 0 0 0.7466 1.00E-01
39 912083 14 1 2 0 0.6951 1.03E-01
40 912183 11 0 0 0 0.6951 1165-01
52 101383 11 1 0 0 0.6319 1.16E—01
53 101483 10 0 0 0 0.6319 1.21 E-01
55 101683 10 1 0 0 0.5688 1.18E-01
56 101783 9 0 0 0 0.5688 1245-01
96 1111683 9 1 0 0 0.5056 1.18E-01
97 1111783 8 0 0 0 0.5056 1.$E—01
128 1211883 8 0 1 0 0.5056 1.$E-01
129 1211983 7 0 0 0 0.5056 1.34E—01
141 1213183 7 2 0 0 0.3611 1.09E-01
142 11184 5 0 0 0 0.3611 1.29E-01
164 112384 5 1 0 0 0.2889 1.09E-01
165 112484 4 0 0 0 0.2889 1225-01
212 311284 4 0 1 0 0.2689 1.22E-01
213 311384 3 0 0 0 0.2889 1.41E-01
276 511584 3 0 3 0 0.2889 1.41E-01

 

 

 

 

155
Table F16. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruiied grouse radio—tagged on

Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site. 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ m) 8.5.
1 811383 3 0 0 0 1.0000 0.00E+00
15 812783 6 0 0 3 1.0000 0.00E+00
19 813183 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
20 91183 8 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
21 91283 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
27 918193 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
37 9118193 12 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
38 9119193 14 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
39 912083 15 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
40 912183 17 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
41 912283 19 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005000
42 912383 22 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005+00
43 912483 24 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
51 101283 24 2 0 0 0.9167 5405-02
52 1013193 22 0 0 0 0.9167 5.64E-02
53 101483 22 1 0 0 0.6750 6.60E-02
54 101583 21 0 0 0 0.8750 6. 755-02
56 101783 21 1 0 0 0.8333 7425-02
57 1018193 20 0 0 0 0.6333 7.61 E-02
113 121383 20 0 1 0 0.6333 7815-02
114 121483 19 0 0 0 0.8333 7805-02
119 121983 19 1 0 0 0.7695 8315-02
120 1211083 18 0 0 0 0.7695 6.54E-02
126 12116193 18 0 1 0 0.7895 6545-02
129 1211983 17 0 0 0 0.7895 6795-02
133 12123193 17 0 1 0 0.7895 6795-02
134 1212483 16 0 0 0 0. 7695 9065-02
152 111184 16 0 1 0 0.7895 9.06E-02
153 111284 15 0 0 0 0.7895 9.35E-02
160 111984 15 1 0 0 0.7368 9.76E-02
161 112084 14 0 0 0 0.7368 1015-01
164 112384 14 1 0 0 0.6842 1.03E-01
165 112484 13 0 0 0 0.6642 1.07E-01
171 1130194 13 1 0 0 0.6316 1065-01
172 113184 12 0 0 0 0.6316 1.11E-01
192 212084 12 0 1 0 0.6316 1.11E-01
193 212184 11 0 0 0 0.6316 1.16E-01
248 411784 11 0 1 0 0.6316 1165-01
249 4118194 10 0 0 0 0.6316 1.21E-01
276 5115194 10 0 10 0 0.6316 1.21E-01

 

 

156

Table F17. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added 4.1 m) 8.5.
1 6113193 3 0 0 0 1.0000 0.00E+00
15 812783 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
20 911193 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
21 91283 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
27 918193 7 0 0 1 1 .0000 0. 00E+00
37 9118193 9 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
38 9119193 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
39 900193 11 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
40 912183 13 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
41 9122193 14 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
42 912383 16 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.005+00
43 912483 17 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
51 100193 17 1 0 0 0.9412 5.545-02
52 1013/93 16 0 0 0 0.9412 5715-02
53 1014193 16 1 0 0 0.8624 7.575-02
54 1015193 15 0 0 0 0.8824 7.81 E-02
56 1017193 15 1 0 0 0.6235 6935-02
57 1016193 14 0 0 0 0.8235 9255-02
119 1219193 14 1 0 0 0.7647 9.915-02
120 12110193 13 0 0 0 0.7647 1.035-01
126 12116193 13 0 1 0 0.7647 1.035-01
129 1211983 12 0 0 0 0.7647 1075-01
133 12123193 12 0 1 0 0.7647 1075-01
134 1204193 11 0 0 0 0.7647 1.125-01
152 1111194 11 0 1 0 0.7647 1.125-01
153 1112194 10 0 0 0 0.7647 1.175-01
164 1123194 10 1 0 0 0.6882 1225-01
165 104194 9 0 0 0 0.6682 1 .285-01
192 2120194 9 0 1 0 0.6882 1285—01
193 201194 6 0 0 0 0.6662 1.365-01
246 4117194 8 0 1 0 0.6662 1.365-01
249 4118194 7 0 0 0 0.6882 1 .455—01
276 5115194 7 0 7 0 0.6662 1 .455-01

 

 

 

 

157

Table F16. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged

on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ m) 8.5.
1 607193 2 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.005+00

5 813183 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
24 9119193 4 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
27 902193 5 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
28 903193 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
29 904193 7 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
37 100193 7 1 0 0 0.6571 1.225-01
38 1013193 6 0 0 0 0.6571 1.325-01
99 1213193 6 0 1 0 0.6571 1.325-01
100 1214193 5 0 0 0 0.8571 1.455—01
146 1119194 5 1 0 0 0.6657 1.725-01
147 100194 4 0 0 0 0.6857 1.925-01
157 1130194 4 1 0 0 0.5143 1795-01
158 1131194 3 0 0 0 0.5143 2.075-01
262 5115194 3 0 3 0 0.5143 2.075-01

 

 

158

Table F19. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) SE.
1 8113193 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00
21 90193 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
27 916193 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
37 911683 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
39 9120193 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
40 912183 6 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
41 9122193 10 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00E+00
42 903193 12 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
43 904193 13 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
53 101483 13 1 0 0 0.9231 7.105—02
54 101583 12 0 0 0 0.9231 7.39E-02
119 121983 12 1 0 0 0.8462 9585-02
120 1211083 11 0 0 0 0.8462 1.005-01
128 1211883 11 0 1 0 0.6462 1.005-01
129 12119193 10 0 0 0 0.6462 1.055-01
152 1111194 10 0 1 0 0.6462 1.055-01
153 111284 9 0 0 0 0.8462 1.11E-01
160 1119194 9 1 0 0 0.7521 1.255-01
161 112084 8 0 0 0 0.7521 1325-01
164 112384 8 1 0 0 0.6581 1.36E-01
165 104194 7 0 0 0 0.6581 1.455-01
171 1130194 7 1 0 0 0.5641 1.415—01
172 1131194 6 0 0 0 0.5641 1.525-01
192 200194 6 0 1 0 0.5641 1.525-01
193 201194 5 0 0 0 0.5641 1.675-01
246 411784 5 0 1 0 0.5641 1.675—01
249 411884 4 0 0 0 0.5641 1665-01
276 5115194 4 0 4 0 0.5641 1.665-01

 

 

159

Table F20. Kaplan—Meier survival estimates for fernaie (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site. 1993.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (3‘ m) 8.5.
1 8113193 1 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00
15 812783 4 0 0 3 1.0000 0.00E+00
19 813183 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
20 91183 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
37 911883 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
38 911983 9 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.00E+00
42 903193 10 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
43 904193 11 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
51 1012193 11 2 0 0 0.6182 1055-01
52 1013193 9 0 0 0 0.6182 1165-01
56 101783 9 1 0 0 0.7273 1275-01
57 1018193 8 0 0 0 0. 7273 1345-01
113 1213193 6 0 1 0 0.7273 1.345-01
114 121483 7 0 0 0 0.7273 1.445-01
133 1203193 7 0 1 0 0. 7273 1.445-01
134 1212483 6 0 0 0 0.7273 1555-01
276 511584 6 0 6 0 0.7273 1.555-01

 

 

160

Table F21. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on Huron
National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (5° [t]) SE.
1 811384 10 0 0 0 1.0000 0.00E+00
3 811584 13 0 0 3 1.0000 0.00E+00
4 811684 13 1 0 0 0.9231 7.10E-02
5 811784 12 1 0 0 0.8462 9.58E-02
6 8118194 11 1 0 0 0.7692 1.11E-01
7 811984 12 0 0 2 0.7692 1.07E-01
8 812084 14 0 0 2 0.7692 9.88E-02
10 812284 15 0 0 1 0.7692 9545-02
1 1 6123194 21 1 0 6 0.7326 8.27E-02
12 812484 21 0 0 1 073$ 8.27E-02
13 805194 25 1 0 4 0.7033 7.665-02
14 6126194 27 0 0 3 0.7033 7.37E-02
15 812784 29 0 0 2 0.7033 7.11E-02
17 612984 30 0 0 1 0.7033 6.99E-02
18 813084 32 0 0 2 0.7033 6.77E-02
19 813184 35 0 0 3 0.7033 6.48E-02
20 91184 38 1 0 3 0.6648 6.24E-02
21 91284 39 0 0 2 0.6646 6.16E—02
22 91384 45 0 0 6 0.6648 5735-02
23 91484 47 0 0 2 0.6848 5615-02
24 91584 50 1 0 3 0.6711 5445-02
25 916194 55 0 0 6 0.6711 5.19E-02
26 91784 57 0 0 2 0.6711 5.10E-02
27 918194 58 0 0 1 0.6711 5.05E-02
28 9884 59 0 0 1 0.6711 5.01 E-02
31 911284 59 1 0 0 0.6597 5015-02
32 911384 58 0 1 0 0.6597 5055-02
33 911484 57 0 0 0 0.6597 5105-02
34 911584 57 1 0 0 0.6481 5.09E-02
35 911684 56 2 0 0 0.6250 5.11E-02
36 911784 54 0 0 0 0.6250 5.21 E-02
37 9118/94 54 1 0 0 0.6134 5.19E—02
38 911984 53 0 0 0 0.6134 5.24E-02
45 9126194 53 1 0 0 0.6018 5.22E-02
46 912784 52 1 0 0 0.5903 5245-02
47 906194 51 0 0 0 0. 5903 5.295-02
50 101184 51 1 0 0 0.5787 5.26E—02
51 1012194 50 0 0 0 0.5787 5.31 E-02
53 101484 50 1 0 0 0.5671 5.28E-02
54 101584 49 0 0 0 0. 5671 5.33E-02
55 101684 49 2 0 0 0.5440 5.25E-02
56 101784 47 0 0 0 0.5440 5.36E-02
59 10110194 47 2 0 0 0. 5208 5.26E—02
60 10111194 45 0 0 0 0.5208 5375—02
76 1012784 45 1 0 0 0. 5093 5325-02
77 10126194 44 0 1 0 0.5093 5.36E-02
78 10129194 43 0 0 0 0. 5093 5.44E-02
92 11112194 43 1 0 0 0.4974 5.38E-02
93 1111384 42 0 0 0 0.4974 5.44E-02
97 1111784 42 1 0 0 0.4656 5.37E-02

 

 

Table F21. (cont'd)

161

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [t]) S. E.

96 11118194 41 0 0 0 0.4856 5445-02
1 18 1218194 41 1 0 0 0.4737 5. 375-02
119 121984 40 0 0 0 0.4737 5.435-02
123 1211384 40 0 1 0 0.4737 5.435-02
124 1211484 39 0 0 0 0.4737 5.505-02
150 1885 39 0 1 0 0.4737 5505-02
151 1110195 38 0 0 0 0.4737 5575-02
179 217195 36 0 1 0 0.4737 5. 575-02
180 21685 37 0 0 0 0.4737 5.655-02
202 31285 37 1 0 0 0.4609 5.565-02
203 313195 36 0 0 0 0.4609 5.645-02
215 311585 36 1 0 0 0.4461 5555-02
216 311685 35 0 0 0 0.4461 5.635-02
222 3122195 35 1 0 0 0.4353 5535-02
223 3123195 34 0 0 0 0.4353 5615-02
228 3128195 34 1 0 0 0.4225 5.515-02
229 312985 33 0 0 0 0.4225 5.595-02
249 4116195 33 1 0 0 0.4097 5.465-02
250 411985 32 0 0 0 0.4097 5.565-02
255 412485 32 0 1 0 0.4097 5.565-02
256 412585 31 2 0 0 0.3833 5.41 E-02
257 406195 29 0 0 0 0. 3833 5.595-02
287 506195 29 1 0 0 0.3701 5455-02
268 50785 26 1 0 0 0.3568 5.415-02
269 512885 27 0 0 0 0. 3568 5. 51 5-02
301 61985 27 0 1 0 0.3568 5515-02
302 611085 26 0 0 0 0.3568 5.615-02
312 612085 26 1 0 0 0.3431 5.455-02
313 612185 25 1 0 0 0.3294 5395—02
314 602195 24 0 0 0 0.3294 5.515-02
316 612485 24 0 1 0 0. 3294 5. 51 5-02
317 612585 23 0 0 0 0.3294 5.625-02
339 711785 23 1 0 0 0.3151 5.445-02
340 711685 22 0 0 0 0.3151 5. 565-02
345 712385 22 0 1 0 0.3151 5.565-02
346 704195 21 0 0 0 0.3151 5.695-02
357 814195 21 0 21 0 0.3151 5.695-02

 

 

162

Table F22. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5" m) 8.5.
1 6113194 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00
10 8122194 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

1 1 612384 6 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005+00
13 612584 10 0 0 4 1.0000 0.005+00
14 8126194 1 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
20 91184 13 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005-+00
21 91284 14 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
23 91484 1 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00900
26 91784 16 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
27 91884 17 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
55 1016194 17 1 0 0 0.9412 5.545-02
56 101784 16 0 0 0 0.9412 5.715-02
76 1012784 16 1 0 0 0.6624 7.575-02
77 1012884 15 0 1 0 0.6824 7.815-02
76 1012984 14 0 0 0 0.6824 6095-02
92 1111284 14 1 0 0 0.8193 9.315-02
93 1111384 1 3 0 0 0 0.8193 9.665-02
202 31285 13 1 0 0 0.7563 1.045-01
203 31385 12 0 0 0 0.7563 1.065-01
255 412485 12 0 1 0 0.7563 1.085-01
256 405195 11 1 0 0 0.6675 1.165-01
257 412685 10 0 0 0 0.6875 1.225-01
286 512785 10 1 0 0 0.6186 1215-01
269 512885 9 0 0 0 0.6188 1.275-01
312 612085 9 1 0 0 0.5500 1.235-01
313 612185 6 0 0 0 0.5500 1305—01
316 612485 8 0 1 0 0. 5500 1.305-01
317 612585 7 0 0 0 0.5500 1.395-01
357 81485 7 0 7 0 0. 5500 1395—01

 

 

 

 

163

Table F23. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged
on Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) 5.5.
1 6113194 8 0 0 0 1.0000 0. 005+00

3 6115194 1 1 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005+00

4 6116194 11 1 0 0 0.9091 6.265-02

5 811784 10 1 0 0 0.8182 1.105-01
6 8116194 9 1 0 0 0.7273 1 .275—01

7 8119194 10 0 0 2 0.7273 1.205-01

8 812084 12 0 0 2 0.7273 1105-01

1 1 603194 15 1 0 3 0.6786 9.935-02
12 812484 15 0 0 1 0.6786 9. 935-02
13 605194 15 1 0 0 0.6335 9.905-02
14 606194 16 0 0 2 0.6335 9. 595-02
15 807194 18 0 0 2 0.6335 9.045-02
17 609194 19 0 0 1 0.6335 8.805-02
16 6130194 21 0 0 2 0.6335 8. 375-02
19 613184 24 0 0 3 0.6335 7.835-02
20 911/94 25 1 0 1 0.6062 7.61 5-02
21 90194 25 0 0 1 0.6062 7.615-02
22 913194 29 0 0 4 0.6062 7.075-02
23 914194 30 0 0 1 0.6082 6. 955-02
24 915194 33 1 0 3 0.5698 6. 585-02
25 916194 36 0 0 6 0.5696 6.135-02
26 917194 39 0 0 1 0. 5896 6. 055-02
28 9884 40 0 0 1 0.5898 5.975-02
31 9112194 40 1 0 0 0.5750 5. 935-02
32 9113194 39 0 1 0 0.5750 6. 005-02
33 9114194 36 0 0 0 0.5750 6.085-02
34 9115194 36 1 0 0 0.5599 6.035-02
35 9116194 37 2 0 0 0.5296 5. 975-02
36 9117194 35 0 0 0 0.5296 6.145-02
37 9118194 35 1 0 0 0.5145 6065—02
38 9119194 34 0 0 0 0.5145 6.155-02
45 906194 34 1 0 0 0.4994 6. 065-02
46 907194 33 1 0 0 0.4642 6. 055-02
47 906194 32 0 0 0 0.4642 6.155-02
53 1014194 32 1 0 0 0.4691 6.045-02
54 1015194 31 0 0 0 0.4691 6.145-02
55 1016194 31 1 0 0 0.4540 6.025-02
56 1017194 30 0 0 0 0.4540 6.125-02
59 10110194 30 2 0 0 0.4237 5. 875-02
60 1011 1194 28 0 0 0 0.4237 6.065-02
97 1 1117194 28 1 0 0 0.4066 5. 945-02
96 1 1116194 27 0 0 0 0.4086 6. 055-02
116 1216194 27 1 0 ' 0 0.3934 5. 905-02
119 1219194 26 0 0 0 0.3934 6015-02
123 12113194 26 0 1 0 0.3934 6015-02
124 12114194 25 0 0 0 0.3934 6.135-02
150 119195 25 0 1 0 0.3934 6.135-02
151 1110195 24 0 0 0 0.3934 6.255-02
179 217195 24 0 1 0 0.3934 6.255-02

 

Table F23. (cont'd)

164

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [t]) 5.5.
180 216195 23 0 0 0 0.3934 6.395-02
215 3115195 23 1 0 0 0.3763 6.205-02
216 3116195 22 0 0 0 0.3763 6.345-02
222 302195 22 1 0 0 0.3592 6.135-02
223 3123195 21 0 0 0 0.3592 6275-02
228 3126195 21 1 0 0 0.3421 6.065-02
229 312985 20 0 0 0 0.3421 6.205-02
249 4116195 20 1 0 0 0.3250 5.975-02
250 4119195 19 0 0 0 0.3250 6.135-02
256 405195 19 1 0 0 0.3079 5.665-02
257 406195 18 0 0 0 0.3079 6045—02
287 5126195 18 1 0 0 0.2908 5.775-02
286 5127195 17 0 0 0 0.2908 5.945-02
301 619195 17 0 1 0 0.2908 5.945-02
302 6110195 16 0 0 0 0.2906 6.125-02
313 601195 16 1 0 0 0.2726 5.615-02
314 602195 15 0 0 0 0.2726 6.005-02
339 711 7195 15 1 0 0 0.2544 5.675-02
340 7118195 14 0 0 0 0.2544 5875-02
345 703195 14 0 1 0 0.2544 5675—02
346 7124195 13 0 0 0 0.2544 6.095-02
357 614195 13 0 13 0 0.2544 6.095-02

 

 

 

 

165

Table F24. Kaplan-Meier survival eaimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

Huron National Forest (HNF) open site. 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5 [1]) SE.
1 8113194 3 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

7 811984 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

8 612084 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

1 1 8123194 8 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005+00

13 812584 9 1 0 1 0.8889 9.885-02

14 8126194 9 0 0 1 0.8889 9.865-02

15 612784 11 0 0 2 0.6869 8.935-02

18 613084 12 0 0 1 0.8869 8555-02

20 91184 13 0 0 1 0.8689 8.225-02

22 913194 18 0 0 5 0.8869 6.985-02

23 91484 20 0 0 2 0.8689 6.635-02

24 915194 22 0 0 2 0.8889 6.325-02

25 91684 27 0 0 5 0.6889 5.705-02

26 91784 29 0 0 2 0.8889 5.505-02

27 91884 30 0 0 1 0.8889 5.415-02

28 9884 31 0 0 1 0.6889 5325-02

34 911584 31 1 0 0 0.8602 5.785-02

35 9116194 30 2 0 0 0.8029 6.51 E-02

36 9117194 28 0 0 0 0.8029 6.745-02

45 9126194 28 1 0 0 0.7742 6955-02

46 912784 27 0 0 0 0.7742 7.085-02

50 101184 27 1 0 0 0.7455 7.245-02

51 1012/94 26 0 0 0 0.7455 7.385-02

59 1011084 26 2 0 0 0.6682 7.545-02

60 1011184 24 0 0 0 0.6682 7.645-02
76 1012784 24 1 0 0 0.6595 7.665-02

77 10128194 23 0 1 0 0.6595 8.025-02

78 1012984 22 0 0 0 0.6595 6.205-02

92 1111284 22 1 0 0 0.6295 8.175-02

93 11113194 21 0 0 0 0.6295 8.365-02

118 1218194 21 1 0 0 0.5995 8.285-02
119 121984 20 0 0 0 0.5995 8.465-02
150 119195 20 0 1 0 0.5995 6485-02
151 1110195 19 0 0 0 0.5995 8.705-02
179 217195 19 0 1 0 0.5995 6705-02
180 218195 16 0 0 0 0.5995 6945-02
222 3122195 18 1 0 0 0.5662 8.795-02
223 3123195 17 0 0 0 0.5662 9.045-02
249 4118195 17 1 0 0 0.5329 8.835-02
250 411985 16 0 0 0 0.5329 9.115-02
256 4125195 16 1 0 0 0.4996 8.845-02
257 412685 15 0 0 0 0.4996 9.135-02
339 711785 15 1 0 0 0.4663 6.805-02
340 711885 14 0 0 0 0.4663 9105-02
345 712385 14 0 1 0 0.4663 9.105-02
346 7124195 13 0 0 0 0.4663 9.455-02
357 81485 13 0 13 0 0.4663 9.455-02

 

 

 

166

Table F25. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

Huron National Forest (HNF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [f [1]) 8.5.
1 8113194 6 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

3 8115194 9 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005-+00

4 611684 9 1 0 0 0.6889 9.885-02

5 811784 8 0 0 0 0.8889 1.055-01

6 8118194 6 1 0 0 0.7776 1.305-01

7 811984 8 0 0 1 0.7778 1.305-01

6 600194 9 0 0 1 0.7778 1.225-01
10 8122194 10 0 0 1 0.7776 1.165-01
11 60384 13 1 0 3 0.7179 1.065-01
12 80484 13 0 0 1 0.7179 1065-01
13 60584 16 0 0 3 0.7179 9.535-02
14 8126194 18 0 0 2 0.7179 8.995-02
17 60984 19 0 0 1 0.7179 6.755-02
16 613084 20 0 0 1 0.7179 6.535-02
19 613184 23 0 0 3 0.7179 7.955-02
20 91184 25 1 0 2 0.6892 7.685-02
21 9084 26 0 0 2 0.6892 7.545-02
22 913194 27 0 0 1 0.6892 7.395-02
24 91584 28 1 0 1 0.6646 7.275-02
25 91684 26 0 0 1 0.6646 7275-02
31 9112194 26 1 0 0 0.6409 7.265-02
32 911384 27 0 1 0 0.6409 7.395-02
33 911484 26 0 0 0 0.6409 7. 535-02
37 911884 26 1 0 0 0.6162 7.495-02
36 911984 25 0 0 0 0.6162 7.635-02
46 912784 25 1 0 0 0.5916 7.565-02
47 906194 24 0 0 0 0.5916 7725-02
53 101484 24 1 0 0 0. 5669 7.625-02
54 101584 23 0 0 0 0.5669 7765-02
55 101684 23 2 0 0 0.5176 7.505-02
56 1017/94 21 0 0 0 0.5176 7855-02
97 1111784 21 1 0 0 0.4930 7665-02
98 1 1116194 20 0 0 0 0.4930 7.655-02
123 12113194 20 0 1 0 0.4930 7.655-02
124 1211484 19 0 0 0 0.4930 8.055-02
202 30195 19 1 0 0 0.4670 7.825-02
203 31385 18 0 0 0 0.4670 6.045-02
215 311585 18 1 0 0 0.4411 7.775-02
216 3116195 17 0 0 0 0.4411 8.005-02
228 306195 17 1 0 0 0.4151 7.705-02
229 30985 16 0 0 0 0.4151 7.945-02
255 40485 16 0 1 0 0.4151 7.945-02
256 412585 15 1 0 0 0. 3675 7.635-02
257 406195 14 0 0 0 0.3675 8.105-02
267 5126195 14 1 0 0 0.3598 7.695-02
268 512785 13 1 0 0 0. 3321 7. 535-02
289 5128195 12 0 0 0 0. 3321 7.845-02
301 6885 12 0 1 0 0.3321 7.645-02
302 611085 1 1 0 0 0 0.3321 6.185-02
312 60085 11 1 0 0 0.3019 7.615-02

 

 

 

167
Table F25. (cont'd)
No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) S. E.
313 60185 10 1 0 0 0.2717 7.335-02
314 6122195 9 0 0 0 0.2717 7.735-02
316 612485 9 0 1 0 0.2717 7735-02
317 612585 8 0 0 0 0.2717 6205-02
357 81485 8 0 6 0 0.2717 8.20E-02

 

168

Table F$. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on Huron
National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [ 5‘" [1]) 8.5.
1 6113194 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005000
3 6115194 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
5 611784 7 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
9 60184 8 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
10 612284 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
12 60484 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 805194 1 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
14 812684 12 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
17 60984 13 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
22 91384 14 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
27 918194 16 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.005+00
29 911084 16 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
30 911184 21 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005+00
32 9113194 28 0 0 7 1.0000 0.005+00
33 911484 29 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
34 911 5194 30 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
35 9116194 31 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
36 911 784 32 1 0 1 0.9688 3035-02
37 911 8194 33 0 0 2 0.9668 2. 985-02
38 911 9194 34 1 0 1 0.9403 3.945-02
39 900194 37 0 0 4 0. 9403 3. 765-02
40 90184 41 0 0 4 0. 9403 3. 595-02
41 90284 44 0 0 3 0.9403 3.465-02
42 903194 48 0 0 4 0.9403 3. 325-02
43 90484 49 0 0 1 0. 9403 3.285-02
45 906194 49 1 0 0 0.921 1 3. 705-02
46 90784 46 0 0 0 0.9211 3.745-02
46 90984 50 0 0 2 0.921 1 3.665-02
49 9130194 51 0 0 1 0.921 1 3.625-02
50 101184 53 0 0 2 0.9211 3.555-02
51 10084 57 0 0 4 0.921 1 3.435-02
52 101384 58 0 2 1 0.921 1 3.405-02
53 1014194 56 0 0 0 0.9211 3.465-02
55 1016194 56 0 1 0 0.921 1 3.465-02
56 101784 55 0 0 0 0.9211 3.495-02
65 1011 6194 55 0 1 0 0.921 1 3.495-02
66 1011 784 54 0 0 0 0.9211 3.525-02
68 10119194 54 1 0 0 0.9040 3815-02
69 100084 53 0 0 0 0.9040 3.655-02
71 10122194 53 1 0 0 0.8670 4.105-02
72 1003194 52 2 0 0 0.6526 4. 545-02
73 100484 50 0 0 0 0.8526 4.635-02
79 1013084 50 0 1 0 0.6526 4.635-02
60 1013184 49 0 0 0 0.6526 4.675-02
62 1 112194 49 0 1 0 0.8528 4.675-02
83 1 11384 46 0 0 0 0.8526 4.725-02
91 1111184 46 1 0 0 0.6351 4.895-02
92 11112194 47 0 1 0 0.6351 4.955-02
93 11113194 46 1 0 0 0.6169 5.155-02
94 1111484 45 0 0 0 0.6169 5.215-02

Table F26. (cont'd)

169

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added ( 5° [1]) S. E.
104 110484 45 1 0 0 0.7968 5.345-02
105 110584 44 0 0 0 0.7966 5.405-02
106 110884 44 1 0 0 0.7606 5515-02
109 110984 43 0 0 0 0.7806 5.565-02
111 121184 43 1 0 0 0.7625 5675-02
1 12 1212194 42 0 0 0 0.7625 5.735-02
114 121484 42 1 0 0 0.7443 5.81 E-02
115 121584 41 0 0 0 0.7443 5.865-02
119 121984 41 1 0 0 0.7262 5.935-02
120 1211084 40 0 1 0 0.7262 6.015-02
121 1211184 39 0 0 0 0.7262 6.065-02
135 120584 39 2 0 0 0.6689 6.155-02
136 120684 37 0 0 0 0.6869 6.325-02
141 1213184 37 4 0 0 0.6144 6.275-02
142 11185 33 1 0 0 0.5956 6.595-02
143 1085 32 0 0 0 0.5956 6.705-02
149 11685 32 0 1 0 0.5956 6.705-02
150 1885 31 0 0 0 0.5956 6.605-02
158 111 785 31 2 0 0 0.5574 6.665-02
159 111885 29 0 0 0 0.5574 6.895-02
165 10485 29 2 0 0 0.5169 6.665-02
166 112585 27 0 0 0 0.5169 6.935-02
186 211485 27 2 0 0 0.4805 6.675-02
167 211 585 25 0 0 0 0.4805 6.935-02
201 31185 25 3 0 0 0.4228 6.425-02
202 3085 22 0 0 0 0.4228 6.855-02
21 1 311 185 22 0 1 0 0.4228 6.655-02
212 311285 21 0 0 0 0.4226 7.015-02
225 312585 21 0 2 0 0.4228 7015-02
226 30685 19 0 0 0 0.4226 7.375-02
252 40185 19 0 1 0 0.4228 7.375-02
253 402195 16 0 0 0 0.4226 7. 575-02
264 51385 16 2 0 0 0.3759 7.005-02
265 51485 16 0 0 0 0. 3759 7.425-02
271 511085 16 1 0 0 0.3524 7.095-02
272 511185 15 0 0 0 0.3524 7.325-02
277 511685 15 1 0 0 0.3269 6.965-02
276 511785 14 0 0 0 0.3269 7.205-02
263 5122195 14 1 0 0 0.3054 6.605-02
264 50385 13 0 0 0 0. 3054 7.065-02
310 6118195 13 0 1 0 0.3054 7.065-02
311 611985 12 0 0 0 0.3054 7.355-02
313 60185 12 1 0 0 0.2799 6.865-02
314 6122195 11 0 0 0 0.2799 7.165-02
357 81485 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.2799 7.165-02

 

170

Table F27. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [ 5" [1]) S. E.
1 8113194 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

3 811584 3 0 0 1 1.0000 00051-00

5 811784 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
12 812484 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005+00
13 612584 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
17 60984 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
22 913194 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
29 911 084 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
32 9113194 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
33 911484 1 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
36 911784 12 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
37 911884 13 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005100
39 90084 15 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
40 90184 17 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
42 903194 19 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005-+00
43 912484 20 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
48 912984 21 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
50 101184 22 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
51 1012194 23 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
52 1013194 24 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
71 1002194 24 1 0 0 0.9583 3.995-02
72 1012384 23 1 0 0 0.9167 5.525-02
73 1012484 22 0 0 0 0.9167 5645-02
91 1 111 184 22 1 0 0 0.6750 6.605-02
92 1111284 21 0 0 0 0.8750 6.755-02
104 1 112484 21 1 0 0 0.8333 7.425-02
105 1105194 20 0 0 0 0.6333 7.615-02
108 110884 20 1 0 0 0.7917 6.065-02
109 110984 19 0 0 0 0.7917 6.295-02
1 14 121484 19 1 0 0 0.7500 8.605-02
115 121584 18 0 0 0 0.7500 8.845-02
119 121984 18 1 0 0 0.7083 9.025-02
120 12110194 17 0 0 0 0.7063 9265-02
135 1212584 17 2 0 0 0.6250 9.285-02
136 120684 15 0 0 0 0.6250 9.665-02
141 1213184 15 1 0 0 0.5833 9.725-02
142 11185 14 1 0 0 0.5417 9.605-02
143 112195 13 0 0 0 0.5417 1.025-01
149 11685 13 0 1 0 0.5417 1.025-01
150 1885 12 0 0 0 0.5417 1.065-01
156 111785 12 1 0 0 0.4965 1.025-01
159 1118195 11 0 0 0 0.4965 1.065-01
165 104195 11 1 0 0 0.4514 1.015-01
166 1125195 10 0 0 0 0.4514 1.065-01
201 31185 10 1 0 0 0.4063 9.905-02
202 31285 9 0 0 0 0.4063 1045-01
225 312585 9 0 1 0 0.4063 1045-01
226 3126195 8 0 0 0 0.4063 1.1 1 E-01
252 4121195 6 0 1 0 0.4063 1.115—01
253 412285 7 0 0 0 0.4063 1 .185-01

 

171
Table F27. (cont‘d)

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (j [1]) SE.
264 51385 7 1 0 0 0.3462 1.065-01
265 51485 6 0 0 0 0.3462 1.155—01
313 60185 6 1 0 0 0.2902 9.985-02
314 612285 5 0 0 0 0.2902 1 .095-01
357 81485 5 0 5 0 0.2902 1 .095-01

 

172

Table F26. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged
on Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site. 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (§ [1]) 8.5.
1 6113194 2 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

5 611 784 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00

9 612184 4 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005100
10 80284 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
14 6126194 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
27 91884 6 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
29 911 0194 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005000
30 911184 12 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005+00
32 9113194 18 0 0 6 1.0000 0.005+00
34 911584 19 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005100
35 9116194 20 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005000
36 911 784 20 1 0 0 0.9500 4.755-02
37 911 684 20 0 0 1 0.9500 4.755-02
38 9119194 21 1 0 1 0.9046 6095-02
39 90084 22 0 0 2 0.9046 5955-02
40 90184 24 0 0 2 0.9046 5.705-02
41 912284 27 0 0 3 0.9046 5. 375-02
42 903194 29 0 0 2 0.9046 5.185-02
45 906194 29 1 0 0 0.6736 5.775-02
46 90784 28 0 0 0 0.6736 5. 875-02
46 90984 29 0 0 1 0. 8736 5775-02
49 913084 30 0 0 1 0. 8736 5675-02
50 101184 31 0 0 1 0.6736 5585-02
51 100194 34 0 0 3 0.8736 5335-02
52 1013194 34 0 2 0 0.6736 5. 335-02
53 101484 32 0 0 0 0.6736 5495-02
55 1016194 32 0 1 0 0.8736 5495-02
56 101784 31 0 0 0 0. 8736 5585-02
65 1011684 31 0 1 0 0.6736 5585-02
66 1011784 30 0 0 0 0.8736 5.675-02
68 10119194 30 1 0 0 0.8444 6085-02
69 100084 29 0 0 0 0.8444 6165-02
72 1003194 29 1 0 0 0.6153 6.515-02
73 10124194 28 0 0 0 0.8153 6.625-02
79 10130194 26 0 1 0 0.6153 6625-02
80 1013184 27 0 0 0 0.8153 6. 745-02
62 1112194 27 0 1 0 0.8153 6.745-02
83 111384 26 0 0 0 0.8153 6875-02
92 11112194 26 0 1 0 0.6153 6.675-02
93 1 1113194 25 1 0 0 0.7627 7.305-02
94 1 1114194 24 0 0 0 0.7827 7.455-02
111 121184 24 1 0 0 0.7501 7.655-02
112 120194 23 0 0 0 0. 7501 7.825-02
120 1211084 23 0 1 0 0.7501 7.825-02
121 1211184 22 0 0 0 0. 7501 7.995-02
141 1213184 22 3 0 0 0.6478 8205-02
142 11185 19 0 0 0 0.6478 8.825-02
156 111785 19 1 0 0 0.6137 8755-02
159 1118195 18 0 0 0 0.6137 6.995-02
165 10485 18 1 0 0 0.5796 8.665-02

 

Table F28. (cont'd)

173

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (51 [1]) 8.5.
166 112585 17 0 0 0 0.5796 9115-02
166 211485 17 2 0 0 0.5114 8.675-02
187 211585 15 0 0 0 0.5114 9.235-02
201 31185 15 2 0 0 0.4432 8.545-02
202 312195 13 0 0 0 0.4432 9.175-02
211 311185 13 0 1 0 0.4432 9.175-02
212 311285 12 0 0 0 0.4432 9.555-02
225 312585 12 0 1 0 0.4432 9. 555-02
226 30685 1 1 0 0 0 0.4432 9.975-02
264 51385 1 1 1 0 0 0.4029 9.395-02
265 51485 10 0 0 0 0.4029 9.855-02
271 511085 10 1 0 0 0.3627 9.165-02
272 511185 9 0 0 0 0.3627 9.655-02
277 511685 9 1 0 0 0.3224 8.655-02
276 511785 6 0 0 0 0.3224 9.385-02
263 502195 6 1 0 0 0.2821 8.455-02
284 512385 7 0 0 0 0.2821 9.035-02
310 611885 7 0 1 0 0.2621 9.035-02
311 611985 6 0 0 0 0.2621 9.765-02
357 81485 6 0 6 0 0.2821 9. 765-02

 

174

Table F$. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site. 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [5‘ [1]) 8.5.
1 611 384 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

9 812184 2 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005-+00
13 812584 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
17 60984 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
22 913194 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
27 91884 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
29 911 084 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
30 911184 9 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005-+00
32 911384 13 0 0 4 1.0000 0.005+00
33 911484 14 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
36 911784 14 1 0 0 0.9266 6.635-02
37 9116194 15 0 0 2 0.9266 6.415-02
38 911984 16 1 0 1 0.8705 7.835-02
39 90084 18 0 0 3 0.8705 7.385-02
40 90184 20 0 0 2 0.8705 7.005-02
41 912284 21 0 0 1 0.8705 6.645-02
42 903194 25 0 0 4 0. 8705 6.265-02
43 90484 26 0 0 1 0.8705 6.145-02
46 90984 27 0 0 1 0.8705 6035-02
50 101184 29 0 0 2 0.8705 5.825-02
51 10084 31 0 0 2 0.8705 5635-02
52 101384 32 0 1 1 0.8705 5.545-02
53 101484 31 0 0 0 0. 8705 5635—02
66 1011 984 31 1 0 0 0.8425 6.015-02
69 1012084 30 0 0 0 0.8425 6.1 1 E-02
71 1012284 30 1 0 0 0.8144 6.415-02
72 100384 29 0 0 0 0.6144 6.525-02
91 1111184 29 1 0 0 0.7663 6. 755-02
92 1111284 26 0 0 0 0.7663 6675-02
93 1 111384 28 1 0 0 0.7582 7.055-02
94 1111484 27 0 0 0 0.7562 7.185-02
104 1112484 27 1 0 0 0.7301 7. 305-02
105 1 105194 26 0 0 0 0.7301 7.445-02
106 1 108194 26 1 0 0 0.7020 7.525-02
109 1 10984 25 0 0 0 0.7020 7.665-02
111 121184 25 1 0 0 0.6740 7705-02
112 12084 24 0 0 0 0.6740 7.665-02
1 14 121484 24 1 0 0 0.6459 7.655-02
115 1215194 23 0 0 0 0.6459 6.015-02
119 121984 23 1 0 0 0.6176 7.965-02
120 1211084 22 0 0 0 0.6176 6.145-02
135 120584 22 2 0 0 0.5616 7.935-02
136 1206194 20 0 0 0 0.5616 8.31 E-02
141 1213184 20 2 0 0 0.5055 7.955-02
142 11185 18 0 0 0 0.5055 6385-02
158 111785 16 2 0 0 0.4493 7.665-02
159 111885 16 0 0 0 0.4493 6.345-02
166 211485 16 1 0 0 0.4212 8.015-02
167 211585 15 0 0 0 0.4212 6275-02
201 31185 15 3 0 0 0.3370 7.065-02

 

Table F29. (cont'd)

175

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added [5° [1]) SE.
202 30195 12 0 0 0 0. 3370 7.925-02
211 311185 12 0 1 0 0.3370 7.925-02
212 3112195 1 1 0 0 0 0.3370 8.275-02
225 312585 1 1 0 1 0 0.3370 8.275-02
226 3126195 10 0 0 0 0. 3370 8.685-02
$4 51385 10 1 0 0 0.3033 8.015-02
265 51485 9 0 0 0 0.3033 8.445-02
271 511085 9 1 0 0 0.2696 7.685-02
272 511185 8 0 0 0 0.2696 6155-02
357 81485 8 0 6 0 0.2696 8.155-02

 

176

Table F30. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Huron National Forest (HNF) closed site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [5" [1]) SE.
1 811384 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

3 811584 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

5 611784 5 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
10 812284 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005-000
12 60484 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0005-0-00
14 812684 8 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
27 918194 9 0 0 1 1.0000 00051-00
$ 911084 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
30 911184 11 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
32 9113194 14 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005+00
34 911584 15 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
35 911684 16 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
36 911784 17 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
39 90084 18 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
40 90184 20 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
41 90284 22 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.005+00
45 90684 22 1 0 0 0.9545 4.345-02
46 90784 21 0 0 0 0.9545 4445-02
48 90984 22 0 0 1 0.9545 4.345-02
49 913084 23 0 0 1 0.9545 4.245-02
51 100194 25 0 0 2 0.9545 4.075-02
52 1013194 25 0 1 0 0.9545 4.075-02
53 101484 24 0 0 0 0.9545 4.155-02
55 1016194 24 0 1 0 0.9545 4155-02
56 101784 23 0 0 0 0.9545 4.245-02
65 1011684 23 0 1 0 0.9545 4.245-02
66 1011784 22 0 0 0 0.9545 4.345-02
72 10123194 22 2 0 0 0.6678 6735—02
73 100484 20 0 0 0 0.6678 7.065-02
79 1013084 20 0 1 0 0.6678 7.065-02
80 1013184 19 0 0 0 0.8678 7.245-02
62 110194 19 0 1 0 0.8678 7.245-02
83 1 11384 18 0 0 0 0.8678 7.445-02
92 11112194 18 0 1 0 0.8678 7.445-02
93 11113194 17 0 0 0 0.6678 7.655-02
120 1211084 17 0 1 0 0.8678 7.655-02
121 1211184 16 0 0 0 0.6676 7.895-02
141 1213184 16 1 0 0 0.6135 8.785-02
142 111 195 15 1 0 0 0.7593 9.625-02
143 10195 14 0 0 0 0.7593 9.965-02
149 118195 14 0 1 0 0.7593 9965-02
150 1885 13 0 0 0 0.7593 1.035-01
165 112485 13 2 0 0 0.6425 1075—01
166 10585 11 0 0 0 0.6425 1.165-01
166 211485 11 1 0 0 0.5641 1.145-01
187 2115195 10 0 0 0 0.5641 1.195-01
225 30585 10 0 1 0 0.5641 1.195-01
226 30685 9 0 0 0 0.5641 1 .265-01
252 401195 9 0 1 0 0.5841 1.265-01
253 402195 8 0 0 0 0.5841 1 .335-01

Table F30. (cont'd)

177

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added [5 [1]) S5.
264 513195 8 1 0 0 0.5111 1.265-01
265 51485 7 0 0 0 0.5111 1.355-01
277 5116195 7 1 0 0 0.4381 1 .245-01
276 511785 6 0 0 0 0.4381 1 .345-01
283 50285 6 1 0 0 0.3650 1 . 195-01
284 50385 5 0 0 0 0. 3650 1 .305-01
310 611885 5 0 1 0 0.3650 1.305-01
311 611985 4 0 0 0 0.3650 1.455-01
313 60185 4 1 0 0 0.2738 1.175-01
314 60285 3 0 0 0 0.2738 1 .355-01
357 81485 3 0 3 0 0.2736 1.355-01

 

Table F31 . Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

178

Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) S5.
1 6113194 4 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
4 811684 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
6 611 884 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
6 812084 6 0 0 2 1.0000 00051-00
12 80484 8 0 1 0 1 .0000 0.005+00
16 812884 7 1 0 0 0.6571 1.225-01
17 80984 6 0 0 0 0.8571 1.325-01
20 91184 1 1 0 0 5 0.6571 9. 775-02
23 91484 12 0 1 1 0.8571 9. 355-02
24 91584 12 0 0 1 0.8571 9. 355-02
25 916194 13 0 0 1 0.8571 8.995-02
26 91784 15 0 0 2 0.8571 6365-02
27 918194 16 0 0 1 0.6571 8.105-02
28 9884 17 0 0 1 0.8571 7.665-02
30 911184 18 0 0 1 0.8571 7.645-02
31 911284 18 0 1 0 0.8571 7.645-02
32 911384 19 0 0 2 0.6571 7.435-02
34 911 5194 19 0 1 0 0.6571 7.435-02
35 911684 19 0 0 1 0.6571 7.435-02
36 911784 21 1 0 2 0.8163 7.635-02
37 9118194 21 0 0 1 0.8163 7835-02
36 911984 24 0 0 3 0.6163 7.145-02
40 90184 25 0 0 1 0.8163 7.005-02
41 902194 28 0 0 3 0.8163 6.615-02
42 90384 30 0 0 2 0.8163 6. 395-02
43 912484 31 0 0 1 0.6163 6.265-02
44 905194 33 0 0 2 0.8163 6. 095-02
45 90684 33 1 0 0 0.7916 6.295-02
46 90784 33 0 0 1 0.7916 6.295-02
50 1011/94 34 1 0 1 0.7683 6. 345-02
51 10084 33 0 0 0 0.7663 6.445-02
57 101684 33 0 1 0 0.7683 6.445-02
58 10884 32 1 0 0 0.7443 6655-02
59 1011084 31 0 0 0 0.7443 6. 765-02
61 1011284 31 1 2 0 0.7203 6.845-02
62 1011384 28 0 0 0 0.7203 7205-02
63 1011484 28 1 0 0 0.6946 7.255-02
64 1011584 27 1 0 0 0.6666 7.415-02
65 1011684 26 0 0 0 0.6668 7555-02
68 1011984 $ 0 1 0 0.6666 7. 555-02
69 100084 25 0 0 0 0.6686 7.705-02
71 1002194 25 0 1 0 0.6686 7. 705-02
72 1003194 24 0 0 0 0.6686 7. 865-02
90 1111084 24 2 0 0 0.6131 7.785-02
91 1111184 22 0 0 0 0.6131 6135-02
97 1111784 22 1 0 0 0.5652 8.045-02
96 1 1118194 21 0 0 0 0.5652 8.225-02
117 1217194 21 0 1 0 0.5852 6225-02
116 121684 20 0 0 0 0.5652 8.435-02
1$ 1211684 20 0 1 0 0.5652 8.435—02

Table F31. (cont'd)

179

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) S5.
127 1211784 1 9 0 0 0 0. 5852 8.655-02
129 1211984 19 1 0 0 0.5544 8.495-02
130 120084 16 0 0 0 0.5544 8.725-02
145 11485 16 0 1 0 0.5544 8.725-02
146 11585 17 0 0 0 0.5544 8.985-02
158 111785 17 0 1 0 0.5544 8.985-02
159 1118195 16 0 0 0 0.5544 9255-02
166 10585 16 1 1 0 0.5198 9.005-02
167 10685 14 0 0 0 0.5198 9.635-02
173 21185 14 1 0 0 0.4827 9.285-02
174 2085 13 0 0 0 0.4827 9.635-02
194 20285 13 2 0 0 0.4064 8.71 E-02
195 20385 1 1 0 0 0 0.4064 9.475-02
214 311485 11 0 1 0 0.4084 9.475-02
215 311585 10 0 0 0 0.4084 9.935-02
249 4118195 10 0 1 0 0.4064 9.935-02
250 411985 9 0 0 0 0.4084 1.055-01
252 40185 9 0 1 0 0.4084 1.055-01
253 40285 8 0 0 0 0.4084 1.1 15-01
256 40585 8 1 0 0 0. 3573 1.015-01
257 40685 7 0 0 0 0.3573 1.085-01
280 511985 7 1 0 0 0.3063 9.645-02
281 50085 6 0 0 0 0.3063 1.045-01
315 60385 6 0 1 0 0.3063 1.045-01
316 60485 5 0 0 0 0.3063 1145-01
330 71885 5 0 1 0 0.3063 1 .145-01
331 7885 4 0 0 0 0.3063 1.285-01
357 81485 4 0 4 0 0. 3063 1 .265-01

 

 

 

180

Table F32. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site. 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (3 [1]) SE.
1 6113194 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

6 611884 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005+00

6 800194 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005+00
12 60484 4 0 1 0 1.0000 0. 005+00
20 91184 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
23 91484 5 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
25 91684 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
27 91884 7 0 0 1 1 .0000 0005-1-00
30 911184 6 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
31 911284 8 0 1 0 1.0000 0.005+00
32 9113194 9 0 0 2 1 .0000 0005-0-00
34 9115194 9 0 1 0 1.0000 0.005+00
35 911684 9 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
36 911784 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
36 911984 13 0 0 3 1.0000 0.005-+00
40 90184 14 0 0 1 1.0000 0.00E+00
42 912384 16 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.005+00
43 90484 17 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005+00
45 90684 17 1 0 0 0.9412 5545-02
46 90784 16 0 0 0 0.9412 5.715-02
50 101184 17 0 0 1 0.9412 5.545-02
61 10112194 17 1 1 0 0.8656 7.265-02
62 10113194 15 0 0 0 0.6656 7.735-02
90 1111084 15 1 0 0 0.8268 8. 895-02
91 1111184 14 0 0 0 0.6268 9.205-02
126 1211684 14 0 1 0 0.6266 9.205-02
127 1211784 13 0 0 0 0. 6268 9. 545-02
129 1211984 13 1 0 0 0. 7632 1.035-01
1 30 120084 12 0 0 0 0. 7632 1 .075-01
145 11485 12 0 1 0 0. 7632 1.075-01
146 11585 1 1 0 0 0 0. 7632 1.125-01
156 111785 11 0 1 0 0.7632 1.125—01
159 111885 10 0 0 0 0.7632 1.175-01
166 105195 10 1 1 0 0.6666 1.225-01
167 106195 6 0 0 0 0.6668 1.365-01
173 21185 6 1 0 0 0.6010 1.345-01
174 20195 7 0 0 0 0.6010 1.435-01
214 311485 7 0 1 0 0.6010 1.435—01
215 311585 6 0 0 0 0.6010 1.555-01
249 411885 6 0 1 0 0.6010 1.555-01
250 411985 5 0 0 0 0.6010 1.705-01
252 40185 5 0 1 0 0.6010 1705-01
253 402195 4 0 0 0 0.6010 1.905-01
256 40585 4 1 0 0 0.4507 1 .675—01
257 406195 3 0 0 0 0.4507 1 .935-01
315 603195 3 0 1 0 0.4507 1 .935-01
316 60485 2 0 0 0 0.4507 2. 365-01
357 81485 2 0 2 0 0.4507 2. 365-01

 

 

181

Table F33. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged
on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) SE.
1 811384 2 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00

4 811684 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0. 005+00

6 60084 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
16 80884 4 1 0 0 0. 7500 1.665-01
17 612984 3 0 0 0 0.7500 2.175-01
20 91184 7 0 0 4 0.7500 1.425-01
23 91484 7 0 1 0 0.7500 1 .425-01
24 91584 6 0 0 0 0.7500 1.535—01
26 917194 8 0 0 2 0.7500 1.335-01
28 9884 9 0 0 1 0.7500 1 .255-01
36 9117194 10 1 0 1 0.6750 1.225-01
37 911884 10 0 0 1 0.6750 1225-01
41 9122194 12 0 0 2 0.6750 1.115-01
44 90584 14 0 0 2 0.6750 1035-01
46 90784 15 0 0 1 0.6750 9.945-02
50 101184 15 1 0 0 0.6300 9.895-02
51 10084 14 0 0 0 0.6300 1.025-01
57 101884 14 0 1 0 0.6300 1.025-01
58 101984 13 1 0 0 0.5615 1.045-01
59 1011084 12 0 0 0 0.5615 1.095-01
61 1011284 12 0 1 0 0.5615 1.095-01
62 10113194 11 0 0 0 0.5615 1.135-01
63 1011484 11 1 0 0 0.5287 1.095-01
64 10115194 10 0 0 0 0.5267 1.155-01
68 1011984 10 0 1 0 0.5287 1.155-01
69 100084 9 0 0 0 0.5287 1 .215-01
71 1002194 9 0 1 0 0.5287 1 .215-01
72 1003194 6 0 0 0 0.5287 1.265-01
90 1111084 8 1 0 0 0.4626 1.205-01
91 1111184 7 0 0 0 0.4626 1.285—01
97 1111784 7 1 0 0 0.3965 1.165-01
96 11118194 6 0 0 0 0.3965 1265-01
117 121784 6 0 1 0 0.3965 1265-01
116 121684 5 0 0 0 0.3965 1.365-01
194 212285 5 1 0 0 0.3172 1.175-01
195 20385 4 0 0 0 0.3172 1.31 E-01
260 5119195 4 1 0 0 0.2379 1.045-01
261 50085 3 0 0 0 0.2379 1 .205-01
330 716195 3 0 1 0 0.2379 1 .205-01
331 7885 2 0 0 0 0.2379 1 .475-01
357 61485 2 0 2 0 0.2379 1 .475-01

 

182

Table F34. Kaplan-Meler survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [.6 [1]) SE.
1 8113194 2 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

4 611684 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
6 611884 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
16 80884 4 1 0 0 0.7500 1.665-01
17 80984 3 0 0 0 0.7500 2.175-01
20 91184 5 0 0 2 0.7500 1.665-01
26 91784 7 0 0 2 0.7500 1.425-01
27 91884 6 0 0 1 0.7500 1.335-01
32 911384 9 0 0 1 0.7500 1 .255-01
34 911584 9 0 1 0 0.7500 1 .255-01
35 911684 9 0 0 1 0.7500 1 .255-01
36 911784 10 1 0 1 0.6750 1.225-01
37 911684 10 0 0 1 0.6750 1.225-01
38 911984 12 0 0 2 0.6750 1.115-01
40 90184 13 0 0 1 0.6750 1075-01
41 90284 15 0 0 2 0.6750 9945-02
42 90384 17 0 0 2 0.6750 9.335-02
50 101184 17 1 0 0 0.6353 9.315-02
51 100194 16 0 0 0 0.6353 9.595-02
57 1018194 16 0 1 0 0.6353 9.595-02
58 10884 15 1 0 0 0.5929 9.775—02
59 1011084 14 0 0 0 0.5929 1015-01
61 1011284 14 1 0 0 0.5506 9.665-02
62 10113194 13 0 0 0 0.5506 1.025-01
63 1011484 13 1 0 0 0.5062 9.885-02
64 1011584 12 1 0 0 0.4659 9.635-02
65 1011684 11 0 0 0 0.4659 1.035-01
90 1111084 11 1 0 0 0.4235 9705-02
91 1111184 10 0 0 0 0.4235 1.025-01
97 1111784 10 1 0 0 0.3612 9.485-02
96 1111684 9 0 0 0 0.3812 1.005-01
126 1211684 9 0 1 0 0.3812 1.005-01
127 1211784 6 0 0 0 0.3612 1065-01
156 111785 8 0 1 0 0.3812 1.065-01
159 111885 7 0 0 0 0.3612 1.135-01
166 10585 7 0 1 0 0.3812 1.135-01
167 10685 6 0 0 0 0.3812 1.225-01
173 21185 6 1 0 0 0.3176 1.075-01
174 2085 5 0 0 0 0.3176 1.175-01
252 40185 5 0 1 0 0.3176 1175-01
253 402195 4 0 0 0 0.3176 1 .315-01
256 405195 4 1 0 0 0.2382 1 .045-01
257 40685 3 0 0 0 0.2362 1 .205-01
315 603195 3 0 1 0 0.2362 1 .205-01
316 60485 2 0 0 0 0.2382 1 .475-01
357 61485 2 0 2 0 0.2382 1.475-01

 

 

183

Table F35. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) open site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [S [1]) SE.
1 6113194 2 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

8 80084 3 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005-+00
12 80484 3 0 1 0 1.0000 0.005+00
20 91184 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
23 914194 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
24 91584 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
25 916194 6 0 0 1 1 .0000 0.005+00
28 98194 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
31 911284 7 0 1 0 1.0000 0.00E+00
32 9113194 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0005-1-00
36 911784 8 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
38 911984 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
41 90284 10 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
43 90484 1 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
44 90584 13 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005+00
45 9126194 13 1 0 0 0.9231 7.105—02
46 90784 13 0 0 1 0.9231 7.105-02
50 101184 14 0 0 1 0.9231 6.645-02
61 1011284 14 0 1 0 0.9231 6.645-02
62 1011384 13 0 0 0 0.9231 7.105-02
66 10119194 13 0 1 0 0.9231 7.105-02
69 1000194 12 0 0 0 0.9231 7. 395-02
71 1002194 12 0 1 0 0.9231 7.395-02
72 1003194 1 1 0 0 0 0.9231 7.725-02
90 1111084 11 1 0 0 0.6392 1.015-01
91 1111184 10 0 0 0 0.6392 1065-01
117 121784 10 0 1 0 0.6392 1.065-01
116 1218194 9 0 0 0 0.6392 1.125-01
129 12119194 9 1 0 0 0. 7459 1 .255-01
130 120084 8 0 0 0 0.7459 1.335-01
145 11485 8 0 1 0 0. 7459 1.335-01
146 11585 7 0 0 0 0.7459 1.42E-01
166 10585 7 1 0 0 0.6394 1.455-01
167 106195 6 0 0 0 0.6394 1.575-01
194 2122195 6 2 0 0 0.4262 1.325-01
195 20385 4 0 0 0 0.4262 1.615-01
214 311485 4 0 1 0 0.4262 1.615-01
215 311585 3 0 0 0 0.4262 1.665-01
280 511985 3 1 0 0 0.2842 1.395-01
261 50085 2 0 0 0 0.2642 1 .705-01
357 81485 2 0 2 0 0.2642 1 .705-01

 

 

Table F36. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for ruffed grouse radio-tagged on

184

Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site. 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5" [1]) SE.
1 811384 6 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00
2 6114194 6 0 0 2 1.0000 0.00800
3 6115194 9 0 1 1 1 .0000 0.005+00

1 1 8123194 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
13 80584 1 1 0 0 2 1 .0000 0.005+00
21 9084 1 1 1 0 0 0.9091 8.265-02
22 913194 1 0 0 0 0 0. 9091 8.675-02
25 91684 1 1 0 0 1 0.9091 6.265-02
26 91784 12 0 0 1 0.9091 7.915-02
28 9884 13 0 0 1 0. 9091 7.605-02
29 9110194 13 0 1 0 0.9091 7.605-02
30 911184 12 0 0 0 0.9091 7.915-02
35 9116194 13 0 0 1 0.9091 7605-02
36 911784 14 0 0 1 0.9091 7335—02
37 9118194 14 0 1 0 0.9091 7.335-02
36 911984 13 0 0 0 0.9091 7.605-02
42 90384 17 1 0 4 0.8556 7. 895-02
43 90484 17 1 0 1 0.8053 6.625-02
44 905194 1 7 0 0 1 0. 8053 6.625-02
45 90684 16 0 0 1 0. 8053 6. 365-02
46 90784 20 0 0 2 0.8053 7.955-02
47 906194 20 0 1 0 0.6053 7.955-02
46 90984 19 0 0 0 0. 8053 6. 155-02
49 913084 20 0 0 1 0. 8053 7. 955-02
50 101184 21 1 0 1 0.7669 8. 065-02
51 100194 20 0 0 0 0. 7669 6.285-02
52 101384 21 0 1 1 0. 7669 6. 065-02
53 101484 20 0 0 0 0. 7669 6265-02
55 1 01684 21 0 0 1 0. 7669 8. 065-02
56 101784 22 0 0 1 0.7669 7895-02
57 1018194 25 0 0 3 0.7669 7.415-02
59 1011084 26 0 0 1 0. 7669 7.265-02
60 1011184 28 0 0 2 0.7669 7.005-02
61 1011 2194 29 0 0 1 0. 7669 6. 865-02
64 10115194 31 0 0 2 0. 7669 6.655-02
66 1011984 31 0 1 0 0. 7669 6.655-02
69 1000194 30 0 0 0 0. 7669 6. 765-02
71 100284 30 0 1 0 0. 7669 6.765-02
72 1003194 29 0 0 0 0. 7669 6. 865-02
79 1013084 29 1 0 0 0.7405 7.005-02
60 1013184 26 0 0 0 0.7405 7.135-02
61 111184 28 0 1 0 0.7405 7.135-02
62 11084 27 0 0 0 0. 7405 7.265-02
67 111784 27 1 0 0 0.7131 7.355-02
66 1118194 26 0 0 0 0.7131 7.495-02
96 1111684 26 0 1 0 0.7131 7.495-02
97 11117194 25 0 0 0 0.7131 7.645-02
102 1102194 25 1 0 0 0.6645 7.695-02
103 1103194 24 0 0 0 0.6645 7.855-02
111 121184 24 1 0 0 0.6560 7.655-02

 

 

 

Table F36. (cont'd)

185

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added [ 5‘ [1]) S. E.
112 12084 23 0 0 0 0.6560 6025-02
118 121684 23 0 1 0 0.6560 8.025-02
119 121984 22 0 0 0 0.6560 8.205-02
125 1211584 22 1 0 0 0.6262 6.165-02
126 12116194 21 0 0 0 0.6262 8.355-02
130 120084 21 0 1 0 0.6$2 6355-02
131 120184 20 0 0 0 0.6262 6.565-02
149 11885 20 1 0 0 0.5949 6475-02
150 1885 19 0 0 0 0.5949 8.695-02
166 10585 19 1 0 0 0.5636 8.545-02
167 106195 16 0 0 0 0.5636 8.765-02
173 21185 18 2 1 0 0.5010 8.345-02
174 2085 15 0 0 0 0.5010 9.145-02
189 211785 15 1 0 0 0.4676 6815—02
190 2118195 14 0 0 0 0.4676 9.125-02
194 202195 14 0 1 0 0.4676 9.125-02
195 203195 13 0 0 0 0.4676 9.465-02
200 20885 13 1 0 0 0.4316 9.025-02
201 31185 12 0 0 0 0.4316 9.395-02
215 311585 12 1 0 0 0.3956 6.665-02
216 311685 11 0 0 0 0.3956 9.275-02
255 40485 1 1 1 0 0 0.3597 8.685-02
256 40585 10 0 0 0 0.3597 9.105-02
281 500195 10 1 0 0 0.3237 8.425-02
262 50185 9 0 0 0 0.3237 8.875-02
324 7085 9 0 1 0 0.3237 8.675-02
325 71385 8 0 0 0 0. 3237 9.415-02
357 81485 8 0 8 0 0. 3237 9.415-02

 

 

186

Table F37. Keplen—Meier survival estimates for adult (AHY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [5‘ [1]) SE.
1 6113194 6 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

3 6115194 7 0 1 1 1.0000 0.005+00
11 603194 7 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 805194 8 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
21 90194 6 1 0 0 0.6750 1.095-01
22 91384 7 0 0 0 0.6750 1.175-01
25 916194 6 0 0 1 0.8750 1.095-01
26 91784 9 0 0 1 0. 8750 1.035-01
26 9884 10 0 0 1 0.6750 9.765-02
29 911084 10 0 1 0 0. 6750 9. 765-02
30 911184 9 0 0 0 0.8750 1.035-01
35 911684 10 0 0 1 0.8750 9.785-02
37 9118194 10 0 1 0 0.6750 9.785-02
36 911984 9 0 0 0 0.8750 1.035-01
42 903194 11 0 0 2 0.8750 9. 335-02
43 90484 11 1 0 0 0.7955 1.065-01
44 90584 11 0 0 1 0.7955 1.065-01
46 90784 13 0 0 2 0.7955 9.985-02
47 906194 13 0 1 0 0.7955 9.985-02
46 90984 12 0 0 0 0.7955 1.045-01
49 913084 13 0 0 1 0.7955 9.985-02
50 101184 13 1 0 0 0.7343 1.055-01
51 100194 12 0 0 0 0.7343 1.095-01
55 1016194 13 0 0 1 0.7343 1.055-01
56 101784 14 0 0 1 0.7343 1.015-01
59 1011084 15 0 0 1 0. 7343 9. 775-02
60 1011184 16 0 0 1 0.7343 9.465-02
61 1011284 17 0 0 1 0.7343 9.165-02
68 1011984 17 0 1 0 0.7343 9.165-02
69 100084 16 0 0 0 0.7343 9.465-02
67 111784 16 1 0 0 0.6684 9615-02
88 1118194 15 0 0 0 0.6664 9925-02
111 121184 15 1 0 0 0.6425 9925-02
112 120194 14 0 0 0 0.6425 1.035-01
116 1216194 14 0 1 0 0.6425 1.035-01
119 1219194 13 0 0 0 0.6425 1.075-01
125 1211584 13 1 0 0 0.5931 1.055-01
126 1211684 12 0 0 0 0. 5931 1.095-01
130 120084 12 0 1 0 0. 5931 1.095-01
131 120184 11 0 0 0 0.5931 1.145-01
173 21185 11 2 1 0 0.4852 1.055-01
174 2085 8 0 0 0 0.4852 1.235-01
200 20685 6 1 0 0 0.4246 1.145-01
201 31185 7 0 0 0 0.4246 1.225-01
255 40485 7 1 0 0 0.3639 1.105-01
256 40585 6 0 0 0 0.3639 1.165-01
261 50085 6 1 0 0 0.3033 1 .035-01
282 50185 5 0 0 0 0.3033 1.135-01
324 70195 5 0 1 0 0. 3033 1.135-01
325 71385 4 0 0 0 0. 3033 1 .275-01

l 87
Table F37. (cont'd)

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival
Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) S5.

 

357 81485 4 0 4 0 0. 3033 1 .275-01

 

188

Table F38. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for juvenile (HY) ruffed grouse radio-tagged

on Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [§ [1]) SE.
1 8114194 1 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
12 60584 2 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
35 911784 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
41 90384 5 1 0 2 0. 8000 1 .605-01
42 90484 5 0 0 1 0.6000 1 .605-01
44 90684 6 0 0 1 0.8000 1.465-01
51 1013194 7 0 1 1 0.8000 1.355-01
52 101484 6 0 0 0 0.8000 1.465-01
56 1016194 8 0 0 2 0.6000 1.265-01
59 1011184 9 0 0 1 0.8000 1.195-01
63 1011584 1 1 0 0 2 0.8000 1.085-01
70 1002194 11 0 1 0 0.8000 1.08501
71 1003194 10 0 0 0 0.6000 1.135-01
78 1013084 10 1 0 0 0.7200 1.205-01
79 1013184 9 0 0 0 0.7200 1.275-01
80 111184 9 0 1 0 0.7200 1.275-01
61 110194 8 0 0 0 0.7200 1.355-01
95 1111684 6 0 1 0 0.7200 1.355-01
96 1111784 7 0 0 0 0.7200 1.445-01
101 1102194 7 1 0 0 0.6171 1.445-01
102 110384 6 0 0 0 0.6171 1.565-01
146 118195 6 1 0 0 0.5143 1.465-01
149 18195 5 0 0 0 0.5143 1.605-01
165 10585 5 1 0 0 0.4114 1.415-01
166 10685 4 0 0 0 0.4114 1.565-01
193 20285 4 0 1 0 0.4114 1585-01
194 20385 3 0 0 0 0.4114 1.825-01
356 61485 3 0 3 0 0.4114 1.625-01

 

 

189

Table F39. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for male (M) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added (5‘ [1]) SE.
1 6113194 2 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005+00

2 811484 3 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

3 811 584 4 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005-+00
21 90194 4 1 0 0 0.7500 1.885-01
22 913194 3 0 0 0 0.7500 2175-01
26 91784 4 0 0 1 0.7500 1.665-01
26 9884 5 0 0 1 0.7500 1 .665-01
29 9110194 5 0 1 0 0.7500 1.665-01
30 911184 4 0 0 0 0.7500 1.665-01
35 911684 5 0 0 1 0.7500 1.665-01
37 911884 5 0 1 0 0.7500 1.685-01
38 911984 4 0 0 0 0.7500 1.885-01
42 90384 6 0 0 2 0. 7500 1 .535-01
44 905194 7 0 0 1 0.7500 1 .425-01
46 907194 9 0 0 2 0.7500 1 .255-01
47 908194 9 0 1 0 0.7500 1.255-01
48 90984 8 0 0 0 0.7500 1.335-01
49 9130194 9 0 0 1 0.7500 1.255-01
50 1011194 10 0 0 1 0.7500 1.195-01
56 101784 11 0 0 1 0.7500 1.135-01
60 1011184 12 0 0 1 0.7500 1.065-01
79 1013084 12 1 0 0 0.6675 1.115—01
60 1013184 11 0 0 0 0.6875 1.165-01
61 1111194 11 0 1 0 0.6675 1.165-01
82 110194 10 0 0 0 0.6875 1.225-01
87 111784 10 1 0 0 0.6186 1.215-01
68 1118194 9 0 0 0 0.6188 1.275-01
102 1112284 9 1 0 0 0.5500 1235-01
103 110384 8 0 0 0 0.5500 1.305-01
111 121184 6 1 0 0 0.4613 1.235-01
112 120194 7 0 0 0 0.4813 1.315-01
130 120084 7 0 1 0 0.4813 1.315-01
131 120184 6 0 0 0 0.4813 1.425-01
173 21185 6 2 0 0 0.3208 1.085-01
174 20195 4 0 0 0 0.3208 1.325-01
215 311585 4 1 0 0 0.2406 1.055-01
216 311685 3 0 0 0 0.2406 1.21 5-01
255 40485 3 1 0 0 0.1604 6.495-02
256 40585 2 0 0 0 0.1604 1.045-01
357 81485 2 0 2 0 0.1604 1.045-01

 

190

Table F40. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for female (F) ruffed grouse radio-tagged on
Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) closed site, 1994.

 

 

No. at No. No. No. Survival

Day Date risk deaths censored added [.5i [1]) SE.
1 6113194 4 0 0 0 1.0000 0.005100

2 611484 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00

3 6115194 5 0 1 0 1.0000 0.005-+00

11 80384 5 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
13 60584 7 0 0 2 1.0000 0.005-+00
25 91684 8 0 0 1 1.0000 00054-00
36 911 7194 9 0 0 1 1.0000 0.005+00
42 903194 10 1 0 1 0.9000 9005-02
43 904194 10 1 0 1 0.6100 1.125-01
44 90584 9 0 0 0 0.8100 1.185-01
45 90684 10 0 0 1 0.8100 1.125-01
52 101384 11 0 1 1 0.6100 1.065-01
53 101484 10 0 0 0 0.6100 1.125-01
55 1016194 11 0 0 1 0.8100 1.065-01
57 1016194 14 0 0 3 0.8100 9445-02
60 1011184 15 0 0 1 0.8100 9125-02
61 10112194 16 0 0 1 0.6100 6.835-02
64 10115194 17 0 0 1 0.8100 6.565-02
66 1011984 17 0 1 0 0.8100 6565-02
69 100084 16 0 0 0 0.6100 6.635-02
71 1002194 16 0 1 0 0.6100 6.635-02
72 1003194 15 0 0 0 0.8100 9.125-02
116 121884 15 0 1 0 0.6100 9.125-02
119 121984 14 0 0 0 0.6100 9445-02
149 118195 14 1 0 0 0.7521 1.005-01
150 11985 13 0 0 0 0.7521 1.045-01
166 105195 13 1 0 0 0.6943 1.065-01
167 10685 12 0 0 0 0.6943 1.115-01
173 21185 12 0 1 0 0.6943 1.115-01
174 212195 11 0 0 0 0.6943 1.165-01
189 211785 11 1 0 0 0.6312 1.165—01
190 211885 10 0 0 0 0.6312 1 .215-01
194 212285 10 0 1 0 0.6312 1.215-01
195 2123195 9 0 0 0 0.6312 1265-01
200 206195 9 1 0 0 0.5610 1245-01
201 31185 6 0 0 0 0.5610 ’ 1.315-01
281 500195 8 1 0 0 0.4909 1 .245-01
282 501195 7 0 0 0 0.4909 1.325-01
324 70195 7 0 1 0 0.4909 1 .325-01
325 713195 6 0 0 0 0.4909 1 .435-01
357 61485 6 0 6 0 0.4909 1 .435-01

 

 

LITERATURE CITED

 

LITERATURE CITED

Allin, A. E. 1964. Fluctuations in the ruﬁ‘ed grouse population of the Thunder Bay
District, Ontario. Loon 36:74-83.

Archibald, H. L. 197 7 . Is the 10-year wildlife cycle induced by a lunar cycle?
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 5:126-129.

Bart, J. 1977. Winter distribution of red-tailed hawks in central New York state.
Wilson Bull. 89:623-625.

Bendell, J. F., and F. C. Zwickel. 1979. Problems in the abundance and distribution
of blue, spruce, and ruffed grouse in North America. Pages 48-63 i_n_ D. Jenkins,
chairman. The ecology of woodland grouse. Woodland Grouse Symposium.

Bergerud, A T. 1985. The additive effect of hunting mortality on the natural mortality
rates of grouse. Pages 345-366 in S. L. Beasom and S. F. Roberston, eds.
Game harvest management. Caesar Kleberg Wildl. Res. Inst, Kingsville, TX.

Bump, G., R W. Darrow, F. C. Edminster, and W. F. Crissey. 1947. The mﬂ‘ed grouse:
life history, propagation, management. Holling Press, Inc, Buﬂ‘alo, NY.
915 pp.

Campa, H., 111., J. B. Hauﬂer, and S. R Winterstein. 1993. Effects of white-tailed deer
and elk browsing on regenerating aspen: a ten year evaluation. Pages 304-311
in I. D. Thompson, senior ed. Proc. of the International Union of Game
Biologists XXI Congress. Forests and wildlife....Towards the let century.

Craighead, J. 1., and F. C. Craighead. 1956. Hawks, owls, and wildlife. Wildl.
Manage. Inst, Washington, DC. 443 pp.

Criddle, N. 1930. Some natural factors governing the ﬂuctuations of grouse in
Manitoba. Can. Field-Nat. 44:77-80.

DeStefano, S., and D. H. Rusch. 1986. Harvest rates of ruﬂ‘ed grouse in northeastern
Msconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:361-367.

191

 

192

Eng, R L., and G. W. Gullion. 1962. The predation of goshawks upon ruﬂ‘ed grouse
on the Cloquet Forest Research Center, Minnesota. Wilson Bull. 74:227-242.

Fischer, C. A, and L. B. Keith. 1974. Population responses of central Alberta ruﬂ‘ed
grouse to hunting. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:585-600.

Gullion, G. W. 1970. Factors aﬂ‘ecting ruffed grouse populations in the boreal forests
of northern Minnesota, USA Pages 103-117 in International Union of Game
Biologists. Eighth International Congress of Game Biologists.

. 1972. Improving your forested lands for ruﬁ‘ed grouse. Ruﬁ‘ed Grouse Soc,
Coraopolis, PA 34 pp.

. 1981. The impact of goshawk predation upon nrﬁ‘ed grouse. Loon 53:82-84.

, and W. H. Marshall. 1968. Survival of ruﬁ‘ed grouse in a boreal forest. Living
Bird 7:117-167.

, and F. J. Svoboda. 1972. The basic habitat resource for ruﬂ‘ed grouse. Pages
113-119 i_n_ Aspen: Symposium Proceedings. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NC-l.

Hammill, J. H., and R J. Moran. 1986. A habitat model for ruﬁ‘ed grouse in Michigan.
Pages 15-18 in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph eds. Wildlife 2000.
Univ. “Wisconsin Press. Madison.

Keith, L. B., and D. H. Rusch. 1986. Predation’s role in the cyclic ﬂuctuations of
ruﬁ‘ed grouse. 19th International Ornithological Congress. Ottawa, Ontario.
V. 1:699-732.

Kubisiak, J. F. 1984. The impact of hunting on ruﬂ‘ed grouse populations in the
Sandhill Wildlife Area, Wisconsin. Pages 151-168 i_n_ W. L. Robinson, ed.
Ruﬂ‘ed grouse management: state of the art in the early 1980's. Northcentral
Section, The Wildl. Soc, Bethesda, MD.

Leopold, A, and J. N. Ball. 1933. British and American grouse cycles. Can. Field-Nat.
45:162-167.

Marshall, W. H., and G. W. Gullion. 1965. A discussion of ruffed grouse populations
Cloquet forest research center, Minnesota. Pages 93-102 in T. H. Blank, ed.
Trans. of the sixth Congress. International Union of Game Biologists.

Monschein, T. D. 1974. Eﬁ‘ects of hunting on ruﬂ‘ed grouse populations in small
woodlots in Ashe and Alleghany counties, North Carolina. Pages 30-36 m Proc.
of the 27th Ann. Conference SE Assoc. Game and Fish Comm.

193

Mosher, J. A, K. Titus, and M. R Fuller. 1986. Developing a practical model to
predict nesting habitat of woodland hawks. Pages 31-36 i_n_ J. Verner, M. L.
Morrison, and C. J. Ralph eds. Wildlife 2000. Univ. Wisconsin Press.
Madison.

Moulton, J. C. 1975. Ruﬂ‘ed grouse harvests - the great roller coaster ride. Wis.
Conserv. Bull. 40:14.

Nice, M. M., and L. B. Nice. 1921. The roadside census. Wilson Bull. 33:113-123.

NOAA 1982-1992. Climatological data annual summary Michigan. Vol. 97-107.
No.13.

Palmer, W. L., and C. L. Bennett. 1963. Relation of season length to hunting harvest of
ruﬂ‘ed grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:634-639.

Pollock, K. H., S. R Winterstein, C. M. Bunck, and P. D. Curtis. 1989. Survival
analysis in telemetry studies: the staggered entry design. J. Wildl. Manage.
53(1):7-15.

Roloﬂ‘, G. J. 1994. Using an ecological classiﬁcation system and wildlife habitat models
in forest planning. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 203 pp.

Rusch, D. H., S. DeStefano, and R J. Small. 1984. Seasonal harvest and mortality of
ruﬂ‘ed grouse in “fisconsin. Pages 137-150 it; W. L. Robinson, ed. Ruﬁ‘ed

grouse management: state of the art in the early 1980’s. Northcentral Section,
The Wildl. Soc, Bethesda, MD.

, M. M. Gillespie, and D. I. McKay. 1978. Decline of a ruﬂ‘ed grouse
population in Manitoba. Can. Field—Nat. 92:123-127.

, and L. B. Keith. 1971. Seasonal and annual trends in numbers of Alberta ruffed
grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 35:803-822.

Schorger, A. W. 1945. The ruﬂ‘ed grouse in early Msconsin. Trans. Vlfrs. Acad. Sci.
37:35-90.

Small, R. J ., J. C. Holzwart, and D. H. Rusch. 1991. Predation and hunting mortality of
ruﬁ‘ed grouse in central Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:512-520.

4 , and . 1993. Are ruﬁ‘ed grouse more vulnerable to mortality during
dispersal? Ecology 74:2020-2026.

 

Titus, K., and J. A. Mosher. 1981. Nest-site habitat selected by woodland hawks
in the central Appalachians. Auk 98:270-281.

 

194

Thompson, F. R, 111, and E. K. Fritzell. 1989. Habitat use, home range, and survival of
territorial male ruﬂ‘ed grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:15-21.

Vian, W. E., and C. W. Bliese. 1974. Observations on population changes and on
behavior of the bald eagle. Nebraska Bird Rev. 42:46-55.

White, G. C., and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data.
Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. 383pp.

Winterbottom, J. M. 1972. Road survey counts. Bokmakierie 24:2-3.

 

 

 

"I11111111111111“