We used movement and demographic data to simultaneously evaluate habitat selection by sage-grouse across multiple seasons, and measures of survival during key reproductive life stages (nesting and brood-rearing) to identify priority habitat by linking resource selection to demographic performance. We calculated and mapped composite selection and survival indices across the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to differentiate productive habitat that supported high selection and survival compared to areas of maladaptive selection where selection and survival were misaligned. We then reclassified the indices into categorical rasters representing different classes of selection (high, moderate, low, non-habitat) and survival (high, moderate, low, and very low).

We used movement and demographic data to simultaneously evaluate habitat selection by sage-grouse across multiple seasons, and measures of survival during key reproductive life stages (nesting and brood-rearing) to identify priority habitat by linking resource selection to demographic performance. We calculated and mapped composite selection and survival indices across the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to differentiate productive habitat that supported high selection and survival compared to areas of maladaptive selection where selection and survival were misaligned.

We used movement and demographic data to simultaneously evaluate habitat selection by sage-grouse across multiple seasons, and measures of survival during key reproductive life stages (nesting and brood-rearing) to identify priority habitat by linking resource selection to demographic performance. We calculated and mapped composite selection and survival indices across the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to differentiate productive habitat that supported high selection and survival compared to areas of maladaptive selection where selection and survival were misaligned.

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereinafter sage-grouse) is a sagebrush obligate species and widely considered an indicator species for sagebrush ecosystems and other sagebrush-dependent species (Hanser and Knick, 2011; Prochazka and others, 2023). Sagebrush ecosystems are threatened by a wide range of disturbances and anthropogenic factors, including climate change, severe drought, altered wildfire regimes, expansion of invasive species, and anthropogenic development. Collectively, these threats have led to reduced ecological integrity and sage-grouse habitat quality within the sagebrush biome (Doherty and others, 2022). Steady and long-term declines in sage-grouse populations have led to large-scale efforts to improve population performance and prevent additional loss of habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species (Coates and others, 2021). Due to their complex space use and habitat selection patterns during different life stages, requirements for large intact tracts of sagebrush, declining population trends, and status as a proposed protected species, sage-grouse have become integral to land management and conservation policy throughout the western United States (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2015; Doherty and others, 2022). References cited: Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Aldridge, C.L., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Monroe, A.P., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., and Chenaille, M.P., 2023, Range-wide population trend analysis for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)-Updated 1960-2022: U.S. Geological Survey Data Report 1175, 17 p., accessed December 7, 2023, at [Available at https://doi.org/10.3133/dr1175.] Doherty, K., Theobald, D.M., Bradford, J.B., Wiechman, L.A., Bedrosian, G., Boyd, C.S., Cahill, M., Coates, P.S., Creutzburg, M.K., Crist, M.R., Finn, S.P., Kumar, A.V., Littlefield, C.E., Maestas, J.D., Prentice, K.L., Prochazka, B.G., Remington, T.E., Sparklin, W.D., Tull, J.C., Wurtzebach, Z., and Zeller, K.A., 2022, A sagebrush conservation design to proactively restore America’s sagebrush biome: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2022-1081, 38 p., accessed December 6, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081. Hanser, S.E., and Knick, S.T., 2011, Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for shrubland passerine birds-A multiscale assessment, chap. 19 in Knick, S.T., eds., Greater sage grouse-Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats: University of California Press, p. 474-487. [Available at https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520267114.003.0020.] Prochazka, B.G., Coates, P.S., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Monroe, A.P., Ricca, M.A., Wann, G.T., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., Doherty, K.E., Chenaille, M.P., and Aldridge, C.L., 2023, A targeted annual warning system developed for the conservation of a sagebrush indicator species: Ecological Indicators, v. 148. [Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110097.] Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2015, Greater sage-grouse population trends: an analysis of lek count databases 1965-2015: Cheyenne, Wyo., Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 55 p., accessed 07 12, 2023, at https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/ng451p621

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereinafter sage-grouse) is a sagebrush obligate species and widely considered an indicator species for sagebrush ecosystems and other sagebrush-dependent species (Hanser and Knick, 2011; Prochazka and others, 2023). Sagebrush ecosystems are threatened by a wide range of disturbances and anthropogenic factors, including climate change, severe drought, altered wildfire regimes, expansion of invasive species, and anthropogenic development. Collectively, these threats have led to reduced ecological integrity and sage-grouse habitat quality within the sagebrush biome (Doherty and others, 2022). Steady and long-term declines in sage-grouse populations have led to large-scale efforts to improve population performance and prevent additional loss of habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species (Coates and others, 2021). Due to their complex space use and habitat selection patterns during different life stages, requirements for large intact tracts of sagebrush, declining population trends, and status as a proposed protected species, sage-grouse have become integral to land management and conservation policy throughout the western United States (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2015; Doherty and others, 2022). References cited: Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Aldridge, C.L., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Monroe, A.P., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., and Chenaille, M.P., 2023, Range-wide population trend analysis for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)-Updated 1960-2022: U.S. Geological Survey Data Report 1175, 17 p., accessed December 7, 2023, at [Available at https://doi.org/10.3133/dr1175.] Doherty, K., Theobald, D.M., Bradford, J.B., Wiechman, L.A., Bedrosian, G., Boyd, C.S., Cahill, M., Coates, P.S., Creutzburg, M.K., Crist, M.R., Finn, S.P., Kumar, A.V., Littlefield, C.E., Maestas, J.D., Prentice, K.L., Prochazka, B.G., Remington, T.E., Sparklin, W.D., Tull, J.C., Wurtzebach, Z., and Zeller, K.A., 2022, A sagebrush conservation design to proactively restore America’s sagebrush biome: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2022-1081, 38 p., accessed December 6, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081. Hanser, S.E., and Knick, S.T., 2011, Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for shrubland passerine birds-A multiscale assessment, chap. 19 in Knick, S.T., eds., Greater sage grouse-Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats: University of California Press, p. 474-487. [Available at https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520267114.003.0020.] Prochazka, B.G., Coates, P.S., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Monroe, A.P., Ricca, M.A., Wann, G.T., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., Doherty, K.E., Chenaille, M.P., and Aldridge, C.L., 2023, A targeted annual warning system developed for the conservation of a sagebrush indicator species: Ecological Indicators, v. 148. [Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110097.] Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2015, Greater sage-grouse population trends: an analysis of lek count databases 1965-2015: Cheyenne, Wyo., Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 55 p., accessed 07 12, 2023, at https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/ng451p621

A shapefile representing greater sage-grouse (hereafter sage-grouse) space use and lek abundance in the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of California and Nevada. These data were derived by combining a kernel density estimation of sage-grouse lek abundance combined with another raster representing distance to lek. The 85 percent isopleth was then used to define "high space-use."

A shapefile representing greater sage-grouse (hereafter sage-grouse) space use and lek abundance in the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of California and Nevada. These data were derived by combining a kernel density estimation of sage-grouse lek abundance combined with another raster representing distance to lek. The 85 percent isopleth was then used to define "high space-use."

Resource selection functions (RSF) and associated maps are often used by managers to guide conservation actions (Crawford et al., 2020; Pratt and Beck, 2021; Saher et al., 2022). However it is important to move beyond designating important habitat solely based on species occupancy or use. Incorporating demographic measures such as reproductive success will provide increased power and detail for ranking habitat for management priority, particularly across multiple life stages and large spatial extents (Gibson et al., 2016; Pratt and Beck, 2021; Stephens et al., 2015). We provide a quantitative approach to differentiate productive habitats supporting high selection and survival from areas of maladaptive selection where selection and survival are misaligned at large spatial scales. References cited Crawford, B. A., Maerz, J. C., and Moore, C. T. (2020). Expert-informed habitat suitability analysis for at-risk species assessment and conservation planning. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, 11(1), 130-150. https://doi.org/10.3996/092019-JFWM-075 Gibson, D., Blomberg, E. J., Atamian, M. T., and Sedinger, J. S. (2016). Nesting habitat selection influences nest and early offspring survival in Greater Sage-Grouse. The Condor: Ornithological Applications, 118(4), 689-702. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-16-62.1 Pratt, A. C., and Beck, J. L. (2021). Do greater sage-grouse exhibit maladaptive habitat selection? Ecosphere, 12(3), e03354. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3354 Saher, D. J., O’Donnell, M. S., Aldridge, C. L., and Heinrichs, J. A. (2022). Balancing model generality and specificity in management-focused habitat selection models for Gunnison sage-grouse. Global Ecology and Conservation, 35, e01935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01935 Stephens, P. A., Pettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Whittingham, M. J., and Cadotte, M. W. (2015). Management by proxy? The use of indices in applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(1), 1-6.

Resource selection functions (RSF) and associated maps are often used by managers to guide conservation actions (Crawford et al., 2020; Pratt and Beck, 2021; Saher et al., 2022). However it is important to move beyond designating important habitat solely based on species occupancy or use. Incorporating demographic measures such as reproductive success will provide increased power and detail for ranking habitat for management priority, particularly across multiple life stages and large spatial extents (Gibson et al., 2016; Pratt and Beck, 2021; Stephens et al., 2015). We provide a quantitative approach to differentiate productive habitats supporting high selection and survival from areas of maladaptive selection where selection and survival are misaligned at large spatial scales. References cited Crawford, B. A., Maerz, J. C., and Moore, C. T. (2020). Expert-informed habitat suitability analysis for at-risk species assessment and conservation planning. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, 11(1), 130-150. https://doi.org/10.3996/092019-JFWM-075 Gibson, D., Blomberg, E. J., Atamian, M. T., and Sedinger, J. S. (2016). Nesting habitat selection influences nest and early offspring survival in Greater Sage-Grouse. The Condor: Ornithological Applications, 118(4), 689-702. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-16-62.1 Pratt, A. C., and Beck, J. L. (2021). Do greater sage-grouse exhibit maladaptive habitat selection? Ecosphere, 12(3), e03354. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3354 Saher, D. J., O’Donnell, M. S., Aldridge, C. L., and Heinrichs, J. A. (2022). Balancing model generality and specificity in management-focused habitat selection models for Gunnison sage-grouse. Global Ecology and Conservation, 35, e01935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01935 Stephens, P. A., Pettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Whittingham, M. J., and Cadotte, M. W. (2015). Management by proxy? The use of indices in applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(1), 1-6.

These data are the input tables for the habitat selection and survival models. The tables are the result of extracting values from rasters to both 'used' and 'available' locations; 'used' refers to an observation of a sage-grouse nesting or brood rearing, 'available' is a randomly-generated location proximal to a paired 'used' location. For these locations, we extract values from multiple rasters expressing landscape characteristics such as landcover (such as sagebrush, annual grass, or shrubs, expressed as a percentage), height of sagebrush, distance to water features, distance to anthropogenic features, and topographic transformations (such as slope, heat load index, and roughness). There are also some values in the table that are not the result of value extraction, but rather field-collection such as date, fate, and age (in days) of the nest or brood. Ultimately, the locations were removed from these tables as sage-grouse are considered to be a sensitive species.