Water is essential to life. Three general forms of water exist: pre-formed water that is available in food, metabolic water that is created as a byproduct of life processes (e.g., metabolism of fat or breakdown of carbohydrates), and free water (i.e., water available for drinking). As humans settle arid environments, the addition of man-made free water sources (e.g., sewage ponds, catchment ponds) often occurs. In addition, a tool commonly used to increase the abundance or distribution of wildlife species in desert environments is the addition of water sources, usually specifically designed to benefit game species like bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar). In recent decades, some scientists have argued that adding water sources to deserts may have little to no effect on desert species because they are adapted to living in desert conditions, and have thus evolved to obtain their water needs in preformed and/or metabolic form. Scientists have also suggested that adding water sources to desert environments may actually harm some individual species and alter the arraignments of groups of similarly related species, known as communities. I conducted four studies at the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground to determine if man-made water sources have an influence on the rodent community, jackrabbits, and the canid community at the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. I found that turning off water sources had no effect on abundance of rodent communities or jackrabbits. I found that a portion of coyotes used water sources and coyotes were only slightly less common near water sources once they were turned off. In addition, a portion of coyotes rarely or never drink from water sources and that coyotes did not leave their territories if water sources accessible to them were turned off. My final study revealed that turning off water sources did not influence kit fox survival or abundance, and that kit fox territories differed from areas associated with water sources in several key environmental characterizes, which may suggest that areas associated with water sources were not historically used by kit foxes. In summary, these findings suggest that water developments have little impact on the species that I studied.

Free water can be a limiting factor to wildlife in arid regions of the world. In the western United States, management agencies have installed numerous, expensive wildlife water developments (e.g. catchments, guzzlers, wells) to: 1) increase the distribution or density of target species, 2) influence animal movements, and 3) mitigate for the loss of available free water. Despite over 50 years as an active management practice, water developments have become controversial for several species. We lack an integrated understanding of the ways free water influences animal populations. In particular, we have not meshed understanding of evolutionary adaptations that reduce the need for free water and behavioral constraints that may limit use of otherwise available free water with management practices. I propose a conceptual framework for understanding more generally how, when, and where wildlife water developments are likely to benefit wildlife species. I argue that the following five elements are fundamental to an integrated understanding: 1) consideration of the variable nature in time and space of available free water, 2) location and availability of pre-formed and/or metabolic water, 3) seasonal temperature and precipitation patterns that influence the physiological need for water, 4) behavioral constraints that limit use of otherwise available free water, and 5) proper spacing of water sources for target species. I developed this framework from work done primarily with chukars (Alectoris chukar). I also report supporting evidence from research with mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Chukars demonstrated a spatial response to available free water when estimates of dietary moisture content were < 40%. Mule deer photo counts were reduced at water sources with small-perimeter fencing, suggesting increased predation risk caused mule deer to behaviorally avoid use of otherwise available free water. When all five framework elements are considered, I found strong evidence that wildlife water developments have benefited some chukar populations. Historic chukar counts suggested a population benefit following installation of wildlife water developments. Experimental removal of access to free water caused increased movements and decreased survival of adult chukars.

This thesis presents three separate manuscripts in chapter format dealing with the ecology of Chukars (Alectoris chukar) in western North America. All three manuscripts have been formatted for publication in professional journals. Chapter one confirms discovery of ingested lead pellets in Chukars across a broad region of western Utah including all four western counties sampled. Prevalence rates were 1.9% (n=105) for crops and 10.7% (n=75) of gizzards showing no evidence of penetration wounds. Ingestion is likely related to grit size preferences that are consistent with common shot sizes. The second chapter describes watering patterns and water-site selection of Chukars. Chukars watered during daylight hours with a modal hour from 1100 hours to 1200hours. Annual patterns suggest no use of water sources from November to May with first visits occurring in June of each year and last visits in October. Shrub canopy cover was the only variable to discriminate between use and non-use watering sources (P < 0.01). Cross validation showed a predictive success rate of 84%. Significant differences were found between use and non-use sites in terms of protective cover (P < 0.01), but not total cover (P > 0.05). Chukars were found to have a shrub canopy threshold near 11%; water sources meeting this threshold received use, whereas those not meeting this threshold did not. Chapter three challenges several claims postulating negative conservation implications relative to exotic Chukars in North America. These claims were proven to be unfounded with no evidence of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) dispersal despite widespread utilization. Furthermore, guzzlers designed to benefit Chukar populations were heavily utilized by native species and only slightly (two species at three sites) by other exotics. These three manuscripts illuminate several areas of Chukar ecology and represent a significant advancement in our understanding of this bird and its management.

Changes in the abundance and distribution of free (drinking) water can influence wildlife in arid regions. In the western USA, free water is considered by wildlife managers to be important for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). Nonetheless, we lack information on the influence of habitat and landscape features surrounding water sources, including wildlife water developments, and how these features may influence use of water by sexes differently. Consequently, a better understanding of differential use of water by the sexes could influence the conservation and management of those ungulates and water resources in their habitats. We deployed remote cameras at water sources to document water source use. For mule deer specifically, we monitored all known water sources on one mountain range in western Utah, during summer from 2007 to 2011 to document frequency and timing of water use, number of water sources used by males and females, and to estimate population size from individually identified mule deer. Male and female mule deer used different water sources but visited that resource at similar frequencies. On average, mule deer used 1.4 water sources and changed water sources once per summer. Additionally, most wildlife water developments were used by both sexes. We also randomly sampled 231 water sources with remote cameras in a clustered-sampling design throughout Utah in 2006 and from 2009 to 2011. In association with camera sampling at water sources, we measured several site and landscape scale features around each water source to identify patterns in ungulate use informative for managers. We used model selection to identify features surrounding water sources that were related to visitation rates for male and female bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. Top models for each species were different, but supported models for males and females of the same species generally included similar covariates, although with varying strengths. Our results highlight the differing use of water sources by the sexes. This information will help guide managers when siting and reprovisioning wildlife water developments meant to benefit those species, and when prioritizing natural water sources for preservation or enhancement.