Tympanuchus phasianellus

Sharp-tailed grouse are found from north-central Alaska, the Yukon
Territory, the Northwest Territories, northern Manitoba, northern
Ontario, and central Quebec south to eastern Washington, northeast Utah,
and Colorado. It occurs in the Great Plains from eastern Colorado to
northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and northern Michigan [1,8,24].
Ranges of the six subspecies are as follows:

Northern sharp-tailed grouse - breeds in northern Manitoba, northern
Ontario and central Quebec [24].

Northwestern sharp-tailed grouse - resident in the Northwest Territories
from the Mackenzie River to Great Slave Lake [24].

Alaskan sharp-tailed grouse - resident in north-central Alaska east to
the southern Yukon territory, northern British Columbia, and northern
Alberta [24].

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse - resident from northern British Columbia
south to eastern Washington, western Montana, northern Utah, and western
Colorado [49]. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range formerly extended to
California, Nevada, and New Mexico [23,33].

Prairie sharp-tailed grouse - resident from southeastern Manitoba,
southwestern Ontario, and the upper Peninsula of Michigan to northern
Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. Its range formerly extended to
northern Illinois [24].

Plains sharp-tailed grouse - resident from north-central Alberta and
central Saskatchewan south to Montana (except the extreme west),
northeastern Wyoming, northeastern Colorado, portions of Nebraska, South
Dakota, and North Dakota. Its range formerly extended to Kansas,
Oklahoma, and New Mexico [24].

More info on this topic.

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

AK CO ID MI MN MT NE ND SD UT WA WI WY AB BC MB NT ON PQ SK YK

occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

Canada

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) RESIDENT: locally from Alaska, and Yukon east to western Quebec, south to eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, Utah, Colorado, northeastern New Mexico (at least formerly), Nebraska, eastern South Dakota, eastern North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, northern Michigan; formerly south to southern Oregon, northeastern California, northeastern Nevada, western Kansas, southern Iowa, northern Illinois, and probably northern Texas (AOU 1983, Connelly et al. 1998).

Length: 43 cm

Weight: 953 grams

More info for the terms: cover, density, series, shrubs, tree

Good quality grass and brushy cover are essential for sharp-tailed
grouse. The height and density of vegetation is generally more
important than species composition in determining sharp-tailed grouse
habitat quality [37]. Sharp-tailed grouse prefer areas that contain
cover in scattered openings rather than evenly distributed [34].

Standing herbage or residual cover composed chiefly of grasses furnishes
protection for sharp-tailed grouse from inclement weather and predators,
especially in late winter and early spring [6]. In late summer and
early fall they are found mainly in open cover, grassy openings, or low,
scattered brush [8]. Scattered shrubs and shrubby breaks are more
important during late summer and fall than in midsummer, when grass
height is sufficient. Woody vegetative cover generally becomes
increasingly important during fall and winter [37].

Prairie sharp-tailed grouse in Michigan are abundant in areas 20 to 50
percent covered by woody vegetation. The following are recommendations
for sharp-tailed grouse habitat in that area: Sparse or bare patches in
the ground cover should not exceed half of the total area, and the area
of open habitat in wooded vegetation should not be less than 1 square
mile (2.59 sq km). Ideal summer habitat on a square mile should include
an open portion of about 6 percent of the total area to provide a
display site, loafing and foraging habitat for adult males and broods,
and roosting sites for displaying males. About half of the total area
should consist of scattered large shrubs and trees, especially aspens.
Heavy ground cover serves for resting, feeding, and dusting, especially
by broods [24]. The remaining 44 percent of the cover should consist of
an alternating series of small (10 acre [4 ha]) brushy clearings and
heavier second-growth stands of mixed hardwoods and conifers, which
serve as a source of winter browse and protection from severe weather as
well as escape cover. The scattered small clearings provide additional
nesting and brood-rearing habitat and winter roosting areas [24].

For the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, shrubs and small trees are
important habitat components only during late fall and winter. During
the rest of the year weed-grass cover and cultivated crops such as wheat
and alfalfa provide important food and cover [24].

The plains sharp-tailed grouse inhabiting the sandhills of central
Nebraska and the sand dune areas of north-central North Dakota are
relatively independent of extensive tree cover. A minimum of 5 percent
brush cover to total land surface is tolerable to sharp-tailed grouse in
North Dakota [24].

More info for the terms: bog, cover, density, hardwood, marsh, selection, shrub, shrubs, tree, warm-season

Courtship habitat - A common characteristic of sharp-tailed grouse leks
is low, sparse vegetation allowing good visibility and unrestricted
movement [37]. Height and density of vegetation appear to be important
factors in selection of leks [17]. Sharp-tailed grouse leks have been
reported on mowed wet meadows, cattle-trampled areas around windmills,
low ridges and knolls, and recent burns [37].

An excess of woody cover can adversely affect leks [17,37]. In
Minnesota, sharp-tailed grouse leks occurred where there was a 0.12 mile
(0.19 km) diameter area relatively free of woody vegetation [17]. In a
Michigan study, woody cover rarely exceeded 30 percent of the area of
the lek [17]. In Alberta, density of displaying male sharp-tailed
grouse was inversely related to total coverage of quaking aspen within
0.5 mile (0.8 km) of leks. Sharp-tailed grouse leks in quaking aspen
parkland of Manitoba were abandoned when the area dominated by grasses
fell below 58 percent [37]. In Michigan the average distance from the
center of a lek to dense brush was 690 feet (210 m); the average
distance from the center of the lek to the nearest tree was 900 feet
(274 m) [17].

Leks are often located relatively close to dense herbaceous cover from
the previous year's growth ("residual" cover) [37]. Females frequent
heavier cover than do males during the breeding season, so heavy cover
may be used by males to locate leks in heterogeneous habitats. The
distribution of leks used by sparse populations in east-central North
Dakota was influenced by the proximity of dense residual herbaceous
vegetation. Eleven of 14 sharp-tailed grouse leks were within 590 feet
(180 m) of grassland or cropland areas which had not been mowed or
grazed for several years and supported heavy stands of residual growth
each spring. New leks were established in Montana following substantial
increases in residual cover, and the largest leks were located in areas
surrounded by dense stands of residual vegetation [37].

Nesting habitat - Sharp-tailed grouse nest on the ground, preferably
among tall, rank grasses, but may also nest in brushy or woody areas
[8]. Residual herbaceous vegetation is important nesting cover because
little current growth is available in early spring when most nests are
constructed [37]. Female sharp-tailed grouse usually do not travel far
from leks to nest if suitable cover is available. The mean distance from
known leks to 78 nests in western North Dakota was 0.8 mile (1.3 km),
with a maximum of 2 miles (3.2 km). The mean distance between nests and
leks in Saskatchewan was about 0.5 mile (0.9 km); all nests were within
1 mile (1.6 km) of leks [37].

In the Nebraska sandhills, plains sharp-tailed grouse preferred to nest
on northern slopes dominated by residual cover of warm-season grasses
[43]. Of 78 plains sharp-tailed grouse nests found in North Dakota, 62
were in rolling grassland and 11 were in lowland draws; most were more
than 164 feet (50 m) from woody cover. Females selected tall vegetation
within a pasture for nest sites; plant height was more important than
species [24].

Nesting cover for prairie sharp-tailed grouse tends to be less grassy
and more shrubby than that for plains sharp-tailed grouse [37]. In
Michigan, most prairie sharp-tailed grouse nests were protected by
overhead cover or were within a few feet of such cover. Of 29 nests
found, none was more than 10 feet (3.3 m) from brushy or woody cover.
Of 10 nests studied, 6 were in open aspen, 3 were in cutover pines, and
1 was in an open marsh. These sites averaged 43 percent shrub cover,
from 3 to 6 feet (1-2 m) high, and 4 percent tree cover more than 6
feet (2 m) tall [24].

Brood habitat - Favored brooding sites are those that contain relatively
dense herbaceous cover, associated with a mixture of shrubs and forbs
[24]. Broods use cultivated lands that are generally avoided before
nesting [17]. Openings in forested areas may also be used [19,24].
Woody cover is more important for broods than for nesting hens [34]. In
North Dakota, broods frequently used woody cover in draws or on uplands
for shelter from rain and midday heat [37]. Generally, dense brush is
used during early brood stages [24]. Sharp-tailed grouse broods in the
Wisconsin pine barrens used more woody cover than that chosen for nest
sites but in general remained in areas that did not exceed 50 percent
shading by woody cover [19]. Of 190 broods in the Wisconsin pine
barrens, about 80 percent were in open habitats, 14 percent were in edge
habitats, and only 5 percent were more than 150 feet (46 m) inside woody
habitats [19]. Shrubs are more important in brood habitat than trees,
since they provide cover and food for chicks [24].

Roosting habitat - After the mating season males gradually move away
from their leks to foraging and daytime roosting sites that usually
include brushy cover, aspen or willow thickets, or young conifer stands.
In Utah, during the day sharp-tailed grouse roosted in weeds and grass
during June and early July and in shrubs and bushes in late July and
August. Night roosts located in fairly open upland sites with good
ground cover are preferred by sharp-tailed grouse over roosts in marsh
and bog vegetation [24]. Roost sites in the Nebraska sandhills were
typically dominated by grasses and were often interspersed with woody
vegetation [37].

Winter habitat - Winter use of habitats varies with snow depth [44]. As
food and cover are reduced in open habitats, sharp-tailed grouse move
into woody vegetation [24,37]. Sharp-tailed grouse also dig snow
burrows for shelter if snow depth is adequate; death may occur in severe
weather if no snow is available for burrowing [24].

Growth form of dominant grasses is important in late winter habitat. In
late winter and early spring, when shrub canopies are open and dry snow
is unavailable for burrowing, heavy or deep (> 4 inches [10.2 cm]) snow
may collapse sod-forming grasses. Bunchgrasses are more resistant to
collapsing under heavy snow and can provide cover when snow is up to 12
inches (30.5 cm) deep [37].

Habitat use by plains sharp-tailed grouse in eastern Montana was most
diverse during the winter [37,44]. During periods of deep snow on
mixed-grass prairie, plains sharp-tailed grouse used hardwood draws more
often than upland grasslands and croplands. Grassy upland use was
greatest when snow depth was low [44]. As snow exceeded 5.5 inches
(14.0 cm), use of hardwood draws and riparian forest increased. During
the winter in northern Montana, plains sharp-tailed grouse are commonly
found in coulees bordering streams with 10 to 15 percent shrub canopy
cover [37]. These habitats were critical for food during deep snow
conditions. Wintering plains sharp-tailed grouse in Alberta parklands
roosted in the lee of quaking aspen trees and fed on their buds.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in California and Washington and
sharp-tailed grouse of an unspecified subspecies in Manitoba remained in
the open where grain foods were available during winter [37].

More info for the terms: cover, density, shrub

The six subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse occupy a variety of habitats
including brushy openings in boreal forests, seral stages in mixed
conifer and broadleaf forests, shortgrass prairies, sagebrush (Artemisia
spp.) steppes, and oak (Quercus spp.) savannahs [24,33,37]. Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse are typically found in sagebrush semideserts [37].
Of the nine cover types near Mann Creek in western Idaho, Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse used big sagebrush (A. tridentata) types more
than or in proportion to availability, low sagebrush (A. arbuscula) in
proportion to availability, and avoided shrubby eriogonum (Eriogonum
spp.) cover types. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse selected areas with
greater density and coverage of arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza
sagittata) and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) in big
sagebrush sites [33]. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse broods in Wyoming
were found most often (73%) in mountain shrub and sagebrush-common
snowberry (Symphorocarpus albus) habitats [27].

Prairie sharp-tailed grouse are often found in oak savannahs and early
successional stages of eastern mixed deciduous-coniferous forests [37].
In northwestern Wisconsin, vegetation types heavily used by prairie
sharp-tailed grouse depending on season included grass-shrub,
shrub-grass, shrub, open conifer woods, sedge (Carex spp.) meadows,
shrub marshes, and croplands [16].

Plains sharp-tailed grouse occur in subclimax brushy grassland habitat
including wheatgrass-needlegrass (Stipa spp.), grama
(Bouteloua)-needlegrass-wheatgrass, sand sagebrush (A.
filifolia)-bluestem (Andropogon spp.), and Nebraska sandhills prairie
[24]. Optimum habitat in the mixed-grass prairie of Montana is a mosaic
of upland grassland with fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica) and riparian
hardwood draws. An interspersion of plant communities, particularly
grassland and grassland-shrub mixtures with extensive ecotones, provided
optimum habitat for plains sharp-tailed grouse in the central Alberta
quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) parklands. Good plains sharp-tailed
grouse habitat in South Dakota consisted of lightly grazed mixed-grass
prairie occasionally broken by brushy draws [37]. Wintering plains
sharp-tailed grouse in Alberta were found in quaking aspen parklands.
During winter in North Dakota, plains sharp-tailed grouse were found in
stands of bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana),
quaking aspen, cottonwood (Populus spp.), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and willow (Salix spp.) [37].

Northern, Northwestern and Alaskan sharp-tailed grouse inhabit brushy
stages of northern boreal forests [37].

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):

More info for the term: bog

K012 Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K046 Desert: vegetation largely lacking
K050 Fescue - wheatgrass
K051 Wheatgrass - bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta - three-awn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
K065 Grama - buffalograss
K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
K067 Wheatgrass - bluestem - needlegrass
K068 Wheatgrass - grama - buffalograss
K069 Bluestem - grama prairie
K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie
K074 Bluestem prairie
K075 Nebraska Sandhills prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K094 Conifer bog
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K099 Maple - basswood forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES18 Maple-beech-birch
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
15 Red pine
16 Aspen
17 Pin cherry
18 Paper birch
19 Gray birch - red maple
21 Eastern white pine
23 Eastern hemlock
24 Hemlock - yellow birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
42 Bur oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
63 Cottonwood
107 White spruce
210 Interior Douglas-fir
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
236 Bur oak
237 Interior ponderosa pine

Systems

• Terrestrial

Comments: Requires a mosaic of dense grass and shrubs with rich forb and insect foods during nesting and brood-rearing. During winter often relies on riparian areas and other sites that support deciduous trees and shrub for feeding, roosting, and escape cover; also utilizes non-native cultivated grains and hedgerow species. Natural succession of grasslands and shrublands to forests, accelerated or expanded geographically by artificial fire regimes, have influenced habitat quality and populations in several regions. Habitat and distribution is constrained in regions where fire suppression has reduced early and mid-successional vegetation communities. Habitat relationships have been well documented in numerous studies (Parker 1970, Oedekoven 1985, Marks and Marks 1987, Marks and Marks 1988, Prose 1987, Berg 1990, Weddell 1992, Cope 1992).

GRAZING: In general, selects vegetative communities least modified by livestock grazing (Marks and Marks 1987, Saab and Marks 1992). Documented avoidance of nest initiation in pastures occupied by livestock (Sedivec 1994).

LEKKING: Leks may be located on mowed wet meadows, cattle-trampled areas, low ridges and knolls, recent burns, forest clearcuts, shorelines, natural openings, and other areas with low sparse vegetation allowing good visibility and unrestricted movement, especially areas near dense herbaceous vegetation (Prose 1987, Deeble 1996). Established leks may be used for many years, although their exact location may shift over time and smaller satellite leks often form in the vicinity of historic leks (USFWS 1999). Key characteristics of leks in Manitoba were elevated sites with wide viewing horizons (low or sparse vegetation) and nearby escape cover (Baydack 1988, Berger and Baydack 1992). Leks form hub of breeding habitat and usually occur on elevated areas, but lower areas are also used. Leks sometimes association with disturbed sites and often on sites with less vegetation than surrounding areas with little slope (Connelly et al. 1998).

NESTING: Nests have been detected 50-1,600 meters from leks, with 75 percent within 1 kilometer of a lek site (Prose 1987, Saab and Marks 1992, Giesen and Connelly 1993). Nest sites dominated by relatively dense herbaceous cover and shrubs, but key species of vegetation vary considerably (Connelly et al. 1998). High-quality nesting habitat provided by structural diversity, including stand of grasses, shrubs, and forbs (Meints et al. 1992). Relatively dense residual herbaceous vegetation that provides good visual obstruction to a height of 15-30 centimeters is important nesting habitat (Prose 1987, Connelly et al. 1998).

BROOD REARING: Broods depend on areas with abundant forbs and insects.

WINTER: Availability of suitable winter habitat and forage may be the most critical component in determining the ability of an area to support the species (Prose 1987, Marks and Marks 1988, Saab and Marks 1992). Winter habitat requirements are relatively narrow, and are associated with riparian and upland areas with deciduous shrub and tree cover (Giesen and Connelly 1993). Marks and Marks (1988) found mountain shrub, deciduous shrub, and riparian cover types to be critical sources of winter food and thermal and escape cover. Prairie populations use aspen-dominated (POPULUS spp.) areas in winter for cover, roosting, and as a food source; also croplands and shrub areas (Dickson 1993). Often use snow or wetland vegetation as roosting cover (Gratson 1988).

For subspecies COLUMBIANUS, bunchgrasses (AGROPYRON spp., FESTUCA spp. ELYMUS spp.), sagebrush (ARTEMESIA spp.) and well-developed forbs (ACHILLEA spp., TRAGOPOGON spp., BALSAMORHIZA spp.) are important components of nesting and brood-rearing, possibly because the growth forms and structural diversity offer a combination of visual obstruction and visibility that provides escape cover while allowing approaching predators to be detected (Parker 1970; Oedekoven 1985, Marks and Marks 1987, Saab and Marks 1992, Weddell 1992). Canopy cover of 9 percent shrubs, 30 percent forbs, and 30 percent grasses reported for western Idaho (Marks and Marks 1987). In Wyoming broods occur most often in mountain shrub and sagebrush-snowberry (ARTEMESIA- SYMPHORICARPOS) habitats (Klott and Lindzey 1990). Important areas also include farm fields and cultivated crops (Hamerstrom 1963, Hillman and Jackson 1973, Sisson 1976, Meints 1991).

Subspecies COLUMBIANUS favors mesic shrub-steppe and grasslands, particularly in vegetative associations of fescue-wheatgrass (FESTUCA-AGROPYRON) and sagebrush-grass (ARTEMESIA-AGROPYRON; Kessler and Bosch 1982). Habitat in Great Plains region tends to be more grassy and less shrubby than that in Great Lakes states (Prose 1987). Pure stands of any single community do not seem optimum (Starkey and Schnoes 1976). Habitat use varies significantly between sites and seasons. In western Idaho preferred big sagebrush (ARTEMESIA TRIDENTATA) habitats with moderate vegetative cover, high plant species diversity, and high structural diversity (Saab and Marks 1992).

Non-Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species do not make significant seasonal migrations. Juvenile dispersal is not considered a migration.

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.

Spring-to-fall home range sizes are relatively small, generally less than 2 kilometers radius around leks. Seasonal movements to wintering areas from breeding grounds are typically less than 5-6.5 kilometers around leks (Meints 1991, Prose 1987, Giesen and Connelly 1993), but movements of up to several kilometers between seasonal habitats have been reported (Godfrey 1966, Prose 1987). In winter, birds may migrate to higher elevations than breeding habitat if woody cover and forage is available (Ulliman 1995). Longer distance movements have been documented in translocated birds, and inferred from historical accounts of "invasions" (Edminster 1954, Shiller 1973, Sisson 1976, Caldwell 1976, Giesen 1987).

More info for the terms: shrub, shrubs

Sharp-tailed grouse are primarily herbivorous and utilize a variety of
leafy plant material including buds, fruits, and catkins of woody
species. During the spring and summer herbaceous plants make up the
bulk of the sharp-tailed grouse diet. During the fall and winter
sharp-tailed grouse rely more on woody species [24,37]. Sharp-tailed
grouse less than 10 weeks old feed primarily on insects such as
short-horned and long-horned grasshoppers, beetles, and ants. At 12
weeks of age they consume about 90 percent plant material, which closely
resembles the adult diet [37].

During the spring and summer in Washington, green herbaceous materials
composed the bulk of the sharp-tailed grouse diet; grass blades alone
(especially Sandberg bluegrass [Poa secunda]) totaled 50 percent of the
spring diet and 75 percent of the summer diet. Flower parts,
particularly those of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and buttercup
(Ranunculus spp.), made up the rest of the spring and summer food [24].
The summer diet of adult plains sharp-tailed grouse in Nebraska
sandhills was 91 percent plant material, 5 percent insects, and 4
percent unknown. Important food items by volume included 54 percent
clover (Trifolium spp.), 9 percent rose hips (Rosa spp.), 6 percent
Bessey cherry (Prunus besseyi), 4 percent dandelion, and 3 percent
eastern poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) [37].

During fall, a diverse array of seeds and cultivated grains are eaten,
especially in agricultural areas. In nonagricultural areas shrub fruits
and seeds and green leaves of herbs, shrubs, and trees are eaten [24].
October foods of 53 plains sharp-tailed grouse showed a similar emphasis
on plant items (89%), including heavy use of fruits. Important plant
foods during this period were rose (46%), clovers, (16%), American
nightshade (Solanum americanum) (11%), clammy groundcherry (Physalis
heterophylla) (7%), dandelion (3%), and western snowberry
(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) (2%). Insects comprised 8 percent of the
October diet [37].

Fruits and berries were predominant in the fall diet of sharp-tailed
grouse in eastern Montana, followed by domestic grains. Russian olive
(Elaeagnus angustifolia) was heavily used even though scarce on the
study area. Grains were preferred during winter, although fruits and
buds were critical when snow became deep (>5.5 inches [>14 cm]). Silver
buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), fragrant sumac, Russian olive, and
creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) composed two-thirds of foods
used during winter [37].

Availability of grain, fruiting shrubs, or deciduous trees is important
in winter. Paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and quaking aspen are major
winter food sources for prairie sharp-tailed grouse when snow cover
prevents foraging on grains or similar foods [24]. In central
Wisconsin, paper birch buds and catkins are the primary winter foods of
prairie sharp-tailed grouse, with aspen of secondary importance. Among
shrubs, rose hips and hazel (Corylus spp.) buds and catkins are
important. In Ontario paper birch is the primary winter food for
prairie sharp-tailed grouse, supplemented by browse of willow, aspen,
blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), and mountain-ash (Sorbus spp.). In North
Dakota, willow buds are the most important single winter food for plains
sharp-tailed grouse, but chokecherry, cottonwood, and rose are major
supplementary species. During periods of heavy snow in Utah,
sharp-tailed grouse move into thickets of maple (Acer spp.),
chokecherry, and serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), where they feed on
buds [24]. The fruits of black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) and the
buds of Saskatoon serviceberry (A. alnifolia) and chokecherry were the
main winter foods of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in western Idaho
[33].

Comments: Forages on ground for succulent insects, forbs, grasses and seeds; also in shrubs or trees on fruits and buds (Grange 1948, Hillman and Jackson 1973, Prose 1987, Ulliman 1995). Roughly 90 percent or more is plant material; 10 percent (up to 40 percent in summer) of adult bird's diet is insects (HYMENOPTERA, ORTHOPTERA, LEPIDOPTERA; Bent 1932, Prose 1987). Observation in captivity indicates that for the first few weeks chicks are almost entirely insectivorous (Merker 1996). During winter may confine most foraging activity to shrub, hardwood draws, riparian forest, orchards, or hedgerows (Swenson 1985, Schneider 1994, Ulliman 1995). Buds of serviceberry (AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA), chokecherry (PRUNUS VIRGINIANA), aspen (POPULUS spp.), and fruits of hawthorn (CRATAEGUS DOUGLASSII), buffaloberry (SHEPERDIA ARGENTEA), Russian olive (ELEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA), snowberry (SYMPHORICARPOS spp.) and rose (ROSA spp.) are primary winter foods. Extensive winter feeding on buds and catkins of birch (BETULA spp.) and some willow (SALIX spp.; Zeigler 1979, Ritcey 1995, Deeble 1996). No regular association with free water; most dietary water probably obtained from food items, snow, dew. For a further summary of diet information see Connelly et al. (1998).

Some predators of sharp-tailed grouse include red foxes (Vulpes vulpes),
coyotes (Canus latrans), and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) and
other raptors [16].

Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.

Estimated Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Comments: Originally occupied 21 states and 8 provinces; extirpated this century from 7 (AOU 1998, Connelly et al. 1998). Subspecies CAMPESTRIS: range declined greatly this century. Subspecies COLUMBIANUS: significant regional and local declines and extirpations have occurred; its geographic distribution has contracted by an estimated 90% (Aldrich 1963, Miller and Graul 1980). Today the subspecies exists in substantial numbers only in Colorado and Idaho; exists in only remnant populations in Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and Montana; was extirpated but reintroduced in Oregon and Nevada; and is extirpated in California. Federal listing as "threatened" warranted (USFWS 1999). Subspecies HUEYI: extinct from New Mexico.

10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Comments: No information on northern subspecies. Subspecies COLUMBIANUS: three metapopulations exist, one in Colorado/Wyoming totaling approximately 6,000-8,000 birds, one in Idaho/Utah totaling approximately 20,000-50,000 birds, and one in central British Columbia totaling 4,500-10,000 birds. Other population centers include approximately 600 birds in south-central Idaho/northeast Nevada, a small population of about 50 birds in northeast Oregon, approximately 700 birds occur in scattered small populations in north-central Washington, and two small populations with about 50 birds each in western Montana (USFWS 1999). Overall a current population estimate is 35,000-70,000 individuals, with 50-70% occurring in Idaho (USFWS 1999). Subspecies CAMPESTRIS: populations in Michigan and Wisconsin at low numbers. In Minnesota populations dropped by 53 and 70 percent in the nw and e-c range between 1980-1992 (Berg 1990, Dickson 1993).

More info for the terms: cover, forb, shrubs

Fire is an important factor in creating and maintaining sharp-tailed
grouse habitat. Fire helps to maintain early successional stages of
grasses, sedges, forb, and shrubs, all of which provide cover and food
for sharp-tailed grouse [14]. Sharp-tailed grouse need open habitat
with good horizontal visibility for lek sites, so fires that reduce tall
cover would enhance lek availability and quality [42].

Much of the prairie habitat in which sharp-tailed grouse occur was
largely maintained by fire in presettlement times [14]. On native
northern mixed prairie grassland in South Dakota, sharp-tailed grouse
were absent in an unburned control area, which contained dense grass.
They were present on a less dense burned area within a few months
following the fire [22].

Following fire in boreal forests of Alaska, stands of aspen and birch
develop on well-drained sites and are occupied by Alaskan sharp-tailed
grouse [10].

Fire helps to eliminate dense mats of dead grasses, sedges, bushes,
sticks, and other debris which can act as a barrier to walking and
feeding. When this accumulation of debris is removed by fire,
sharp-tailed grouse make better use of the habitat [14].

Frequent fires may help reduce the number of wood ticks and other
parasites of sharp-tailed grouse [14].

Although fire is generally beneficial to sharp-tailed grouse, severe
fire may eliminate valuable cover essential for nesting, roosting,
hiding, and feeding. Severe fires in autumn may eliminate the entire
winter food and cover resource, making winter survival in that area
nearly impossible [14].

Fire helps to stimulate new food supplies for sharp-tailed grouse. In
Wisconsin, plants such as smartweed (Polygonum spp.) and ragweed
(Ambrosia spp.) usually increase following fire. Ragweed is one of the
best foods for sharp-tailed grouse. Numerous sedges and many grasses
eaten by sharp-tailed grouse also grow luxuriantly in fire-created
openings. Wild fruit supplies are greater and of better quality in
burned areas from 2 to 5 years after a fire because of the pruning
effect of fire [14]. Sharp-tailed grouse in central Wisconsin occupy
semiopen oak woodlands which have been opened up by fire. Acorns are
easier to find in these woodlands. Oakwoods with dense underbrush are
generally not used by sharp-tailed grouse. Fires also prune older
growth of browse such as hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), chokecherry,
willow, and sweet-fern (Myrica asplenifolia) and stimulates the new
growth that is preferred by sharp-tailed grouse [14].

Courtship and breeding - Sharp-tailed grouse are a true lek species:
The males defend small territories on traditional "dancing grounds"
where they compete for mating opportunities. Typically only a few males
mate. The height of male displaying occurs in the spring [33]. The
female begins to make a nest at about the same time she begins to visit
the dancing grounds or possibly even before. After successfully mating
she leaves the dancing grounds and probably does not return. Males also
display at dancing grounds during autumn. The autumn display is thought
to recruit first-year males into the lekking group and to maintain or
improve territorial position among established males [24].

Age at sexual maturity - Young male sharp-tailed grouse probably begin
establishing peripheral territories their first fall of life, and these
are held again the following spring [24]. Females probably breed for
the first time as yearlings [15].

Clutch size and incubation - Sharp-tailed grouse generally lay 12 eggs.
Eggs are laid at a rate of one per day and incubation begins when the
last egg has been laid. The incubation period is 23 to 24 days. The
precocial young all hatch on the same day [24,33]. Renesting attempts
sometimes occur but probably contribute no more than 10 percent of the
offspring in an average season [24].

Fledging - After the young hatch they are led away from the nest.
Chicks are able to fly to a limited degree when they are 10 days old,
and rapidly become independent. By the time they are 6 to 8 weeks old
they are fully independent, and broods gradually break up and disperse
[24].

Fall and winter flocks - Sharp-tailed grouse sometimes form fall and
winter flocks. In Wisconsin, sharp-tailed grouse formed flocks when
they could not borrow through snow because snow depth was less than 7
inches (18 cm). They left flocks when snow was greater than 7 inches
(18 cm) deep and burrowing was possible. Flock sizes decreased when
availability of ground food decreased [15].

Males employ elaborate courtship displays in the spring to attract females to central communal display grounds called leks. Males remain near leks April- May, and again during October to establish territories. In Manitoba, leks averaged 2.2 kilometers apart (Baydack 1988). Because of their importance, leks and their surrounding area are the principal units affecting demographics (Connelly et al. 1998).

Size of spring/autumn home ranges varies from 13 to 406 hectares (summarized by Connelly et al. 1998). In western Idaho, summer home range averaged 190 hectares (Saab and Marks 1992). The areas used are usually within a few kilometers of a lek. Seasonal movements to wintering areas from breeding grounds are usually less than 5 kilometers (Giesen and Connelly 1993), but can be up to 20 kilometers in Idaho (Meints 1991). Estimated densities range from 0.6-4.4 individuals per square kilometer (Connelly et al. 1998).

Feeds mainly on ground during spring, summer, and fall (Hart et al. 1950). Feeds in daytime; greater foraging activity in early morning and late evening during spring, summer, and fall; in winter, feeds throughout day. Gathers in flocks in fall and winter (Hart et al. 1950).

Maximum longevity: 7.5 years

Breeding begins in early April in the south to early May in north. Males engage in communal courtship displays at leks. Polygynous. Nest and young are tended by female. Brood disperses in 6-8 weeks. Clutch size averages 11-12 eggs (Hamerstrom 1939, Hart et al. 1950, Meints 1991, Cope 1992). Incubation period 21-23 days. May renest if first clutch is destroyed.

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species.

There are 3 barcode sequences available from BOLD and GenBank.  Below is a sequence of the barcode region Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (COI or COX1) from a member of the species.  See the BOLD taxonomy browser for more complete information about this specimen and other sequences.

Download FASTA File

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 3
Specimens with Barcodes: 4
Species With Barcodes: 1

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N4 - Apparently Secure

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Reasons: Widespread in western North America but has disappeared from large portions of the historic range, due mainly to habitat loss/degradation resulting from agricultural practices, livestock overgrazing, and habitat succession; these threats remain significant.

Information on state- and province-level protection status of animals in the
United States and Canada is available at NatureServe, although recent changes
in status may not be included.

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse has been delisted [52].

Year Assessed

Assessor/s

Reviewer/s

Contributor/s

Justification

History

• 2008
  Least Concern
• 2004
  Least Concern

Global Short Term Trend: Decline of 10-30%

Comments: For the period 1966-1995 the North American Breeding Bird Survey indicates no significant rangewide trends. Regional and local declines and extirpations have occurred. Distribution in most parts of southern portion of range now greatly reduced. Originally occupied 21 states and eight provinces; extirpated this century from seven (AOU 1998, Connelly et al. 1998). Populations are known to undergo dramatic population fluctuations (Baydack 1995, Kobriger 1995). A highly significant 7 percent annual decline was detected for Canada, a significant 7.7 percent annual decline was noted for the U.S. western region, and a significant 8.3 percent increase was detected in North Dakota; overall three survey regions showed significant declines, two showed significant increases, and five showed no significant trends (n = 122). During the more recent period 1980-1995 two regions showed significant declines, two showed significant increases, and six regions showed no significant trends (n = 98; Sauer et al. 1996). Populations in southern Canada (except British Columbia), North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and eastern Montana more secure than other populations; increasing in Idaho and Utah from 1986-1996 (Connelly et al. 1998). Subspecies COLUMBIANUS: Its geographic distribution, which formerly included all states west of the Continental Divide except Arizona and New Mexico, has contracted by an estimated 90 percent (Aldrich 1963, Miller and Graul 1980). Today the subspecies exists in substantial numbers only in Colorado and Idaho; exists in only remnant populations in Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and Montana; was extirpated but reintroduced in Oregon and Nevada; and is extirpated in California. In 1999 only 5 males were observed on a single lek in Montana (L. Young, pers. comm.). A current population estimate is 35,000-70,000 individuals, with 50-70 percent occurring in Idaho (USFWS 1999). Its listing as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted (USFWS 1999). Subspecies CAMPESTRIS: range declined greatly this century; in the late 1980s populations in Michigan and Wisconsin may have stabilized at very low numbers. In Minnesota populations dropped by 53 and 70 percent in the northwest and east-central range between 1980-1992 (Berg 1990, Dickson 1993).

Degree of Threat: B : Moderately threatened throughout its range, communities provide natural resources that when exploited alter the composition and structure of the community over the long-term, but are apparently recoverable

Comments: HABITAT: Historic conversion of native habitat to private cultivation is cited as a major contributor to declines (Buss and Dziedzic 1955, Kessler and Bosch 1982). Natural succession of grasslands and shrublands to forests, accelerated or expanded geographically by artificial fire regimes, have influenced habitat quality and populations in several regions. Habitat and distribution is constrained in regions where fire suppression has reduced early and mid-successional vegetation communities. Encroachment of aspen into prairie habitat has reduced the number of leks in southwestern Manitoba (Berger and Baydack 1992). Some types of prairie and shrub-steppe habitats protected from fire are readily colonized by evergreens which degrade habitat quality. Various evergreen trees (PINUS spp., PSEUDOTSUGA MENSEZII, JUNIPERUS spp.), and fewer deciduous species (QUERCUS spp., BETULA spp.) aggressively compete with shrubs, grasses and forbs, and dominate sites contributing to increased avian predation. At the landscape level these vegetation changes fragment and isolate habitats and populations (Berg 1990, Manley and Wood 1990, Dickson 1993). GRAZING: Over-grazing by domestic livestock is the activity most frequently attributed to causing declines, especially where it degrades habitat by reducing residual cover necessary for nesting, brood rearing, and predator evasion (Kessler and Bosch 1982). Kessler and Bosch (1982) surveyed biologists who manage both COLUMBIANUS and JAMESI and found that grazing intensity and subsequent effects on residual cover were overwhelmingly identified as the major conflict in conserving the taxon. HUNTING: Because they display on traditional lek sites during the fall hunting season, may be especially vulnerable to excessive harvest, particularly if the population is low and in fragmented habitats (Klott 1993). Annual harvest rates in Idaho range from approximately 10-30 percent (approximately 6,500 birds) of the total population during the hunting season. Harvest rates in Colorado are not reliable, but are likely less than 10 percent of the total estimated population. Harvest rates in British Columbia may approach 50 percent in some years (Ritcey 1995, USFWS 1999). Range-wide, current harvest estimates vary from 4-56 percent, and at lower population levels may negatively impact some populations (Connelly et al. 1998). However, for relatively large, stable populations hunting is not likely to have an additive effect over natural mortality (Braun et al. 1994). HUMAN DISTURBANCE: At leks, males are tolerant of a variety of disturbances but are displaced by human presence. Females are more susceptible to various types of disturbance than males. Disturbance of leks appears to limit reproductive opportunities and may result in regional population declines (Baydack and Hein 1987). BIOCIDES: Ritcey (1993) relates anecdotal reports of mortalities caused by insecticides and surface application of Compound 1080, a rodenticide. Malathion and dieldrin can also be lethal (McEwen and Brown 1966). The USFWS Contaminant Hazard Review (CHR) series cites possible impacts from zinc phosphide grain bait and toxaphene (Eisler 1995). Others have suggested population declines precipitated by insecticides, causing both direct mortalities and the loss of critical insect food resources (Bown 1980). Herbicide treatments may further fragment native vegetation communities critical as feeding, nesting, and wintering habitat. Reduced herbicide use is recommended to increase plant and insect diversity on margins of agricultural lands (J. W. Connelly, pers. comm.). PREDATION: Local changes in habitat, such as forest encroachment, power pole and fence arrays, and other structures may favor avian predators by providing cover and platforms from which to more effectively hunt. Similarly, decreased availability of nesting or escape cover, or increased travel distance to forage resources, may create less-optimal habitats and increase vulnerability to many sources of predation (Dickson 1993; J. W. Connelly, pers. comm.; A. Sands, pers. comm.). As a ground nester and feeder, adults and young are commonly depredated by various animals. Newly introduced, expanding, subsidized or feral predators such as red fox (VULPES VULPES), raccoon (PROCYON LOTOR), coyote (CANIS LATRANS), plus various mustelids, felines, rodents, corvids, and several larger raptors, have been observed as predators of nests and adults (see Connelly et al. (1998) for a summary of predation). Avian predators have taken significant proportions of radio-marked birds, though this may be an artifact of instrumentation (Gratson 1982, Marks and Marks 1988, Deeble 2000). INBREEDING: The fragmented and isolated nature of many populations is a concern for the species in portions of its range. The deleterious effects of inbreeding and the changes in gene frequencies may pose long-term threats to small, isolated populations, and a reduction in fitness. In the Greater Prairie-Chicken (TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO PINNATUS), reductions in population size and fitness have been observed concurrent with reductions in genetic diversity; fitness, in the form of restored egg viability, was increased by translocations of individuals from large genetically diverse populations (Westemeier et al. 1998). Several aspects of life history and reproductive behavior predispose the taxon to small effective population size. Annual survival of adult males as determined from lek attendance ranges from 24-47 percent (Brown 1966, Robel et al. 1972, Cope 1992). Polygynous lek breeding system has small proportion of males do the majority of mating (Weddell 1992). This breeding regime skews the sex ratio by limiting the number of males contributing during any breeding season to the gene pool, and reduces effective population size. Naturally occurring impacts and human influences may pose additional threats to these isolated populations. Such events may include drought, fire, inclement weather, accidents, cultivation practices, and hunting (Hart et al. 1950, Rogers 1969, WDFW 1995, Mitchell 1995). Subspecies COLUMBIANUS: unlikely that any one factor has caused observed declines. Starkey and Schnoes (1976) hypothesize that hunting and overgrazing caused historic declines, followed by habitat changes resulting from fire suppression, continued overgrazing, and cultivation. Current loss and degradation of habitat is due to any one or a combination of factors including crop production, livestock grazing, rural and suburban development, dam construction, biocides, fire, drought, recreation and other factors (Hart et al. 1950, Buss and Dziedzic 1955, WDFW 1995, McDonald and Reese 1998, USFWS 1999). If Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands important to some populations are put back into crop production, adverse impacts to at least the COLUMBIANUS subspecies will likely occur (USFWS 1999). Subspecies CAMPESTRIS: decline due to vegetation succession, improperly placed conifer plantations, intensive agricultural development, cutting and spraying CRP lands (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1961, Berg 1990).

More info for the terms: cover, muskeg

Prescribed fire has been used to maintain and improve sharp-tailed
grouse habitat in several areas [9,17,28,41,42]. Repeated prescribed
fire in Michigan has helped to improve sharp-tailed grouse habitat and
increase populations. Herbage produced following prescribed burning in
the pine types of Michigan provided food and cover for sharp-tailed
grouse that was not found on unburned areas [23]. In Alaska and the
Yukon Territory, prescribed burning has helped convert spruce (Picea
spp.) muskeg habitat into more productive sharp-tailed grouse habitat
[36]. Mature aspen can be converted to sharp-tailed grouse habitat
through repeated spring prescribed burning [4]. Burning should be
avoided during the nesting season [14].

More info for the terms: cover, shrub

The populations and distributions of the Columbian, prairie, and plains
sharp-tailed grouse have all decreased from loss of habitat due to
intensive livestock grazing, conversion of range to cropland, and other
human activities [24]. Overstocking results in loss of vegetation
necessary for nesting and may reduce shrubby cover needed for broods.
Woody vegetation frequently deteriorates in areas where livestock are
concentrated. In such areas it would be desirable to fence off some
woody stands to provide cover for sharp-tailed grouse [33,43]. In
western Idaho, mountain shrub and riparian cover types were the most
important winter habitats for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. These
cover types are sometimes heavily damaged by livestock. Any disturbance
that may damage or eliminate these cover types may have severe negative
impacts on Columbian sharp-tailed grouse [33]. In general, grazing
should be regulated so that approximately 15 percent of an area remains
unused during a season [43].

Restoration Potential: Benefits greatly from rehabilitation of grassland and shrubland to its native composition and condition, or to structural and forage conditions mimicking native condition. Nesting and brood habitat quality can be restored by better management or elimination of livestock grazing to maximize residual vegetation, and by conversion of croplands to mixed-grasslands comprised of grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Preserve Selection and Design Considerations: Leks are important because they are essential to reproduction, and of use in monitoring population trends (Giesen and Connelly 1993). Translocated birds have been reported to have an unexplained tendency to establish leks at historic lek locations, sometimes years after lek abandonment. Thus, currently vacant lek sites could be important to future reestablishment; protecting such sites should be an additional focus of a conservation strategy (A. Sands, pers. comm.; M. Wood, pers. comm.; Deeble 1996; Merker 1996). The area within 2.5 kilometers of an active breeding lek is believed to be critical to management of nesting and brood-rearing habitats (Saab and Marks 1992, Giesen and Connelly 1993). Deciduous shrub habitats used during winter should be within 6 kilometers of breeding habitat (Prose 1987, Toepfer et al. 1990, Meints et al. 1992). Minimum total habitat area necessary for successful population persistance or reintroduction has been suggested to approach 30 square kilometers; 33 percent should be undisturbed grass-shrub habitat in early to mid-successional stages; remainder can be composed of cropland, pasture, and grazed uplands. Grassland may require periodic disturbance to prevent succession to dense forest (Berg 1990, Deeble 1996).

Management Requirements: HABITAT: Habitat suitability index (HSI) procedures developed and evaluated for subspecies JAMESI and COLUMBIANUS (Prose 1987, Meints et al. 1992, Merker 1996, Gardner 1997). Populations generally respond to habitat management practices that increase or protect food sources, as well as nesting and winter habitats. Habitat can be developed on cultivated land by planting grass (AGROPYRON spp., FESTUCA spp., ELYMUS spp., POA spp., BROMUS spp.) and forbs such as alfalfa (MEDICAGO spp.) and sweet clover (MELILOTUS spp.). Grasslands should not be mowed or grazed if they are to be managed for grouse. Providing short-term winter forage in the form of domestic grains where native forage species have been degraded may improve local over-winter survival. Small 1-2 hectare food plots of grains such as wheat, barley, or oats can be left standing. Placing artificial forage resources near escape cover is essential. Long-term winter forage improvement will requires the rehabilitation of the native shrub community, particularly that of riparian areas (Connelly and Sands 1995). Restoration of hawthorn (CRATAEGUS DOUGLASSII), chokecherry (PRUNUS VIRGINIANA), serviceberry (AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA), birch (BETULA spp.), and other shrub provides critical winter forage and shelter.

CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP): Since 1985, large portions of privately owned lands have been withdrawn from crop production and planted to native and non-native grasses, forbs, and shrubs under the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP; USDA 1998). Establishment of permanent cover on idle cropland under the CRP program has been used to significantly enhance and enlarge suitable habitat (Sirotnak et al. 1991, Giesen and Connelly 1993) particularly important to the subspecies COLUMBIANUS in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington (USFWS 1999).

PREDATION: Most managers do not consider direct predator control an effective conservation tool (Deeble 1996, Schroeder et al. 1999). However, where predation rates are unsustainable, reducing artificial predator subsidies (den sites, carrion, farm wastes, and hunting platforms), combined with focused direct controls, may offer both immediate and longer-term protection to remnant or reintroduced populations.

HUNTING: Closed hunting seasons are recommended for small, isolated, or declining populations (Ammann 1963, Marks and Marks 1987).

GRAZING: Brood habitats are optimized where heavy livestock grazing is avoided to maintain vegetative species diversity of forbs and grasses (Klott and Lindzey 1990). In places, reformed grazing practices have been credited with local improvements in habitat (J. Anderson pers. comm., V. Coggins pers. comm.).

BURNING: At proper frequencies and scales, fire can improve habitat. Fire should be used to maintain a vigorous subclimax condition (Kirsch et al. 1973). Controlled burns are prescribed in areas otherwise prone to successional colonization by trees (Dickson 1993). In shrub-steppe habitat in western Montana, where fire has not been an acceptable treatment method, cutting of encroaching evergreen trees is being used to enhance habitat for an isolated population (Neudecker, pers. comm.). Fire suppression is advised for areas where burns are predicted to degrade habitat values, particularly the availability of critical shrub and residual cover (Schroeder pers. comm.).

REINTRODUCTION/SUPPLEMENTATION: Reintroduction record is poor when it comes to establishing populations in unoccupied habitat. Many past reintroduction efforts have failed to produce self-sustaining populations or increase the size or distribution of augmented populations. Reintroduction techniques, however, have improved. Successful restoration is significantly increased when a project is long-term, releases over 100 birds during the spring, and employs a soft-release technique (Snyder et al. 1999). Translocation to active leks, prompt transportation, and matching the ecotype of the source population to that of the release sites are also important factors (Toepfer et al. 1990, Hoffman et al. 1992, Connelly et al. 1998). Hybridization of different populations or subspecies may be a concern for reintroduction efforts (Deeble 2000). A population size of at least 100 males has been observed as the minimum necessary for persistence of populations (Toepfer et al. 1990); minimum area necessary for successful reintroduction is 30 square kilometers (Toepfer et al. 1990, Meints et al. 1992).

Summarized guidelines for land management practices within subspecies COLUMBIANUS occupied habitat and "breeding complexes" (area within 2 kilometers radius of leks) include: prohibit disturbances within the breeding complex during the breeding season (Mar-June); avoid manipulation or alteration of vegetation within the breeding complex during the nesting period; do not reduce height, canopy cover, or density of shrub species locally important for nesting or within 100 meters of streams; in bunchgrass-prairie communities, adequate height-density (Robel pole x = 2.5 decimeters) of residual grasses should be maintained for nesting; livestock use of riparian areas should be managed or eliminated to minimize destruction of associated shrubs and trees; avoid herbicide application, burning, or mechanical destruction that results in long-term reduction of shrub habitats; management practices to rejuvenate or increase shrub communities within breeding complexes or winter ranges should be restricted to less than 25 percent of this cover type annually (Robel et al. 1970, Giesen and Connelly 1993). Initial efforts at captive-breeding subspecies COLUMBIANUS for release into the wild has been attempted, with mixed results (Merker 1996).

See Berg (1990) for general management recommendations for subspecies CAMPESTRIS in the western Great Lakes states.

Management Research Needs: Because morphometric and plumage distinctions are often too subtle to allow subspecies assignment in the field, management decisions relating to taxonomy are often made based on less-reliable geographic range, or habitat affinity (Wright, pers. comm.; Eng, pers. comm.); more reliable field methods need to be developed for confirming subspecies taxonomy, particularly where population supplementation is being considered. Also the lack of sufficient data with respect to the genetic integrity populations is a concern (Saab and Marks 1992).

Given the large-scale declines in the CAMPESTRIS and COLUMBIANUS subspecies, effective management strategies need development to stabilize and increase these populations (Connelly et al. 1998). Continue efforts to locate lek sites and critical wintering areas, using increased effort and improved survey methods. Research is needed to improve our knowledge of the effect of harvesting throughout its range (Connelly et al. 1998).

Biological Research Needs: Basic research on behavior, predation, genetics, and other aspects of life history and biology are needed. Also need more information on population demographics, juvenile mortality, and the production level needed for a stable or increasing population. There is little information regarding what degree of genetic divergence, if any, is detectable between subspecies. It has been proposed that a range-wide analysis of isozymes and mtDNA be undertaken (Toepfer 1988). For relevent information on genetics of TYMPANUCHUS spp. and other species see Gutierrez et al. (1983), Parkin (1987), Quinn and White (1987), Evans (1987), Leberg (1991), Gyllensten et al. (1985), Ellsworth et al. (1993), Ellsworth et al. (1994), and Oyler-McCance et al. (in press).

Global Protection: Few to several (1-12) occurrences appropriately protected and managed

Comments: Several protected occurrences in parks in Alaska and Canada. In southern range few protected occurrences; perhaps none of adequate size to sustain populations over long-term. Most public and private habitats continue to be intensively grazed and cultivated, and degraded by inappropriate fire regimes. Many populations hunted without adequate monitoring.

Stewardship Overview: Optimum habitat consists of a mosaic of grass, deciduous trees, various shrub and shrub/grass communities. Historically occupied twenty-nine states and provinces; extirpated from seven during 20th century, with greatly reduced abundance and distribution over much remaining range. Conversion of native grassland to agriculture and intensive livestock grazing, succession of grassland to dense forest accelerated by fire suppression, and isolation are the principle threats to remaining habitats and populations. Some populations have responded positively to creation of large dense grasslands on retired agricultural lands. Regular censusing of breeding leks is critical to tracking population trends.