Tympanuchus phasianellus

(Linnaeus, 1758)

Sharp-tailed Grouse

G5Secure Found in 25 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104212
Element CodeABNLC13030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderGalliformes
FamilyPhasianidae
GenusTympanuchus
Synonyms
Pedioecetes phasianellus
Other Common Names
sharp-tailed grouse (EN) Tétras à queue fine (FR)
Concept Reference
American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Taxonomic Comments
T. cupido and T. phasianellus hybridize sporadically, but occasionally they interbreed extensively on a local level (AOU 1983). Genetically, the three species of tympanuchus are not clearly distinct; evidently morphological and behavioral differentiation have progressed rapidly relative to either mtDNA or allozymes (Ellsworth et al. 1994). Six recognized subspecies in North America (AOU 1957, Aldrich 1963). Seventh subspecies HUEYI (formerly New Mexico) extinct since mid-1950s (Dickerman and Hubbard 1994).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2016-04-10
Change Date2012-02-12
Edition Date1999-12-31
Edition AuthorsDeeble, B.; revisions by M. Koenen and D.W. Mehlman
Range Extent20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank 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.
Range Extent Comments
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).
Occurrences 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.
Threat Impact 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).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

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).

Ecology

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).

Reproduction

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.
Terrestrial Habitats
Woodland - HardwoodWoodland - ConiferShrubland/chaparralSavannaGrassland/herbaceousCropland/hedgerow
Palustrine Habitats
Riparian
Other Nations (2)
CanadaN5
ProvinceRankNative
QuebecS4Yes
British ColumbiaS4Yes
Yukon TerritoryS3Yes
NunavutSUYes
SaskatchewanS5Yes
Northwest TerritoriesS5Yes
ManitobaS5Yes
AlbertaS4Yes
OntarioS4Yes
Prince Edward IslandSNANo
United StatesN4
ProvinceRankNative
OklahomaSXYes
MontanaS4Yes
New MexicoSHB,SHNYes
NebraskaS4Yes
North DakotaSNRYes
South DakotaS4Yes
ColoradoS2Yes
WyomingS4Yes
MichiganS3Yes
KansasSXYes
IllinoisSXYes
WashingtonS1Yes
WisconsinS1Yes
Navajo NationSNRYes
OregonS1Yes
AlaskaS4Yes
UtahS2Yes
MinnesotaSNRYes
NevadaS1Yes
IowaS1BYes
IdahoS3Yes
TexasSXYes
CaliforniaSXYes
Roadless Areas (25)
Colorado (2)
AreaForestAcres
Dome PeakRoutt NF35,716
Long ParkRoutt NF42,100
Idaho (1)
AreaForestAcres
PalisadesCaribou-Targhee National Forest122,002
Montana (7)
AreaForestAcres
Anaconda HillHelena National Forest18,546
Bear - Marshall - Scapegoat - SwanHelena National Forest51,360
Bear - Marshall - Scapegoat - SwanLewis and Clark National Forest344,022
Big Snowy Mountains WsaLewis and Clark National Forest88,003
Freezeout MountainBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest97,305
Mt. Gmt Area HCuster National Forest1,335
North AbsarokaCuster National Forest21,063
North Dakota (2)
AreaForestAcres
MagpieDakota Prairie Grasslands21,281
Ponderosa PineDakota Prairie Grasslands7,471
South Dakota (2)
AreaForestAcres
First Black CanyonBuffalo Gap National Grassland4,965
Jim Wilson CanyonBuffalo Gap National Grassland6,024
Utah (5)
AreaForestAcres
Clarkston Mtn.Caribou National Forest7,099
Lewis PeakWasatch-Cache National Forest11,616
Swan Creek MountainWasatch-Cache National Forest9,390
Temple PeakWasatch-Cache National Forest24,081
WellsvilleWasatch-Cache National Forest1,717
Wyoming (6)
AreaForestAcres
Gannett Hills - Spring CreekBridger-Teton National Forest45,462
Little SnakeMedicine Bow-Routt National Forest9,920
PalisadesTarghee National Forest1,121
Salt River RangeBridger-Teton National Forest235,661
Walker PrairieBighorn National Forest62,434
West Slope TetonsTarghee National Forest47,448
References (108)
  1. Aldrich, J. W. 1963. Geographic orientation of American Tetraonidae. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:529-545.
  2. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
  3. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in <i>The Auk</i>]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
  4. Ammann, C. A. 1963. Status and management of Sharp-tailed Grouse in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 27: 802-809.
  5. Baydack, R. 1995. Associate professor, University of Manitoba. Harvest data presented at Prairie Grouse Technical Council, 21st biennial meeting. Aug. 28-31, 1995. Medora, ND.
  6. Baydack, R. K. 1988. Characteristics of sharp-tailed grouse, TYMPANUCHUS PHASIANELLUS, leks in the parklands of Manitoba. Canadian Field-Nat. 102:39-44.
  7. Baydack, R. K., and D. A. Hein. 1987. Tolerance of sharp-tailed grouse to lek disturbance. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15:535-539.
  8. Bent, A.C. 1932. Life histories of North American gallinaceous birds. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 162. Washington, DC.
  9. Berger, R. P., and R. K. Baydack. 1992. Effects of aspen succession on sharp-tailed grouse, TYMPANUCHUS PHASIANELLUS, in the Interlake region of Manitoba. Can. Field-Nat. 106:185-191.
  10. Berg, W. E. 1990. Sharp-tailed grouse management problems in the Great Lakes states: does the sharp-tail have a future? The Loon 62:42-45.
  11. Bown, R. R. 1980. The status of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the Tobacco Plains, Eureka, Montana. B.S. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 42pp.
  12. Braun, C. E., K. M. Giesen, R. W. Hoffinan, T. E. Remington, and W. D. Snyder. 1994. Upland bird management analysis guide, 1994- 1998. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Division Report no. 19., Denver.
  13. Braun, C. E., R. B. Davies, J. R. Dennis, K. A. Green, and J. L. Sheppard. 1992. Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse recovery plan. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Denver.
  14. Brown, R. L. 1966. Response of sharptail breeding populations to annual changes in residual grassland cover. Proc. Forty-sixth Annual Conference of Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners. Butte, Montana, July 12-14, 1966. pp 219-222.
  15. Buss, I.O., and E.S. Dziedzic. 1955. Relation of cultivation to the disappearance of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from southeastern Washington. The Condor, May 1955.
  16. Caldwell, P. J. 1976. Energetic and population consideration of sharp- tailed grouse in the aspen parklands of Canada. Ph.D thesis. Kansas State University, Kansas. 121 pp.
  17. Cannon, R. W., and F. L. Knopf. 1981. Lek numbers as a trend index to prairie grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:776-778.
  18. Colorado Division of Natural Resources (CDNR). 1983. Shrub thicket establishment in Colorado's high plains. Game information leaflet no. 108. 4 pp.
  19. Connelly, J. W., and Alan R. Sands. 1995. A review of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse habitat in western Montana. Sept. 1995. 12 pp.
  20. Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.
  21. Connelly, J.W., M.W. Gratson, and K.P. Reese. 1998. Sharp-tailed Grouse (TYMPANUCHUS PHASIANELLUS). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 354. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 20 pp.
  22. Copelin, F. F. 1963. The Lesser Prairie Chicken in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 6.
  23. Cope, M.G. 1992. Distribution, habitat selection and survival of transplanted Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the Tobacco Valley, Montana. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 60 pp.
  24. Deeble, B.D. 1996. Conservation of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, with special emphasis on the upper Blackfoot Valley, Montana. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 70 pp.
  25. Deeble, B.D. 1998. Sharp-tailed grouse lek search, spring 1998, final report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Magic Valley Region. Jerome, Idaho. July, 1998.
  26. Deeble, B.D. 2000. Sharp-tailed grouse habitat and population investigation in the upper Blackfoot Valley. Field study final report. Order no. EBP990029. Bureau of Land Management, Garnet District. Missoula, Montana. 11 pp.
  27. Dickerman, R.W., and J.P. Hubbard. 1994. An extinct subspecies of Sharp-tailed Grouse from New Mexico. Western Birds 25:128-136.
  28. Dickson, T. 1993. Shadow over sharptails. The Minnesota Volunteer, Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul. March-April 1993:7-17.
  29. Edminster, F.C. 1954. American Game Birds of Field and Forest. Castle Books, New York. 490 pp.
  30. Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.
  31. Eisler, R. October, 1995. Contaminant Hazard Reviews, Report 34. Draft. USFWS.
  32. Ellsworth, D. L., et al. 1994. Mitochondrial-DNA and nuclear-gene differentiation in North American prairie grouse (genus TYMPANUCHUS). Auk 111:661-671.
  33. Ellsworth, D.L., K.D. Rittenhouse, and R.L Honeycutt. 1993. Variation in randomly amplified polymorphic patterns. Biotechniques 14(2):214-217.
  34. Evans, P. G. H. 1987. Electrophoretic variability of gene products. Pages 105-162 in G. Cook and P.A. Buckley, editors. Avian Genetics: a population and ecological approach. Academic Press, New York.
  35. Gardner, S.C. 1997. Movements, survival, productivity, and test of a habitat suitability index model for reintroduced Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 90 pp.
  36. Giesen, K. M. 1987. Population characteristics and habitat use by Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in northwest Colorado. Final Report, Colorado Division of Wildlife Fed. Aid Project W-1 52-R.
  37. Giesen, K. M. 1991. Population inventory and habitat use by Lesser Prairie-Chickens in southeast Colorado. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Report W-152-R, Colorado Division of Wildlife.
  38. Giesen, K.M. 1998. Lesser prairie-chicken (<i>Typanuchus pallidicinctus</i>). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 364. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 20 pp.
  39. Giesen, K.M., and I.W. Connelly. 1993. Guidelines for management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21(3):325-333.
  40. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa. 428 pp.
  41. Grange, W. B. 1948. Wisconsin grouse problems. Wisconsin Department of Conservation, Madison, Wisconsin.
  42. Gratson, M. W. 1982. Goshawks prey on radio-tagged Sharp-tailed Grouse. Journal of Field Ornithology 53:54-55.
  43. Gratson, M. W. 1988. Spatial patterns, movements, and cover selection by Sharp-tailed Grouse. Pages 158-192 in A.T Bergerud and M.W. Gratson, editors. Adaptive strategies and population ecology of northern grouse University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  44. Gutierrez, R. J., R. M. Zink, and S. Y. Yang. 1983. Genic variation, systematic, and biogeographic relationships of some Galliform birds. Auk 100:33-47.
  45. Gyllensten, U., N. Ryman and T. Saether. 1985. Genetic divergence between willow grouse and rock ptarmigan, and the genetic structure of Scandinavian grouse populations. Hereditas, 102(1985)47-55.
  46. Hamerstrom, F. N. 1939. A study of Wisconsin's Prairie Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse. Wilson Bulletin 51:105-120.
  47. Hamerstrom, F. N. 1963. Sharptail brood habitat in Wisconsin's northern pine barrens. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:793-M2.
  48. Hamerstrom, F. N., Jr., and F. Hamerstrom. 1961. Status and problems of North American grouse. Wilson Bulletin 73:284-294.
  49. Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.
  50. Hart, C.M., O.S. Lee, and J.B. Low. 1950. The sharp-tailed grouse in Utah: its life history, status and management. Pub. No. 3, Utah State Department of Fish and Game.
  51. Hillman, G. N., and W. W. Jackson. 1973. The Sharp-tailed Grouse in South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks Technical Bulletin 3. Pierre.
  52. Hoffman, R. W., W. D. Snyder, G. C. Miller, and C. E. Braun. 1992. Reintroduction of greater prairie-chickens in northeastern Colorado. Prairie Nat. 24(3):197-204.
  53. Horkel, J. D. 1979. Cover and space requirements of Attwater's prairie chicken (TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO ATTWATERI) in Refugio County, Texas. Ph.D. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 96 pp.
  54. Johnsgard, P.A. 1983b. The grouse of the world. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. xvi + 413 pp.
  55. Kessler, W. B., and R. P. Bosch. 1982. Sharp-tailed grouse and range management practices in western rangelands. Pages 133-146 in J. M. Peek and P. D. Dalke, editors. Proc. Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symp. Proc 10. Univ. of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Station, Moscow, Idaho.
  56. Kirsch, L. M., A. T. Kiett, and H. W. Miller. 1973. Land use and prairie grouse population relationships in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 37:449-453.
  57. Klott, J. H., and F. G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood habitats of sympatric sage grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:84-88.
  58. Kobriger, J. 1995. Graph of lek counts 1956-95, Billings Co., North Dakota in Prairie Grouse Technical Council proceedings, 21st biennial meeting. Aug. 28-31, 1995. Medora, ND.
  59. Kumm, J. 1995. BLM Dist. Biol., Deep Creek Resource Area, Malad City, ID. Draft document (untitled) on Columbian Sharp-tailed grouse management. 17 pp.
  60. Leberg, P. L. 1991. Influence of fragmentation and bottlenecks on genetic divergence of wild turkey populations. Conservation Biology 5(4):522-530.
  61. Manley, T. and M. Wood. 1990. The status of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse on the Tobacco Plain, Eureka, Montana. Final report. MDFWP, Kalispell. 25 pp.
  62. Marks, J. S., and V. S. Marks. 1987. Habitat selection by Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in west-central Idaho. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Boise District, Boise, Idaho.
  63. Marks, J. S., and V. S. Marks. 1988. Winter habitat use by Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in western Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:743-746.
  64. McDonald, M.W. and K.P. Reese. 1998. Landscape changes within the historical distribution of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in eastern Washington: is there hope? Northwest Bioscience 72:34-41.
  65. McEwen, L. C., and R. L. Brown. 1966. Acute toxicity of dieldrin and malathion to wild Sharp-tailed Grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 30:604-611.
  66. Meints, D.R. 1991. Seasonal movements, habitat use and productivity of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in southeastern Idaho. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho. 74 pp.
  67. Meints, D.R., J.W. Connelly, K.P. Reese, A.R. Sands, T.P. Hemker. 1992. Habitat suitability index procedure for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Station Bulletin 55. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 27 pp.
  68. Merker, C. 1996. Captive rearing and release of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. M.S. thesis. Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA. 48 pp.
  69. Miller, G. C. and W. D. Graul. 1980. Status of sharp-tailed grouse in North America. Pages 18-28 in P. A. Vohs and F. L. Knopf, editors. Proc. Prairie Grouse Symp. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
  70. Moseley, R. and C. Groves. 1990. Rare, threatened and endangered plants and animals of Idaho. Natural Heritage Section, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. 33 pp.
  71. Oedekoven, O.O. 1985. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population distribution and habitat use in south central Wyoming. M.S. thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 58 pp.
  72. Oyler-McCance, S.J., N.W. Kahn, K.P. Burnham, C.E. Braun, and T.W. Quinn. In press. A population genetic comparison of large and small bodied Sage Grouse in Colorado using microsatellite and mitochondrial KNA markers. Molecular Ecolology.
  73. Parker, T. L. 1970. On the ecology of the sharp-tailed grouse in southeastern Idaho. M.S. thesis, Idaho State University, Boise, Idaho. 139 pp.
  74. Parkin, D. T. 1987. Evolutionary genetics of house sparrows. Pages 381-406 in G. Cooke and P.A. Buckley, editors. Avian genetics: a population and ecological approach. Academic Press, New York.
  75. Pelren, E. C. 1996. Blue grouse winter ecology in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
  76. Prose, B. L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: plains sharp-tailed grouse. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.142). 31 pp.
  77. Quinn, T. W. and B. N. White. 1987. Analysis of DNA Sequence Variation. Pages 163-198 in G. Cooke and P.A. Buckley, editors. Avian Genetics: a population and ecological approach. Academic Press, New York.
  78. Ritcey, R. 1995. Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse-columbianus subspecies-in British Columbia. Ministry of Environ., Lands, and Parks Wildlife. Working Report no. WR-70. Victoria, British Columbia.
  79. Robel, R.J., F.R. Henderson, and W. Jackson. 1972. Some sharp-tailed grouse population statistics from South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:87-98.
  80. Robel, R.J., N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton, and L.C. Hulbert. 1970. Relationships between visual obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range Management 23:295-297.
  81. Rogers, G.E. 1969. The sharp-tailed grouse in Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Dept. Technical Publication 23. 94 pp.
  82. Saab, V. A., and J. S. Marks. 1992. Summer habitat use by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in western Idaho. Great Basin Nat. 52:166-173.
  83. Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1 U.S.G.S. Biological Resource Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.
  84. Schroeder, M. A. 1991. Movement and lek visitation by female greater prairie-chickens in relation to predictions of Bradbury's female preference hypothesis of lek evolution. Auk 108:896-903.
  85. Schroeder, M. A., and C. E. Braun. 1993. Partial migration in a population of greater prairie-chickens in northeastern Colorado. Auk 110:21-28.
  86. Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse. In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 425. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
  87. Sedivec, K.K. 1994. Grazing treatment effects on and habitat use of upland nesting birds on native grassland. Ph.D. dissertation. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 124 pp.
  88. Shiller, R. J. 1973. Reproductive ecology of female sharp-tailed grouse and its relation to early plant succession in NW Minnesota. Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota. 186 pp.
  89. Sirotnak, J. M., K. P. Reese, J. W. Connelly, and K. Radford. 1991. Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) on wildlife in southeastern Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Job Compl. Rep., Proj. W-160-R-18.
  90. Sisson, L. 1976. The sharp-tailed grouse in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln. 88 pp.
  91. Snyder, J. W., E.C. Pilren, and J.A. Crawford. 1999. Translocation histories of prairie grouse in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(2):428-432.
  92. Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of the Intermountain Region. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
  93. Spomer, R. 1987. In sharp decline: the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 37(4):13-17.
  94. Starkey, E. E., and R. A. Schnoes. 1976. The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse: with special reference to their potential reintroduction to Lave Beds National Monument. Pages 497-500 in First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, volume 1. R. M. Linn, editor. New Orleans, Louisiana.
  95. Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980a. Fall-winter movements, ranges, and habitat use of lesser prairie chickens. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:521-524.
  96. Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980b. Status, Ecology, and Management of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-77, 15 p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
  97. Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980c. Dispersal of a lesser prairie chicken (TYMPANUCHUS PALLIDICINCTUS). Southwestern Naturalist 25:124-125.
  98. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  99. Tirhi, M. J. 1995. Washington state management plan for Sharp-tailed Grouse. Wildife Management Prog., Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
  100. Toepfer, J.E. 1988. Sharp-tailed grouse genetic analysis proposal. Letter of 6/24/88 to R. Hazelwood USFWS, End. Species Office. Helena, MT.
  101. Toepfer, J.E., R.L. Eng, and R.K. Anderson. 1990. Translocating prairie grouse: what have we learned? Transactions of the 55th North American Wildlife & Natural Resource Conference: 569-579.
  102. Ulliman, M. J. 1995. Winter habitat ecology of columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in southeastern Idaho. Master's thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.
  103. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; annual notice of review; proposed rules. Federal Register 54:560.
  104. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as threatened. Federal Register: Oct. 26, 1999. V. 64, No. 206, pp 57620-57623.
  105. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1995. Washington State management plan for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse: draft. Game Division, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 94 pp.
  106. Weddell, B.J. 1992. Biology and conservation of sharp-tailed grouse, with special reference to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in Washington. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Seattle. 47pp.
  107. Westemeier, R.L., J.D. Brawn, S.A. Simpson, T.L. Esker, R.W. Jansen, J.W. Walk, E.L. Kershner, J.L. Bouzat, K.N. Paige. 1998. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science, November 1988.
  108. Zeigler, D.L. 1979. Distribution and status of the Columbian sharp- tailed grouse in eastern Washington. Upland game bird investigation. Washington Department of Game. 26 pp.