Canachites canadensis

(Linnaeus, 1758)

Spruce Grouse

G5Secure Found in 120 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104936
Element CodeABNLC09010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderGalliformes
FamilyPhasianidae
GenusCanachites
Synonyms
Dendragapus canadensis(Linnaeus, 1758)Falcipennis canadensis(Linnaeus, 1758)
Other Common Names
spruce grouse (EN) Tétras du Canada (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
Groups: C. canadensis [Spruce Grouse] and C. franklinii (Douglas, 1829) [Franklin's Grouse]. Formerly included in Dendragapus (e.g., AOU 1983) or Falcipennis (AOU 1998), although prior to this placed in Canachites (e.g., AOU 1910 through AOU 1957). Genetic data (Kimball et al. 2011, Persons et al. 2016) indicate that inclusion of C. canadensis in either Dendragapus or Falcipennis creates a paraphyletic group (AOS 2021).

The form resident from southeastern Alaska, central British Columbia and west-central Alberta south to northern Oregon, central Idaho, western Montana, and northwestern Wyoming formerly was regarded as a separate species, F. franklinii (AOU 1983). Ellsworth et al. (1995) examined phylogenetic relationships among North American grouse based on mtDNA data and found that F. canadensis is more closely related to Bonasa umbellus (ruffed grouse) than to Dendragapus obscurus (blue grouse), which is allied with Lagopus (ptarmigan) and Tetrao (capercaillie, a European grouse).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2016-04-07
Change Date1996-11-25
Edition Date1992-05-21
Edition AuthorsJudith Soule. Updated/edited by G. Hammerson.
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank Reasons
Demonstrably secure on a global basis at present: declining only in segments of southern fringe of range; large total number of birds, extensive range, protected occurrences and large proportion of range unlikely ever to be destroyed.
Range Extent Comments
RESIDENT: Canada and the northern United States, from central Alaska, Yukon, and Mackenzie east to Labrador, and south into the mountains of northeastern Oregon, central Idaho, western Montana, and northwestern Wyoming; farther east, the southern extent is the extreme northern parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan's Lower Peninsula, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and eastern Maine (AOU 1983).
Occurrences Comments
Number of element occurrences is likely more than 1000 because of the extensive range of this species.
Threat Impact Comments
Dominant threat is loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat by incompatible forest management practices, including suppression of fire in pine-dominated habitat. In the Adirondacks, New York, loss of spruce-fir forest was cited as an important factor in recent declines (Bouta and Chambers 1990). Patchy distribution and small average population size make it particularly vulnerable to extirpation. In New York, and likely in some other parts of its range, coniferous forests suitable for grouse regenerated to unsuitable hardwoods after logging. At the other extreme, Keppie and Beaudette (1990) concluded that the natural process of succession in the spruce-fir forest at Yellow Bogs, Vermont has proceeded beyond the stage most useful to spruce grouse. Trees there were greater than 20 m high and lacked live branches at 2 to 10 m above ground. Crown thinning had proceeded to the point where less than 60% of the tree height was in live crown. They stated "For whatever the reason(s), we do not find many birds in conifer stands (spruce, fir, pine) in which tree height >15 m and live- crown <50% of total height." Since these grouse require earlier successional stages, logging per se has not necessarily always been detrimental to this species. Habitat fragmentation caused by human development patterns has been detrimental in the southeastern portion of spruce grouse range. In Michigan, habitat changes (logging out pine forests, followed by replacement by aspen and oaks) led to decline in the northern Lower Peninsula by early 1900s. In the Upper Peninsula where jack pine and spruces mingle in complexes of dry mounds surrounded by small swamps, especially in northern Chippewa and Schoolcraft Counties, the grouse appears to be holding its own. It may also be expected to thrive in jack pine areas managed for Kirtland's warbler (DENDROICA KIRTLANDII) habitat in the Lower Peninsula, as both species require relatively young jack pine stands. It has been protected since 1915 as a nongame species, but some accidental take by hunters, perhaps numbering several hundred per year, occurs nonetheless. Habitat destruction, continues to be the major threat to the species in the state. Accidental kills by hunters in the Lower Peninsula could also be serious, because populations there are small and isolated (Robinson 1991). Major timber harvests planned for the lodgepole pine habitat in Washington state potentially threaten the species, although the effect depends on the methods and patterns of harvest over space and time. A core population, encompassing perhaps 1/4 of the state's spruce grouse range, is in wilderness areas, where timber harvest is not permitted (Ware, pers. comm.). Spruce grouse are particularly vulnerable to hunting and exploitation because they are not wary of humans. Gabrielson and Lincoln (1959) commented that the species is so easily hunted that it quickly disappears from the vicinity of settlements in Alaska. The degree of threat posed by hunting varies among different areas; hunting harvest apparently is sustainable in some areas. Overall, threat is low due to vastness of potential habitat, association with wet forest types, and inaccessibility of much of the species range.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

A species of northern coniferous forests of various species compositions, but always including short-needled trees. Forest types inhabited range from boreal forest and wet spruce forests in the far north to jack pine-spruce, jack pine, or spruce-fir associations in the southeastern portions of the range (from Minnesota east), and in southwestern Canada, lodgepole pine, usually with small inclusions of clumped spruce (Redmond et al. 1982, Boag et al. 1979, Pietz and Tester 1982, Boag and Schroeder 1992). In Alaska, habitat is white spruce and birch, or black spruce (Ellison 1973), especially the dense spruce forests along rivers (Bent 1932). Robinson (1980) concluded that in the northeast, Spruce Grouse prefer wet lowland forests, but also use adjacent uplands occasionally. However, farther west, the species becomes less dependent on swamps and increasingly prefers more upland habitat.

Though forest species composition varies across the range, the habitat has certain features in common throughout. One regular component of habitat everywhere is inclusion of areas with an understory of low berries, especially VACCINIUM spp., an important food source. The key feature is a forest structure that provides good cover for these ground-nesting birds. This means either live branches from 0-4 meters above ground level, or sufficient tree density to create suitable escape cover. Lodgepole and jack pine forests must be young enough that trees have not begun to self-prune. Generally, they must be less than about 12 m in height. Thus in areas where grouse occupy jack pine and lodgepole pine forests, they are essentially a successional species. Populations may be highest in earlier stages of post-fire succession (Boag and Schroeder 1987). Older pine forests are used only when subdominant spruce are also present. Mature fir stands will also self-prune and become unsuitable. Mature spruce stands are more suitable (Robinson 1980; Keppie, pers. comm.).

Redmond et al. (1982) compared habitat in New Brunswick and southwestern Alberta. The lodgepole pine forests in the latter had sparse shrub cover, whereas the former's jack pine-spruce forest habitat had much greater (about 10x) shrub cover. In northern Washington state, were found to preferentially occupy mixed lodgepole pine/Engelmann spruce stands (Ratti et al. 1984). In Maine, preferred lowland conifer habitat (Hedberg 1980).

Largely arboreal in winter, less so in summer. Roost and feed in trees in winter, but nest and feed on the ground as well as feed in trees in the spring and summer. In Minnesota, Pietz and Tester (1982) found that grouse preferred jack pine upland in winter, and moved into black spruce bogs for nesting and summer range. When jack pine stands were occasionally used for nesting, the ground cover and tree density was similar to that of the black spruce nesting areas. In this study spruce grouse and sympatric ruffed grouse (BONASA UMBELLUS) overlapped in winter range, but not in summer habitat choices. Keppie (pers. comm.) however, commented that Ruffed Grouse are often seen in Spruce Grouse range in summer elsewhere. In other studies where jack pine uplands were not available, spruce grouse remained in black spruce lowlands year round (Pietz and Tester 1982). A study in Maine showed that the grouse used more open forest areas in summer than winter, probably because of greater availability of summer foods in more open areas (Hedberg 1980, Allan 1985). Similar patterns were found in New York (Chambers, pers. comm.). During the summer molting period, males in the Maine study area used areas where the forest canopy was more closed compared to the areas used by females (Hedberg 1980).

Nests are on the ground in a slight depression scraped out, with minimal lining of twigs, grasses, and/or leaves. They are located in a variety of locations, but most often under low branches of young conifers, brush, or other vegetation or against the trunk of trees. Nests are usually well-concealed by surrounding vegetation and the cryptic coloration of the female (Robinson 1980, Redmond et al. 1982).

Ecology

Populations generally occur at low densities, spaced by male and female territoriality during breeding, nesting, and, to a lesser extent, brood rearing (Keppie 1987). Females are territorial during breeding and nesting, and clearly avoid one another during this period (Herzog and Boag 1977, Robinson 1980). Males maintain their own territories during the courtship and nesting period, often using the same territory year-round for life (Robinson 1980). Only one male, in 5 years of study on two populations in Gogama, Ontario, was known to move its territory, and then only about 300 meters (Szuba and Bendell 1988). Female aggressive calls during mating and egg laying apparently resulted in evenly spaced female territories in Herzog and Boag's (1977) study in Alberta.

Rarely are "flocks" larger than 2 individuals in spring and summer (except for females with broods), and even in fall and winter, the average flock size calculated from observations of 268 flocks was 3.0 birds per flock (Ellison 1973). Larger autumn flocks (average of 3.8 birds) were partially accounted for by females still with broods. Telemetered birds showed that in late fall and winter flocks were very temporary, with the same birds associating for only a few days, and that birds were probably unrelated (Ellison 1973). The largest flocks recorded were 6 to 15 birds. Adult males apparently remain quite solitary even in winter, but juveniles are less solitary (Ellison 1973). Robinson (1980), in Michigan, found fall flocks of 4 to 12 spruce grouse, composed of mixed sexes, ages and families. The proportion of unbanded birds in these flocks was somewhat higher than that encountered in August, suggesting that birds were moving in from outside the study area, and that these larger flocks were probably composed of dispersing birds.

In Alaska, Ellison (1973) found that home range sizes were highly variable among individuals, ranging from 6 to 21 ha for preincubating females, 6 to 155 ha for brood-rearing females, 3 to 20 ha for molting males, 6 to 160 ha for either sex in fall, and 3 to 113 ha in winter. Robinson (1980) also reported highly variable range size for females with broods, but concluded that 12 to 16 ha would be adequate on the Yellow Dog Plains of Upper Michigan. Home range for broods on Mt. Desert Island, Maine, was 13-26 ha (O'Connell et al. 1995).

Two populations at Sevogle, New Brunswick, ranged from 9.8 to 21.9 grouse per sq km (adult males and females and yearlings present during period of 1 May to 30 June) over a 4 year period (Keppie 1987). Similar densities were reported for a population in southwestern Alberta, where population density in spring varied between 10.5 and 19.3 birds per sq km over a ten year period (Boag et al. 1979). Further data showed a fluctuation of between 5 and 30 birds per sq km over 21 years; a population decline was attributed to forest maturation (Boag and Schroeder 1987). It is interesting that population densities were so similar in these populations, because habitat characteristics were quite different. Populations in New York occur at estimated densities of 1.0 to 9.6 birds per sq km (composition unspecified, "breeding population;" Bouta and Chambers 1988). A Michigan population in the Yellow Dog Plains of Marquette County had 4.6 to 9.0 birds per sq km (presumably both sexes and yearlings) in spring (Robinson 1980). Grouse from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula occurred at intermediate spring densities of 7 to 11 birds per sq km (presumably both sexes and yearlings) over an area of habitat some 2000 sq km. This population must have numbered over 10,000 birds in the 1960s (Ellison 1973). The highest reported densities for this species are from central Ontario, where populations exceed 50 birds per sq km in prime habitat (Szuba and Bendell 1983). Keppie (pers. comm.) also has documented population densities of 50 birds per sq km. At Gogama, Ontario, Szuba and Bendell (1988) found densities of 28.0 to 36.0 males per sq km in May. One study in Alberta suggested that late spring population size was rather stable (Boag et al. 1979).

Young tend to disperse in the fall, but more so in some areas than others. Overall emigration rates for both sexes in New Brunswick exceeded emigration in an Alberta population (Keppie 1982). A higher percentage of female juveniles disperse than males (e.g., 95% vs. 77% in New Brunswick). Females were shown to disperse farther than males (an average of 5 km vs. 3.7 km, respectively) in a Michigan population (Robinson 1980).

In Alberta, yearling and adult annual survival averaged 68% overall (Boag et al. 1979). Female survival, at 63%, was lower than male survival, at 72%, producing a slight, but significant, male bias in sex ratio among adults (1.12 males: 1 females) (Boag et al. 1979). Annual survival rates for all adults and yearlings in New Brunswwick was 47% (Keppie 1987). Keppie (1979) reported an overwintering survival rate of 88% for all ages and sexes in a population in southwest Alberta. Overwinter survival of adults and yearlings, males and females was similar in this population. In Michigan's Yellow Dog Plains, adult males survived at rate of 50% per year, while females had a slightly lower rate of 45% per year. Robinson (1980) noted that the Michigan population's survival rate was intermediate between the Alberta populations and an Alaskan population described by Ellison, which had 31-38% adult survival. Robinson concluded that survival seems to balance clutch size variation throughout the range: the Alaskan population having the largest clutches, and lowest adult survival, Alberta at the opposite end with smaller clutches and highest survival, and Michigan in the middle on both traits.

There is little in the literature about longevity, despite many banding studies. The oldest individuals in Robinson's studies were three males, two that reached 6 years, and one that was at least 7.5 years old. The oldest female lived 5.5 years (Robinson 1980).

Although a number of studies of population dynamics have been conducted, it is still not possible to generalize about the main factors influencing population size across the species' range. Results in different populations and in different years within the same population have been contradictory. Rates of emigration and juvenile recruitment, especially survival through the first winter, clearly have a strong impact on population size, but these factors are not clearly related to density, or predictable from simple physical variables such as habitat characteristics or weather (Boag et al. 1979, Robinson 1980, Keppie 1982). Female and male territoriality may also affect some aspects of population density and production (Ellison 1973, Herzog and Boag 1977, Szuba and Bendell 1988).

Reproduction

Mating occurs in spring. The males' display includes puffing up the body feathers, strutting and tail spreading, a "squeak call," short flights ("flutter flights") between tree and ground with rapid wing beats either during the ascent or descent, and occasionally, a very brief standing display of 1 to 3 rapid wing beats which produces a quiet but audible thump (Robinson 1980). The latter, as well as the flutter flight has sometimes been called "drumming", but this is misleading (Keppie, pers. comm.; Robinson, pers. comm.). The noise from the display is audible for less than 100 m even under good conditions, and thus bears little resemblance to the loud drumming of ruffed grouse. Franklin's race gives a loud double clap, like hands clapping, as it alights in its flutter flight. The flutter flight displays have several variations that are briefly described by Robinson (1980).

Males and females are apparently both promiscuous and do not form pair bonds (Ellison 1973). Copulatory behavior was described by Harju (1971).

Median date of commencement of egg laying was 15 May in Ontario (range 8-21 May, 5 yr of data), 18 May in New Brunswick (range 14-21 May, 7 yr data), and 29 May in Alberta (range 28 May - 1 June, 4 yr data) (Keppie and Towers, unpublished data). In Michigan laying occurred in late May to early June (Robinson 1980). Commencement of egg-laying may be influenced by plant development, as year to year variation in median dates has been shown to be correlated with first flowers of blueberry and trailing arbutus, and the dates for 50% snow cover (Keppie and Towers 1990). Male displays cease soon (within nine days) after the median date of commencement of egg laying (Keppie 1991). Females lay eggs over a period of several days and commence incubating only after the clutch is completed. Robinson (1980) estimated that hens lay an egg about every 2 days, so that it would take 10 to 12 days to complete clutch of 5 or 6 eggs. Keppie (1982) used the figure of 1.5 days per egg.

Clutch size varies across range. Keppie (1982) compared production of juveniles in populations from New Brunswick (race CANACE) and Alberta (race FRANKLINII). Clutch size was significantly larger in New Brunswick than in Alberta (5.6 eggs vs. 4.8 eggs, respectively), but average brood size did not differ between the two populations (about 3.3 chicks per brood). Among New Brunswick females, yearlings produced fewer eggs per clutch than did older females ("adults"). There was no difference among Alberta females of different ages. Clutches in a Michigan study averaged 5.7 eggs (Robinson 1980). In Ontario, large clutch size was associated with high intake of trailing arbutus flowers and moss spore capsules; grouse relied on spring diet and stored reserves for nutrients required for clutch formation (Naylor and Bendell 1989). Keppie (1975) reported on previous compilations of clutch sizes. Over the entire distribution of spruce grouse, clutch size averages 5.8 eggs. Alaskan grouse (race OSGOODI) had the largest average clutch size, 7.5 eggs. This is consistent with a general trend of increased reproductive potential with increasing latitude.

Incubation lasts 21-23 days (Robinson 1980, Keppie 1982), but also has been reported as 23-24 days. During incubation the female spends over 90 percent of her time on the nest (McCourt et al. 1973). It takes about 30 days from the commencement of laying to hatching. Median date of hatching was 15 June in Ontario, 16 June in New Brunswick, and 29 June in Alberta (Keppie and Towers, unpubl. data).

Young are tended by the female. The precocial young can fly short distances by 6 days of age and can feed themselves immediately. Reports of very large broods are likely due to mixing of chicks between broods. This is known to occur in chicks that are more than 10 days old (Keppie 1975). Robinson (1980) documented several instances of chicks switching broods, and recorded combined broods as large as 14 chicks. Individual females produce one clutch per season. A few birds attempt renesting when a first clutch is destroyed. Keppie (1991) estimated the frequency of renesting at 7.6%. Dispersal of young occurs in late summer-early fall.

Females first breed as yearlings, but yearling males generally do not breed. Keppie (1982) compared breeding rates of females of different ages and different races. He estimated that at least 94% of New Brunswick females did nest. Between 84 and 100% of the females had broods in the New Brunswick population, and yearlings did not differ from adults (at least 2 years old) in frequency with broods. In the Alberta population (subspecies FRANKLINII), only 40% to 62% of females had broods, and yearlings less often had broods than did older adults. Data on percentage that nested was not obtained for this population, but no evidence was encountered to suggest that some females did not nest. In Michigan, 67% to 88% of females had broods each year from 1965 to 1969 (Robinson 1980). Szuba and Bendell (1988) found that 44% of males did not obtain territories (and presumably, therefore did not breed) until they were adults (their 3rd spring). Some were nonterritorial for 3 or more years. Only 10% of adult males were nonterritorial, and presumably nonbreeding. Most birds breed in not more than two seasons.

Keppie (1982) found a much higher nest success rate (proportion of nests in which at least one egg hatched) in a New Brunswick population than in an Alberta population (81% vs. 29% success, respectively) due to much greater nest predation rates in Alberta than New Brunswick. These differences were apparently related to poorer nest concealment in Alberta, where the forest had much less ground cover and shrubs (Redmond et al. 1982). Keppie and Herzog (1978) found that within an Alberta population, nest success was highest among well concealed nests compared to poorly concealed nests. Coastal Alaskan grouse had slightly lower nest success rates than New Brunswick grouse (Keppie 1982); overall production in the New Brunswick population was nearly double that of the Alberta population (2.0 end of season juveniles per female versus 1.1, respectively). Poor productivity in Alberta was associated with years with cold, wet weather during incubation (Smyth and Boag 1984).

Spruce grouse have the nickname "fool hen" because they are notoriously unwary of humans. They have been noted to be very wary of predators, however (Robinson, pers. comm.). They do not flush readily and are easy to catch with a noose on a pole. A female incubating a nest of eggs usually will not flush unless she is touched by the intruder (Robinson 1980).
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - ConiferWoodland - ConiferWoodland - Mixed
Palustrine Habitats
Riparian
Other Nations (2)
CanadaN5
ProvinceRankNative
SaskatchewanS5Yes
OntarioS5Yes
ManitobaS4Yes
New BrunswickS5Yes
AlbertaS5Yes
Nova ScotiaS4Yes
Northwest TerritoriesS5Yes
NunavutSUYes
Yukon TerritoryS5Yes
QuebecS5Yes
British ColumbiaS5Yes
Island of NewfoundlandSNANo
LabradorS5Yes
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
MontanaS4Yes
WashingtonS4Yes
IdahoS3Yes
MinnesotaSNRYes
OregonS3Yes
MaineS4Yes
New YorkS2Yes
AlaskaS5Yes
MichiganS2Yes
VermontS1Yes
New HampshireS3Yes
WisconsinS1Yes
Roadless Areas (120)
Alaska (22)
AreaForestAcres
Bering LakeChugach National Forest965,076
Boston BarChugach National Forest53,617
Chugach-12Chugach National Forest8,116
Chugach-13Chugach National Forest13,337
ClevelandTongass National Forest189,447
College FiordChugach National Forest1,130,818
Copper River WetlandsChugach National Forest85,972
Fidalgo-GravinaChugach National Forest257,968
Johnson PassChugach National Forest152,508
KartaTongass National Forest52,117
Kenai LakeChugach National Forest213,172
Kenai MountainsChugach National Forest306,600
KogishTongass National Forest65,216
Nellie JuanChugach National Forest713,697
Prince William Sound Is.Chugach National Forest118,698
ResurrectionChugach National Forest224,615
RhineTongass National Forest23,010
Roaded DonutChugach National Forest968
SarkarTongass National Forest51,908
Sheridan GlacierChugach National Forest224,683
Thorne RiverTongass National Forest72,983
Twenty MileChugach National Forest198,775
Idaho (5)
AreaForestAcres
Bighorn - WeitasNez Perce-Clearwater National Forest254,845
HoodooNez Perce-Clearwater National Forest153,868
NeedlesPayette National Forest131,279
North Lochsa SlopeNez Perce-Clearwater National Forest117,662
SeceshPayette National Forest248,088
Maine (1)
AreaForestAcres
Caribou - Speckled ExtWhite Mountain National Forest5,988
Minnesota (6)
AreaForestAcres
Baker - Homer - Brule LakesSuperior National Forest6,712
Brule Lake - Eagle MountainSuperior National Forest12,380
Hegman LakesSuperior National Forest675
Kawishiwi Lake To SawbillSuperior National Forest15,305
Mississippi CreekSuperior National Forest5,717
Phantom LakeSuperior National Forest6,521
Montana (45)
AreaForestAcres
Allan Mountain (01946)Bitterroot National Forest104,184
Anderson MountainBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest31,501
Barren Creek #183Kootenai National Forest14,534
Bear - Marshall - Scapegoat - SwanLewis and Clark National Forest344,022
Bear - Marshall - Scapegoat - SwanLolo National Forest118,485
Blue Joint (mwsa) (01941)Bitterroot National Forest64,764
Bmss Ra 1485Flathead National Forest334,275
Buckhorn Ridge (MT)Kootenai National Forest34,716
Coal Ridge Ra 1127Flathead National Forest15,429
Deadhorse Ridge Ra 1128Flathead National Forest23,648
East PioneerBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest145,082
ElkhornHelena National Forest75,468
EmerineBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest14,282
Gold Hill West #176Kootenai National Forest15,079
HoodooLolo National Forest105,162
Jerico MountainHelena National Forest8,445
Lolo CreekLolo National Forest14,335
Marshall PeakLolo National Forest9,069
Mckay Creek #676Kootenai National Forest15,323
Meadow Creek - Upper North ForkLolo National Forest6,906
Mt. Hefty Ra 1481Flathead National Forest12,938
North Big HoleBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest52,227
Northwest PeaksKootenai National Forest15,358
QuiggLolo National Forest67,267
RattlesnakeLolo National Forest2,881
Reservation DivideLolo National Forest16,908
Roberts #691Kootenai National Forest3,444
SapphireBitterroot National Forest43,303
SapphiresBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest66,619
Selway - Bitterroot (01067)Bitterroot National Forest114,953
Sheep Mountain - StatelineLolo National Forest37,844
Silver KingBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest64,289
Sleeping Child (x1074)Bitterroot National Forest21,433
Stevens PeakLolo National Forest647
Stony MountainBitterroot National Forest44,057
Storm LakeBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest9,324
Ten Lakes #683Kootenai National Forest48,545
Thompson Seton RA 1483Flathead National Forest52,235
Trout CreekKootenai National Forest30,851
Tuchuck Ra 1482Flathead National Forest17,730
Upper East ForkBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest8,905
West Big HoleBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest133,563
West Fork Yaak #694Kootenai National Forest8,237
West PioneerBeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest248,631
Willard Estelle #173Kootenai National Forest3,714
New Hampshire (11)
AreaForestAcres
Cherry MountainWhite Mountain National Forest8,766
Dartmouth RangeWhite Mountain National Forest9,233
Great Gulf Ext.White Mountain National Forest15,110
KilkennyWhite Mountain National Forest28,766
Kinsman MountainWhite Mountain National Forest8,999
Mt. Wolf - Gordon PondWhite Mountain National Forest11,846
PemigewassetWhite Mountain National Forest32,255
Pemigewasset ExtWhite Mountain National Forest15,840
Presidential - Dry River ExtWhite Mountain National Forest10,555
Sandwich RangeWhite Mountain National Forest16,797
Wild RiverWhite Mountain National Forest46,878
Oregon (6)
AreaForestAcres
Boulder ParkWallowa-Whitman National Forest12,141
HuckleberryWallowa-Whitman National Forest11,238
Hurricane CreekWallowa-Whitman National Forest1,606
Imnaha FaceWallowa-Whitman National Forest29,575
Little SheepWallowa-Whitman National Forest5,238
Upper Catherine CreekWallowa-Whitman National Forest6,446
Washington (24)
AreaForestAcres
Abercrombie - HooknoseColville National Forest33,862
Bald SnowColville National Forest23,198
Blue SlideWenatchee National Forest17,505
ChelanWenatchee National Forest74,650
Dry Canyon BreaksColville National Forest4,821
Glacier Peak BMt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest19,328
Goat Rocks AdjWenatchee National Forest6,108
Granite MountainOkanogan National Forest27,428
Grassy TopIdaho Panhandle National Forests13,485
Grassy TopColville National Forest10,302
Harvey CreekColville National Forest10,140
Heather LakeWenatchee National Forest10,628
HorseshoeGifford Pinchot National Forest7,579
Liberty BellOkanogan National Forest108,495
Long DrawOkanogan National Forest3,922
Long SwampOkanogan National Forest66,344
Mt. BonaparteOkanogan National Forest10,891
Pasayten RimOkanogan National Forest17,074
ProfanityColville National Forest28,944
SawtoothOkanogan National Forest122,194
South MidwayGifford Pinchot National Forest2,384
Stormy Mtn.Wenatchee National Forest32,612
TeanawayWenatchee National Forest72,849
TiffanyOkanogan National Forest22,045
References (75)
  1. Allan, T. A. 1985. Seasonal changes in habitat use by Maine spruce grouse. Can. J. Zool. 63: 2738-2742.
  2. American Ornithological Society (AOS). Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, B. E. Hernández-Baños, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, N. A. Mason, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2021. Sixty-second Supplement to the American Ornithological Society’s Check-list of North American Birds. Ornithology 138:1-18.
  3. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
  4. 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/.
  5. Andrle, R. F., and J. R. Carrol, editors. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York. 551 pp.
  6. Bent, A.C. 1932. Life histories of North American gallinaceous birds. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 162. Washington, DC.
  7. Bergerud, A. T., and M. W. Gratson, editors. 1987. Adaptive strategies and population ecology of northern grouse. Univ. Minnesoat Press. 785 pp.
  8. Berg, W. 1992. pers. comm. Phone conversation about Minnesota's spruce grouse population. Minnesota DNR, Grand Rapids, MN.
  9. Boag, D. A., and M. A. Schroeder. 1987. Population fluctuations in spruce grouse: what determines their numbers in spring? Can. J. Zool. 65:2430-2435.
  10. Boag, D.A., and M.A. Schroeder. 1992. Spruce Grouse (DENDRAGAPUS CANADENSIS). In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 5. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 28 pp.
  11. Boag, D. A., K. H. McCourt, P. W. Herzog, and J. H. Alway. 1979. Population regulation in spruce grouse: a working hypothesis. Can. J. Zool. 57:2275-84.
  12. Bouta, R. P., and R. E. Chambers. 1988. Ecological status of threatened spruce grouse populations in New York. Ecosystem Management: Rare Species and Significant Habitats, Symposium held 6-9 June, 1988, Syracuse, New York.
  13. Bouta, R. P., and R. E. Chambers. 1990. Status of threatened spruce grouse populations in New York: a historical perspective. Pages 82-91 in Mitchell et al., eds. Ecosystem management: rare species and significant habitats. New York State Mus. Bull. 471.
  14. Burleigh, T. D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd.
  15. Chambers, R. 1992. College of Environmental Science and Forestry. State University of New York, Syracuse, New York. personal communication.
  16. 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.
  17. Copelin, F. F. 1963. The Lesser Prairie Chicken in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 6.
  18. Dickinson, E.C. (Editor). 2003. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 3rd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1039 pp.
  19. Ellison, L. N. 1973. Seasonal social organization and movements of spruce grouse. The Condor 75: 375-385.
  20. Ellsworth, D. L., R. L. Honeycut, and N. J. Silvy. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships among North American grouse inferred from restriction endonuclease analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Condor 97:492-502.
  21. Gabrielson, I. N. and F. C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.
  22. Gabrielson, I. N., and S. G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State College.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Gurchinoff, S. and W. L. Robinson. 1972. Chemical characteristics of jackpine needles selected by feeding spruce grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(1): 80-87.
  26. Harju, H. J. 1971. Spruce grouse copulation. Condor 73:380-1.
  27. Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.
  28. Hedberg, J. 1980. Habitat selection by spruce grouse in Eastern Maine. University of Maine, Orono, Maine. M.S. thesis.
  29. Herzog, P. W., and D. A. Boag. 1977. Seasonal changes in aggressive behavior of female spruce grouse. Can. J. Zool. 55:1734-39.
  30. Herzog, P. W. and D. M. Keppie. 1980. Migration in a local population of spruce grouse. The Condor 82:366-372.
  31. Hohf, R. S. , J. T. Ratti, and R. Croteau. 1987. Experimnetal analysis of winter food selection by spruce grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 51(1): 159-167.
  32. 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.
  33. Janssen, R. B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 352 pp.
  34. Jewett, S. G., W. P. Taylor, W. T. Shaw, and J. W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
  35. Keppie, D. M. 1975. Clutch size of the spruce grouse, Canachites canadensis franklinii, in southwest Alberta. The Condor 77: 91-92.
  36. Keppie, D. M. 1979. Dispersal, overwinter mortality, and recruitment of spruce grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(3):628-32.
  37. Keppie, D. M. 1982. A difference in production and associated events in two races of spruce grouse. Can. J. Zool. 60:2116-23.
  38. Keppie, D. M. 1987. Impact of demographic parameters upon a population of spruce grouse in New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Managment 51(4):771-7.
  39. Keppie, D. M. 1991. The termination of spring display by male spruce grouse, and commencement of egg laying by females. Can. J. Zool. 69:3000-4.
  40. Keppie, D. M. 1992. An audio index for male spruce grouse. Can. J. Zool. 70:307-313.
  41. Keppie, D. M. 1992. University of New Brunswick, Department of Forest Resources, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Personal communication.
  42. Keppie, D. M., and J. Towers. 1990. Using phenology to predict commencement of nesting of female spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensis). Am. Midl. Nat. 123:164-170.
  43. Keppie, D. M. and P. D. Beaudette. 1990. Vermont Grouse. App. E. In: D. M. Pence, E. Quinn, and C. Alexander. A continuing investigation of an insular population of spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensis) in Essex County, Vermont. Technical Report 17 of the Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Waterbury, VT.
  44. Keppie, D. M., and P. W. Herzog. 1978. Nest site characteristics and nest success of spruce grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(3):628-32.
  45. McCourt, K. H., D. A. Boag, and D. M. Keppie. 1973. Female spruce grouse activities during laying and incubation. The Auk 90(3):619-23.
  46. Naylor, B. J., and J. F. Bendell. 1989. Clutch size and eggs size of spruce grouse in relation to spring diet, food supply, and endogenous reserves. Can. J. Zool. 67:969-980.
  47. O'Connell, A. F., Jr., F. A. Servello, and S. D. Whitcomb. 1995. Spruce grouse on Mt. Desert Island. Park Science, Summer 1995, pp. 10-11.
  48. Pelren, E. C. 1996. Blue grouse winter ecology in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
  49. Pence, D. M , E. Quinn, and C. Alexander. 1990. A continuing investigation of an insular population of spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensis) in Essex County, Vermont. Technical Report 17 of the Nongame and Natural Heritage Program. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.
  50. Pendergast, B. A., and D. A. Boag. 1970. Seasonal changes in diet of spruce grouse in central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 34(3): 605-611.
  51. Pietz, P. J., and J. R. Tester. 1982. Habitat selection by sympatric spruce and ruffed grouse in north central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 46(2):391-403.
  52. Ratti, J. T., D. L. Mackey, and J. R. Alldredge. 1984. Analysis of Spruce grouse habitat in north-central Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4):1188-96.
  53. Redmond, G. W., D. M. Keppie, and P. W. Herzog. 1982. Vegetative structure, concealment, and success at nests of two races of spruce grouse. Can. J. Zool. 60:670-5.
  54. Robbins, S. D., Jr. 1991. Wisconsin birdlife: population and distribution past and present. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
  55. Robinson, W. L. 1980a. Fool hen: the spruce grouse on the Yellow Dog Plains. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
  56. Robinson, W. L. 1980a. Fool hen: the spruce grouse on the Yellow Dog Plains. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. xviii +221 pp.
  57. Robinson, W. L. 1991. Spruce grouse. In R. Brewer, G. A. McPee, R. J. Adams Jr. (compilers). The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
  58. Robinson, W. L. Department of Biology, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan. Personal communication.
  59. Salt, W. R. and A. L. Wilk. 1958. The birds of Alberta.
  60. Schroeder, M. A. 1985. Behavioral differences of female spruce grouse undertaking short and long migrations. Condor 87: 281-286.
  61. 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.
  62. Schroeder, M. A., and C. E. Braun. 1993. Partial migration in a population of greater prairie-chickens in northeastern Colorado. Auk 110:21-28.
  63. Schroeder, M. A., and D. A. Boag. 1989. Evaluation of a density index for territorial male spruce grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:475-478.
  64. Smyth, K. E., and D. A. Boag. 1984. Production in spruce grouse and its relationship to environmental and population parameters. Can. J. Zool. 62:2250-2257.
  65. Squires, W. A. 1952. The Birds of New Brunswick. Saint John, New Brunswick: The New Brunswick Museum.
  66. Szuba, K. J. and B. J. Naylor. 1987. Spruce grouse. In: Cadman, M. D., F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ont.
  67. Szuba, K. J., and J. F. Bendell. 1988. Nonterritorial males in populations of spruce grouse. The Condor 90:492-6.
  68. 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.
  69. 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.
  70. Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980c. Dispersal of a lesser prairie chicken (TYMPANUCHUS PALLIDICINCTUS). Southwestern Naturalist 25:124-125.
  71. Temple, S. 1992. Phone conversation. University of Wisconsin, Department of Wildlife Ecology, Madison, WI. pers. comm.
  72. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  73. Tufts, R. W. 1961. The Birds of Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Nova Scotia Museum.
  74. Ware, D. 1992. Phone conversation about spruce grouse in Washington. Washington State DNR, UPland Bird and Furbearer Program, Olympia, WA. pers. comm.
  75. Whitcomb, S. D., F. A. Servello, and A. F. O'Connell, Jr. 1994. Population and habitat assessment for spruce grouse in Acadia National Park and on Mount Desert Island, Maine. National Park Service, North Atlantic Region, Boston, Massachusetts. iii + 47 pp.