DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus Phasianellus Columbianus): a Technical Conservation Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project August 17, 2007 Richard W. Hoffman1 and Allan E. Thomas2 11804 Wallenberg Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 25001 Decatur Drive, Boise, Idaho 83704 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Hoffman, R.W. and A.E. Thomas. (2007, August 17). Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiansharptailedgrouse.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank K.J. Eichhoff and H.E. Vermillion of the Colorado Division of Wildlife for their assistance in preparing the figures and C.E. Soldati, a student at Colorado State University, for her help in preparing the References section. J.A. Boss, librarian for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, was extremely helpful in locating and obtaining many of the references used to prepare this assessment. T.P. Woolley, biologist with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, provided lek survey data and answered many questions regarding the distribution and management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in Wyoming. This assessment also benefited from information provided by A.D. Apa, M.A. Schroeder, and A.W. Spaulding. D.P. McDonald of the University of Wyoming conducted the lifecycle model analyses and prepared the summary of the results. C.E. Braun and an anonymous reviewer provided constructive comments that substantially improved the quality of the assessment. Finally, the authors are extremely grateful to G.D. Patton and P.M. McDonald with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Their support, technical guidance, understanding, and most of all, patience, made the preparation of this assessment easier. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Richard W. Hoffman earned his B.Sc. and M.Sc. Degrees in wildlife biology from Colorado State University. He subsequently worked for the Colorado Division of Wildlife for over 30 years as an avian researcher specializing in upland game birds. He has conducted research on population dynamics, habitat relationships, nutritional ecology, and behavior of white-tailed ptarmigan, dusky grouse, greater prairie-chickens, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and wild turkey. In retirement, he continues to work on projects involving white-tailed ptarmigan, greater sage-grouse, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Allan E. Thomas earned his B.Sc. Degree in wildlife management with minors in fisheries and range management from the University of Arizona. He also conducted graduate work at the same university and received additional credits from attending schools in Washington, South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska, and Idaho. His work experience spans more than 50 years and includes positions primarily with the Bureau of Land Management (22 years) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (19 years). He retired from the Bureau of Land Management in 1999 and started another career as a private consultant in Boise, Idaho. DEDICATION Sadly, Allan E. Thomas passed away before this assessment was completed. Allan was a devoted conservation biologist who believed strongly in documenting and communicating biological information. This assessment is testimony to Allan’s work ethic and is dedicated to his memory. COVER PHOTO CREDIT Photograph of male Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in an alert posture by Richard W. Hoffman. 2 3 SUMMARY OF KEY COMPONENTS FOR CONSERVATION OF COLUMBIAN SHARP-TAILED GROUSE Status The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus; CSTG) is one of six existing subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse in North America. It is endemic to big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), shrubsteppe, mountain shrub, and riparian shrub plant communities of western North America. The subspecies currently occupies less than 10 percent of its historic range, with only three metapopulations remaining in central British Columbia, southeastern Idaho and northern Utah, and northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming. Within Region 2 of the USDA Forest Service (USFS), this grouse formerly occurred in as many as 22 counties in western Colorado and in portions of 11 counties in west-central, southwestern, and south-central Wyoming. Today, viable populations occur in only three counties in Colorado and one county in Wyoming. Attempts are being made to reintroduce CSTG to previously occupied habitats in southwestern and north-central Colorado. Approximately 68 percent of the occupied habitat in Region 2 is on private lands, and only 4 percent is on lands administered by the USFS. The CSTG has been petitioned twice for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Under both petitions, the finding was not warranted. USFS Region 2 and the state offices of the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado and Wyoming have designated the CSTG a sensitive species. Both the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Colorado Division of Wildlife list it as a species of special concern. Primary Threats Threats to CSTG are widespread across its range in Region 2, occur at all spatial scales, and transcend local, state, and regional jurisdictions. Many of the threats are inter-related and synergistic in their impacts on CSTG. Even when the threats are not related, their impacts tend to be cumulative. The primary threats are all human-related. Foremost are habitat loss and degradation caused by conversion of native habitats to pasture and croplands, overgrazing by domestic livestock, energy development, use of herbicides to control big sagebrush, alteration of natural fire regimes, invasion of exotic plants, and urban and rural expansion. Possible loss of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands is the single most important immediate threat to CSTG in Region 2 and elsewhere throughout the subspecies’ range. Currently, CRP lands support 21 percent of the known active leks in Region 2, and many CRP fields provide critical nesting and brood-rearing habitats for CSTG. Nearly 70 percent of all CRP contracts within the occupied range of CSTG in Region 2 are scheduled to expire by 2010, and there are strong indications that Congress will not include provisions in the 2007 Farm Bill for their renewal. What will become of these lands if the contracts are allowed to expire is uncertain, but it is likely that their value as habitat for CSTG will diminish. Livestock grazing is the dominant use on public and private lands within the occupied range of CSTG in Region 2. While grazing levels have declined in Region 2, grazing continues to be an issue because lands subjected to past overgrazing have not been rested and given the opportunity to recover. Until recently, oil and gas development was not considered a threat to CSTG in Region 2. However, with oil and gas prices reaching all-time highs and with strong support from the current political administration, oil and gas exploration and development have increased dramatically throughout the West. This activity has expanded into the core range of CSTG in Region 2. Impacts of oil and gas development include direct habitat loss and fragmentation from well, road, and pipeline construction; displacement (i.e., avoidance behavior) of individuals caused by excessive human activity; increased avian predation due to the construction of artificial perch sites; and increased mortality due to collisions with utility lines and vehicles. If oil and gas resources in Region 2 are developed to their fullest potential, the outcome could be devastating to CSTG populations. The most essential component of habitats used by CSTG during winter in Region 2 is the presence of serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.). Serviceberry is the primary food source for CSTG from late fall through early spring. Any activity that reduces the distribution and abundance of serviceberry may have negative consequences to CSTG. 2 3 Primary Conservation Elements, Management Implications and Considerations The keys to successful management of CSTG in Region 2 are protection and enhancement of existing habitats and restoration of habitats that are no longer occupied or are severely degraded. The natural processes that perpetuate the habitats upon which CSTG rely have been significantly disrupted by human activities and are no longer intact. Consequently, in most situations, some form of human intervention is necessary to correct the problems. This may be as simple as eliminating the activity causing the problem and allowing the plant community to recover on its own, or it may involve extensive restoration of the plant community. Protection and management of native cover types should receive top priority. There should be no net loss of sagebrush, shrubsteppe, or mountain shrub cover types in Region 2. Some of the same activities responsible for the loss and degradation of shrubsteppe and mountain shrub habitats also may be used to enhance and restore these habitats when properly applied. These activities include prescribed fire, grazing, use of herbicides, and mechanical treatments. Managers must be acutely aware that multiple factors affect CSTG populations, and they should consider the cumulative effects of these factors when formulating any future management actions. 4 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................................2
Recommended publications
  • 2020 Upland Game Bird Hunting Season Frameworks

    2020 Upland Game Bird Hunting Season Frameworks

    Oregon Upland Game Bird Hunting Season Framework Effective dates: September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2020 Prepared by Wildlife Division Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 4034 Fairview Industrial Dr SE Salem, Oregon 97302 Proposed 2015 -2020 Upland Game Bird Framework Executive Summary Oregon’s diverse habitats support 12 species of upland game birds, 8 of which are native, and 10 of which have hunting seasons. This document contains the proposed framework for upland game bird hunting seasons for the next five years. The seasons are designed to provide recreational hunting opportunities compatible with the overall status of upland game bird populations. The multi-year framework approach for setting upland game bird regulations was first adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 1996 for a 3-year period and again in 1999, 2004, and 2009 for 5-year periods. The role of regulations in game bird management has many functions including protection of a species, providing recreational opportunities, and in consultation with hunters to provide bag limits and seasons. Regulations should be as simple as possible to make them easy to understand. These frameworks are also based on the concept that annual fluctuations in upland bird numbers, which can vary greatly and are normal, should not be the basis for setting hunting seasons year by year. Standardized frameworks are biologically sound management tools that help the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) provide consistent, stable regulations that reduce confusion, assist hunters with planning trips, and lower administrative costs. In an effort to stabilize hunting regulations, the following concepts are the foundation for the frameworks offered in this document: Many upland game bird populations exhibit a high annual death rate and cannot be stockpiled from year to year Similar annual death rates occur in most upland game bird populations whether they are hunted or not.
  • BLUE GROUSE and RUFFED GROUSE (Dendragapus Obscurus and Bonasa Umbellus)

    BLUE GROUSE and RUFFED GROUSE (Dendragapus Obscurus and Bonasa Umbellus)

    Chapter 13 BLUE GROUSE AND RUFFED GROUSE (Dendragapus obscurus and Bonasa umbellus) Harry Harju I. CENSUS – A. Production Surveys – 1. Rationale – Random brood counts are a survey method used to assess the reproductive success of blue or ruffed grouse. Unfortunately, these counts are done too late in the year to be considered in setting or adjusting hunting seasons. If the sample size is large enough, the counts can help identify important habitats used by broods and can provide insight to the potential quality of hunting in the fall. 2. Application – Random brood counts can be conducted on foot, from horseback or from a vehicle and should cover all portions of the brood-rearing area. A good pointing dog is invaluable to locate broods. If a flushing dog is used, it should be trained to walk very close to the observer. Each time a grouse is seen, record the species, location, age, sex and habitat on a wildlife observation form. If a count is incomplete, circle the number of birds recorded. The time frame for these surveys is July 15 to August 31. Warm, clear days are best for brood counts. The best results are obtained by searching for broods in the first two and last three hours of daylight. When a well-trained dog is used, counts can be conducted throughout the day. 3. Analysis of Data – Refer to chapter 12 (Sage-grouse), Section II.B (Brood Production). 4. Disposition of Data – All records of brood observations are forwarded to Regional Wildlife Management Coordinators for proofing, and then entered into the Wildlife Observation System Database.
  • 11 Blue Grouse

    11 Blue Grouse

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Grouse and Quails of North America, by Paul A. Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences May 2008 11 Blue Grouse Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscigrouse Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "11 Blue Grouse" (2008). Grouse and Quails of North America, by Paul A. Johnsgard. 13. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscigrouse/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Grouse and Quails of North America, by Paul A. Johnsgard by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Blue Grouse Dendragapw obsctlrus (Say) 182 3 OTHER VERNACULAR NAMES @USKY grouse, fool hen, gray grouse, hooter, mountain grouse, pine grouse, pine hen, Richardson grouse, sooty grouse. RANGE From southeastern Alaska, southern Yukon, southwestern Mackenzie, and western Alberta southward along the offshore islands to Vancouver and along the coast to northern California, and in the mountains to southern California, northern and eastern Arizona, and west central New Mexico (A.O.U. Check-list). SUBSPECIES (ex A.O.U. Check-list) D. o. obscurus (Say): Dusky blue grouse. Resident in the mountains from central Wyoming and western South Dakota south through eastern Utah and Colorado to northern and eastern Arizona and New Mexico. D. o. sitkensis Swarth: Sitkan blue grouse. Resident in southeastern Alaska south through the coastal islands to Calvert Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia.
  • Observation on a Sooty Grouse Population at Sage Hen Creek

    Observation on a Sooty Grouse Population at Sage Hen Creek

    THE CONDOR--- VOLUME 58 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1956 NUMBER 5 OBSERVATIONS ON A SOOTY GROUSE POPULATION AT SAGE HEN CREEK, CALIFORNIA By ROBERT S. HOFFMANN In recent years there has been considerable interest in two separate aspects of the biology of Blue Grouse (Dendragapus) . The first of these is the controversy concerning their taxonomy. The genus is widely distributed in the coniferous forests of the western states and consists of two groups of races recognized by some as separate species: the fuliginosus group, or Sooty Grouse, along the Pacific coast, and the obscures group, or Dusky Grouse, in the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain areas. Originally these two groups were placed under the name Dendragapus obscurus on the basis of supposed intergradation (Bendire, 1892:41,44, SO). The work of Brooks (1912,1926,1929) and Swarth (1922, 1926), however, led to their separation in the fourth edition of the A.O.U. Check-list (1931) into coastal and interior species. This split stood until the publication of the 19th Supplement to the A.O.U. Check-list (1944) when, following Peters (1934), D. fuliginosus and its subspecieswere replaced under D. obscurus. Al- though at that time some doubt was still expressedabout the correctnessof this merger (Grinnell and Miller, 1944: 113), intergradation in northern Washington and southern British Columbia between the races fuliginosus and pallidus has now been reported by several authors (Munro and Cowan, 1947:89; Carl, Guiguet, and Hardy, 1952:86; Jewett, Taylor, Shaw, and Aldrich, 1953 : 200). The taxonomy of these grouse must rest upon the fact of intergradation between the two groups of races.
  • Dusky Grouse Tend to Be Adapted Dusky and Sooty Grouse Were Considered Distinct

    Dusky Grouse Tend to Be Adapted Dusky and Sooty Grouse Were Considered Distinct

    Volt.un£ 14 .Numkt 3 9all2006 Blue Grouse divided by two equals Dusky and Sooty Grouse Michael A. Schroeder, Upland Bird Research Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 1077 Bridgeport, W A 98813 email: [email protected] The state of Washington has a new species of grouse, at least forested habitats throughout the year, it appears to be according to the American Ornithologists Union (Auk, 2006, vulnerable to variations in forest practices. For example, Pages 926-936). Dendragapus obscurus (formerly known as research on Sooty Grouse in British Columbia indicated that the Blue Grouse) has now been split into 2 species based on their populations fluctuated dramatically depending on the genetic, morphological, and behavioral evidence; the Dusky age of the forest following clear-cutting. Unfortunately, there Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) and the Sooty Grouse has been little effort to evaluate the relationship between (Dendragapus fuliginosus). This split is actually a reversion forest management practices and Sooty Grouse populations. to the previous situation during the early 1900s when the In contrast to Sooty Grouse, Dusky Grouse tend to be adapted Dusky and Sooty Grouse were considered distinct. to relatively open habitats in forest openings or close to forest edges. Because these open habitats are preferred areas for As a group, Dusky and Sooty Grouse are widely distributed livestock production and development, it is necessary to in the mountainous portions of western North America. understand the relationships between land use and grouse Although they generally winter in coniferous forest, their populations. The human population increase in the breeding breeding habitats are quite varied.
  • Sharp-Tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus Phasianellus) in a Resource Development Area at the Northern Edge of the Species' Range

    Sharp-Tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus Phasianellus) in a Resource Development Area at the Northern Edge of the Species' Range

    Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) in a resource development area at the northern edge of the species’ range by Joël Potié Department of Natural Resource Sciences McGill University, Macdonald Campus Montréal, Québec April 2020 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science © Joël Potié 2020 i Table of Contents ABSRACT .................................................................................................................................................. iv RÉSUMÉ ..................................................................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... x PREFACE AND CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS: ........................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 1 SHARP-TAILED GROUSE ECOLOGY ............................................................................................. 2 STGR in Yukon and Alaska ..................................................................................................................
  • Infectious Agents of Prairie Grouse (Tympanuchus Spp.) (PG) Mirrored Trends in How North American Wildlife Scientists Perceived Host–Para- Site Interactions

    Infectious Agents of Prairie Grouse (Tympanuchus Spp.) (PG) Mirrored Trends in How North American Wildlife Scientists Perceived Host–Para- Site Interactions

    05-SC_Peterson x.qxd 4/6/04 12:09 PM Page 35 SPECIAL COVERAGE 35 Parasites and infectious diseases of prairie grouse: should managers be concerned? by Markus J. Peterson Abstract Historically, interest in the infectious agents of prairie grouse (Tympanuchus spp.) (PG) mirrored trends in how North American wildlife scientists perceived host–para- site interactions. Increased ecological interest in host–parasite interactions since the 1980s led to increased awareness of PG–parasite interactions beginning in the 1990s. Prairie grouse are hosts to parasitic arthropods (e.g., lice, mites, ticks) and helminths (e.g., nematodes, cestodes, trematodes), as well as microparasites such as protozoa, bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Although many of these infectious agents cause disease in individual PG, few data address their potential influence on host population dynamics. Based on existing data on the parasites of PG, studies of other grouse species, and the- oretical perspectives, the macroparasites Dispharynx nasuta and Trichostrongylus cramae; the microparasites Eimeria dispersa, E. angusta, Leucocytozoon bonasae, and Plasmodium pedioecetii; and the infectious bronchitis and reticuloendotheliosis viruses exhibit characteristics that suggest they have the potential to regulate PG pop- ulations. Infectious agents such as Histomonas meleagridis, Pasteurella multocida, E. dispersa, E. angusta, and other microparasites that cause high mortality across a broad range of galliform hosts have the potential to extirpate small, isolated PG popu- lations. Nonparasitic diseases caused by mycotoxins, pesticides, and other toxic com- pounds also have the potential to influence population dynamics. Because there appears to be a behavioral component to PG population extinction, the fact that para- sites might influence breeding behavior also requires further evaluation.
  • Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically

    Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically

    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (and 113 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 62nd AOU Supplement (2021), sorted taxonomically Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Highland Tinamou HITI Nothocercus bonapartei NOTBON Great Tinamou GRTI Tinamus major TINMAJ Little Tinamou LITI Crypturellus soui CRYSOU Thicket Tinamou THTI Crypturellus cinnamomeus CRYCIN Slaty-breasted Tinamou SBTI Crypturellus boucardi CRYBOU Choco Tinamou CHTI Crypturellus kerriae CRYKER White-faced Whistling-Duck WFWD Dendrocygna viduata DENVID Black-bellied Whistling-Duck BBWD Dendrocygna autumnalis DENAUT West Indian Whistling-Duck WIWD Dendrocygna arborea DENARB Fulvous Whistling-Duck FUWD Dendrocygna bicolor DENBIC Emperor Goose EMGO Anser canagicus ANSCAN Snow Goose SNGO Anser caerulescens ANSCAE + Lesser Snow Goose White-morph LSGW Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Intermediate-morph LSGI Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Blue-morph LSGB Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Greater Snow Goose White-morph GSGW Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Intermediate-morph GSGI Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Blue-morph GSGB Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Snow X Ross's Goose Hybrid SRGH Anser caerulescens x rossii ANSCAR + Snow/Ross's Goose SRGO Anser caerulescens/rossii ANSCRO Ross's Goose
  • Non-Defendable Resources Affect Peafowl Lek Organization: a Male

    Non-Defendable Resources Affect Peafowl Lek Organization: a Male

    Behavioural Processes 74 (2007) 64–70 Non-defendable resources affect peafowl lek organization: A male removal experiment Adeline Loyau a,b,∗, Michel Saint Jalme b, Gabriele Sorci a,1 a Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive, Universit´e Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France b Conservation des Esp`eces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations, Mus´eum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France Received 19 December 2005; received in revised form 15 September 2006; accepted 22 September 2006 Abstract A lekking mating system is typically thought to be non-resource based with male providing nothing to females but genes. However, males are thought to clump their display sites on areas where they are more likely to encounter females, which may depend on non-defendable resource location. We tested this hypothesis on a feral population of peacocks. In agreement, we found that, within the lek, display site proximity to food resources had an effect on female visitation rate and male mating success. The attractiveness of display sites to male intruders was explained by the distance to the feeding place and by the female visitation rate. We randomly removed 29 territorial males from their display sites. Display sites that were more attractive to male intruders before removal remained highly attractive after removal and display sites closer to the feeding area attracted the attention of intruders significantly more after removal. Similarly, display sites that were more visited by females before removal remained more visited after removal, suggesting again that the likelihood of encountering females is determined by the display site location. Overall, these results are in agreement with non-defendable resources affecting lek spatial organization in the peafowl.
  • Blue Grouse Ecology and Habitat Requirements in North Central Utah

    Blue Grouse Ecology and Habitat Requirements in North Central Utah

    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-1972 Blue Grouse Ecology and Habitat Requirements in North Central Utah David A. Weber Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Life Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Weber, David A., "Blue Grouse Ecology and Habitat Requirements in North Central Utah" (1972). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 3512. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/3512 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would hke to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. J. B. Low, leader of the Utah Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and for his continuing guidance and patience during the study. I would also like to thank the members of my graduate committee: Dr. Donald Davis, Dr. Arthur Holmgren, and Dr. William Sigler for their advice and assis­ tance in many ways during the two years of the research. Frank Gunnell and Bruce Reese of the U. S. Forest Service deserve special thanks for many hours of help in the field and for continuing constructive criticism. Jack Rensel, Clair Huff, and John Kimball of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources also provtded field assistance and suggestions during the course of the study. I very much appreciate the help and advice of my co-worker during 19 71, J:!arry l:larnes, and wish him well in his continuing studies of the blue grouse.
  • Exploring the Evolutionary History of North American Prairie Grouse (Genus: Tympanuchus) Using Multi-Locus Coalescent Analyses

    Exploring the Evolutionary History of North American Prairie Grouse (Genus: Tympanuchus) Using Multi-Locus Coalescent Analyses

    EXPLORING THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE GROUSE (GENUS: Tympanuchus) USING MULTI-LOCUS COALESCENT ANALYSES Stephanie J. Galla, B.S. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2013 APPROVED: Jeff A. Johnson, Major Professor Steve Wolverton, Committee Member Qunfeng Dong, Committee Member Sam Atkinson, Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Galla, Stephanie J. Exploring the evolutionary history of North American prairie grouse (Genus: Tympanuchus) using multi-locus coalescent analyses. Master of Science (Biology), May 2013, 74 pp., 13 tables, 19 figures, references, 144 titles. Conservation biologists are increasingly using phylogenetics as a tool to understand evolutionary relationships and taxonomic classification. The taxonomy of North American prairie grouse (sharp-tailed grouse, T. phasianellus; lesser prairie- chicken, T. pallidicinctus; greater prairie-chicken, T. cupido; including multiple subspecies) has been designated based on physical characteristics, geography, and behavior. However, previous studies have been inconclusive in determining the evolutionary history of prairie grouse based on genetic data. Therefore, additional research investigating the evolutionary history of prairie grouse is warranted. In this study, ten loci (including mitochondrial, autosomal, and Z-linked markers) were sequenced across multiple populations of prairie grouse, and both traditional and coalescent-based phylogenetic analyses were used to address the evolutionary history of this genus. Results from this study indicate that North American prairie grouse diverged in the last 200,000 years, with species-level taxa forming well-supported monophyletic clades in species tree analyses. With these results, managers of the critically endangered Attwater’s prairie-chicken (T.
  • Forest Grouse

    Forest Grouse

    Volume 34 | Issue 2 October 2020 FOREST GROUSE Dusky GrouseCCBY Paul Hurtado Flickr Inside: Meet the Grouse Moving Up Leaving Home Hey Baby... Be Outside! idfg.idaho.gov Meet the Grouse If so, Have you ever had a quiet hike interrupted by an exploding bird? you have met a member of the grouse family. While they do not really explode, their sudden get-away right at your feet seems like a feathered explosion. In fact, this sudden rapid flight is common in this group of birds. Their short, rounded wings can beat very fast. This lets the bird suddenly fly into the air. Just like it startles you, it can also startle a predator just long enough for the bird to fly away to safety. Grouse belong to a large group of birds called “galliforms.” This group is often referred to as upland game birds. It includes birds like turkeys, quail, and grouse. They are all ground-dwelling birds that feed mostly on plants and insects. About 183 species of these birds live around the world. They are found everywhere except Antarctica and South America. Twelve species of galliforms are native to North America. Here in Idaho, we have five native grouse species. Several other species of galliform birds live in Idaho, but they were introduced as game birds for hunting. Upland game birds are well camouflaged. Their colors are mainly brown, tan, buff, gray, black, and white. Because they spend a lot of time on the ground, being camouflaged is very important. Three members of this group, called ptarmigan (TAR-mi-gan), even turn white in the winter.