Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Bonasa umbellus | Ruffed Grouse 



ABBREVIATION : 
BOUM

COMMON NAMES : 
   ruffed grouse
   grouse
   partridge


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for ruffed grouse is Bonasa
umbellus Linnaeus [1,31].  There are twelve subspecies of ruffed grouse
found in the United States and Canada [1,32]:

        Bonasa umbellus spp. umbellus
        Bonasa u. spp. mediana Todd
        Bonasa u. spp. togata (Linnaeus)
        Bonasa u. spp. monticola Todd
        Bonasa u. spp. umbelloides (Douglas)
        Bonasa u. spp. incana Aldrich and Friedmann
        Bonasa u. spp. phaia Aldrich and Friedmann
        Bonasa u. spp. yukonensis Grinnell
        Bonasa u. spp. affinis Aldrich and Friedmann
        Bonasa u. spp. sabini (Douglas)
        Bonasa u. spp. brunnescens Conover
        Bonasa u. spp. castanea Aldrich and Friedmann


ORDER : 
Galliformes

CLASS : 
Bird

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
S. A. Snyder, October 1991


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Snyder, S. A. 1991. Bonasa umbellus. In: Remainder of Citation

WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Bonasa umbellus | Ruffed Grouse 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
The ruffed grouse is found from central Alaska across Canada to the
eastern seaboard and south into the New England states through the
Carolinas to the northern border of Georgia [1].  Isolated populations
exist in Missouri.  In the West, ruffed grouse extend from Canada into
the Rocky Mountains through central Utah and along the Pacific Coast
into extreme northern California, with isolated populations in the
Dakotas [32].  Ruffed grouse have been introduced into Iowa,
Newfoundland, and the Ruby Mountains of Nevada [1,32].  Distributions of
the subspecies are listed below [32]:

 (1)  B. u. ssp. umbellus - from Connecticut south through southern
                          New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
                          Massachusetts, and eastern Pennsylvania
 (2)  B. u. spp. mediana - from central Minnesota through Wisconsin
                         and Michigan, northwestern illinois, and
                         isolated areas of Indiana and Missouri
 (3)  B. u. spp. togata - from northern Minnesota across Wisconsin,
                        Michigan, southern Ontario and Quebec, into
                        the New England states to southern New York
 (4)  B. u. spp. monticola - southeastern Michigan and southern
                           Quebec, and from Pennsylvania south
                           through Ohio, Maryland, the Virginias,
                           Carolinas, Kentucky, and Tennessee;
                           isolated area of Missouri
 (5)  B. u. spp. umbelloides - across Canada from coast to coast, into
                             western Montana, eastern Idaho, and
                             northwestern Wyoming
 (6)  B. u. spp. incana - southeastern Idaho into central Utah and
                        western Colorado; isolated areas of the
                        Dakotas; southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan
 (7)  B. u. spp. phaia - from the Idaho Panhandle south through central
                       Idaho and into northeastern Oregon
 (8)  B. u. spp. yukonensis - central Alaska across the Yukon Territory
                            into the Northwest Territories and the 
                            northernmost parts of Alberta and
                            Saskatchewan
 (9)  B. u. spp. affinis - southern British Columbia into eastern 
                         Washington and northeastern Oregon
(10)  B. u. spp. sabini - from the southwesternmost tip of southern
                         British Columbia through just east of coastal
                         Washington and Oregon into extreme northwestern
                         California
(11)  B. u. spp. brunnescens - Vancouver Island and adjacent coastal
                              British Columbia
(12)  B. u. spp. castanea - Olympic Peninsula and coastal Oregon
 

ECOSYSTEMS : 
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES18 Maple-beech-birch
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES36 Mountain grasslands


STATES : 


    
AK
	
CA
    
CO
    
CT
    
DE
    
FL
    
GA
	
ID


	
IL
    
IN
    
IA
    
KY
    
ME
    
MD
	
MA
    
MI


    
MN
    
MS
    
MO
    
MT
    
NE
    
NV
    
NH
    
NJ


    
NY
    
NC
    
ND
    
OH
    
OK
    
OR
    
PA
    
RI
    
SC


    
SD
    
TN
    
UT
    
VT
    
VA
    
WA
    
WV
    
WI
    
WY






    
AB
    
BC
    
MB
    
NB
    
NF
    
NT
    
NS
    
ON
    
PE
    
PQ






    
MEXICO
    





BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    1  Northern Pacific Border
    2  Cascade Mountains
    3  Southern Pacific Border
    4  Sierra Mountains
    5  Columbia Plateau
    6  Upper Basin and Range
    8  Northern Rocky Mountains
    9  Middle Rocky Mountains
   10  Wyoming Basin
   11  Southern Rocky Mountains
   12  Colorado Plateau
   15  Black Hills Uplift


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K001  Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
   K002  Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
   K003  Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest
   K004  Fir - hemlock forest
   K005  Mixed conifer forest
   K008  Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
   K011  Western ponderosa forest
   K012  Douglas-fir forest
   K013  Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
   K014  Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
   K015  Western spruce - fir forest
   K017  Black Hills pine forest
   K018  Pine - Douglas-fir forest
   K020  Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
   K025  Alder - ash forest
   K026  Oregon oakwoods
   K037  Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
   K051  Wheatgrass - bluegrass
   K081  Oak savanna
   K093  Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
   K094  Conifer bog
   K095  Great Lakes pine forest
   K096  Northeastern spruce - fir forest
   K097  Southeastern spruce - fir forest
   K099  Maple - basswood forest
   K100  Oak - hickory forest
   K101  Elm - ash forest
   K102  Beech - maple forest
   K103  Mixed mesophytic forest
   K104  Appalachian oak forest
   K106  Northern hardwoods
   K107  Northern hardwoods - fir forest
   K108  Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
   K109  Transition between K104 and K106
   K110  Northeastern oak - pine forest


SAF COVER TYPES : 
     1  Jack pine
     5  Balsam fir
    12  Black spruce
    13  Black spruce - tamarack
    14  Northern pin oak
    15  Red pine
    16  Aspen
    17  Pin cherry
    18  Paper birch
    19  Grey birch - red maple
    20  White pine - northern red oak - red maple
    21  Eastern white pine
    22  White pine - hemlock
    23  Eastern hemlock
    25  Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
    26  Sugar maple - basswood
    27  Sugar maple
    28  Black cherry - maple
    30  Red spruce - yellow birch
    31  Red spruce - sugar maple - beech
    32  Red spruce
    33  Red spruce - balsam fir
    35  Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
    37  Northern white cedar
    38  Tamarack
    39  Black ash - American elm - red maple
    43  Bear oak
    44  Chestnut oak
    45  Pitch pine
    46  Eastern redcedar
    51  White pine - chestnut oak
    52  White oak - black oak - northern red oak
    53  White oak
    55  Northern red oak
    60  Beech - sugar maple
    61  River birch - sycamore
    62  Silver maple - American elm
    63  Cottonwood
    64  Sassafras - persimmon
    75  Shortleaf pine
    76  Shortleaf pine - oak
    78  Virginia pine - oak
    79  Virginia pine
    93  Sugarberry - American elm - green ash
    94  Sycamore - sweetgum - American elm
    95  Black willow
   107  White spruce
   108  Red maple
   110  Black oak
   201  White spruce
   202  White spruce - paper birch
   203  Balsam poplar
   204  Black spruce 
   205  Mountain hemlock
   206  Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
   210  Interior Douglas- fir
   212  Western larch
   213  Grand fir
   215  Western white pine
   217  Aspen 
   218  Lodgepole pine
   251  White spruce - aspen
   252  Paper birch
   253  Black spruce - white spruce
   254  Black spruce - paper birch


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Ruffed grouse inhabit a variety of plant communities across its
transcontinental distribution.  However, they seem to have higher
survival rates in mixed hardwood and mixed hardwood/conifer forests than
in pure conifer forests [3].  In several publications, Gullion
[16,17,18,19,20,21] has described the importance of big-toothed and
quaking aspen (Populus grandidentata, P. tremuloides) to ruffed grouse.
Other plant communities include mixed conifer forests of spruce (Picea
spp.), hemlock (Tsuga spp.), fir (Abies spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), and
larch (Larix spp.) in the West [9,24].  In the East, plant communities
include oak (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), maple (Acer spp.),
cottonwood (Populus spp.), sycamore (Platanus spp.), willow (Salix
spp.), and pine [10,14,22].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Bonasa umbellus | Ruffed Grouse 



TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS : 
Mating and Courtship - begins in April with males "drumming" to attract
                       a mate
Nesting - clutch laid about 3 weeks after mating; usually
          8 to 14 eggs over a 15 day period; nests on ground
          near base of tree or stump
Incubation - 23 to 26 days; hatch from late May to early July
Fledgling Age - 8 to 10 weeks; usually only three to four chicks survive
                their first summer
Lifespan - 7 years; 55 percent mortality rate of fall population
           during the winter
Migration - none
[16,17,20]


PREFERRED HABITAT : 
Throughout most of their their range, ruffed grouse prefer pure stands
of quaking aspen or quaking aspen mixed with other hardwoods or
conifers.  Ruffed grouse chicks find protection in dense, young quaking
aspen suckers as early as 1 year after fire or other disturbance [23].
Pole-size quaking aspen stands appear to offer the best breeding habitat
and may support one breeding bird per 3 to 4 acres (1.2-1.6 ha).
Breeding generally does not occur in quaking aspen stands exceeding 25
years of age or with a density less than approximately 2,000 stems per
acre [6].

A study in northern Idaho showed that ruffed grouse chose hardwood areas
more often than coniferous forests during winter and that quaking aspen
was preferred during all seasons [31,34].  Another northern Idaho study
showed that ruffed grouse spent winters on ridges above ravines at an
elevation of 3,500 feet (1,067 m).  Air temperature on these ridges was
warmer than below due to warm air inversion.  Ruffed grouse then moved
into ravines during summer, where temperatures remained cool [24].

In some parts of their range, ruffed grouse use conifer-dominated stands
during winter [17,24,31,34].  Ruffed grouse also use woodland areas in
early seral stages with a high shrub density [27].

Gullion [16] stated that ruffed grouse rarely die more than 5 miles (8.3
km) from where they hatched.  Males usually choose drumming logs within
2,000 feet (610 m) of their brooding range [20].  Females have a home
range of about 100 acres (40.5 ha), while males occupy closer to 10
acres (4 ha) [16,20].



COVER REQUIREMENTS : 
Gullion [20] reported that cover requirements for ruffed grouse can be
met in pure aspen stands if those stands have a mix of age classes and
enough good quality male clones to meet the energy requirements of
ruffed grouse.  Newly regenerated aspen stands provide nesting cover for
up to 10 years, while 10- to 25-year-old aspen are good for
overwintering and breeding.  Stands older than 25 years provide nesting
cover and food [6,30].  Deep snow accumulation, essential for wintering
ruffed grouse, which need to burrough in the snow for protection against
cold and predators, occurs earlier under hardwood than under coniferous
cover [20].

Much of the ruffed grouse habitat requirement studies have been
conducted in Minnesota by Gullion, who reported that the growth form and
tree characteristics are more important to ruffed grouse survival than
tree species [22].  Gullion and Marshall [22] concluded that as the
density of mature pines increases, survival of ruffed grouse decreases.
They also stated that ruffed grouse inhabiting edge communities do not
live as long as those inhabiting uniform habitats.  Ruffed grouse use
hardwoods more heavily in the East, while ruffed grouse in the West will
use coniferous cover [24].  Ruffed grouse in Wisconsin use hardwood
cover between 4 and 7 inches (9.8-17.2 cm) d.b.h.  [10].  Ruffed grouse
here distribute themselves throughout all cover types, except open
habitats.  Pure conifer types are not very important as cover.

Thick ground vegetation is more beneficial to ruffed grouse predators
than to ruffed grouse [18].  For this reason ruffed grouse need a
viewing radius of 50 to 60 feet (15-20 m) at all times.  Drumming logs
need to be 12 to 14 inches (29.5-34.4 cm) above the ground with the same
viewing radius; however, low, dense shrubs and brush need to be within
10 to 12 feet (3.3-4 m) on all sides [20].


FOOD HABITS : 
Quaking aspen is the primary food of ruffed grouse throughout most of
their range.  Quaking aspen buds, catkins, and leaves provide an
abundant and nutritious, year-long food source for ruffed grouse
[6,23].  Vegetative and flower buds are the primary winter and spring
foods of the ruffed grouse.  Ruffed grouse eat 6 times more quaking
aspen buds than buds from all other species combined [23].  It is
estimated that ruffed grouse can consume more than 45 quaking aspen buds
per minute and can satisfy their daily winter food needs in as little as
15 to 20 minutes [6].  

Ruffed grouse also eat the fruits, nuts, twigs, leaves, and flowers of a
variety of shrub, forb, grass, and tree species.  These food species
include willow, elm (Ulmus spp.), hazel, birch (Betula spp.), oak mast,
dogwood (Cornus spp.), huckleberry and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.),
current (Ribes spp.), viburnum (Viburnum spp.), sumac (Ghus spp.),
cherry (Prunus spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.),
greenbriar (Smilax spp.), mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia),
wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens), strawberry (Frageria spp.),
dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), and wild lily-of-the-valley (Maranthemum
canadense) [2,6,7,8,15,21,30,36,37,39,40].  Chicks feed heavily on
insects and other small invertebrates [2,11,40].


PREDATORS : 
Ruffed grouse predators include humans, wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes
(C.  latrans), foxes (Vulpes spp.), cougars (Felis concolor), lynx (F.
lynx), bobcat (Lynx rufus), hawks (Buteoninae), falcons (Falconidae),
owls (Tytonidae), eagles (Strigidae), snakes, skunks and weasels
(Mustelidea), and other small carnivorous mammals [18,20,38].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Gullion has detailed the management of aspen stands to create ruffed
grouse habitat [19,20,21].  He stressed the importance of maintaining
male aspen clones and recommended cutting aspen at 40 to 60 years of
age.  Gullion also recommended slash removal to reduce predator hiding
cover, and provision of four age classes of aspen for nesting, brooding,
and adult overwintering [19].  Perala [30] and Brinkman and Roe [6] have
also listed management strategies for aspen stands.


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Bonasa umbellus | Ruffed Grouse 



DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS : 
Ruffed grouse nests and hatchlings may be consumed by early spring fires
[14].  Fires have caused complete reproductive failure in hens [9].


HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS : 
Fire can be beneficial in regenerating aspen; however, frequent fire
(2-3 year intervals) can destroy aspen's suckering ability [6].  Refer
to FEIS database on aspen for details on fire management [41].  

Studies have been conducted on ruffed grouse selection of burned versus
unburned areas.  In general, ruffed grouse distribution is similar in
both [4,29].  However, in aspen-dominated uplands of Alberta, a severe,
May wildfire caused an immediate 50 percent reduction in grouse numbers,
mainly due to egress [9].  This area also suffered a loss in drumming
males for 2 years following the fire, in which most of the woody shrubs
were consumed.  In New York, seven old-fields that were burned in spring
showed an increase in foraging ruffed grouse after the first 2 days
[11].  The increase was attributed to the vulnerability of insects, for
which ruffed grouse foraged.  Gullion [18] remarked that in Minnesota
the greatest abundance in ruffed grouse appeared 2 to 4, and 10 to 12
years after the peak fire season.  He also noted that the early stages
of plant growth following fire create good brood habitat, while the
later stages are better for adults.


FIRE USE : 
Prescribed burning can be used in a number of ways to improve ruffed
grouse habitat.  Most notably fire can remove forest debris, eliminating
hiding cover for predators and provide clear paths for ruffed grouse;
enhance the growth of important food species; release nutrients; and
control plant diseases and ruffed grouse parasites [14,18,33].  Irving
[26] recommended burning 10-acre (4-ha) units, in a staggered pattern,
to distribute food and cover.  In oak-hickory forests dominated by a
sedge (Carex spp.) understory, spring burning before April 15 should be
conducted every 2 years [33].  If managing for blueberries in these same
areas, burning should occur every 4 to 5 years.  When burning for
habitat management, one bird should be allowed for every 2 to 4 acres
(0.8-1.6 ha) [33].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

References for species: Bonasa umbellus

1. Donohoe, Robert W. 1974. American hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana Walt. In: Gill, John D.; Healy, William M., eds. Shrubs and vines for northeastern wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-9. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 86-88. [13714]

2. Barber, Harold L.; Brenner, Fred J.; Kirkpatrick, Roy; [and others]. 1989. Food. In: Atwater, Sally; Schnell, Judith, eds. Ruffed grouse. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 268-283. [15921]

3. Barber, Harold L.; Chambers, Robert; Kirkpatrick, Roy; [and others]. 1989. Cover. In: Atwater, Sally; Schnell, Judith, eds. Ruffed grouse. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 294-319. [15919]

4. Berg, William E. 1979. Wildland habitat development study. Minnesota Wildlife Research Quarterly. 39(3): 97-118. [14258]

5. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

6. Brinkman, Kenneth A.; Roe, Eugene I. 1975. Quaking aspen: silvics and management in the Lake States. Agric. Handb. 486. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 52 p. [5107]

7. Burger, A. E. 1987. Fruiting and frugivory of Cornus canadensis in boreal forest in Newfoundland [Canada}. Oikos. 49(1): 3-10. [8930]

8. Crowder, A. A.; Taylor, Gregory J. 1984. Characteristics of sites occupied by wild lily-of-the-valley, Maianthemum canadense, on Hill Island, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 98(2): 151-158. [13298]

9. Doerr, Phillip D.; Keith, Lloyd B.; Rusch, Donald H. 1971. Effects of fire on a ruffed grouse population. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1970 August 20-21; Fredericton, NB. No. 10. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 25-46. [14320]

10. Dorney, Robert S. 1959. Relationship of ruffed grouse to forest cover types in Wisconsin. Tech. Bull. 18. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Conservation Department. 31 p. [15906]

11. Euler, David L.; Thompson, Daniel Q. 1978. Ruffed grouse and songbird foraging response on small spring burns. New York Fish and Game Journal. 25(2): 156-164. [8077]

12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

13. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]

14. Grange, Wallace B. 1948. The realtion of fire to grouse. In: Wisconsin grouse problems. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project No. 5R. Pub. 328. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Conservation Department: 193-205. [15908]

15. Guilkey, Paul C. 1957. Silvical characteristics of...American elm (Ulmus americana). Station Paper No. 54. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station. 19 p. [5509]

16. Gullion, Gordon W. 1968. Recommendations for management of ruffed grouse habitat in northern Minnesota. Information Leaflet No. 100. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Division of Game and Fish.3 p. [15912]

17. Gullion, Gordon W. 1967. The ruffed grouse in northern Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Forest Wildlife Relations Project. 20 p. [15911]

18. Gullion, Gordon W. 1970. Factors influencing ruffed grouse population. In: Transactions of the 35th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference; 1970 March 22-25. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute: [pages unknown]. [15904]

19. Gullion, Gordon W. 1971. Effect of logging upon ruffed grouse in Minnesota forests. In: Zasada, Z. A.; Miles, William A., editors. Proceedings--conference on biological and economic considerations in mechanized timber harvesting; 1971 October 19-20; Cloquet, MN. Forestry Series 11/Miscellaneous Report 116. Minneaoplis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Forestry/Agricultural Experiment Station: 32-36. [10451]

20. Gullion, Gordon W. 1972. Improving your forested lands for ruffed grouse. Misc. Journal Publ. 1439. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 34 p. [15909]

21. Gullion, Gordon W. 1990. Management of aspen for ruffed grouse and other wildlife--an update. In: Adams, Roy D., ed. Aspen symposium '89: Proceedings; 1989 July 25-27; Duluth, MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-140. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 133-143. [12425]

22. King, R. Dennis. 1969. Spring and summer foods of ruffed grouse on Vancouver Island. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(2): 440-442. [15910]

23. Gullion, Gordon W.; Svovoda, Franklin J. 1972. The basic habitat resource for ruffed grouse. In: Aspen: Symposium proceedings; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-1. St. Paul, MI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 113-119. [12047]

24. Hungerford, K. E. 1951. Ruffed grouse populations and cover use in northern Idaho. Transactions, 16th North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 216-224. [13618]

25. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905]

26. Irving, Frank D., Jr. 1950. Some possible effects on wildlife of controlled burning in the pine types of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 43 p. Thesis. [15913]

27. Kubisiak, John. 1989. The best year-round cover. In: Atwater, Sally; Schnell, Judith, eds. Ruffed grouse. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 320-321. [15920]

28. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]

29. Niemi, Gerald J. 1978. Breeding birds of burned and unburned areas in northern Minnesota. Loon. 50: 73-84. [14451]

30. Perala, Donald A. 1977. Manager's handbook for aspen in the north central states. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-36. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 30 p. [5632]

31. Peterson, Roger Tory. 1990. A field guide to western birds. 2 ed. The Peterson Field Guide Series No. 2. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 432 p. [13712]

32. Runkles, Ronald R. 1989. The subspecies. In: Atwater, Sally; Schnell, Judith, eds. Ruffed grouse. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 42-47. [15918]

33. Sharp, Ward M. 1971. The role of fire in ruffed grouse habitat management. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1970 August 20-21; Fredericton, NB. No. 10. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 47-61. [11120]

34. Stauffer, Dean F.; Peterson, Steven R. 1986. Seasonal microhabitat relationships of blue grouse in southeastern Idaho. The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 117-122. [9638]

35. Stiles, Edmund W. 1980. Patterns of fruit presentation and seed dispersal in bird-disseminated woody plants in the eastern deciduous forest. The American Naturalist. 116(5): 670-688. [6508]

36. Swenson, W.S. 1957. Squawbush in windbreaks in eastern Colorado. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 12: 184-185. [3774]

37. Thackston, Reginald E.; Hale, Philip E.; Johnson, A. Sydney; Harris, Michael J. 1982. Chemical composition of mountain-laurel Kalmia leaves from burned and unburned sites. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46(2): 492-496. [9076]

38. Turbak, Gary. 1989. Predators on foot. In: Atwater, Sally; Schnell, Judith, eds. Ruffed grouse. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 230-234. [15922]

39. Webb, Sara L. 1986. Potential role of passenger pigeons and other vertebrates in the rapid holocene migrations of nut trees. Quaternary Research. 26: 367-375. [11982]

40. Gullion, Gordon W.; Marshall, William H. 1968. Survival of ruffed grouse in a boreal forest. Living Bird. 7: 117-167. [15907]

41. Tirmenstein, D. A. 1988. Populus tremuloides. In: Fischer, William C., compiler. The Fire Effects Information System [Data base]. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fires Sciences Laboratory. Magnetic tape reels; 9 track; 1600 bpi, ASCII with Common LISP present. [15914]

Related categories for Wildlife Species: Bonasa umbellus | Ruffed Grouse