WILDLIFE SPECIES: Centrocercus urophasianus | Sage Grouse ABBREVIATION :
CEUR
COMMON NAMES :
sage grouse
sage hen
sage chicken
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of sage grouse is Centrocercus
urophasianus (Bonaparte). There are two recognized subspecies: the
eastern sage grouse, C. u. ssp. urophasianus, and the western sage
grouse, C. u. ssp. phaios Aldrich [1]. Sage grouse is a member of the
family Phasianidae [37].
Sage grouse hybridizes rarely with sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus
phasianellus) and blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) [28].
ORDER :
Galliformes
CLASS :
Bird
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
Sage grouse is noted on the Audubon Society's Blue List as a species of
special concern in Oregon, Washington, and adjacent Canada [50]. The
California Department of Fish and Game lists it as a species of special
concern [10].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
C. L. Bushey, June 1986
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
Janet L. Howard, March 1996
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Howard, Janet L. 1996; Bushey, C. L. 1986. Centrocercus urophasianus.
In: Remainder of Citation
WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Centrocercus urophasianus | Sage Grouse GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Sage grouse are distributed from north-central Oregon, southern Idaho,
and southern Alberta and Saskatchewan south to eastern California,
western Colorado, and extreme western North and South Dakota. Isolated
populations occur in New Mexico, where sage grouse were extirpated but
have been reintroduced, and in eastern Washington [28,37,54]. Sage
grouse have been extirpated in British Columbia, most of North and South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona (except the extreme
northwestern tip), and central California [23,26,37].
Western sage grouse occurs only in eastern Washington and Oregon. The
ranges of western and eastern sage grouse overlap in Oregon. Eastern
sage grouse occur in all states and provinces within the range of sage
grouse except Washington [1,12].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES29 Sagebrush
STATES :
AZ
CA
CO
ID
MT
NV
NM
ND
OR
SD
UT
WA
WY
AB
SK
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
SAF COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue
316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue
320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
321 Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue
324 Threetip sagebrush-Idaho fescue
405 Black sagebrush
406 Low sagebrush
407 Stiff sagebrush
408 Other sagebrush types
612 Sagebrush-grass
PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Sage grouse are obligate residents of the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)
ecosystem, usually inhabiting sagebrush-grassland or juniper (Juniperus
spp.)-sagebrush-grassland communities. Meadows surrounded by sagebrush
may be used as feeding grounds [27].
Sage grouse occur throughout the range of big sagebrush (A. tridentata),
except on the periphery of big sagebrush distribution or in areas where
it has been eliminated [12]. Sage grouse prefer mountain big sagebrush
(A. t. ssp. vaseyana) and Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. ssp.
wyomingensis) communities to basin big sagebrush (A. t. spp. tridentata)
communities.
Sagebrush cover types other than big sagebrush can fulfill sage grouse
habitat requirements; in fact, sage grouse may prefer other sagebrush
cover types to big sagebrush. Sage grouse in Antelope Valley,
California, for example, use black sagebrush (A. nova) cover types more
often than the more common big sagebrush cover types [45].
Sagebrush communites not included in SRM cover types but supporting sage
grouse include silver sagebrush (A. cana) and fringed sagebrush (A.
frigida) [41,55]. Sage grouse use of less common sagebrush communities
(i.e., Bigelow sagebrush [A. bigelovii]) may occur but is not documented
in current literature.
REFERENCES :
NO-ENTRY
BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Centrocercus urophasianus | Sage Grouse TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS :
Courtship/nesting - Males gather on the lek in late February to April,
as soon as the lek is relatively free of snow. Only a few dominant
males, usually two, breed. Sage grouse mating behaviors, which are
complex, are summarized by Johnsgard [27]. After mating, the hen leaves
the lek for the nesting grounds. Clutch size ranges from six to eight
eggs; incubation time is 25 to 27 days. Sage grouse apparently have
high rates of nest desertion and nest predation [21,27]. Summarizing
data from several sage grouse studies, Gill [20] found a range of
nesting success from 23.7 to 60.3 percent, with predation accounting for
26 to 76 percent of lost nests.
Brooding - Chicks fly by 2 weeks of age, although their movements are
limited until they are 2 to 3 weeks old [54]. They can sustain flight
by 5 to 6 weeks of age. Juveniles are relatively independent by the
time they have compeleted their first molt at 10 to 12 weeks of age
[28].
Seasonal movements - Fall movements to wintering areas are driven by
weather conditions and usually occur gradually. After late winter or
spring lekking activity, sage grouse may move to higher elevations or
down to irrigated valleys for nesting and feeding. Brooding ranges may
be a considerable distance from winter ranges or spring nesting grounds.
Schlatterer [46] reported that in southern Idaho, brooding grounds were
13 to 27 miles (21-43 km) from the nesting grounds. Males may also move
long distances over the seasons. During winter in Wyoming, Patterson
[38] recovered a male sage grouse 75 air miles (120 km) from where he
had banded it the previous summer.
PREFERRED HABITAT :
Sage grouse are totally dependent on sagebrush-dominanted habitats [5].
Sagebrush is a crucial component of their diet year-round, and sage
grouse select sagebrush almost exclusively for cover [38]. Because sage
grouse habitat and cover requirements are inseparably tied to sagebrush,
they will be discussed together.
Winter - The best winter habitat is below snowline, where sagebrush is
available all winter [44]. Dalke and others [13] reported that
wintering grounds of sage grouse in Idaho were usually where snow
accumulation was less than 6 inches (15 cm). In areas of deep snow,
sage grouse winter where sagebrush has grown above the snow level [2].
In winter and throughout the year, sage grouse select areas of little or
no slope. In a Colorado study, nearly 80 percent of sage grouse winter
use of 500 square miles (1,252 sq km) of sagebrush was on less than 35
square miles (87 sq km): on flat areas where sagebrush projected above
the snow, or on south- or west-facing sites of less than 5 percent slope,
where sagebrush was sometimes quite short but still accessible [28]. In
Montana prime wintering areas were flat, large expanses of dense
sagebrush; winter home ranges of five females in Montana varied from
2,615 to 7,760 acres (1,050-3,100 ha) during 2 different years [16].
Lekking grounds - Open areas such as swales, irrigated fields, meadows,
burns, and roadsides and areas with low, sparse sagebrush cover are used
as leks [31]. Of 45 leks, Patterson [38] reported that 11 were on
windswept ridges or exposed knolls, 10 were in flat sagebrush, 7 were in
bare openings, and the remaining 17 were on various other site types.
Leks are usually surrounded by areas with 20 to 50 percent sagebrush
cover, with sagebrush no more than 1 foot (30.5 cm) tall. When not on
the lek, sage grouse disperse to the surrounding areas [54]. Some
females probably travel between leks. In Mono County, California, the
home range of marked females during 1 month of the breeding season was
750 to 875 acres (300 to 350 ha), enough area to include several active
leks [9].
Nesting - Sage grouse prefer relatively tall sagebrush with an open
canopy for nesting. Hens usually nest near the lekking grounds [46],
but some hens have been noted to fly as far as 12 to 20 miles (19-32 km)
to favorable nesting sites [20,44]. In Utah, 33 percent of 161 nests
were under silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) that was 14 to 25 inches
(36-63.5 cm) tall, while big sagebrush of the same height accounted for
24 percent of nests [41]. In a threetip sagebrush (A. tripartata)
habitat averaging 8 inches (20 cm) in height, hens selected the tallest
plants for nesting cover. No nests occurred where threetip sagebrush
cover exceeded 35 percent. Similarly, Patterson [38] reported that in
Wyoming, 92 percent of sage grouse nests in Wyoming big sagebrush were
in areas where vegetation was 10 to 20 inches (25-51 cm) tall and cover
did not exceed 50 percent. In Idaho no hens nested in areas with less
than 10 percent sagebrush cover or where sagebrush cover was greater
than 25 percent [31].
During the nesting season, cocks and hens without nests use relatively
open areas for feeding, and roost in dense patches of sagebrush [30,31].
Brooding - Sage grouse brood in open sagebrush with a forb component.
As the season progresses, they move to areas still containing green
vegetation; by August, they are often clustered near permanent watering
sites [30]. In 158 Montana locations, young brood used areas of low
plant height (9 to 15 inches [23-38 cm]) and density, while older broods
and adults used areas where plants were taller (7 to 25 inches [18-63.5
cm]) [35].
During summer and early fall, male sage grouse remain segregated from
brood and hen flocks, typically remaining with 2 to 3 miles (3.2-4.8 km)
of the lek [54].
COVER REQUIREMENTS :
See PREFERRED HABITAT.
FOOD HABITS :
The importance of sagebrush in the diet of adult sage grouse is
impossible to overestimate. Numerous studies have documented its
year-round use by sage grouse [4,11,12,31,38,45,48,54,55]. A Montana
study, based on 299 crop samples, showed that 62 percent of total food
volume of the year was sagebrush. Between December and February it was
the only food item found in all crops. Only between June and September
did sagebrush constitute less than 60 percent of the sage grouse diet
[54]. Sage grouse select sagebrush species differentially. Sage grouse
in Antelope Valley, California, browsed black sagebrush more frequently
than the more common big sagebrush [45]. Among the big sagebrush
subspecies, basin big sagebrush is less nutritious and higher in
terpenes than either mountain or Wyoming big sagebrush. Sage grouse
prefer the other two subspecies to basin big sagebrush [2].
Sage grouse lack a muscular gizzard and cannot grind and digest seeds:
They must consume soft-tissue foods [54]. Apart from sagebrush, the
adult sage grouse diet consists largely of herbaceous leaves, which are
utilized primarily in late spring and summer [15]. Sage grouse are
highly selective grazers, choosing only a few plant genera. Dandelion
(Taraxacum spp.), legumes (Fabaceae), yarrow (Achillea spp.) and wild
lettuce (Lactuca spp.) account for most of their forb intake [2,48].
Martin [35] found that from July to September, dandelion comprised 45
percent of sage grouse intake; sagebrush comprised 34 percent.
Collectively, dandelion, sagebrush, and two legume genera (Trifolium
and Astragalus) contributed more than 90 percent of the sage grouse diet.
Insects are a minor diet item for adult sage grouse. Martin, Zim, and
Nelson [34] reported that insects comprised 2 percent of the adult sage
grouse diet in spring and fall and 9 percent in summer. Sagebrush made
up 71 percent of the year-round diet.
In their first week of life, sage grouse chicks consume primarily
insects, especially ants and beetles [38]. Their diet then switches to
forbs, with sagebrush gradually assuming primary importance. In a Utah
study, forbs composed 54 to 60 percent of the summer diet of juvenile
sage grouse, while the diet of adult birds was 39 to 47 percent forbs
[51].
Water: Sage grouse apparently do not require open water for day to day
survival if succulent vegetation is available. They utilize free water
if it is available, however. Sage grouse distribution is apparently
seasonally limited by water in some areas. In summer, sage grouse in
desert regions occur only near streams, springs, and water holes. In
winter in Eden Valley, Wyoming, sage grouse have been observed regularly
visiting partially frozen streams to drink from holes in the ice [11].
PREDATORS :
Lack of recruitment has been noted in some sage grouse populations, and
predation of juvenile sage grouse has been cited as a factor in sage
grouse population decline. Lack of adequate nesting and brooding cover
may account for high juvenile losses in many regions [29]. A decline
in preferred prey may also result in increased predation on sage
grouse. Kindschy [29] suggested that in southeastern Oregon, a decline
in black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) numbers may have caused
predators to switch to sage grouse as their primary prey.
Predator species: Coyote (Canis latrans) [29], bobcat (Lynx rufus)
[3,29], badger (Taxidea taxus)[29], falcons (Falconidae) [39], and
hawks, kites, and eagles (Accipitridae) [4,14,29,40] prey on adult and
juvenile sage grouse. Crows and ravens (Corvus spp.) and magpies (Pica
spp.) consume juvenile birds [29].
Coyote, ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), and badger are the most
important mammalian nest predators. Among bird species, magpies and
ravens commonly prey on sage grouse nests [28,25,54].
Sage grouse are a popular game bird. Sage grouse hunting is closely
regulated in those states where it is allowed, and is not generally cited
as a factor in sage grouse decline [2,8,27,28].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Sage grouse once occurred virtually everywhere there was sagebrush.
They have declined primarily because of loss of habitat due to
overgrazing, elimination of sagebrush, and land development [23]. Sage
grouse populations began declining from 1900 to 1915, when livestock
utilization of sagebrush rangeland was heavy [38]. In the 50's and
60's, land agencies adopted a policy of aggressive sagebrush control in
order to convert sagebrush types to grassland. Chaining, frequent fire,
and herbicide treatments reduced sagebrush by several million acres and
sage grouse numbers plummeted drastically [11,59]. Conversion of
sagebrush types to grassland has since been brought into question as a
management practice for both wildlife and livestock [27,28,45,54]. Call
[11] stated that:
"Any land use practice which has as its objective the permanent
elimination of sagebrush and establishment of grasses in the
Mountain West will ultimately reduce the collective carrying
capacity of that range for livestock, elk, mule deer, antelope,
sage grouse, and many smaller species of wildlife."
Sage grouse have one of the lowest recruitment rates of any upland game
bird in North America. Loss of habitat, predation, drought, and poor
weather conditions during hatching and brooding periods have been cited
as factors leading to poor recruitment [59].
Autenrieth and others [2], Braun, Britt, and Wallestad [58], Call [11],
and Dalke and others [13] provide guidelines for management of sage
grouse and their habitat.
Sage grouse have used areas planted to crested wheatgrass (Agropyron
cristatum) as lekking grounds. Given the ability of crested wheatgrass
to replace sagebrush and forbs, however, crested wheatgrass plantings
are not recommended in sage grouse habitat [4].
REFERENCES :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Centrocercus urophasianus | Sage Grouse DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS :
Fire-related mortality of sage grouse has not been documented in the
literature.
HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS :
Depending on prefire habitat quality and the type of fire, fire can be
beneficial or harmful to sage grouse. Sage grouse use sagebrush of
different age classes and stand structures as lekking, nesting,
brooding, and wintering grounds. Neither expansive dense sagebrush nor
expansive open areas constitute optimal sage grouse habitat: Klebenow
[31] reported that in three summers of sampling, no sage grouse were
observed in large acreage, dense sagebrush in southern Idaho.
Fire that creates a mosaic of sagebrush of different ages and structures
would benefit sage grouse [31]. Newly burned areas interspersed with
patches of sagebrush offer increased forb production while providing
nesting and brooding cover [7,24,33,36]. The younger age classes of
sagebrush that establish after fire offer more nutritious and palatable
browse than do old sagebrush stands [19]. Additionally, burns provide
new lekking sites: Sage grouse have established leks on burns in areas
where open cover was lacking before fire. Sage grouse show lek
fidelity, however, and may not use burns as lekking grounds if there is
a sufficient number of old leks [5].
Fire always removes a certain amount of sage grouse food and cover.
Griner [22] noted that burning resulted in a decline in sage grouse in
Utah. If the burn is small in relationship to surrounding area, it will
probably enhance sage grouse habitat. Fire that destroys large tracts
of sagebrush, or destroys key winter habitat, can be harmful [30,31].
However, large-acreage fires do not always harm sage grouse. A
17,250-acre (6,900-ha) wildfire in mountain big sagebrush in southern
Idaho burned in a mosaic pattern, leaving many unburned islands. The
wildfire occurred at an ebb in the sage grouse population, so nesting
sites were not limiting in the first postfire nesting season. Overall
effect of the wildfire on the sage grouse population was apparently
neutral: The sage grouse population increased after the fire, but this
was part of a regional trend of sage grouse increase following several
years of low reproduction. Martin [36] suggested that had nesting
habitat been limiting, the large-acreage fire probably would have
adversely affected the sage grouse population.
FIRE USE :
A diversity of sagebrush habitat, in terms of sage grouse food and
cover, should be the management objective. Klebenow [31] recommends
burning sagebrush on a rotational basis to create sage grouse habitat.
Different patches should be burned each year or every few years, with as
long as 20 years between burning each patch. Benson and others [5]
recommend burning in patches of less than 100 acres in size. Because
livestock may concentrate in small burns, livestock should be excluded
from the burns for 2 to 3 years after fire to optimize revegetation.
Lek/nesting grounds - Fire that occurs outside the mating season will
probably not affect postfire sage grouse use of the grounds for mating.
Fall wildfires on sage grouse leks in southern Idaho had no effect on
sage grouse use of the leks the next breeding season [36]. Areas
immediately surrounding leks, however, are heavily used as nesting
grounds, and fire in areas surrounding leks may have a negative impact
on consequent use of the surrounding areas by hens. Wallstad and Pyrah
[56] recommend that sagebrush within 1.9 miles (3.2 km) of a lek not be
burned in order to protect nesting habitat. This recommendation may be
most applicable to areas where nesting habitat is limited, however.
Gates and Eng [19] noted that on their southern Idaho study site, which
was surrounded by 120 square miles (300 sq km) of Wyoming big sagebrush,
nesting habitat was plentiful. While their summer-fall prescribed fires
did burn near several established leks, the fires also created an open
area that sage grouse used as a lekking ground the next spring. The
fire treatment apparently did not deter hens from using grounds adjacent
to the burns for nesting and brooding. Most radio-collared sage grouse
hens nested within 3 miles (5 km) of the lek on which they were captured
the year before fire treatment. The summer of postfire year 1, 5 of 11
collared hens moved their brood into agricultural areas adjacent to the
burn. Broods apparently made little use of the burns as foraging areas.
Schlatterer [46] and Dalke and others [13] noted that following
unintentional fire, sage grouse used small burned openings as leks. To
create openings in homogeneous sagebrush, Klebenow [31] recommended
small fires, 1 to 10 acres (0.4-4 ha) in size.
Spring fire is not recommended on sage grouse nesting grounds [2,33].
Fire on the nesting grounds is not recommended in any season if nesting
habitat is limited [2].
Brooding: Fall spot fires burning several patches of a few acres can
result in suitable brood rearing areas by increasing forb availability.
Spot burns along edges of meadows where sagebrush is encroaching may
also enchance brood rearing areas. Enough sagebrush-meadow ecotone must
be left, however, to provide cover [2].
Martin [36] noted that in southern Idaho, broods neither preferred nor
avoided large burned areas (P<0.05).
Winter: Klebenow [31] does not recommend burning in winter habitat.
Autenreith and others [2] recommend that fire in winter use areas be
applied cautiously: What may appear as an excess of sagebrush in summer
may provide only mimimal amounts of sagebrush in winter. They recommend
that prior to burning, winter sage grouse distribution during peak snow
conditions should be assessed so that key wintering grounds are not
depleted by fire.
Examples of Fire Use: Prescribed and wildfires in north-central
Colorado had no significant effect (P>0.10) on sage grouse populations.
The prescribed Deer Creek Fire was conducted in October 1987 and was 180
feet (60 m) east of a lek. It burned only 95 acres (38 ha) due to poor
ignition conditions. Two wildfires occurred in the study area in August
1987. The Perdiz Wildfire burned 300 acres (120 ha), consuming 99
percent of sagebrush cover. The Thornburg Well Wildfire burned 3,000
acres (1,200 ha), removed "most" shrub cover, and burned within 2 miles
(0.8 km) of a lek. Pre- and postfire counts of male sage grouse were as
follows [5]:
High counts of male sage grouse on leks, 1973-1990
--------------------------------------------------
Year Deer Creek Perdiz Thornburg Well
Prescribed Fire Wildfire Wildfire
--------------------------------------------------
1973 37
1974 11
1975 27
1976 36
1977 31 36(b)
1978 41 32
1979 43 16(b) 35
1980 28 8 28
1981 52 3 20
1982 66 27 8(c)
1983 47 21 8(c)
1984 14 8 NC
1985 45 10 5(c)
1986 21 6 15(c)
1987 23 16 17(c)
1988 18(a) 17(a) 20(a)
1989 13 8 16
1990 21 21 16
----------------------------------------------------
(a) First postfire count
(b) Year of initial location
(c) No systematic counts
NC = no count
The authors noted that the relationship between sage grouse population
size and habitat alteration by the Colorado fires was difficult to
assess [5]. Sage grouse poulation size may be cyclic [43]; winter
severity is also suspected to affect population size [57]. Habitat
alterations other than fire may have played a factor in postfire sage
grouse population size. In this case, decreased mining activity on the
Perdiz site in 1989 to 1990 may at least partially explain sage grouse
population increase at that time [5].
Sage grouse summer foraging in a meadow on the Inyo National Forest,
California, increased following prescribed fire. The fire was conducted
in the fall of 1981 to remove Wyoming big sagebrush from the meadow and
to increase the component of early seral grasses and forbs. Snowpack
was 220 percent above normal in the first postfire winter, and cover of
early seral herbaceous species increased "substantially" in the first
postfire summer [24].
REFERENCES :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Centrocercus urophasianus | Sage Grouse REFERENCES : 1. American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American birds.
6th ed. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc. 877 p. [21234]
2. Autenrieth, Robert; Molini, William; Braun, Clait, eds. 1982. Sage
grouse management practices. Tech. Bull No. 1. Twin Falls, ID: Western
States Sage Grouse Committee. 42 p. [7531]
3. Bailey, Theodore N. 1981. Den ecology, population parameters and diet of
eastern Idaho bobcats. In: Blum, L. G.; Escherich, P. C., eds. Bobcat
research conference: Proceedings; 1979 October 16-18; Front Royal, VA.
NWF Science and Technical Series No. 6. Washington, DC: National
Wildlife Federation: 62-69. [24985]
4. Beck, D. I. 1975. Attributes of a wintering population of sage grouse,
North Park, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 49 p.
Thesis. [5757]
5. Benson, Lee A.; Braun, Clait E.; Leininger, Wayne C. 1991. Sage grouse
response to burning in the big sagebrush type. In: Comer, Robert D.;
Davis, Peter R.; Foster, Susan Q.; [and others], eds. Issues and
technology in the management of impacted wildlife: Proceedings of a
national symposium; 1991 April 8-10; Snowmass Resort, CO. Boulder, CO:
Thorne Ecological Institute: 97-104. [21766]
6. 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]
7. Blaisdell, James P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of
sagebrush-grass range on the upper Snake River Plains. Tech. Bull. 1975.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 39 p. [462]
8. Blaisdell, James P.; Murray, Robert B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1982.
Managing Intermountain rangelands--sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-134. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [467]
9. Bradbury, J. W.; Gibson, R. M.; McCarthy, C. E.; Vehrencamp, S. L. 1989.
Dispersion of displaying male sage grouse. II. The role of female
dispersion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 24: 15-24. [25627]
10. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base.
1992. Special animals. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and
Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. 28 p. [23402]
11. Call, Mayo W. 1979. Habitat requirements and management recommendations
for sage grouse. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, Denver Service Center. 37 p. [591]
12. Call, Mayo W.; Maser, Chris. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed
rangelands--the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: sage grouse. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-187. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 30 p.
[592]
13. Dalke, Paul D.; Pyrah, Duane B.; Stanton, Don C.; [and others]. 1963.
Ecology, productivity, and management of sage grouse in Idaho. Journal
of Wildlife Management. 27(4): 810-841. [5975]
14. Dunkle, Sidney W. 1977. Swainson's hawks on the Laramie Plains, Wyoming.
Auk. 94: 65-71. [22654]
15. Edminster, Frank C. 1947. The ruffed grouse: Its life story, ecology and
management. New York: The MacMillan Company. 385 p. [25978]
16. Eng, Robert L.; Schladweiler, P. 1972. Sage grouse winter movements and
habitat use in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 36:
141-146. [7529]
17. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
18. 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]
19. Gates, Robert J.; Eng, Robert L. 1984. Sage grouse, pronghorn, and
lagomorph use of a sagebrush-grassland burn site on the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory. In: Markham, O. Doyle, ed. Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory radio ecology and ecology programs: 1983 progress
reports. Idaho Falls, ID: U.S. Department of Energy, Radiological and
Environmental Sciences Laboratory: 220-235. [1005]
20. Gill, R. Bruce. 1966. A literature review on the sage grouse. Special
Report No. 6. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Game, Fish, and Parks,
Game Research Division, Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. 38 p.
[26474]
21. Gregg, Michael A.; Crawford, John A.; Drut, Martin S.; DeLong, Anita K.
1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 58(1): 162-166. [25626]
22. Griner, Lynn A. 1939. A study of the sage grouse (Centrocerus
urophasianus) with special reference to life history, habitat
requirements, & numbers & distributi. Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural
College. 111 p. Thesis. [Microfiche]. [26034]
23. Hamerstrom, Frederick; Hamerstrom, Frances. 1961. Status and problems of
North American grouse. Wilson Bulletin. 73(3): 284-294. [15807]
24. Hargis, Christina; McCarthy, Clinton. 1986. Vegetation changes following
a prescribed burn on a Great Basin meadow. In: Transactions of the
Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 22: 47-51. [15955]
25. Hulet, Brian V.; Flinders, Jerran T.; Green, Jeffrey S.; [and others].
1986. Seasonal movements and habitat selection of sage grouse in
southern Idaho. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Welch, Bruce L., compilers.
Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus;
1984 July 9-13; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station: 168-175. [1206]
26. Ihli, Mike; Sherbenou, Phil; Welch, C. W. 1973. Wintering sage grouse in
the upper Big Lost River. Transactions, Idaho Academy of Sciences. ?:
73-80. [8091]
27. Johnsgard, Paul A. 1973. Grouse and quails of North America. Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press. 553 p. [20323]
28. Johnsgard, Paul A. 1983. The grouse of the world. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska. 413 p. [18404]
29. Kindschy, Robert R. 1986. Rangeland vegetative succession--implications
to wildlife. Rangelands. 8(4): 157-159. [22]
30. Klebenow, Donald A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in
Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(3): 649-662. [27322]
31. Klebenow, Donald A. 1973. The habitat requirements of sage grouse and
the role of fire in management. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers
fire ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. No. 12.
Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 305-315. [1345]
32. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the
conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]
33. Mangan, Larry; Autenrieth, R. 1985. Vegetation changes following 2,4-D
application and fire in a mountain big sagebrush habitat type. In:
Sanders, Ken; Durham, Jack, eds. Rangeland fire effects: a symposium:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 November 27-29; Boise, ID. Boise, ID:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State
Office: 61-65. [1519]
34. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
35. Martin, Neil S. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage
grouse occurrence. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(2): 313-320.
[26121]
36. Martin, Robert C. 1990. Sage grouse responses to wildfire in spring and
summer habitats. Moscow, ID: Univeristy of Idaho. 36 p. Thesis. [24907]
37. National Geographic Society. 1987. Field guide to the birds of North
America. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The National Geographic Society. 464 p.
[24327]
38. Patterson, Robert L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Federal Aid to
Wildlife Restoration Project 28-R. Denver, CO: Sage Books, Inc. 341 p.
[7513]
39. Pennycuick, C. J.; Fuller, Mark R.; Oar, Jack J.; Kirkpatrick, Sean J.
1994. Falcon versus grouse: flight adaptations of a predator and its
prey. Journal of Avian Biology. 25(1): 39-49. [23469]
40. Phillips, Robert L.; Beske, Alan E. 1990. Distribution and abundance of
golden eagles and other raptors in Campbell and Converse Counties,
Wyoming. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 27. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 31 p. [15473]
41. Rasmussen, D. I.; Griner, Lynn A. 1938. Life history and management
studies of the sage grouse in Utah, with special reference to nesting
and feeding habits. In: Transactions, 3rd North American Wildlife
Conference: 852-864. [26122]
42. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
43. Rich, Terrell. 1985. Sage grouse population fluctuations: evidence for a
10-year cycle. Technical Bulletin 85-1. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 22 p.
[6900]
44. Rogers, Glenn E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Tech.
Publ. No. 16. Denver, CO: Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department, Game
Research Division. 132 p. [27323]
45. Schneegas, Edward R. 1967. Sage grouse and sagebrush control.
Transactions, North American Wildlife Conference. 32: 270-274. [4933]
46. Schlatterer, Edward Frederick. 1960. Productivity and movements of a
population of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Moscow, ID: University
of Idaho. 87 p. Thesis. [26037]
47. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
48. Sime, Carolyn Anne. 1991. Sage grouse use of burned, non-burned, and
seeded vegetation communities on the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Idaho. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 72 p. Thesis.
[24908]
49. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
50. Tate, James, Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds. 40(2):
227-235. [24324]
51. Trueblood, Richard W. 1954. The effect of grass reseeding in sagebrush
lands on sage grouse populations. Logan, UT: Utah State Agricultural
College. 73 p. Thesis. [Microfiche]. [26033]
52. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants
of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
53. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP
Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Survey. [23119]
54. Wallestad, Richard. 1975. Life history and habitat requirements of sage
grouse in central Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish and
Game. 65 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management. [25890]
55. Wallestad, Richard; Peterson, Joel G.; Eng, Robert L. 1975. Foods of
adult sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management.
39(3): 628-630. [2444]
56. Wallestad, Richard; Pyrah, Duane. 1974. Movement and nesting of sage
grouse hens in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 38(4):
630-633. [26120]
57. Zablan, Marilet A. 1993. Evaluation of sage grouse banding program in
North Park, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University,
Department of Fish and Wildlife. 68 p. Thesis. [27334]
58. Braun, Clait E.; Britt, Tim; Wallestad, Richard O. 1977. Guidelines for
maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 5:
99-106. [5621]
59. Mattise, Samuel N. 1995. Sage grouse in Idaho: Forum 94'. Technical
Bulletin No. 95-15. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 10 p. [26119]
Content on this web site
is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any
loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information
published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with
the relevant authorities.
Information
Courtesy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Fire Effects Information System
