Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Gun­ni­son sage grouse are na­tive to North Amer­ica, and are found in south­west­ern Col­orado and south­east­ern Utah. How­ever, pop­u­la­tion dis­tri­b­u­tions have been de­clin­ing rapidly due to habi­tat de­struc­tion. Only five dis­tinct pop­u­la­tions re­main, and the Gun­ni­son Basin has the high­est pop­u­la­tion di­ver­sity. Ef­forts to in­tro­duce sage grouse to New Mex­ico, Ore­gon, Mon­tana, Wyoming, Utah, Col­orado, and Idaho have been un­suc­cess­ful. (Grother, 2012; McWilliams, 2002; Schroeder, et al., 2004; Young, et al., 2012)

Gun­ni­son sage grouse have a po­ten­tial dis­tri­b­u­tion of 46,521 sq km, but a cur­rent range of 4,787 sq km. There is a large dif­fer­ence be­tween the po­ten­tial and ac­tual dis­tri­b­u­tion of pop­u­la­tions, which may be due to habi­tat al­ter­ation and degra­da­tion. (Schroeder, et al., 2004)

• Biogeographic Regions
• nearctic
  • native

Habi­tat

Gun­ni­son sage grouse are a sage­brush (Artemisia) ob­lig­ate species and also de­pend on a va­ri­ety of other grasses and habi­tats for mat­ing, nest­ing, and brood-rear­ing. There are three cat­e­gories of sage grouse pop­u­la­tions: non-mi­gra­tory, one stage mi­gra­tory, and two stage mi­gra­tory. Pop­u­la­tions that are non-mi­gra­tory dis­play lim­ited move­ment re­gard­less of sea­son. One stage mi­gra­tory pop­u­la­tions pre­fer dif­fer­ent habi­tat con­di­tions in sum­mer and win­ter. Three stage mi­gra­tory pop­u­la­tions pre­fer dif­fer­ent habi­tats for win­ter, sum­mer, and mat­ing sea­sons. Mat­ing habi­tats are often low veg­e­ta­tive den­sity areas with high vis­i­bil­ity called leks. Re­gard­less of mi­gra­tory pref­er­ences, all sage grouse pop­u­la­tions rely on sage­brush and ri­par­ian habi­tats for feed­ing and cover. They are found at el­e­va­tions of 2,200 to 4,300 m. ("Gun­ni­son Reser­voir", 2012; Con­nelly, et al., 2000; Falsetto, et al., 2011; Schroeder, et al., 2004; Young, et al., 2012)

• Habitat Regions
• temperate
• terrestrial

• Terrestrial Biomes
• savanna or grassland

• Other Habitat Features
• agricultural
• riparian

• Range elevation

  2200 to 4300 m

  7217.85 to 14107.61 ft

• Range depth

  8.5 (high) m

  27.89 (high) ft

• Average depth

  4.8 m

  15.75 ft

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

Gun­ni­son sage grouse dis­play sex­ual di­mor­phism. Males have white breasts with two round yel­low air sacs (cer­vi­cal apte­ria) on their chest. These air sacs have scale-like feath­ers that males in­flate (mak­ing a pop­ping noise) dur­ing the spring to at­tract mates. Males have a black belly with a white V-shaped area sep­a­rat­ing their throat from their chest. They also have spiky brown and white tail feath­ers that can be fanned out for sex­ual sig­nal­ing. Fe­males are smaller and lighter than males and have a gray-brown col­oration. Fe­male have shorter tail feath­ers with less plumage and also lack the promi­nent air sacs pre­sent on males. Chicks re­sem­ble fe­males and have a brown and white speck­led ap­pear­ance for cam­ou­flage. Adult sage grouse from south­west­ern Col­orado have shorter and nar­rower beaks than adult sage grouse from north­ern Col­orado. There are also mor­pho­log­i­cal vari­a­tions be­tween Gun­ni­son sage grouse and their close rel­a­tive, greater sage grouse Cen­tro­cer­cus urophasianus. Gun­ni­son sage grouse are smaller with longer black filo­plumes on their heads. They are typ­i­cally 32 to 51 cm long with a wingspan of 6 to 76 cm and a mass of 990 to 2435 g. ("Gun­ni­son Sage Grouse", 2004; Sohl, 2012; Young, et al., 2012)

• Other Physical Features
• endothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• male larger
• male more colorful
• sexes shaped differently
• ornamentation

• Range mass

  990 to 2435 g

  34.89 to 85.81 oz

• Range length

  32 to 51 cm

  12.60 to 20.08 in

• Range wingspan

  66 to 76 cm

  25.98 to 29.92 in

Re­pro­duc­tion

Gun­ni­son sage grouse dis­play "clumped polyg­yny," where mul­ti­ple males com­pete to mate with fe­males on an arena called a lek. Be­gin­ning mid-March through late May, many males begin to mi­grate to lek sites and often re­turn to the same one each sea­son. Males are very ter­ri­to­r­ial and may de­fend their lek from in­trud­ers. Only one or two males (10-15%) is re­warded with the chance to re­pro­duce with the sur­vey­ing fe­males. Adult and year­ling fe­males often get the op­por­tu­nity to breed, whereas only se­lect adult males and rarely any year­ling males are able to mate. ("De­ter­mi­na­tion for the Gun­ni­son Sage-grouse as a Threat­ened or En­dan­gered Species", 2010; McWilliams, 2002; Young, et al., 2012)

Leks are often in places with low veg­e­ta­tion and sage­brush cover to max­i­mize vis­i­bil­ity. Males com­pete for fe­males by pop­ping their air sacs and strut­ting back and forth around the lek for hours. A male can also fan out his tail to try and im­press fe­males. Male Gun­ni­son sage grouse have slower courtship dis­plays than their close rel­a­tives, greater sage grouse (Cen­tro­cer­cus urophasianus). There are struc­tural dif­fer­ences in mat­ing calls be­tween the two species as well. Fe­males in the Gun­ni­son Basin and north­ern Col­orado can dis­tin­guish be­tween male courtship vo­cal­iza­tions. Due to re­gional dif­fer­ences, fe­males often pre­fer courtship vo­cal­iza­tions from re­gions nearby. This pref­er­en­tial breed­ing be­hav­ior cre­ates a re­pro­duc­tive bar­rier be­tween pop­u­la­tions of Gun­ni­son sage grouse that are ge­o­graph­i­cally sep­a­rated and may be an un­der­ly­ing fac­tor caus­ing species iso­la­tion and en­dan­ger­ment. Re­search has also shown that mat­ing out­side of the lek oc­curs oc­ca­sion­ally. ("De­ter­mi­na­tion for the Gun­ni­son Sage-grouse as a Threat­ened or En­dan­gered Species", 2010; Gib­son, 1996; Patri­celli, 2010)

• Mating System
• polygynous

Males do not par­tic­i­pate in ei­ther nest­ing or brood rear­ing processes. The pre-lay­ing pe­riod is from late March to April, when hens search for the ideal nest­ing sites. Bet­ter nest­ing sites have a greater di­ver­sity of forbs and sage­brush for both nu­tri­tion and cover. Forbs are a good source of cal­cium, phos­pho­rous, and pro­teins that hens feed on dur­ing the ges­ta­tion pe­riod to lay healthy eggs. Nest­ing oc­curs from mid-April to June and hens may then mi­grate to lo­ca­tions far from the lek to find op­ti­mal nest­ing con­di­tions. Hens se­lect nest sites that have ad­e­quate sage­brush and grass to pro­vide cover from preda­tors while the hen is in­cu­bat­ing the eggs. Hens are loyal to suc­cess­ful nest­ing areas and will re­turn sea­son after sea­son. ("De­ter­mi­na­tion for the Gun­ni­son Sage-grouse as a Threat­ened or En­dan­gered Species", 2010; McWilliams, 2002)

Hens have one brood per sea­son and lay 6 to 8 eggs that hatch in 25 to 27 days. Small clutch sizes and an­nual mat­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties have re­sulted in de­creas­ing pop­u­la­tion num­bers. De­spite the small clutch size, most eggs hatch in June. Chicks are pre­co­cial and weigh 30 g at birth on av­er­age. Soon after hatch­ing, they leave the nest­ing area for a ri­par­ian habi­tat to feed on in­sects. Chicks are able to make short flights and feed on their own by 2 to 3 weeks of age. They may fol­low their moth­ers until the fall. Chicks are able to sus­tain flight by 5 to 6 weeks of age and are con­sid­ered in­de­pen­dent at 10 to 12 weeks of age. In the win­ter, chicks and moth­ers sep­a­rate into sex­u­ally seg­re­gated flocks and may be re­united in the spring when flocks mi­grate to lek sites to com­pete for mates. ("De­ter­mi­na­tion for the Gun­ni­son Sage-grouse as a Threat­ened or En­dan­gered Species", 2010; McWilliams, 2002)

• Key Reproductive Features
• iteroparous
• seasonal breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual
• oviparous

• Breeding interval

  Gunnison sage grouse breed annually in the spring.

• Breeding season

  Gunnison sage grouse breed from April to June.

• Range eggs per season

  6 to 9

• Average eggs per season

  7

• Range time to hatching

  25 to 27 days

• Range fledging age

  2 to 3 weeks

• Range time to independence

  10 to 12 weeks

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  1 years

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  2 years

Be­sides re­pro­duc­tion, males take no part in nest build­ing or brood rear­ing. Fe­males look for nest­ing sites that have ad­e­quate cov­er­age and re­sources to raise chicks. Herba­ceous di­cots are an im­por­tant di­etary re­quire­ment for egg lay­ing and pro­vide a rich source of pro­tein and phos­pho­rous. Fe­males often re­turn to the same nest­ing sites an­nu­ally if nest suc­cess rates are high. Chicks fol­low the moth­ers shortly after hatch­ing. Hens offer a lim­ited amount of parental care and chicks are mostly on their own for food pro­cure­ment. ("An An­i­mal of the High Desert - Greater Sage Grouse", 2011; McWilliams, 2002)

• Parental Investment
• precocial
• female parental care
• pre-hatching/birth
  • provisioning
    • female
• pre-weaning/fledging
  • provisioning
    • female
• pre-independence
  • provisioning
    • female

Lifes­pan/Longevity

In the wild, Gun­ni­son sage grouse have an ex­pected lifes­pan of 3 to 6 years but can live up to 9 years. Sur­vival rates are low in cap­tiv­ity, and their ex­pected lifes­pan in cap­tiv­ity is 1 years. This makes res­cue ef­forts dif­fi­cult for this en­dan­gered species. The Col­orado Di­vi­sion of Wildlife (CDOW) tried cap­tive rear­ing and only 11 of 40 chick eggs sur­vived their first year. De­spite low sur­vival rate in cap­tiv­ity, CDOW be­lieve that bet­ter tech­niques for rais­ing Gun­ni­son sage grouse have been at­tained from the process. Sage grouse mor­tal­ity is higher for males than for fe­males in the wild due to their larger size and flashy ap­pear­ance. Fe­males and chicks have lower mor­tal­ity rates be­cause they have a speck­led brown and white col­oration that func­tions as cam­ou­flage. ("En­cy­clo­pe­dia of Life", 2012)

• Range lifespan
  Status: wild

  9 (high) years

• Typical lifespan
  Status: wild

  3 to 6 years

• Typical lifespan
  Status: captivity

  1 (high) years

Be­hav­ior

Sage grouse are so­cial birds that travel in flocks and spend most of the day preen­ing, stretch­ing, and feed­ing. Each day be­gins with for­ag­ing, and then broods relax until twi­light, when they begin look­ing for shel­ter and a place to roost. It has been es­ti­mated that sage grouse spend 60% of the day for­ag­ing. Sage grouse are con­sid­ered seden­tary, but are will­ing to travel long dis­tances to find food and cover. In the win­ter, sage grouse have sex­u­ally seg­re­gated flocks and some­times sage grouse will roost to­gether in the sun for warmth. Flocks then re­unite in the spring at leks where males strut and set up ter­ri­to­ries to try and mate with fe­males. Often, older and more ex­pe­ri­enced males have bet­ter ter­ri­to­ries in the lek and at­tract more mates. In the sum­mer, after most of the eggs hatch, hens and chicks for­age to­gether. De­spite their heavy bod­ies, sage grouse are de­cent fliers and can fly up to 78 km/hr (50 mph). Fly­ing is one of the best ways for them to re­spond to dan­ger be­cause Gun­ni­son sage grouse have short legs which in­hibit run­ning. (McWilliams, 2002; "Sage Grouse Ini­tia­tive", 2012)

• Key Behaviors
• terricolous
• flies
• diurnal
• motile
• sedentary
• social

• Range territory size

  2 to 6 km^2

Home Range

Av­er­age mi­gra­tion dis­tance and home range varies by sea­son and sex, ac­cord­ing to re­search in Utah from 2002 to 2004. From sum­mer to win­ter, adult males and fe­males trav­eled 4.6 km and 4.4 km, re­spec­tively, be­tween 2002 and 2003. Home range that year for adult males and fe­males was 2.4 sq km and 3.5 sq km, re­spec­tively. From sum­mer to win­ter the next year, adult males and fe­males trav­eled 2.9 km and 5.9 km, re­spec­tively. Home range that year for adult males and fe­males was 2.8 sq km and 2.5 sq km, re­spec­tively. Dis­tance trav­eled by sexes fluc­tu­ates from year to year to mimic re­source abun­dance changes. (Ward and Mess­mer, 2006)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

Species can com­mu­ni­cate with call­ings, courtship vo­cal­iza­tions, and feather sig­nal­ing. Call­ings can be used to de­fend ter­ri­tory or to alert oth­ers about a threat. Courtship vo­cal­iza­tions help fe­males dis­tin­guish the fit­ness be­tween males dur­ing mat­ing sea­son. On the lek, older males will es­tab­lish and de­fend their ter­ri­tory by some­times chas­ing or fight­ing other males. Males will often po­si­tion them­selves lat­er­ally to fe­males to pro­ject the loud­est sound. Feather sig­nals are made by the spread­ing of the tail feath­ers or the flap­ping of the wings. (Patri­celli, 2010; Young, et al., 2012)

• Communication Channels
• visual
• acoustic

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

Food Habits

Gun­ni­son sage grouse have vary­ing food pref­er­ences, de­pend­ing on the life stage and sea­son. In the early sum­mer, in­sects and forbs are an es­sen­tial com­po­nent of the chicks' diet. In­sects pro­vide a source of pro­tein for growth and de­vel­op­ment. In late sum­mer, chicks begin to for­age on forbs, and sage­brush is later added to the diet. As sage­brush habi­tats dry out in colder months, adults and chicks for­age on forbs and sage­brush in ri­par­ian habi­tats. In the fall and win­ter, most sage grouse con­sume mainly sage­brush leaves. Cer­tain types of sage­brush can be pre­ferred based on pro­tein lev­els and leaf tex­tures. Gun­ni­son sage grouse do not have mus­cu­lar giz­zards, so it is dif­fi­cult for them to grind and di­gest seeds. ("Gun­ni­son Sage Grouse", 2004; "Sage Grouse Ini­tia­tive", 2012)

• Primary Diet
• omnivore

• Animal Foods
• insects

• Plant Foods
• leaves
• seeds, grains, and nuts
• fruit

• Foraging Behavior
• stores or caches food

Pre­da­tion

Sage grouse are easy tar­gets due to their large size and in­abil­ity to run fast. Males are also os­ten­ta­tious and can be spot­ted by preda­tors rel­a­tively eas­ily. Fe­males and chicks have a lower mor­tal­ity rate due to smaller mass and the abil­ity to cam­ou­flage with their sur­round­ings. There has been re­search show­ing that a de­crease in black tailed jackrab­bit (Lepus cal­i­for­ni­cus) pop­u­la­tions has led to an in­crease in pre­da­tion of sage grouse. In other re­gions, de­creases in pre­ferred prey pop­u­la­tions have re­sulted in a shift of pre­ferred prey to sage grouse. Dense, tall veg­e­ta­tion can help pro­vide cover to pro­tect nests from preda­tors. Coy­otes (Canis la­trans), ground squir­rels (Sci­uri­dae), and Amer­i­can bad­gers (Taxidea taxus) are com­mon nest preda­tors. Sage grouse are also a pop­u­lar game bird. Col­orado and Utah have pro­hib­ited hunt­ing for sage grouse in cer­tain areas to pro­tect dwin­dling pop­u­la­tion num­bers. ("En­cy­clo­pe­dia of Life", 2012; McWilliams, 2002; "Sage Grouse Ini­tia­tive", 2012)

• Anti-predator Adaptations
• cryptic

• Known Predators

  • golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos)
  • coyotes (Canis latrans)
  • foxes (Vulpes)
  • American badgers (Taxidea taxus)
  • magpies (Pica hudsonia)
  • weasels (Mustela)
  • ravens (Corvus corax)
  • red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis)
  • ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis)

Ecosys­tem Roles

Light to mod­er­ate graz­ing in the early sea­son can pro­mote forb and arthro­pod abun­dance in both up­land and ri­par­ian habi­tats, whereas in­tense for­ag­ing can cause detri­men­tal de­creases in sage­brush dis­tri­b­u­tion and pro­mote in­tro­duc­tion of in­va­sive grasses. Gun­ni­son sage grouse are in­fected with some kinds of blood par­a­sites (Haemo­pro­teus). (Gib­son, 1990; Prather, 2010)

• Ecosystem Impact
• keystone species

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Sage grouse and ranch­ers both de­pend on the same habi­tats. If ranch­ing prof­its de­crease, the pres­sure to sell land in­creases, which often re­sults in habi­tat frag­men­ta­tion. If sus­tain­able yields can be at­tained from these lands, it can help pro­tect the re­main­ing sage grouse pop­u­la­tions. Gun­ni­son sage grouse have di­verse sea­sonal habi­tat re­quire­ments which make them a po­ten­tial key­stone species for other grass­land species. ("Sage Grouse Ini­tia­tive", 2012)

• Positive Impacts
• ecotourism
• research and education

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

Gun­ni­son sage grouse and ranch­ers de­pend on the same habi­tats, which may lead to com­pe­ti­tion of re­sources be­tween live­stock and sage grouse. How­ever, this is a minor prob­lem, as both ranch­ers and sage grouse seem to have a mu­tu­ally ben­e­fi­cial re­la­tion­ship. (Prather, 2010)

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

Habi­tat frag­men­ta­tion, in­va­sive plant species, and low veg­e­ta­tive di­ver­sity are the main is­sues en­dan­ger­ing Gun­ni­son sage grouse pop­u­la­tions. The Col­orado Parks and Wildlife is work­ing with the Col­orado Cat­tle­men's As­so­ci­a­tion, Gun­ni­son County, and the Bu­reau of Land Man­age­ment to bet­ter un­der­stand fac­tors im­pact­ing Gun­ni­son sage grouse pop­u­la­tions. The Bu­reau of Land Man­age­ment (BLM) has been work­ing with the Can­di­date Con­ser­va­tion Agree­ment (CCA) to try and con­serve pub­lic lands that have sage grouse pop­u­la­tions. Lo­cals have also shown an in­ter­est in pro­tect­ing the re­main­ing pop­u­la­tions. In 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice (FWS) listed the sage grouse as "war­ranted but pre­cluded" under the En­dan­gered Species Act to in­di­cate that, al­though the species is not of top pri­or­ity, they play an im­por­tant eco­log­i­cal role. By list­ing the sage grouse, it has helped raise aware­ness and pro­tect sage­brush habi­tats from fur­ther frag­men­ta­tion. ("BLM Col­orado Sage-grouse Con­ser­va­tion Ef­fort", 2012; "Cana­dian Sage Grouse Re­cov­ery Strat­egy", 2001; "Sage Grouse Ini­tia­tive", 2012)

• IUCN Red List

  Endangered

• US Migratory Bird Act

  Protected

• US Federal List

  Endangered

• CITES

  No special status

• State of Michigan List

  Endangered

Other Com­ments

Gun­ni­son sage grouse were not con­sid­ered their own species until the 1990s be­cause of close be­hav­ioral sim­i­lar­i­ties to the greater sage grouse (Cen­tro­cer­cus urophasianus). How­ever there are mor­pho­log­i­cal, ge­netic, and mat­ing pat­tern dif­fer­ences that dis­tin­guish the two species. ("En­cy­clo­pe­dia of Life", 2012)

Con­trib­u­tors

Priscilla Kuo (au­thor), The Col­lege of New Jer­sey, Matthew Wund (ed­i­tor), The Col­lege of New Jer­sey, Cather­ine Kent (ed­i­tor), Spe­cial Pro­jects.

Ref­er­ences

2011. "An An­i­mal of the High Desert - Greater Sage Grouse" (On-line). Idaho Na­tional Li­brary. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 29, 2012 at http://​www.​gsseser.​com/​Newsletter/​archive/​Sagegrouse.​htm.

2012. "BLM Col­orado Sage-grouse Con­ser­va­tion Ef­fort" (On-line). Bu­reau of Land Man­age­ment. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 29, 2012 at http://​www.​blm.​gov/​co/​st/​en/​BLM_​Programs/​wildlife/​sage-grouse.​html.

2001. "Cana­dian Sage Grouse Re­cov­ery Strat­egy" (On-line). Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 04, 2012 at http://​www.​srd.​alberta.​ca/​FishWildlife/​SpeciesAtRisk/​LegalDesignationOfSpeciesAtRisk/​RecoveryProgram/​documents/​SageGrousePlan.​pdf.

Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice. De­ter­mi­na­tion for the Gun­ni­son Sage-grouse as a Threat­ened or En­dan­gered Species. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0080. MO: Na­tional Archives and Records Ad­min­is­tra­tion. 2010. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 14, 2012 at http://​www.​fws.​gov/​mountain-prairie/​species/​birds/​gunnisonsagegrouse/​75FR59804.​pdf.

2012. "En­cy­clo­pe­dia of Life" (On-line). Cen­tro­cer­cus Min­imus: Gun­ni­son Sage Grouse. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 29, 2012 at http://​eol.​org/​pages/​900212/​details.

2012. "Gun­ni­son Reser­voir" (On-line). Water Qual­ity Utah. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 14, 2012 at http://​www.​waterquality.​utah.​gov/​watersheds/​lakes/​GUNNISON.​pdf.

2004. "Gun­ni­son Sage Grouse" (On-line). All About Birds. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 29, 2012 at http://​www.​allaboutbirds.​org/​guide/​Gunnison_​Sage-Grouse/​lifehistory.

Sage Grouse Ini­tia­tive. 2012. "Sage Grouse Ini­tia­tive" (On-line). Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 29, 2012 at http://​sagegrouseinitiative.​com/​content/​behavior.

Con­nelly, J., M. Schroeder, A. Sands, C. Braun. 2000. Guide­lines to man­age sage grouse pop­u­la­tions and their habi­tats. Wildlife So­ci­ety Bul­letin, 28/4: 967-985. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 14, 2012 at http://​sagemap.​wr.​usgs.​gov/​Docs/​Sage_​Grouse_​Guidelines.​PDF.

Falsetto, R., J. Soceka, J. Sow­ell, A. Stork. 2011. "West­ern State Col­orado Uni­ver­sity" (On-line). Dig­i­tal Land-Cover Map of the Gun­ni­son Basin. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 14, 2012 at http://​www.​western.​edu/​academics/​geology/​research/​landcover/​digital-land-cover-map-of-the-gunnison-basin.​html.

Gib­son, R. 1996. Fe­male choice in sage grouse: the roles of at­trac­tion and ac­tive com­par­i­son. Be­hav­ioral Ecol­ogy and So­cio­bi­ol­ogy, 39/1: 55-59. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 04, 2012 at http://​www.​springerlink.​com/​content/​68wyw9qflmy27duh/​.

Gib­son, R. 1990. Re­la­tion­ships be­tween Blood Par­a­sites, Mat­ing Suc­cess and Phe­no­typic Cues in Male Sage Grouse Cen­tro­cer­cus urophasianus. Amer. Zool., 30/2: 271-278. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 04, 2012 at http://​icb.​oxfordjournals.​org/​content/​30/​2/​271.​short.

Grother, C. 2012. "Un­com­pah­gre Plateau Pro­ject" (On-line). Gun­ni­son Sage Grouse. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 23, 2012 at http://​www.​upproject.​org/​plateau/​grouse.​htm.

McWilliams, J. 2002. "Cen­tro­cer­cus min­imus, C. urophasianus. In: Fire Ef­fects In­for­ma­tion Sys­tem" (On-line). Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 17, 2012 at http://​www.​fs.​fed.​us/​database/​feis/​animals/​bird/​cent/​all.​html#​BiologicalDataAndHabitatRequirements.

Patri­celli, G. 2010. "Re­search In­ter­ests" (On-line). Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 29, 2012 at http://​www.​eve.​ucdavis.​edu/​gpatricelli/​Patricelli_​Research_​Interests.​html.

Prather, P. 2010. "Fac­tors Ef­fect­ing Gun­ni­son Sage Grouse (Cen­tro­cer­cus Min­imus) Con­ser­va­tion in San Juan County, Utah" (On-line). Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 17, 2012 at http://​digitalcommons.​usu.​edu/​cgi/​viewcontent.​cgi?​article=1823&​context=etd&​sei-redir=1&​referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.​google.​com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Df%26rct%3Dj%26url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.​usu.​edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.​cgi%253Farticle%253D1823%2526context%253Detd%26q%3DCentrocercus%2Bminimus%2Blifespan%26ei%3Dt2B_​UPDnFMjp0QG9nYH4Cw%26usg%3DAFQjCNG80TT1c9ilSFjTf067nOIaMGzPvw#​search=%22Centrocercus%20minimus%20lifespan%22.

Schroeder, M., C. Aldridge, A. Apa, J. Bohne, C. Braun, J. Con­nelly, P. Deib­ert, S. Gard­ner, G. Ko­briger, S. McAdam, C. MC­Carthy, J. Mc­Carthy, D. Mitchell, E. Rick­er­son, S. Stiver. 2004. Dis­tri­b­u­tion of Sage-Grouse in North Amer­ica. The Con­dor, 106.2: 363-376. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 04, 2012 at http://​www.​bioone.​org/​doi/​abs/​10.​1650/​7425.

Sohl, T. 2012. "Gun­ni­son Sage-Grouse" (On-line). South Dakota Birds and Bird­ing. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 29, 2012 at http://​sdakotabirds.​com/​species/​gunnison_​sage_​grouse_​info.​htm.

Ward, S., T. Mess­mer. 2006. "Gun­ni­son Sage-grouse Win­ter and Sum­mer Ecol­ogy in San Juan County, Utah" (On-line). Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 04, 2012 at http://​utahcbcp.​org/​files/​uploads/​sanjuan/​SWOGREPORT2006.​pdf.

Young, J., C. Braun, S. Oyler-Mc­Cance, J. Hupp, T. Quinn. 2012. A New Species of Sage Grouse from South­west­ern Col­orado. The Wil­son Bul­letin, 112 (4): 445-453. Ac­cessed Oc­to­ber 04, 2012 at http://​newweb.​western.​edu/​faculty/​jyoung/​files-documents/​Young%20et%20al%202000.​pdf.