Tympanuchus cupido - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Greater Prairie-Chicken
Other English Common Names: greater prairie-chicken
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Tympanuchus cupido (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 175834)
French Common Names: tétras des prairies
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102531
Element Code: ABNLC13010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Other Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Galliformes Phasianidae Tympanuchus
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Tympanuchus cupido
Taxonomic Comments: T. cupido and T. pallidicinctus are considered conspecific by some authors. T. cupido and T. phasianellus hybridize sporadically; occasionally interbreed extensively (AOU 1983). Genetically, the three species of Tympanuchus are not clearly distinct; evidently morphological and behavioral differentiation have progressed rapidly relative to either mtDNA or allozymes (Ellsworth et al. 1994).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: NX (02Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Arkansas (SX), Colorado (S3), Connecticut (SX), Illinois (S1), Indiana (SX), Iowa (S1B), Kansas (S4), Kentucky (SX), Louisiana (SX), Maryland (SX), Massachusetts (SX), Michigan (SX), Minnesota (S3), Missouri (S1), Montana (SXB), Nebraska (S3S4), New Jersey (SX), New York (SX), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SX), Oklahoma (S3), Pennsylvania (SX), Rhode Island (SX), South Dakota (S4), Tennessee (SX), Texas (S1B), Wisconsin (S1)
Canada Alberta (SX), Manitoba (SX), Ontario (SX), Saskatchewan (SX)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS
Comments on USESA: Subspecies attwateri of Texas is listed by USFWS as Endangered.
Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: XT (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Extirpated (27Nov2009)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This species was once an abundant breeder in prairie habitats of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. New genetic evidence indicates that the species was a native of Canada for the past 9000 years and did not colonize the prairies habitat with European settlement as previously thought. Habitat loss and degradation and hybridization with the Sharp-tailed Grouse contributed to its extirpation from Canada. Last reported in 1987.

Status history: Designated Endangered in April 1978. Status re-examined and designated Extirpated in April 1990. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2000 and in November 2009.

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Extirpated from Canada and from much of the range in U.S. Now found locally in much reduced numbers from eastern North Dakota, northwestern and central Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern Michigan south to northeastern Colorado, Kansas (except southwest), southern and northeastern Oklahoma, Missouri, southern Illinois; also southeastern Texas (AOU 1983). The largest populations are in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota (Minish, 1990 COSEWIC report). Subspecies attwateri is restricted to small disjunct populations in southeastern Texas; formerly throughout Gulf Coast prairies of southwestern Louisiana and Texas, south to the Rio Grande. Subspecies cupido (heath hen) of the eastern seaboard was extirpated from nearly all of its range by 1900, became extinct in the early 1930s.

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total population is probably a few hundred thousand.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Population declines resulted primarily from the result of loss and fragmentation of tallgrass prairie (Schroeder and Robb 1993). Introduced ringneck pheasant apparently has caused declines in some areas (Glotzhober 1989).

Declines in Wisconsin have resulted in a significant decline in genetic diversity, measured in both mean heterozygosity and number of alleles per locus; hatching success, however, has remained high (Bellinger et al. 2003).

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: In Illinois, the statewide population declined from more than 25,000 birds in the 1933 to 2000 in 1962 and then to 46 birds in 1994; hatching success declined from 91-100 percent of the eggs in the 1960s to 38 percent in 1990 (Westemeier et al. 1998). The decline was associated with a loss of genetic variation. In the early to mid-1990s, 271 birds were translocated to Illinois from other locations and hatching success increased from 76 percent to 94 percent of eggs (Westemeier et al. 1998), though it is not known whether the increase was related to the introgression of new alleles into the Illinois gene pool.

In Wisconsin, the estimated statewide population declined from about 55,000 birds in 1930 to 2500 birds by around 1950; population decline 50 percent from 1951 to 1961 and fluctuated at low levels (about 1500 birds) through the late 1990s (Anderson and Toepfer 1999). The decline was associated with a loss of genetic variation (Bellinger et al. 2003).

Populations declined in Missouri from the late 1960s through the early 1990s; population appears to be at an all-time low (Figg 1991, 1993). Declines in the 1980s were reported in North Dakota and Minnesota (see Minish, 1990 COSEWIC report).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Extirpated from Canada and from much of the range in U.S. Now found locally in much reduced numbers from eastern North Dakota, northwestern and central Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern Michigan south to northeastern Colorado, Kansas (except southwest), southern and northeastern Oklahoma, Missouri, southern Illinois; also southeastern Texas (AOU 1983). The largest populations are in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota (Minish, 1990 COSEWIC report). Subspecies attwateri is restricted to small disjunct populations in southeastern Texas; formerly throughout Gulf Coast prairies of southwestern Louisiana and Texas, south to the Rio Grande. Subspecies cupido (heath hen) of the eastern seaboard was extirpated from nearly all of its range by 1900, became extinct in the early 1930s.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ARextirpated, CO, CTextirpated, IA, IL, INextirpated, KS, KYextirpated, LAextirpated, MAextirpated, MDextirpated, MIextirpated, MN, MO, MTextirpated, ND, NE, NJextirpated, NYextirpated, OHextirpated, OK, PAextirpated, RIextirpated, SD, TNextirpated, TX, WI
Canada ABextirpated, MBextirpated, ONextirpated, SKextirpated

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Logan (08075), Morgan (08087), Phillips (08095), Sedgwick (08115), Washington (08121), Weld (08123), Yuma (08125)
IL Clay (17025), Effingham (17049), Fayette (17051), Jasper (17079), Marion (17121), White (17193)*
MN Becker (27005), Big Stone (27011), Cass (27021), Chippewa (27023), Clay (27027), Grant (27051), Hubbard (27057), Lac Qui Parle (27073), Mahnomen (27087), Marshall (27089), Morrison (27097), Norman (27107), Otter Tail (27111), Pennington (27113), Polk (27119), Red Lake (27125), Swift (27151), Traverse (27155), Wadena (27159), Wilkin (27167)
MO Adair (29001)*, Andrew (29003)*, Atchison (29005), Audrain (29007)*, Barry (29009)*, Barton (29011), Bates (29013)*, Benton (29015)*, Boone (29019)*, Callaway (29027)*, Carroll (29033)*, Cass (29037)*, Cedar (29039), Chariton (29041)*, Clark (29045)*, Cole (29051)*, Cooper (29053)*, Dade (29057), Dallas (29059)*, DeKalb (29063)*, Gentry (29075)*, Greene (29077)*, Grundy (29079)*, Harrison (29081), Henry (29083)*, Hickory (29085)*, Jasper (29097), Johnson (29101)*, Knox (29103)*, Laclede (29105)*, Lawrence (29109), Lewis (29111)*, Lincoln (29113)*, Linn (29115)*, Livingston (29117)*, Macon (29121)*, Marion (29127)*, McDonald (29119)*, Mercer (29129)*, Moniteau (29135)*, Monroe (29137)*, Montgomery (29139)*, Morgan (29141)*, Newton (29145)*, Nodaway (29147)*, Pettis (29159)*, Pike (29163)*, Polk (29167)*, Putnam (29171)*, Ralls (29173)*, Randolph (29175)*, Schuyler (29197)*, Scotland (29199)*, Shelby (29205)*, St. Clair (29185), Sullivan (29211)*, Vernon (29217), Warren (29219)*, Webster (29225)*, Worth (29227)*
ND Dickey (38021)*, Ransom (38073), Richland (38077), Sargent (38081), Stutsman (38093)*
TX Austin (48015), Colorado (48089), Fort Bend (48157), Galveston (48167), Goliad (48175), Refugio (48391), Victoria (48469), Wharton (48481)
WI Adams (55001), Burnett (55013)*, Chippewa (55017)*, Clark (55019), Green Lake (55047)*, Marathon (55073), Portage (55097), Taylor (55119)*, Waushara (55137)*, Wood (55141)
WY Carbon (56007), Fremont (56013), Goshen (56015), Niobrara (56027), Platte (56031), Sweetwater (56037)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Upper Fox (04030201)+*
05 Embarras (05120112)+, Little Wabash (05120114)+, Skillet (05120115)+
07 Leech Lake (07010102)+, Pine (07010105)+, Crow Wing (07010106)+, Redeye (07010107)+, Platte-Spunk (07010201)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+*, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+*, Black (07040007)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+*, Lake Dubay (07070002)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+*, North Fabius (07110002)+*, South Fabius (07110003)+*, The Sny (07110004)+*, North Fork Salt (07110005)+*, South Fork Salt (07110006)+*, Salt (07110007)+*, Cuivre (07110008)+*, Middle Kaskaskia (07140202)+
09 Bois De Sioux (09020101)+, Mustinka (09020102)+, Otter Tail (09020103)+, Upper Red (09020104)+, Western Wild Rice (09020105)+, Buffalo (09020106)+, Elm-Marsh (09020107)+, Eastern Wild Rice (09020108)+, Lower Sheyenne (09020204)+, Sandhill-Wilson (09020301)+, Red Lake (09020303)+, Thief (09020304)+, Clearwater (09020305)+, Grand Marais-Red (09020306)+, Snake (09020309)+
10 James Headwaters (10160001)+*, Pipestem (10160002)+*, Upper James (10160003)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Little Medicine Bow (10180005)+, Sweetwater (10180006)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek (10190003)+, Middle South Platte-Sterling (10190012)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, Nodaway (10240010)+*, Independence-Sugar (10240011)+*, Platte (10240012)+*, One Hundred and Two (10240013)+*, Arikaree (10250001)+, North Fork Republican (10250002)+, Frenchman (10250005)+, Stinking Water (10250006)+, Upper Grand (10280101)+, Thompson (10280102)+*, Lower Grand (10280103)+*, Upper Chariton (10280201)+*, Lower Chariton (10280202)+*, Little Chariton (10280203)+*, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+*, Little Osage (10290103)+*, Marmaton (10290104)+, Harry S. Missouri (10290105)+, Sac (10290106)+, Pomme De Terre (10290107)+*, South Grand (10290108)+*, Lake of the Ozarks (10290109)+*, Niangua (10290110)+*, Upper Gasconade (10290201)+*, Lower Missouri-Crooked (10300101)+*, Lower Missouri-Moreau (10300102)+*, Lamine (10300103)+*, Blackwater (10300104)+*, Lower Missouri (10300200)+*
11 James (11010002)+*, Lake O' the Cherokees (11070206)+*, Spring (11070207)+, Elk (11070208)+*
12 West Galveston Bay (12040204)+, Lower Brazos (12070104)+, San Bernard (12090401)+, Lower Guadalupe (12100204)+, Lower San Antonio (12100303)+, West Matagorda Bay (12100402)+, West San Antonio Bay (12100404)+, Aransas Bay (12100405)+, Mission (12100406)+
14 Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+, Little Snake (14050003)+, Muddy (14050004)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: Chunky, henlike bird, heavily barred above and below with dark brown, cinnamon, and pale buff; short rounded tail is black in males, barred in females; male has fleshy yellow-orange eye combs; both sexes have elongate dark neck feathers, longer and erected during courtship in males; males have an inflatable golden sacs on each side of the neck (NGS 1983).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from lesser prairie chicken in being slightly larger, darker, and more heavily barred below. Differs from sharp-tailed grouse in being barred below (rather than scalled/spotted) and having a dark rounded tail (instead of a mostly white pointed one).
Reproduction Comments: Breeding begins early April in south to late May in north. Female incubates 10-12, sometimes 7-17, eggs for 23-24 days. Young leave nest a few hours after hatching; tended by female. Males gather for communal courtship (up to 30 individuals). In Colorado, the mean distance between leks was about 1.2-1.3 km (Schroeder 1991).
Ecology Comments: Home ranges vary a great deal in size. In Colorado, median home-range size for females was 161 ha in early spring, 266 ha in late spring (Schroeder 1991). In T. C. ATTWATERI, males had ranges from 28 to 211 hectares; female ranges were smallest in summer (10-111 hectares) and largest in winter (47-910 hectares; Horkel 1979).
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: In Colorado, migrated between separate breeding and winter ranges; females migrated an average of about 10 km (up to 40 km), males an average of a little less than 3 km; migration occurred in February-March and in summer (average date late July in males, early June for females without broods, late August for females with broods); exhibited fidelity to both breeding and wintering sites (Schroeder and Braun 1993).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous
Habitat Comments: Tall grasslands (prairie), occasionally cultivated lands of similar types, formerly in eastern (fire-produced) grassland and blueberry barrens (AOU 1983). Nests in grasslands and prairies, pastures and hayfields. The nest is a shallow scrape lined with grasses and other available vegetation. In Colorado, females nested an average of 3.6 km from the lek in which they first were observed (Schroeder 1991); 20 of 80 leks were active in all of six years, 26 leks were active only one year (Schroeder and Braun 1992).
Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Granivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Granivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Summer diet primarily insects, especially grasshoppers. At other times of year eats plant food: fruit, leaves, flowers, shoots, seeds, grain. Eats more grain than any other gallinaceous bird (Terres 1980).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 43 centimeters
Weight: 999 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Restoration Potential: Successful captive breeding of the Attwater's subspecies has been accomplished at the Fossil Rim Wildlife Center near Glen Rose, Texas; however, success has been limited due to poor chick survival (1993, End. Sp. Tech. Bull. 18 (4):2).
Management Requirements: ATTWATER'S: Moderate cattle grazing and/or periodic burning can be beneficial to habitat by maintaining high plant species diversity and by inhibiting the invasion of woody plants (Matthews and Moseley 1990). In many areas, intensive management has prevented extirpation. See recovery plan (1983).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Lek site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of breeding (including historical); and potential recurring breeding at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of a breeding lek, or a female with eggs or young.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Home ranges vary a great deal throughout the year; separation distance in appropriate habitat based on a large home range. Female T. c. attwateri had winter home ranges as large as 910 hectares (Horkel 1979). In Illinois, home ranges are limited to the grassland at Prairie Ridge State Natural Area
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.8 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a median female home range in late spring of 266 hectares (Schroeder 1991).
Date: 06Dec2016
Author: Cannings, S. G. and R. Gillespie

Use Class: Staging
Subtype(s): Booming Ground/Lek
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of breeding (including historical); and potential recurring breeding at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of a breeding lek.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Mean distance between neighboring booming grounds in Illinois is 1.33 to 1.71 km.
Date: 06Dec2016
Author: Gillespie, R.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 13Jan1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU), Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • Anderson, R. K., and J. E. Toepfer. 1999. History, status and management of the greater prairie chicken in Wisconsin. Pages 39-57 in W. D. Svedarsky, R. H. Hier, and N. J. Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chicken: a national look. Minnesota Agricultural EXperiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

  • Andrews, R. R. and R. R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 442 pp.

  • Bellinger, M. R., J. A. Johnson, J. Toepfer, and P. Dunn. 2003. Loss of genetic variation in Greater Prairie Chickens following a population bottleneck in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 17:717-724.

  • Braun, C. E., K. M. Giesen, R. W. Hoffman, T. E. Remington, W. D. Snyder. 1994. Upland bird management analysis guide, 1994-1998. Division Rept. 19. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 48 pp.

  • Braun, C. E., R. B. Davies, J. R. Dennis, K. A. Green, and J. L. Sheppard. 1992. Plains shap-tailed grouse recovery plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 31pp.

  • Bull, John. 1964. Birds of the New York area. New York: Harper and Row Publications 540 pp.

  • Bull, John. 1974. Birds of New York State. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 655 pp.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2001. Wild species 2000: the general status of species in Canada. National General Status Working Group. Available oneline at: <http://www.wildspecies.ca>.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2006. Wild species 2005: the general status of species in Canada. National General Status Working Group. Available oneline at: <http://www.wildspecies.ca>.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild species 2010: the general status of species in Canada. National General Status Working Group. Available online at: <http://www.wildspecies.ca>.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1995. Last Mountain Lake and Stalwart National Wildlife Areas: Bird Checklist - Fourth Edition. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • Cannings, S. 2001. EO Specifications for Greater Pairie-chicken (Typanuchus cupido). NatureServe, Unpublished. 1 pp.

  • Christisen, D.M. 1968. Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 2 pp.

  • Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

  • Copelin, F. F. 1963. The Lesser Prairie Chicken in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 6.

  • DICKINSON, MARY B., ED. 1999. FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA, 3RD ED. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 480 PP.

  • Ellsworth, D. L., et al. 1994. Mitochondrial-DNA and nuclear-gene differentiation in North American prairie grouse (genus TYMPANUCHUS). Auk 111:661-671.

  • Evans, K. 1966. Observations on a hybrid between the Sharp-tailed Grouse and the Greater Prairie Chicken. Auk 83:128-129.

  • Figg, D. E. 1991. Missouri Department of Conservation Annual Nongame and Endangered Species Report July 1990 - June 1991. ii + 35 pp.

  • Figg, D. E. 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report, July 1992-June 1993. 75 pp.

  • Fish and Wildlife Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Tourism and Natural Resources. 1979. Greater Prairie Chicken, Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2 pp.

  • Giesen, K. M. 1991. Population inventory and habitat use by Lesser Prairie-Chickens in southeast Colorado. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Report W-152-R, Colorado Division of Wildlife.

  • Giesen, K.M. 1998. Lesser prairie-chicken (Typanuchus pallidicinctus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 364. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 20 pp.

  • Glotzhober, R. C. 1989. The demise of the prairie chicken. Timeline (Ohio Hist. Soc.), June-July, 1989, pp. 20-25.

  • Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The Birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottowa, Canada. 595 pp.

  • Gross, Alfred, O. 1928. The Heath Hen. Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History. 50 plates.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

  • Horkel, J. D. 1979. Cover and space requirements of Attwater's prairie chicken (TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO ATTWATERI) in Refugio County, Texas. Ph.D. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 96 pp.

  • Johnsgard, P. A. 1983a. Cranes of the world. Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington. xiii + 258 pp.

  • Johnsgard, P.A. 1983b. The grouse of the world. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. xvi + 413 pp.

  • Larson, M. 2005. Spring 2005 Prairie-Chicken survey in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 5 pp.

  • Larson, M. 2007. Grouse surveys in Minnesota during spring 2007. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 18 pp.

  • Lehmann, V. W. 1941. Attwater's prairie-chicken: its life history and management. North American Fauna 57. v + 65 pp.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The Birds of Louisiana. LSU Press. 651pp.

  • Lumsden, H.G. 1966. The Prairie Chicken in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 80: 33-45.

  • Lutz, R. Scott, J. S. Lawrence, and N. J. Silvy. 1994. Nesting ecology of Attwater's Prairie-Chicken. Journal of Wildlife Management 58(2):230-233.

  • MCKEE, GWEN, M.R. RYAN, AND L.M. MECHLIN. 1998. PREDICTING GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN NEST SUCCESS FROM VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 62(1):314-321.

  • Manitoba Avian Research Committee. 2003. The Birds of Manitoba. Manitoba Naturalists Society, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 504 pp.

  • Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2019. Manitoba Bird Rank Review by Ken De Smet and Christian Artuso.

  • Minish, B.R. 1990. Updated status report on the Greater Prairie-chicken TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 8 pp.

  • Morrow, Michael E., R. S. Adamcik, J. D. Friday, and L. B. McKinney. 1996. Factors affecting Attwater's prairie-chicken decline on the Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(4):593-601.

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

  • Natural Heritage Information System, Division of Ecological Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. November 6, 2008. Prairie Chicken Historical Database. St. Paul, Minnesota.

  • Nelson, D. 1993. Colorado Bird Atlas: Manual on Use of Breeding Codes. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 27 pp.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp.

  • Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation associated with greater prairie-chicken leks in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1) 278-.

  • Partch, M. C. 1973. A history of Minnesota's Prairie Chickens. Pages 15-29 in W. D. Svedarsky and T. J. Wolfe, editors. The Prairie Chicken in Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Crookston, Minnesota.

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1983. The Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 1: Nonpasserines. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. xii + 321 pp.

  • Pelren, E. C. 1996. Blue grouse winter ecology in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

  • Peterson, Markus J. and N.J. Silvy. 1996. Reproductive stages limiting productivity of the endangered Attwater's Prairie Chicken. Conservation Biology 10(4)1264-1276.

  • Peterson, Markus J., J. R. Purvis, J. R. Lichtenfels, T. M. Craig, N. O. Dronen, JR., And N. J. Silvy. 1998. Serologic and parasitologic survey of the endangered Attwater's Prairie Chicken. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 34(1):137-144.

  • Peterson, Markus J., and N. J. Silvy. 1994. Spring precipitation and fluctuations in Attwater's Prairie-Chicken numbers: Hypothesis revisited. Journal of Wildlife Management 58(2):222-229.

  • Prose, B.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: Greater Prairie-Chicken (multiple levels of resolution). Biological Report 82(10,102), Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 34 pp.

  • RENEW. 1998. Annual Report No. 8. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife. 52 pp.

  • Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee. 1993. National Recovery Plan for the Greater Prairie-Chicken. Canadian Wildlife Federation.

  • Rodgers, R. D. 2005. Conservation Reserve Program successes, failures, and management needs for open-land birds. Pages 129-134 in A. W. Allen and M. W. Vandever, editors. The Conservation Reserve Program - planting for the future: proceedings of a national conference. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5145. 248 pp.

  • Rodgers, R. D., and R. W. Hoffman. 2005. Prairie Grouse population response to Conservation Reserve Program grasslands: an overview. Pages 120-128 in A. W. Allen and M. W. Vandever, editors. The Conservation Reserve Program - planting for the future: proceedings of a national conference. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5145. 248 pp.

  • Rosenquist, E. L. 1996. Winter aspects of Prairie Chicken ecology in northwest Minnesota. Thesis, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota. 72 pp.

  • SERNOVITZ, JAMES. 1991. NATURE'S PREMIRE DANCER. SPECIES PROFILE: GREATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN (TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO). WILDBIRD. PP. 64-68.

  • SWALES, B.H. 1919. A FORMER RECORD OF THE HEATH HEN (TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO) AT WASHINGTON, D.C. PROCEEDINGS OF BIOL. SOC. OF WASH. 32:198.

  • Saskatchewan Department of Tourism and Renewable Resources. 1978. Status report on Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

  • Saunders, W.E. 1927. The Prairie Chicken in western Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, Vol. 41: 90.

  • Schroeder, M. A. 1991. Movement and lek visitation by female greater prairie-chickens in relation to predictions of Bradbury's female preference hypothesis of lek evolution. Auk 108:896-903.

  • Schroeder, M. A., and C. E. Braun. 1992. Greater prairie-chicken attendance at leks and stability of leks in Colorado. Wilson Bull. 104:273-284.

  • Schroeder, M. A., and C. E. Braun. 1993. Partial migration in a population of greater prairie-chickens in northeastern Colorado. Auk 110:21-28.

  • Schroeder, M. A., and L. A. Robb. 1993. Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). Number 36 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • Schroeder, M.A. and L.A. Robb. 1993. Greater Prairie-Chicken; The Birds of North America. Vol. 1, No. 36. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Schwartz, C. W. 1945. The ecology of the prairie chicken in Missouri. Univ. Missouri Studies No. 20. 104 pp.

  • Svedarsky, W. D., T. J. Wolfe, and J. E. Toepfer. 1997. The Greater Prairie-Chicken in Minnesota. Minnesota Wildlife Report 11. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 19 pp.

  • THOMPSON,M.C., AND C. ELY.1989. BIRDS IN KANSAS VOLUME ONE.

  • Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980a. Fall-winter movements, ranges, and habitat use of lesser prairie chickens. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:521-524.

  • Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980b. Status, Ecology, and Management of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-77, 15 p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980c. Dispersal of a lesser prairie chicken (TYMPANUCHUS PALLIDICINCTUS). Southwestern Naturalist 25:124-125.

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Toepfer, J. E. 1994. Reintroduction of Greater Prairie-Chickens into the Kelly's Slough, North Dakota, 1992-1994. Progress Report submitted to North Dakota Game and Fish and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 29 pp.

  • Toepfer, J. E. 2003. Prairie Chickens and grasslands: 2000 and beyond. A report to the council of chiefs. Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus, Ltd. Elm Grove, Wisconsin. 69 pp.

  • Toepfer, John E. 1992-1994. Winter ecology on the Greater Prairie Chicken in Western Minnesota. Research funded by the Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources, Nongame Research Program.

  • Van Sant, B. F. and C. E. Braun. 1990. Distribution and status of greater prairie-chicken in Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 22:225-230.

  • WISDOM, M.J. AND L.S. MILLS. 1997. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS TO GUIDE POPULATIONS RECOVERY: PRAIRIE-CHICKENS AS AN EXAMPLE. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 61(2):302-312.

  • Westemeier, R. L., J. D. Brawn, S. A. Simpson, T. L. Esker, R. W. Jansen, J. W. Walk, E. L. Kershner, J. L. Bouzat, and K. N. Paige. 1998. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282:1695-1698.

  • Westemeier, R.L. 1972. Prescribed burning in grassland management for prairie chickens in Illinois. Proc. Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 12:317-338.

  • Westemeier, R.L. and W.R. Edwards. 1987. Prairie-chickens: survival in the Midwest. Pp. 119-131 in H. Kallman, ed., Restoring America's wildlife 1937-1987: The first 50 years of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson) Act. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

  • Wood, MERRILL. 1979. BIRDS OF PENNSYLVANIA. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., UNIVERSITY PARK. 133 PP.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.