Cynomys gunnisoni - (Baird, 1855)
Gunnison's Prairie Dog
Other English Common Names: Gunnison's prairie dog
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cynomys gunnisoni (Baird, 1855) (TSN 180184)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104656
Element Code: AMAFB06040
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Rodents
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Rodentia Sciuridae Cynomys
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cynomys gunnisoni
Taxonomic Comments: Researchers have come to different conclusions regarding the taxonomic status of the two nominal subspecies (gunnisoni and zuniensis). Pizzimenti (1975) examined variation in cranial and external characteristics and suggested that C. cunnisoni begregarded as a montypic species. Hoffmeister (1986) questioned Pizzimenti's analyses and conclusions, and he stated that "it appears there are size and proportional differences between prairie dogs that can be called C. g. gunnisoni and C. g. zuniensis, but the area of intergradation between the two may need redefining." Hoffmeister (1986) also stated that "some workers may prefer to regarded this subspecies [C. g. zuniensis] as indistinguishable from C. g. gunnisoni." Unpublished research by Hafner (cited by USFWS 2008) indicates that the distribution of mtDNA haplotype lineages supports past geographic isolation, followed by limited mixing in regions coincident with the recognized borders of the two purported subspecies. USFWS (2008) avoided the subspecies issue and instead distinguished "montane" and "prairie" populations whose distributions are essentially the same as those of the subspecies gunnisoni and zuniensis, respectively.

Based on information from two colonies 13 kilometers apart in Arizona, Travis et al. (1997) determined that this species exhibits low within-population genetic diversity and significant differentiation between colonies.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Mar2008
Global Status Last Changed: 06Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (15Jan1997)

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 Arizona (S4), Colorado (S5), Navajo Nation (S4), New Mexico (S2), Utah (S3)

Other Statuses

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R6 - Rocky Mountain
IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 250-20,000 square km (about 100-8000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range extends from central Colorado to central Arizona, including a small portion of southeastern Utah and much of the northwestern half of New Mexico. The montane and prairie portions of the range are separated by mountain ranges that almost completely limit prairie dog movement between them (USFWS 2008). See Goodwin (1995) for a review of the biogeographic history of prairie dogs.

Area of Occupancy: 501-12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Based on the best available information, USFWS (2008) estimated that the range-wide historical (circa 1916) occupied habitat totaled approximately 24 million acres (9.7 million hectares).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Population size is very large. In Arizona, each of two colonies studied by Travis et al. (1997) was estimated to include several thousand individuals.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: The number of occurrences with good viability is unknown; many are constantly threatened with extirpation by plague.

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: USFWS (2008) concluded that "of all the factors affecting Gunnison's prairie dog populations, sylvatic plague is the most significant." Sylvatic plague is an often-fatal bacterial disease that is generally transmitted among rodents by fleas. It is not native to North America and was first detected in Gunnison's prairie dog in New Mexico in 1938 (Link 1955). Plague epizootics can severely reduce or extirpate populations within a short time frame (3 to 10 years) (Lechleitner et al. 1962, 1968; Fitzgerald and Lechleitner 1974; Rayor 1985; Cully et al. 1997; USFWS 2008). Major populations are separated from each other by mountain ranges and large rivers, which preclude repopulation after plague epizootics (USFWS 2008). Habitat loss and degradation, shooting, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, were not regarded by USFWS (2008) as significant threats. Although poisoning of Gunnison's prairie dogs and the effects of climate change in the montane portion of the range were regarded as issues important to monitor, USFWS (2008) concluded that aside from plague "no other natural or manmade factors are a significant threat to this species, at this time, throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

Plague is primarily a bacterial disease of rodents, often spread through flea bites or contact with the tissues of infected individuals. It has a long history in Asia and has been present in the United States since 1900.

"Flea-born plague occurs in regular outbreaks and causes population declines and extirpations. Because the disease has only been present within the species' range for approximately 70 years, there has been very little time for resistance to evolve. It is believed that prairie dogs are highly susceptible to plague because of high population densities, abundant flea vectors, and uniformly low resistance. Partial or complete recovery following population reductions due to plague have been reported for both white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dogs, but little to no recovery to previous levels has been noted in montane Gunnison's prairie dog colony die-offs, even after long periods of time."

"The landscape in the montane portion of the Gunnison's prairie dog range is characterized by fewer, smaller, and more isolated colonies with minimal to no metapopulation structure. These factors make the prairie dogs in this habitat highly susceptible to plague-related declines. Gunnison's prairie dogs also commonly forage outside of their home territory which may contribute to the communicability of plague.

"Gunnison's prairie dog populations in the moister montane areas have been widely and severely affected by plague. This may be due in part to higher levels of spring moisture which increases flea numbers, and in turn, plague outbreaks. Although documented population declines due to plague also occur in the drier prairie portions of the Gunnison's prairie dog range, evidence shows that many of these populations recover more rapidly from plague outbreaks probably due to the availability of nearby colonizers.

"After assessing the best available science, the Service has concluded that the Gunnison's prairie dog is not in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered throughout all of its range; however, within the montane habitat in central and south-central Colorado and north-central New Mexico, the species is likely to become threatened or endangered within the foreseeable future due to plague. Based on the continued presence of plague and its effects and the average to maximum life span of Gunnison's prairie dogs, the foreseeable future has been determined to be the year 2042."

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Relative to the large decline from historical levels, populations may have been more stable in some states in recent decades (USFWS 2006).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 70-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Populations in all states within the range have declined significantly compared to historical levels (USFWS 2006).

Between 1916 and 1961, range-wide historical habitat occupied by the Gunnison's prairie dog declined from approximately 97,000 square kilometers to approximately 4,064 square kilometers (USFWS 2008). Between 1916 and the present, habitat occupied by Gunnison's prairie dog throughout its range declined from approximately 97,000 square kilometers to 1,360-2,000 square kilometers (USFWS 2008). This represents a range-wide decline of greater than 95 percent.

Recent data indicate that approximately 3.6 percent of potential Gunnison's prairie dog habitat is occupied in the montane portion of the range, as compared to 18.3 percent occupancy in the prairie portion of the range (USFWS 2008).

In Arizona, Wagner et al. (2006) found that most Gunnison's prairie dog colonies identified as active in initial surveys (1987, 1990-1994, 1998) did not persist to the time of recent surveys in 2000 and 2001; just 82 (30%) of the 270 colonies identified in the initial surveys were still active.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Reproductive rate is low, relative to other rodents, and survivorship is low (Hoogland 2001), but population size of individual colonies nevertheless may increase rapidly from year to year (Travis et al. 1995, Cully 1997).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Protect existing colonies from poisoning. Protect several acres/colony.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (250-20,000 square km (about 100-8000 square miles)) Range extends from central Colorado to central Arizona, including a small portion of southeastern Utah and much of the northwestern half of New Mexico. The montane and prairie portions of the range are separated by mountain ranges that almost completely limit prairie dog movement between them (USFWS 2008). See Goodwin (1995) for a review of the biogeographic history of prairie dogs.

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
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AZ, CO, NM, NN, UT

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: Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Archuleta (08007), Chaffee (08015), Conejos (08021), El Paso (08041), Huerfano (08055), La Plata (08067), Montrose (08085), Rio Grande (08105), Saguache (08109), San Miguel (08113), Teller (08119)
NM Bernalillo (35001), Catron (35003), Cibola (35006), Colfax (35007), Mckinley (35031), Mora (35033), Rio Arriba (35039), San Juan (35045), Sandoval (35043), Santa Fe (35049), Socorro (35053), Taos (35055), Torrance (35057), Valencia (35061)
UT Grand (49019), San Juan (49037)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 South Platte Headwaters (10190001)+, Upper South Platte (10190002)+
11 Arkansas Headwaters (11020001)+, Upper Arkansas (11020002)+, Fountain (11020003)+, Huerfano (11020006)+, Canadian headwaters (11080001)+, Cimarron (11080002)+, Upper Canadian (11080003)+, Mora (11080004)+
13 Rio Grande headwaters (13010001)+, Alamosa-Trinchera (13010002)+, Saguache (13010004)+, Conejos (13010005)+, Upper Rio Grande (13020101)+, Rio Chama (13020102)+, Rio Grande-Santa Fe (13020201)+, Jemez (13020202)+, Rio Grande-Albuquerque (13020203)+, Rio Puerco (13020204)+, Arroyo Chico (13020205)+, North Plains (13020206)+, Rio San Jose (13020207)+, Plains of San Agustin (13020208)+, Western Estancia (13050001)+
14 Upper Dolores (14030002)+, San Miguel (14030003)+, Lower Dolores (14030004)+, Upper Colorado-Kane Springs (14030005)+, Upper San Juan (14080101)+, Piedra (14080102)+, Blanco Canyon (14080103)+, Animas (14080104)+, Middle San Juan (14080105)+, Chaco (14080106)+, Mancos (14080107)+, Lower San Juan-Four Corners (14080201)+, Mcelmo (14080202)+, Montezuma (14080203)+
15 Carrizo Wash (15020003)+, Zuni (15020004)+, Upper Puerco (15020006)+*, Upper Gila (15040001)+, San Francisco (15040004)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A large rodent (prairie dog).
Reproduction Comments: Only one litter is produced per year, and only about one-fourth of males copulate as yearlings (Hoogland 2001). All females copulate as yearlings (Hoogland 2001). Seasonal timing of onset of reproduction varies somewhat with latitude, elevation, and year. Gestation lasts about 30 days. Litter size averages about 6, but for those females that are successful in weaning offspring, an average of only 3.8 young per female emerge from the nursery burrow (Hoogland 2001). The probability of weaning a litter each year is 82 percent (Hoogland 2001). Parturition occurs in April or early May in northern Arizona (Shalaway and Slobodchikoff 1988). Young stay underground for about 1 month.
Ecology Comments: Colonies often are smaller than those of other species; may consist of fewer than 50-100 individuals. Colonial groups are organized into territories that generally contain one adult male, one or more adult females, nonbreeding yearlings, and young of the year; overlap between areas of high use is low between members of neighboring territories (Travis and Slobodchikoff, 1993, Can. J. Zool. 71:1186-1192). Hoogland (1999) also described social organization.

Survivorship is low: only about 50 percent of females that emerged from burrows as juveniles are alive at the end of their first year, and less than 15 percent are alive at the end of their second year (Hoogland 2001).

Major mortality factors are disease, predation, and humans. Colonies suffer drastic population declines and are often extirpated during outbreaks of flea-borne sylvatic plague (Rayner 1985; see also papers by Barnes, Cully, and Fitzgerald in Oldemeyer et al. 1993). This species and Cynomys ludovicianus occur at densities up to 10 times higher and are more social than Cynomys leucurus, and thus they are much more susceptible to the fast spread of plague; in fact, C. gunnisoni is perhaps the most susceptible (Cully and Williams 2001).

This prairie dog is an important prey species in fall for migrating raptors in northern New Mexico (Cully 1988).

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous, Shrubland/chaparral
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: High mountain valleys and plateaus at elevations of 1,830-3,660 meters; open or slightly brushy country, scattered junipers and pines. Mainly in areas with high abundance of native plants in northern Arizona (Slobodchikoff et al. 1989). Burrows usually on slopes or in hummocks.
Adult Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore
Immature Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore
Food Comments: Diet includes on grasses, forbs, sedges, and shrubs. Insects are of minor importance. This species is not known to store food in its burrow. In Arizona, it feeds mainly on dead grass and seeds in spring and fall, on growing vegetation in summer (Shalaway and Slobodchikoff 1988).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal, Hibernates/aestivates
Immature Phenology: Diurnal, Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Individuals exhibit periods of inactivity during winter, which may last several months; hibernation may occurs in some parts of the range. In northern Arizona, activity occurs mostly March-October (Shalaway and Slobodchikoff 1988). During spring and summer, most activity occurs in early morning and late afternoon (Pizzimenti and Hoffmann 1973).
Length: 36 centimeters
Weight: 1125 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Species Impacts: Reintroduction of prairie dogs had no observable influence on the resident small mammal and plant connunities in the short-term, but their influences may be more evident over the long-term (Davidson et al. 1999).
Restoration Potential: Davidson et al. (1999) discussed a reintroduction onto a former colony in New Mexico.
Management Requirements: Benefits from management of grasslands to favor native species (Slobodchikoff et al. 1989).

See Oldemeyer et al. (1994) for information on the management of prairie dog complexes for the reintroduction of black-footed ferret.

Management Research Needs: See Miller et al. (in Oldemeyer et al. 1993) for a list of questions for management and research, related to ferret reintroduction, in priority order in each category of disease, habitat management, population dynamics, and public relations.
Biological Research Needs: More information is needed on the impacts of disease, specifically sylvatic plague, and on population status and trends (USFWS 2006).

More information is needed on the impacts of fragmentation and isolation with regard to persistence of prairie dog populations and on the magnitude of the potential threat posed by increasing oil and gas development (USFWS 2008).

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence of a prairie dog town or town complex at a given location.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Home ranges small; for closely related C. PARVIDENS, 1.2 to 8.2 hectares (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1977). Separation distance set at 1 kilometer minimum for unsuitable habitat and raised to 3 kilometers for suitable habitat, to reflect dispersal abilities.
In spring individual yearling males and adult females of C. LUDOVICIANUS disperse an average 2.4 kilometers (Garrett and Franklin 1988); dispersal in that species is generally less than 8 kilometers (Knowles 1985).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a typical home range of 4 hectares for the closely-related C. PARVIDENS (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1977).
Date: 03Aug2001
Author: Cannings, S.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 10Mar2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 07Mar2008
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

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

References
Help
  • Andelt, W. F., G. C. White, and K. W. Navo. 2006. Occupancy of random plots by Gunnison's prairie dogs in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Report, 24pp.

  • Anderson, E., S. C. Forrest, T. W. Clark, and L. Richardson. 1986. Paleobiology, biogeography, and systematics of the black footed ferret, Mustela nigripes (Audobon and Bachman), 1851. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. No. 8: 11-62.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of Mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence. 415 pp.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of mammals in Colorado. University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History, Monograph No. 3, Lawrence.

  • Crocker-Bedford, D. C., and J. J. Spillett. 1977. Home ranges of Utah prairie dogs. Journal of Mammalogy 58:672-73.

  • Cully, J. F., Jr. 1997. Growth and life-history changes in Gunnison's prairie dogs after a plague epizootic. Journal of Mammalogy 78:146-157.

  • Cully, J. F., Jr. 1988. Gunnison's prairie dog: an important autumn raptor prey species in northern New Mexico. Pages 260-264 in Glinski et al., eds. Proc. Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Ser. No. 11.

  • Cully, J. F., Jr., A. M. Barnes, T. J. Quan, and G. Maupin. 1997. Dynamics of plague in a Gunnison's prairie dog colony complex from New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33:706-719.

  • Cully, J. F., Jr., and E. S. Williams. 2001. Interspecific comparisons of sylvatic plague in prairie dogs. Journal of Mammalogy 82:894-905.

  • Davidson, A. D., R. R. Parmenter, and J. R. Gosz. 1999. Responses of small mammals and vegetation to a reintroduction of Gunnison's prairie dogs. Journal of Mammalogy 80:1311-1324.

  • Ecke, D. H., and C. W. Johnson. 1952. Plague in Colorado. Part I of Plague in Colorado and Texas. U. S. Public Health Service Monograph No. 6. 54 pp.

  • Ecke, D.H., and C.W. Johnson. 1952. Plague in Colorado. Part I. Plague in Colorado and Texas. U.S. Public Health Service, Public Health Monogr., 6:1-54.

  • Eske, D. H., and C. W. Johnson. 1952. Plague in Colorado. Pp 1-37 in Plague in Colorado and Texas. U.S. Public Health Service, Public Health Monograph 6.

  • Findley, J. S., A. H. Harris, D. E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 360 pp.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P. 1993. The ecology of plague in Gunnison's prairie dogs and suggestions for the recovery of black-footed ferrets. Pages 50-59 in J. L. Oldemeyer, D. E. Biggins, B. J. Miller, and R. Crete, editors. Management of prairie dog complexes for the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret. 96 pp.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. xiii + 467 pp.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P., and R. R. Lechleitner. 1974. Observations on the biology of Gunnison's prairie dogs in central Colorado. American Midland Naturalist 92:146-163.

  • Forest Guardians. 2004. Petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Gunnison's prairie dog as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et Seq. (1973 as amended), and to designate critical habitat. Forest Guardians, 312 Montezuma Ave. Suite A, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.

  • Forrest, S.C., et.al. 1985. Black-footed ferret habitat: some management and reintroduction considerations. Wyoming (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 2, Cheyenne, WY. 49 p.

  • Garrett, M. G., and W. L. Franklin. 1988. Behavioral ecology of dispersal in the black-tailed prairie dog. J. Mamm. 69:236-250.

  • Goodwin, H. T. 1995a. Pliocene-Pleistocene biogeographic history of prairie dogs, genus Cynomys (Sciuridae). Journal of Mammalogy 76:100-122.

  • Goodwin, T. H. 1995b. Systematic revision of fossil prairie dogs with description of two new species. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 86:1-38.

  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.

  • Hollister, N. 1916. A systematic account of the prairie-dogs. North American Fauna 40:1-37.

  • Hoogland, J. L. 1999. Philopatry, dispersal, and social organization of Gunnison's prairie dogs. Journal of Mammalogy 80:243-251.

  • Hoogland, J. L. 2001. Black-tailed, Gunnison's, and Utah Prairie Dogs reproduce slowly. Journal of Mammalogy 82:917-927.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Knowles, C. 2002. Status of white-tailed and Gunnison's prairie dogs. National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, MT, and Environmental Defense, Washington, D.C. 30 pp.

  • Knowles, C. 2002. Status of white-tailed and Gunnison's prairie dogs. National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, Montana, and Environmental Defense, Washington, D.C. 30 pp.

  • Knowles, C. J. 1985. Observations on prairie dog dispersal in Montana. Prairie Nat. 17:33-40.

  • Lechleitner, R., R., J. V. Tileston, and L. Kartman. 1962. Die-off of a Gunnison's prairie dog colony in central Colorado. I. Ecological observations and description of the epizootic. Zoonoses Research 1:185-199.

  • Link, V. B. 1955. A history of plague in the United States. U.S. Public Health Science, Public Health Monograph 26, Washington, D.C., 120 pp.

  • Longhurst, W. 1944. Observations on the ecology of the Gunnison prairie dog in Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy 25:24-36.

  • Oldemeyer, J. L., et al. 1994. Proceedings of a symposium for the management of prairie dog complexes for the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 13. 96 pp.

  • Pizzimenti, J. 1975. Evolution of the prairie dog genus Cynomys. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 39:1-73.

  • Pizzimenti, J.J. and R.S. Hoffmann. 1973. CYNOMYS GUNNISONI.Mammalian Species, 25:1-4.

  • Rayner, L. S. 1985. Dynamics of a plague outbreak in Gunnison's prairie dog. J. Mamm. 66:194-196.

  • Rayor, L. S. 1985. Effects of habitat quality on growth, age of first reproduction, and dispersal in Gunnison's prairie dogs (CYNOMYS GUNNISONI). Can. J. Zool. 60:2835-2840.

  • Shalaway, S., and C. N. Slobodchikoff. 1988. Seasonal changes in the diet of Gunnison's prairie dog. J. Mamm. 69:835-841.

  • Slobodchikoff, C. N., A. Robinson, and C. Schaack. 1989. Habitat use by Gunnison's prairie dogs. Pages 403-408 in B88SZA01NA.

  • Travis, S. E., C. N. Slobodchikoff, and P. Keim. 1995. Ecological and demographic effects on intraspecific variation in the social system of prairie dogs. Ecology 76:1794-1803.

  • Travis, S. E., C. N. Slobodchikoff, and P. Keim. 1997. DNA fingerprinting reveals low genetic diversity in Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni). Journal of Mammalogy 78:725-732.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 5 February 2008. 12-month finding on a petition to list the Gunnison's prairie dog as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 73(24):6660-6684.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 7 February 2006. 90-day finding on a petition to list the Gunnison's prairie dog as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 71(25):6241-6248.

  • Wagner, D. M., L. C. Drickamer, D. M. Krpata, C. J. Allender, W. E. Van Pelt, and P. Keim. 2006. Persistence of Gunnison's prairie dog colonies in Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 130:331-339.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

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.