Centrocercus minimus

Taxonomy

Assessment Information

Geographic Range

Population

Habitat and Ecology

Threats

Conservation Actions

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom	Phylum	Class	Order	Family
ANIMALIA	CHORDATA	AVES	Galliformes	Phasianidae

Scientific Name:

Centrocercus minimus

Species Authority:

Young, Braun, Oyler-McCance, Hupp & Quinn, 2000

Common Name/s:

English

–

Gunnison Sage-grouse, Gunnison Grouse, Gunnison Sage Grouse

Taxonomic Notes:

Centrocercus urophasianus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. urophasianus and C. minimus following AOU (1998).

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria:

Endangered B2ab(i,ii,iii,v) ver 3.1

Year Assessed:

2008

Assessor/s

BirdLife International

Evaluator/s:

Bird, J. & Butchart, S. (BirdLife International Red List Authority)

Justification:
This species qualifies as Endangered becauseit has a very small occupied range which is severely fragmented and declining. Habitat fragmentation is particularly concerning given that the species requires a variety of adjacent habitats. Management strategies are being implemented which aim to reverse current population declines over the next 15 years.

History:

2007	–	Endangered
2005	–	Endangered
2004	–	Endangered
2000	–	Endangered
1994	–	Not Recognized
1988	–	Not Recognized

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:	Centrocercus minimus is confined to the Gunnison basin in Gunnison and Saguache counties, south-west Colorado, with small, fragmented populations in Colorado and one in south-east Utah, USA^2,3,9. Historically, it presumably occurred in Arizona, Oklahoma and New Mexico¹, but the occupied range is now less than 500 km². The breeding population is less than 3,000 individuals^1,3,6,7,8. There have been long-term declines in lek sites, males at leks and offspring^1,2,3,4.
Countries:	Native: United States
Range Map:	(click map to view full version)

Population [top]

Population:	J. R.Young in litt. (2005) and C. Braun in litt. (2005)
Population Trend:	Decreasing

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:	Various adjacent habitats are required in the 2,300 m intermontane basin^3,4. These differ seasonally and for age and sex classes⁴. The species is totally reliant on sagebrush Artemisia spp. for seasonal cover and winter forage². Lek sites have low vegetation with sparse shrubs, and are often surrounded by the big sagebrush-dominated plant communities required for nesting¹. Broods are reared (May to autumn) in adjacent riparian plant communities and in mesic upland sites^1,7. In winter, it associates with watercourses on southerly or westerly slopes and ridge tops where deep snow is less likely¹.
Systems:	Terrestrial

Habitat and Ecology:

Various adjacent habitats are required in the 2,300 m intermontane basin^3,4. These differ seasonally and for age and sex classes⁴. The species is totally reliant on sagebrush Artemisia spp. for seasonal cover and winter forage². Lek sites have low vegetation with sparse shrubs, and are often surrounded by the big sagebrush-dominated plant communities required for nesting¹. Broods are reared (May to autumn) in adjacent riparian plant communities and in mesic upland sites^1,7. In winter, it associates with watercourses on southerly or westerly slopes and ridge tops where deep snow is less likely¹.

Systems:

Terrestrial

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s):	Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation is resulting from conversion to roads, reservoirs, livestock-grazing, hay and other crops, real estate developments, powerlines, land treatments and increased deer populations^1,4. Many winter sites are directly threatened and being enclosed by urbanisation³. Severely fragmented populations have low genetic variation and the recent reintroduction of the disease West Nile virus to the species's range is a concern^4,7. Disturbance from scientific study and recreational birdwatchers may cause stress and reduced lek attendance and production^1,7,8. Severe winters and potentially droughts may represent survival bottlenecks (e.g. in 1984, less than 10% of sagebrush emerged above the snow³), as may other habitat factors influencing chick survival⁷. Calls to increase gas prospecting in areas of sagebrush habitat represent a potential future threat.

Major Threat(s):

Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation is resulting from conversion to roads, reservoirs, livestock-grazing, hay and other crops, real estate developments, powerlines, land treatments and increased deer populations^1,4. Many winter sites are directly threatened and being enclosed by urbanisation³. Severely fragmented populations have low genetic variation and the recent reintroduction of the disease West Nile virus to the species's range is a concern^4,7. Disturbance from scientific study and recreational birdwatchers may cause stress and reduced lek attendance and production^1,7,8. Severe winters and potentially droughts may represent survival bottlenecks (e.g. in 1984, less than 10% of sagebrush emerged above the snow³), as may other habitat factors influencing chick survival⁷. Calls to increase gas prospecting in areas of sagebrush habitat represent a potential future threat.

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions:	Conservation actions underway: In 1995 a working group was formed and, in 1998, a conservation plan identified over 200 actions^1,4. By 2004 over 95% of the population was covered by local working groups' conservation plans⁷. While the success of such local efforts may be controversial, hunting has ceased and significant gains have been made in land protection through conservation easements and land acquisitions⁷. Current actions include lek enhancement, riparian area restoration, nest habitat treatments, improved livestock management, nest predator research, and education⁴. Education measures include sponsored grouse viewing, information brochures and talks given in local schools and fairs⁵. Radio-telemetry and graduate research is helping to determine winter habitat use, and lek sites have been protected⁵. Hunting of the species has been stopped^7,8. In 2005 state and federal employees drafted a 'Rangewide Plan' and have begun contact with local landowners to present voluntary conservation agreements⁷. Conservation actions proposed: Restore and improve habitat, while continuing work to prevent further loss and fragmentation. Support its listing on the Endangered Species Act. Continue population monitoring at key sites. Conduct further ecological research, focussing on survival, dispersal and habitat use at different life stages. Encourage and facilitate the implementation of local and range-wide management plans. Reduce disturbance, especially at active leks. Investigate the possibility of using translocations to augment small populations. Continue work to raise awareness of key issues among stakeholders.

Conservation Actions:

Conservation actions underway:

In 1995 a working group was formed and, in 1998, a conservation plan identified over 200 actions^1,4. By 2004 over 95% of the population was covered by local working groups' conservation plans⁷. While the success of such local efforts may be controversial, hunting has ceased and significant gains have been made in land protection through conservation easements and land acquisitions⁷. Current actions include lek enhancement, riparian area restoration, nest habitat treatments, improved livestock management, nest predator research, and education⁴. Education measures include sponsored grouse viewing, information brochures and talks given in local schools and fairs⁵. Radio-telemetry and graduate research is helping to determine winter habitat use, and lek sites have been protected⁵. Hunting of the species has been stopped^7,8. In 2005 state and federal employees drafted a 'Rangewide Plan' and have begun contact with local landowners to present voluntary conservation agreements⁷.

Conservation actions proposed:

Restore and improve habitat, while continuing work to prevent further loss and fragmentation. Support its listing on the Endangered Species Act. Continue population monitoring at key sites. Conduct further ecological research, focussing on survival, dispersal and habitat use at different life stages. Encourage and facilitate the implementation of local and range-wide management plans. Reduce disturbance, especially at active leks. Investigate the possibility of using translocations to augment small populations. Continue work to raise awareness of key issues among stakeholders.

Citation:	BirdLife International 2008. Centrocercus minimus. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 21 November 2009.
Disclaimer:	To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
Feedback:	If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided