|Scientific Name:||Centrocercus urophasianus|
|Species Authority:||(Bonaparte, 1827)|
|Taxonomic Notes:||Centrocercus urophasianus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. urophasianus and C. minimus following AOU (1998).|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Near Threatened ver 3.1|
|Reviewer/s:||Butchart, S. & Symes, A.|
|Contributor/s:||Butcher, G., Holloran, M., Rosenberg, K. & Wells, J.|
This species is listed as Near Threatened owing to a continuing and moderately rapid decline in its population.
|Range Description:||Centrocercus urophasianus inhabits the shrubland ecosystems of south-eastern Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) and western USA (Washington, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado) (del Hoyo et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). Although the accurate estimation of trends is difficult, the range-wide breeding population was estimated as 142,000 individuals in 1998, clearly lower than historic levels (Braun 1998), and decline rates have been estimated at 50% or higher since 1966 (J. Wells and K. Rosenberg in litt. 2003).|
Native:Canada; United States
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||There are estimated to be c.150,000 mature individuals (Rich et al. 2004).|
|Habitat and Ecology:||It is closely associated with sagebrush Artemesia habitats during the breeding and non-breeding seasons, although some populations do undergo seasonal movements (del Hoyo et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 1999). It is a lekking species. It may act as an umbrella to other sage-brush specialists when conserved.|
|Major Threat(s):||Immense areas of its habitat have been cleared or degraded due to cultivation (for wheat, potatoes and other crops), burning and overgrazing, and the species has been extirpated from various parts of its former range (British Columbia, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona) (Schroeder et al. 1999). Continuing development of natural gas resources is causing reduced lek attendance and overall population (Holloran and Anderson 2005). Coyote Canis latrans control is likely to have a detrimental impact on sage grouse owing to the loss of beneficial indirect interactions (Mezquida et al. 2006). In 2003, about 25% of the radio-marked sage-grouse in the Powder River Basin died from West Nile virus. That number dropped to 10% in 2004 and 2% in 2005 in response to cool summer temperatures, but the long-term impacts require further study. There have been large-scale losses of sagebrush habitat owing to changes in fire frequencies resulting from cheatgrass proliferation (Holloran in litt. 2007).|
Conservation Actions Underway
The species occurs within a number of protected areas and has been the focus of extensive ecological study. Management recommendations have been made to minimise the impacts of natural gas exploitation in sagebrush habitat (Holloran and Anderson 2005) and the Western Governor's Association are developing a strategy to minimise the impacts of development on sage grouse populations. A total of 63 Sage Grouse Local Working Groups have been established within its range, bringing stakeholders together to plan and implement local level conservation actions. Conservation Actions Proposed
Adopt best practice methods when developing gas fields. Continue to monitor population trends. Manage the sage-brush ecosystem in a way that is beneficial to other habitat specialists and restores natural food-webs.
Braun, C. E. 1998. Sage Grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 67: 139-156.
del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. 1994. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 2: New World Vultures to Guineafowl. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
Holloran, M.; Anderson, S. H. 2005. Greater Sage-grouse response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. Grouse News: 17-20.
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2012.1). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 19 June 2012).
Mezquida, E. T.; Slater, S. J.; Benkman, C. W. 2006. Sage-grouse and indirect interactions: potential implications of coyote control on Sage-grouse populations. Condor 108(4): 747-759.
Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H.; Blancher, P.J.; Bradstreet, M.S.W.; Butcher, G.S.; Demarest, D.W.; Dunn, E.H.; Hunter, W.C.; Inigo-Elias, E.E.; Martell, A.M.; Panjabi, A.O.; Pashley, D.N.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Rustay, C.M.; Wendt, J.S.; Will, T.C. 2004. Partners in flight: North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Schroeder, M. A.; Young, J. R.; Braun, C. E. 1999. Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus. In: Poole, A.; Gill, F. (ed.), The birds of North America No. 425, pp. 1-28. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and the American Ornithologists' Union, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.
|Citation:||BirdLife International 2012. Centrocercus urophasianus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 25 May 2013.|
|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|