Status Assessment and 

Conservation Plan for the 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum)

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

©Robert Royse 2006
Status Assessment 

and Conservation Plan 

for the 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum)

Version 1.0

2015

prepared by

Janet M. Ruth

U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center

USGS Arid Lands Field Station

UNM Biology Department

MSC03 2020, 1 University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001

janet_ruth@usgs.gov

Recommended Citation

Ruth, J.M. 2015. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Grasshopper 

Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lakewood, Colorado. 109 pp.

Cover photo provided by Robert Royse
Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Migratory Bird Program, 

Region 6. Thanks to T. Lickfett (USFWS) for his assistance in creating the range map (Figure 1) from 

BirdLife International and NatureServe data; to B.W. Smith (USFWS), R. Doster (USFWS), R. Russell 

(USFWS), A. Forbes (USFWS), P. Vickery (Center for Ecological Research), and J. Herkert (Illinois 

DNR) for reviews of previous versions of this document. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for

descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

I. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................4

II. Systematics ...............................................................................................................................................4

III. Legal Status..............................................................................................................................................5

A. Global....................................................................................................................................................5

B. Canada (national and regional).............................................................................................................5

C. United States (national, regional, and state level) ...............................................................................6

D. Mexico, Caribbean, Central and South America...................................................................................6

IV. Range and Distribution ............................................................................................................................6

A. Breeding (Canada, United States, and Mexico)...................................................................................6

B. Migration ............................................................................................................................................13

C. Wintering (United States, Mexico, Caribbean, Central and South America)......................................13

V. Status, Population Estimates, and Trends..............................................................................................14

A. Conservation Status............................................................................................................................14

B. Population Estimates..........................................................................................................................17

C. Population Trends...............................................................................................................................17

D. Population Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................20

VI. Habitat and Landscape Requirements Overview ..................................................................................22

A. Breeding..............................................................................................................................................22

B. Migration ............................................................................................................................................28

C. Wintering ............................................................................................................................................29

VII. Known or Suspected Limiting Factors and Threats ..............................................................................30

A. Habitat Loss/Degradation...................................................................................................................30

B. Grazing ...............................................................................................................................................31

C. Fire .....................................................................................................................................................35

D. Mowing..............................................................................................................................................38

E. Shrub/Woody Vegetation Encroachment..........................................................................................41

F. Non-native grasses/forbs...................................................................................................................42

G. Predation/Nest Parasitism.................................................................................................................43

H. Precipitation/Drought........................................................................................................................44

I. Climate Change ...................................................................................................................................45
J. Energy Development (Renewable and Nonrenewable) .....................................................................47

K. Suburban/Exurban Development ......................................................................................................49

L. Habitat Fragmentation (Patch Size/Area Sensitivity/Edge Effects)....................................................50

M. Pesticides..........................................................................................................................................51

N. Agriculture – Crops............................................................................................................................52

VIII. Management Programs and Impacts ..................................................................................................53

A. Conservation Reserve Program .........................................................................................................53

B. Other Grassland Conservation Programs ..........................................................................................56

C. Surface mine and mountaintop mine reclamation............................................................................57

D. Managing Military Installations.........................................................................................................58

E. Habitat Restoration............................................................................................................................59

IX. Recent/Ongoing Conservation Actions..................................................................................................59

A. Monitoring .........................................................................................................................................59

B. Research..............................................................................................................................................60

C. Habitat Planning and Delivery............................................................................................................61

D. Education/Outreach/Management Guidelines.................................................................................62

X. Conservation Plan ...................................................................................................................................63

A. Conservation Action Items..................................................................................................................63

B. Other Species that will benefit ...........................................................................................................65

C. Closing.................................................................................................................................................65

XI. Literature Cited......................................................................................................................................66

Appendix A................................................................................................................................................................91

Appendix B..............................................................................................................................................................104
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 1

Executive Summary

The Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) breeds in grassland habitats throughout much of 

the U.S., southern and southeastern Canada, and northern Mexico. Additional subspecies are resident in 

Central America, northern South America, and the Caribbean. It winters primarily in the coastal states of 

the southeastern U.S., southern portions of the southwestern states, and in Mexico, Central America, and 

the Caribbean. The species prefers relatively open grassland with intermediate grass height and density

and patchy bare ground; because it is widely distributed across different grassland types in North 

America, it selects different vegetation structure and species composition depending on what is available. 

In the winter, they use a broader range of grassland habitats including open grasslands, as well as weedy 

fields and grasslands with woody vegetation. Analyses show significant range-wide population declines 

from the late 1960s through the present, primarily caused by habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. 

Grasshopper Sparrow is still a relatively common and broadly distributed species, but because of 

significant population declines and stakeholder concerns, the species is considered of conservation 

concern nationally and at the state level for numerous states. Many factors, often related to different 

grassland management practices (e.g., grazing, burning, mowing, management of shrub encroachment, 

etc.) throughout the species’ range, have impacts on Grasshopper Sparrow distribution, abundance, and 

reproduction and may represent limiting factors or threats given steep declines in this species’ population.

Because of the concerns for this species, Grasshopper Sparrow has been identified as a focal species by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and this Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for 

Grasshopper Sparrow has been developed. Through literature searches and input from stakeholders 

across its range, this plan presents information about Grasshopper Sparrow population status, distribution, 

habitat needs, threats and limiting factors; synthesis of these resources has identified recommended action 

items addressing population status and trends, habitat conservation, management, research, inventory and 

monitoring, and education and outreach components that will facilitate Grasshopper Sparrow 

conservation across its full annual cycle. Goals and objectives are summarized here (see Appendix A for 

full presentation of goals, objectives, and prioritized action items).

Goal 1: Determine the population status and distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow to inform conservation 

planning. 

Objective 1.1 - Determine status and distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow populations based on 

existing data and professional opinion, and identify priority areas for conservation action

Objective 1.2 - Improve our knowledge of status and distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow

Goal 2: Protect, restore, maintain, and manage grassland habitats that are needed to sustain a stable or 

increasing Grasshopper Sparrow population across its breeding range

Objective 2.1 - Maintain and improve current grassland conservation programs to benefit 

Grasshopper Sparrows (and other grassland birds)

Objective 2.2 - Identify high priority grassland areas for protection and restoration to benefit 

Grasshopper Sparrows, using information from Population Status and Distribution (Goal 1) and 

Inventory and Monitoring (Goal 5) sections
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 2

Objective 2.3 - Implement general grassland habitat conservation and protection concepts that 

benefit a suite of grassland birds, including Grasshopper Sparrows

Goal 3: Implement management of grassland habitats to benefit Grasshopper Sparrow

Objective 3.1 - Implement general management practices that benefit a suite of grassland birds, 

including Grasshopper Sparrow

Objective 3.2 - Implement specific management practices that are known to benefit Grasshopper 

Sparrows and a suite of other grassland birds

Goal 4: Conduct research necessary to inform conservation planning, actions, and development of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) to benefit Grasshopper Sparrow

Objective 4.1 - Conduct research on Grasshopper Sparrow population abundance, distribution, 

and population trend

Objective 4.2 - Conduct research on Grasshopper Sparrow demographics and ecology, ideally 

studied concurrently with other priority grassland birds

Objective 4.3 - Conduct research on management-related questions related to Grasshopper 

Sparrow

Goal 5: Conduct inventory and monitoring activities to inform Grasshopper Sparrow conservation 

planning and activities

Objective 5.1 - Conduct inventory and monitoring activities on Grasshopper Sparrow grassland 

habitat

Objective 5.2 - Conduct inventory and monitoring activities on Grasshopper Sparrow distribution, 

population trend, and habitat use

Goal 6: Develop and produce education and outreach materials, activities and programs that facilitate the 

conservation of Grasshopper Sparrow

Objective 6.1- Produce BMPs documents on pertinent subjects for target management audiences; 

see Management (Goal 3) and Research (Goal 4) sections above

Objective 6.2 - Produce other activities, programs, and materials that will facilitate conservation 

of Grasshopper Sparrows and their grassland habitat by managers and policy-makers

Objective 6.3 - Produce activities, programs and materials that increase awareness of Grasshopper 

Sparrow and their grassland habitats

Goal 7: Evaluate whether the scale of actions recommended match, or will produce impacts at the scale 

necessary to achieve the stated population objectives for Grasshopper Sparrow

Objective 7.1 - Develop models and/or decision support tools that will allow conservation 

planners to determine the population-level impacts of various recommended actions in this plan 

and how much of these actions at what scales are required to achieve population objectives.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 3

Developing prescriptive, geographically-based Grasshopper Sparrow conservation action plans through 

collaborative partnerships is necessary to implement the conservation action items recommended in this 

plan. Implementing effective conservation measures will require the collaboration of a coalition of local, 

regional, national, and international partners to achieve conservation for Grasshopper Sparrow across its 

full annual cycle and to integrate actions into plans for the conservation of grassland landscapes and suites 

of grassland bird species of conservation concern.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 4

I. Introduction

The Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) has been identified as a focal species by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through its “Focal Species Strategy for Migratory Birds”. The 

strategy was initiated to provide explicit, strategic, and adaptive sets of conservation actions required to 

return or maintain species of concern at healthy and sustainable levels. As part of the strategy, the 

USFWS identified 55 species that are to receive increased attention over the short-term. Included on this 

list was the Grasshopper Sparrow, whose population has shown long-term declines and is negatively 

affected by grassland habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. The need for a continent-wide 

conservation strategy for Grasshopper Sparrow has been recognized (Wells and Rosenberg 1999), and 

USFWS has recently chosen it for development of a comprehensive action plan in cooperation with 

conservation partners and stakeholders. For more information on the Focal Species Strategy, visit 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/currentbirdissues/management/FocalSpecies.html.

The Status Assessment and Conservation Plan (the Plan) for Grasshopper Sparrow was developed to 

facilitate collaborative efforts toward the long-term conservation of the species. The first step in 

developing a comprehensive Plan was to conduct an extensive literature search for publications that 

provide additional, new information about this species following the publication of the Birds of North 

America account (Vickery 1996). Requests also were sent out through various conservation networks 

such as Partners in Flight, asking for information about status of, and projects and publications about,

Grasshopper Sparrow across its range. The partners who provided input for the Plan are committed to 

taking steps to ensure the long-term viability of the species. The Plan builds on previous reports that 

have summarized the status, threats, and conservation needs of the Grasshopper Sparrow, including: (1) 

The Birds of North America Grasshopper Sparrow Species Account (Vickery 1996); (2) the South Florida 

Multi-species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999); (3) Partners in Flight (PIF) continental, regional, state and 

physiographic area plans; and (4) State Wildlife Action Plans. All data presented in the Plan were the 

most current data available as of December 2014.

II. Systematics 

This section summarizes information about the range-wide taxonomy of Grasshopper Sparrow, although 

the Plan focuses primarily on those subspecies found in the U.S. or its territories at some point during 

their annual cycle. NOTE: In some cases conservation actions for these subspecies may be required 

outside the U.S. (e.g., during the nonbreeding season) in order to accomplish full life cycle conservation 

for the species. Unless otherwise cited, the information in this section is summarized from Vickery 

(1996) and more information about subspecies can be found there.

Twelve subspecies of Grasshopper Sparrow are recognized, although differentiation is weak for several of 

these subspecies, requiring further research. Four subspecies breed in North America:

(1) A.s. pratensis breeds from southeastern Canada and the northeastern and midwestern U.S. south into 

some parts of the southeastern U.S. It winters from the southeastern U.S. south into the Caribbean, 

Mexico and Central America.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 5

(2) A.s. perpallidus breeds from the northwestern U.S., prairie Canada, and irregularly into the 

midwestern U.S., where it overlaps with A.s. pratensis, south into southwestern California, and south 

throughout the Great Plains as far as eastern New Mexico, the panhandle of Texas, and the lower Gulf 

Coast (Mehlman 1995; Vickery 1996; Kingery 1998; New Mexico Ornithological Society 2007; Benson 

and Arnold 2001). It winters primarily from the southern parts of the southern tier of U.S. states, south 

into Mexico and northern Central America. 

(3) A.s. ammolegus breeds from southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico south to northern 

Sonora, Mexico (Vickery 1996). Its winter range is poorly known, but it winters from southern Arizona 

and New Mexico south into Mexico and Central America. It is considered a partial migrant, and at least 

some birds remain year-round on their breeding grounds in southeastern Arizona (J. Ruth, unpubl. data). 

(4) A.s. floridanus is now restricted to prairies north and west of Lake Okeechobee to central Osceola 

County, Florida. It is thought to be sedentary but some winter movement is possible. 

A genetic analysis of five populations of Grasshopper Sparrow representing three of the subspecies (A.s. 

pratensis, floridanus, and ammolegus) used mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA to look at 

phylogeographic structure and genetic differentiation (Bulgin et al. 2003). They found low but significant 

differentiation between floridanus and all other populations combined, but no differences between the 

other two subspecies, and concluded that the three subspecies have only recently diverged from each 

other.

Four subspecies are resident from southern Mexico to northern Ecuador:

(5) A.s. bimaculatus from southern Mexico, Guatemala, and central Honduras to northwestern Costa Rica, 

and disjunctly in western and eastern Panama.

(6) A.s.cracens from Belize, eastern Guatemala, and Honduras south to northeastern Nicaragua; it is a 

possible breeder in the Yucatan, Mexico. 

(7) A.s. beatriceae is endemic to central Panama.

(8) A.s. caucae from Columbia and northern Ecuador.

Four subspecies are resident in the Caribbean:

(9) A.s. savannarum on Jamaica.

(10) A.s. borinquensis on Puerto Rico, a U.S. Territory.

(11) A.s. intricatus on Hispaniola.

(12) A.s. caribaeus on Curaçao and Bonaire islands.

III. Legal Status

A. Global - Grasshopper Sparrow has no global legal status.

B. Canada (national and regional) – Grasshopper Sparrow is covered by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, the Canadian equivalent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see below). Grasshopper 

Sparrow, pratensis subspecies (A.s. pratensis), is listed as a taxon of Special Concern by the Committee 

on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), since November 2013. A decision to list 

legally under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) has not yet been taken (Government of Canada 

2013).
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 6

C. United States (national, regional, and state level) - Grasshopper Sparrow is covered by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada,

and Mexico, as well as several other countries. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow subspecies (A.s. floridanus) 

is listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2009). Grasshopper Sparrow 

also is listed as a state threatened species in five states and a state endangered species in four states (Table 

1). 

D. Mexico, Caribbean, Central and South America - Grasshopper Sparrow is not listed under 

the Mexican NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, which lists species that are 

endangered, threatened, or under special protection in Mexico. No evidence was found for any national 

legal status for Grasshopper Sparrow in its range outside the U.S. and Canada.

IV. Range and Distribution

A. Breeding (Canada, United States, and Mexico)

Grasshopper Sparrow breeds locally in appropriate grassland habitats throughout the northeastern and 

mid-Atlantic U.S. and southeastern Canada, the central U.S. and southern Canada, and again locally in 

grasslands in the northwestern U.S., coastal California and the Central Valley, the southwestern U.S. and 

northern Mexico, and Florida (Fig. 1). This includes all or part of 48 U.S. states and 1 Territory, and 6 

Canadian provinces (Table 1). It also includes the state of Sonora, Mexico, and possibly Chihuahua. 

More details about range and distribution can be found in Vickery (1996).

Additional distributional information is provided here for regions where Grasshopper Sparrows are rare or 

of particular conservation concern (see section on Conservation Status). In the New England states and 

New York, a survey of grassland birds in 1140 sites across the region found that Grasshopper Sparrows 

occurred on <20% of sites and were most abundant in southern New England and most common in the 

Finger Lakes region (Shriver et al. 2005). In Quebec, Grasshopper Sparrow distribution is mostly 

restricted to the southern portion of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, in the Pontiac region west of the OttawaGatineau metro region (Jobin and Falardeau 2010; Savignac et al. 2011). In the southwestern U.S., A. s. 

ammolegus is found in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, with the main populations 

located in the San Rafael and Sonoita valleys in Arizona and the Animas Valley of New Mexico; remnant 

populations continue in the San Bernardino, Sulphur Springs, San Pedro, and Altar valleys of Arizona 

(Williams 2007; Ruth 2008). The subspecies also is found in northern Sonora, Mexico (Mills 1982; 

Strong 1988) and may breed in northwestern Chihuahua as well (Manzano-Fischer et al. 1999; J. Ruth, 

pers. observ.). In British Columbia, Grasshopper Sparrow is found primarily in the Okanagan and lower 

Similkameen valleys (Cannings 1995). In California, Grasshopper Sparrow is found along the coast and 

inland in central California; distribution includes the base of the southern Sierra Nevada, the foothills of 

the Central Valley and locally on the floor of the valley, and along the Pacific Coast with the exception of 

some areas in coastal southern California (Unitt 2008). In Florida, A.s. floridanus is found in the dry 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 7

Figure 1. Grasshopper Sparrow range map (BirdLife International [2014] and Nature Serve [2013]). 

It occurs where suitable habitat is found within the described range.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 8

Table 1. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Status and Trends. Summarized by Federal or State Official Species Status, U.S. State 

Wildlife Action Plan Status, Natural Heritage rankings, Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) trends for 1966 – 2012, and BBS trends for 2002 – 2012. For 

Official Species Status designations: Federal (US) U.S. Endangered Species Act, State (S) and Provincial (P) status: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; 

SC = Special Concern; RL = Red List (in British Columbia lists provincial threatened and endangered species). A single or double asterisk (*) in this 

column or the next indicates corresponding additional information in the comments column. For State Wildlife Action Plan status: SGCN = Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need; other state designations are spelled out; no = not designated on the state list of SGCN or equivalent. For the natural heritage 

rankings, G = global and S = state, where S5 = secure (common, widespread, abundant, and lacking major threats or long-term concerns), S4 = 

apparently secure (uncommon but not rare, but with some cause for long-term concern, usually having more than 100 occurrences and 10,000 

individuals), S3 = Vulnerable (rare; typically having 21 to 100 occurrences, or 3,000 to 10,000 individuals), S2 = Imperiled (typically having six to 

twenty occurrences, or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals), and S1 = Critically imperiled (typically having five or fewer occurrences, or 1,000 or fewer 

individuals). Natural Heritage rankings are only for breeding populations. For the BBS trends: n = number of survey routes on which the species was 

encountered during the long-term (1966 – 2012) interval. A † in this column indicates that the data have an important deficiency and therefore results 

may not be valid. The BBS trends are presented as yearly percentage change. Numbers in parentheses are credible intervals for the trend estimate; the 

values represent the 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles of the posterior distribution of trend estimates. Trends for which credible intervals do not include zero 

can be considered significant (bolded red for negative trend and bolded blue for positive trend) except where there are data deficiencies; n/a throughout = 

no data available or not applicable. Compiled by Janet M. Ruth.

Region

Official 

Species 

Status

U.S. State 

Wildlife Action 

Plan

Natural 

Heritage 

Ranking

BBS 

sample 

size (n)

BBS Trend 

(1966 – 2012)

BBS Trend 

(2002 – 2012) Comments

Rangewide G4

Canada 171 † -3.6% (-10.9, -0.7) 1.0% (-4.0, 7.3)

United States E (US)* 1967 -2.8% (-3.5, -2.3) -1.5% (-2.8, -0.1) * A.s. floridanus

Survey-wide 

(BBS) 2138 -2.9% (-3.9, -2.4) -1.5% (-2.8, -0.1)

UNITED 

STATES

Alabama no S3 33 -2.3% (-4.8, 0.0) -2.6% (-7.4, 2.5)

Arizona SGCN - Tier 1b* S3 n/a n/a n/a

* both A. s.

ammolegus and A. s.

perpallidus

Arkansas SGCN S3B 22 4.0% (0.8, 7.4) 7.1% (-1.9, 16.3)
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 9

Region

Official 

Species 

Status

U.S. State 

Wildlife Action 

Plan

Natural 

Heritage 

Ranking

BBS 

sample 

size (n)

BBS Trend 

(1966 – 2012)

BBS Trend 

(2002 – 2012) Comments

California Species of 

Special Concern S2 54 0.1% (-4.3, 3.2) 4.6% (-2.7, 12.6)

Colorado no S3S4B 57 -3.8% (-5.3, -2.3) -0.5% (-4.2, 3.4)

Connecticut E (S) SGCN S1B 5 † -34.5% (-100.0, -

9.7)

-30.6% (-100.0, 

182.0)

Delaware no S3B 14 1.5% (-0.5, 3.6) 1.3% (-4.3, 6.4)

Florida E 

(US;S)* SGCN** SNRN n/a n/a n/a

* A.s. floridanus; 

** A. s. floridanus 

and A.s. pratensis 

(non-breeding)

Georgia High Priority 

Species S4 37 -3.9% (-5.5, -2.2) -3.6% (-6.9, 0.2)

Idaho SGCN S2B 24 -2.5% (-4.9, -0.0) -4.1% (-12.0, 1.4)

Illinois SGCN S5 98 -6.6% (-7.8, -5.5) -8.5% (-11.5, -5.5)

Indiana no S4B 57 -6.5% (-7.8, -5.4) -5.6% (-9.0, -1.7)

Iowa SGCN S4B, 

S4N 38 -5.5% (-6.6, -4.3) -6.1% (-10.2, -3.0)

Kansas SGCN - Tier II S4B 64 -2.3% (-3.9, -1.0) -4.7% (-7.5, -1.9)

Kentucky SGCN S4B 53 -6.0% (-7.2, -4.8) -4.4% (-9.1, 0.6)

Louisiana

Species of 

Conservation 

Concern

S3N n/a n/a n/a

Maine E (S) SGCN - High 

Priority S1B n/a n/a n/a

Maryland SGCN S4B 65 -5.9% (-6.7, -5.1) -4.5% (-7.0, -1.6)

Massachusetts T (S) SGCN S3B n/a n/a n/a

Michigan SC (S) SGCN S3S4B 69 -4.8% (-6.3, -3.4) -2.6% (-6.7, 0.1)
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 10

Region

Official 

Species 

Status

U.S. State 

Wildlife Action 

Plan

Natural 

Heritage 

Ranking

BBS 

sample 

size (n)

BBS Trend 

(1966 – 2012)

BBS Trend 

(2002 – 2012) Comments

Minnesota SGCN SNRB 65 -7.3% (-8.7, -5.9) -9.2% (-13.4, -5.0)

Mississippi SGCN S3B, 

S3N 7 † -3.2% (-9.8, 3.2) -3.2% (-19.1, 14.2)

Missouri no S3S4B 62 -2.1% (-3.2, -1.0) -2.4% (-5.0, -0.5)

Montana no S3B 42 1.7% (-0.2, 3.5) 1.9% (-2.3, 6.0)

Nebraska no S4 49 -2.6% (-4.3, -1.1) -1.8% (-5.3, 1.6)

Nevada no SU 7 † 3.3% (-6.5, 22.6) 21.8% (-13.6, 

126.1)

New Hampshire T (S) SGCN S2B 5 † -3.6% (-12.4, 5.1) -4.8% (-34.2, 7.5)

New Jersey T (S)* SGCN S2B,S3N 27 -3.0% (-6.2, 0.1) -2.3% (-9.9, 6.3) * Breeding only

New Mexico E (S)* SGCN S3B, 

S3N 18 -1.5% (-5.8, 3.5) 5.0% (-9.1, 25.6) * A. s. ammolegus

New York SC (S) SGCN S3B 84 -8.4% (-9.8, -7.0) -9.0% (-14.5, -5.4)

North Carolina SGCN S3B, 

S1N 55 0.1% (-1.6, 1.8) 0.1% (-2.6, 3.0)

North Dakota *

Species of 

Conservation 

Priority - Level I

SNRB 47 -3.9% (-5.5, -2.1) -3.4% (-7.2, 0.9) * ND does not have 

a state T&E list

Ohio SGCN* S5 74 -6.6% (-7.7, -5.4) -5.4% (-9.6, -0.8)

* Designations may 

be different than in 

other states

Oklahoma no S4B 58 -0.4% (-1.8, 0.9) -1.0% (-4.0, 2.0)

Oregon Strategy Species S2B 20 -0.7% (-4.6, 3.2) -0.4% (-8.3, 9.7)

Pennsylvania no S4B 117 -5.8% (-6.6, -5.0) -5.9% (-8.0, -3.9)

Puerto Rico SGCN n/a n/a n/a

Rhode Island T (S) SGCN S1B, 

S1N n/a n/a n/a
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 11

Region

Official 

Species 

Status

U.S. State 

Wildlife Action 

Plan

Natural 

Heritage 

Ranking

BBS 

sample 

size (n)

BBS Trend 

(1966 – 2012)

BBS Trend 

(2002 – 2012) Comments

South Carolina

Highest Priority 

Conservation 

Species

SNRB, 

SNRN 23 -4.4% (-6.8, -2.1) -4.5% (-8.2, -0.8)

South Dakota no S4B 53 -1.6% (-2.6, -0.4) 2.6% (-1.3, 7.5)

Tennessee SGCN S4 33 -3.9% (-5.8, -2.1) -1.4% (-6.5, 3.7)

Texas Priority Species -

Low S3B 138 0.2% (-1.8, 1.7) -3.0% (-6.8, 0.9)

Utah SGCN - Tier II S2S3B 15 † 1.0% (-6.3, 8.5) 2.4% (-12.0, 19.9)

Vermont T (S) SGCN S2B n/a n/a n/a

Virginia SGCN - Tier IV S4 53 -2.7% (-3.6, -1.7) -2.7% (-5.4, -0.3)

Washington no S3B 33 1.8% (-0.3, 4.4) 2.1% (-3.2, 8.0)

West Virginia * SGCN S3B 35 -8.4% (-10.0, -7.0) -8.1% (-12.4, -3.1) * WV does not have 

state T&E legislation

Wisconsin SGCN S3B 76 -6.4% (-7.6, -5.1) -3.3% (-7.5, 1.5)

Wyoming SGCN - Tier II S4 65 0.6% (-1.9, 3.2) -2.8% (-8.5, 3.0)

CANADA

Alberta n/a S3S4 33 -0.6% (-3.1, 2.0) 0.1% (-3.6, 7.6)

British 

Columbia RL (P) n/a S1S2B n/a n/a n/a

Manitoba n/a S2B 30 -2.6% (-7.0, 1.5) -4.6% (-14.3, 5.9)

Ontario n/a S4B 64 -1.6% (-2.9, -0.5) -1.5% (-3.7, 1.0)

Quebec n/a S2B n/a n/a n/a

Saskatchewan n/a S4B 37 † -4.4% (-12.3, 0.3) 3.9 (-6.7, 18.2)
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 12

prairies in the south-central part of the state. As recently as 2010 there were three remaining populations 

at the Avon Park Air Force Range, the Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area, and the Kissimmee 

Prairie Preserve State Park (Tucker et al. 2010a, b). However, the population at Avon Park appears to 

have been extirpated in 2012 (Williams 2013). See section on Systematics for basic distribution 

information on resident subspecies found in the Caribbean, Central and South America.

The main source of distribution data for Grasshopper Sparrow in the U.S. and Canada is the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS; https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/). Additional sources include 

individual state Breeding Bird Atlas projects, and eBird (http://ebird.org). 

Although Breeding Bird Survey data are generally considered adequate for assessing Grasshopper 

Sparrow abundance (Rich et al. 2004; Dunn et al. 2005), in some areas BBS data may not provide an 

accurate assessment of relative abundance or distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow. For example, in the 

range of A.s. ammolegus in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, there are few BBS 

routes and the valleys that support the majority of this subspecies’ population (Ruth 2008) are not 

sampled. Also BBS routes run in June are too early as this subspecies breeds and is most detectable in 

July/August after monsoon rains start (J.Ruth, pers. observ.). Fig. 2 suggests an average of 0.05 – 3

Grasshopper Sparrows per BBS route (50 stops on a route) in this region. Ruth (2008) used BBS-style

Figure 2. Relative abundance of breeding Grasshopper Sparrows (average number of birds 

per BBS route) based on the 2006 – 2012 BBS data (Sauer et al. 2014).
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 13

roadside surveys through grasslands in this subspecies’ range during prime breeding season (July and 

August). Although there are reasons for caution in comparing these results with those from randomly 

located BBS routes conducted in June, over two years (2004 and 2005) averages ranged from 1.27 – 2.79 

singing males per stop (not per route) in the three valleys supporting the majority of the population – the 

San Rafael, Sonoita, and Animas valleys (Ruth 2008).

B. Migration

See Vickery (1996) for descriptions of Grasshopper Sparrow migration timing. Limited additional 

information exists about the distribution and movement patterns of Grasshopper Sparrows during 

migration. Some of the movement across the U.S. from spring – summer – fall can be seen on the 

animated map developed from eBird data using their Spatio-Temporal Exploratory Model (STEM). 

http://ebird.org/content/ebird/occurrence/grasshopper-sparrow/ (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). However, 

because Grasshopper Sparrows are very cryptic outside of the breeding season, this resource is limited in 

its ability to document migration patterns. 

C. Wintering (United States, Mexico, Caribbean, Central and South America)

During the nonbreeding season (winter), Grasshopper Sparrows are found primarily in the coastal states 

of the southeastern U.S., southern portions of the southwestern states, and in Mexico, Central America, 

and the Caribbean. The northern boundaries of the winter range are poorly understood but basically 

stretch from eastern North Carolina along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts through the southern half of Texas, 

and southern New Mexico, Arizona, and California. 

The relative abundance data from the Christmas Bird Count (CBC) (Fig. 3 and Table 2) may represent 

basic winter distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow in the U.S., but not the actual abundance. This cryptic 

species is poorly sampled by the CBC protocol and there is substantial annual variation in wintering 

grassland bird numbers. As a single example, a flush mist-netting project on wintering grassland birds on 

two sites in southeastern Arizona during the winters of 2011 – 2013 using a standard effort of 2 days/site 

with 3 7-ha plots flushed each day – has captured 0 – 59 Grasshopper Sparrows on one site and 9 – 17 on 

the other site (J. Ruth, unpubl. data). This suggests that in appropriate open grassland habitat, wintering 

Grasshopper Sparrows can be much more abundant than the CBC maps would suggest.

Similar distribution maps for Grasshopper Sparrows wintering in Mexico do not exist, but the Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) has been conducting winter grassland bird surveys on the Grassland 

Priority Conservation Areas (GPCAs) designated by the trinational Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation (CEC) in northern Mexico, western Texas, and southern New Mexico and Arizona since

2007 (Macías-Duarte et al. 2011b). In Mexico they have documented Grasshopper Sparrows wintering in 

the following GPCAs located primarily in the states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Durango: 

Cuchillas de la Zarca, Janos, Lagunas del Este, Malpais, Sonoita, El Tokio, Valles Centrales, and Valle 

Columbia (Macías-Duarte et al. 2011b).
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 14

Figure 3. Relative abundance of wintering Grasshopper Sparrows (birds/100 party hours) 

averaged over CBC survey years 1966 – 1989 (Sauer et al. 1996).

V. Status, Population Estimates, and Trends

A. Conservation Status 

This section provides information about the conservation status of Grasshopper Sparrow, beyond any 

legal status described above. See the following website for a map of Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) 

http://www.nabci-us.org/map.html .

Global – Grasshopper Sparrow is classified as “Least Concern” by the IUCN RedList (BirdLife 

International 2014). Although BirdLife International indicates large, statistically significant population 

decreases over the last 40 years (based on BBS data), the species does not meet thresholds for a 

Vulnerable classification based on range size, population trend, or population size. The species is 

classified globally as G5 (Secure) by NatureServe (NatureServe 2013). In Saving Our Shared Birds: 

Partners in Flight Tri-National Vision for Landbird Conservation, Grasshopper Sparrow is listed as a 

“Common Bird in Steep Decline” with an estimated 78% of population lost based on BBS trend since the 

mid-1960s (Berlanga et al. 2010).

Canada – National - Grasshopper Sparrow does not have a national-level conservation designation in 

Canada, but see the tri-national PIF status from Berlanga et al. (2010) discussed above.

Canada - Regional/Provincial - Grasshopper Sparrow is on the British Columbia provincial Red List 

which provides a list of species to be considered for more formal listing under the British Columbia 

Wildlife Act. It also is listed as likely to be designated as threatened or endangered in Quebec. 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 15

Table 2: Number of Grasshopper Sparrows recorded on Christmas Bird Counts from 2001 – 2011. Data presented as number of count circles where 

Grasshopper Sparrows were recorded (total number of individual birds; National Audubon Society [2010]).

Year

State 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Alabama 1(1) 3(3) 2(2) 1(3) 2(4) 3(6) 1(3) 2(4) 2(3) 1(2)

Arizona 5(13) 5(40) 2(10) 2(49) 5(10) 9(39) 6(37) 4(12) 6(29) 11(48)

Arkansas 1(6) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 2(4) 0(0) 1(2) 0(0) 1(1) 1(1)

California 7(13) 5(7) 3(9) 2(2) 3(6) 7(14) 9(9) 2(3) 6(11) 6(9)

Florida 24(105) 28(69) 25(77) 27(119) 20(106) 27(118) 24(129) 36(184) 26(156) 34(150)

Georgia 2(2) 2(4) 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 0(0) 2(3) 2(4) 1(1) 0(0)

Louisiana 2(2) 4(5) 2(2) 0(0) 1(1) 4(3) 0(0) 1(1) 2(3) 1(1)

Mississippi 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 1(3) 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 2(5) 2(2) 0(0)

New Mexico 1(10) 1(1) 0(0) 1(27) 2(24) 1(30) 1(16) 2(1) 3(3) 2(3)

North Carolina 2(8) 3(3) 2(2) 2(2) 4(3) 2(2) 0(0) 3(4) 1(1) 0(0)

Oklahoma 1(1) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 2(3) 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 0(0) 1(2)

South Carolina 0(0) 1(2) 3(3) 3(20) 2(11) 2(4) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)

Texas 33(155) 32(197) 32(181) 34(142) 25(184) 32(147) 28(214) 28(98) 37(493) 41(573)

MEXICO 3(24) 2(24) 6(48) 4(60) 5(46) 1(62) 1(10) 3(15) 2(28) 7(23)

Totals 82(340) 87(356) 78(335) 78(428) 74(403) 89(426) 77(427) 88(334) 91(733) 107(814)
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 16

Grasshopper Sparrow is a priority species in the Canadian portions of BCR 9 (Great Basin), BCR 11 

(Prairie Potholes), and BCR 13 – Quebec and Ontario (Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain)

(Environment Canada 2013a, b, c; Environment Canada 2014). 

United States - National – In the U.S., the primary sources of information about the conservation status of 

the Grasshopper Sparrow are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Partners in Flight (PIF). 

The Grasshopper Sparrow is not classified by the USFWS as a “Bird of Conservation Concern” at the 

national, range-wide level (USFWS 2008a) although it has identified it as a focal species in its “Focal 

Species Strategy for Migratory Birds”. The PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan lists 

Grasshopper Sparrow as a “Stewardship Species”, with a large proportion of its population in a single 

biome (Prairie Biome) and in need of Management Action (Rich et al. 2004). The U.S. 2014 State of the 

Birds Report identified Grasshopper Sparrow as a Common Bird in Steep Decline (NABCI U.S. 2014).

United States – Regional – The Grasshopper Sparrow is classified by USFWS as a “Bird of Conservation

Concern” in USFWS Region 6, and the Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow subspecies (A.s. ammolegus) is 

classified as a “Bird of Conservation Concern” in USFWS Region 2 (USFWS 2008a). The species also is 

classified by USFWS as a breeding “Bird of Conservation Concern” in the following Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCRs): Prairie Potholes BCR #11, Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau BCR #16, Badlands and 

Prairies BCR #17, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie BCR #22, Peninsular Florida BCR #31, and Gulf Coastal 

Prairie BCR #37. In addition, the USFWS classifies the Grasshopper Sparrow species (nonbreeding) and 

the Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow subspecies as a “Bird of Conservation Concern” for Sierra Madre 

Occidental BCR #34 (USFWS 2008a). 

In addition, based on the updated Partners in Flight species assessment database (PIF Science Committee 

2012; http://rmbo.org/pifassessment), the Grasshopper Sparrow is classified as a regional conservation 

priority in 11 BCRs (Table 3). These 11 BCRs support over 90% of the breeding population of 

Grasshopper Sparrow. PIF State and regional plans can be viewed at 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/pifplans.htm . One of the primary delivery systems for landbird 

conservation in the U.S. and Canada is the migratory bird habitat Joint Ventures (JV). Information about 

Joint Ventures can be viewed at http://mbjv.org/. Grasshopper Sparrow is designated as a priority species 

many Joint Ventures (JVs); JVs have used a variety of terms for priority species and it is beyond the 

scope of this document to provide separate definitions: Prairie Potholes JV (focal species); Canadian 

Prairie Habitat JV (priority species); Central Hardwoods JV (regional priority species); Intermountain 

West JV (priority species); Oaks and Prairies JV (priority species); Playa Lakes JV (priority species); 

Rainwater Basin JV (priority species); Rio Grande JV (priority stewardship species); Sonoran JV 

(regional priority species, especially A.s. ammolegus); East Gulf Coastal Plain JV (priority species); 

Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes JV (focal species); Appalachian Mountains JV (moderate priority); 

and Atlantic Coast JV (priority species in some regions within the JV). 

United States – State/Territory - Grasshopper Sparrow is listed as endangered in 4 states, threatened in 5 

states, and of special concern in 2 states (Table 1). Also, Grasshopper Sparrow is included as a “Species 

of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)” (or similar category) in 36 state (and Puerto Rico) wildlife 

action plans (Table 1). Links to state wildlife action plans can be found at http://teaming.com/statewildlife-action-plans-swaps .
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 17

Mexico, Central America, Caribbean - Grasshopper Sparrow does not have a national-level conservation 

designation in Mexico, but see the tri-national PIF status from Berlanga et al. (2010) discussed above. No 

evidence was found of any conservation status for Grasshopper Sparrow in Central America or the 

Caribbean, but see reference to Puerto Rico’s wildlife action plan as a U.S. Territory above. 

B. Population Estimates 

In 2004, the PIF North America Landbird Conservation Plan estimated a global population of 15,000,000 

Grasshopper Sparrows with an accuracy rating of 4 (moderate) and estimated precision of “A (very high)”

(Rich et al. 2004). The methodology for these initial PIF landbird population estimates are described in 

Rosenberg and Blancher (2005), and several evaluations, field tests, and tests of assumptions (Thogmartin 

et al. 2006; Confer et al. 2008; Hamel et al. 2009; Thogmartin 2010) have been conducted since the initial 

results were published in Rich et al. (2004). In response to reviews and publications, PIF has revised the 

population estimation methodology; (1) detection distance categories assigned to species have been 

revised using additional data and more refined distance categories, (2) instead of using a standard pair 

adjustment of 2X, species are now assigned to one of five different categories between 1.0 and 2.0, and 

(3) time-of-day adjustments have been revised in response to suggestions in Thogmartin et al. (2006). In 

the case of Grasshopper Sparrow, the primary revision was a reduction of detection distance from 200 m 

to 125 m, thereby revising the global population estimate for Grasshopper Sparrow to 31,000,000 (PIF 

Science Committee 2012). 

There is a Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands report on avian conservation planning priorities nearing 

completion, which may provide additional information regarding the conservation of the borinquensis

subspecies in Puerto Rico (Nytch et al. In Review); the draft estimates <500 pairs of Grasshopper 

Sparrows on the island. 

C. Population Trends 

The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is the primary source of data used to estimate 

population change for many migratory birds, including Grasshopper Sparrow (Sauer et al. 2014). Tables 1

and 3 present long-term and short-term population trends for Grasshopper Sparrow by BCR, state, and 

survey-wide. The range-wide and national trend data, as well as the trend scores for the BCRs that 

support the majority of the Grasshopper Sparrow population in the U.S. and Canada, received a blue 

credibility score, which indicates sufficient sample size, precision and abundance to calculate trends 

(Sauer et al. 2014). The BBS is considered sufficient for calculating Grasshopper Sparrow population 

trends by Dunn et al. (2005). Trends and indices in Tables 1 and 3 were estimated using hierarchical 

model methods described in Sauer and Link (2011). Survey-wide, over the long-term (1966 – 2012) 

Grasshopper Sparrows show a declining population trend of -2.9% per year (Table 1; Sauer et al. 2014). 

Berlanga et al. (2010) estimates that 78% of the Grasshopper Sparrow population has been lost since the 

mid-1960s based on BBS trends. The steepest declines occurred prior to and through the 1990s (Fig. 4); 

in the recent short-term (2002 – 2012) the trend is a decline of -1.5% per year (Fig. 4; Table 1; Sauer et al. 

2014). The BCRs that show significant population declines (Table 3) are consistent with the BCRs that 

classify Grasshopper Sparrow as a PIF Regional Conservation Priority (Table 3). The BCRs with 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 18

significant long-term declines represent >92% of the breeding population in the U.S. and Canada. Most 

other BCRs show non-significant negative population trends.

Figure 4. Annual range-wide indices of Grasshopper Sparrow relative abundance (mean 

birds/route) from Breeding Bird Survey calculated using hierarchical modeling methods, 1966 – 2012 

(Sauer et al. 2014). Open circles show annual indices of relative abundance; lines above and below 

represent credible intervals (2.5% and 97.5%).
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 19

Table 3. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Status and Trends by Bird Conservation Region (http://www.nabci-us.org/map.html). 

Summarized by Partners in Flight (PIF) Regional Conservation Priority, Percent Breeding Population, Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) trends for 1966 –

2012, and BBS trends for 2002 – 2012. The PIF regional conservation priorities and percent population data were extracted from the PIF Species 

Assessment database (PIF Science Committee 2012). For the BBS trends: n = number of survey routes on which the species was encountered during the 

long-term (1966 – 2012) interval. A † in this column indicates that the data have an important deficiency and therefore results may not be valid. The BBS 

trends are presented as yearly percentage change. Numbers in parentheses are credible intervals for the trend estimate; the values represent the 2.5% and 

97.5% percentiles of the posterior distribution of trend estimates. Trends for which credible intervals do not include zero can be considered significant 

(bolded red for negative trend and bolded blue for positive trend) except where there are data deficiencies; n/a throughout = no data available or not 

applicable. Compiled by Janet M. Ruth.

Bird Conservation Region (BCR) BCR 

number

PIF Regional 

Conservation 

Priority

Percent 

Breeding 

Population

BBS 

sample 

size (n)

BBS Trend 

(1966 – 2012)

BBS Trend 

(2002 – 2012)

Central Mixed Grass Prairie 19 X 22 108 -1.7% (-2.5, -0.9) -2.7% (-4.9, -0.6)

Badlands and Prairies 17 X 17 99 -2.1% (-3.5, -0.8) 1.2% (-2.1, 4.8)

Shortgrass Prairie 18 X 17 111 -3.3% (-4.8, -1.9) -3.4% (-6.6, -0.4)

Prairie Potholes 11 X 16 187 -2.2% (-3.1, -1.2) -0.6% (-3.2, 2.1)

Eastern Tallgrass Prairie 22 X 11 249 -4.1% (-4.8, -3.4) -5.0% (-7.0, -3.3)

Central Hardwoods 24 X 3 129 -4.0% (-4.8, -3.2) -1.8% (-4.0, 0.4)

Piedmont 29 X 2 135 -3.1% (-3.9, -2.4) -2.4% (-4.5, -0.5)

Appalachian Mountains 28 X 1 268 -5.8% (-6.5, -5.0) -4.9% (-6.5, -2.7)

Prairie Hardwood Transition 23 X 1 116 -6.8% (-7.9, -5.7) -6.3% (-9.8, -2.6)

Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence 13 ≤ 0.5 127 -3.6% (-4.7, -2.5) -2.6% (-5.0, -0.3)

New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast 30 X ≤ 0.5 80 -3.8% (-4.7, -2.8) -2.4% (-5.3, 0.9)

Boreal Hardwood Transition 12 1 90 -2.1% (-4.3, -0.5) -5.4% (-10.9, -1.3)

Great Basin 9 1 88 -0.6% (-2.7, 1.1) -0.4% (-4.6, 3.9)

Southeast Coastal Plain 27 ≤ 0.5 62 -1.4% (-3.3, 0.4) -0.6% (-4.0, 2.8)

Oaks and Prairies 21 1 61 -0.7% (-2.2, 0.9) -2.8% (-7.2, 1.7)

Northern Rockies 10 1 50 -4.5% (-7.1, -1.4) -3.1% (-10.3, 7.9)

Coastal California 32 ≤ 0.5 30 1.3% (-2.5, 5.8) 2.8% (-7.0, 13.9)

West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachitas 25 ≤ 0.5 19 3.1% (-1.6, 8.1) 3.3% (-10.4, 11.2)

Mississippi Alluvial Valley 26 ≤ 0.5 16 -1.0% (-4.7, 2.9) -1.5% (-9.8, 4.8)

Edwards Plateau 20 ≤ 0.5 15 † -5.8% (-11.0, -1.0) -16.8% (-32.0, -2.5)

Peninsular Florida 31 X n/a n/a n/a n/a

Sierra Madre Occidental 34 ≤ 0.5 n/a n/a n/a
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 20

Figure 5 shows patterns in Grasshopper Sparrow population trends across the 1966 – 2012 interval using 

standard route regression methods (Link and Sauer 1994). For the most part, the core range of the 

subspecies of Grasshopper Sparrows that are sufficiently surveyed by BBS show declines. In contrast, 

the regions showing increases are in the periphery of their range and the analyses results in Table 3 do not 

show any BCRs with significant long-term positive population trends. 

Figure 5. Geographic patterns in population change for Grasshopper Sparrow from 1966 – 2012

based on point estimates of trend using BBS data. Warm colors (red and orange) indicate population 

declines, and cool colors (blues) indicate population increases (Link and Sauer 1994; Sauer et al. 2014).

D. Population Goals and Objectives 

Although many bird conservation plans (e.g., for Joint Ventures, Bird Conservation Regions) are 

beginning to establish population objectives for priority species, most of these are necessarily general due 

to limited data and the uncertainty associated with available population estimates. For example, below 

are Grasshopper Sparrow population objectives from some plans for which it is a priority. Please note 

that methodologies and interpretations vary among planning efforts.

• Continental population objective – maintain current population - PIF North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004).

• Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (U.S. portion of BCR 11) – maintain current population and 

increase where possible (Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 2005)
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 21

• Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (Canadian portion of BCR 11) – increase 1990 – 2000 average 

relative abundance by 100% over next 30 years (Canadian Prairie Partners in Flight 2004).

• Playa Lakes Joint Venture (BCRs 18 and 19) – in the Shortgrass Prairie BCR portion of the JV 

(BCR 18) Grasshopper Sparrow is one of the species driving plans and they target doubling 

current population; in the Central Mixed Grass Prairie portion (BCR 19), other species are driving 

plans, but they do recommend management, especially increasing Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) acreage, to benefit Grasshopper Sparrows and increase populations (Playa Lakes Joint 

Venture 2008)

• Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (BCRs 13, 14, 27, 29, 30, and 31) – Some BCR level objectives 

have been identified; double current populations in the U.S. portion of Lower Great Lakes/St. 

Lawrence (BCR 13) and in New England/Mid-Atlantic (BCR 30) (Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 

website http://acjv.org/planning/bird-conservation-regions/).

• Sonoran Joint Venture (BCRs 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 43) – in the desert grasslands of the Sierra 

Madre Occidental (BCR 34) the 30-year objective is to double the population of the Arizona 

Grasshopper Sparrow subspecies. In the chaparral shrublands of Coastal California (BCR 32) the 

30-year objective is to double the species’ population (Sonoran Joint Venture Technical 

Committee 2006).

• Rainwater Basin Joint Venture (BCR 19) – based on BBS trend data and estimates of current 

carrying capacity, their 20-year population goal for Grasshopper Sparrow is 6,018,052 birds 

(Rainwater Basin Joint Venture 2013).

• Intermountain West Joint Venture (primarily BCRs 9, 10, 16, with small portions of 34, 35) - in 

the grasslands within the IWJV boundaries, Grasshopper Sparrow is a focal species. The IWJV 

has gone through an objective-setting process by State-BCR polygon, and after compiling these, 

has the following objectives by BCR – increase Grasshopper Sparrow populations by 90% (BCR 

9), 100% (BCR 10), and 40% (BCR 16) (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2013). 

• Although Grasshopper Sparrow is a priority grassland species for the Central Hardwood Joint 

Venture (BCR 24), they have not yet established population objectives, as they are analyzing the 

results of their grassland bird monitoring project (Central Hardwoods Joint Venture website 

http://www.chjv.org/index.html) 

• The Northern Great Plains Joint Venture (BCR 17) is a relatively new Joint Venture in the core of 

the Grasshopper Sparrow’s range; it has not yet established any population objectives.

• There is a Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands report on avian conservation planning priorities 

nearing completion, which may provide additional information regarding the conservation of 

the borinquensis subspecies in Puerto Rico (Nytch et al. In Review); the draft objective is to 

maintain the current population of A.s. borinquensis. 

Given the recent revisions in the PIF estimate of Grasshopper Sparrow population (PIF Science 

Committee 2012), it would be premature to recommend anything other than retention of the existing PIF 

range-wide population objective of maintaining the current population (Rich et al. 2004). Results from 

Objectives and Action Items in Appendix A will enable the updating of population objectives in the 

future, if necessary. The approach promoted in the Henslow’s Sparrow Conservation Plan (Cooper 2012) 

is relevant to the Grasshopper Sparrow plan as well; they acknowledged that separate geographic 

population objectives might be warranted but argued that the role of a range-wide plan was to establish a 

range-wide population objective and that the partners in such a conservation effort should then establish 

relevant regional population objectives (e.g., for states, BCRs, Joint Ventures, and/or subspecies).
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 22

VI. Habitat and Landscape Requirements Overview 

A. Breeding

Grasshopper Sparrows generally prefer relatively open grassland with patchy bare ground. Because this 

species is widely distributed across grassland habitats in North America, it selects different vegetation 

structure and species composition depending on what is available in the particular grassland habitats. In 

the more mesic grasslands of the East and Midwest (e.g., tallgrass and mixed grass prairie), Grasshopper 

Sparrow is found in sparser grassland vegetation, whereas in the arid grasslands of the West and 

Southwest (e.g., shortgrass and semidesert grasslands), it is found in more lush vegetation. Breeding 

Grasshopper Sparrows are found in native grasslands, as well as CRP fields, and tame or planted 

grasslands including pastures, hay fields, airports, and reclaimed surface mines and landfills. They can 

occasionally be found in croplands such as corn and oats, but at much lower densities than in grassland 

habitats. They generally avoid grasslands with high shrub cover, although this varies somewhat across its 

range (Vickery 1996; Dechant et al. 1998). 

In the western two-thirds of Canada and the U.S., the distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow as shown by 

BBS data (Fig. 2) is remarkably similar to the distribution of grassland habitats in North America (Fig. 6). 

Eastern grasslands, due to their sparse, patchy distribution, have been poorly mapped; see Figure 7 below 

for one of the few available depictions of eastern grassland distribution. Because of the broad distribution 

of Grasshopper Sparrow across multiple grassland habitat types, basic summaries of the history and 

driving forces (Askins et al. 2007) and general Grasshopper Sparrow habitat preferences in each grassland 

type are provided below. These summaries focus especially on more recent information that was not 

available in Vickery (1996) and Dechant et al. (1998). 

Mixed-grass – Mixed-grass prairie occupies the central third of the Great Plains, bounded by tallgrass in 

the east, shortgrass to the west, aspen parkland to the north, and juniper-oak savanna to the south (this 

coincides approximately with Mid-grass Prairie in Fig. 6). It is characterized by seasonal moisture and 

temperature extremes, and annual precipitation increases from west to east, and from north to south. See 

the following website for a map showing 30-year average annual precipitation for the contiguous U.S. 

(http://prism.oregonstate.edu/normals). Mixed-grass prairie is often divided into northern mixed-grass 

prairie (Nebraska, South and North Dakota, and southern Canada), sandhill prairies (Nebraska and 

Kansas), and southern mixed-grass prairie (Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas). In northern prairies, coolseason grasses become increasingly more dominant as you go further north, warm-season grasses 

dominate in sandhill prairies, and warm-season grasses increasingly dominate in southern prairies 

(Samson and Knopf 1996). Today, grasslands in the mixed-grass prairie province represent 29% of what 

was historically present (Samson et al. 2004). The primary ecological drivers are precipitation, grazing, 

and fire. Historical grazers included bison, pronghorn, elk, jackrabbits and cottontails, ground squirrels, 

and prairie dogs [see Appendix B for scientific names of all non-avian animal taxa and plants]. Habitat 

loss has been due to conversion to agriculture and more recently includes conversion to urban and 

suburban development; the return of perennial, but frequently non-native, vegetation under the CRP adds 

additional complications to the historical changes in this region. Changes in grassland quality/condition

and fragmentation from multiple sources (e.g., fire suppression, shrub invasion, intensive grazing, 

invasive plants, roads and energy infrastructure/extraction) are also threats (Samson and Knopf 1996; 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 23

Figure 6. Distribution of North American Grasslands (Brown and Makings 2014). 

Askins et al. 2007). Studies of Grasshopper Sparrow habitat use in mixed-grass prairie found that they 

preferred native grassland to fallow field or croplands, were negatively associated with shrub density, and 

responded to vertical and horizontal vegetative structure and density in somewhat different ways across 

the region depending on available habitat (Chapman et al. 2004; Davis 2004; DeJong et al. 2004; 

Ahlering 2005; Grant et al. 2010). Overall, Grasshopper Sparrows seem positively associated with 

intermediate grass height and density. They select nest sites with less bare ground and more vertical 

structure (Dieni and Jones 2003).

Shortgrass – The western shortgrass prairies stretch from the Rocky Mountains eastward to the mixedgrass prairies, and reach south from central Alberta to central Texas; they are characterized by short, 

warm-season grasses on shallow, poor soils (this coincides approximately with Short-grass Prairie in Fig. 

6). Climate varies strongly from north to south, with higher temperatures and more precipitation to the 

south. However increases in evaporation rates from north to south counteract these patterns, resulting in 

similar levels of water availability (Samson and Knopf 1996; Vickery et al. 2000). Today, the shortgrass 

prairies represent about 52% of what was historically present (Samson et al. 2004). Drought was the 

primary ecological driver in the shortgrass, secondarily maintained by grazing. The primary historical 

grazers were prairie dogs, bison, and elk; pronghorn which selectively forage on forbs also were present. 

The dominant native grasses require and benefit from intensive grazing, which prevents transformation 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 24

into shrub- or forb-dominated landscapes. Fire was not an important driver in this system, as shortgrass 

prairies do not provide adequate fuel to carry a fire. However, there is evidence that in some places fire 

may have excluded shrubs and trees from grasslands (Samson and Knopf 1996; Vickery et al. 2000; 

Askins et al. 2007). Extensive fragmentation of the landscape has occurred as a result of conversion to 

agricultural crops, especially cereal grains. Today public lands represent a large component of remaining 

shortgrass prairie (Askins et al. 2007); the primary land use is cattle grazing, which remains the principal 

tool available to maintain shortgrass prairie. Studies of Grasshopper Sparrow habitat use in shortgrass 

prairie are somewhat limited. They are found in native shortgrass prairie and fallow fields where they 

prefer taller grasses and some bare ground for foraging; they can tolerate some scattered shrubs but avoid 

areas where shrub cover becomes too high. They also use CRP lands, which are sometimes preferred 

over other available habitats and sometimes are the only suitable habitat in a given area (Sparks et al. 

2005; Fogg and Pavlacky 2012)

Tallgrass – Historically the tallgrass prairie extended from the central Great Plains to the Midwest, from 

southern Texas to southern Manitoba, and was characterized by taller grasses, deeper soils, and is the 

most mesic of the Great Plains grasslands (Samson and Knopf 1996; Vickery et al. 2000) (this coincides 

approximately with Tall-grass Prairie in Fig. 6). Disturbance was a major factor in maintaining tallgrass 

prairie communities; major ecological drivers were fire (both natural and human-caused), grazing, and 

drought. Historical grazers and browsers included bison, elk, deer, and many small vertebrates and 

invertebrates. Periodic droughts occurred, but less frequently than in mixed- or shortgrass prairie (Askins 

et al. 2007). Very little native tallgrass remains (historical loss has been estimated at 88 – 99%), in 

mostly scattered, relatively small remnants. The exceptions are the Flint Hills in eastern Kansas and 

northeastern Oklahoma, and large tracts on glacial moraines in northeast South Dakota (Samson and 

Knopf 1996). Loss has been primarily due to conversion to row-crop agriculture. Today non-native 

grasslands, including pastures and hayfields, represent the majority of grassland in the tallgrass region; 

they are primarily privately owned and their acreage also is declining sharply. New grassland resources 

have been created in the form of reclaimed surface mines and CRP grasslands; however, reclaimed and 

planted grassland frequently are not planted to native tallgrass species (see sections on Non-Native 

Grasses/Forbs and Conservation Reserve Program below). Other important factors affecting grassland 

birds in the tallgrass are patch size, woody edges and woody encroachment (Samson and Knopf 1996; 

Vickery et al. 2000; Askins et al. 2007). Studies of Grasshopper Sparrow habitat use in tallgrass prairies 

have found that they prefer mesic grasslands of intermediate height, diverse structure, and some bare 

ground; abundance is negatively correlated with litter depth and shrub cover. At the landscape scale they 

prefer larger core grassland areas and more surrounding grasslands at multiple scales (Patterson and Best 

1996; Swengel 1996; Sample and Mossman 1997; Swengel and Swengel 2001; Askins et al. 2007; 

Renfrew and Ribic 2008; Jacobs et al. 2012). 

Eastern Grasslands - Grasslands in eastern North America occur sporadically from Maine to Florida (see 

separate sub-section on Florida below) and west to coastal Texas (although more difficult to map than in 

the west, this coincides approximately with the grasslands mapped in Fig. 7, one of the few available 

maps). They range from poor, xeric soils in New England, to mountain balds in the Appalachians, to 

transitional grasslands emerging from tallgrass prairie and longleaf pine ecosystems, to coastal prairies in 

Texas. Prior to European settlement grasslands were uncommon, a result of natural disturbance from fire, 

wind, disease, beaver activity, flooding, and insect damage. They included scattered openings in river 

floodplains, wetlands, meadows, salt marshes, coastal sandplain grasslands, and heathlands. The extent 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 25

of grasslands in this region has varied drastically over the last 400 years. With European settlement, the 

expansion of lands cleared for pastures and hayfields provided habitat for many grassland birds including 

Grasshopper Sparrow. With more recent changes in agriculture technology, decreases in farming, fire 

suppression, reversion to forested habitat, and increased suburban/urban development in the Northeast, 

grasslands have again declined in quantity, size, and quality. Private agricultural lands represent the 

largest proportion and hayfields make up >50% of grassland habitat in the northeast. Federal, state, and 

municipal land, including military lands and airports, and reclaimed surface mines account for additional 

grassland habitats. Grassland habitat in this region is created and maintained primarily through mowing, 

livestock grazing, and in some parts of the northeast through prescribed burning (Jones and Vickery 1997; 

Vickery et al. 2000; Vickery et al. 2005; Askins et al. 2007). See Vickery and Dunwiddie (1997) and 

Norment (2002) for summaries of grassland conservation issues in the northeast. In the southeast, in 

addition to agricultural lands, some treeless grasslands are embedded within southern pine savanna habitat

as a result of dry conditions and annual fire (Askins et al. 2007). Noss (2012) argues that more grasslands 

exist in the southeast than usually recognized, including: longleaf pine ecosystems (sometimes defined as 

pyrogenic grasslands), the pine rocklands and marl prairie of Florida, Atlantic and Gulf coastal 

grasslands, prairies of the Piedmont, grassy balds in the southern Appalachians, riverscour prairies, 

barrens, limestone, shale and sandstone glades, shortleaf pine grasslands, and blackland prairies. A 

primary distinction between southeastern grasslands and those of the Midwest and West is the relatively 

wet climate, with annual rainfalls of 120 – 200 cm (48 – 80 inches) (Noss 2012). In a study aimed at 

identifying military installations that could make substantial contributions to grassland bird conservation 

in the eastern U.S., Giocomo and Buehler (2005) used National Land Cover Data to map the distribution 

of grassland habitats in this region (Fig. 7); given the limited mapping available for eastern grasslands, it 

is provided here as one presentation of grassland distribution in the region.

In northeastern North America, Grasshopper Sparrows use upland meadows or pastures, old fields, 

sandplain grassland, blueberry barrens, reclaimed surface mines and grasslands, coastal grassland barrens, 

airfields, and capped landfills (Jones and Vickery 1997; Mitchell et al. 2000). Studies of Grasshopper 

Sparrow habitat use in the Northeast found that they are associated with grasslands dominated by native 

bunchgrasses, less dense vegetation, patches of bare ground, and low shrub cover (Bollinger 1995; 

Vickery et al. 1997; Vickery et al. 1999a; Mitchell et al. 2000; Askins et al. 2007; Hodgman 2009; 

Wentworth et al. 2010). Bollinger (1995) found Grasshopper Sparrows were only detected in hayfields 

older than 10 years. More limited studies of habitat use in the southeast found that Grasshopper Sparrows 

use larger fields with shorter grass, less forbs, less litter, and less woody vegetation (Moss 2001; Giocomo 

et al. 2008; Hinnebusch 2008). 

Florida – Florida Grasshopper Sparrows are found in south-central Florida, in treeless, relatively flat, and 

moderately to poorly drained dry prairies and to a lesser extent in cutover longleaf pine savannah 

maintained in a treeless state by frequent fires (Tucker et al. 2010a). They occupy habitats ranging from 

thick, low saw palmetto scrub to grass pastures with a sparse or patchy cover of shrubs and saw palmetto 

(Delany et al. 2007). A recent project that modeled Florida Grasshopper Sparrow population responses to 

land cover changes defined optimal habitat as areas of prairie that had been burned within two years, had 

one or no trees, and was >400 m from forest edge (Breininger 2009). There is extensive literature 

available describing the breeding ecology and natural history of this listed sub-species; it is beyond the 

scope of this document.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 26

Figure 7. Proportion of county in 40-ha grassland patches in the eastern US. Darker green areas 

represent higher proportions. This figure is from a study of grassland bird conservation potential on 

Department of Defense installations (from Giocomo and Buehler 2005). 

Semidesert grassland – Semidesert grasslands stretch from the southwestern U.S. into northern Mexico

(this coincides with Semidesert Grasslands in Fig. 6). Land ownership in the U. S. includes state and 

federal public lands, and private lands; in Mexico it is primarily private lands and communal property 

known as ejidos. The main ecological driver in this region is drought/precipitation, with fire and grazing 

as secondary drivers. Fire can have major effects; it reduces vegetative cover in the short term and 

reduces woody species density in the long term. The primary historical grazers were prairie-dogs (Askins 

et al. 2007). There is some disagreement in the literature on the impact of bison in this region, but it is 

likely that they occurred only sporadically this far south. For details about the ecology of semidesert 

grasslands, see McClaran and Van Devender (1995). These semidesert grasslands provide breeding 

grounds for the endemic Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow (A. s. ammolegus) subspecies, and also wintering 

grounds for both this subspecies and migratory subspecies from further north. Studies of Arizona 

Grasshopper Sparrow habitat use in semidesert grassland found that they preferred grasslands with greater 

percent grass cover, taller grass, less bare ground, and low to intermediate amounts of woody cover 

depending on the available landscape (Bock and Webb 1984; Block and Morrison 2010). The apparent 

contradiction between the response of Grasshopper Sparrows to shrub cover in these studies may be a 

function of different locations along the continuum of shrub densities available. In northwestern 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 27

Chihuahua, where records of Grasshopper Sparrows in spring and summer suggest a breeding population, 

they were found primarily in grasslands without prairie dog colonies (Manzano-Fischer et al. 1999).

Northwest – In the northwest, sagebrush and sagebrush steppe habitats cover much of the Great Basin and 

Wyoming Basin, and extend into the Columbia Basin, Snake River Plain, southwestern Montana, the 

Colorado Plateau, southwestern Colorado, and northern New Mexico (this coincides approximately with 

Great Basin shrub-grassland in Fig. 6). Sagebrush steppe, where sagebrush is co-dominant with perennial 

bunchgrasses, covers the northern portion of the Intermountain region. Across this entire region, habitats 

range from semi-arid grasslands with a scattering of sagebrush to sagebrush-dominated shrublands. 

Jackrabbits, cottontails, and rodents may have been the major herbivores in the region and it has been 

suggested that this region did not evolve under pressure from large numbers of grazing ungulates. 

Pronghorn were found throughout the region, in some areas mule deer and elk were present, and bison 

were limited to the northeastern Great Basin. Fire prior to settlement was probably patchy, small, and 

relatively infrequent. However, the mosaic of grasslands and sagebrush shrublands in this ecosystem is

partially a result of fires, which open areas to grassland until sagebrush can reestablish, which takes many 

years after a fire (Paige and Ritter 1999). The proportion of grassland and sagebrush in the mosaic is 

influenced by intensity and frequency of fire over time. There are other grassland habitats in the 

Northwest. In the Willamette Valley native grassland and savanna habitats, once dominant, are now 

found only in remnants. In southeastern Washington and adjacent Idaho, the Palouse Prairie was 

historically dominated by perennial bunchgrasses; much of this has been converted to agriculture. In the 

sagebrush steppe, Grasshopper Sparrows are found at the end of the habitat gradient characterized by 

increased grassland and disturbance (Knick and Rotenberry 2002). They are most abundant in perennial 

bunchgrass grasslands, and to a lesser extent in sagebrush-bunchgrass habitat of the Columbia Basin, and 

least abundant in depleted sagebrush and sagebrush with annual understory dominated by cheatgrass

(Vander Haegen et al. 2000; Holmes and Miller 2010; Earnst and Holmes 2012). Grasshopper Sparrows 

are found locally in other habitats dominated by grass with few shrubs in the northwest: grasslands in the 

Snake River Plain, the Palouse, on non-lava strata dominated by grass in Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, native bunchgrass communities in the Willamette Valley (Janes 1983; Myers and Kreager

2010; Carlisle et al. 2012).

California – Since European settlement of California, most native, perennial bunchgrass grasslands have 

been replaced with introduced, annual grasses and forbs (Goerrissen 2005; Barry et al. 2006; Gennet 

2007). Gennet (2007) describes the two major grassland types as coastal prairie (along the Pacific), and 

valley grasslands (in the Central Valley, Coast Ranges, and Sierra Nevada foothills) (this coincides 

approximately with California Valley grassland in Fig. 6). The largest swath of grasslands was in the 

Central Valley of California; however a large majority of it has been converted to agricultural land. Oak 

woodlands and savannas in many foothills surrounding the Central Valley have been cleared and 

represent a large portion of existing grasslands. In California, Grasshopper Sparrows prefer short to 

medium-height, moderately open grasslands with scattered shrubs; where native bunchgrasses still exist, 

they are important Grasshopper Sparrow habitat (Unitt 2008). Grasshopper Sparrows occur on (1) 

remaining prairies, salt-grass meadows, pastures, and foothills along the California coast; (2) the edges, 

foothills, and occasionally the valley floor in the Central Valley; and (3) at the southern end of the Sierra 

Nevada range (Unitt 2008). Absence of trees and vegetative structure appears more important than 

presence of native grasses in Grasshopper Sparrow habitat selection in southern California. In one study 

Grasshopper Sparrow presence was associated with several measures of the surrounding habitat landscape 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 28

matrix – more Grasshopper Sparrows in larger grassland patches, and in one year fewer in sites with more 

land cover types (less grassland) (Rao et al. 2008).

Puerto Rico – Plains habitat, dominated by grasslands, make up 25 – 30% of Puerto Rico’s landscape. 

Most of these grasslands are dry habitat located on the coasts of the island, and the majority is in private 

ownership. Grasshopper Sparrow is one of the few resident species exclusively allied with grassland 

habitat; nevertheless very little is known about its ecology or limiting factors. It is considered to prefer 

tall grass.

Mexico, Central America, other Caribbean – Grassland is an important habitat component of the 

Chihuahuan Desert on the Mexican Plateau, where it is scattered in a mosaic with desertscrub (this 

coincides approximately with Semidesert Grasslands in Mexico in Fig. 6). Although the very northern 

parts of Sonora and probably Chihuahua support some breeding A.s. ammolegus, this region is most 

important as the wintering ground for several subspecies of migratory Grasshopper Sparrow. Most native 

grasslands of the region have been human-altered, especially through grazing or conversion to agriculture. 

In Central America, additional grassland types are found, such as savannas (native grasslands with 

scattered trees and bushes) (this coincides with the Tropical Savanna habitat types in Fig. 6). Pine 

savannas are found locally on sandy soils from northern Guatemala to northern Nicaragua. These habitats 

also are altered by grazing and periodic burning, and have been converted to agriculture (Howell and 

Webb 1995). The resident A.s. cracens frequently occurs in Central American pine savannas (Monroe 

1968; Howell 1971, 1972; Arguedas-Negrini 2001). Arguedas-Negrini (2001) surveyed available pine 

savanna habitat in northeastern Nicaragua for Grasshopper Sparrows. Grasshopper Sparrows were only 

found at 11 of the 600 points surveyed. None of these 11 sites were in either intensively cultivated pine 

plantations or where brush or pine cover was extensive. Five large breeding populations (>15 singing 

males) were located; all breeding populations were found in areas that had experienced at least one fire at 

the beginning of the dry season, less than two months prior to the survey. The vegetative characteristics 

of the sites with large breeding populations ranged from (1) scattered, mostly mature Pinus caribea

stands; (2) low, herbaceous vegetation; (3) thick grasses with scattered brush; to (4) young, fire-damaged 

P. caribea plantations among clusters of volcanic rocks. All territories were dominated by low, sparse 

vegetation (mostly grass, but some forbs, etc.), included some P. caribea, and a few Sabal sp. and 

Byrsonima sp. I am not familiar with any other literature providing information about habitat associations 

of other Central American or Caribbean subspecies.

B. Migration

Very little is known about the habitats used by Grasshopper Sparrows in spring or fall migration. It is 

generally considered to be similar to habitats in the breeding and winter seasons (Vickery 1996). In south 

Texas, Igl and Ballard (1999) found that grassland birds (during migration and in winter) were more 

abundant in the most structurally simple habitats that most closely resembled their breeding habitats, and 

grassland specialists tended to be more habitat-specific during the nonbreeding season than shrubgrassland specialists. In 1993 spring migration Grasshopper Sparrows occurred at significantly higher 

densities in open habitats than in habitats with dense woody vegetation. Across spring and fall migration 

and winter, Grasshopper Sparrow mean densities were highest in the grassland habitat. However, like 

many migratory birds, Grasshopper Sparrows do use a broader range of nonbreeding habitats in migration 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 29

than used during breeding (Igl and Ballard 1999). Grasshopper Sparrow is classified as a grassland 

specialist, defined as species that use herbaceous grasslands on the temperate breeding grounds. 

However, in addition to finding relatively high mean densities of nonbreeding Grasshopper Sparrows in 

grassland habitat, dominated by grass and forbs with <10% woody cover (8.33 ± 2.11 birds per 10 ha), 

which is most similar to their breeding habitat, Igl and Ballard (1999) also found them in notable densities 

in habitats unlike their breeding habitat: (1) shrub-grassland, interspersed grass and woody plants <3 m 

with <30% woody cover (7.38 ± 1.77); (2) parkland, interspersed grass and woodland plants >3 m with 

<50% woody cover (5.11 ± 1.44); (3) brushland, dominated by woody plants <3 m with >30% woody 

cover (4.57 ± 1.70); and (4) woodland, dominated by trees >3 m with a closed canopy (1.30 ± 0.44).

C. Wintering

The most important habitats for wintering Grasshopper Sparrows are the grasslands of the southeastern 

U.S. and the semidesert grasslands of the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico. The semidesert 

grasslands are located in southeastern Arizona, and otherwise primarily defined by the Chihuahuan Desert 

ecoregion in southern New Mexico, west Texas, and the Central Plateau of Mexico, which is bordered by 

the Sierra Madre Occidental and Oriental, south to approximately the Transvolcanic belt (Askins et al. 

2007). 

Relatively little is known about the winter habitat of Grasshopper Sparrows, although current and recent 

studies are beginning to fill in the gaps in that knowledge. In general grassland birds are assumed to use 

winter habitats that are similar to those used in the breeding season. More detail from recent literature is 

included here, given the lack of information on winter habitat provided in Vickery (1996). Much of the 

limited information available about Grasshopper Sparrow wintering habitats is from the Southwest U.S. 

and from northern Mexico; much less is available from the Southeast U.S. and there appears to be no 

information from the Caribbean or Central America regarding wintering migrant Grasshopper Sparrow

habitat. The wider range of habitats used by migrating and wintering grassland birds in south Texas (Igl 

and Ballard 1999 – described under Migration section above) is consistent with other literature showing 

Grasshopper Sparrows using a broader range of winter habitat that includes not only grasslands but weedy 

fields and various habitats with dense woody vegetation (Emlen 1972, Dunning and Pulliam 1989, Hutto 

1992, Block and Morrison 2010). 

In winter, migratory A.s. pratensis are sympatric with resident A.s. floridanus in south-central Florida. 

The migratory subspecies was more abundant in grass-dominated wet-mesic patches than in shrubby drymesic prairie (Korosy et al. 2013); sample size was too small to draw similar inferences for the wintering 

Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. Grasshopper Sparrows are widespread and locally common in winter 

throughout the Chihuahuan Desert grasslands in Mexico and the southern parts of Texas, New Mexico, 

and Arizona; they were found in nearly all Grassland Priority Conservation Areas (GPCAs) in all years

(2007-2011) (Panjabi et al. 2010; Macías-Duarte et al. 2011b). Wintering Grasshopper Sparrows in this 

region are found in grasslands but not in agricultural field borders; they are positively associated with 

grass height and grass cover, and negatively associated with amounts of bare ground (Desmond 2004; 

Desmond et al. 2005; Macías-Duarte et al. 2009; Martinez et al. 2010; Grageda García 2011; Ruth et al. 

2014). Information about Grasshopper Sparrow response to woody vegetation in the winter is mixed. 

Some studies indicate a negative association with shrub cover (Desmond et al. 2005; Panjabi et al. 2010), 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 30

others showed no association (Block and Morrison 2010; Ruth et al. 2014), while one found that they 

were more frequently found in areas with tall woody plants (Macías-Duarte et al. 2009). 

VII. Known or Suspected Limiting Factors and Threats 

Most of the information provided regarding limiting factors and threats comes from research conducted 

on the breeding grounds. However, given that Grasshopper Sparrows are found primarily in similar 

grassland habitat during the nonbreeding season, it is assumed that most of the information applies to 

other seasons as well. Where there is information to the contrary, or information specific to nonbreeding 

ground factors, it is identified. It is important to note that there are many interactions among limiting 

factors, threats and bird responses, which for the most part are beyond the scope of this document. As in 

previous sections, the information provided here is primarily more recent information not available at the 

time of the publication of Vickery (1996) and Dechant et al. (1998).

The following breeding phenology information about Grasshopper Sparrows is important in 

understanding the effects of and recommendations regarding management activities like mowing, grazing, 

and burning, especially timing and frequency, and will be referenced in sections below. The breeding 

seasons for both A.s. pratensis and A.s. perpallidus are about 90 days long, generally beginning in May; 

there are bimodal breeding seasons for A.s. floridanus with more than 200 days following summer fires, 

the first peak in March to late June, and the second peak in response to fire from July to September

(Vickery 1996). The primary breeding season for A.s. ammolegus begins with the start of summer 

monsoons and spans July through the end of August (J. Ruth, pers. observation). Under good conditions,

Grasshopper Sparrows can produce >2 broods annually, and in some more southern areas as many as 3 or 

4 broods (Vickery 1996). It takes an average of 32 days from the beginning of nest construction,

including egg laying, incubation, hatching, fledging, and the time period until juveniles can fly; it can take 

another two weeks until juveniles are independent of adults (Vickery 1996). 

A. Habitat Loss/Degradation

Habitat loss/degradation/fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to grasslands and causes of grassland 

bird population declines (Vickery et al. 1999b; Askins et al. 2007), and therefore poses a threat to 

Grasshopper Sparrows across much of its range. The primary sources of grassland habitat loss have been 

identified by sources too many to cite here, and include: (1) grassland conversion for agriculture 

(especially cropland); (2) conversion for suburban/urban development; (3) conversion for energy 

development; and (4) natural or anthropogenic transformations of grassland habitats into habitats of a 

different kind (e.g., shrub/scrub, woodland, or forest). More recently, in regions where most remaining 

surrogate grasslands are agricultural (hayfields and pastures), the loss of these grasslands through 

conversion to other uses, is also a severe problem. In a landscape scale study of the association between 

avian trends and changing agricultural landscapes in the central and eastern U.S., the population trends for 

12 species, including Grasshopper Sparrow, were significantly and positively associated with the amount 

of rangeland (Murphy 2003). Murphy suggested that the loss of rangeland east of the Rocky Mountains 

was associated with negative bird population trends. In the eastern U.S. and tallgrass prairies, much of 

the habitat loss has already occurred, with little original prairie remaining. In other grassland regions 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 31

habitat conversion continues. Of particular concern for the conservation of wintering grassland birds, 

including Grasshopper Sparrows, is the rapid rate of grassland conversion to croplands in the Chihuahuan 

Desert grasslands of northern Mexico (Pool et al. 2014).

In addition to the effects of direct habitat loss, there are many sources of grassland habitat degradation 

that affect grassland birds and Grasshopper Sparrows in particular. Most of these are discussed in more 

detail below: (1) habitat fragmentation; (2) intense agriculture practices and grazing practices; (3) altered 

fire regimes; (4) exotic grasses; (5) invasion of exotic shrubs and encroachment of native shrubs; (6) 

alteration of floristic structure and composition; (7) pesticides/contaminants; and (8) human disturbance. 

Where the habitat and Grasshopper Sparrow responses to the factor differ geographically, information is 

provided according to grassland types. Many of the limiting factors and/or threats discussed below are 

factors over which managers may have some control. For this reason, recommended conservation actions 

are located in Appendix A; some recommendations apply to a specific limiting factor or threat, and others

can be more generally applied to grassland management.

B. Grazing

Grazing by native ungulates, small mammals, and invertebrates has been an important driving factor in 

many North American grasslands, and today domestic livestock grazing is the most widespread economic 

use of public lands in the West, covering approximately 86 million hectares of US federal land in 17 

western states (Saab et al. 1995). There are few direct impacts of cattle on grassland birds, although some 

studies have documented low levels of direct nest loss and mortality (adults and fledglings) due to 

trampling by cows (Hovick et al. 2011; Johnson et al, 2012; Ribic et al. 2012; Ruth, unpub. data), and one 

study documented nest predation by cattle for several grassland species (Nack and Ribic 2005). Most 

grazing impacts are indirect effects on grassland birds as a result of changes in vegetation structure and 

composition (Bock and Webb 1984). However, grazing per se is not inconsistent with managing 

grasslands for grassland birds. Frequently negative effects on birds are associated with what is variously 

described as inappropriate grazing practices, overgrazing, or high intensity grazing, which has been 

associated with overuse, loss of range health, loss of floristic or structural heterogeneity, invasion of 

exotic plants, changes in vegetation composition, reduced ground nest cover, interruption of fire cycles 

due to reduced fine fuel, and erosion. Another important factor is the differential response of grassland 

bird species to grazing in different grassland types and regions; the impact of grazing can vary greatly 

depending on such factors as season, frequency, stocking rate, grazing history, environmental conditions, 

and evolutionary history of grazing in the region (Finch 2004). Grasshopper Sparrows are representative 

of species that prefer intermediate amounts of grass cover, benefiting from grazing in tallgrass and some 

mixed-grass systems but showing lower abundance or avoiding grazed sites in shorter or dryer grasslands

(Saab et al. 1995). In addition, for some grassland types, appropriately managed grazing is one of the best 

means of maintaining grassland habitat, and in many areas maintaining grazing land uses protects these 

grasslands from conversion to other uses which do not provide habitat for grassland birds.

Because of the Grasshopper Sparrow’s broad range and differences in how they respond to grazing, 

separate sections for each grassland region are presented. [See Saab et al. (1995) Appendix for 

definitions of most commonly used grazing systems: continuous season-long, rest rotation, deferred 

rotation, seasonal suitability, and short duration.] 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 32

Mixed-grass – The mixed-grass prairie historically supported large numbers of bison, and large herbivore 

grazing is a required process for sustaining mixed-grass communities. However, the grasses do require 

regular grazed and ungrazed periods during the growing season for optimum growth, so continuous heavy 

grazing, or lack of grazing and the resulting excessive litter accumulation are problematic. Therefore, for

much of the mixed-grass prairie, grazing, if managed appropriately, is an acceptable and often necessary

tool for maintaining healthy grasslands and bird communities (Samson and Knopf 1996; Askins et al. 

2007). Grazing effects studies of Grasshopper Sparrows in mixed-grass prairie found a positive 

correlation with low intensity grazing which resulted in greater grass height, grass density, and litter depth 

than more intense grazing; negative responses were seen as stocking and intensity of cattle and bison 

grazing increased (Kantrud 1981; Kantrud and Kologiski 1982; Fritcher et al. 2004; Sliwinski 2011). 

Some studies found that Grasshopper Sparrow abundance was higher on ungrazed than grazed plots 

(Richardson 2012). Several other studies showed little evidence of a response of any kind to grazing in 

mixed-grass prairie (Danley et al. 2004; Kim et al. 2008). Some of these studies demonstrated 

interactions between grazing and burning effects (Danley et al. 2004; Richardson 2012).

Shortgrass – Grazing is the second most important driver in shortgrass prairie, after drought. The shorter 

grasses of the shortgrass steppe are equally tolerant of frequent droughts and grazing by native ungulates 

(Saab et al. 1995). Today the primary grazers are domestic cattle, and grazing is the principal 

management tool for maintaining shortgrass. Historically different grassland bird species exploited the 

heterogeneous niches created by different intensities of grazing by native ungulates (Askins et al. 2007), 

but current range management practices in shortgrass prairie result in a uniform, homogeneous grassland 

landscape (Vickery et al. 2000). However, cattle grazing can be managed to imitate the grazing patterns 

of bison (Samson and Knopf 1996; Askins et al. 2007). Unfortunately few studies provide information 

about how Grasshopper Sparrows respond to cattle or bison grazing in shortgrass prairie. They are 

known to respond negatively to grazing in shortgrass where grass is short and sparse (Colorado Partners 

in Flight 2000). Grasshopper Sparrows were more abundant on ungrazed shortgrass than on grazed plots 

and showed higher occupancy on sites with low-moderate grazing intensity compared with high intensity 

(Wiens 1973; Fogg and Pavlacky 2012). 

Tallgrass – The extent to which grazing drove tallgrass prairie dynamics remains somewhat unclear, with 

the greatest frequency and intensity of grazing likely in the western portions close to the mixed grass 

region (Samson and Knopf 1996; Askins et al. 2007). Nevertheless, grazing is one of the three most 

common management practices for grasslands in the tallgrass region. Grazing can result in a more 

heterogeneous vegetation structure than either mowing or burning (Sample and Mossman 1997). Because 

Grasshopper Sparrows respond to grass structure and tend to prefer intermediate grass height, density, and 

litter levels, cattle grazing in tallgrass communities can be beneficial in providing preferred habitat 

structure for them. It is likely that successional increases in vegetation height and density without grazing 

or other managed disturbance may result in the gradual reduction of habitat suitability for Grasshopper 

Sparrows (Rohrbaugh et al. 1999). Grasshopper Sparrows occurred in moderately grazed fields in 

Wisconsin (Sample and Mossman 1997). Many of the studies in the tallgrass prairie region looked at 

response to multiple management practices (grazing, fire, mowing, undisturbed, CRP). Nevertheless, 

studies indicate that grazing resulted in the greatest abundance or density of Grasshopper Sparrows 

among various management treatments (Walk and Warner 2000; Powell 2008; With et al. 2008; Ramig 

et al. 2009; Jacobs et al. 2012). Interactions between grazing and patch-burning were found (Missouri 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 33

Department of Conservation 2008). In addition, grazing by bison in the Flint Hills had a positive effect

on Grasshopper Sparrow abundance (Powell 2006). Studies that evaluate population demographics are 

especially important in understanding the effects of grazing on Grasshopper Sparrows. Demographic 

studies in the tallgrass prairie region have produced mixed results. Clutch size and nest success in grazed 

pastures were found to be lower than in ungrazed sites or hayfields (Sutter and Ritchison 2005; With et al. 

2008; Rahmig et al. 2009). In contrast, several other studies found no differences in Grasshopper 

Sparrow demographics between grazed and ungrazed sites - in daily nest survival probabilities 

(Zimmerman 1997) and nest success (Rohrbaugh et al. 1999). Similarly, comparisons of Grasshopper 

Sparrow responses to different combinations of grazing and/or burning practices frequently found no 

differences in abundance (Clower 2011), post-fledging survival (Hovick et al. 2011), or clutch size 

(Hovick et al. 2012). 

Eastern grasslands – Given that pastures frequently serve as replacement habitat for grassland birds in the 

East, livestock grazing is an important management tool affecting grassland birds (Jones and Vickery 

1997; Vickery et al. 2005). Grazing and/or periodic fires serve to maintain grasslands and control woody 

vegetation. The limited studies on grazing effects in the east found that Grasshopper Sparrow nest 

success and clutch size were greater on ungrazed than grazed sites (Sutter and Ritchison 2005). High 

intensity grazing created unsuitable habitat for Grasshopper Sparrows (Sutter and Ritchison 2005), 

although light to moderate intensity grazing created suitable habitat (Smith 1997). However, a study 

comparing abundance on high-intensity rotational grazing and continuous grazing sites found no 

differences (Clower 2011).

Florida – Although USFWS (2008b) indicated that the effect of grazing on dry prairie habitat and Florida 

Grasshopper Sparrows is not known, others consider intensive management of grasslands for cattle 

grazing as one of the greatest threats to Florida Grasshopper Sparrows (Delany et al. 2002), and sparrow 

occupancy was significantly greater in an area where cattle were excluded (Tucker and Bowman 2006). 

Of the three areas where populations of Florida Grasshopper Sparrow were recently known, one of them 

(Avon Park Air Force Range) is grazed (1 cow-calf pair/8 ha), while the remaining two sites (Three Lakes 

Wildlife Management Area and Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park) are not grazed. Populations are 

relatively stable at the two ungrazed sites in comparison with the population at the grazed site (USFWS 

2009); it is the Avon Park population which may have been extirpated recently (Williams 2013). 

Additionally, there has been some concern about the potential negative impacts of imported fire ants on 

Grasshopper Sparrow nest survival and foraging ecology and possible ties between grazing and the 

presence of fire ants. Densities of fire ant mounds were higher in areas with active grazing programs, but 

more site specific studies using bait stations and cattle exclosure did not find significant differences in fire 

ant detections (although there were 50% fewer detections at bait stations within exclosures) (Tucker et al. 

2010b).

Semidesert grasslands – The primary land use in semidesert grasslands is domestic cattle grazing. In the 

late 1800s and early 1900s, massive overstocking and overgrazing in the semidesert grasslands, followed 

by drought, resulted in major degradation of these grassland ecosystems (McClaran and Van Devender 

1995; Finch 2004). Although changes in range management since then have resulted in restoration of 

many ecosystem functions and communities, grazing continues to have a major impact on grasslands. 

Much of the research on grazing effects in semidesert grasslands have occurred on a small area of public 

and private grassland sites in southeast Arizona. Several of these studies found breeding and wintering
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 34

Grasshopper Sparrows only on an ungrazed site (Bock and Webb 1984; Bock and Bock 1999), and other 

studies found that breeding and/or wintering Grasshopper Sparrows were more abundant on an ungrazed 

site (Bock et al. 1984; Bock and Bock 1988). However, all of these Bock studies were conducted on a 

single ungrazed site (the Audubon Research Ranch) and a single adjacent ranch that employs highdensity, short-duration, rotational grazing according to the principles of holistic resource management 

(Savory 1988). In desert grasslands in Chihuahua, Grasshopper Sparrows were not found on 

continuously overgrazed ejido grasslands (Desmond 2004; Desmond et al. 2005). Recent studies on more 

sites in southeastern Arizona have found more complicated results. On multiple sites in the Sonoita 

Valley, Bock et al. (2008) found more complex results; in an exurban environment, breeding and 

wintering Grasshopper Sparrows were more abundant on ungrazed sites but in an undeveloped 

environment, they were more abundant on grazed sites (Bock et al. 2008). Gordon (2000) also found 

annual variation in wintering Grasshopper Sparrow response to grazing. Densities of singing male 

Grasshopper Sparrows were highest in the grazed grasslands of the San Rafael Valley, with sequentially 

lower densities in the Sonoita Valley (mostly grazed, but one ungrazed site), the grazed Animas Valley, 

and remnant populations at ungrazed locations in the Altar Valley, and grazed grasslands in the San 

Pedro, Sulphur Springs, and San Bernardino valleys (Ruth 2008). 

Northwest – Grazing by cattle and sheep in sagebrush habitat can have major impacts on vegetation 

composition, reducing fine fuels and frequency of fire. In addition, cattle selectively graze first on 

grasses and forbs before browsing on sagebrush. Impacts can be dependent on the timing and intensity of 

grazing; intensive spring grazing can negatively impact perennial bunchgrasses by preventing them from 

reproducing during the short growing season. If the grass and forb understory is completely removed, the 

community tends toward dense sagebrush stands with little or no perennial or annual understory (Knick et 

al. 2005). In the Columbia Basin, Grasshopper Sparrows were most abundant in perennial grasslands and 

least abundant in depleted sagebrush and sagebrush annual communities; models suggest that conversions 

from one habitat type to another can be brought about by extended periods of unsustainable grazing or 

fire (Holmes and Miller 2010). The models more specifically projected that a change from tall perennial 

grasses to a codominance of short perennial and/or annual grasses would result in fewer Grasshopper 

Sparrows. In a bunchgrass prairie habitat in northeastern Oregon, a study of bird response to cattle 

stocking rates found no significant effects of stocking rate on Grasshopper Sparrow population density, 

although nest density decreased with increased stocking rates, and no nests were found in the highest 

stocking treatment (Johnson et al. 2011).

California – There is very limited information about the impacts of grazing on Grasshopper Sparrows in 

California. In a study of the effects of topographic factors and vegetative structure on grassland birds in 

the Coast Range grasslands near San Francisco Bay, Grasshopper Sparrow presence was positively 

associated with grazing in one year although it was not a significant association; in the other year the 

presence of the grassland bird guild (including Grasshopper Sparrow) also was positively associated with 

grazing but the pattern did not show for individual species (Gennet 2007). 

No information was found regarding grazing impacts on Grasshopper Sparrow in other regions within its

range. 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 35

C. Fire

Fire has been an important ecological driver in many grassland types, with many different effects on 

ecosystems and grassland birds. There are direct fire effects (i.e., mortality of adults, eggs, nestlings, or 

fledglings) which are likely not important to Grasshopper Sparrows at the population level. There are 

also multiple indirect effects. Grasshopper Sparrows may respond negatively to burn areas immediately 

following fire and for some limited period thereafter as a result of fire-caused reductions in food 

availability and vegetative structure. There are also longer-term indirect effects of fire, most related to 

time periods after fire during which preferred habitat characteristics or resources are available. In 

addition to natural effects of fire and bird responses, there are several important interacting anthropogenic 

and environmental factors that have influenced fire ecology (frequency, intensity, and extent) and 

therefore grassland birds. These could involve (1) direct fire suppression, (2) changes in fire regime 

related to fuel loads (both reduced fuel loads due to grazing and increased fuels loads or flammability of 

fuel loads due to exotics like buffelgrass) or drought, or (3) changes in habitat potential such as shrub 

encroachment or ecological succession. As with grazing, Grasshopper Sparrows exhibit variable 

responses to fire across their range and therefore information is presented below by grassland type.

Mixed-grass Prairie – Fire was relatively frequent in the mixed-grass prairie, with some estimates of a 

frequency between 4 – 8 years. It is an ecological driver in the region along with precipitation and 

grazing. Season, intensity and frequency of fire are the variables that influence its effects on the 

community. Fire, both human and lightning-caused, serves to prevent the encroachment of trees and 

shrubs; it is important in the establishment of seedlings for some plants, and improves forage for grazing 

animals. Fire intervals varied with soil type, moisture, and grazing. It is used less often for management 

in mixed-grass than it is believed to have occurred in the past, and is frequently used in combination with 

grazing (Samson and Knopf 1996; Askins et al. 2007). Many of the apparent differences in the results 

described in the literature may actually represent bird responses to fire in different types of mixed-grass 

grasslands, particularly how tall and dense the vegetation was prior to burning, different frequencies of 

fire, or even the season when the fire occurred. In addition, some studies focused on the responses of 

grassland birds in the first years following fires, while others compared grassland birds on sites that had 

been either burned or unburned for various periods of time. Although one study found little influence of 

fire on Grasshopper Sparrows post-fire (Grant et al. 2010), most studies of bird response in the years 

following fire showed relatively consistent results. Grasshopper Sparrow abundance or density was 

depressed for 2 – 4 years post fire, gradually increasing over that time period (Bock and Bock 1987; 

Johnson 1997, Madden et al. 1999; Danley et al. 2004; Richardson 2012; Roberts et al. 2012). However, 

in the arid southern mixed-grass prairie the pattern may be somewhat different, with longer times post-fire 

before grassland habitat is suitable for Grasshopper Sparrows. In the Red Rolling Plains of Texas, they

began using burned sites at about 6 – 8 years post-fire (Lee 2006). There was some evidence that over a 

longer time post-fire, Grasshopper Sparrow numbers declined again as vegetation became too tall and 

dense (Johnson 1997; Lee 2006). Comparisons of Grasshopper Sparrow use of burned and unburned sites 

are undoubtedly affected by the frequency of fire and its influence on the height and density of vegetation 

structure, with Grasshopper Sparrows associated with intermediate grass height and density and litter 

depth. Breeding and wintering Grasshopper Sparrows were found more frequently and with higher 

abundance on unburned sites (Bock and Bock 1987; Reynolds and Krausman 1998; Roberts et al. 2012). 

In contrast, a study in North Dakota found that Grasshopper Sparrow abundance was positively associated 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 36

with the amount of fire and they were completely absent from the unburned site (Madden et al. 1999), but 

the unburned site had remained unburned for >80 years. 

Shortgrass Prairie – In the shortgrass prairie, fire is not a primary ecological driver; drought is the primary 

ecological driver and grasslands are secondarily maintained by grazing. Shortgrass species frequently do 

not provide adequate fuel to carry a fire, and therefore it is rarely used as a management tool in shortgrass

(Askins et al. 2007). Information about the effects of fire on shortgrass prairie are quite limited, although 

as elsewhere in the Great Plains, where it occurs, fire controls woody vegetation, removes plant material, 

recycles nutrients, and may either compete with grazers or benefit them by stimulating new growth 

(Samson and Knopf 1996). Grasshopper Sparrows respond negatively to fire where grass is short and 

sparse (Colorado Partners in Flight 2000). Grasshopper Sparrow abundance and density did not differ 

between spring burned and unburned sites in the Texas panhandle (Roberts et al. 2012). 

Tallgrass Prairie – Fire played a major role in the formation and maintenance of the tallgrass prairie. This 

included both naturally ignited (lightning) fire and human-caused fires (Askins et al. 2007); a high 

proportion of pre-settlement fires occurred in the late growing season (Reinking 2005). Estimates of 

historical fire frequency in tallgrass range from two to five years (Samson and Knopf 1996). Fire restricts 

woody and other fire-tolerant species to riparian zones and other protected areas; it also releases nutrients 

into soil, reduces litter, and affects plant diversity in complex ways (Samson and Knopf 1996). Askins et 

al. (2007) suggest that response of grassland birds to fire may be influenced by factors such as prairie 

size. Fire has been increasingly used to manage ungrazed areas and improve productivity in grazed areas, 

primarily using annual or biennial spring burns. See Reinking (2005) for a detailed summary of fire 

ecology in the central tallgrass prairie. As elsewhere, studies of grassland bird response to fire include 

some comparing bird response over a number of years following fire, while others compare bird use of 

burned vs. unburned sites. Multiple studies have found similar Grasshopper Sparrow responses over time 

following a fire, suggesting that in tallgrass, fire provides acceptable habitat for Grasshopper Sparrows 

(shorter, less dense vegetation and less litter) for only 1 – 3 years following a fire. Following the year of 

the fire, Grasshopper Sparrows were significantly more abundant on sites 1 – 3 years post-fire (Herkert 

1994a; Reinking 2005; Powell 2006), and then declined with increasing time since the last burn (Swengel 

1996; Reinking 2005; Missouri Department of Conservation 2008). There was some difference in how 

Grasshopper Sparrows responded in the same year as a spring burn (Sample and Mossman 1997; 

Reinking 2005; Powell 2006, 2008; Missouri Department of Conservation 2008). Similarly, Grasshopper 

Sparrows were more abundant on sites with shorter burn cycles (1-3 years) than sites with 4 year burn 

cycles (Powell 2008). Reinking (2005) concludes that annual burning either benefits or poses little threat 

to Grasshopper Sparrows in tallgrass prairies. Several studies found no difference in Grasshopper 

Sparrow abundance, density, or nesting success in burned and unburned grasslands (Zimmerman 1992, 

1997; Robel et al. 1998; Rohrbaugh et al. 1999; Van Dyke et al. 2004). Zimmerman (1992) noted that 

abundance was not affected by burning in moist years, but may be reduced in drought years. There were 

a number of studies comparing grassland bird responses to different management practices and/or 

undisturbed grasslands. Comparisons of burn practices found that Grasshopper Sparrows were more 

abundant in a traditional homogeneous burn (the whole field) than a heterogeneous patch-burn (Coppedge 

et al. 2008), but nest survival and post-fledging survival were not significantly different between these 

two burn practices (Hovick et al. 2011, 2012). These studies did not compare abundance or survival in 

undisturbed sites. Complex interactions were found in studies comparing combinations of burning, 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 37

haying, and grazing practices, and sites with different grass types (Walk and Warner 2000; Swengel and 

Swengel 2001; Missouri Department of Conservation 2008; With et al. 2008). 

Eastern grasslands – In the Northeast fire is used to manage for rare plant and animal assemblages, for 

maintenance of commercial blueberry fields (Askins et al. 2007), and in a few instances for maintaining 

airfield grasslands between runways (Rudnicky et al. 1997), although it is relatively unimportant for 

maintaining large tracts of grassland (Vickery et al. 2005). See Vickery et al. (2005) for a history of fire 

in New England grasslands. Although Grasshopper Sparrows were found in both burned and unburned 

areas in northeastern grasslands (Jones and Vickery 1997), similar to tallgrass prairie, they benefit from 

burning, with highest abundance and densities found 2 – 5 years post-fire (Jones and Vickery 1997; 

Harris 1998; Vickery et al. 1999a). A population viability model of Grasshopper Sparrows in Maine 

comparing management options determined that the best quality habitat was found on a site that had been 

burned two years previously; the greatest increase in abundance and lowest variance was found on sites in 

which 25% was burned every year (Wells 1997). In some cases prescribed burns were found to produce 

better habitat for grassland birds on airfields (between runways) than mowing because it increased bare 

soil cover (Rudnicky et al. 1997).

In the southeast, fire is used to control woody vegetation (Giocomo 2005). In southeastern pine savannas 

annual fire combined with dry conditions can result in treeless grasslands that are used by species such as 

Grasshopper Sparrows (Askins et al. 2007). Less information is available about the effects of burning in 

southeastern grasslands. Giocomo (2005) suggested that annual prescribed burns on grasslands in 

Kentucky were too frequent to provide the structure (taller grass and deeper litter) used by nesting 

grassland birds including Grasshopper Sparrows. 

Florida – Prescribed fire is the main habitat management option in Florida dry prairies; it reduces litter, 

exposes bare ground, and reduces shrub encroachment (Engstrom et al. 2005). Management of dry prairie 

grasslands in central Florida usually involves late-fall and winter prescribed fire, although naturally 

ignited fires occur most frequently in summer. Frequent fire (every 2 – 3 years) is essential to 

maintaining habitat for Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow densities were 

higher in areas that had been burned more recently and reproductive success was higher on the most 

recently burned sites (Shriver and Vickery 2001; Perkins et al. 2009; but see Delany et al. 2002). Also, 

the probability of reproductive success was significantly higher at 0.5 years post-burn than at 1.5 and 2.5 

years post-burn (Delany et al. 2002). Results above describe Grasshopper Sparrow response to winter 

burns. With summer burns, Florida Grasshopper Sparrow densities increased following burns prior to the 

end of June and breeding continued into late August, but densities declined if fires occurred after the end 

of June (Shriver et al. 1996; Shriver et al. 1999). Similarly, in winter, Florida Grasshopper Sparrows 

were found only in one- and two-year post-burn plots, and not in three- or four-year post burn plots 

(Korosy et al. 2013).

In addition, time since fire was an important factor explaining the occupancy of wintering migratory 

Grasshopper Sparrows (A.s. pratensis) in Florida. Butler et al. (2009) found that the probability of 

occurrence in one-year-old burns was double that for older burns; another study found that migrants were 

least abundant in four-year post-burn sites compared with one to three-year post-burn (Korosy et al. 

2013), although also responding to plant community type across all burn regimes.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 38

Semidesert grasslands – Along with drought/precipitation, fire is a strong ecological force in semidesert 

grasslands and was historically common in most grasslands in this region. It maintains relatively shrubfree grasslands. With widespread livestock grazing, fine fuel is reduced and fire frequency is reduced. 

However, prescribed fire has become an important land management tool and fire frequency (natural and 

prescribed) changes depending on interactions with grazing intensity, exotic grass cover, smoke 

management concerns, and climate change (McPherson 1995, Bock and Block 2005). See McPherson 

(1995) and Bock and Block (2005) for details on fire ecology in semidesert grasslands. Fire in desert 

grasslands reduces grass cover for one to three post-fire growing seasons, stimulates abundance and 

variety of forbs, and generally increases seed production (Bock and Block 2005). Most research on fire 

effects on semidesert grassland birds has been conducted in southeastern Arizona. Significantly fewer 

breeding Arizona Grasshopper Sparrows were found on burned sites than on an unburned site (Bock et al. 

1976, Bock and Bock 1988); breeding Grasshopper Sparrows also avoided burned plots for two years 

following the fire (Bock and Bock 1992). There is less evidence of Grasshopper Sparrow response to fire 

during the nonbreeding season in semidesert grasslands. There was no significant evidence that wintering 

Grasshopper Sparrows avoided grasslands in the two years following spring or summer burns (Bock and 

Bock 1992; Gordon 2000; Kirkpatrick et al. 2002). 

Northwest – Fire is a dominant driving force in sagebrush ecosystems, maintaining forb and grass 

components. The historical fire regime varied in frequency and severity at a landscape scale, resulting in 

a mosaic of sagebrush and grassland communities in various stages of succession. Fire in the sagebrush 

region prior to settlement was probably patchy, small, and relatively infrequent; fire regimes were 

spatially and temporally variable. Bunchgrass understory does not provide the continuous fuel layer 

required to carry fire. The mosaic of grasslands and sagebrush shrublands are partially a result of fires, 

since sagebrush takes many years to reestablish after a fire. Several recent factors have disturbed 

historical dynamics. The invasion of exotic, flammable cheatgrass has fundamentally altered fire 

regimes, resulting in loss of sagebrush and persistence or expansion of cheatgrass at the expense of native 

perennial bunchgrasses. In other areas, suppression of fire or reduction in fine fuels due to grazing has 

decreased fire frequency. Finally, prescribed fire is frequently used as a management tool to control 

annual grasses, reduce sagebrush cover, promote grass and forb growth, and control pinyon-juniper. Fire 

does benefit Grasshopper Sparrows by creating more grassland habitat in this mosaic landscape (Knick et 

al. 2005; Carlisle et al. 2012). Grasshopper Sparrow abundance was highest in perennial grassland habitat 

and declined with a transition toward sagebrush (Holmes and Miller 2010). Following a wildfire, 

Grasshopper Sparrow numbers showed a short-lived increase in years three and four post-fire (Earnst et 

al. 2009).

No information about the impacts of fire on Grasshopper Sparrows in other grassland regions was found. 

D. Mowing

Where native or non-native grasslands are harvested for hay or biomass, or mowed for other habitat 

management reasons (e.g., controlling woody vegetation and weeds, reducing litter layers, and altering 

plant composition), mowing can pose substantial threats to grassland birds. There are direct effects –

destruction of nests, and mortality of eggs, nestlings, fledglings, and incubating adults. There are also 

multiple indirect effects, some of which are always negative (e.g., abandonment of nests, lower breeding 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 39

bird densities in subsequent years due to nest failures, and reduced site fidelity) and some of which are 

positive or negative depending on the habitat needs of the species (e.g., alteration of habitat structure or

vegetation composition) (Horn and Koford 2000). Multiple harvests also may result in birds nesting or 

renesting after one cut, only to have a second cut occur before they are able to fledge young. Some 

studies have concluded that mowing has contributed to population declines in some grassland bird species

(Rodenhouse et al. 1995). The direct effects of mowing on nesting grassland birds have been clearly 

demonstrated and will not be discussed in detail here (see Rodenhouse et al. 1995; Horn and Koford 

2000). The frequency and timing of mowing will determine the extent of its direct effects on the species. 

Hayfields are typically mowed at least once per year, and frequently 2 – 4 times (Troy et al. 2005; Corace 

et al. 2009). The dates for mowing frequently coincide with the breeding season for grassland birds. 

Both dates for mowing and breeding dates for Grasshopper Sparrows vary across the breeding range of 

this species. In addition, trends in forage crop production are toward earlier first-cutting and more rapid 

rotation of hayfields due to faster growing crop hybrids and shifts from timothy-clover to alfalfa hays 

(Rodenhouse et al. 1995; Troy et al. 2005) See introductory paragraphs in section on Known or 

Suspected Limiting Factors and Threats for information on timing and length of breeding season for 

Grasshopper Sparrow throughout its range.

Population models for direct impacts of haying on Grasshopper Sparrows in Kentucky found that mowing 

in early to mid-summer resulted in population sinks, whereas both “no mowing” options or mowing in 

late summer allowed for source populations in most years (Giocomo 2005). In New York, Bollinger 

(1995) suggested that nest destruction from early mowing resulted in lower densities of breeding birds in 

the subsequent year. Therefore, the most common recommendation for reducing direct negative impacts 

of haying on Grasshopper Sparrows and other grassland birds is to delay haying until after the breeding 

season, or near the end of the breeding season where there is more than one breeding attempt in a season. 

One reason it is difficult to get private landowners to delay haying is an economic one; for at least some 

hay crops nutritional value peaks with first flower and then degrades in quality. For farmers who need 

high quality forage for calving dairy cows and finishing beef cattle, delayed mowing will not provide the 

needed nutritional feed. Later-cut hay has lower moisture content, lower digestibility, and lower protein. 

However, hay from delayed mowing can be used as feed for animals that tolerate moderately lower 

nutritive values – horses, sheep, dairy heifers, and mature beef (Sample and Mossman 1997; Dale et al. 

1997).

There are indirect effects of mowing on Grasshopper Sparrows, although response varies geographically. 

As with other management regimes, these different responses are most likely related to the preference of 

Grasshopper Sparrows for intermediate grass height and some bare ground and the types of habitat 

created by mowing or not mowing habitats in particular regions. Appropriate habitats created by mowing 

may be present for short or long periods of time following mowing depending on how long it takes for the 

grass to grow tall again. In mixed-grass and tallgrass regions, there is evidence that mowing can benefit 

Grasshopper Sparrows because of the creation of preferred vegetation structure or composition (Frawley 

and Best 1991; Swengel 1996; Horn and Koford 2000; Swengel and Swengel 2001; Rahmig et al. 2009). 

However, Grasshopper Sparrow’s positive response to appropriate habitat structure created by haying 

may result in sink habitats if the time before the next haying is not sufficient for the birds to complete the 

nesting cycle. It is also the case that some studies have found annual variation in Grasshopper Sparrow 

response to mowing or no evidence of differences between mowed and unmowed sites (Dale et al. 1997; 

Van Dyke et al. 2004). Grasshopper Sparrow response to mowing in the Northeast may be different. 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 40

There is evidence that they require hayfields that have been left unmowed for longer periods of time 

(sometimes as many as 10 years) (Bollinger 1995; Smith 1997). The problem is that very few hayfields 

are left unmowed for over 5 – 6 years. See Appendix A for specific mowing management practices that 

may reduce negative impacts on breeding Grasshopper Sparrows and other grassland birds.

Below is additional information about mowing under specific types of management.

Mowing on reclaimed mine lands – Studies of the effects of early-season mowing on reclaimed surface

mine patches in Ohio found no effect on Grasshopper Sparrow nest densities, or return rates in the 

following year; mean annual survival probabilities were higher in mowed areas (Ingold 2002; Ingold et al. 

2010). They did find that early mowing forced a delay in nesting and may have limited Grasshopper 

Sparrows to one clutch. See section on Surface Mine Reclamation for more information.

Mowing on airport grasslands – Mowing grasslands around civilian and military airfields is important to 

prevent the growth of woody vegetation and to comply with safety regulations related to bird-aircraft 

strikes. For example, U.S. Air Force regulations require that airfields be mowed to a uniform height of 18

– 36 cm (7 – 14 inches) to reduce food resources and habitat quality for species of concern by the 

Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) program (Milroy 2007). Some of the large birds that pose 

the greatest threats to aircraft prefer very short grass, so avoiding mowing grass very short can deter 

larger flocking birds and at the same time may benefit smaller grassland birds that require taller grass 

(Jones and Vickery 1997). In fact, at Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts, Grasshopper 

Sparrows were more abundant in the unmowed portions of the airfield (Milroy 2007). Although they are 

not considered a priority threat to aircraft, there are several instances of a Grasshopper Sparrow being 

struck by an aircraft (Milroy 2007). Given that mowing airport grasslands for safety reasons is often 

required, a major question is whether these grasslands represent source or sink habitats for grassland 

birds. A study at three military airfields in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast found that although mowing 

was a source of nest failure, it did not emerge as a significant predictor of nest survival rates for 

Grasshopper Sparrows (Peters and Allen 2010).

Mowing to harvest biofuels – Increased interest in the development of renewable fuels, including biomass 

production from perennial grass in the tallgrass region, has generated questions about the impact on 

grassland birds. It has been suggested that compared to other bioenergy crops, perennial, native grass 

species are more likely to benefit grassland bird species (Fargione et al. 2009). Switchgrass, a native 

perennial, is well suited as a biofuel. Because switchgrass is usually harvested for biomass in late 

summer or fall, mowing impacts are most likely related to change in vegetation structure (lower heightdensity and shallower litter layer) in the subsequent year (Roth et al. 2005). Grasshopper Sparrows, 

which are associated with shorter, less dense vegetation in the tallgrass region, appear to benefit from the 

harvest (mowing) of switchgrass when compared with unmowed switchgrass (Murray and Best 2003; 

Roth et al. 2005), and therefore may benefit from the conversion of less appropriate habitats (e.g., 

cropland and unmowed CRP switchgrass to switchgrass harvested for biomass; Murray et al. 2003). 

However, Grasshopper Sparrows were even more abundant in hayfields, pastures, and other unmowed, 

ungrazed cool-season grasses, than in those harvested switchgrass fields (Murray et al. 2003), and 

therefore conversion of these hayfields and pastures to switchgrass would not benefit them. Nor would 

harvesting of switchgrass benefit those grassland species that prefer taller, denser grasslands. 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 41

E. Shrub/Woody Vegetation Encroachment

Prior to European settlement, woodlands and woody species in the tallgrass, mixed-grass, and shortgrass 

prairies were limited primarily to riparian and wetland margins, and isolated buttes and scarps (Samson 

and Knopf 1996; Grant et al. 2004). Many factors, including reduction in frequency and intensity of fires, 

loss of bison and other native herbivores, loss of competing native grasses, and grazing by domestic 

cattle, have been implicated in the expansion of woody plants into North American grasslands. Some 

invaders are non-native, but many are natives that have expanded beyond historical distributions or 

habitats. In some areas, agricultural programs also have encouraged the planting of woody vegetation in 

hedgerows, shelterbelts, and for wildlife cover. Although the semidesert grasslands of the Southwest 

have historically been patchily distributed in a mosaic with desertscrub at lower elevations and evergreenoak woodlands at higher elevations (McClaran 1995), there also has been an increase of trees and shrubs 

into grasslands beginning in the late 19th century (Bahre 1995). Substantial increases in juniper were 

projected on the southern mixed-grass prairie landscape from 1995 – 2015, with or without control efforts 

(Coppedge et al. 2004). Discussion of the causes of shrub/tree encroachment is beyond the scope of this 

document. This presentation focuses on the response of Grasshopper Sparrows to the presence and/or 

expansion of woody vegetation into grassland ecosystems and management recommendations. In some 

regions encroachment of a particular species of woody vegetation poses threats to grasslands and certain 

grassland bird species; in other regions it is any kind of woody plant that encroaches into grasslands, 

transforming the habitat from grassland to desert shrubland. Examples of invasive woody species are

mesquite in the Southwest, and eastern red cedar and various juniper species in the southern Great Plains. 

In addition to the encroachment of various woody plants, there are some areas, such as the Rio Grande 

Joint Venture region, where increases in distribution and density of succulents and rosette plants are 

affecting the quality of native grasslands.

Much of the literature regarding grassland bird response, and Grasshopper Sparrow response specifically, 

to woody encroachment is from the tall and mixed-grass prairies. However, over the entire range of the 

species, multiple measures of abundance, occupancy, probability of occurrence, and association indicate 

that Grasshopper Sparrows respond negatively to increased woody cover. The point along the continuum 

of shrub density at which these negative responses occur varies geographically. In northern mixed-grass 

and tallgrass prairie, Grasshopper Sparrow abundance/occupancy/occurrence was highest in open, treeless 

grasslands and declined with increased woodland and shrub cover or density on the landscape (Bakker et 

al. 2002; Fletcher and Koford 2002; Davis 2004; Grant et al. 2004; Cunningham and Johnson 2006; 

Ahlering et al. 2009). Spring arrival densities, nest abundance, and nest success also were negatively 

associated with woody cover (Johnson 2001; Scheiman et al. 2003). Grasshopper Sparrows were sensitive 

to the presence of woodlands and aspen at both the territory and landscape scale (Grant et al. 2004; 

Cunningham and Johnson 2006). Similarly, Grasshopper Sparrows in the shortgrass prairie (Sparks et al. 

2005; Gillihan et al. 2006), eastern grasslands (Jones and Vickery 1997; Lent et al. 1997; Graves et al. 

2010), and Columbia Basin shrubsteppe (Earnst and Holmes 2012) were negatively associated with shrub 

cover or more abundant with low shrub cover. There are seasonal differences in Grasshopper Sparrow 

response to shrub cover in the semidesert grasslands of Arizona and New Mexico. Abundance showed no 

significant correlation with shrub cover in the winter (Block and Morrison 2010; Ruth et al. 2014). In the 

summer, abundance was negatively correlated with woody cover (Bock and Webb 1984; Pidgeon et al. 

2001; Block and Morrison 2010). 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 42

F. Non-native grasses/forbs

Another potential threat facing most grassland systems in the U.S. is the presence of non-native (exotic) 

grasses or forbs. Those that exhibit invasive characteristics and have expanded their distribution beyond 

the locations where they were introduced are particularly problematic. Some species were intentionally 

introduced; grasses are planted as forage (grazing or hayfields), erosion control, and on CRP lands (CRP 

cover type Conservation Practice 1, or CP1) because they are inexpensive, easy to establish and manage, 

and hardy (Davis and Duncan 1999). Some forbs were planted as ornamentals; other grasses and forbs 

were accidentally introduced via contaminated seed or grain, or in ballast water. The spread of non-native

grasses or forbs, once introduced, has been attributed to many factors including their abilities to invade 

disturbed habitat, respond positively to fire and/or provide greater fuels for fire, and out-compete native 

grasses. In addition, anthropogenic activities such as movement of livestock and transportation on vehicle 

tires and undercarriages have been suggested. 

The non-native grasses are primarily cool-season species that: (1) produce most biomass in spring, and so 

are usually mowed or grazed during late spring or early summer (when most grassland birds are nesting); 

(2) experience ideal growing conditions in the Northeast; (3) do not grow well in dry or nutrient-poor 

soils; (4) can be grazed closer than warm-season grasses without reducing vigor; and (5) produce a dense 

cover that is not ideal habitat for some grassland birds. Non-native cool-season grasses include 

orchardgrass, timothy grass, smooth brome, tall fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, crested and intermediate 

wheatgrass. Warm-season grasses are an alternative promoted to increase forage production, nutrition, 

and economic benefits to farmers while providing more suitable wildlife habitat (Jones and Vickery 1997; 

Giuliano and Daves 2001). Warm-season grasses: (1) grow and produce most biomass in summer, and so 

grazing and mowing can be delayed until late summer; and (2) are drought resistant, winter hardy, and 

adapted to sandy, infertile soils (Giuliano and Daves 2001; Jones and Vickery 1997). In many regions 

warm-season species are native to North America (e.g., switchgrass, big and little bluestem, indiangrass, 

blue and side-oats grama). However in the southwest, some are non-native (e.g., kleingrass, Old World 

bluestem, Lehmann, Boer’s and wheeping lovegrass). U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) 

and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), as well as the USFWS Partners for Wildlife 

Program, promote the establishment of warm-season grasses in pastures and hayfields. Additionally, 

NRCS provides guidance on which warm-season grasses and cool-season grasses to plant by region 

(Giuliano and Daves 2001). Starting in 1996, enacted Farm Bills (including the 2014 Farm Bill) have 

increased incentives that encourage landowners who are re-enrolling CRP contracts and enrolling new 

acreage to seed with native grass mixes (Conservation Practice 2, or CP2) and mixes of forbs with native 

grasses (CP4D). Native grass mixes are more expensive than non-natives (Thompson et al. 2009), but 

CRP contracts proposing the use of these CPs rank higher and are more likely to be included in the CRP 

program. A recent overview of the CRP program across the U.S. indicates that there are substantial 

differences among states in how much is being or has been seeded to CP1 (non-native) and CP2 (native). 

The patterns do not appear to be clearly geographical or tied to grassland regions (USDA 2006) and may 

be related to patterns of CRP contract renewal and expiration.

Comparisons of the responses of grassland birds to native vs. non-native grasses are often presented as 

cold-season vs. warm-season grasses, although this is complicated by several facts: (1) responses can vary 

geographically; and (2) the way these grasslands are managed and the resulting differences in vegetative 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 43

structure may be more important to Grasshopper Sparrows than the grass species (i.e., whether it is 

native/non-native or warm-/cool-season). 

The response of Grasshopper Sparrows to warm-season vs. cool-season, and native vs. non-native grasses 

varies. In eastern, mixed- and tallgrass regions, some studies found more Grasshopper Sparrows in nonnative, cool-season grasses than in warm-season or native prairie (Davis and Duncan 1999; Koford 1999; 

McCoy et al. 2001; Wentworth et al. 2010; George et al. 2013), while another found higher densities in 

cool-season grasses when they were mowed or grazed (Walk and Warner 2000). However, no difference 

was found in nesting success, nest density, or fecundity between CP1 and CP2 treatments (McCoy et al. 

2001). Studies in north-central Oklahoma found that in spite of lower arthropod biomass, Grasshopper 

Sparrow densities were higher in non-native, warm-season monocultures than in native fields (George et 

al. 2009; George et al. 2013). Similarly, some studies in tallgrass and eastern grasslands found that 

Grasshopper Sparrows preferred native and warm-season grasslands over cool-season grasses (Giulano 

and Daves 2001; Ribic and Sample 2001; Bakker and Higgins 2009). And some studies in multiple 

grassland regions showed no apparent differences in Grasshopper Sparrow response to grassland types 

(warm- vs. cool-season or native vs. non-native) or management practices (Berthelesen and Smith 1995; 

Delisle and Savidge 1997; Chapman et al. 2004; Hickman et al. 2006; Thompson et al. 2009). It is 

possible that complicated combinations of grassland types, time since grass planting/treatment/restoration,

and management practices in some of these comparisons may have affected or obscured any patterns in 

response. There is reason to think that Grasshopper Sparrows are responding to the structure of the 

grasslands rather than the species of grass or whether it was warm- or cool-season (George et al. 2009; 

Rahmig et al. 2009; Thompson et al. 2009). 

In semidesert grasslands of the Southwest, Lehmann and Boer lovegrasses, non-native warm-season 

grasses, were introduced from South Africa (Bahre 1995). These species have subsequently spread far 

beyond the bounds of the original plantings and often occur in homogeneous stands excluding many 

native plants. Grasshopper Sparrows were more abundant on sites dominated by native grasses than those 

dominated by exotic lovegrasses (Bock et al. 1986; Bock and Bock 1988). In the sagebrush and 

sagebrush steppe habitats of the northwest, the non-native, cool-season cheatgrass readily invades 

disturbed sites and, because it readily carries fire, it alters fire and vegetation patterns (Paige and Ritter 

1999). In the Columbia Basin shrubsteppe, Grasshopper Sparrows were more abundant in native 

bunchgrass and sagebrush-bunchgrass than in sagebrush-cheatgrass (Vander Haegen et al. 2000; Holmes 

and Miller 2010; Earnst and Holmes 2012). Holmes and Miller’s (2010) state-and-transition models 

projected that loss of native perennial grasses would result in decreases in Grasshopper Sparrow 

abundance. Similarly in California, Grasshopper Sparrows are positively associated with native 

bunchgrass habitats (Collier 1994; Goerrissen 2005; Gennet 2007). In one study of response to an 

invasive non-native forb in North Dakota, Grasshopper Sparrow density was significantly lower at sites 

with high density of leafy spurge, than at sites with low to medium leafy spurge density (Scheiman et al. 

2003).

G. Predation/Nest Parasitism

Grasshopper Sparrow nest parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is lower than for 

many other grassland birds (Vickery 1996; Patten et al. 2006; Giocomo et al. 2008; Vos and Ribic 2013), 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 44

probably because of the cryptic nature of Grasshopper Sparrow nests (Vickery 1996) and in some cases 

its avoidance of nest sites near edge habitat where parasitism rates are higher (Patten et al. 2006). Nest 

predation is also a significant cause of nest failure for many grassland birds and Grasshopper Sparrows 

are no exception. Both predation, and to some extent, parasitism effects are complicated by interactions 

with factors such as habitat fragmentation and surrounding land use types (Herkert et al. 2003); these 

complications are beyond the scope of this document. In general, potential nest predators in grassland 

habitats include native small mammals (e.g., ground squirrels), medium-sized mammals (e.g., skunks, 

raccoons, foxes), snakes, birds, deer, domestic cattle, and domestic/feral cats. There is some limited

information about the specific effects of predation and parasitism on Grasshopper Sparrow nests and 

fledglings in tall and mixed-grass grasslands. In a series of studies in tallgrass habitat in Wisconsin, 

Grasshopper Sparrows primarily used remnant prairie sites; the majority of predators were thirteen-lined 

ground squirrels. Surprisingly, given their negative response to woody vegetation cover, Grasshopper 

Sparrow daily nest survival was higher near woody edges, which may be explained by the fact that 

ground squirrels avoided woody edges (Ribic et al. 2012). Over 85% of failed Grasshopper Sparrow 

nests were due to predation; potential mammalian, avian, and reptilian nest predators were observed on 

sites (Vos and Ribic 2013). Similarly, the leading cause of post-fledgling mortality was predation (49%; 

17/35); 15 of these deaths were attributed to mesopredators (e.g., raccoons, skunks, foxes, cats) and 2 to 

snakes. Other sources of death were exposure, trampling, and unknown (Hovick et al. 2011). In 

Kentucky the majority of predators of Grasshopper Sparrow nests were thought to be snakes (Sutter and 

Ritchison 2005; Giocomo et al. 2008). In mixed-grass prairie, 35 – 46% of Grasshopper Sparrow nests 

were depredated (Davis and Sealy 2000; Jones et al. 2010). However, there was also evidence that nest 

parasitism had some impact, with significant reductions in the number of Grasshopper Sparrows fledged 

from parasitized nests (Davis and Sealy 2000).

There is even less information on the impacts of predation on adult survival. A major source of mortality 

in wintering adult grassland birds with radio transmitters in Chihuahua was Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius 

ludovicianus) (G. Levandoski, unpubl. data); similarly avian predation was the primary cause of winter 

mortality in radio-collared Florida Grasshopper Sparrows (Vickery and Dean 1997).

H. Precipitation/Drought

Precipitation/drought is the primary driving factor in the mixed-grass prairie of the northern plains, 

shortgrass prairie, and semidesert grasslands, affecting the extent of grass, height and density of herbs, 

amount of litter, and shrub encroachment (Askins et al. 2007). Precipitation patterns also can affect birds 

indirectly through its effects on food production, invertebrates during the breeding season, and grass and 

forb seeds during the winter. The limited literature on the effects of drought on grassland birds comes 

from these regions. Grasshopper Sparrow densities declined sharply in the year of a severe one-year 

drought in North Dakota, but recovered completely in the following year (George et al. 1992). The 

authors suggest that these declines were due to reduced recruitment of birds returning the next spring, and 

that in spite of low productivity in the year of the drought, recruitment back from a larger area in the 

following spring caused the recovery. They also suggested that longer term droughts would have more 

severe impacts on grassland birds. Similarly, in North Dakota and Saskatchewan, the density of spring 

arriving Grasshopper Sparrows was positively correlated with concurrent May precipitation (Ahlering et 

al. 2009). In Arizona, wintering Grasshopper Sparrows were less abundant in a winter following two 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 45

years of drought than in a winter with more rain (Bock and Bock 1999). However, there is evidence that 

grassland birds are only limited by seed resources in years of extremely low seed production (Pulliam and 

Parker 1979).

I. Climate Change

Two recent publications provide valuable summaries of climate change predictions pertinent to North 

American grasslands and grassland birds: the U.S. State of the Birds 2010 (NABCI 2010), which 

summarized climate change predictions for the U.S.; and a review of information on climate change in the 

grasslands, shrublands and deserts of the interior American west (Finch 2012). Although available 

models often disagree, there seems to be relative agreement that the grasslands of the West will 

experience increased mean temperatures and increased frequency of extreme events (e.g., droughts, 

flooding, storms). Increased duration and spatial extent of drought events also are predicted (Finch 2012). 

More variable decreases or increases in precipitation are predicted, although combined with increased 

temperatures the predicted result is the drying of most grasslands. For example, although more 

precipitation is predicted for northern grasslands, they are expected to get drier as higher temperatures 

will increase evaporation (NABCI 2010). Southwestern grasslands, especially the Chihuahuan desert 

grasslands of the U.S. and Mexico, are predicted to become drier due to both reduced precipitation and 

higher temperatures. In combination with the changes mentioned above, increased atmospheric carbon 

dioxide and ecosystem stress are expected to result in floristic composition changes, including the 

facilitation of invasion by woody vegetation and other non-native plants into grasslands. Although 

projections of vegetation changes do not suggest major declines in total amount of grassland in the Great 

Plains, they suggest that climate conducive to Plains grassland in the south will decline, semidesert 

grasslands will expand northward into the southern Great Plains, and Great Basin shrub grassland will 

decrease (Finch 2012). No information was found about climate effect projections for eastern grasslands.

It is crucial to understand the impacts that climate change will have on birds in general, and grassland 

birds and Grasshopper Sparrows in particular. However, climate change models are complex and 

sometimes contradictory; much work remains to be done on how climate change will affect habitat 

distribution and how birds will respond to changes in climate and habitat. Our species-specific 

knowledge about bird response to climatic factors is even more limited than our understanding of how 

they use habitats. For a summary of how climate models can be applied to ornithology, see Seavy et al. 

(2008). Nevertheless, efforts are underway to assess the vulnerability of birds to climate change, based 

on what we do know (NABCI 2010). Grassland birds as a whole show a medium level of vulnerability to 

climate change when compared with other habitat groups, but species wintering in the Chihuahuan Desert 

grasslands may be particularly vulnerable to higher temperatures and declining precipitation that may 

make this area uninhabitable (NABCI 2010). Christmas Bird Count data show that grassland birds were 

the only group that failed to shift north during the past 40 years in response to warmer winter weather; 

this may be due to lack of quality northern grasslands to sustain wintering birds (NABCI 2010). 

Bird response to climate change may manifest in ways including: (1) changes in the phenology of 

migration or reproduction along with possible disconnects from historical food resources; (2) expansion,

contraction, or displacement in the distribution of individuals across the changing landscape; and (3) 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 46

changes in productivity, survival, behavior, etc. in response to increased temperatures, water-balance 

requirements, and severe weather. 

A large modeling effort comparing the effects of climate change on bird species restricted to either the 

montane or Great Plains regions of central and western North America, predicted that plains species 

would be more heavily influenced, with drastic area reductions and dramatic spatial movements of 

appropriate habitat (Peterson 2003). Although Grasshopper Sparrow was not modeled, Baird’s Sparrow

(Ammodramus bairdii), which shares general habitat types where their breeding ranges overlap in the 

Great Plains, was projected to retreat from much of its current geographic distribution, with only minor 

expansions at the northwestern boundary of its current distribution. When modeling changes in species 

distributions in Mexico under various climate change scenarios, one of the foci of extinctions and species 

turnovers was the Chihuahuan Desert in northern Mexico (Peterson et al. 2002), an area of extreme 

importance to wintering Grasshopper Sparrows. Very little specific literature is available about 

Grasshopper Sparrow responses to climate change, but first spring arrival dates for Grasshopper Sparrow 

in the northeast have changed significantly across the 20th century (15.1 days earlier, Butler 2003). 

Recently the National Audubon Society (NAS) has begun to release information about a comprehensive,

continental analysis of how North American birds (U.S. and Canada) may respond to climate change 

(NAS 2014). Using Christmas Bird Count and Breeding Bird Survey data in combination with climate 

data and projections described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they have 

estimated current and future ranges for 588 North American species, including Grasshopper Sparrows 

(NAS 2013; NAS 2014). These models assume that species can and will track their climatic niches 

perfectly through time and across geographic space. Models present information about areas where a 

species could occur if other variables necessary for survival are present, such as suitable habitat and biotic 

interactions, and if dispersal is not limited (NAS 2013). Grasshopper Sparrow was not listed as one of the 

314 climate-endangered or threatened species for which results were presented online in September 2014, 

http://climate.audubon.org/. However, unpublished data from the Grasshopper Sparrow models (J. 

Schuetz, in litt.) predict loss of climate suitability for breeding Grasshopper Sparrows along the southern 

edge of its core range, and expansion of suitability in the northern and northeastern parts of its range. In 

winter (non-breeding), the models predict northern expansion of wintering Grasshopper Sparrows into 

northeast Texas, and expansion to a more variable extent into the southeastern U.S. The winter models do 

not include the extensive distribution of Grasshopper Sparrows wintering in the grasslands of northern 

Mexico, so there are no predictions of whether there are related withdrawals from the southern portion of 

their winter distribution. Eventual publication of this information in a peer-reviewed journal may provide 

additional useful information about Grasshopper Sparrows and climate change.

 

At a regional level, bioclimatic-envelope models in California projected changes in the distribution of 

climate space for 11 priority species (including Grasshopper Sparrow) within the Mount Hamilton Project 

area. The models projected that climatically suitable areas for Grasshopper Sparrow declined at all 

decadal steps through 2050 and by 2100 there was not suitable climate space within the area for 

Grasshopper Sparrows (Shaw et al. 2012). For all of California, an online mapping tool created to model 

bird distribution responses to climate change predicts an overall decrease in habitat suitability for the 

Grasshopper Sparrow, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area and south in California, but projects 

possible increases along the northern coast (Point Blue Conservation Science 2014).
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 47

J. Energy Development (Renewable and Nonrenewable)

Energy development can impact grassland birds both during the construction phase and in the long term 

due to permanent infrastructure and maintenance activities associated with extraction and transport. 

Effects can be direct in the form of direct mortality and habitat loss, or indirect in the form of habitat 

degradation, and effects on bird behavior and ecosystem function. Birds may be affected by the actual 

infrastructure of energy extraction (e.g., oil and gas pumps, wind turbines, solar panels, biomass 

harvesting machinery) or by the associated transportation infrastructure (e.g., trails, roads, rights-of-way, 

power lines, power stations, and pipelines). They also can be affected by other results of energy 

development, extraction and delivery – edge habitat created at extraction sites and along roads, increased 

predators or nest parasites, invasion of exotic species, and increased intensity of vehicle traffic and human 

disturbance (Linnen 2008; Bayne and Dale 2011). Publications are available that provide a synthesis of 

known and potential impacts of nonrenewable energy (Bayne and Dale 2011) and renewable energy on 

the environment and wildlife (Pimentel et al. 1994; Abbasi and Abbasi 2000; Tsoutsos et al. 2005; Lovich 

and Ennen 2011; Northrup and Wittemyer 2013). However, there are fewer research studies documenting 

effects on small passerine birds.

Wind Power - Effects of wind turbine development on birds can be direct (e.g., collision mortality) or 

indirect (e.g., habitat loss or change, or displacement due to visual intrusion or disturbance). Little 

research has been conducted on the effects of wind farm development on grassland passerines. Collision 

fatalities are generally not thought to be sufficient to impact most bird populations (Kuvlesky et al. 2007). 

Given their typical flight behavior during the breeding season (i.e., flying low and for only short 

distances) it seems unlikely that direct mortality is a substantial threat to Grasshopper Sparrow

populations. However during post-breeding season dispersal or migration there may be more chances for 

collisions. A study of the impacts of wind turbines in northeastern Wisconsin documented two 

Grasshopper Sparrow mortalities on a single date in late August (Howe et al. 2002). The loss of habitat to 

wind turbines and delivery infrastructure, and the simple presence of vertical structure in landscapes that 

generally lack them may present more of a threat to Grasshopper Sparrows, especially given their 

avoidance of natural vertical structure in the form of trees [see section on Shrub/Woody Vegetation 

Encroachment]. A study comparing grassland bird use of CRP grasslands with and without wind 

turbines in Minnesota found that CRP grasslands without wind turbines and those areas located 180 m 

from turbines supported significantly higher densities of grassland birds than sites located within 80 m of 

turbines (Leddy et al. 1999). Insufficient Grasshopper Sparrows were detected on these sites for specieslevel comparisons. Preliminary results of a study of breeding grassland bird displacement response to 

wind turbines in North and South Dakota, found that Grasshopper Sparrows appeared to exhibit 

avoidance of turbines out to 200 m resulting in a 45% reduction in bird abundance at experimental sites 

after development; Grasshopper Sparrow densities also declined following the establishment of wind 

turbines, although on at least one site they avoided turbines in the first year post-construction but showed 

no evidence of avoidance in the second (Shaffer and Johnson 2008; Johnson 2013). In contrast, a study of 

grassland bird densities in relation to wind turbines in north-central Texas found no evidence that three 

breeding grassland bird species, including Grasshopper Sparrow, were displaced within 500 or 750 m of 

wind turbines (Hale et al. 2014). There is also reason to consider the response of wintering birds, 

including Grasshopper Sparrows, to the presence of wind turbines. At a wind facility in north-central 

Texas, wintering Le Conte’s Sparrows (Ammodramus leconteii) were found to be significantly displaced 

away from wind turbines, even though several other grassland species were not (Stevens et al. 2013). The 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 48

authors suggested that species dependent on more natural (less disturbed) habitats and cryptic predator 

evasion strategies, which describes Ammodramus species including both Le Conte’s and Grasshopper 

sparrows, may be especially displaced from wind turbines.

Solar – Beyond the small scale solar photovoltaics and water heaters commonly installed on homes and 

other buildings, the U.S. is poised to expand the use of utility-scale solar energy facilities. Much of this 

development is occurring on public land in the Southwest due to the high concentrating solar energy 

potential in this region (Lovich and Ennen 2011). Two common methods are large fields of photovoltaic 

panels and solar concentration technologies that use mirrors to direct sunlight to a centrally located 

collector. Publications are available that provide a synthesis of known and potential impacts of solar and 

other renewable energy on the environment and wildlife (Pimentel et al. 1994; Abbasi and Abbasi 2000;

Tsoutsos et al. 2005; Lovich and Ennen 2011). Potential impacts on wildlife including loss, modification, 

and fragmentation of habitat, direct mortality, dust and dust suppression, road effects, noise, 

electromagnetic fields, toxic waste products, etc. (Tsoutsos et al. 2005; Lovich and Ennen 2011). 

However, there is little in the way of research documenting effects. There were two primary causes of 

avian mortality at a solar concentration facility in the Mojave Desert (McCrary et al. 1986): (1) collision 

with structures, primarily the heliostats (focusing mirrors) – 81%; and (2) burning from standby points –

19% (when not directed at the central tower-mounted boiler, during startup, testing and maintenance, the 

heliostats are focused on standby points – small areas of sky around the tower at a height of 80 m). The 

heat in these concentrated beams of light can burn or incinerate birds or insects that fly through them; 

estimated total mortality rates was 2 birds/week at this facility (McCrary et al. 1986). The discussion 

regarding the siting of such solar facilities have focused on desert scrub habitats which are not habitat for 

Grasshopper Sparrows. However, some of the regions with the highest solar energy potential, especially 

in Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas fall within the breeding and/or wintering range of the species, 

and includes desert grassland or southern Great Plains grasslands. As examples, a region of Chihuahuan 

Desert grassland in southern New Mexico already contains a 5 megawatt solar power plant near Hatch; 

plans are also underway to install an 80 megawatt solar power plant near Nutt, NM. Both of these 

facilities are large fields of photovoltaic panels.

Biomass – Increased interest in the development of renewable fuels has included the development of 

biomass for fuel. The most common crops being explored for biofuel in the U.S. are corn and soybeans; 

in addition, cellulosic ethanol crops being explored in the U.S. include Miscanthus, a perennial, exotic 

tropical grass genus, and switchgrass, a perennial, native warm-season grass. The primary potential 

impact of crop biofuels on grassland birds is through the conversion of existing grassland habitat into 

additional fuel crops. Although the use of perennial, native grasses for biomass may be most likely to 

benefit grassland species compared to other biomass crops (Fargione et al. 2009), questions have been 

raised about what the impacts would be on grassland birds (Robertson et al. 2012). Switchgrass is well 

suited as a biofuel. Because switchgrass for biomass is usually harvested in late summer or fall, impacts 

are most likely associated with change in vegetation structure (lower height-density and shallower litter 

layer) in the subsequent year (Roth et al. 2005), which may benefit species like Grasshopper Sparrow that 

prefer this habitat structure (Fargione et al. 2009). See the section above on Mowing for a more detailed 

discussion of bird responses to mowing for biomass.

Oil and Gas - Few studies have been conducted on grassland passerine response to oil or gas development 

and fewer contain information about Grasshopper Sparrows. In Alberta, Canada, Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 49

spragueii) and Baird’s Sparrow abundance was negatively associated with natural gas well density (Dale 

et al. 2009). None of seven grassland species, including Grasshopper Sparrow, showed a significant 

response to a minimal disturbance natural gas development in Saskatchewan, but Chestnut-collared 

Longspur (Calcarius ornatus), Sprague’s Pipit, and Baird’s Sparrow showed significant avoidance of 

areas near a traditionally constructed oil field development in Alberta; unfortunately Grasshopper 

Sparrow did not occur in adequate numbers on this site for analysis. In southwestern Saskatchewan, 

Grasshopper Sparrow abundance was influenced by vegetative structure, but abundance was also 

positively associated with distance from gas wells (Bogard and Davis 2014). In the sagebrush steppe of 

Wyoming, Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) and Sagebrush Sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) 

densities and abundances were negatively associated with roads tied to natural gas extraction and natural 

gas well density respectively (Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004; Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011). These results 

are similar to evidence that Greater and Lesser Prairie-Chickens (Tympanuchus cupido and T. 

pallidicinctus) and Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) avoid infrastructure related to oil 

and gas extraction and delivery (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Pitman et al. 2005; Pruett et al. 2009). See 

Linnen (2008) for a detailed treatment of the potential effects of oil and gas development on grassland 

birds. Environment Canada has developed guidelines for petroleum industry activities that affect species 

at risk (Scobie and Faminow 2000). The oil and gas industry commonly employs mowing of oil and gas 

well sites and roadways in the summer to address the invasion of exotic and invasive plant species and 

mitigate fire risks (Linnen 2008; Bayne and Dale 2011). See section on Mowing for information and 

recommendations about mowing practices. 

K. Suburban/Exurban Development

As with many anthropogenic limiting factors affecting grassland birds, the expansion of urban, suburban, 

and exurban (growth beyond incorporated city limits) developments into grasslands result in habitat loss, 

degradation and fragmentation, as well as potential impacts such as increased non-native predators, 

invasive plant species, fire suppression, noise, human disturbance, and decreased water resources in arid 

systems. See Hansen et al. (2005) and Bock and Bock (2009) for syntheses of information about the 

effects of residential, exurban development on biodiversity.

The literature on effects of these kinds of development on grassland birds is limited but there is evidence 

for negative impacts on Grasshopper Sparrows. A multi-scale occupancy model for Grasshopper Sparrow 

applied to the Delmarva Peninsula found that at the landscape scale, occupancy was negatively associated 

with amount of low intensity development (Irvin et al. 2013). In tallgrass prairie remnants in Nebraska 

and Iowa, surrounding urbanization did not affect occurrence, but the sites with the highest level of 

surrounding urbanization supported the lowest densities of Grasshopper Sparrows (McLaughlin et al. 

2014). A series of studies conducted in the tall and mixed-grass open spaces surrounding Boulder, 

Colorado found that Grasshopper Sparrow abundance was negatively associated with the amount of urban 

area in the landscape (Haire et al. 2000), and densities were significantly higher in undeveloped areas than 

either dispersed (lowest densities) or clustered housing developments (intermediate) (Lenth et al. 2006). 

Grassland bird nest densities (pooled across species including Grasshopper Sparrow) were significantly 

higher in undeveloped areas than near developments, although nest survival did not differ across 

treatments. In southeastern Arizona, breeding Grasshopper Sparrows occurred less frequently in exurban 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 50

areas than in undeveloped areas and abundance was negatively correlated with the number of homes 

within 250 m (Bock et al. 2008).

Recreational Impacts – The impacts of human recreation can be associated with urban/suburban 

development. In Boulder, CO open spaces, Grasshopper Sparrows were significantly more abundant 

along control transects through grasslands than along recreational trails, and abundance increased with 

increased distance from trails (Miller et al. 1998). In general, grassland bird nests (pooled across species 

but including Grasshopper Sparrows) were less likely to occur near trails than away from them, and there 

was a significant positive relationship between nest survival and distance from trails. No information was 

found for research on recreation impacts in more open, undisturbed grasslands.

L. Habitat Fragmentation (Patch Size/Area Sensitivity/Edge Effects)

There is substantial evidence that many grassland birds are sensitive to the fragmentation of their 

grassland habitats. Their response may be to patch size (i.e., area sensitivity, in which birds are positively 

associated with patch size), patch shape, or to edge (i.e., response to vegetation structures or predators 

associated with edge habitat; “interior species” avoid the portions of habitat closest to edges). In addition 

to site-specific responses, many species respond to fragmentation at a landscape scale (e.g., continuity of 

habitat, isolation/distance to nearest other grassland, percent cover in grassland within XX km of site). 

Bird response has been measured by abundance, density, probability of occurrence, or nesting success. 

See Johnson (2001) and Ribic et al. (2009b) for an extended discussion of patterns, processes, and issues 

associated with area sensitivity in grassland birds. Both of these references express concern about studies 

that do not take into account passive-sampling issues, which describe a problem when species incidence is 

used to compare patches of different sizes with unequal sample effort. 

Johnson (2001) and Ribic et al. (2009b) identified studies that they felt had addressed these issues. The 

response of Grasshopper Sparrows to fragmentation and whether they are considered area sensitive 

species shows some variation across its broad range. Among the studies determined to address passive 

sampling issues (Ribic et al. 2009b), Grasshopper Sparrows showed evidence of area sensitivity in the 

tallgrass region (Herkert 1994b; Horn et al. 2002; Renfrew and Ribic 2002; Renfrew and Ribic 2008), in 

the mixed-grass region (Bakker et al. 2002; Davis 2004; DeJong et al. 2004), and in the northeast 

(Vickery et al. 1994; Bollinger 1995). However, a regional analysis in mixed-grass prairie found 

variability in Grasshopper Sparrow response to patch size (positive, negative, and no response) in mixedgrass prairie (Johnson and Igl 2001). These mixed results demonstrate the importance of looking at 

regional rather than only site-specific responses. 

Below is a summary of additional literature that may or may not meet the standards advocated by Ribic et 

al. (2009b). It is beyond the scope of this document to evaluate the methodology of studies mentioned 

below, so conclusions should be viewed with caution.

In the East, Grasshopper Sparrow is generally considered area sensitive (Jones and Vickery 1997; 

Mitchell et al. 2000) and most of the literature seems to bear this out. Evidence that Grasshopper Sparrow 

occurrence, abundance, density, nest placement, productivity, and adult return rate were positively 

associated with grassland patch size was found throughout eastern grasslands (Vickery et al. 1997, Moss 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 51

2001, Balent and Norment 2003, Jobin and Falardeau 2010; Wentworth et al. 2010). The apparent 

threshold patch sizes differed among studies. There is reason for concern regarding the productivity of 

Grasshopper Sparrows using smaller patches. In New York, where Grasshopper Sparrows were using 

small patches, the largest of which was 13.2 ha, all patches appeared to function as sink habitats (Balent 

and Norment 2003). Response to fragmentation at the landscape scale also can be important. In the 

Delmarva Peninsula, a multi-scale model found that at the landscape scale Grasshopper Sparrow 

occupancy was positively associated with amount of grassland/pasture and negatively associated with 

inter-patch distance to grasslands and amount of low intensity development (Irvin et al. 2013). Similarly,

Grasshopper Sparrows elsewhere in the northeast showed a strong positive response to the proportion of 

grassland area in the landscape (Jobin and Falardeau 2010; Wentworth et al. 2010; Clower 2011). 

In the tallgrass and mixed-grass regions, additional literature not meeting the Ribic et al. (2009b) 

standards suggests variability in Grasshopper Sparrow response to patch size – positive association with 

patch size (Helzer and Jelinski 1999; McMaster and Davis 2001; Bakker et al. 2002; Davis 2004), and no 

significant association (Swengel 1996; Walk and Warner 1999; Winter and Faaborg 1999; Murray et al. 

2008; Ribic et al. 2009a). Note that non-significant results do not demonstrate a lack of effect (Ribic et 

al. 2009b). Again Grasshopper Sparrows were positively associated with the amount of grasslands in the 

larger landscape (Ribic and Sample 2001). Other types of responses to or effects of patch size were 

documented, including avoidance of edge habitat between grassland and other habitats (Delisle and 

Savidge 1996; Bakker et al. 2002; Renfrew et al. 2005; Patten et al. 2006), and increased nest predation in 

smaller patches (Herkert et al. 2003), 

Little information is available about Grasshopper Sparrow response to patch size in other grassland 

regions. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow density was higher in core plots than in edge plots on the few 

remaining sites where they are still found (Perkins et al. 2003); nest success generally increased as nests 

were further from edge and was higher in core plots than edge plots at one site. In general, core areas 

appeared to function as source habitats in at least some years, whereas edge areas were consistently sink 

habitats. Grasshopper Sparrows in the Front Range in Colorado were significantly more abundant on 

interior plots than they were on edge plots directly adjacent to suburban development (Bock et al. 1999). 

See section on Shrub/Woody Vegetation Encroachment for info on response to specific edge habitat 

components like woody vegetation.

M. Pesticides

The information about effects of pesticides (herbicides and insecticides) on Grasshopper Sparrows is 

extremely limited. Effects could take two forms: (1) direct effects resulting in mortality or reduced 

productivity; or (2) indirect effects on birds through pesticide effects on habitat or food resources or 

behavior. Insecticides appear to be of most concern; Mineau and Whiteside (2006) limited their analyses 

to the lethal risk of insecticides to birds because few herbicides or fungicides are of comparable toxicity. 

Overall, they found that corn and cotton were the crops responsible for most potential bird mortality in the 

U.S., followed more distantly by alfalfa, wheat, potato, peanut, sugar beet, sorghum, tobacco, and citrus. 

Grassland birds may be at greater risk for exposure to organochlorine pesticides than other passerines 

because their breeding and wintering grounds may be in closer proximity to agricultural areas where these 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 52

pesticides are used (Bartuszevige et al. 2002). Authors of a recent publication suggest that pesticide 

toxicity should be considered more seriously as a factor causing grassland bird population declines 

(Mineau and Whiteside 2013). Using population trends from BBS data and state-by-state pesticide use 

data from USDA, they modeled which agricultural variables best predicted population declines. They 

found that lethal risk from pesticide use (based on the results of avian field studies) was the best predictor 

of species declines; habitat loss and measures of agricultural intensification did not explain declines as 

well. Grasshopper Sparrow was one of the species with the most states showing population declines and

it has been killed in pesticide field trials.

A few other studies have suggested that pesticides may be a cause of grassland bird population declines. 

Forty-four of 99 individuals collected in Illinois, including six of 25 Grasshopper Sparrows, contained 

organochlorine pesticides above the detection limit (Bartuszevige et al. 2002), although five of the ten 

species tested had higher mean levels of p,p’-DDE than Grasshopper Sparrows. In addition to pesticide 

application to croplands, grasshopper damage in western North American rangelands causes substantial 

economic damage and the response has historically been large-scale application of chemical controls 

(broad spectrum insecticides) to millions of ha of U.S. grasslands (Branson et al. 2006). Martin et al. 

(2000) found that pesticides applied to control grasshopper infestations in Canada (Furadan and Decis) 

did not appear to affect reproductive output of Chestnut-collared Longspur. However, using a 

productivity index for Baird’s Sparrows, in the same genus as Grasshopper Sparrow, among occupied 

plots, those sprayed with Furadan had fewer productive Baird’s Sparrow territories and more abandoned 

territories than those unsprayed or sprayed with Decis (Martin et al. 2000). Previous studies of the effects 

of grasshopper pesticides on birds did not focus on productivity or specific species. Variation and/or few 

differences were found in bird response (total density, species richness, diversity) to various pesticide 

treatments and controls (George et al. 1995; Norelius and Lockwood 1999). However, both of these 

studies found some evidence that bird densities were suppressed for up to a month post-treatment; given 

the extended period after treatment, they suggested that the density declines were a result of reduced food 

availability (fewer grasshoppers) rather than direct toxic effects.

In an example of indirect effects, the application of herbicides to a grassland in southern Maine used for 

commercial blueberry production had significant effects on vegetation physiognomy and in turn affected

territory occupancy of Grasshopper Sparrows (Vickery et al. 1999a). Herbicides reduced forb, short 

shrub, and short graminoid cover, all of which were important to Grasshopper Sparrows. As a result 

Grasshopper Sparrow densities were reduced and recovery took 2-6 years depending on the number of 

herbicide applications. In contrast, it seems possible that Grasshopper Sparrows may respond positively 

to herbicide treatments to reduce shrub components as have other grassland birds like Cassin’s Sparrows 

(Peucaea cassinii) in New Mexico (Smythe and Haukos 2010).

N. Agriculture – Crops

Information has been provided in other sections about agricultural impacts on Grasshopper Sparrows 

related to mowing, grazing, burning, and pesticides (and see the section below about the Conservation 

Reserve Program). Because Grasshopper Sparrows only occasionally use cropland, such as corn and 

oats, and then at much lower densities than in grassland/pasture/hayland habitats (Dechant et al. 1998), 

there is very little to be discussed in this section. As discussed in more detail with regard to mowing, 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 53

agricultural practices such as tillage, planting, and cultivation of crop fields result in direct effects,

predominately involving the destruction of nests; similar indirect effects are related to changes in the 

vegetative structure and food resources (Rodenhouse et al. 1995).

Shelterbelts, fencerows, roadsides, etc. - Koford and Best (1996) describe the wildlife value of various 

strip cover habitats in agricultural landscapes (e.g., fencerows, roadsides, and windbreaks/shelterbelts). 

However, for the most part, these kinds of habitat are not of value to Grasshopper Sparrows and in some 

cases are actively avoided. Patterson and Best (1996) report that Grasshopper Sparrows do not use 

roadside habitats in Iowa, although Warner (1992) reported Grasshopper Sparrows nesting in Illinois 

roadsides. 

VIII. Management Programs and Impacts

A. Conservation Reserve Program 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was established by the 1985 Farm Bill and is administered by 

the USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA). It is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners, who 

receive payments for retiring highly erodible lands from agricultural production and establishing 

permanent cover. CRP contracts are for 10 – 15 years, at which point they expire and producers have to 

compete to re-enroll these acres. Some CRP practices have the potential to benefit grassland birds (e.g., 

creation of wildlife habitat, use of native grasses) while others have the potential to cause problems for 

grassland birds (e.g., planting of windbreaks, shelterbelts, trees). Haying and grazing are permitted in 

some CRP contracts under certain defined circumstances including a restriction during nesting season and 

a reduction in CRP payments; the frequency at which this is permitted will affect vegetation structure and 

therefore determine whether it would have positive or negative effects on Grasshopper Sparrows. 

Emergency haying and grazing are permitted under certain prescribed conditions (e.g., drought); in the 

past this has also involved a reduction in CRP payments, but the 2014 Farm Bill removed the provision 

for reduced payments for emergency haying and grazing. Continuous years of drought and emergency 

haying or grazing on CRP acres may have cumulative effects on grassland birds.

Value of CRP to Grasshopper Sparrows - The literature includes information about the overall value of 

CRP land and the effects of specific CRP plantings or management practices on grassland birds and 

Grasshopper Sparrows specifically. See Jones-Farrand et al. (2007) and Gray (2009) for more 

information about CRP and its impacts on wildlife.

Throughout the Great Plains many CRP lands have been found to support abundant populations of 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Johnson 2000; Herkert 2009). Grasshopper Sparrows were among the most 

common species found in CRP acres in northern Great Plains states; they were not commonly observed in 

paired croplands (Berthelesen and Smith 1995; Patterson and Best 1996; Best et al. 1997). Establishment 

of CRP has been shown to have had a positive impact on Grasshopper Sparrow populations in the midcontinental U.S. (Herkert 1998; Herkert 2009). Grasshopper Sparrow abundance has been positively 

associated with CRP acreage (O’Connor et al. 1999; Riffell et al. 2008). However, at the landscape level 

this may also have been true prior to CRP (i.e., in many of these areas CRP acreage was established in 

landscapes that already supported more Grasshopper Sparrows (J. Herkert, pers. commun.). In contrast, a 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 54

study in Kansas found that Grasshopper Sparrow densities were lowest in CRP fields compared to grazed 

pastures and hayfields, even though CRP was planted to native warm-season grasses (Rahmig et al. 

2009). Although the eastern U.S. supports less CRP land, there are also limited grassland habitats 

available, so CRP can be quite important to grassland birds. Grasshopper Sparrows responded positively 

and almost immediately to the planting and restoration of grasses on CRP land in Maryland (Gill et al. 

2006). Models of the effect of increased CRP hayfield enrollment in New Jersey on Grasshopper 

Sparrow population viability found that the probability of metapopulation extinction was reduced below 

10% when half of available agricultural land was enrolled (Seigel and Lockwood 2010). In the shortgrass 

prairie, most CRP fields have been planted to taller grasses than historically found across the region, 

which can be a problem for species that require short grass (Askins et al. 2007). But given Grasshopper 

Sparrow preference for intermediate grass height and density, this may not be problematic for them in the 

shortgrass region. In fact, Grasshopper Sparrow was determined to be the species that most benefitted 

from CRP lands in the shortgrass prairie (Playa Lakes Joint Venture 2009). In the high plains of Texas, 

Grasshopper Sparrows showed preference for two non-native CRP mixes and a native mix with 

buffalograss because they provided appropriate forb height, less bare ground, and more grass cover than 

the other native mix (Thompson et al. 2009). Although numerous studies have evaluated the abundance 

and reproductive success of grassland birds in CRP fields, few have attempted to determine whether CRP 

land contributes to population growth of grassland birds (McCoy et al. 1999). Resulting tests of whether 

CRP fields were source habitats for grassland birds found that CRP lands (both cool-season and warmseason planted grasslands) were source habitats for Grasshopper Sparrows (McCoy et al. 1999; McCoy et 

al. 2001). 

However CRP lands do not necessarily provide the best grassland habitat for Grasshopper Sparrows, 

although they may represent a “best alternative” habitat where native grassland no longer exists. Where 

native grasslands remain, they frequently support higher Grasshopper Sparrow abundance or densities 

than CRP grasslands, even when native remnants are smaller (Ribic et al. 2009a). Increased abundance of 

Grasshopper Sparrows in CRP grasslands can be context-dependent; in one study it was only documented 

in landscapes where juniper was encroaching, and not in landscapes where substantial amounts of native 

grassland remained (Coppedge et al. 2001).

In spite of the evidence regarding the value of CRP lands to Grasshopper Sparrows, some cautionary 

notes are warranted. First, it is important to note that different species of grasses are planted on CRP 

lands and they may have different effects on habitat suitability. In addition, given Grasshopper Sparrow 

preference for intermediate height and density of grass, as time since grass planting/restoration increases 

and in the absence of periodic disturbance or management, vegetation on CRP lands in much of the 

species’ range becomes too tall and dense to be suitable Grasshopper Sparrow habitat. In fact, follow-up 

monitoring on previously studied CRP sites where Grasshopper Sparrow abundance had been high 

(Herkert 1998), found that trends were back to pre-CRP levels and Grasshopper Sparrows were absent or 

rare when these CRP fields matured (J. Herkert, pers. commun.). Periodic management to reduce 

vegetation height and litter buildup is required to maintain CRP as suitable habitat for Grasshopper 

Sparrows and in some cases, even such management of older CRP acres does not match the benefits of 

newly planted CRP (J. Herkert, pers. commun.). In addition, management of CRP acres to continue to 

benefit Grasshopper Sparrows may run counter to the needs of other priority species such as Henslow’s 

Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) (Herkert 1998) and requires a balance of management practices. See 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 55

the sections above on Mowing, Grazing, and Fire, three of the practices used under some circumstances 

to manage CRP. 

Given the many factors that can influence the impact of CRP on Grasshopper Sparrow numbers, an 

important aspect of conservation planning is to determine whether managing CRP lands can have a 

population-level effect on Grasshopper Sparrows and how much CRP land would be required to achieve 

population objectives. Some of the Joint Ventures within the range of Grasshopper Sparrows are 

beginning to develop these decision-making analyses. The Central Hardwoods Joint Venture evaluated

the contributions that CRP land could make to the conservation of Northern Bobwhites and other early 

successional bird species including Grasshopper Sparrow (Giocomo et al. 2009) in focal areas within the 

Central Hardwoods BCR. They found that Grasshopper Sparrow would need more than twice the 

managed area on a 10-year rotation than on a 3-year rotation (614,440 to 1,755,544 ha respectively) 

because of the species’ preferred intermediate habitat. This represents 3-10 times more CRP land than 

occurred in these focal areas in 2005, making it clear that CRP alone will not meet Grasshopper Sparrow 

population objectives there (Giocomo et al. 2009). It is these kinds of analyses that are needed across the 

species’ range to focus conservation actions, especially in regions that support larger portions of the 

Grasshopper Sparrow population.

Possible Changes in CRP - As of March 2014, there were approximately 25.6 million acres enrolled in 

CRP (down from 34.7 million acres in 2008), distributed unevenly across the U.S.; 18.3 million acres of 

that is in grass. The contracts for 4.9 million acres are scheduled to expire from 2014 – 2016. The level 

of participation in the program is changing as a result of increasing agricultural commodity prices that are 

outpacing CRP rental payments and a continued lowering of the CRP acreage cap from 27.5 to 24.0 

million acres between 2014 and 2017, implemented in the 2014 Farm Bill. The effect of reduction in 

CRP acreages on grassland birds is of concern (Johnson and Igl 1995; Klute et al. 1997; Herkert 1998; 

McLachlan et al. 2007; Herkert 2009). 

Using actual land use choices following CRP contract expirations from 1995 – 1997, a study of economic 

motivations driving land set-aside programs predicted the fate of CRP acreage if the CRP program had 

expired in 1997 (Roberts and Lubowski 2007). What is striking about this study is the similarity between 

the distribution of CRP (Figure 1, Roberts and Lubowski 2007) and the distribution of Grasshopper 

Sparrows. Given the positive response of Grasshopper Sparrow to CRP lands in much of its range, the

study’s prediction that 50 – 75% of the northern Great Plains CRP acreage (and in many areas more than 

75%) will return to cropland (Roberts and Lubowski 2007) has serious implications for Grasshopper 

Sparrows and other grassland birds that benefit from CRP. There also have been several efforts to model 

the effects of the loss of CRP lands on grassland birds. If North Dakota CRP lands reverted to cropland, 

Johnson and Igl (1995) project that it would result in a 20.5% reduction in the number of Grasshopper 

Sparrows in the state. Reversion of all CRP back to cropland in the Mixed-Grass Prairie Bird 

Conservation Region (#19) is projected to have a serious negative impact on the ability to meet 

Grasshopper Sparrow conservation population goals in Texas and Kansas where there is relatively little 

native grassland and large amounts of CRP (McLachlan et al. 2007). In contrast, reversion of CRP land 

to moderately grazed pastureland in Kansas was projected to have minimal effects on Grasshopper 

Sparrows and other grassland birds (Klute et al. 1997), emphasizing that it is conversion to cropland that 

poses the largest threat.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 56

Mid-contract disking and interseeding – There are cases in which mid-contract management of CRP 

acreages with disking and interseeding, often with forbs, is permitted and even encouraged to maintain 

intended CRP plantings. In eastern Nebraska, Grasshopper Sparrows were among the most abundant 

species on both untreated and treated sites (disked and interseeded with legumes) (Negus et al. 2010). 

Response to treatment was mixed. Negus et al. (2010) attributed the equal use of treated and untreated in 

the first year to the structure characteristics created by disking (shorter vegetation and more bare ground), 

but the preference for untreated sites in the second year because treated fields had taller, denser 

vegetation, making them less suitable Grasshopper Sparrow habitat.

See sections on Shrub/Woody Vegetation Encroachment, Mowing, Grazing, and Fire for information 

that may be appropriate for CRP management. 

B. Other Grassland Conservation Programs

There are other programs that may apply to grasslands and may benefit grassland birds and Grasshopper 

Sparrows in particular. Only a few are mentioned here.

USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) – The CREP is a federal/state/private

partnership program providing increased incentives to enroll in CRP and address soil erosion, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat issues (Wilson and Brittingham 2012). In Pennsylvania where this program 

is popular, Grasshopper Sparrows were found to use CREP fields but they were not very common 

(Wentworth et al. 2010; Wilson and Brittingham 2012; Pabian et al. 2013). The CREP was not found to 

have any effect on Grasshopper Sparrow abundance and population trends (Wilson and Brittingham 2012; 

Pabian et al. 2013). Wilson and Brittingham (2012) noted that CREP fields were very small and in a 

forested landscape matrix; given that Grasshopper Sparrows in this area are area sensitive (Wentworth et 

al. 2010), this may explain the pattern.

USDA Grassland Reserve Program – The USDA FSA also administers the Grassland Reserve Program

(GRP). Similar to CRP, landowners enter a contract for 10, 15, or 20 years, or for an indefinite period of 

time; they receive an annual rental payment. The goal is to prevent grazing and pastureland from being 

converted into cropland, or urban development, etc. Landowners can still use the land for grazing and 

conduct activities related to forage and seed production; there are some restrictions for activities during 

bird nesting season. FSA also provides cost-sharing and other incentives to offset costs of management. 

The 2014 Farm Bill has rolled the GRP, along with other reserve programs, into the Agricultural 

Conservation Easement Program.

USDA NRCS Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) The NRCS administers the CSP as a voluntary 

partnership with private landowners to implement conservation activities. A study of the effects of the 

CSP program and grazing deferment on grassland birds in northeastern Colorado found that Grasshopper 

Sparrows occurred at higher densities and more frequently on lands enrolled in CSP than in other 

grasslands (Fogg and Pavlacky 2012). 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 57

USFWS Grassland Easement Program – The USFWS administers an easement program that pays 

landowners to permanently keep their land in grass. It may not be cultivated; grazing is not restricted, but 

mowing, harvesting, or grass seed harvesting must be delayed until after July 15 to protect nesting birds. 

Canada’s Permanent Cover Program (PCP) – In the early 1990s, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada 

established a program similar to the U.S. CRP that was called Permanent Cover Program (PCP). It 

encouraged landowners to convert cultivated land into perennial vegetative cover through a one-time 

financial incentive; landowners committed to maintain permanent cover for a 10- or 21-year period and 

used the forage produced annually for pasture or hay (McMaster and Davis 2001). PCP has resulted in 

more grassland habitat in the prairie provinces and British Columbia; as of 2003, approximately 518,000 

ha were enrolled (Askins et al. 2007). In the mixed-grass and aspen parklands of Alberta, Saskatchewan, 

and Manitoba, Grasshopper Sparrows were detected more frequently at PCP sites than in surrounding 

croplands; within PCP sites they were marginally more frequently detected on pasture (which had shorter 

vegetation with more bare ground) than on hayed PCP (McMaster and Davis 2001). From 2005-2009, 

the PCP was replaced by the five-year Greencover Canada Program, an initiative to help producers 

improve their grassland-management practices, convert sensitive lands to perennial cover, and enhance 

biodiversity and wildlife habitat; this program expired in 2009. The subsequent Growing Forward 

programs focus on innovation, competitiveness, and market development in the Canadian agriculture and 

agri-food sector through federal-provincial-territorial partnerships. The details of these programs are 

beyond the scope of this document, but they do appear to include provisions for environmental farm 

planning and best management practices.

The programs described above are federal government programs. Although it is beyond the scope of this 

document to list or summarize, there are also many regional, state, and local grassland initiatives or 

grassland bird initiatives that would benefit Grasshopper Sparrows. In many cases these initiatives 

identify Grasshopper Sparrows as a priority or target species. Engagement of these initiatives in planning 

for activities developed in response to this plan will likely improve the effectiveness of those actions.

C. Surface mine and mountaintop mine reclamation

In the eastern U.S. and some parts of the Midwest where grassland habitat is limited, areas with large 

numbers of reclaimed surface mines planted to grass offer potential habitat for Grasshopper Sparrows and 

other grassland birds. Scott and Lima (2004) state that the largest grasslands in Indiana and Illinois are on 

reclaimed surface mines. Because rapid establishment of ground cover is required and reforestation 

proved unsuccessful, most surface mine reclamation sites are dominated by cool-season non-native 

grasses (DeVault et al. 2002). However as cost of native seed declines and more is known about how to 

restore native grassland, there are efforts to test replacement of cool-season with native warm-season 

grasses (Scott and Lima 2004). Many reclaimed sites are undisturbed, while some are managed by 

mowing or grazing; this may have to do with whether sites have a tendency to undergo succession toward 

a woody plant community or not. The sizes of these sites can vary substantially geographically; sites in 

southwestern Indiana ranged from 110 – 3180 ha (DeVault et al. 2002); in western Pennsylvania from 1 –

180 ha (Mattice et al. 2005; Stauffer et al. 2011); in West Virginia from 40 – 2431 ha (Wray et al. 1982; 

Ammer 2003); and in Ohio from 1200 – 3700 ha (Ingold 2002; Graves et al. 2010).
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 58

Grasshopper Sparrows were among the most abundant grassland species found on reclaimed minelands 

planted to grass (Wray et al. 1982; DeVault et a. 2002; Ingold 2002; Scott et al. 2002; Mattice et al. 2005; 

Galligan et al. 2006; Graves et al. 2010; Duncan 2011). They were found in lower numbers in hayfields 

being used as control sites (Ingold 2002). Grasshopper Sparrows on reclaimed mine grasslands were 

positively associated with grassland size and grass-dominated sites, and negatively associated with litter 

cover and depth, vegetation density, and forb-dominated sites (Scott et al. 2002; Duncan 2011). Daily 

nest survival (DNS) was higher in more open habitats (Galligan et al. 2006). Another study found that 

Grasshopper Sparrow DNS was positively associated with height of non-woody vegetation and greater 

fledgling production was associated with greater thatch depth and less bare ground, but neither DNS nor 

fledgling production was associated with measures of shrub cover (Hill and Diefenbach 2013). Average 

nest survival was also greater on newer sites than on older sites (Ammer 2003). Nest success can vary 

substantially among years (Wray et al. 1982); there was evidence that nest success was positively 

associated with higher nearby vegetation and negatively associated with larger shrubs (Ammer 2003; 

Galligan et al. 2006). A demographic study concluded that a West Virginia site was functioning as a sink 

habitat for Grasshopper Sparrows and other grassland birds in most years (Wray et al. 1982). In 

Pennsylvania, Grasshopper Sparrows were more likely to occupy reclaimed grassland sites with low 

woody shrub density, and sparrow density declined over ten years during which woody vegetation 

increased on these sites (Hill and Diefenbach 2014); they suggest that without management intervention 

to control increases in woody vegetation, reclaimed surface mine grasslands are ephemeral habitats for 

Grasshopper Sparrows.

See sections on Mowing, Shrub/Woody Vegetation Encroachment, Grazing, Fire, and Non-native 

grasses/forbs for information that may be appropriate for managing mine reclamation sites.

D. Managing Military Installations

The U.S. Department of Defense manages 25 million acres, much of it undeveloped for safety reasons or 

as security buffers. In some regions, military installations possess some of the best remaining grasslands 

(Eberly 2002) and grassland habitats are one of the highest conservation priorities for Department of 

Defense-Partners in Flight (DoD-PIF 2002). In addition to military activities, prescribed burning can 

mimic native fire regimes; both prescribed burning and mowing also are frequently used to manage 

grasslands around airfields for air safety issues. Installations with significant grassland habitat are found 

throughout the eastern U.S., concentrated in the southeast, with some in the Midwest and northeast

(Giocomo and Buehler 2005). Military installations with substantial grasslands include (1) Fort Sill, 

Oklahoma; (2) Fort Riley, Kansas; (3) Fort Campbell, Kentucky-Tennessee; (4) Fort Drum, New York; 

(5) Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts; (6) Naval Air Engineering Station, New Jersey; (7) Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina; and (8) Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida (Eberly 2002, P. Vickery, pers. 

commun.). 

See sections on Fire and Mowing for information appropriate for managing military installation 

grasslands. 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 59

E. Habitat Restoration 

Because of the loss of most native tallgrass prairie, much of the need and work to develop methods for 

grassland restoration have occurred in that region. In comparison, few ecological restoration methods 

have been developed for shortgrass prairie (Askins et al. 2007). It is beyond the scope of this document 

to summarize information on the actual restoration of prairie grasslands. This section presents available 

information on the response of Grasshopper Sparrows to grassland restoration in the tallgrass region; as 

elsewhere in this document, it appears that Grasshopper Sparrow response to restored vs. native 

grasslands is driven primarily by the differences in grassland structure. A comparison of grassland birds 

using native tallgrass prairie remnants and restored grasslands (both warm- and cool-season grasses) 

found that Grasshopper Sparrow density was higher in restored grasslands (Fletcher and Koford 2002). 

Grasshopper Sparrow density was negatively associated with total vegetation cover, vertical vegetation 

density, and the amount of grassland-woody edge habitat in the landscape; restored grasslands had 

significantly lower total vegetation cover than native prairie. Bakker and Higgins (2009) compared native 

sod prairie and four different planted grasslands (cool- and warm-season grasses); although Grasshopper 

Sparrow density did not differ significantly among the grassland types, densities were twice as high in 

native sod prairie and native warm-season mix grasslands, which had lower grass height and density,

compared to the other grassland types. The results from both of these studies may be explained by 

differences in vegetative structure and Grasshopper Sparrow preference for sites with intermediate grass 

height and density. 

See sections on Non-native Grasses/Forbs and Shrub/Woody Vegetation Encroachment for additional 

information that may be appropriate for grassland restoration. 

IX. Recent/Ongoing Conservation Actions

A. Monitoring 

Long-term, broad scale population trend monitoring, using Breeding Bird Survey data, is generally 

considered adequate for Grasshopper Sparrow, although some issues like bias may not have been 

accounted for (Rich et al. 2004; Dunn et al. 2005). Nevertheless, there are states or regions where 

targeted monitoring of priority grassland birds has occurred, is planned, or is being conducted to address 

regional information needs. Following are some examples; where citations or websites were available, 

they are provided: 

• grassland bird survey program in New England and New York by Massachusetts Audubon (1997

– 2000); this effort produced a map of Grasshopper Sparrow distribution for this region 

http://www.massaudubon.org/our-conservation-work/wildlife-research-conservation/grasslandbirds 

• systematic roadside surveys throughout the Central Hardwoods BCR (2008 – 2012) for Northern 

Bobwhite and priority grassland birds - counties in MO, AR, IL, IN, OK, KY, TN (Lituma and 

Buehler 2012); 

• the Arizona Bird Conservation Initiative is gearing up to begin a targeted grassland bird 

monitoring program; http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/abci_resources.shtml
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 60

• Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory conducts monitoring programs at various scales – for 

Colorado and some surrounding states, for various federal agencies, etc. – that include grassland 

birds - work includes surveys in CO, KS, MT, ND, NE, SD, TX, and WY; they also conduct 

wintering grassland bird monitoring and research in Mexico, TX, NM and AZ. 

http://rmbo.org/v3/OurWork/Science_/BirdPopulationMonitoring.aspx

• development of a multi-scale occupancy model for Grasshopper Sparrow in the DelMarVa 

peninsula (Irvin et al. 2013); 

• Predictive modeling for Grasshopper Sparrow within the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture boundaries 

(Niemuth et al. 2005); contact USFWS HAPET office http://www.fws.gov/midwest/hapet/

• Missouri Department of Conservation surveys of grassland management focus areas and for 

comparison, grasslands management areas that are not managed for birds or other wildlife (2001 

– present) (contact: Brad Jacobs, Missouri Department of Conservation); 

• Missouri River Bird Observatory monitors grassland birds in the state as part of National 

Audubon Society’s Prairie Bird Initiative http://mrbo.org/grasslandbirds/ 

• New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife and New Jersey Audubon have conducted collaborative 

citizen science grassland bird surveys for seven years, including data on general and microhabitat; http://www.njaudubon.org/SectionCitizenScience/GrasslandBirdSurveys.aspx

• New Mexico Department of Game and Fish conducted annual roadside surveys for Arizona 

Grasshopper Sparrow in the Animas and Playas valleys in southwestern New Mexico from 1992

– 2006 (Williams 2007); partial surveys from 2008 – 2011. 

• Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, in collaboration with Virginia Working Landscapes, 

conducts a citizen science grassland bird survey program on property of participating landowners 

in the state; http://www.vaworkinglandscapes.org/grassland

• Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative is working on strategic habitat conservation for 

grasslands; Grasshopper Sparrow is one of the focal species and will be used to evaluate the 

success of activities for species requiring shorter grass habitats. To facilitate this they are 

collecting data on multiple Grassland Bird Conservation Areas for three years and developing 

density/occupancy estimates for Grasshopper Sparrows; http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/ 

The above is not a comprehensive list; there are numerous additional place-based inventories and 

monitoring programs on wildlife refuges, national grasslands, military installations, BLM lands, etc. 

Additional monitoring needs are included in the Conservation Plan: Recommended Actions (Appendix 

A).

B. Research

It is beyond the scope of this document to provide information about all current/ongoing research projects 

that include Grasshopper Sparrows. However, here is a partial list of projects and Principal Investigators

who are working specifically on Grasshopper Sparrows or on grassland bird suites that include 

Grasshopper Sparrow (websites were functional at time of publication):

• Evolutionary and physiological ecology of dispersal in Grasshopper Sparrows (Alice Boyle, 

Kansas State University) http://www.aliceboyle.net/ 

• Distribution of Grasshopper Sparrows across southwestern Minnesota; evaluate existing habitat 

models; explore Grasshopper Sparrow as indicator/umbrella species (Grad student at University 

of Minnesota (Lisa Harn) and Doug Johnson, UMN/USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center, advisor) http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/staff/johnson.htm
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 61

• Death of a Meadowlark: are conservation lands helping grassland bird populations? The 

objective of this project is to determine the role that public lands play for grassland birds by 

evaluating their population status; in tallgrass prairie in Minnesota and Iowa (Marissa Ahlering, 

The Nature Conservancy, MN,ND and SD) 

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/minnesota/howwework/de

ath-of-a-meadowlark.xml

• Breeding ecology of Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow (Janet Ruth, USGS Arid Lands Field Station, 

Albuquerque, NM) http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Staff/staffprofile.asp?StaffID=126

• Florida Grasshopper Sparrow study (Erin Ragheb, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission) http://elhewett.wix.com/erinhewettragheb#

• Grassland bird population dynamics in an agricultural landscape – includes study of cues used by 

Grasshopper Sparrow in selecting breeding sites (Michael Ward and students, University of 

Illinois) http://ward.nres.illinois.edu/

• Monitoring grassland birds and nests, and studying restoration ecology in a working landscape on 

Grand River Grasslands in Iowa and Missouri (Jim Miller and students, University of Illinois)

http://millerlab.nres.illinois.edu/index.html

• Grassland bird studies on Fort Campbell Military Reservation and surrounding public and private 

lands in Tennessee and Kentucky (David Buehler and students, University of Tennessee) 

http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/personnel/dbuehler.htm

• Ecology of birds in managed grasslands program – reproductive success of grassland birds on 

regional airfields and factors causing nest failure/success (New Jersey Audubon, funded 

primarily by DoD) http://www.njaudubon.org/SectionResearch/Projects/Grasslands.aspx

• Winter survival and daily movements of grassland birds in Chihuahuan Desert grasslands 

(including Grasshopper Sparrows) (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory) 

http://rmbo.org/v3/OurWork/International/ChihuahuanDesertGrasslands.aspx

Additional research needs are included in the Conservation Plan: Recommended Actions (Appendix A).

C. Habitat Planning and Delivery

As the landbird conservation initiative in North America, Partners in Flight (PIF) is the primary source of 

landbird conservation assessments and priorities, and population estimates (Partners in Flight Science 

Committee 2012). It is the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (JVs) that serve as the delivery mechanism for 

all-bird conservation actions http://mbjv.org. Given the broad distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow 

throughout the U.S., southern Canada, and northern Mexico, they are found within all U.S. Joint Ventures 

at some time during their life cycle. Grasshopper Sparrow is identified as a priority species in the 

following U.S. Joint Ventures. Where JV publications were available, they are cited; JV websites are also 

provided.

• Prairie Potholes Joint Venture - breeding (Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 2005) http://ppjv.org/

• Rainwater Basin Joint Venture – breeding (Rainwater Basin Joint Venture 2013) http://rwbjv.org/ 

• Playa Lakes Joint Venture – breeding (Playa Lakes Joint Venture 2008) http://www.pljv.org/

• Intermountain West Joint Venture – primarily breeding (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2013)

http://iwjv.org/

• Sonoran Joint Venture (U.S. and Mexico) – breeding/winter (Sonoran Joint Venture Technical 

Committee 2006) http://sonoranjv.org/

• Oaks and Prairies Joint Venture – breeding/winter (Oaks & Prairies Joint Venture website –

http://www.opjv.org)
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 62

• East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture – breeding/winter (East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture 

2008) http://www.egcpjv.org/

• Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture – breeding (A. Forbes, pers. commun.)

• Rio Grande Joint Venture (U.S. and Mexico) – primarily winter (Rio Grande Joint Venture 

website - http://www.rgjv.org/) 

• Central Hardwoods Joint Venture – breeding (Central Hardwoods Joint Venture website - 

http://www.chjv.org/)

• Atlantic Coast Joint Venture – breeding/winter (Atlantic Coast Joint Venture website -

http://www.acjv.org/)

• Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture – primarily breeding (moderate priority) (Appalachian 

Mountains Joint Venture website – http://amjv.org)

Information about habitat planning and delivery that will benefit Grasshopper Sparrows can be found in 

Joint Venture materials, as well as individual State Wildlife Action Plans http://teaming.com/statewildlife-action-plans-swaps , and landbird conservation plans developed through Partners in Flight 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/conservation_plans/default.php.

D. Education/Outreach/Management Guidelines

Below is a list of some materials available regarding managing for grassland birds or Grasshopper 

Sparrows in particular, or other related information, for landowners and the general public:

• Audubon California website landowner resource – Making a Good Home for Grasshopper 

Sparrows http://ca.audubon.org/making-good-home-grasshopper-sparrows ; 

• Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO) landowner resources – Sharing Your Land with 

Prairie Wildlife (Gillihan et al. 2006), Integrating Bird Conservation into Range Management

(VerCauteren and Gillihan 2004), Compartiendo sus Agostaderos con las Aves de Pastizal

(Macías Duarte et al. 2011a), and Grazing Management for Wildlife Benefits – all can be found at 

http://rmbo.org/v3/InfoCenter/Publications/ManualsGuides.aspx and all contain specific 

information about Grasshopper Sparrows.

• Massachusetts Audubon resource – Conserving Grassland Birds

http://www.massaudubon.org/our-conservation-work/wildlife-research-conservation/grasslandbirds/grassland-birds-manual ; specific information about Grasshopper Sparrow -

http://www.massaudubon.org/our-conservation-work/wildlife-research-conservation/grasslandbirds/grassland-birds-manual/species/grasshopper-sparrow

• Partners in Flight - Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities 

(Paige and Ritter 1999) http://www.partnersinflight.org/wwg/sagebrush.pdf

• Cornell University Cooperative Extension resources - Enhancing pastures for grassland bird 

habitat (Ochterski 2005); Hayfield management and grassland bird conservation (Ochterski 

2006a); Transforming fields into grassland bird habitat (Ochterski 2006b)

• U.S. Department of Agriculture resources - USDA National Invasive Species Information Center -

http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/index.shtml ; USDA NRCS Introduced, Invasive, and 

Noxious Plants - http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver

• Conservation Reserve Program resource - Field guide to the 2008 Farm Bill for fish and wildlife 

conservation (Gray 2009) 

http://www.iwjv.org/sites/default/files/field_guide_to_the_2008_farm_bill.pdf
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 63

X. Conservation Plan

A. Conservation Action Items 

This Conservation Plan (Plan – see Appendix A) was designed to highlight actions that will help 

managers to achieve conservation for Grasshopper Sparrow. This Plan includes a list of actions and needs 

that will begin to address the requirements to achieve long-term conservation of Grasshopper Sparrow, 

focused on those subspecies found in the U.S. or its territories at some point during their annual cycle. 

Although not addressed specifically here, it is expected that many of these actions would also be relevant 

for conservation elsewhere in the species’ range. The recommended Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation

Action Items are presented in Appendix A, which also can be downloaded from 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/grasshoppersparrow/index.html as a PDF or as an

Excel spreadsheet to allow manipulation by users. The conservation action items are organized into the 

following major sections, addressing priority action items that contribute to and enhance this plan. 

• Population status and distribution

• Habitat conservation

• Management

• Research

• Inventory and Monitoring

• Education and Outreach

Although it is beyond the scope of this document to discuss in detail all sections and items within 

Appendix A, there is an issue that warrants discussion, because addressing it will be crucial to success in 

achieving the goals of a Grasshopper Sparrow conservation action plan (and many other population-level 

plans of this sort). It has to do with scale and the need to ensure that the scale of the actions 

recommended (and subsequently implemented) matches, or will produce, impacts at the scale necessary 

to achieve the stated goals and population objectives for Grasshopper Sparrow. Maintaining the 

population of such a wide-spread, abundant grassland species as Grasshopper Sparrow, in light of the 

pressures that grassland habitat faces, will require a sizeable set of actions. As partners move forward to 

implement the recommended goals, objectives, and action items in this plan it is important to determine at 

what scale actions should be implemented, and whether these actions will be sufficient to accomplish our 

collective goals. This requires answering questions such as: 

• How much grassland in what conditions and under what management regimes will be required to 

meet our goal for Grasshopper Sparrow populations?

• How much of a population-level impact is CRP having on Grasshopper Sparrow populations? 

What percentage of the population occurs in CRP? Will the scale of actions possible in 

manipulating CRP policies be sufficient to impact populations (see McLachlan et al. 2007; 

Giocomo et al. 2009; McLachlan and Carter 2009)?

• How much local grassland management (e.g., How much haying would have to be delayed? How 

much change in burn regimes?) must occur to achieve population-level impacts?

This is a difficult issue and has rarely been addressed in plans of this sort (J. Herkert, pers. commun.). 

Many of the recommended actions in Appendix A can be implemented at local or much larger scales. 

Local applications will produce local changes, but very large scale applications will be required to 

influence Grasshopper Sparrow range-wide populations, and evaluations will be required to determine 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 64

whether the recommended large scale actions will be sufficient to achieve our range-wide goal of 

maintaining Grasshopper Sparrow populations. Answering these questions will require a combination of 

research, monitoring, development of decision support tools, and collaboration with conservation 

planners. This issue, addressed under Goal 7, may well be one of the highest priority objectives and will 

inform our implementation of Goals 2 and 3.

Some Joint Ventures have already developed tools that will enable them to address the sort of scale issues 

described above. Two examples are the Playa Lakes JV Hierarchical All-Bird System (HABS), and the 

similar Intermountain West JV Habitats and Populations Strategies (HABPOPS) model. These are 

strategic tools that allow the JV to calculate landscape capacity to achieve population objectives both 

currently and in the future based on alternative scenarios and future habitat extent and condition. 

In the PLJV the HABS tool is already being used to assess the current carrying capacity of CRP lands in 

the PLJV for Grasshopper Sparrows and the impact of conversion back to croplands (McLachlan et al. 

2007; McLachlan and Carter 2009). In the IWJV the HABPOPS tool is being used to revise regional 

Grasshopper Sparrow population estimates and test scenarios (conversion of agricultural land to 

grassland, management of grasslands to improve habitat suitability or nesting densities, and altering 

management of woody habitats with a grass component) to assess the feasibility of meeting Grasshopper 

Sparrow population objectives in the IWJV (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2013). The challenge will 

be to scale these capabilities up to encompass the entire range of Grasshopper Sparrow.

It is important to strategically implement the action items identified in Appendix A with a focus on highpriority landscapes. The “Five Elements Process”, which is an adaptive process developed by Partners in 

Flight (Will et al. 2005), would be useful in delineating such high-priority landscapes. The five 

components of the process, with a brief explanation of each component, are:

1) Landscape Characterization – What habitats are important, where are they located 

on the current landscape, in what amounts, and in what condition?

2) Bird Population Response Modeling – Based on the best science, how do we think bird 

populations will respond to current landscape/habitat conditions as well as proposed 

management alternatives? How do population goals translate into habitat goals?

3) Conservation Opportunities Assessment – Where do opportunities for habitat 

protection, management, or restoration exist based on current landscape conditions? Who are

the main partners within a landscape?

4) Optimal Landscape Design – How can we bring together conservation strategies for a

diverse array of species with different habitat requirements and design landscapes beneficial to 

all species in a particular area? What are the priority species, landscape capabilities, and costs?

5) Monitoring and Evaluation – We need to monitor conservation actions in order to 

measure the success of our projects and to evaluate the assumptions on which decisions and 

actions were based in the previous four steps. Performance-based objectives need to be

developed that can be measured.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 65

B. Other Species that will benefit

Information about other species that would benefit from management actions targeting Grasshopper 

Sparrows is provided in Table 4.

C. Closing

Developing prescriptive, geographically-based Grasshopper Sparrow conservation action plans through 

collaborative partnerships is necessary to implement the conservation action items recommended here. 

The action plans should address and prioritize particular action items, include cost estimates, and identify 

the partners that will take the lead on and undertake each action item. However, there are currently no 

specific funding sources available for Grasshopper Sparrow conservation in the United States, Canada, 

and México. Therefore, implementing effective conservation measures will require the collaboration of a 

coalition of local, state, regional, national, and international partners to integrate actions into existing 

programs or identify new funding sources. In addition to this Conservation Plan, several state, provincial, 

and regional agencies and organizations have developed objectives and actions designed to address 

conservation of Grasshopper Sparrows. The conservation of Grasshopper Sparrows will require

implementation in multiple North American, Central American, and Caribbean countries, five Canadian 

provinces, many U. S. and Mexican states, and by public and private organizations. Implementing these 

conservation actions will encompass different issues in each country, but will require partnerships 

regardless of the geography. 

Table 4. Migratory bird species that could benefit from conservation actions targeting Grasshopper 

Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), in some geographic areas. Note that in many cases the opposite is 

not true (i.e., managing for these species will not necessarily benefit Grasshopper Sparrows).

Scientific Name English Common Name Season

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Breeding, Winter

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s Hawk Breeding

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Breeding

Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew Breeding, Winter

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Breeding

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark Breeding, Winter

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit Breeding, Winter

Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared Longspur Breeding, Winter

Rhynchophanes mccownii McCown’s Longspur Breeding

Peucaea aestivalis Bachman’s Sparrow Breeding, Winter

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow Breeding, Winter

Calamospiza melanocorys Lark Bunting Breeding, Winter

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow Breeding, Winter

Ammodramus bairdii Baird’s Sparrow Breeding, Winter

Spiza americana Dickcissel Breeding

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Breeding

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Breeding, Winter

Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Breeding, Winter
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 66

XI. Literature Cited

Abbasi, S.A., and N. Abbasi. 2000. The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy 

sources. Applied Energy 65:121-144.

Ahlering, M.A. 2005. Settlement cues and resource use by Grasshopper Sparrows and Baird's Sparrows in 

the Upper Great Plains. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO.

Ahlering, M.A., D.H. Johnson, and J. Faaborg. 2009. Factors associated with arrival densities of 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) and Baird’s Sparrow (A. bairdii) in the upper 

Great Plains. Auk 126:799-808. 

Ammer, F.K. 2003. Population level dynamics of Grasshopper Sparrow populations breeding on 

reclaimed mountaintop mines in West Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation, West Virginia University, 

Morgantown, WV.

Arguedas-Negrini, N. 2001. Distribution, habitat and behavior of grasshopper sparrows, Ammodramus 

savannarum (Passeriformes: Emberizidae) in northeastern Nicaragua. International Journal of 

Tropical Biology and Conservation 49:703-708.

Askins, R.A., F. Chaves-Ramirez, B.C. Dale, C.A. Hass, J.R. Herkert, F.L. Knopf, and P.D. Vickery. 

2007. Conservation of grassland birds in North America: understanding ecological processes in 

different regions. Ornithological Monographs 64:1-46.

Bahre, C.J. 1995. Human impacts on the grasslands of southeastern Arizona. Pages 230-264 In M.P. 

McClaran and T.R. Van Devender (editors). The desert grassland. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson, AZ.

Bakker, K.K., and K.R. Higgins. 2009. Planted grasslands and native sod prairie: equivalent habitat for 

grassland birds? Western North American Naturalist 69:235-242.

Bakker, K.K., D.E. Naugle, and K.F. Higgins. 2002. Incorporating landscape attributes into models for 

migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16: 1638-1646.

Balent, K.L., and C.J. Norment. 2003. Demographic characteristics of a Grasshopper Sparrow population 

in a highly fragmented landscape of western New York state. Journal of Field Ornithology 

74:341-348.

Barry, S., S. Larson, and M. George. 2006. California native grasslands: a historical perspective. 

Grasslands, Winter: 7-11.

Bartuszevige, A.M., A.P. Capparella, R.G. Harper, J.A. Frick, B. Criley, K. Doty, and E. Erhart. 2002. 

Organochlorine pesticide contamination in grassland-nesting passerines that breed in North 

America. Environmental Pollution 117:225-232.

Bayne, E.M., and B.C. Dale. 2011. Effects of energy development on songbirds. Pages 95-114 In D.E. 

Naugle (editor). Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North America. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 67

Benson, K. L. P., and K. A. Arnold. 2001. The Texas Breeding Bird Atlas. Texas A&M University 

System, College Station and Corpus Christi, TX. http://txtbba.tamu.edu Accessed 8 February 

2013.

Berlanga, H., J.A. Kennedy, T.D. Rich, M.C. Arizmendi, C J. Beardmore, P.J. Blancher, G.S. Butcher, 

A.R. Couturier, A.A. Dayer, D.W. Demarest, W.E. Easton, M. Gustafson, E. Iñigo-Elias, E.A. 

Krebs, A.O. Panjabi, V. Rodriguez Contreras, K.V. Rosenberg, J.M. Ruth, E. Santana Castellón, 

R. Ma. Vidal, and T.C. Will. 2010. Saving our shared birds: Partners in Flight Tri-National 

Vision for Landbird Conservation. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Berthelesen, P.S., and Smith, L.M. 1995. Nongame bird nesting on CRP land in the Texas Southern High 

Plains: Journal of Soil and Water Management 50:672–675.

Best, L.B., H. Campa III, K.E. Kemp, R.J. Robel, M.R. Ryan, J.A. Savidge, H.P.Weeks, Jr., and S.R. 

Winterstein. 1997. Bird abundance and nesting in CRP fields and cropland in the Midwest: a 

regional approach. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:864-877.

BirdLife International. 2014. Species factsheet: Ammodramus savannarum. Downloaded from 

http://www.birdlife.org on 3 February 2014. 

BirdLife International and NatureServe. 2013. Bird species distribution maps of the world. BirdLife 

International, Cambridge, UK and NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

Block, G., and M.L. Morrison. 2010. Large-scale effects of bird assemblages in desert grasslands. 

Western North American Naturalist 70:19-25. 

Bock, C.E., and W.M. Block. 2005. Fire and birds in the southwestern United States. Studies in Avian 

Biology 30:14-32.

Bock, C.E., and J.H. Bock. 2009. Biodiversity and residential development beyond the urban fringe. 

Pages 59-84 In A.X. Esparza and G. McPherson (editors). The planner’s guide to natural resource 

conservation: the science of land development beyond the metropolitan fringe. Springer, New 

York, NY.

Bock, C.E., and J.H. Bock. 1999. Response of winter birds to drought and short-duration grazing in 

southeastern Arizona. Conservation Biology 13:1117-1123. 

Bock, C.E., and J.H. Bock. 1992. Response of birds to wildfire in native versus exotic Arizona grasslands. 

Southwestern Naturalist 37:73-81.

Bock, C.E., and J.H. Bock. 1988. Grassland birds in southeastern Arizona: impacts of fire, grazing, and 

alien vegetation. Pages 43-58 In P.E. Goriup (editor). Ecology and conservation of grassland 

birds. Girton, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Bock, C.E., and J.H. Bock. 1987. Avian habitat occupancy following fire in a Montana shrubsteppe. 

Prairie Naturalist 19:153-158.

Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, and B.C. Bennett. 1999. Songbird abundance in grasslands at a suburban interface 

on the Colorado High Plains. Studies in Avian Biology 19:131-136.

Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, K.L. Jepson, and J.C. Ortega. 1986. Ecological effects of planting African 

lovegrasses in Arizona. National Geographic Research 2:456-463.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 68

Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, W.R. Kenney, and V.M. Hawthorne. 1984. Responses of birds, rodents, and 

vegetation to livestock exclosure in a semidesert grassland site. Journal of Range Management 

37:239-242.

Bock, J.H., C.E. Bock, and J.R. McKnight. 1976. A study of the effects of grassland fires at the Research 

Ranch in southeastern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 11:49-57.

Bock, C.E., Z.F. Jones, and J.H. Bock. 2008. The oasis effect: response of birds to exurban development 

in a southwestern savanna. Ecological Applications 18:1093-1106.

Bock, C.E., and B. Webb. 1984. Birds as grazing indicator species in southeastern Arizona. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 48:1045-1049.

Bogard, H.J.K. and S.K. Davis. 2014. Grassland songbirds exhibit variable responses to the proximity and 

density of natural gas wells. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:471-482.

Bollinger, E.K. 1995. Successional changes and habitat selection in hayfield bird communities. Auk 

112:720-730. 

Branson, D.H., A. Joern, and G.A. Sword. 2006. Sustainable management of insect herbivores in 

grassland ecosystems: new perspectives on grasshopper control. BioScience 56:743-755.

Breininger, D.R. 2009. Landcover changes and population dynamics of Florida Scrub-Jays and Florida 

Grasshopper Sparrows. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.

Brown, D.E. and E. Makings. 2014. A guide to North American grasslands. Desert Plants 29 (2): 1-158.

Bulgin, N.L., H.L. Gibbs, P. Vickery, and A.J. Baker. 2003. Ancestral polymorphisms in genetic markers 

obscure detection of evolutionarily distinct populations in the endangered Florida grasshopper 

sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus). Molecular Ecology 12:831-844.

Butler, A.B., J.A. Martin, W.E. Palmer, and J.P. Carroll. 2009. Winter use of southern Florida dry prairies 

by two declining grassland passerines. Condor 111:511-522. 

Butler, C.J. 2003. The disproportionate effect of global warming on the arrival dates of short-distance 

migratory birds in North America. Ibis 145:484-495.

Canadian Prairie Partners in Flight. 2004. Landbird conservation plan for Prairie Pothole Bird 

Conservation Region 11 in Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 

http://www.phjv.ca/publications.html

Cannings, R.J. 1995. Status of the Grasshopper Sparrow in British Columbia.Wildlife Bulletin No. B-77. 

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Carlisle, J., H. Ware, and J. Stenger. 2012. Spatially-balanced landbird surveys within the Craters of the 

Moon National Monument and Preserve during the 2011 breeding season. Report by Idaho Bird 

Observatory for Bureau of Land Management. Boise, ID.

Chapman, R.N., D.M. Engle, R.E. Masters, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2004. Grassland vegetation and bird 

communities in the southern Great Plains of North America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and 

Environment 104:577–585.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 69

Clower, K.M. 2011. Effects of rotational grazing on grassland songbirds on U.S. dairy farms. Master’s 

Thesis, University of Minnesota. 

Collier, C.L. 1994. Habitat selection and reproductive success of the Grasshopper Sparrow at the Santa 

Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. Master’s Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 

Colorado Partners in Flight. 2000. Colorado Land Bird Conservation Plan 

http://www.rmbo.org/pif/bcp/default.htm

Confer, J.L., R.E. Serrell, M. Hager, and E. Lahr. 2008. Field tests of the Rosenberg-Blancher methods 

for converting point counts to abundance estimates. Auk 125: 932-938.

Cooper, T.R. (Plan Coordinator). 2012. Status assessment and conservation plan for the Henslow’s 

Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, 

MN.

Coppedge, B.R., D.M. Engle, R.E. Masters, and M.S. Gregory. 2004. Predicting juniper encroachment 

and CRP effects on avian community dynamics in southern mixed-grass prairie, USA. Biological 

Conservation 115:431-441.

Coppedge, B.R., D.M. Engle, R.E. Masters, and M.S. Gregory. 2001. Avian response to landscape change 

in fragmented southern Great Plains grasslands. Ecological Applications 11:47-59.

Coppedge, B.R., S.D. Fuhlendorf, W.C. Harrell, and D.M. Engle. 2008. Avian community response to 

vegetation and structural features in grasslands managed with fire and grazing. Biological 

Conservation 141:1196-1203.

Corace III, R.G., D.J. Flaspohler, and L.M. Shartell. 2009. Geographical patterns in openland cover and 

hayfield mowing in the Upper Great Lakes region: implications for grassland bird conservation. 

Landscape Ecology 24:309-323.

Cunningham, M.A., and D.H. Johnson. 2006. Proximate and landscape factors influence grassland bird 

distribution. Ecological Applications 16:1062-1075.

Dale, B.C., P.A. Martin, and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:616-626.

Dale, B.C., T.S. Wiens, and L.E. Hamilton. 2009. Abundance of three grassland songbirds in an area of 

natural gas infill drilling in Alberta, Canada. Pages 194-204 In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.W. 

Demarest, and C. Thompson (editors). Tundra to tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people. 

Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference. 13-16 February 2008. 

McAllen, TX.

Danley, R.F., R.K. Murphy, and E.M. Madden. 2004. Species diversity and habitat of grassland and 

passerines during grazing of a prescribe-burned, mixed-grass prairie. Western North American 

Naturalist 64:72-77.

Davis, S.K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and 

vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121:1130-

1145.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 70

Davis, S.K, and D.C. Duncan. 1999. Grassland songbird occurrence in native and crested wheatgrass 

pastures of southern Saskatchewan. Studies in Avian Biology 19:211-218.

Davis, S.K., and S.G. Sealy. 2000. Cowbird parasitism and nest predation in fragmented grasslands of 

southwestern Manitoba. Pages 220–228 In J.N.M. Smith, T.L. Cook, S.I. Rothstein, S.K. 

Robinson, and S.G. Sealy (editors). Ecology and management of cowbirds and their hosts. 

University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M.P. Nenneman, and B.R. Euliss. 

1998 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Grasshopper Sparrow. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Accessed online 5 December 2012.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grsp/grsp.htm

DeJong, J.R., D.E. Naugle, K.K. Bakker, F.R. Quamen, and K.F. Higgins. 2004. Impacts of agricultural 

tillage on grassland birds in western South Dakota. Proceedings of the North American Prairie 

Conference: 76-80.

Delany, M.F., B. Pranty, and D.W. Perkins. 2002. Density and reproductive success of Florida 

Grasshopper Sparrows following fire. Journal of Range Management 55:336–340.

Delany, M.F., M.B. Shumer, M.E. McDermott, P.S. Kubilis, J.L. Hatchitt, and R.G. Rivero. 2007. Florida 

Grasshopper Sparrow distribution, abundance and habitat availability. Southeastern Naturalist 

6:15-26.

Delisle, J.M., and J.A. Savidge. 1997. Avian use and vegetation characteristics of Conservation Reserve 

Program fields. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:318-325.

Delisle, J.M., and J.A. Savidge. 1996. Reproductive success of Grasshopper Sparrows in relation to edge. 

Prairie Naturalist 28:107-113.

Desmond, M.J. 2004. Effects of grazing practices and fossorial rodents on a winter avian community in 

Chihuahua, Mexico. Biological Conservation 116: 235-242.

Desmond, M.J., K.E. Young, B.C. Thompson, R. Valdez, and A. Lafón Terrazas. 2005. Habitat 

associations and conservation of grassland birds in the Chihuahuan Desert region: two case 

studies in Chihuahua. Pages 439-451 In J-L.E. Cartron, G. Ceballos, and R.S. Felger (editors). 

Biodiversity, ecosystems and conservation in northern Mexico. Oxford University Press, New 

York, NY.

DeVault, T.L., P.E. Scott, R.A. Bajema and S.L. Lima. 2002. Breeding bird communities of reclaimed 

coal-mine grasslands in the American Midwest. Journal of Field Ornithology 73:268-275.

Dieni, J.S., and S.L. Jones. 2003. Grassland songbird nest site selection patterns in northcentral Montana. 

Wilson Bulletin 115:388-396. 

DoD-PIF. 2002. Department of Defense – Partners in Flight Strategic Plan: the conservation and 

management of migratory and resident birds and their habitats on Department of Defense lands. 

Partners in Flight, The Plains, VA.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 71

Duncan, S.L. 2011. Habitat associations of grassland and shrubland bird communities at reclaimed 

surface-mines in southern Illinois. Master’s Thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.

Dunn, E.H., B.L. Altman, J. Bart, C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, G.S. Butcher, D.W. 

Demarest, R. Dettmers, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, C.J. Ralph, 

T.D. Rich, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.M. Ruth, and T.C. Will. 2005. High priority needs for 

range-wide monitoring of North American landbirds. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 2. 

Partners in Flight website: http://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/ts/02-MonitoringNeeds.pdf

Dunning, J.B., and W.M. Pulliam. 1989. Winter habitats and behavior of Grasshopper Sparrows near 

Athens, Georgia. Oriole 54:51-53.

Earnst, S.L., and A.L. Holmes. 2012. Bird-habitat relationships in Interior Columbia Basin shrubsteppe. 

Condor 114:15-29.

Earnst, S.L., H.L. Newsome, W.L. LaFramboise, and N. LaFramboise. 2009. Avian responses to wildfire 

in Interior Columbia Basin shrubsteppe. Condor 111:370-376.

East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture. 2008. East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture Implementation Plan, 

Version 1. Auburn, AL.

Eberly, C. 2002. Defending the stepping stones of migration. Birding. October: 451-458.

Emlen, J.T. 1972. Size and structure of a wintering avian community in southern Texas. Ecology 53:317-

329.

Engstrom, R.T., P.D. Vickery, D.W. Perkins, and W.G. Shriver. 2005. Effects of fire regime on birds in 

southeastern pine savannas and native prairies. Studies in Avian Biology 30:147-160.

Environment Canada. 2013a. Bird conservation strategy for Bird Conservation Region 9 in Pacific and 

Yukon Region: Great Basin. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Delta, BC, 

Canada.

Environment Canada. 2013b. Bird conservation strategy for Bird Conservation Region 11 in the Prairie 

and Northern Region Canadian Wildlife Service Region: Prairie Potholes. Canadian Wildlife 

Service, Environment Canada, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

Environment Canada. 2013c. Bird conservation strategy for Bird Conservation Region 13 in Quebec 

Region – Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment 

Canada, Quebec, QC, Canada.

Environment Canada. 2014. Bird conservation strategy for Bird Conservation Region 13 in Ontario –

Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 

Toronto, ON, Canada.

Fargione, J.E., T.R. Cooper, D.J. Flaspohler, J. Hill, C. Lehman, T. McCoy, S. McLeod, E.JU. Nelson, 

K.S. Oberhauser, and D. Tilman. 2009. Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and opportunities for 

grassland conservation. BioScience 59:767-777.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 72

Finch, D.M. (editor). 2012. Climate change in grasslands, shrublands, and deserts of the interior 

American west: a review and needs assessment. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-285. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Finch, D.M. (editor). 2004. Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the southwestern United 

States, Vol. 1. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-135 Vol. 1. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Fletcher, Jr., R.J., and R.R. Koford. 2002. Habitat and landscape associations of breeding birds in native 

and restored grasslands. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1011-1022.

Fogg, J.A., and D.C. Pavlacky, Jr. 2012. Regional assessment of the effects of conservation practices on 

priority birds in the Shortgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Region. Technical Report #ST-CEAPNRCS-10. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO.

Frawley, B.J. and L.B. Best. 1991. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and species 

composition in alfalfa fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135-142.

Fritcher, S.C., M.A. Rumble, and L.D. Flake. 2004. Grassland bird densities in seral stages of mixed grass 

prairie. Journal of Range Management 57:351–357. 

Galligan, E.W., T.L. DeVault, and S.L. Lima. 2006. Nesting success of grassland and savanna birds on 

reclaimed surface coal mines of the Midwestern United States. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 

118:537-546.

Gennet, A.S. 2007. Environmental determinants of plant community composition and songbird 

abundance in a California Coastal Range grassland. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 

Berkeley, CA. 

George, A.D., T.J. O’Connell, K.R. Hickman, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2013. Food availability in exotic 

grasslands: a potential mechanism for depauperate breeding assemblages. Wilson Journal of 

Ornithology 125:526-533.

George, A.D., T.J. O’Connell, K.R. Hickman, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2009. Influence of Old World 

bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) monocultures on breeding density of three grassland 

songbirds in Oklahoma. Pages 691-697 In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.W. Demarest, and C. 

Thompson (editors). Tundra to the Tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people. Proceedings of 

the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference. McAllen, TX.

George, T.L., A.C. Fowler, R.L. Knight, and L.C. McEwen. 1992. Impacts of a severe drought on 

grassland birds in western North Dakota. Ecological Applications 2:275-284.

George, T.L., L.C. McEwen, and B.E. Petersen. 1995. Effects of grasshopper control programs on 

rangeland breeding bird populations. Journal of Range Management 48:336-342.

Gilbert, M.M., and A.D. Chalfoun. 2011. Energy development affects population of sagebrush songbirds 

in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:816-824.

Gill, D.E., P. Blank, J. Parks, J.B. Guerard, B. Lohr, E. Schwartzman, J.G. Gruber, G. Dodge, C.A. Rewa, 

and H.F. Sears. 2006. Plants and breeding bird response on a managed Conservation Reserve 

Program grassland in Maryland. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:944-956.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 73

Gillihan, S.W., D.J. Hanni, S.W. Hutchings, T. Leukering, T. Toombs, and T. VerCauteren. 2006. 

Sharing your land with prairie wildlife. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 

http://rmbo.org/v3/Portals/0/Documents/Manuals%20and%20Brochures/SYL%20Sep%2006.pdf

Giocomo, J.J. 2005. Conservation of grassland bird populations on military installations in the eastern 

United States with special emphasis on Fort Campbell Army Base, Kentucky. Ph.D. Dissertation, 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

Giocomo, J.J., and D.A. Buehler. 2005. Conservation potential for grassland birds on eastern United 

States Department of Defense installations. Report from University of Tennessee to Department 

of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program.

Giocomo, J.J., D.A. Buehler, and J. Fitzgerals. 2009. Integrating grassland and shrubland bird 

conservation with the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative for the Central Hardwoods Bird 

Conservation Region. Pages 545-556 In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.W. Demarest, and C. 

Thompson (editors). Tundra to tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people. Proceedings of the 

4th International Partners in Flight Conference. 13-16 February 2008. McAllen, TX.

Giocomo, J.J., E.D. Moss, D.A. Buehler, and W.G. Minser. 2008. Nesting biology of grassland birds at 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:111-119.

Giuliano, W.M., and S.E. Daves. 2001. Avian response to warm-season grass use in pasture and hayfield 

management. Biological Conservation 106:1-9.

Goerrissen, J.H. 2005. Grassland birds in California: an investigation into the influence of season, floristic 

composition, and artificial structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA. 

Gordon, C.E. 2000. Fire and cattle grazing on wintering sparrows in Arizona grasslands. Journal of Range 

Management 53: 384-389.

Government of Canada. 2013. Species profile – Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies. Species at 

Risk public registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1241.

Grageda García, M.A. 2011. Wintering grassland birds as bio-indicators in the Rio Grande drainage 

basin. Master’s Thesis, Sul Ross State University, TX. 

Grant, T.A., E. Madden, and G.B. Berkey. 2004. Tree and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: 

implications for breeding grassland birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:807-818.

Grant, T.A., E.M. Madden, T.L. Shaffer, and J.S. Dockens. 2010. Effects of prescribed fire on vegetation 

and passerine birds in northern mixed-grass prairie. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1841-

1851.

Graves, B.M., A.D. Rodewald, and S.D. Hull. 2010. Influence of woody vegetation on grassland birds 

within reclaimed surface mines. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:646-654.

Gray, R. 2009. Field guide to the 2008 Farm Bill for fish and wildlife conservation. U.S. NABCI 

Committee and Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

http://www.iwjv.org/sites/default/files/field_guide_to_the_2008_farm_bill.pdf
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 74

Haire, S.L., C.E. Bock, B.S. Cade, and B.C. Bennett. 2000. The role of landscape and habitat 

characteristics in limiting abundance of grassland nesting songbirds in an urban open space. 

Landscape and Urban Planning 48:65-82.

Hale, A.M., E.S. Hatchett, J.A. Meyer, and V.J. Bennett. 2014. No evidence of displacement due to wind 

turbines in breeding grassland songbirds. Condor 116:472-482.

Hamel, P.B., M.J. Welton, C.G. Smith, and R.P. Ford. 2009. Test of Partners in Flight effective detection 

distance for Cerulean Warbler. Pages 328-333. In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.W. Demarest, and 

C. Thompson (editors). Tundra to tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people. Proceedings of 

the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference. 13-16 February 2008. McAllen, TX.

Hansen, A.J., R.L. Knight, J.M. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P.H. Gude, and K. Jones. 2005. Effects of 

exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms and research needs. Ecological 

Applications 15:1893-1905.

Harris, J.A. 1998. The effects of prescribed burning of grasslands on the nesting habitat of the 

Grasshopper Sparrow on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. M.A. thesis, Harvard University, 

Cambridge, MA.

Helzer, C.J., and D.E. Jelinski. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to 

grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9:1448-1458.

Herkert, J.R. 2009. Response of bird populations to farmland set-aside programs. Conservation Biology 

23:1036-1040.

Herkert, J.R. 1998. The influence of the CRP on Grasshopper Sparrow population trends in the midcontinental United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:227-231.

Herkert, J.R. 1994a. Breeding bird communities of Midwestern prairie fragments: the effects of 

prescribed burning and habitat-area. Natural Areas Journal 14:128-135.

Herkert, J.R. 1994b. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4: 461-471.

Herkert, J.R., D.L. Reinking, D.A. Wiedenfeld, M. Winter, J.L. Zimmerman, W.E. Jensen, E.J. Finck, 

R.R. Koford, D.H. Wolfe, S.K. Sherrod, M.A. Jenkins, J. Faaborg, and S.K. Robinson. 2003. 

Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest success of breeding birds in the midcontinental United 

States. Conservation Biology 17:587-594. 

Hickman, K.R., G.H. Farley, R. Channell, and J.E. Steier. 2006. Effects of Old World Bluestem 

(Bothriochloa ischaemum) on food availability and avian community composition within the 

mixed-grass prairie. Southwestern Naturalist 51:524-530.

Hill, J.M. and D.R. Diefenbach. 2014. Occupancy patterns of regionally declining grassland sparrow 

populations in a forested Pennsylvania landscape. Conservation Biology 28:735-744.

Hill, J.M., and D.R. Diefenbach. 2013. Experimental removal of woody vegetation does not increase 

nesting success or fledgling production in two grassland sparrows (Ammodramus) in 

Pennsylvania. Auk 130:764-773.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 75

Hinnebusch, D.M. 2008. Nesting success and population densities of grassland birds in the breeding and 

wintering seasons in Tennessee and Kentucky. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, 

Knoxville,TN. 

http://nativegrasses.utk.edu/projects/militarygrasslands/militarygrasslands_publications.html

Hodgman, T.P. 2009. Grasshopper Sparrow assessment. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and 

Wildlife, Bangor, ME.

Holmes, A.L., and R.F. Miller. 2010. State-and-transition models for assessing Grasshopper Sparrow 

habitat use. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1834-1840.

Horn, D.J., and R.R. Koford. 2000. Relation of grassland bird abundance to mowing of Conservation 

Reserve Program fields in North Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:653-659.

Horn, D.J., R.R. Koford, and M.L. Braland. 2002. Effects of field size and landscape composition on 

grassland birds in south-central Iowa. Journal – Iowa Academy of Science 109: 1-7.

Hovick, T.J., J.R. Miller, S.J. Dinsmore, D.M. Engle, D.M. Debinski, and S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2012. Effects 

of fire and grazing on Grasshopper Sparrow nest survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 

76:19-27. 

Hovick, T.J., J.R. Miller, R.R. Koford, D.M. Engle, and D.M. Debinski. 2011. Postfledging survival of 

Grasshopper Sparrows in grasslands managed with fire and grazing. Condor 113:429-437.

Howe, R.W., W. Evans, and A.T. Wolf. 2002. Effects of wind turbines on birds and bats in northeastern 

Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay report to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 

and Madison Gas and Electric Company.

Howell, S.N.G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. 

Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Howell, T.R. 1972. Birds of the lowland pine savanna of northeastern Nicaragua. Condor 74:316-340.

Howell, T.R. 1971. An ecological study of the birds of the lowland pine savanna and adjacent rain forest 

in northeastern Nicaragua. Living Bird 10:185-242.

Hutto, R.L. 1992. Habitat distributions of migratory landbird species in western Mexico. Pages 221-239 

In J.M.Hagan III and D.W.Johnston (editors). Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migratory 

birds. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

Igl, L.D., and B.M. Ballard. 1999. Habitat associations and overwintering grassland birds in southern 

Texas. Condor 101:771-782.

Ingelfinger, F., and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine response to roads associated with natural gas extraction 

in a sagebrush steppe habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64:385-395.

Ingold, D.J. 2002. Use of a reclaimed stripmine by grassland nesting birds in east-central Ohio. Ohio 

Journal of Science 102:56-62.

Ingold, D. J., J. L. Dooley, and N. Cavender. 2010. Nest-site fidelity in grassland birds on mowed versus 

unmowed areas on a reclaimed surface mine. Northeastern Naturalist 17:125-134.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 76

Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2013. Intermountain West Joint Venture 2013 Implementation Plan. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture. Missoula, MT. http://iwjv.org/2013-implementation-plan

Irvin, E., K.R. Duren, J.J. Buler, W. Jones, A.T. Gonzon, and C.K. Williams. 2013. A multi-scale 

occupancy model for the Grasshopper Sparrow in the mid-Atlantic. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 77:1564-1571. 

Jacobs, R.B., F.R. Thompson III, R.R. Koford, F.A. La Sorte, H.D. Woodward, and J.A. Fitzgerald. 2012. 

Habitat and landscape effects on abundance of Missouri’s grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 76:372-381.

Janes, S.W. 1983. Status, distribution, and habitat selection of the grasshopper sparrow in Morrow 

County, Oregon. Murrelet 64:51-54.

Jobin, B., and G. Falardeau. 2010. Habitat associations of Grasshopper Sparrows in southern Quebec. 

Northeastern Naturalist 17:135-146.

Johnson, D.H. 2013. Avoidance of wind turbines by grassland birds. Pages 29-33 In PNWWRM IX. 

Proceedings of the Wind-Wildlife Research Meeting IX. November 28-30, 2012. Prepared for 

the Wildlife Workgroup of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative by RESOLVE, Inc., 

Washington, DC. 

Johnson, D.H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation effects on birds in grasslands and wetlands: a critique of our 

knowledge. Great Plains Research 11:211-231.

Johnson, D.H. 2000. Grassland bird use of Conservation Reserve Program fields in the Great Plains. 

Pages 19-33 In L.P. Heard, A.W. Allen, L.B. Best, S.J. Brady, et al. A comprehensive review of 

farmbill contributions to wildlife conservation: 1985-2000. W.L. Hohman and D.J. 

Halloum,Fincham (editors). USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Wildlife Habitat 

Management Institute, Technical Report USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/glbuse/index.htm

Johnson, D.H. 1997. Effects of fire on bird populations in mixed-grass prairie. Pages 181-206 In F.L. 

Knopf and F.B. Samson (editors). Ecology and conservation of Great Plains vertebrates. 

Springer-Verlag, New York,NY. 

Johnson, D.H., and L.D. Igl. 2001. Area requirements of grassland birds: a regional perspective. Auk 

118:24-34.

Johnson, D.H., and L.D. Igl. 1995. Contributions of the Conservation Reserve Program to populations of 

breeding birds in North Dakota. Wilson Bulletin 107:709-718.

Johnson, T.N., P.L. Kennedy, T. DelCurto, and R.V. Taylor. 2011. Bird community responses to cattle 

stocking rates in a Pacific Northwest bunchgrass prairie. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and 

Environment 144:338-346.

Johnson, T.N., P.L. Kennedy, and M.A. Etterson. 2012. Nest success and cause-specific nest failure of 

grassland passerines breeding in prairie grazed by livestock. Journal of Wildlife Management 

76:1607-1616.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 77

Jones, A.L., and P.D. Vickery. 1997. Conserving grassland birds. Massachusetts Audubon Society, 

Lincoln, MA. http://www.massaudubon.org/our-conservation-work/wildlife-researchconservation/grassland-birds/grassland-birds-manual

Jones, S.L., J.S. Dieni, and P.J. Gouse. 2010. Reproductive biology of a grassland songbird community in 

northcentral Montana. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:455-464.

Jones-Farrand, D.T., L.W. Burger, Jr., D.H. Johnson, and M.R. Ryan. 2007. Grassland establishment for 

wildlife conservation. Paper 202, USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=usgsnpwrc

Kantrud, H.A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native 

grasslands. Canadian Field Naturalist 95:404-417.

Kantrud, H.A., and R.L. Kologiski. 1982. Effects of soils and grazing on breeding birds of uncultivated 

upland grasslands of the northern Great Plains. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife 

Research Report No. 15, Washington, D.C.

Kim, D.H., W.E. Newton, G.R. Lingle, and F. Chavez-Ramirez. 2008. Influence of grazing and available 

moisture on breeding densities of grassland birds in the central Platte River valley, Nebraska. 

Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:820-829.

Kingery, H.E. (editor). 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.

Kirkpatrick, C., S. DeStephano, R.W. Mannan, and J. Lloyd. 2002. Trends in abundance of grassland 

birds following a spring prescribed burn in southern Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 47:282-

292.

Klute, D.S., R.S. Robel, and K.E. Kemp. 1997. Will conversion of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

lands to pasture be detrimental for grassland birds in Kansas? American Midland Naturalist 

137:206-212.

Knick, S.T., A.L. Holmes, and R.F. Miller. 2005. The role of fire in structuring sagebrush habitats and 

bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology 30:63-75.

Knick, S.T., and J.T. Rotenberry. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on passerine birds breeding in 

intermountain shrubsteppe. Studies in Avian Biology 25:130-140.

Koford, R.R. 1999. Density and fledging success of grassland birds in Conservation Reserve Program 

fields in North Dakota and west-central Minnesota. Studies in Avian Biology 19:187-195.

Koford, R.R., and L.B. Best. 1996. Management of agricultural landscapes for the conservation of 

Neotropical migratory birds. Pages 68-88 In F. Thompson, III (editor). Management of 

agricultural landscapes for the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds. General Technical 

Report NC-187. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.

Korosy, M.G., J.S. Reece, and R.F. Noss. 2013. Winter habitat associations of four grassland sparrows in 

Florida dry prairie. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:502-512.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 78

Kuvlesky, Jr., W.P., L.A. Brennan, M.L. Morrison, K.K. Boydston, B.M. Ballard, and F.C. Bryant. 2007. 

Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 71:2487-2498.

Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgens, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in 

Conservation Reserve Program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100–104. 

Lee, S.L. 2006. Post-fire successional effect on breeding grassland birds in mesquite savanna habitats of 

the Texas rolling plains. Master’s Thesis, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.

Lent, R.A., T.S. Litwin, R.P. Cook, J. Bourque, R. Bourque, and J.T. Tanacredi. 1997. Grassland bird 

habitat restoration at Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York: research and management. Pages 

211-215 In P.D. Vickery and P.W. Dunwiddie (editors). Grasslands of northeastern North 

America: ecology and conservation of native and agricultural landscapes. Massachusetts 

Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Lenth, B.A., R.L. Knight, and W.L. Gilgert. 2006. Conservation value of clustered housing developments. 

Conservation Biology 20:1445-1456.

Link, W.A., and J.R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating equations estimates of trends. Bird Populations 2:23–32.

Linnen, C.G. 2008. Effects of oil and gas development on grassland birds. Northern EnviroSearch Ltd., 

report prepared for Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada. 

http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/29491/29491F.PDF

Lituma, C.M. and D.A. Buehler. 2012. Regional assessment of the effects of conservation practices on 

Northern Bobwhite and other priority grassland bird breeding populations and their habitat. 2012 

Annual Report. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 

Lovich, J.E., and J.R. Ennen. 2011. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert 

Southwest, United States. BioScience 61:982-990.

Lyon, A.G., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on Sage Grouse nest initiation 

and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.

Macías-Duarte, A., A.G. Montoya, C.E. Méndez-González, J.R. Rodríguez-Salazar, W.G. Hunt, and P.G. 

Krannitz. 2009. Factors influencing habitat use by migratory grassland birds in the state of 

Chihuahua, Mexico. Auk 126:896-905.

Macías-Duarte, A., A.O. Panjabi, and C.E. Aguierre Calderón. 2011a. Compartiendo sus agostaderos con 

las aves de pastizal. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO.

Macías-Duarte, A., A.O. Panjabi, D. Pool, E. Youngberg, and G. Levandoski. 2011b. Wintering grassland 

bird density in Chihuahuan Desert Grassland Priority Conservation Areas, 2007-2011. Technical 

Report I-NEOTROP-MXPLAT-10-2. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO.

Madden, E.M., A.J. Hansen, and R.K. Murphy. 1999. Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat and 

abundance of passerine birds in northern mixed-grass prairie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:627-

640.

Manzano-Fischer, P., R. List, and G. Ceballos. 1999. Grassland birds in prairie-dog towns in 

northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico. Studies in Avian Biology 19:263-271.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 79

Martin, P.A., D.L. Johnson, D.J. Forsyth, and B.D. Hill. 2000. Effects of two grasshopper control 

insecticides on food resources and reproductive success of two species of grassland songbirds. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:2987-2996.

Martinez, G.J.H., C. Wehenkel, M.E. Pereda Solis, J.J. Corral-Rivas, F. Rosales Alferez, and H. Herrera 

Casio. 2010. Measuring associations between granivorous grassland bird species and between the 

bird species and winter habitat in northwestern Mexico. Research Journal of Biological Sciences 

5:713-721. 

Mattice, J.A., D.W. Brauning, and D.R. Diefenbach. 2005. Abundance of grassland sparrows on 

reclaimed surface mines in western Pennsylvania. Pages 504-510 In C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich 

(editors). Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the 

3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. 

USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

McClaran, M.P. 1995. Desert grasslands and grasses. Pages 1-30. In M.P. McClaran and T.R. Van 

Devender (editors). The desert grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

McClaran, M.P., and T.R. Van Devender (editors). 1995. The desert grassland. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, AZ.

McCoy, T.D., M.R. Ryan, L.W. Burger, Jr., and E.W. Kurzejeski. 2001. Grassland Bird Conservation: 

CP1 vs. CP2 plantings in Conservation Reserve Program fields in Missouri. American Midland 

Naturalist 145:1-17. 

McCoy, T.D., M.R. Ryan, E.W. Kurzejeski, and L.W. Burger, Jr. 1999. Conservation Reserve Program: 

source or sink habitat for grassland birds in Missouri? Journal of Wildlife Management 63:530-

538.

McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, R.W. Schreiber, W.D. Wagner, and T.C. Sciarrotta. 1986. Avian 

mortality at a solar energy power plant. Journal of Field Ornithology 57:135-141.

McLachlan, M., and M. Carter. 2009. Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on priority shortgrass 

prairie birds. A Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Report from Playa Lakes Joint 

Venture to USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

McLachlan, M., M. Carter, and C. Rustay. 2007. Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on priority 

mixed-grass prairie birds. A Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Report from 

Playa Lakes Joint Venture to USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

McLaughlin, M.E., W.M. Janousek, J.P. McCarty, and L.L. Wolfenbarger. 2014. Effects of urbanization 

on site occupancy and density of grassland birds in tallgrass prairie fragments. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 85:258-273.

McMaster, D.G., and S.K. Davis. 2001. An evaluation of Canada’s Permanent Cover Program: habitat for 

grassland birds? Journal of Field Ornithology 72:195-210.

McPherson, G.R. 1995. The role of fire in the desert grassland. Pages 130-151 In M.P. McClaran and 

T.R. Van Devender (editors). The desert grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Mehlman, D.W. 1995. A survey of grassland bird species of the Maxwell National Wildlife Refuge. 

Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 80

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influences of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

Mills, G.S. 1982. Status report: Ammodramus savannarum ammolegus. Arizona Natural Heritage 

Program. Report for USFWS, Office of Endangered Species, Albuquerque, NM. 

Milroy, A.G. 2007. Impacts of mowing on bird abundance, distribution, and hazards to aircraft at 

Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts. Master’s Thesis, University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst, MA. 

Mineau, P., and M. Whiteside. 2013. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S. grassland bird 

declines than agricultural intensification. PLoS ONE 8:e57457.

Mineau, P., and M. Whiteside. 2006. The lethal risk to birds from insecticide use in the U.S. – a spatial 

and temporal analysis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25:1214-1222.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2008. Evaluation of a grazing system for maintaining grassland 

integrity and improving upland bird habitat. Project Report for USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service by Missouri Department of Conservation. Missouri Department of 

Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.

Mitchell, L.R., C.R. Smith, and R.A. Malecki. 2000. Ecology of grassland breeding birds in the 

northeastern United States: a literature review with recommendations for management. U.S. 

Geological Survey, New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, NY.

Monroe, Jr., B.L. 1968. A distributional survey of the birds of Honduras. Ornithological Monograph 7. 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Moss, E.D. 2001. Distribution and reproductive success of native grassland birds in response to burning 

and field sizes at Fort Campbell Military Reservation: special focus on Henslow’s and 

Grasshopper sparrows. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 

Murphy, M.T. 2003. Avian population trends within the evolving agricultural landscape of eastern and 

central United States. Auk 120:20-34.

Murray, L.D., and L.B. Best. 2003. Short-term bird response to harvesting switchgrass for biomass in 

Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:611–621. 

Murray, L.D., L.B. Best, T.J. Jacobsen, and M.L. Braster. 2003. Potential effects on grassland birds of 

converting marginal cropland to switchgrass biomass production. Biomass and Bioenergy 

25:167–175.

Murray, L.D., C.A. Ribic, and W.E. Thogmartin. 2008. Relationship of obligate grassland birds to 

landscape structure in Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:463-467.

Myers, A.M., and D.A. Kreager. 2010. Declining and state sensitive bird species breeding in Willamette 

Valley grasslands: status update. Report prepared for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Corvallis,OR.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 81

Nack, J.L., and C.A. Ribic. 2005. Apparent predation by cattle at grassland bird nests. Wilson Bulletin 

117:56-62.

NAS (National Audubon Society). 2010. The Christmas Bird Count: historical results [online] 

http://www.christmasbirdcount.org [accessed January 2014].

NAS (National Audubon Society). 2013. Developing a management model of the effects of future climate 

change on species: a tool for the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Unpublished report 

prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

NAS (National Audubon Society). 2014. Audubon’s birds and climate change report: a primer for 

practitioners. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. 

http://climate.audubon.org/sites/default/files/Audubon-Birds-Climate-Report-v1.2.pdf

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe website: http://www.natureserve.org/index.jsp [accessed 18 January 

2013]

Negus, L.P., C.A. Davis, and S.E. Wessel. 2010. Avian response to mid-contract management of 

Conservation Reserve Program fields. American Midland Naturalist 164:296–310. 

New Mexico Ornithological Society. 2007. NMOS Field Notes Database. Albuquerque, NM. 

http://nhnm.unm.edu/partners/NMOS Accessed 8 February 2013.

Niemuth, N.D., M.E. Estey, and C.R. Loesch. 2005. Developing spatially explicit habitat models for 

grassland bird conservation planning in the Prairie Pothole region of North Dakota. Pages 469-

477 In C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich (editors). Bird conservation implementation and integration in 

the Americas: proceedings of the 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Albany, CA. 

Norelius, E.E., and J.A. Lockwood. 1999. The effects of reduced agent-area insecticide treatments for 

rangeland grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae) control on bird densities. Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 37:519-528.

Norment, C. 2002. On grassland bird conservation in the Northeast. Auk 119:271-279.

NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative), U.S. Committee. 2010. The State of the Birds 

2010 Report on Climate Change, United States of America. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C.

NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative), U.S. Committee. 2014. The State of the Birds 

2014 Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

Northrup, J.M., and G. Wittemyer. 2013. Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on 

wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. Ecology Letters 16:112-125.

Noss, R.F. 2012. Forgotten grasslands of the South: natural history and conservation. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C.

Nytch, C.J., Hunter, W.C., Núñez-García, F., Fury, C., Quiñones, M., and Collazo, J. In Review. Avian 

conservation planning priorities for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 82

Ochterski, J. 2006a. Hayfield management and grassland bird conservation. Cornell University 

Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County, New York.

Ochterski, J. 2006b. Transforming fields into grassland bird habitat. Cornell University Cooperative 

Extension, Schuyler County, New York.

Ochterski, J. 2005. Enhancing pastures for grassland bird habitat. Cornell University Cooperative 

Extension, Schuyler County, New York.

O’Connor, R.J., M.T. Jones, R.B. Boone and L.B. Lauber. 1999. Linking continental climate, land use, 

and land patterns with grassland bird distribution across the conterminous United States. Studies

in Avian Biology 19:45-59.

Pabian, S.E., A.M. Wilson, and M.C. Brittingham. 2013. Mixed response of farmland birds to the 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 

77:616-625.

Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird 

communities. Partners in Flight West Working Group, Boise, ID.

Panjabi, A., G. Levandoski, and R. Sparks. 2010. Wintering bird density and habitat use in Chihuahuan 

Desert Grasslands. Technical Report I-MXPLAT-08-02. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO.

Patten, M.A., E. Shochat, D.L. Reinking, D.H. Wolfe, and S.K. Sherrod. 2006. Habitat edge, land 

management and rates of brood parasitism in tallgrass prairie. Ecological Applications 16:687-

695.

Patterson, M.P., and L.B. Best. 1996. Bird abundance and nest success in Iowa CRP fields: the 

importance of vegetation structure and composition. American Midland Naturalist 135:153-167.

Perkins, D.W., W.G. Shriver, and P.D. Vickery. 2009. The effects of fire on the breeding ecology of 

Florida Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) and Bachman's Sparrows 

(Aimophila aestivalis). Florida Field Naturalist 37: 121–145.

Perkins, D.W., P.D. Vickery, and W.G. Shriver. 2003. Spatial dynamics of source-sink habitats: effects 

on rare grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:588-599.

Peters, K.A., and M.C. Allen. 2010. Grassland bird productivity on military airfields in the mid-Atlantic 

and Northeast regions – interim report. Report by New Jersey Audubon to Department of Defense 

Legacy Management Program.

Peterson, A.T. 2003. Projected climate change effects on Rocky Mountain and Great Plains birds: 

generalization of biodiversity consequences. Global Change Biology 9:647-655.

Peterson, A.T., M.A. Ortega-Huerta, J. Bartley, V. Sánchez-Cordero, J. Soberón, R.H. Buddemeier, and 

D.R. Stockwell. 2002. Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change 

scenarios. Nature 416:626-629.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 83

Pidgeon, A.M., N.E. Mathews, R. Benoit and E.V. Nordheim. 2001. Response of avian communities to 

historic habitat change in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. Conservation Biology 15: 1772-1788.

PIF (Partners in Flight) Science Committee 2012. Population Estimates Database, version 2012. 

Available at http://rmbo.org/pifassessment Accessed on 30 October 2013. 

Pimentel, D., G. Rodrigues, T. Wang, R. Abrams, K. Goldberg, H. Staecker, E. Ma, L. Brueckner, L. 

Trovato, C. Chow, U. Govindarajulu, and S. Boerke. 1994. Renewable energy: economic and 

environmental issues. BioScience 44:536-547.

Pitman, J.C., C.A. Hagen, R.J. Robel, T.M. Loughin, and R.D. Applegate. 2005. Location and success of 

Lesser Prairie-Chicken nests in relation to vegetation and human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 69:1259-1269.

Playa Lakes Joint Venture. 2008. Playa Lakes Joint Venture Area Implementation Plans. PLJV, Lafayette, 

CO. http://www.pljv.org/partners/planning

Playa Lakes Joint Venture. 2009. Estimated CRP benefits to priority shortgrass prairie birds. CEAP 

Conservation Insight. Report to USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.

Point Blue Conservation Science. 2014. Modeling bird distribution responses to climate change: a 

mapping tool to assist land managers and scientists in California. On line at 

http://data.prbo.org/cadc2/index.php?page=154

Pool, D.B., A.O. Panjabi, A. Macías-Duarte, and D.M. Solhjem. 2014. Rapid expansion of croplands in 

Chihuahua, Mexico threatens declining North American grassland bird species. Biological 

Conservation 170:274-281.

Powell, A.F.L.A. 2008. Responses of breeding birds in tallgrass prairie to fire and cattle grazing. Journal 

of Field Ornithology 79:41-52.

Powell, A.F.L.A. 2006. Effects of prescribed burns and bison grazing on breeding bird abundances in 

tallgrass prairie. Auk 123:183-197.

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 2005. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan. PPJV, Denver, 

CO. http://www.ppjv.org/implement2.htm

Pruett, C.L., M.A. Patten, and D.H. Wolfe. 2009. Avoidance behavior by prairie grouse: implications for 

development of wind energy. Conservation Biology 23:1253-1259.

Pulliam, H.R., and T.A. Parker III. 1979. Population regulation of sparrows. Fortschritte der Zoologie 

25:137-147.

Rahmig, C.J., W.E. Jensen, and K.A. With. 2009. Grassland bird responses to land management in the 

largest remaining tallgrass prairie. Conservation Biology 23:420-432. 

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. 2013. Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Landbird Plan. 

http://rwbjv.org/rainwater-basin-joint-venture/library/ 

Rao, D., S. Gennet, M. Hammond, P. Hopkinson, and J. Bartolome. 2008. A landscape analysis of 

grassland birds in a valley grassland-oak woodland mosaic. Pages 385-397 In Proceedings of the 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 84

6th California Oak Symposium: Today’s challenges, tomorrow’s opportunities. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-217. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Albany, CA. 

Reinking, D.L. 2005. Fire regimes and avian responses in the central tallgrass prairie. Studies in Avian 

Biology 30:116-126.

Renfrew, R. B., and C. A. Ribic. 2008. Multi-scale models of grassland passerine abundance in a 

fragmented system in Wisconsin. Landscape Ecology 23:181-193.

Renfrew, R.B., and C.A. Ribic. 2002. Influence of topography on density of grassland passerines in 

pastures. American Midland Naturalist 147:315-325.

Renfrew, R.B., C.A. Ribic, and J. Nack. 2005. Edge avoidance by nesting grassland birds—A futile 

strategy in a fragmented landscape. Auk 122:618–636.

Reynolds, M.C., and P.R. Krausman. 1998. Effects of winter burning on birds in mesquite grassland. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:867-876.

Ribic, C.A., M.J. Guzy, T.J. Anderson, D.W. Sample, and J.L. Nack. 2012. Bird productivity and nest 

predation in agricultural grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology 43:119-134.

Ribic, C.A., M.J. Guzy, and D.W. Sample. 2009a. Grassland bird use of remnant prairie and Conservation 

Reserve Program fields in an agricultural landscape in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 

161:110-122.

Ribic, C.A., R.R. Koford, J.R. Herkert, D.H. Johnson, N.D. Niemuth, D.E. Naugle, K.K. Bakker, D.W. 

Sample, and R.B. Renfrew. 2009b. Area sensitivity in North American grassland birds: patterns 

and process. Auk 126:233-244.

Ribic, C.A., and D.W. Sample. 2001. Associations of grassland birds with landscape factors in southern 

Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 146:105-121.

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. 

Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, 

D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight 

North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 

Richardson, A.N. 2012. Changes in grassland songbird abundance through time in response to burning 

and grazing in the northern mixed-grass prairie. Master’s Thesis, University of Manitoba, 

Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Riffell, S., D. Scognamillo, and L.W. Burger. 2008. Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on 

northern bobwhite and grassland birds. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 146:309–323.

Robel, R.J., J.P. Hughes, S.D. Hull, K.E. Kemp, and D.S. Klute. 1998. Spring burning: resulting avian 

abundance and nesting in Kansas CRP. Journal of Range Management 51:132-138.

Roberts, A.J., C.W. Boal, D.B. Wester, S. Rideout-Hanzak, and H.A. Whitlaw. 2012. Grassland bird 

community response to large wildfires. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 124:24-30.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 85

Roberts, M.J., and R.N. Lubowski. 2007. Enduring impacts of land retirement policies: evidence from the 

Conservation Reserve Program. Land Economics 83:516-538.

Robertson, B.A., R.A. Rice, T.S. Sillett, C.A. Ribic, B.A. Babcock, D.A. Landis, J.R. Herkert, R.J. 

Fletcher, Jr., J. Fontaine, P.J. Doran, and D.W. Schemske. 2012. Are agrofuels a conservation 

threat or opportunity for grassland birds in the United States? Condor 114:679-688.

Rodenhouse, N.L., L.B. Best, R.J. O’Connor, and E.K. Bollinger. 1995. Effects of agricultural practices 

and farmland structures. Pages 269 – 293 In T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch (editors). Ecology and 

management of Neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford 

University Press, New York, NY.

Rohrbaugh, Jr., R.W., D.L. Reinking, D.H. Wolfe, S.K. Sherrod, and M.A. Jenkins. 1999. Effects of 

prescribed burning and grazing on nesting and reproductive success of three grassland passerine 

species in tallgrass prairie. Studies in Avian Biology 19:165-170.

Rosenberg, K.V., and P.J. Blancher. 2005. Setting numerical population objectives for priority landbird 

species. Pages 57-66 In C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich (editors). Bird Conservation Implementation 

and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the 3rd International Partners in Flight 

Conference. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Albany, CA.

Roth, A.M., D.W. Sample, C.A. Ribic, L. Paine, D.J. Undersander, and G.A. Bartelt. 2005. Grassland 

bird response to harvesting switchgrass as a biomass energy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy 

28:490–498.

Rudnicky, J.L., W.A. Patterson, III, and R.P. Cook. 1997. Experimental use of prescribed fire for 

managing grassland bird habitat at Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York. Pages 99-118 In

P.D. Vickery and P.W. Dunwiddie (editors). Grasslands of Northeastern North America: ecology 

and conservation of native and agricultural landscapes. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, 

MA. 

Ruth, J.M. 2008. Distribution and abundance of breeding Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum ammolegus) in the southwestern United States: past, present, and future. Studies in 

Avian Biology 37:113-124.

Ruth, J.M., T.R. Stanley, and C.E. Gordon. 2014. Associations of wintering birds with habitat in 

semidesert and plains grassland in Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 59:199-211.

Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North 

America. Pages 311–353 In T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch (editors). Ecology and management of 

Neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press, 

New York, NY.

Sample, D.W., and M.J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds – a guide for Wisconsin. 

PUBL-SS-925-97. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 

Samson, F.B., and F.L. Knopf. 1996. Prairie conservation: preserving North America’s most endangered 

ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Samson, F.B., F.L. Knopf, and W.R. Ostlie. 2004. Great Plains ecosystems: past, present, and future. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:6-15.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 86

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2014. The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014 USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Sauer, J.R., and W.A. Link. 2011. Analysis of the North American Breeding Bird Survey using 

hierarchical models. Auk 128:87-98.

Sauer, J. R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1. 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/htm96/cbc622/ra5460.html accessed 24 January 2014.

Savignac, C., B. Jobin and G. Falardeau. 2011. Status of the Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum) in Quebec. Technical Report Series Number 518. Environment Canada, Canadian 

Wildlife Service, Quebec Region. Quebec, QC, Canada.

Savory, A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Scheiman, D.M., E.K. Bollinger, and D.H. Johnson. 2003. Effects of leafy spurge infestation on grassland 

birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:115-121.

Scobie, D., and C. Faminow. 2000. Development of standardized guidelines for petroleum industry 

activities that affect COSEWIC Prairie and Northern Region vertebrate species at risk. Prepared 

by Ghostpine Environmental Services for: Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, 

Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Scott, P.E., T.L. DeVault, R.A. Bajema, and S.L. Lima. 2002. Grassland vegetation and bird abundances 

on reclaimed Midwestern coal mines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:1006-1014.

Scott, P.E., and S.L. Lima. 2004. Exotic grasslands on reclaimed Midwestern coal mines: an 

ornithological perspective. Weed Technology 18:1518-1521.

Seavy, N.E., K.E. Dybala, and M.A. Snyder. 2008. Climate models and ornithology. Auk 125:1-10.

Seigel, A.B., and J.L. Lockwood. 2010. How increasing levels of private land enrollment in conservation 

agreements affect the population viability of grassland birds. Biodiversity and Conservation 

19:2343-2357.

Shaffer, J.A., and D.H. Johnson. 2008. Displacement effects of wind development on grassland birds in 

the northern Great Plains. Pages 57-61 In Proceedings of the National Wind Coordinating 

Collaborative Wind Wildlife Research Meeting. October 2008.

Shaw, M.R., K. Klausmeyer, D.R. Cameron, J. MacKenzie, and P. Roehrdanz. 2012. Economic costs of 

achieving current conservation goals in the future as climate changes. Conservation Biology 

26:385-396. 

Shriver, W.G., A.L. Jones, P.D. Vickery, A. Weik, and J. Wells. 2005. The distribution and abundance of 

obligate grassland birds breeding in New England and New York. Pages 511-518 In C.J. Ralph 

and T.D. Rich (editors). Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: 

proceedings of the 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference. General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-191. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 87

Shriver, W.G., and P.D. Vickery. 2001. Response of breeding Florida grasshopper and Bachman’s 

sparrows to winter prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:470-475.

Shriver, W.G., P.D. Vickery, and S.A. Hedges. 1996. Effects of summer burns on Florida grasshopper 

sparrows. Florida Field Naturalist 24:68-73.

Shriver, W.G., P.D. Vickery, and D.W. Perkins. 1999. The effects of summer burns on breeding Florida 

grasshopper and Bachman’s sparrow. Studies in Avian Biology 19:144-148.

Sliwinski, M.S. 2011. Changes in grassland songbird abundance and diversity in response to grazing by 

bison and cattle in the northern mixed-grass prairie. Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba, 

Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Smith, C.R. 1997. Use of public grazing lands by Henslow’s Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, and 

associated grassland birds in New York state. Pages 171-186 In P.D. Vickery and P.W. 

Dunwiddie (editors). Grasslands of northeastern North America. Massachusetts Audubon Society, 

Lincoln, MA.

Smythe, L.A., and D.A. Haukos. 2010. Response of grassland birds in sand shinnery oak communities 

restored using Tebuthiuron and grazing in eastern New Mexico. Restoration Ecology 18:215-223.

Sonoran Joint Venture Technical Committee. Beardmore, C.J., ed. 2006. Sonoran Joint Venture: Bird 

Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Tucson: Sonoran Joint Venture. 

http://sonoranjv.org/plans/conservation-plan/ 

Sparks, R.A., D.J. Hanni, and M. McLachlan. 2005. Section-based monitoring of breeding birds within 

the Shortgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Region (BCR 18). Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO. 

Stauffer, G.E., D.R. Diefenbach, M.R. Marshall, and D.W. Brauning. 2011. Nest success of grassland 

sparrows on reclaimed surface mines. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:548-557.

Stevens, T.K., A.M. Hale, K.B. Karsten, and V.J. Bennett. 2013. An analysis of displacement from wind 

turbines in a wintering grassland bird community. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:1755-1767.

Strong, T.R. 1988. Status of the Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum ammolegus). 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, report to USFWS, Office of Endangered Species, 

Albuquerque, NM. 

Sutter, B., and G. Ritchison. 2005. Effects of grazing on vegetation structure, prey availability, and 

reproductive success of Grasshopper Sparrows. Journal of Field Ornithology 76: 345-351.

Swengel, S.R. 1996. Management responses of three species of declining sparrows in tallgrass prairies. 

Bird Conservation International 6:241-253.

Swengel, S.R., and A.B. Swengel. 2001. Relative effects of litter and management on grassland bird 

abundance in Missouri, USA. Bird Conservation International 11:113-128.

Thogmartin, W.E. 2010. Sensitivity analysis of North American bird population estimates. Ecological 

Modelling 221:173-177. 
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 88

Thogmartin, W.E., M.G. Knutson, and J.R. Sauer. 2006. Predicting regional abundance of rare grassland 

birds with a hierarchical spatial count model. Condor 108:25-46. 

Thompson, T.R., C.W. Boal, and D. Lucia. 2009. Grassland bird associations with introduced and native 

grass Conservation Reserve Program fields in the Southern High Plains. Western North American 

Naturalist 69:481-490.

Troy, A.R., A.M. Strong, S.C. Bosworth, T.M. Donovan, N.J. Buckley, and M.L. Wilson. 2005. Attitudes 

of Vermont dairy farmers regarding adoption of management practices for grassland birds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:528-538.

Tsoutsos, T., N. Frantzeskaki, and V. Gekas. 2005. Environmental impacts from solar energy 

technologies. Energy Policy 33:289-296.

Tucker, Jr., J.W., and R. Bowman. 2006. Characteristics of Florida Grasshopper Sparrow habitat across a 

gradient of population abundance and persistence at Avon Park Air Force Range. Pages 203-210

In R. Noss (editor). Land of fire and water: the Florida dry prairie ecosystem. Proceedings of the 

Florida dry prairie conference. E.O. Painter Printing Company, DeLeon Springs, FL.

Tucker, Jr., J.W., G.R. Schrott, and R. Bowman. 2010b. Fire ants, cattle grazing, and the endangered 

Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. Southeastern Naturalist 9:237–250.

Tucker, Jr., J.W., G.R. Schrott, M.F. Delany, S.L. Glass, C.L. Hannon, P. Miller, and R. Bowman. 2010a. 

Metapopulation structure, population trends, and status of Florida Grasshopper Sparrows. Journal 

of Field Ornithology 81:267-277.

Unitt, P. 2008. Grasshopper Sparrow. Pages 393-399 In Shuford. W.D. and T. Gardali (editors) California 

bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct 

populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 

1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA and California Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, CA.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2006. Conservation Reserve Program Overview. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency Technical Publication 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/fy2005.pdf

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. FWS Florida Grasshopper Sparrow Recovery Action 

Plan. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3069.pdf

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Arlington, VA.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008b. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow 5-Year Review: summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero 

Beach, FL.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Atlanta, GA. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/990518_1.pdf or specific FL Grasshopper Sparrow 

chapter http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MSRPPDFs/FloridaGrasshopperSparrow.pdf
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 89

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160.

Van Dyke, F., S.E. Van Kley, C.E. Page, and J.G. Beek. 2004. Restoration efforts for plant and bird 

communities in tallgrass prairies using prescribed burning and mowing. Restoration Ecology 

12:575–585.

VerCauteren, T., and S.W. Gillihan. 2004. Integrating bird conservation into range management. Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO.

Vickery, P.D. 1996. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). The Birds of North America, No. 

239. The American Ornithiologists’ Union, Washington, D. C., and the Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Vickery, P.D., and T.F. Dean. 1997. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow winter ecology project. Annual Report 

Avon Park Air Force Range, Avon Park, FL.

Vickery, P.D., and P.W. Dunwiddie (editors). 1997. Grasslands of northeastern North America. 

Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Vickery, P.D., J.R. Herkert, F.L. Knopf, J. Ruth, and C.E. Keller. 2000. Grassland birds: an overview of 

threats and recommended management strategies. Pages 74-77 In R. Bonney, D.N. Pashley, R.J. 

Cooper, and L. Niles (editors). Strategies for bird conservation: the Partners in Flight planning 

process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5, Cape May, NJ. 

RMRS-PO-16. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter, Jr., and S.M. Melvin. 1997. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of 

grassland birds in Maine. Pages 137-152 In P.D. Vickery and P.W. Dunwiddie (editors). 

Grasslands of northeastern North America: ecology and conservation of native and agricultural 

landscapes. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter, Jr., and S.M. Melvin. 1994. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of 

grassland birds in Maine. Conservation Biology 8:1087-1097.

Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter, Jr., and J.V. Wells. 1999a. Effects of fire and herbicide treatment on habitat 

selection in grassland birds in southern Maine. Studies in Avian Biology 19:149-159.

Vickery, P.D., P.L. Tubaro, J.M. Cardoso de Silva, B.G. Peterjohn, J.R. Herkert, and R.B. Cavalcanti. 

1999b. Conservation of grassland birds in the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 

19:2-26.

Vickery, P.D., B. Zuckerberg, A.L. Jones, W.G. Shriver, and A.P. Weik. 2005. Influence of fire and other 

anthropogenic practices on grassland and shrubland birds in New England. Studies in Avian 

Biology 30:139-146.

Vos, S.M., and C.A. Ribic. 2013. Nesting success of grassland birds in oak barrens and dry prairies in 

west central Wisconsin. Northeastern Naturalist 20:131-142.

Walk, J.W., and R.E. Warner. 2000. Grassland management for the conservation of songbirds in the 

Midwestern USA. Biological Conservation 94:165-172.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 90

Walk, J.W., and R.E. Warner. 1999. Effects of habitat area on the occurrence of grassland birds in 

Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 141:339-344.

Warner, R.E. 1992. Nest ecology of grassland passerines on road rights-of-way in central Illinois. 

Biological Conservation 59:1-7.

Wells, J.V. 1997. Population viability analysis for Maine Grasshopper Sparrows. Pages 153-170 In P.D. 

Vickery and P.W. Dunwiddie (editors). Grasslands of northeastern North America: ecology and 

conservation of native and agricultural landscapes. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, 

MA.

Wells, J.V., and K.V. Rosenberg. 1999. Grassland bird conservation in northeastern North America. 

Studies in Avian Biology 19:72-80.

Wentworth, K.L., M.C. Brittingham, and A.M. Wilson. 2010. Conservation reserve enhancement 

program fields— Benefits for grassland and shrub-scrub species. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation 65:50–60. 

Wiens, J.A. 1973. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecological Monograph 43: 237-

270.

Will, T.C., J.M. Ruth, K.V. Rosenberg, D. Krueper, D. Hahn, J. Fitzgerald, R. Dettmers, and C.J. 

Beardmore. 2005. The five elements process: designing optimal landscapes to meet bird 

conservation objectives. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 1. Partners in Flight website 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/ts/01-FiveElements.pdf

Williams III, S.O. 2007. Status of the Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow on the Diamond A (Gray) Ranch, 

Hidalgo County, New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.

Williams, T. 2013. On the edge. Audubon 115:42-47.

Wilson, A.M., and M.C. Brittingham. 2012. Initial response of bird populations to conservation 

grasslands in southern Pennsylvania. Journal of Soil and Water Conversation 67:59-66.

Winter, M., and J.H. Faaborg. 1999. Patterns of area sensitivity in grassland-nesting birds. Conservation 

Biology 13:1424-1436.

With, K., A.W. King, and W.E. Jensen. 2008. Remaining large grasslands may not be sufficient to 

prevent grassland bird declines. Biological Conservation 1451:3152-3167.

Wray III, T., K.A. Strait, and R.C. Whitmore. 1982. Reproductive success of grassland sparrows on a 

reclaimed surface mine in West Virginia. Auk 99:157-164.

Zimmerman, J.L. 1997. Avian community responses to fire, grazing, and drought in the tallgrass prairie. 

Pages 167-180 In F.L. Knopf and F.B. Samson (editors). Ecology and conservation of Great 

Plains vertebrates. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Zimmerman, J.L. 1992. Density-independent factors affecting the avian diversity of the tallgrass prairie 

community. Wilson Bulletin 104:85-94.
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 91

Appendix A. Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan: Recommended Actions. The actions recommended in this Plan are primarily 

for the migratory subspecies of Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis and A.s. perpallidus), and the Southwest 

subspecies (A.s. ammolegus), where applicable. The resident Florida subspecies (A.s. floridanus) is listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA); therefore, its ESA Recovery Plan takes precedence. Conservation of the Puerto Rican Grasshopper Sparrow (A.s. 

borinquensis) will need to be addressed by a local partnership or conservation organization. Some of the action items may be relevant 

for the conservation of these other subspecies. In the table below, the sequence in which goals and objectives are listed does not imply 

that one goal (or one objective) is necessarily more important than another goal (or objective). However, action items within each 

objective are ranked in a suggested priority order. Implementing this comprehensive conservation plan for Grasshopper Sparrow will 

require collaboration among many partners and organizations with different missions and capabilities, so prioritization at all levels 

might discourage partner participation. Background information and justification for these recommended actions can be found in the 

text of this Plan. Where actions have already been taken on some recommended action items, these have also been summarized in the 

text. Compiled by Stephanie L. Jones (USFWS) and Janet M. Ruth (USGS).

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

1 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

Goal 1: Determine the population status and 

distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow (GRSP) to 

inform conservation planning. Grasshopper 

Sparrow breeding range is geographically broad and 

encompasses a wide range of grassland habitat 

types. 

All

2 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.1 Objective 1.1 - Determine status and distribution of 

Grasshopper Sparrow populations based on existing 

data and professional opinion, and identify priority 

areas for conservation action; see Conservation and

Management sections below.

All

3 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.1 1.1.1 1 Analyze BBS data to identify areas of declining 

GRSP population trends and gaps in BBS coverage. 

Breeding
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 92

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

4 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.1 1.1.2 1 Identify high priority landscapes for GRSP 

conservation actions based on trend and distribution 

data from actions 1.1.1 and 1.1.3 and products from 

any available modeling efforts to strategically focus 

conservation efforts for breeding GRSPs.

Breeding

5 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.1 1.1.3 2 Review and summarize other data sources (e.g.; 

banding data; research studies; avian checklists, 

breeding bird atlases, e-Bird, Natural Heritage 

programs, state wildlife agency records and state 

wildlife action plans, etc.) to refine GRSP 

distribution and population data in all seasons, 

particularly on the winter range and during 

migration.

All

6 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.1 1.1.4 3 Analyze existing data (CBC data, research studies, 

eBird, etc.) to improve knowledge of winter 

distribution of GRSP and identify areas to target 

coordinated winter survey and monitoring efforts.

Wintering

7 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.2 Objective 1.2 - Improve our knowledge of status 

and distribution of Grasshopper Sparrow

8 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.2 1.2.1 1 Increase grassland bird monitoring using the 

Grassland Bird Monitoring programs in Canada and 

the US. 

Breeding

9 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.3 Objective 1.3 - Update Grasshopper Sparrow 

population objectives

10 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.3 1.3.1 1 Review results from other Population Status and 

Distribution objectives and use this information to 

update Grasshopper Sparrow rangewide population 

objectives.

All
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 93

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

11 1 Population 

Status & 

Distribution

1.3 1.3.2 2 Based on updated rangewide population objectives, 

partners should determine appropriate step-down 

population objectives (e.g., for Joint Ventures,

BCRs, states) and evaluate the value of establishing 

separate subspecies population objectives.

All

12 2 Habitat 

Conservation

Goal 2: Protect, restore, maintain, and manage 

grassland habitats that are needed to sustain a stable 

or increasing Grasshopper Sparrow population 

across its breeding range

13 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.1 Objective 2.1 - Maintain and improve current 

grassland conservation programs to benefit 

Grasshopper Sparrows (and other grassland birds)

14 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.1 2.1.1 1 Ensure the future of the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) and Grassland Reserve Program in 

the US, and similar programs in Canada. Ensure 

that these programs continue to protect existing 

grasslands. 

Breeding (may 

affect 

migration and 

winter)

15 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.1 2.1.2 1 Work with CRP in the US and equivalent programs 

in Canada to design management guidelines to 

provide grassland habitat that benefits GRSP (and 

other grassland species of concern), ensuring that 

management where permitted (including grazing, 

mowing, and haying) protects nesting birds, is 

appropriate for GRSP, and is restricted where it is 

not beneficial. 

Breeding (may 

affect 

migration and 

winter)

16 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.1 2.1.3 2 Develop a compensation/subsidy program to 

compensate farmers for declines in the value of their 

hay crop if they delay harvest, or for taking suboptimal land out of hay production (Dale et al. 

1997; Troy et al. 2005).

Breeding (may 

affect 

migration and 

winter)
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 94

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

17 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.1 2.1.4 2 Apply existing programs that provide social and 

economic incentives to discourage conversion of 

grasslands to croplands (e.g., Grassland Reserve 

Program), and explore opportunities to improve 

them and develop additional, complementary 

programs.

All

18 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.1 2.1.5 2 Where programs provide conservation easement 

(voluntary and paid) or fee-title acquisition 

capabilities, focus on purchasing large tracts of land 

with native grasslands, to protect them from 

conversion and fragmentation, and to establish large 

expanses of continuous grassland.

All

19 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.2 Objective 2.2 - Identify high priority grassland areas 

for protection and restoration to benefit Grasshopper 

Sparrows, using information from Population 

Status and Distribution and Inventory and 

Monitoring sections

All

20 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.2 2.2.1 1 Develop maps of high priority grassland areas for 

protection and restoration using spatial data and 

GRSP population and habitat status and distribution 

data. 

All

21 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.2 2.2.2 1 Assess wintering areas in the southern US and 

Mexico to identify and protect/restore areas of high 

conservation value for GRSP populations, 

especially those facing major threats.

Winter

22 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.2 2.2.3 2 Establish protected natural areas. Establish a 

system for public rangelands (especially US Forest 

Service National Grasslands) that are protected from 

loss or degradation in order to create a mosaic of 

grassland habitat types (Saab et al. 1995; Askins et 

al. 2007).

All
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 95

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

23 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.2 2.2.4 2 Identify and protect habitats primarily in native 

perennial grasses where possible.

All

24 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.3 Objective 2.3 - Implement general grassland habitat 

conservation and protection concepts that benefit a 

suite of grassland birds, including Grasshopper 

Sparrows

All

25 2 Habitat 

Conservation

2.3 2.3.1 1 Focus grassland protection and restoration on 

increasing the percentage of grassland on the 

landscape, reducing the distance between grassland 

patches, and conserving closely connected patches 

of grassland in landscapes with less human 

development and woody vegetation where possible.

All

26 3 Management Goal 3: Implement management of grassland 

habitats to benefit Grasshopper Sparrow

All

27 3 Management 3.1 Objective 3.1 - Implement general management 

practices that benefit a suite of grassland birds, 

including Grasshopper Sparrow

All

28 3 Management 3.1 3.1.1 1 Manage grasslands to include a mosaic of 

management prescriptions, including both recently 

disturbed and undisturbed grassland areas.

All

29 3 Management 3.1 3.1.2 1 Use management practices (grazing, mowing, 

burning) that leave large acreages of grasslands in a

mosaic of taller and shorter grasses.

All

30 3 Management 3.1 3.1.3 1 Use management practices on protected grasslands 

that focus on restoring natural disturbances and 

removing invasive, non-native plant species. Use 

local, native genotypes and seed priming protocols, 

if available.

All
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 96

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

31 3 Management 3.2 Objective 3.2 - Implement specific management 

practices that are known to benefit Grasshopper 

Sparrows and a suite of other grassland birds

All

32 3 Management 3.2 3.2.1 1 Defer or reduce management disturbances from 

grazing and burning where practicable during the 

GRSP breeding season, especially on public lands 

and on lands enrolled in grassland and wildlife 

conservation programs. 

Breeding

33 3 Management 3.2 3.2.2 1 Delay mowing until after the GRSP breeding season 

where practicable, to avoid destruction of nests, 

eggs, nestlings, fledglings, or roosting birds. When 

mowing cannot be delayed on all fields, (1) delay 

mowing on public and private lands being managed 

for wildlife conservation purposes, (2) use hayfield 

rotational management to rotate sizable fields that 

are mowed early with those mowed later in the 

season to provide some fields for nesting birds, and 

(3) avoid nighttime mowing.

Breeding

34 3 Management 3.2 3.2.3 1 Design management disturbance (grazing, mowing, 

burning) to provide nesting refuges, in contiguous 

areas, away from trees, buildings, roads, and crop 

fields.

Breeding

35 3 Management 3.2 3.2.4 1 Burn parcels in a rotational pattern across multiple 

years to maintain a mosaic of different vegetation 

structures, compositions, and successional stages. 

Use a fire regime that is appropriate for the 

geographic area and type of grassland. Fire should 

attempt to mimic the effects of natural wildfires in 

the geographic area.

All
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 97

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

36 3 Management 3.2 3.2.5 2 Employ grassland management practices that reduce 

woody cover. Focus efforts on grasslands that have 

less woody encroachment than the threshold 

exhibited by GRSP.

Breeding (may 

affect 

migration and 

winter)

37 3 Management 3.2 3.2.6 2 Where possible and when managing for GRSP and 

other open grassland species, consolidate adjacent 

grassland fields and eliminate linear strips of woody 

vegetation (shelterbelts, hedgerows, fence lines and 

tree lines). 

All

38 3 Management 3.2 3.2.7 3 Promote existing guidelines related to energy 

development.

All

39 3 Management 3.2 3.2.8 4 Minimize crop field operations that destroy nests 

(e.g., subsurface tillage) where possible. Avoid 

mowing or spraying herbicide in uncultivated 

adjacent areas such as fencerows and grassed 

waterways whenever possible.

Breeding

40 3 Management 3.2 3.2.9 4 Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to manage 

pest weeds and arthropods, and include GRSP in 

IPM planning programs

Breeding

41 3 Management 3.2 3.2.10 4 Implement new Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

as they are produced.

All

42 4 Research Goal 4: Conduct research necessary to inform 

conservation planning, actions, and development of 

BMPs to benefit Grasshopper Sparrow

All

43 4 Research 4.1 Objective 4.1 - Conduct research on Grasshopper 

Sparrow population abundance, distribution, and 

population trend

All
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 98

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

44 4 Research 4.1 4.1.1 1 Develop and refine predictive models of occurrence 

and abundance using existing data to identify 

potential source breeding areas. Produce geographic 

information system (GIS) maps to delineate regions 

of high probability of occurrence and abundance, in 

all seasons.

All

45 4 Research 4.1 4.1.2 1 Develop and assess techniques to recover GRSP 

populations in areas that have experienced declines 

and range contractions.

All

46 4 Research 4.1 4.1.3 2 Describe migration and wintering distribution of 

GRSP.

Winter, 

migration

47 4 Research 4.1 4.1.4 2 Determine the relative importance of various threats 

and limiting factors in explaining GRSP population 

declines and changes in distribution, including a 

comparison of factors affecting GRSP on breeding, 

migration, and wintering grounds; see results of 

other research described below.

All

48 4 Research 4.1 4.1.5 3 Determine the taxonomy of the GRSP population in 

the Chino Valley, AZ (is it ammolegus? Or 

perpallidus?)

Breeding

49 4 Research 4.2 Objective 4.2 - Conduct research on Grasshopper 

Sparrow demographics and ecology, ideally studied 

concurrently with other priority grassland birds

All

50 4 Research 4.2 4.2.1 1 Establish long-term study plots throughout the 

breeding range to monitor demographic parameters.

Breeding
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 99

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

51 4 Research 4.2 4.2.2 1 Conduct demographic studies of GRSP 

survival/mortality and productivity throughout life 

cycle (breeding, non-breeding) and across its range 

to determine when and where populations are most 

limited, what limiting factors may be contributing to 

population declines, and whether various 

populations are source or sink populations.

All

52 4 Research 4.2 4.2.3 1 Conduct research on GRSP winter ecology, 

including the identification of important winter 

habitat needs, and the important threats and limiting 

factors on winter populations (e.g., perhaps seed 

resources, precipitation, non-native vegetation). 

Use to determine relative importance of threats 

during breeding and non-breeding seasons to GRSP 

populations.

Winter

53 4 Research 4.2 4.2.4 2 Conduct studies on GRSP post-fledging biology, 

behavior and demographics.

Breeding

54 4 Research 4.2 4.2.5 2 Conduct research on GRSP site fidelity, return rates, 

and survivorship in different geographic areas.

Breeding, 

wintering

55 4 Research 4.2 4.2.6 2 Conduct research on GRSP migration ecology 

including stopover habitat use, migration routes, 

migration behavior, etc.

Migration

56 4 Research 4.3 Objective 4.3 - Conduct research on managementrelated questions related to Grasshopper SparrowAll
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 100

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

57 4 Research 4.3 4.3.1 1 Conduct studies on the effects of different types of 

key grassland management practices (e.g. grazing, 

mowing, burning, woody vegetation control) on 

GRSP productivity, survival and Brown-headed 

Cowbird nest parasitism, and how these effects are 

influenced by scale (patch size and landscape 

matrix). It is particularly important to do 

comparisons across geographic range and for 

different GRSP subspecies. NOTE: this includes a 

study of short-duration, high intensity grazing 

(Savory 1988) on GRSP in the Southwest.

All

58 4 Research 4.3 4.3.2 2 Determine what management practices (e.g., timing, 

frequency, and intensity of grazing, fire, and 

mowing regimes) create suitable GRSP habitat in

different geographic regions and at what levels these 

practices become a threat (begin showing negative 

impacts) to GRSP habitat and populations.

All

59 4 Research 4.3 4.3.3 2 Conduct research to test the assumptions on which 

existing management recommendations (and future 

BMPs as they are implemented) are based to 

determine whether they produce the intended 

results/benefits.

All

60 4 Research 4.3 4.3.4 3 Determine the effects of tall structures (e.g., 

telecommunication and powerline transmission

towers, wind turbines, buildings, etc.) on GRSP 

behavior, productivity, survival, and habitat use

All

61 4 Research 4.3 4.3.5 3 Determine the effects of energy development, 

production, and transmission (oil & gas, wind, solar, 

biomass) on GRSP behavior, productivity, and 

GRSP habitat (e.g., fragmentation, non-native 

plants, etc.)

All
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 101

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

62 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

Goal 5: Conduct inventory and monitoring activities 

to inform Grasshopper Sparrow conservation 

planning and activities

All

63 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

5.1 Objective 5.1 - Conduct inventory and monitoring 

activities on Grasshopper Sparrow grassland habitat

All

64 5 Inventory &

Monitoring

5.1 5.1.1 1 Determine the distribution, quantity, quality, and 

protection status of grassland habitat suitable (or 

potentially suitable) for GRSP throughout its annual 

cycle; monitor changes in these characteristics over 

time.

All

65 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

5.1 5.1.2 2 Evaluate the existing data on GRSP habitat to 

identify gaps, particularly on the wintering range.

All (especially 

Winter)

66 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

5.2 Objective 5.2 - Conduct inventory and monitoring 

activities on Grasshopper Sparrow distribution, 

population trend, and habitat use

All

67 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

5.2 5.2.1 1 Ground-truth or use expert knowledge to validate 

GIS information on GRSP distribution, abundance, 

and habitat associations.

All

68 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

5.2 5.2.2 1 Improve the value of BBS for understanding GRSP 

population trends by increasing the number of 

routes and trained observers in grassland habitats 

where GRSP are found, and by encouraging 

increased participation in BBS.

Breeding

69 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

5.2 5.2.3 2 Evaluate the existing data on GRSP populations and 

distribution to identify gaps, particularly on the 

wintering range.

All (especially 

Winter)

70 5 Inventory & 

Monitoring

5.2 5.2.4 3 Inventory and monitor GRSP distribution and 

habitat use on wintering grounds.

Winter
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 102

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

71 6 Education & 

Outreach

Goal 6: Develop and produce education and 

outreach materials, activities and programs that 

facilitate the conservation of Grasshopper Sparrow

All

72 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.1 Objective 6.1- Produce Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) documents on pertinent subjects for target 

management audiences; see Management and 

Research sections above

All

73 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.1 6.1.1 1 Develop BMPs for grazing, mowing, burning, and 

other practices in GRSP habitat across its range, 

with BMPs appropriate and specific to geographic 

area and grassland type.

All (especially

Breeding and 

Migration)

74 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.1 6.1.2 1 Develop BMPs for grassland restoration in GRSP 

habitat across its range, with BMPs appropriate and 

specific to geographic area and grassland type.

All (especially

Breeding and 

Migration)

75 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.1 6.1.3 2 Develop additional BMPs and guidelines for energy 

development and delivery activities (e.g., oil & gas, 

wind, solar, and biomass) in GRSP habitat across its 

range.

All

76 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.2 Objective 6.2 - Produce other activities, programs, 

and materials that will facilitate conservation of 

Grasshopper Sparrows and their grassland habitat 

by managers and policy-makers

All

77 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.2 6.2.1 1 Produce outreach documents to inform and 

influence land use decisions and policies that affect 

grassland habitat.

All

78 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.2 6.2.2 2 Integrate GRSP needs into land management 

programs and grassland conservation initiatives.

All

79 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.2 6.2.3 3 Develop collaborations and outreach to Mexican 

government agencies and NGOs to work together to 

conserve GRSP populations and habitats across 

their full annual cycle.

Winter
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 103

Order Goal 

#

Goal Objective 

#

Action 

Item #

Priority Description of Goal/Objective/or Action Item Annual Cycle

80 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.3 Objective 6.3 - Produce activities, programs and 

materials that increase awareness of Grasshopper 

Sparrow and their grassland habitats

All

81 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.3 6.3.1 1 Develop education and outreach tools and 

communication programs for public and landowner 

education and outreach about the value of 

conserving grasslands, especially intact native 

prairie.

All

82 6 Education & 

Outreach

6.3 6.3.2 2 Develop education and outreach tools for youth, 

land managers, and the general public that increase 

their awareness of GRSPs and their habitat 

requirements.

All

83 7 Conservation 

Planning

Goal 7: Evaluate whether the scale of actions 

recommended match, or will produce impacts at the 

scale necessary to achieve the stated population 

objectives for Grasshopper Sparrow

84 7 Conservation 

Planning

7.1 Objective 7.1 - Develop models and/or decision 

support tools that will allow conservation planners 

to determine the population-level impacts of various 

recommended actions in this plan and how much of 

these actions at what scales are required to achieve 

population objectives.

All

85 7 Conservation 

Planning

7.1 7.1.1 1 Explore the applicability of existing tools, such as 

the Playa Lakes JV HABS database and the 

Intermountain West JV HABPOPS model, and 

determine how to scale them up for rangewide 

applications.

All
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 104

Appendix B: Scientific names for non-avian animal taxa and plants mentioned in document

Scientific Name English Common Name

Animals

Jackrabbits Lepus species

Cottontails Sylvilagus species

Rodents Order Rodentia

Ground squirrels Spermophilus species

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel S. tridecemlineatus

Prairie dogs Cynomys species

Pronghorn Antilocapra americanus

Elk Cervus elaphus

Deer Odocoileus species

Mule deer O. hemionus

Bison Bison bison

Domestic/feral cat Felis catus

Foxes Vulpes and Urocyon species

Skunks Spilogale, Conepatus, and Mephitis species

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Snakes Suborder Serpentes

Plants

pine Pinus species

pinyon pine Pinus species

juniper Juniperus species

eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana

oak Quercus species

sagebrush Artemisia species

mesquite Prosopis species

buffelgrass Pennisetum ciliare

cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

switchgrass Panicum virgatum

orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata

timothy grass Phleum pratense

smooth brome Bromus inermis

tall fescue Festuca arundinacea

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum

intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyrum intermedium

big bluestem Andropogon gerardii
Grasshopper Sparrow Conservation Plan—Version 1.0 105

little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans

blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

side-oats grama B. curtipendula

buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides

kleingrass Panicum coloratum

Old World bluestem Bothriochloa ischaemum

Lehmann lovegrass Eragrostis lehmanniana

Boer’s lovegrass E. chloromelas

wheeping lovegrass E. curvula

miscanthus Miscanthus species (esp. hybrid M. giganteus)

leafy spurge Euphorbia esula
Department of Interior,

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

5275 LEESBURG PIKE MB 088C

FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041

http://www.fws.gov

APRIL 2015