U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2012–1073

Prepared in cooperation with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser Prairie-Chickens 

in West Texas, 2008–11
 
Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser 

Prairie-Chickens in West Texas, 2008–11

By Clint W. Boal and Nicholas E. Pirius

Prepared in cooperation with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Open-File Report 2012–1073

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Boal, C.W., and Pirius, N.E., 2012, Winter ecology and habitat use of lesser prairie-chickens in west Texas, 2008–11: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1073, 9 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/

1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.
iii

Acknowledgments

Access to private property was provided by various landowners. We thank A.E Escobar, 

C.G. Frey, C. Kveton, L. Rindlisbacher, and A. Teague helped with fieldwork and B. Grisham, 

D. Holt, D. Lucia, B. Skipper and M. Vanlandeghem for their support both in the lab and in the 

field. We thank D. Haukos and H. Whitlaw for service on the graduate student committee, and 

substantive review comments on the graduate thesis stemming from this research. We thank 

J. Baccus and D. Lucia for providing helpful reviews of the report. Financial and logistical 

support for this project was provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, USGS Texas 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and Texas Tech Department of Natural Resources 

Management. 

v

Contents

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1

Study Site .......................................................................................................................................................2

Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................2

Capture ..................................................................................................................................................2

Radiotelemetry .....................................................................................................................................2

Habitat Classification ..........................................................................................................................3

Home-Range Analysis .........................................................................................................................3

Habitat-Use Analysis ...........................................................................................................................4

Survival Analysis ..................................................................................................................................4

Results ............................................................................................................................................................4

Home-Range Analysis .........................................................................................................................4

Habitat Use ............................................................................................................................................6

Survival ..................................................................................................................................................6

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................6

References Cited ...........................................................................................................................................8

Figure

1. Graphs showing percentage of lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) 

locations at distance intervals from A, lek of capture, B, nearest known lek, and 

C, nearest water source in the Southern High Plains of Texas from September 1 

through February 28, 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 ..............................................................5

Tables

1. Land cover types used for determining habitat types for lesser prairie-chickens 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the Southern High Plains of Texas during the 

nonbreeding seasons of 2008–10 ..............................................................................................3

2. Estimated home ranges (hectares) based on 95 percent fixed kernel estimator (HR), 

minimum weekly movements (MWM), minimum distance to lek of capture (DLC) 

for male and female lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the 

Southern High Plains of Texas in the 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 nonbreeding 

seasons .........................................................................................................................................4

3. Estimated minimum distance to nearest known leks (DNL) and minimum distance 

to nearest available water source (DH2O) for male and female lesser prairiechickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the Southern High Plains of Texas in the 

2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 nonbreeding seasons ............................................................6

4. Nonbreeding-season habitat use relative to availability of lesser prairie-chickens 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the Southern High Plains of Texas from September 1 

through February 28 for 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 .........................................................7

5. Ranking of a priori candidate models predicting survival for lesser-prairie chickens 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the Southern High Plains of Texas from September 1 

through February 28 for 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 .........................................................8
vi

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2) 

Volume

microliter (uL) 106 Liter (L)

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 2.113 pint (pt)

liter (L) 1.057 quart (qt)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32
0.846 ± 0.141; year 2: 0.827 ± 0.092) were among the highest 

ever reported for the species during the nonbreeding season. 

Survival was markedly decreased in year 3 (0.572 ± 0.136) 

and resulted in an overall nonbreeding season average of 0.721 

(± 0.0763). These are still among the highest survival rates 

reported for the species; it does not appear that winter season 

mortality is a strong limiting factor in lesser prairie-chicken 

persistence in the study area. 

Introduction

The lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) 

has experienced severe declines in both population and range 

since the 1800s (Taylor and Guthery 1980a; Hagen and others, 

2004). Davis and others (unpub. data, 2008) suggested that 

90 percent of the original range of lesser prairie-chickens is no 

longer suitable for occupancy. With the evidence of long term 

declines in population and historic range, the lesser prairiechicken is currently listed as “warranted but precluded” under 

the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2008). The status “warranted but precluded” illustrates that 

sufficient evidence and probable cause for listing for Federal 

protection are present; however, at the current time there are 

other species with a more critical need for listing. The current 

distribution of lesser prairie-chickens is limited to areas 

of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas 

(Davis and others, unpub. data, 2008). As of 2008, biologists 

agreed that overall population estimates range from 30,000 

to 50,000 breeding birds (Davis and others, unpub. data, 

2008). Davis and others (unpub. data, 2008) also suggested 

that the lesser prairie-chicken benefited from small amounts 

of conversion of native rangeland to cropland; however, 

extension of this practice was proved to be detrimental. 

The reproductive ecology and brood-rearing period for 

the lesser prairie-chicken has been the main focus of previous 

studies. Comparatively little research effort has addressed the 

nonbreeding ecology of the species in terms of movements 

(Taylor and Guthery, 1980b), habitat use (Donaldson, 1969; 

Olawsky and Smith, 1991; Davis and others, unpub. data, 

2008), home range (Taylor and Guthery 1980b; Jamison, 

2000; Toole, 2005; Kukal, 2010), or survival (Hagen and 

others, 2005; Pitman and others, 2006a; Hagen and others, 

Abstract

The lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) 

has experienced declines in population and occupied range by 

more than 90 percent since the late 1800s. The lesser prairiechicken has been listed as a candidate species for protection 

under the Endangered Species Act and is undergoing review 

for actual listing. Populations and distribution of lesser prairiechickens in Texas are thought to be at or near all time lows. 

These factors have led to substantially increased concern 

for conservation of the species. It is apparent that sound 

management and conservation strategies for lesser prairiechickens are necessary to ensure the long-term persistence 

of the species. To develop those strategies, basic ecological 

information is required. Currently, there is a paucity of data 

on the wintering ecology of the species. We examined home 

range, habitat use, and survival of lesser prairie-chickens 

during the winters of 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 in sand 

shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) landscapes in west Texas. 

We captured and radio-tagged 53 adult lesser prairie-chickens. 

We obtained sufficient locations to estimate winter homerange size for 23 individuals. Home-range size did not differ 

between years or by sex. Although female prairie-chickens 

had slightly larger home ranges (503.5 ± 34.9 ha) compared to 

males (489.1 ± 34.9 ha), the differences were not significant 

(t

2 = 0.05, P = 0.96). During the nonbreeding season, we 

found that 97.2 percent of locations of male and female 

prairie-chickens alike were within 3.2 kilometers (km) of the 

lek of capture. Most locations (96.8%) were within 1.7 km 

of a known lek and almost all locations (99.9%) were within 

3.2 km of an available water source. Habitat cover types were 

not used proportional to occurrence within the home ranges, 

grassland dominated areas with sand shinnery oak were used 

more than available, and sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) 

areas dominated with grassland as well as sand sagebrush 

areas dominated with bare ground were both used less than 

available. Survival rates during the first 2 years (year 1: 

Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser PrairieChickens in West Texas, 2008–11 

By Clint W. Boal1 and Nicholas E. Pirius2

1

U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

Department of Range, Wildlife, and Fisheries Management, Texas Tech 

University, Lubbock, TX 79409–2120.

2

Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural 

Resources Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409.
2 Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in West Texas, 2008–11

2007). Information on the nonbreeding season ecology of 

the lesser prairie-chicken is limited in Texas as well as other 

areas across its range. Information suggests that movements 

by lesser prairie-chickens increase from October to November 

but decrease from January to February (Taylor and Guthery, 

1980b). Over the winter, lesser prairie-chickens are also 

known to form flocks; Taylor and Guthery (1980b) found 

flocks with up to 100 lesser prairie-chickens feeding in a grain 

field. Few studies have examined the over-winter ecology of 

lesser prairie-chickens. The primary objectives of this study 

were to assess sex-specific home-range size, habitat use, and 

survival of lesser prairie-chickens during the fall and winter 

on the Southern High Plains of Texas. This study will provide 

baseline information on winter ecology and survival of lesser 

prairie-chickens in west Texas and facilitate information-based 

management decisions for the study area. 

Study Site

The study site was located on private lands in Cochran, 

Hockley, Terry, and Yoakum Counties of the Southern 

High Plains of Texas. The study site consisted of primarily 

flat terrain with intermixed sand dunes. The site was 

dominated by sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) and 

sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) with grasses such as sand 

bluestem (Andropogon gerardii spp. hallii), little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), sand dropseed (Sporobolus 

cryptandrus), purple three-awn (Aristida purpurea), 

blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalograss (Buchloe 

dactyloides), and various forbs (Crawford and Bolen, 1976). 

The area surrounding the study site was dominated by honey 

mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), grassland pastures, and 

agricultural fields of cotton (Gossypium spp.), grain sorghum 

(Sorghum spp.), sunflower (Helianthus spp.), and peanuts 

(Arachis spp.). The dominant soil type was a Brownfield fine 

sand, which is defined by more than or equal to 50 centimeters 

(cm) of fine sand on top of a sandy loam that exhibits a water 

infiltration rate at approximately 70 cm/hour (h) (Pettit, 1979). 

Cattle grazing and crop production were the primary uses of 

the study area as well as substantial amounts of oil production. 

As of 2006, Yoakum County had about 6,500 oil wells 

(Railroad Commission of Texas, 2006). There were few active 

oil wells located on the study site; however, abandoned oil 

pads were still present and, occasionally, used as leks.

We compiled weather data from the Mesonet weather 

recording station in Sundown, Tex., (Texas Tech University, 

2011). Average annual precipitation for 2002 through 2010 

was 45.3 cm. Annual precipitation for 2008 through 2010 

was 38.8 cm, 34.4 cm, and 58.2 cm, respectively. Average 

nonbreeding season precipitation for 2002 through 2010 

was 16.7 cm. The nonbreeding period (September through 

February) average rainfall for the 2008–9, 2009–10, and 

2010–11 seasons was 19.6 cm, 18.5 cm, and 12.2 cm.

Methods

Capture

We captured lesser prairie-chickens in the spring (early 

March to Late April) and fall (early September to midOctober) with walk-in funnel traps (Haukos and others, 1989). 

We determined sex of captured birds on the basis of tail 

pattern, pinnae length and presence of an eye comb (Copelin, 

1963). White spotting within 2.5 cm of the feather tip of the 

ninth and tenth primary flight feathers indicated a juvenile, 

whereas the absence of white spotting within 2.5 cm indicated 

an adult (Copelin, 1963). We also measured body mass, 

tarsus length, and an unflattened wing cord. We collected six 

to eight breast feathers and a blood sample from each bird 

for contribution to a separate study examining the genetic 

diversity of lesser prairie-chickens in Texas; we drew blood 

(a 2–3 uL tube, and two 1-uL tubes) from the brachial vein 

by using a 20-gage needle. We equipped each bird with an 

aluminum Texas Parks and Wildlife Department blunt-end 

leg band and three separate color bands, which corresponded 

to the lek of capture and allowed visual identification of 

individual birds. Following guidelines by Warner and Etter 

(1983), radio transmitter weights should fall below 2.3 percent 

of total body mass so as to not decrease survival. On our study 

site, lesser prairie-chickens weighed about 600–800 grams 

(g), for which transmitter weights should range from 13.8 g 

to 18.4 g. Conservatively, we equipped each captured lesser 

prairie-chicken with a 9 g American Wildlife Enterprise 

“necklace” style VHF radio transmitter (American Wildlife 

Enterprises, Monticello, Florida, USA), which was set with an 

8-h mortality sensor. 

Radiotelemetry

We obtained nonbreeding season relocations of lesser 

prairie-chickens from September 1 through February 28 

of 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11. We used an Advanced 

Telemetry System R-2000 Receiver (Advanced Telemetry 

Systems, Isanti, Minnesota, USA) and a hand-held 3-element 

Yagi antenna to triangulate prairie-chicken position. We 

obtained three to four bearings (Cochran and Lord, 1963) 

from different locations all within 15-minute (min) intervals 

to limit error based on movements. We attempted to obtain 

two to three locations or more for each radio-tagged bird 

per week and rotated relocation events among three diurnal 

periods of 0600–1000 h, 1001–1400 h, and 1401–1900 h to 

obtain even amounts of locations per period per individual 

across the nonbreeding period. We used program LOAS 4.0 

(location of a signal) (Ecological Software Solutions) to obtain 

the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates derived 

from triangulated bearings for each location. We discarded 

locations from analysis if error polygons were greater than 
Methods 3

about a 122 meter (m) by 122 m area because of the high error 

associated with the locations. UTM coordinates were then 

transferred into ArcMap 10 (ArcInfo, Environmental Systems 

Research Institute, Redlands, California) and plotted as a point 

layer over the map of the study site. 

When a mortality signal occurred, we located the 

transmitter via homing (Mech, 1983). Upon finding a 

transmitter with a mortality signal, we collected all available 

data to determine if a mortality had occurred or if a transmitter 

had come unattached from a lesser prairie-chicken. When we 

confirmed mortality, we took photographs of the mortality 

location and then collected information such as condition of 

the transmitter, all available tracks and scat, and all feathers to 

facilitate the identification for cause of mortality. 

Habitat Classification

We imported National Aerial Imagery Program (NAIP) 

aerial imagery at 1-m resolution (2008 imagery) into ArcMap 

10. We described 10 different vegetation cover types based 

on visual interpretation of the aerial imagery (table 1). We 

predetermined cover types on the basis of past and current 

habitat management practices for our results to be comparable 

to previous studies (Fuhlendorf and others, 2002; Kukal, 2010) 

and to accurately describe the diversity of vegetation cover 

types on the study site. We used ArcGIS to digitize boundaries 

of each cover type to create a layer of vegetation cover type 

patches.

To confirm the delineations from aerial imagery, we 

ground-truthed 259 points which were located by using a 

hand held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (CS60x, 

Garmin International Inc., Olathe, Kansas). The points were 

systematically placed at 400-m intervals along roads and all 

terrain vehicle trails across the study area. We limited data 

collection to a single observer to avoid observer bias. At each 

point we made ocular estimates at 5 percent increments of 

percentage of shrub (typically sand sagebrush), sand shinnery 

oak, grass, and bare ground out to 100 m in each of the four 

intercardinal directions (northwest, northeast, southwest, and 

southeast). All pastures within the study site were represented 

with seven to eight points to ensure accuracy of the cover type 

classification and delineation. We conducted ground-truthing 

in early spring (March and April), when the sand shinnery 

oak and sand sagebrush were beginning to bud (Vermeire and 

Wester, 2001). 

Home-Range Analysis 

We estimated home-range size using 95 percent fixedkernel estimates with the adehabitat package (Calenge, 2006) 

in Program R. We constrained our analysis of home-range 

size to only those birds for which we had a minimum of 

25 relocations . We used a t-test to determine if gender-specific 

differences in home-range size occurred. We plotted locations 

and computed home ranges as layers in ArcMap 10 for use in 

habitat analyses described below.

Table 1. Land cover types used for determining habitat types for lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the Southern 

High Plains of Texas during the nonbreeding seasons of 2008–10.

Cover 

type Classification Description

1 Agriculture (AGRI) Cultivated field. Typically common wheat (Triticum aestivum) or common 

sunflower (Helianthus annuus).

2 CRP grasslands (CRPG) Monoculture of weeping lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula).

3 Grassland dominated, with mesquite (GRDM) ≥70% native grasslands (for example, Andropogon gerardii spp. hallii, 

Schizachyrium scoparium, Sporobolus cryptandrus) with ≤30% honey 

mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) intermixed within.

4 Grassland dominated, with sand shinnery oak 

(GRDS)

≥70% native grasslands with ≤30% sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) 

intermixed within.

5 Mesquite savannah (MESA) ≥70% honey mesquite and ≤30% native grasslands and or shrubs [for example, 

sand shinnery oak, sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia)] in understory.

6 Reverted agriculture (REAG) Formerly plowed or tilled landscape that has returned to shrub land (≥50 sand 

shinnery oak, 20–30% native grassland, and 20–30% sand sagebrush).

7 Sand shinnery oak (SHIN) Areas dominated by sand shinnery oak (≥70%), with 20%–30% sand sagebrush, 

and <10% native grasslands.

8 Sand shinnery oak dominated, with grassland 

(SHIDG)

≥70% sand shinnery oak with ≤30% native grassland and sand sagebrush 

intermixed within.

9 Sand sagebrush dominated, with bare ground 

(SHRDB)

≥70% sand sagebrush with ≤30% bare ground.

10 Sand sagebrush dominated, with grassland 

(SHRDG)

≥70% sand sagebrush with ≤30% native grassland and sand shinnery oak 

intermixed within.
4 Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in West Texas, 2008–11

We calculated minimum weekly distances between 

locations on a 7-day time frame to assess movement patterns 

across the nonbreeding season. We averaged minimum across 

all birds for each year. We only had sufficient data to plot the 

average weekly movements for the 2009–10 and 2010–11 

seasons. To assess areas of use, we partitioned distances 

into five buffer sets: ≤0.8, 0.8–1.7, 1.7–3.2, 3.2–4.8, and 

≥4.8 km (Taylor and Guthery 1980b). Within these buffers, 

we evaluated proportions of locations to three features we 

believe are important to lesser prairie-chickens: lek of capture, 

nearest known lek, and nearest known usable water source. 

We defined usable water as surface water in a human-made 

stock tank that was constantly available throughout the year. 

The tank must have water at a distance of less than or equal to 

10 cm from the top of the rim or an on-ground runoff area.

Habitat-Use Analysis 

We used a Baileys Confidence interval (Bailey, 1980) 

method to assess use versus availability of vegetation cover 

types (Neu and others, 1974; Cherry, 1996). For habitat 

analysis, we reduced the number of locations to only those 

with error polygons less than 10000 m2 (about 113 m x 113 

m) to reduce the possibility of falsely identifying habitat 

types as occurring within a given home range. We used the 

calculated 95 percent Fixed Kernel estimated home ranges 

as our measure of “available” habitat for each individual. 

We classified “use” by taking the locations of an individual 

within its home range and assessing cover types to each 

particular point. For this analysis, we removed three cover 

types (agriculture, Conservation Reserve Program grasslands, 

and grassland-dominated areas with mesquite) that were not 

detected within any lesser prairie-chicken calculated home 

range or buffer points. To avoid any overlapping habitat types, 

areas that had been previously treated with the herbicide 

tebuthiuron for control of sand shinnery oak were placed into 

the cover type with which they best correspond. We used the 

chi-square “goodness-of-fit” technique to assess the hypothesis 

that lesser prairie-chickens use habitat types in proportion to 

what is available across the study area (Neu and others, 1974).

Survival Analysis

We conducted the survival analysis with the PROC 

PHREG in Statistical Analysis Software (SAS; v. 9.2, SAS 

Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Individuals were censored 

on the basis of three events: emigration off the study site, 

mortality, or survival beyond the end of the nonbreeding 

season (February 28 each year). We constructed three a 

priori models with the categorical variables of gender, season 

(2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11), and overall survival 

rate (pooled across gender and season). We calculated 

model weights (ωi) based on Akaike’s Information Criteria 

(AIC) which were corrected for low sample size (AICc). 

We attempted to identify the cause of mortality based 

on the criteria described in Warner and Etter (1983), and 

examined cause specific morality pooled across season and 

gender.

Results

Home-Range Analysis 

We obtained a total of 1,219 relocations for 53 adult 

lesser prairie-chickens (29 male and 24 female) through 

the 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 nonbreeding seasons; 

however, we obtained a sufficient number of relocations 

to calculate reliable home-range estimates for only 23 

individuals (17 male and 6 female) and were able to compare 

home-range patterns between the 2009–10 and 2010–11 

nonbreeding seasons only. Home-range size did not differ 

for male (t

1 = 0.08, P = 0.95) or female (t1 = 0.02, P = 0.86) 

lesser prairie-chickens; therefore, we pooled estimates of 

home range for each gender across years for further analysis 

(table 2). Pooled home-range size averaged 503.5 ha 

(± 34.9 ha) for adult females (n = 6) and a slightly smaller 

489.1 ha (± 34.9 ha) for adult males (n = 17). Overall homerange sizes for males and females did not differ (t

1 = 0.05, P = 

0.96).

Table 2. Estimated home ranges (hectares) based on 95 percent fixed kernel estimator (HR), minimum weekly movements (MWM), 

minimum distance to lek of capture (DLC) for male and female lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the Southern High 

Plains of Texas in the 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11 nonbreeding seasons. 

[Home ranges are reported in square meters and all distances are reported in meters]

Season

HR MWM DLC

n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE

2008–9 1 939.7 0 1 706.9 101.3 1 2,512.3 184.7

2009–10 12 430.3 28.7 12 676.0 116.8 12 965.2 189.8

2010–11 10 506.4 57.3 10 661.9 158.6 10 1,060.6 272.4
Results 5

Figure 1. Percentage of lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) locations at distance intervals from A, lek of capture, 

B, nearest known lek, and C, nearest water source in the Southern High Plains of Texas from September 1 through February 28, 2008–9, 

2009–10, and 2010–11.

0

10

20

30

40

50

<0.8 0.8 –1.7 1.7– 3.2 3.2– 4.8 >4.8

Percent

Distance (km)

A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

<0.8 0.8–1.7 1.7–3.2 3.2–4.8 >4.8

Percent

Distance (km)

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<0.8 0.8–1.7 1.7–3.2 3.2–4.8 >4.8

Percent

Distance (km)

C
6 Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in West Texas, 2008–11

Habitat Use

Across three nonbreeding seasons, we found that 

97.2 percent of locations of both male and female prairiechickens were within 3.2 km of the lek of capture, whereas 

very few locations (<5.0 percent) were recorded between 

3.2 and 4.8 km of lek of capture (fig. 1a). Only 2.8 percent 

of locations were beyond the 3.2–4.8 km buffer; all of these 

locations were attributed to movements of one adult female 

in September of 2008. We found 96.8 percent of all locations 

(table 3) to be within 3.2 km of a known lek (fig. 1b), and 99.9 

percent of all locations were within 3.2 km of an available 

water source (fig. 1c). Minimum weekly movements did not 

differ between seasons for male (t

25 = 0.66, P = 0.52) and 

female (t

25 = 0.39, P = 0.70) lesser prairie-chickens. Similarly, 

when genders were pooled there was no detectable difference 

in minimum weekly movements between the 2009–10 and 

2010–11 seasons (t

25 = 0.41, P = 0.69; table 2).

Three (agriculture, Conservation Reserve Program 

grassland, and grassland-dominated areas with mesquite) 

of the 10 classified vegetation cover types (table 1) were 

excluded from analysis because of lack of occurrence in 

any of the estimated home ranges. Cover types were not 

used proportional to occurrence within the home ranges (χ2 

= 1868.7, α = 0.05). One cover type (grassland-dominated 

areas with sand shinnery oak) was used more than was 

proportionally available (table 4). Sand sagebrush dominated 

with grassland and sand sagebrush dominated with bare 

ground were both used less than available (table 4). There 

was no difference between use and availability of the four 

remaining habitat types (mesquite savannah, reverted 

agriculture, sand shinnery oak, and sand shinnery dominated 

oak with grassland) (table 4).

Survival 

The estimated survival rate for 12 individuals (1 male and 

11 female) during the 2008–9 nonbreeding season (0.846 ± 

0.141) and for 21 individuals (13 male and 8 female) during 

the 2009–10 nonbreeding season (0.827 ± 0.092) were similar. 

In contrast, the survival estimate for 20 individuals (15 male 

and 5 female) during the nonbreeding season of 2010–11 was 

markedly lower (0.572 ± 0.136) compared to previous years. 

The overall nonbreeding season survival estimate for lesser 

prairie-chickens on the study site was 0.721 (SE 0.0763). 

Based on posterior model probabilities, 46 percent of the 

model weight was supported by overall survival, whereas 

season (year) and gender were supported by 37 percent and 

17 percent of the weights, respectively (table 5); however, all 

models were plausible based on delta AIC less than or equal 

to 2. We documented 13 mortalities during the 3 nonbreeding 

seasons; we attributed 10 to avian predation, 2 to mammalian 

predation, and were unable to determine cause of mortality in 

1 case.

Discussion

Information-based management is pivotal for monitoring 

and conserving imperiled species. The ability to assess and 

estimate home range, movements, habitat use, and survival 

is important not only for understanding the basic ecology 

of a species but also for aiding wildlife managers in making 

informed decisions (Heisey and Fuller 1985; Pollock and 

others, 1989; Murray, 2006). The observed home-range 

estimates for adult male and adult female lesser prairiechickens in our study were not dissimilar to those reported 

elsewhere. It is difficult, however, to directly compare our 

results to many other studies conducted on lesser prairiechickens. Most other studies provided results by using other 

methodology (for example, minimum convex polygon home 

range estimator), by sampling during different seasonal time 

periods, or by attempting to split the nonbreeding seasons into 

autumn (September 1–November 30) and winter (December 

1–February 28). Although splitting home-range size into 

two distinct seasons may provide managers with additional 

information, our data did not support this action for three 

reasons. First, other studies were able to report information 

on juveniles. Juvenile home ranges are highly influenced by 

dispersal movements observed in the brood break up period 

(October through early January) (Taylor and Guthery, 1980b; 

Pitman and others, 2006a). Our sample of juveniles captured 

in the late summer and the fall were too small to analyze fall 

and winter movements. Second, when comparing movements 

within home ranges, other than one individual female that 

dispersed 14 km in 1 week in January, there were no atypical 

movements detected. Third, of the 23 lesser prairie-chickens in 

our study for which we estimated home ranges, the minimum 

number of locations used had to be liberalized for five 

individuals because of sample size restrictions. Splitting the 

available data into two distinct seasons would have weakened 

the home-range estimates.

Movements to seek sources of food, cover, or water 

may increase home-range sizes. Additionally, lesser 

Table 3. Estimated minimum distance to nearest known leks 

(DNL) and minimum distance to nearest available water source 

(DH2O) for male and female lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus 

pallidicinctus) in the Southern High Plains of Texas in the 2008–9, 

2009–10, and 2010–11 nonbreeding seasons. 

[All distances are reported in meters]

Season

DNL DH2O

n Mean SE n Mean SE

2008–9 1 645.9 46.2 1 1,542.3 74.8

2009–10 12 729.5 118.7 12 889.6 115.8

2010–11 10 605.8 131.8 10 13,01.0 176.4
Discussion 7

prairie-chickens are also known to form large flocks over 

the winter months; Taylor and Guthery (1980b) found flocks 

with up to 100 lesser prairie-chickens feeding in a grain field. 

Davis and others (unpub. data, 2008) also suggested that 

lesser prairie-chickens originally may have benefited from 

small amounts of conversion of native grassland to cropland. 

We found no evidence of movements to agricultural fields as 

previously reported in the literature (Jones, 1964; Crawford 

and Bolen, 1976; Taylor and Guthery 1980b), nor did we 

observe any flock with 10 or more individuals at any point 

of the nonbreeding period outside of fall lekking males. The 

observed groups, both through radio-collared individuals and 

a separate camera study, were of both single sex and both sex 

groups. With approximately 97 percent of suitable habitat for 

lesser prairie-chickens now gone (Davis and others, unpub. 

data, 2008), habitat isolation (Mader, 1984) or the island effect 

(MacArthur and Wilson, 1967) may be yielding smaller home 

ranges and movements. 

Previous research has shown nonbreeding lesser prairiechickens typically remain within 4.8 km of the lek of capture 

(Taylor and Guthery, 1980b; Kukal, 2010). Donaldson (1969) 

found lesser prairie-chickens used the sand shinnery oak 

habitat during the fall and winter months; however, Taylor 

and Guthery (1980b) speculated that lesser prairie-chickens 

will seek sources of greater cover during the fall months when 

sand shinnery oak drops its leaves. Similarly, Jones (1964) 

found that sand sagebrush was preferred after the loss of cover 

in the sand shinnery oak dominated areas. We found that the 

one cover type used greater than available by prairie-chickens 

in our study area contained sand shinnery oak that also had a 

grass component. We found that lesser prairie-chickens used 

only sand sagebrush dominated areas proportionally or less 

than was available. Areas that lacked or had low percentages 

of grassland cover were used either proportional to or less 

than available in our area. Additionally, a larger proportion of 

nonnative weeping lovegrass (Conservation Reserve Program 

grasslands) was avoided. 

Our results indicate that a mixture of sand shinnery oak 

and grassland are a preferred cover type for lesser prairiechickens during the nonbreeding season; this conclusion 

is also consistent with results from elsewhere (Taylor and 

Guthery, 1980b; Olawsky and Smith, 1991). Approximately 

70 percent of our study site contained at least some portions 

of sand shinnery oak; however, approximately 37.5 percent 

of the entire study site fell into the grassland dominated with 

sand shinnery oak habitat type. With roughly 40 percent of the 

study site falling into other sand shinnery oak categories (sand 

shinnery oak, sand shinnery oak dominated with bareground), 

increasing the grassland component through tebuthiuron 

treatment and/or grazing management may enhance wintering 

prairie-chicken habitat.

Our results suggest that lesser prairie-chickens typically 

remain within 3.2 km of the lek of capture in our study area, 

a range that is within what is reported in the literature (Taylor 

and Guthery, 1980b; Kukal, 2010). Our results also show that 

lesser prairie-chickens remain within 3.2 km of nearest known 

lek and the nearest available water. If large-scale management 

efforts are attainable, habitat management and conservation 

efforts would likely be most beneficial within 4.8 km of 

known leks, with areas consisting of sand shinnery oak or 

grassland dominated areas with sand shinnery oak likely 

holding the best potential for conservation efforts. If scope of 

management is restricted, however, our results suggest a focus 

on areas within 3.2 km of a water source may have the greatest 

benefit. 

Understanding mortality and survival is an important 

component when monitoring and managing populations of 

imperiled species, such as the lesser prairie-chicken. We 

Table 4. Nonbreeding-season habitat use relative to availability of lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the 

Southern High Plains of Texas from September 1 through February 28 for 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11. 

[The data are based on 95% Baileys confidence intervals comparing habitat types at telemetry relocation points to available habitat types within lesser prairiechicken home ranges]

Habitat 

typea Lower Upper Mean proportion availability

Use vs. 

availableb

GRDS 54.175 61.055 38.640 More

MESA .042 2.130 1.478 No difference

REAG .081 4.437 4.008 No difference

SHRDB .003 1.703 2.164 Less

SHIDG 17.884 28.734 23.973 No difference

SHRDG .399 3.773 8.970 Less

SHIN 5.515 12.863 11.59 No difference

a

Habitat types as classified in table 1. Three habitat categories (AGRI, CRPG, and GRDM) were removed from analysis because of failure to appear in any 

home ranges.

b

If mean proportion availability falls below or above the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval (CI), the habitat type is used more or less than 

available. If the mean proportion availability falls within the calculated CI, it is determined to have no difference. 
8 Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in West Texas, 2008–11

found nonbreeding season survival rates that are among the 

highest reported for the species. Previously reported survival 

estimates range from 44 percent to 64 percent for males 

(Pitman and others, 2006b) and 43 percent to 70 percent for 

females (Hagen and others, 2007). In comparison, we found 

an overall nonbreeding season survival estimate of 72.1 

percent, but even higher rates of 83.3 percent survival in 

2008–9 and 82.2 percent in 2009–10. This finding indicates 

that nonbreeding season survival may not be a high priority 

issue as a limiting factor in our study area; however, our 

sample size, especially for females, was low. Future research 

towards fine scale habitat preference and survival of female 

and juvenile lesser prairie-chickens during the nonbreeding 

season may provide improved understanding for development 

of sound conservation strategies. 

Knowledge of cause-specific mortality is essential for 

understanding facets of the ecology of lesser prairie-chickens. 

Over three nonbreeding seasons, we were able to assess cause 

specific mortality for 13 lesser prairie-chickens. We identified 

avian predation of 10 individuals, mammalian predation of 

2 individuals, and 1 individual for which cause of death could 

not be identified. Although Wolfe and others (2007) classified 

fence collisions as a substantive cause of mortality among 

lesser prairie-chickens; during the three nonbreeding seasons 

of our study, we found no evidence of lesser prairie-chicken 

mortality that was due to fence collisions. 

References Cited

Bailey, B.J.R., 1980, Large sample simultaneous confidence 

intervals for the multinomial probabilities based on 

transformations of the cell frequencies: Technometrics, 

v. 22, p. 583–589.

Calenge, Clément, 2006, The package ‘adehabitat’ for the R 

software—A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use 

by animals: Ecological Modelling, v. 197, p. 516–519.

Cherry, Steve, 1996, A comparison of confidence interval 

methods for habitat use-availability studies: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v. 60, p. 653–658. 

Cochran, W.W., and Lord, R.D., 1963, A radio-tracking system 

for wild animals: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 27, 

p. 9–24.

Copelin, F.F., 1963, The lesser prairie-chicken in Oklahoma: 

Oklahoma City, Okla., Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Technical Bulletin 6. 

Crawford, J.A., and Bolen, E.G., 1976, Effects of land use 

on lesser prairie chickens in Texas: Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 40, p. 96–104.

Donaldson, D.D., 1969, Effect on lesser prairie chickens 

of brush control in western Oklahoma: Stillwater, Okla., 

Oklahoma State University, Ph.D. dissertation. 

Fuhlendorf, S.D., Woodward, A.J.W., Leslie, D.M., Jr., and 

Shackford, J.S., 2002, Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and 

fragmentation on lesser prairie-chicken populations of the 

U.S. Southern Great Plains: Landscape Ecology, v. 17, 

p. 617–628.

Hagen, C.A., Jamison, B.E., Giesen, K.M., and Riley, T.Z., 

2004, Guidelines for managing lesser prairie-chicken 

populations and their habitats: Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 

p. 69–82.

Hagen, C.A., Pitman, J.C., Sandercock, B.K., Robel, R.J., and 

Applegate, R.D., 2005, Age-specific variation in apparent 

survival rates of male lesser prairie chickens: The Condor, 

v. 107, p. 78–86.

Hagen, C.A., Pitman, J.C., Sandercock, B.K., Robel, R.J., and 

Applegate, R.D., 2007, Age-specific survival and probable 

cause of mortality in female lesser prairie chickens: Journal 

of Wildlife Management, v. 71, p. 518–525. 

Haukos, D.A., Smith, L.M., and Broda, G.S., 1989, Spring 

trapping of lesser prairie chickens: Journal of Field 

Ornithology, v. 61, p. 20–25.

Heisey, D.M., and Fuller, T.K., 1985, Evaluation of survival 

and cause-specific mortality rates using telemetry data: 

Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 49, p. 668–674.

Jamison, B.E., 2000, Lesser prairie-chicken chick survival, 

adult survival, and habitat selection and movements of 

males in fragmented rangelands in southwestern Kansas: 

Manhattan, Kans., Kansas State University, M.S. thesis.

Jones, R.E., 1964, The specific distinctness of the greater and 

lesser prairie chickens: The Auk, v. 81, p. 65–73.

Kukal, C.A., 2010, The over-winter ecology of lesser prairie 

chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the northeast 

Texas panhandle: Lubbock, Tex., Texas Tech University, 

M.S. thesis. 

Table 5. Ranking of a priori candidate models predicting survival 

for lesser-prairie chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in the 

Southern High Plains of Texas from September 1 through February 

28 for 2008–9, 2009–10, and 2010–11. 

[For each model, we display the second order Akaike Information Criterion 

(AICc) value, the ΔAIC value representing the difference between the models 

AICc value and the lowest value ofAICc, -2log likelihood, and model probability (ωi

)]

Model k AICc ΔAIC -2log 

likelihood ωi

S. 1 70.92 0.00 68.84 0.46

Year 2 71.35 .42 68.67 .37

Gender 2 72.93 2.00 67.09 .17
References Cited 9

MacArthur, R.H., and Wilson, E.O., 1967, The theory of island 

biogeography: Princeton, N.J., Princeton University.

Mader, H.J., 1984, Animal habitat isolation by roads and 

agricultural fields: Biological Conservation, v. 29, p. 81–96.

Mech, L.D., 1983, Handbook of animal radio-tracking: 

Minneapolis, Minn., University of Minnesota Press.

Murray, D.L., 2006, On improving telemetry based survival 

estimation: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 70, 

p. 1530–1543.

Neu, C.W., Byers, C.R., and Peek, J.M., 1974, A technique for 

analysis of utilization-availability data: Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 38, p. 541–545.

Olawsky, C.D., and Smith, L.M., 1991, Lesser prairiechicken densities on tebuthiuron-treated and untreated sand 

shinnery oak rangelands: Journal of Range Management, 

v. 44, p. 364–368.

Pettit, R.D., 1979, Effects of picloram and tebuthiuron pellets 

on sand shinnery oak communities: Journal of Range 

Management, v. 32, p. 196–200. 

Pitman, J.C., Jamison, B.E., Hagen, C.A., Robel, R.J., and 

Appelgate, R.D., 2006a, Brood break-up and juvenile 

dispersal of lesser prairie chickens in Kansas: Prairie 

Naturalist, v. 38, p. 85–99.

Pitman, J.C., Hagen, C.A., Jamison, B.E., Robel, R.J., 

Loughlin, T.M., and Appelgate, R.D., 2006b, Survival of 

juvenile lesser prairie chickens in Kansas: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 34, p. 675–681.

Pollock, K.H., Winterstein, S.R., Bunck, C.M., and Curtis, 

P.D., 1989, Survival analysis in telemetry studies—The 

staggered entry design: Journal of Wildlife Management, 

v. 53, p. 7–15.

Railroad Commission of Texas, 2006, Oil well counts by 

county as of September 2006: accessed March 14, 2012, 

at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/wells/wellcount/

oilwlct0906.pdf. 

Taylor, M.A., and Guthery, F.S., 1980a, Status, ecology, and 

management of the lesser prairie chicken: Fort Collins, 

Colo., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

RM–77, 15 p.

Taylor, M.A., and Guthery, F.S., 1980b, Fall-winter 

movements, ranges, and habitat use of lesser prairie 

chickens: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 44, 

p. 521–524.

Texas Tech University, 2011, West Texas Mesonet: accessed 

March 14, 2012, at http://www.mesonet.ttu.edu/.

Toole, B.E., 2005, Survival, seasonal movements, and cover 

use by lesser prairie chickens in the Texas panhandle: 

College Station, Tex., Texas A&M University, M.S. 

thesis.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; review of native species 

that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened. 

Federal Register 73:75176-75244. 

Vermeire, L.T., and Wester, D.B., 2001, Shinnery oak 

poisoning of rangeland cattle—Causes, effects and 

solutions: Rangelands, v. 23, p. 19–21.

Warner, R.E., and Etter, S.L., 1983, Reproduction and 

survival of radio marked hen ring-necked pheasants in 

Illinois: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 47, 

p. 369–375.

Worton, B.J., 1989, Kernel methods for estimating the 

utilization distribution in home-range studies: Ecology, 

v. 70, p. 164–168.

Wolfe, D.H., Patten, M.A., Shochat, Eyal, Pruett, C.L., and 

Sherrod, S.K., 2007, Causes and patterns of mortality in 

lesser prairie chickens Tympanuchus pallidicinctus and 

implications for management: Wildlife Biology, v. 13, 

p. 95–104.

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
Boal and Pirius—Winter Ecology and Habitat Use of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in West Texas, 2008–11—OFR 2012–1073