Bonasa umbellus Linnaeus, 1776

Text, map and photo from Storch I. (2000) : Grouse Action Plan 2000-2004,
reproduced here with the Editor's agreement

Common names:	Ruffed grouse	English
	Gélinotte huppée	French
	Grevol engolado	Spanish

 

photo by Petra Kaczensky

Conservation Status

IUCN 1996: Lower Risk (least concern).
CITES 1998: not listed in Appendices.
National red data books: not listed.

 

Taxonomy

Depending on author. Johnsgard (1983) distinguishes 11, Atwater and Schnell (1989) list 12, and del Hoyo et al. (1994) recognise 14 subspecies. No subspecies is geographically isolated.

 

Distribution

Widely distributed throughout temperate, boreal, and montane forests of northern North America. The range is described in detail by Rusch et al. 1999).

 

Population size and trend

The ruffed grouse is widespread and fairly common throughout its original range. In general, ruffed grouse are numerous in the upper midwest, the northwest and the northeast, whereas population numbers are relatively low in the southern and southwestern parts of the range. Some range contractions in the past have been partly compensated by translocating birds from elsewhere; in Missouri, populations have been successfully restored in major parts of the state, whereas in Illinois, restocking success remained local. A new population was established in southern Idaho by translocation. Introduced into Newfoundland and locally into Nevada. Densities vary between forest types. Average recorded densities are about eight drumming males or 22 adult birds per km², but good habitats are over-represented in these studies (Rusch et al. 1999). Northern populations show approximately 10-year cycles. Other populations can exhibit significant year-to-year variation, largely dependent upon spring weather and its effects on brood production. Except for these fluctuations and localised declines, ruffed grouse generally appear to be stable and secure in Canada and the western U.S., but numbers appear to be declining in the eastern U.S. ( See Atwater and Schnell 1989, Rusch et al. 1999).

 

Habitat and ecology

Ruffed grouse occur in a great variety of dense woodland habitats from boreal forest to Pacific coast rain forest to relatively dry deciduous forests, but always with some deciduous trees, especially aspen Populus spp. Except for parts of western North America, the species´ overall range corresponds to that of the quaking and bigtooth aspen, which are typical of regenerating boreal and montane forests following fire, logging, and other disturbances. West of the Cascade and north coast mountains, ruffed grouse occur in riperian habitats where they take black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) for winter food (Brewer 1980), a common species not dependent on disturbances often associated with ruffed grouse habitat (F. Zwickel, pers. comm.). Ruffed grouse depend upon early-successional stages of woody vegetation. Disturbances such as fire and logging often improve ruffed grouse habitat quality. For winter habitats, some conifer cover is advantageous. In winter, ruffed grouse feed on buds and twigs of various trees, particularly Populus spp.; in the snow-free seasons the diet diversifies according to accessibility of leaves, buds, flowers, and fruits in the ground- and shrub-layer. Habitat quality for ruffed grouse may be increased by providing a suitable mosaic of forest age-classes. Optimally, stands of young and older forests are closely interspersed. ( See Atwater and Schnell 1989, Rusch et al. 1999).

 

Hunting and cultural importance

The ruffed grouse is a highly valued game bird, and is extensively hunted both for food and sport in most of its range. It is the most intensively hunted grouse species in North America. Ruffed grouse were commonly shot, trapped, and snared for subsistence and sale through the early 1900s. The first hunting regulations with closed seasons date back to the early 1700s and early 1800s (Rusch et al. 1999). Annual hunting bags in the late 1970s and early 1980s were estimated at 6 million birds, and bags have been increasing since the 1940s (see Rusch et al. 1999, Atwater and Schnell 1989). Except for some localised, heavily hunted areas, hunting is believed to have low effects on ruffed grouse numbers. The existence of influential hunter-conservationist organisations such as the Ruffed Grouse Society reflect the cultural importance of the species as a game bird.

 

Principal threats

Habitat loss and degradation. Fire suppression is a major cause of habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss. Some believe that present negative public attitudes towards even-age sylvicultural prescriptions, especially clearcut regeneration harvests, negatively impact ruffed grouse populations (D. Dessecker, pers. comm.). However, long-term sustainability of some forest management practices such as clear cutting and its effects on soils and ecosystem functions are questionable; therefore, even if short-term effects may lead to increasing grouse numbers, long term effects of intensive habitat manipulation on ruffed grouse and the ecosystems they inhabit may be disadvantageous (F. Zwickel, pers. comm.).The species will probably decline in the future as eastern deciduous forests mature. Locally, particularly in the east, urban and summer home development, and agriculture lead to habitat loss (see Rusch et al. 1999). In midwestern areas where ruffed grouse are restricted to riparian woodlands, grazing of herbaceous ground flora and browsing of understorey by cattle is a limiting factor as is flooding of these restricted habitats during spring nesting (R. Applegate, pers. comm).

 

Research needs

Little long-term research is currently being conducted. Ongoing efforts in the mountains of the eastern United States will add to the understanding of the ecology of ruffed grouse in this region. The ecology of ruffed grouse in the forests of western North America has received little attention. Data on the effects of harvesting on populations are generally lacking although ongoing telemetry studies are addressing this issue.

Effects of harvesting. Further research is needed on the effects of hunting on localised populations, especially in the western states and in northern regions with localised but heavy hunting pressure where the birds are also cyclic.

Effects of forest exploitation. Ruffed grouse response to sylvicultural prescriptions other than clearcut regeneration harvests is poorly understood. More information is needed on the interaction of ruffed grouse populations and riparian management practices in the western US. Further research needs concern the effects of forest changes on ruffed grouse abundance in southern limits of its range where populations may be more sparse and patchily distributed, and the effects of changing lumber and pulp markets on the harvesting of trees, especially aspen, by small, private landowners, in relation to measures of abundance.

Spatial ecology. Questions regarding the size, shape, and connectivity of isolated tracts of habitat will become important for the conservation of the species in the eastern states (Rusch et al. 1999).

Taxonomy. The intraspecific taxonomy of the ruffed grouse merits careful evaluation with modern genetic methods.

 

Current conservation measures

Legal protection. The ruffed grouse is partially protected throughout its range; hunting is generally regulated by defined seasons, bag limits, and area closures. The species is not hunted in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas.

Protected areas. Throughout their range, ruffed grouse live in a variety of protected areas such as state and national parks, and state wildlife management areas. These reserves however are considered not critical for the species´ longterm survival.

Habitat management. In many parts of the range, habitat management programmes have been implemented specially designed to favour ruffed grouse; most are carried out by the forest products industry, local, state or federal resource management agencies, nonindustrial private forest landowners, or private organisations. Habitat management for ruffed grouse is often mostly motivated by hunting interests, but also the programmes generally have conservation value for various forest species.

Surveys and monitoring. Ruffed grouse counts are common practice throughout much of the range of the species, particularly in the United States. The most common population index is the drumming count, a standardised transect count of displaying males. Surveys of drumming males are done each spring by state resource management agencies in the Great Lakes region and sporadically elsewhere. Annual fall harvest numbers and age composition of the kill are obtained by resource management agencies in various states and provinces by hunter check stations, wing surveys and questionnaires sent to hunters. The Ruffed Grouse Society annually collects data from grouse harvested during a managed hunt in northern Minnesota. The species is not monitored, nor are harvests tracked, except crudely, throughout much of its northern (Canadian) range.

Translocations and restocking. The species has been successfully translocated in parts of the western and midwestern US. There are no significant efforts ongoing at this time.

Non-government organisations. Several non-government organisations promote and support conservation of the ruffed grouse and its habitat. Especially, the Ruffed Grouse Society, a 25,000-member non-profit organisation that operates throughout North America, serves to provide public education about all forest wildlife, provides financial support for research, and collaborates with large forest companies and small landowners on management programmes for ruffed grouse.

 

Priority conservation measures

Habitat preservation. Habitat corridors connecting populations need to be maintained. Habitat preservation measures, including riparian management, need to be integrated into forest management in western North America. Negative attitudes toward forest fire must be modified to ensure the long-term viability of ruffed grouse and other wildlife dependent upon habitats created through fire disturbance. Monitoring of ruffed grouse abundance in scattered, disjunct local populations that may fail or ebb because of declines in wood prices is recommended.

Correspondents

Roger Applegate, Jack Connelly, Dan Dessecker, Dan Keppie, Fred Zwickel

Key publications

Atwater, S. and Schnell, J. (eds.) 1989. Ruffed grouse. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 370 pp.

Rusch, D., DeStefano, S. and Lauten, D. 1999. Ruffed grouse. The birds of North America, The birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. (in press)