Index of Species Information
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Antilocapra americana
Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Antilocapra americana
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Howard, Janet L. 1995. Antilocapra americana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/animals/mammal/anam/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
ANAM
COMMON NAMES :
pronghorn
antelope
pronghorn antelope
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of pronghorn is Antolocapra
americana Ord. It is in the monotypic family Antilocapridae.
Subspecies are [76]:
Antilocapra americana americana Ord, American pronghorn
Antilocapra americana oregona Bailey, Oregon pronghorn
Antilocapra americana mexicana Merrian, Mexican pronghorn
Antilocapra americana peninsularis Nelson, peninsula pronghorn
Antilocapra americana sonoriensis Goldman, Sonoran pronghorn
Taxonomic status of the Oregon pronghorn is in question. Using
mitochondrial DNA and allozyme analyses, Lee and others [44] found it
indiscernable from the American pronghorn.
ORDER :
Artiodactyla
CLASS :
Mammal
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
The entire peninsula pronghorn subspecies is listed as Endangered. The
entire Sonoran pronghorn subspecies is listed as Endangered, except for
some populations that are listed as Experimental, Non-Essential [71].
OTHER STATUS :
More information on protection status of animals in the United States
and Canada is available at NatureServe, although recent changes in
status may not be included.
WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Antilocapra americana
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Pronghorn occur from southern Alberta and Saskatchewan south to northern
Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico; west to eastern Oregon and notheastern
California; and east to mid-state regions of North Dakota, South Dakota,
and Texas. There are small, contiguous populations in extreme western
Oklahoma and Nebraska [67] and small, isolated populations in Kansas
and Baja California [76].
Distribution by subspecies is [44,76]:
American pronghorn - western mountain, Great Basin, and prairie
states; most abundant subspecies
Oregon pronghorn - contiguous in sagebrush steppe of eastern
Oregon, southwestern Idaho, northeastern
California, and northern Nevada; isolated
populations in eastern Washington
Mexican pronghorn - southern Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and
central Mexico
peninsula pronghorn - isolated populations in Baja California;
original range included southern California
Sonoran pronghorn - extreme southern Arizona and west-central Mexico
Historically, pronghorn range extended further north in Alberta and
Saskatchewan; west through most of California and all of Baja
California; east to western Minnesota and Iowa; and south through
east-central Texas to San Luis Potosi in Mexico [76]. Warm desert
populations have declined greatly from historic size and range.
Pronghorn from the United States have been introduced in all Mexican
Chihuahuan Desert states from the international boarder south to San
Luis Potosi. The largest pronghorn populations are first, in Wyoming,
and secondly, Montana [57,76].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
| AZ |
CA |
CO |
ID |
KS |
MT |
NE |
NV |
| ND |
OK |
SD |
TX |
UT |
WA |
WY |
| AB |
SK |
|
MEXICO |
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K027 Mesquite bosque
K031 Oak-juniper woodlands
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush-greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush-bursage
K043 Paloverde-cactus shrub
K044 Creosotebush-tarbush
K045 Ceniza shrub
K050 Fescue-wheatgrass
K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass
K053 Grama-galleta steppe
K054 Grama-tobosa prairie
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta-three-awn shrubsteppe
K058 Grama-tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K060 Mesquite savanna
K061 Mesquite-acacia savanna
K062 Mesquite-live oak savanna
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass
K065 Grama-buffalograss
K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
K067 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
K068 Wheatgrass-grama-buffalograss
K069 Bluestem-grama prairie
K071 Shinnery
K075 Nebraska Sandhills prairie
K085 Mesquite-buffalograss
K086 Juniper-oak savanna
K087 Mesquite-oak savanna
SAF COVER TYPES :
66 Ashe juniper-redberry (Pinchot) juniper
67 Mohrs (shin) oak
68 Mesquite
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
101 Bluebunch wheatgrass
102 Idaho fescue
103 Green fescue
104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
105 Antelope bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
106 Bluegrass scabland
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
210 Bitterbrush
211 Creosotebush scrub
212 Blackbush
301 Bluebunch wheatgrass-blue grama
302 Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg bluegrass
303 Bluebunch wheatgrass-western wheatgrass
304 Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
305 Idaho fescue-Richardson needlegrass
306 Idaho fescue-slender wheatgrass
307 Idaho fescue-threadleaf sedge
309 Idaho fescue-western wheatgrass
310 Needle-and-thread-blue grama
311 Rough fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
312 Rough fescue-Idaho fescue
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue
316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue
317 Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
318 Bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
319 Bitterbrush-rough fescue
320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
321 Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue
323 Shrubby cinquefoil-rough fescue
401 Basin big sagebrush
402 Mountain big sagebrush
405 Black sagebrush
406 Low sagebrush
407 Stiff sagebrush
408 Other sagebrush types
412 Juniper-pinyon woodland
414 Salt desert shrub
501 Saltbush-greasewood
502 Grama-galleta
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
505 Grama-tobosa shrub
506 Creosotebush-bursage
507 Palo verde-cactus
508 Creosotebush-tarbush
602 Bluestem-prairie sandreed
603 Prairie sandreed-needlegrass
605 Sandsage prairie
606 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
607 Wheatgrass-needlegrass
608 Wheatgrass-grama-needlegrass
609 Wheatgrass-grama
610 Wheatgrass
611 Blue grama-buffalograss
612 Sagebrush-grass
613 Fescue grassland
614 Crested wheatgrass
615 Wheatgrass-saltgrass-grama
701 Alkali sacaton-tobosagrass
702 Black grama-alkali sacaton
703 Black grama-sideoats grama
704 Blue grama-western wheatgrass
705 Blue grama-galleta
706 Blue grama-sideoats grama
707 Blue grama-sideoats grama-black grama
708 Bluestem-dropseed
709 Bluestem-grama
712 Galleta-alkali sacaton
713 Grama-muhly-threeawn
714 Grama-bluestem
715 Grama-buffalograss
716 Grama-feathergrass
717 Little bluestem-Indiangrass-Texas wintergrass
718 Mesquite-grama
719 Mesquite-liveoak-seacoast bluestem
721 Sand bluestem-little bluestem (plains)
722 Sand sagebrush-mixed prairie
724 Sideoats grama-New Mexico feathergrass-winterfat
725 Vine mesquite-alkali sacaton
727 Mesquite-buffalograss
728 Mesquite-granjeno-acacia
729 Mesquite
730 Sand shinnery oak
PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Pronghorn primarily occur in grasslands and open shrub-grasslands. In
1964, 62 percent of pronghorn were associated with grasslands*; 37
percent with shrub-grasslands**; and 1 percent with deserts [78]. Pronghorn
occasionally use quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) parklands [13] and
large montane meadows [17].
*41% of the grasslands was shortgrass prairie and 21% was mixed-grass
prairie
**33% of the shrub-grassland was sagebrush [Artemisia spp.]-grassland;
3% was woodland-galleta [Hilaria spp.] grassland; and 1% was mesquite-grama
[Prosopis-Bouteloua spp.] grassland
BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Antilocapra americana
TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS :
Minimum breeding age: Males breed at 16 months of age [76]. Females
generally breed as 2-year-olds [28], although breeding of 1-year-old
females has been reported [18,75]. Once sexual maturity is reached,
pronghorn apparently breed for the rest of their lives [53].
Breeding season: Pronghorn breed from late summer [76] to fall [3,42];
rutting season lasts for 2 to 3 weeks [67]. Mating systems are
described in Maher [47] and Byers and Kitchen [19].
Gestation period: averages 252 days [76]
Fawning period: May to June [3,76]; does deliver a single fawn at first
birth and twins thereafter [76]
Fawn development: Fawns walk within hours of birth but are generally
inactive for the first few days of life; they run by their fifth day
[76]. Fawns under 3 weeks of age spend up to 90 percent of their time
lying in seclusion; newborns are generally active only for a brief
period when their mothers return to the fawning grounds to nurse them
[31]. Fawns graze by 3 weeks of age and are completely weaned by fall
[3].
Fawn survivorship: Survivorship probably varies greatly by habitat; in
the Trans-Pecos region of Texas, mortality was 90 percent (18 of 20
radio-collared fawns), with all deaths attributed to predation [21].
Fawn survivorship of 50 percent has been reported in favorable habitat
in Arizona [46].
Life span: Pronghorn seldom live more than 9 years in the wild [36],
but a few wild does have been aged at 16 years [70].
Movement/migration: Pronghorn movement is usually in response to
changing environmental conditions such as drought, blizzards, or new
food sources. Some cold-climate populations migrate from one
seasonal-use area to another, using the same routes each year. Migrating
populations may travel up to 200 miles (320 km) or more to leave areas
of deep snow [59]. Southern herds show localized movement but seldom
migrate [7].
PREFERRED HABITAT :
Pronghorn typically inhabit low, rolling, expansive lands with less than
30 percent slope. Kindschy and others [41] reported that less than 5
percent slope was ideal for pronghorn. Temperature is not limiting:
Pronghorn occur in cold continental climates and in warm deserts. They
reach highest densities on ranges with annual precipitation rates of 10
to 15 inches (254-381 mm); populations in areas with greater or lesser
amounts of precipitation have lower survival rates. Pronghorn are found
from sea level in Mexico to alpine meadows reaching 11,000 feet (3,353
m) elevation in Oregon and Wyoming. Greatest densities in the Great
Basin occur between 4,000 to 6,000 feet (1,220-1,830 m) elevation [7].
The following characterisitics were common to preferred pronghorn ranges
in the Great Basin [41]:
* ground cover averaging 50 percent live vegetation;
* range composition of 40 to 60 percent grasses, 10 to 30 percent
forbs, and 5 to 20 percent browse;
* a variety of plant species including 5 to 10 grass species, 20
to 40 forb species, and 5 to 10 shrub species;
* succulent plants, available in spring and wet summers;
* low vegetation structure averaging 15 to 24 inches (38-61 cm)
in height
Most of these preferred habitat characteristics would probably also
apply to pronghorn habitat east of the Continental Divide [15].
Pronghorn require readily accessible water. Sundstrom [66] reported
that 95 percent of observed pronghorn in Wyoming's Red Desert were
within 3 miles (6 km) of water. Otherwise suitable pronghorn habitat in
Oregon has remained unoccupied year-round due to lack of water in summer
[4]. Pronghorn prefer water in pH range from 6.5 to 8.5 [41]. They
cannot tolerate strongly alkaline water. In the Red Desert of Wyoming,
pronghorn did not drink water above pH 9.25 [56].
Pronghorn habitat requirements are described in detail in Allen and
others [2], Autenrieth [6], Kindschy and others [41], and Yoakum [76].
Allen and others [2] provide a pronghorn habitat index suitablility
model applicable to the Great Basin and the Great Plains.
COVER REQUIREMENTS :
Reaching top speeds of 50 mph (80 km/hr), pronghorn are North America's
fastest mammal. Pronghorn rely on keen eyesight, vigilant watch, and
rapid flight to avoid predation [35]. Pronghorn therefore require open
cover, either grassland or grassland interspersed with low shrubs, that
provides long-range visibility. Prenslow and others [56] never observed
pronghorn in areas where views were restricted by terrain or vegetation
for more than a few minutes at a time. Pronghorn typically occupy areas
where vegetation is at a mean height of 15 inches (37.5 cm), even if
more suitable forage is available on sites with taller vegetation [15].
Adult pronghorn may use low shrubs for bedding cover [1].
Does seek areas with greater than average shrub cover and height for
fawning [5]. Fawns under 3 weeks old tend to stay in their birthing
area [1,31], using the tallest vegetation in the area for cover [6,56].
On the shortgrass prairie of Colorado, habitat diversity provided by
silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana), small depressions, and stands of
grasses and forbs 9.8 inches (25 cm) or more in height contributed to
above-average fawn survival. Eighty-eight percent of fawns captured
were located in washouts, tall grass, or near large rocks [56].
FOOD HABITS :
Foods utilized by pronghorn vary seasonally depending upon
availability, palatability, and succulence of vegetation [39]. Over a
year's time, pronghorn consume nearly all available plant species, with
a preference for succulent forage [79]. Forbs are preferentially
selected when available. Pronghorn select the most succulent,
high-protein browse or grasses available when forbs are scarce [11].
Pronghorn food habits vary throughout their range. The average
pronghorn diet on the shortgrass prairie of Colorado was 43 percent
forbs, 40 percent browse, 11 percent cacti, and 6 percent grasses [39].
Cole and Wilkins [23] found similar dietary patterns on
grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass (Boutelous spp.-Stipa spp.-Agropyron spp.
(as described by Kuchler [43])) types in central Montana. In central
Wyoming, however, pronghorn annual diet averaged 5 percent forbs, 3
percent graminoids, and over 90 percent browse [61].
In winter, shrubs are high in protein relative to other forage, and
shrubs comprise the majority of the pronghorn diet [10]. Browse was the
most heavily utilized pronghorn winter food in Alberta even though its
availability was extremely limited [51]. In Utah browse comprised over
90 percent of the pronghorn diet, with black sagebrush (Artemisia nova)
selected most often. Other important browse species were winterfat
(Krascheninnikovia lanata), Brickellia spp., and green rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) [9]. Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.),
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata)
are important pronghorn browse throughout the Great Basin [77]. Big
sagebrush (A. tridentata), bitterbrush, and saltbush (Atriplex spp.) are
important in Montana [9]. When vegetation is mostly covered with snow,
pronghorn seek windswept areas and graze lichens [62,69].
Pronghorn consume primarily forbs in spring, summer, and fall [14].
Forbs consistently selected throughout pronghorn's range include yellow
sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa).
Scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea) is highly preferred on the
Great Plains, and Louisiana sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana) is
consistently selected in the Intermountain region [20,45]. Lists of
other forbs often used by pronghorn in the Great Basin [76], the
Intermountain region [14], and shortgrass prairies of Saskatchewan [27]
and Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota [45], are available.
In summer pronghorn supplement their forb diet with browse and green
grasses. Spring is the only time of year when grasses are heavily
grazed [11,39], but grasses are also utilized during other periods of
green-up [9]. The high protein content of early spring grasses may be
particularly beneficial at a time when other forage is of low quality
[74]. Pronghorn in Utah were not observed to use dry, mature grasses at
any time [11]. In fall pronghorn consume forbs and browse [11,39].
Except for alfalfa and wheat (Triticum aestivum), pronghorn do not
usually consume agricultural crops [27,41]. Hepworth [35] reported use
of winter wheat in Nebraska only when browse was unavailable. Alfalfa,
however, may be grazed year-round [7].
PREDATORS :
Coyote (Canis latrans), domestic dog (C. familiaris), bobcat (Felis
rufus), mountain lion (F. concolor), and golden eagle (Aquila
shrysaetos) are important pronghorn predators [52,58,76]. Humans also
hunt and poach pronghorn [52]. Coyote, bobcat, and golden eagle prey
mostly on fawns, especially newborns [34,76].
The importance of predation as a limiting factor for pronghorn
population increases varies with habitat quality. Studies of predation
on pronghorn showed that fawns on the shortgrass prairie of Alberta had
high survival rates [8], while survivorship of fawns on desert
shrublands of Nevada had was low. Populations in habitat of marginal
quality (i.e., where dense and/or tall shrubs predominate) are likely to
experience high fawn mortality from predation [50].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Range: It has been suggested that pronghorn thrive on vegetation in a
subclimax condition with a mixture of forbs, grasses, and browse [7,41].
Subclimax conditions were historically created by fires and seasonal
grazing patterns of pronghorn in association with bison (Bison bison),
elk (Cervus elaphus), and/or deer (Odocoileus spp.). Pronghorn and
bison in particular may have been symbiotic: Bison grazed grasses
heavily which in turn stimulated growth of forbs and browse used by
pronghorn [41].
Management practices promoting pronghorn including grazing systems,
range rehabilitation methods such as site prepartion and seeding
rates/ratios, and specifications for building water storage facilities
are discussed in detail in Authenrieth [7], Kindschy and others [41],
O'Gara and Yoakum [54], and Yoakum [76,77].
Pronghorn and bison, cattle, or horses have little dietary overlap on a
yearlong basis except on overgrazed ranges [29,49,60,73]. Pronghorn can
benefit livestock ranges by eating forbs such as paperflower
(Psilostrophe spp.) and groundsel (Senecio spp.) that are poisonous to
livestock [55]. In the Great Basin, diets of mule deer (O. hemionus)
and pronghorn overlapped moderately in winter and only slightly in other
seasons [73]. Diets of domestic sheep and pronghorn, however, have
considerable overlap, and domestic sheep often outcompete pronghorn for
forage. Moderate domestic sheep use of winter range in the Great Basin
of Utah significantly lowered pronghorn use of the range [22].
Heavy cattle stocking can be detrimental to pronghorn by converting
shrub-grassland to shrubland, which renders the area unusable to
pronhorn. Due to cattle grazing, historic pronghorn range in portions
of California, Nevada, and Oregon no longer meet pronghorn needs. Heavy
cattle grazing in Texas forced pronghorn to a diet heavy in poisonous
plants, resulting in direct pronghorn mortality and reproductive losses
[81].
Cattle use of traditional or potential pronghorn fawning grounds
during fawning season has been shown to displace does to less suitable
birthing areas. This usually results in higher fawn mortality due to
predation [81].
Livestock fences, especially those designed to retain domestic sheep,
can severely restrict pronghorn movement and lower pronghorn numbers.
Pronghorn herds are especially vulnerable when movement from depleted
ranges or to water is restricted [55]. Specifications for building
fences (including sheep fences) that allow pronghorn passage are
available [7,14,76].
Reintroduction: Pronghorn have successfully been reintroduced in
sagebrush steppe of Mono County, California [33], and in desert
grassland of Arizona [16].
A reintroduction strategy of releasing small groups of pronghorn over
several years may be more successful than one large release of animals
[33]. Britt [16] reported that in Arizona, pronghorn establishment was
successful only after three releases of 126 pronghorn over 10 years.
Pronghorn from the original translocation may have served as a nucleus
of experienced animals that provided social stimuli and established
behaviors for new animals that followed.
Genetic considerations for pronghorn reintroduction programs are
provided in Lee and others [44].
FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Antilocapra americana
DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS :
Ungulates are rarely killed in fires [72]. Pronghorn's capacity for
rapid flight probably enables them to escape most fires seasily.
HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS :
Kindschy and others [41], McCarty [48], and Yoakum [77] have recommended
prescribed burning to improve pronghorn habitat. As a primarily
forb-eating species with strong requirements for open cover, pronghorn
are favorably influenced by the increase in herbaceous species and
reduction of shrubs after fire [37]. Higher protein and mineral levels
and reduced levels of indigestible materials have been reported in
resprouts of grasses and shrubs [25,41]. Nutritional benefits of fire
on forage may last up to 4 postfire years with an increase in primary
productivity for a longer period, depending upon plant species [72].
Examples: In 1954, a lightning-ignited wildfire burned 6,000 acres
(2,400 ha) of the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge in Lake County,
Oregon. Prior to the fire, sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) cover was over 50
percent, with shrubs averaging 30 inches (76.2 cm) or more in height.
The fire converted the range from sagebrush steppe to a grassland-forb
community with small stands of shrubs. Deming [26] reported that
pronghorn did not use tha area prior to the fire but began to use it
within the first postfire year. Pronghorn used the burn for at least 11
years after fire.
Wildfires in another sagebrush steppe area reclaimed historic pronghorn
range adandoned by pronghorn for decades. In the Long Valley of
California and Nevada, a series of wildfires in July 1973 burned 38,000
acres (15,200 ha). Prior to the wildfires, big sagebrush comprised 60
percent cover and averaged 23 inches (58.4 cm) in height; grass cover
was 37 percent; and forb cover was 3 percent. Pronghorn had not been
sighted in Long Valley for 60 years but moved into Long Valley from
adjacent ranges within a few years of the wildfires. In 1980, postfire
plant composition was 60 percent grasses, 20 percent forbs, and 20
percent shrubs with a mean height of 17 inches (43.2 cm). Pronghorn
still inhabited Long Valley at postfire year 7 (1980) [76].
FIRE USE :
Because pronghorn require a mosaic of very open areas, areas with low,
sparse shrubs, and areas with taller, more dense shurbs for fawning,
field experts do not recommend large-scale prescribed burning for
pronghorn [38]. To maintain or create mosaics for pronghorn, Yoakum
[80] has recommended that prescribed fires burn less than 1,000 acres
(405 ha) and maintain shrub coverage of 5 to 10 percent.
Examples: Following summer (July and August) prescribed burning in
Alberta, pronghorn used burned areas of needle-and-thread
grass-thickspike wheatgrass-western wheatgrass (Stipa comata-Elymus
lanceolatus-Pascopyrum smithii) prairie significantly more than unburned
prairie during fall, in winter after snowmelt, and in early spring.
Grasses on the burned areas began spring growth 3 weeks earlier than
grasses on unburned sites. Burns containing plains prickypear (Opuntia
polyacantha) were especially heavily used: Pronghorn grazed burns with
cacti significantly more than expected from August through February
(except in November), probably because the fires removed the spines from
the cacti, which are succulent and nutritious but usually inedible [24].
Shoop and others [64] found plains pricklypear digestibility to be as
good or better than high-quality alfalfa hay. The fire-singed cacti
provided pronghorn with a high-quality food in fall and winter, when
nutritious forage is scarce in Alberta [24].
Prescribed grazing and burning has been successful in promoting
pronghorn populations in desert grassland. In 1981 and 1982, 1,500
acres (600 ha) of tobosa (Hilaria mutica) prairie used as cattle range
was burned on the Prescott National Forest, Arizona. Fire was used to
restore the prairie and enhance habitat for pronghorn: The prairie was
invaded by woody species such as broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia spp.) and
honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and coyote predation on pronghorn
was heavy. Managers hoped to reduce woody vegetation and reduce
predation on pronghorn. The prescribed fires killed broom snakeweed and
reduced cover of sprouting shrubs. From 1983 to 1989, an additional
60,000 acres (24,000 ha) were prescribed burned. These fires were
initially successful, but tobosa thatch became thick within "a few"
postfire years. At that point, pronghorn were allowed free range access
but cattle were put on a short-duration, high-intensity grazing system
to mimic presettlement grazing patterns of elk and pronghorn. Used in
combination, prescribed grazing and burning reduced tobosa litter,
opened the canopy, and encouraged forb growth. Following grazing and
fire treatments, the pronghorn population increased for 7 years, from
about 150 animals in 1982 to a peak of 366 animals in 1989. Population
size declined to 320 in 1990 following a drought. Fawn survival rates
in the burned area averaged nearly 50 percent compared to an overall
rate in Arizona of approximately 20 percent. Using prescribed grazing
and burning treatments together, managers estimated that fire will be
needed about every 7 to 10 years [46].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
REFERENCES
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Antilocapra americana
REFERENCES :
1. Alldredge, A. William; Deblinger, Robert D.; Peterson, Jan. 1991. Birth
and fawn bed site selection by pronghorns in a sagebrush-steppe
community. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55(2): 222-227. [15468]
2. Allen, Arthur W.; Cook, John G.; Armbruster, Michael J. 1984. Habitat
suitability index models: Pronghorn. FWS/OBS-82/10.65. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 22 p.
[11709]
3. Amstrup, Steven C. 1978. Activities and habitat use patterns of
pronghorns on Montana-Wyoming coal lands. In: Proceedings, 8th biennial
pronghorn antelope workshop; 1978 May 2-4; Jasper, AB. Edmonton, AB:
Alberta Recreation, Parks, and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division:
270-304. [3300]
4. Anon. 1961. Pronghorn antelope. Wild. Ser. Leaf. 2. Portland, OR: Oregon
State Game Commission. 28 p. [25481]
5. Autenrieth, Robert. 1976. A study of birth sites selected by pronghorn
does and the bed sites of fawns. In: Autenrieth, Robert, compiler.
Proceedings, 7th pronghorn antelope workshop; 1976 February 24-26; Twin
Falls, ID. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game: 127-134.
[25418]
6. Autenrieth, Robert. 1978. Antelope fawning and bedding site vegetation
analysis. In: Greenley, Joseph C., compiler. Antelope ecology. Boise,
ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game: 32-37. [25419]
7. Autenrieth, Robert, ed. 1983. Guidelines for the management of pronghorn
antelope. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 51 p.
[25416]
8. Barrett, Morley W. 1978. Pronghorn fawn morality in Alberta. In:
Proceedings, 8th biennial pronghorn antelope workshop; 1978 May 2-4;
Jasper, AB. [Calgary, AB]: Alberta Recreation, Parks and Wildlife, Fish
and Wildlife Division: 429-444. [25721]
9. Bayless, Stephen R. 1969. Winter food habits, range use, and home range
of antelope in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(3): 538-550.
[16590]
10. Bayless, Steve. 1971. Relationships between big game and sagebrush.
Paper presented at: Annual meeting of the Northwest Section of the
Wildlife Society; 1971 March 25-26; Bozeman, MT. 14 p. On file with:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17098]
11. Beale, Donald M.; Smith, Arthur D. 1970. Forage use, water consumption,
and productivity of pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 34(3): 570-582. [6911]
12. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
13. Bird, Ralph D. 1930. Biotic communities of the aspen parkland of central
Canada. Ecology. 11(2): 356-442. [15277]
14. Blaisdell, James P.; Murray, Robert B.; McArthur, E. Durant. 1982.
Managing Intermountain rangelands--sagebrush-grass ranges. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-134. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p. [467]
15. Boyd, Raymond J.; Cooperrider, Allen Y.; Lent, Peter C.; Bailey, James
A. 1986. Ungulates. In: Cooperrider, Allen Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart,
Hanson R., eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver,
CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service
Center: 519-564. [10856]
16. Britt, Thomas L. 1980. Reestablishment of pronghorn antelope on the
Arizona Strip. In: Proceedings, 9th pronghorn antelope workshop; 1980
April 8-10; Rio Rico, AZ. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher
unknown]: 226-245. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory,
Missoula, MT. [26537]
17. Brown, David E. 1982. Montane meadow grassland. In: Brown, David E., ed.
Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico.
Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 113-114. [8895]
18. Buechner, Helmut K. 1950. Life history, ecology, and range use of the
pronghorn antelope in Trans-Pecos Texas. American Midland Naturalist.
43(2): 257-354. [4084]
19. Byers, John A.; Kitchen, David W. 1988. Mating system shift in a
pronghorn population. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 22: 355-360.
[25385]
20. Campbell, R. B. 1972. Pronghorn, sheep and cattle range relationships in
southeastern Montana. In: Compton, H. O.; Pyrah, Duane, compilers.
Proceedings, 5th antelope states workshop; 1972 June 19-22; Billings,
MT. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 103-105.
[25422]
21. Canon, S. Kemble; Bryant, Fred C. 1990. Fawn survival and bed site
characteristics of Trans Pecos pronghorn. In: Webster, David B.;
Schramm, Harold L., Jr., eds. Research highlights: Noxious brush and
weed control; range and wildlife management. Vol. 21. Lubbock, TX: Texas
Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 21-22. [14915]
22. Clary, Warren P.; Beale, Donald M. 1983. Pronghorn reactions to winter
sheep grazing, plant communities, and topography in the Great Basin.
Journal of Range Management. 36(6): 749-752. [641]
23. Cole, G. F.; Wilkins, B. T. 1958. The pronghorn antelope, its range use
and food habits in central Montana with special reference to wheat.
Tech. Bull. 2. Helena, MT: Montana Fish and Game Dept. 39 p. [25482]
24. Courtney, Rick F. 1989. Pronghorn use of recently burned mixed prairie
in Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(2): 302-305. [6701]
25. Daubenmire, R. 1968. Ecology of fire in grasslands. In: Cragg, J. B.,
ed. Advances in ecological research: Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press:
209-266. [739]
26. Deming, O. V. 1963. Antelope and sagebrush. In: Yoakum, Jim, compiler.
Transactions, Interstate antelope conference; 1963 December 4-5;
Alturas, CA. Reno, NV: Interstate Antelope Conference: 55-60. [25687]
27. Dirschl, Herman J. 1963. Food habits of the pronghorn in Saskatchewan.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 27(1): 81-93. [5939]
28. Einarsen, A. S. 1948. The pronghorn antelope and its management. Wash.,
DC: Wild. Manage. Inst. 238 p. [25479]
29. Evans, Keith E.; Probasco, George E. 1977. Wildlife of the prairies and
plains. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-29. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 18
p. [14118]
30. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
31. Fichter, Edson. 1972. On the bedding behavior of pronghorn. In: Compton,
H. O.; Pyrah, Duane, compilers. Proceedings, 5th antelope states
workshop; 1972 June 19-22; Billings, MT. [Place of publication unknown].
[Publisher unknown]. 255-257. [25424]
32. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
33. Goldsmith, Audrey E. 1988. History and research on reintroduction of
pronghorn in California. In: Neilson, L.; Brown, R. D., eds.
Translocation of wild animals. [Place of publication unknown]:
[Publisher unknown]. 288-297. [25386]
34. Goodwin, Gregory A. 1976. Golden eagle predation on pronghorn antelope.
Auk. 94(4): 789-790. [19315]
35. Hailey, Tommy L.; DeArment, Richard. 1972. Droughts and fences restrict
pronghorns. In: Compton, H. O.; Pyrah, Duane, compilers. Proceedings,
5th antelope states workshop; 1972 June 19-22; Billings, MT. [Place of
publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 22-24. [25421]
36. Barrett, Morley W. 1978. Pronghorn fawn morality in Alberta. In:
Proceedings, 8th biennial pronghorn antelope workshop; 1978 May 2-4;
Jasper, AB. [Calgary, AB]: Alberta Recreation, Parks and Wildlife, Fish
and Wildlife Division: 429-444. [25721]
37. Higgins, Kenneth F.; Kruse, Arnold D.; Piehl, James L. 1989. Effects of
fire in the Northern Great Plains. Ext. Circ. EC-761. Brookings, SD:
South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension Service, South
Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 47 p. [14749]
38. Holechek, Jerry L. 1981. Brush control impacts on rangeland wildlife.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 36(5): 265-269. [1182]
39. Hoover, Robert L. 1966. Antelope food habits and range relationships in
Colorado. In: Proceedings, 2nd annual antelope states workshop; 1966
February 16-17; Denver, CO. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Game, Fish, and
Parks Department, Antelope States Workshop: 75-85. [25693]
40. Hoover, R. L.; Till, C. E.; Ogilvie, S. 1959. The antelope of Colorado.
Tech. Bull. No. 4. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Fish and Game. 110
p. [25475]
41. Kindschy, Robert; Sundstrom, Charles; Yoakum, James. 1978.
Range/wildlife interrelationships--pronghorn antelope. In: Proceedings,
8th biennial pronghorn antelope workshop; 1978 May 2-4; Jasper, AB.
Edmonton, AB: Albertal Recreation, Parks, and Wildlife, Fish and
Wildlife Division: 216-262. [3316]
42. Kricher, John C. 1993. A field guide to the ecology of western forests.
The Peterson Field Guide Series No. 45. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company. 554 p. [21729]
43. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
44. Lee, Thomas E., Jr.; Bickham, John W.; Scott, M. Douglas. 1994.
Mitochondrial DNA and allozyme analysis of North American pronghorn
populations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58(2): 307-318. [25383]
45. Lovaas, Allan L. 1972. Preliminary studies of pronghorn antelope -
blacktail prairie dog relations in Wind Cave National Park. In: Compton,
H. O.; Pyrah, Duane, compilers. Proceedings, 5th antelope states
workshop; 1972 June 19-22; Billings, MT. [Place of publication unknown].
[Publisher unknown]. 115-156. [25423]
46. MacPhee, Douglas T. 1991. Prescribed burning and managed grazing
restores tobosa grassland, antelope populations. Restoration &
Management Notes. 9(1): 35-36. [16571]
47. Maher, Christine R. 1991. Activity budgets and mating system of male
pronghorn antelope at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. Journal
of Mammalogy. 72(4): 739-744. [25382]
48. McCarty, Robert S., Jr. 1982. Little Lost/Birch Creek antelope habitat
management plan. In: Proceedings, 10th pronghorn antelope workshop; 1982
April 5-7; Dickinson, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher
unknown]: 229-245. [25688]
49. McInnis, Michael L.; Vavra, Martin. 1987. Dietary relationships among
feral horses, cattle, and pronghorn in southeastern Oregon. Journal of
Range Management. 40(1): 60-66. [1605]
50. McNay, M. E. 1980. Causes of low pronghorn fawn:doe ratios on the
Sheldon Nationall Wildlif Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. Missoula, MT: Univ.
of MT, Missoula. 128 p. Thesis. [25480]
51. Hoover, R. L.; Till, C. E.; Ogilvie, S. 1959. The antelope of Colorado.
Tech. Bull. No. 4. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Fish and Game. 110
p. [25475]
52. Ockenfels, Richard A. 1994. Mountain lion predation on pronghorn in
central Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist. 39(3): 305-306. [24572]
53. O'Gara, B. W. 1978. Antilocapra americana. Mammalian Species. No. 90:
1-7. [25415]
54. O'Gara, Bart W.; Yoakum, Jim D., eds. 1992. Pronghorn management guides.
Proceedings, 15th biennial pronghorn antelope workshop; [Date unknown];
Rock Springs, WY. Rock Springs, WY: Pronghorn Antelope Workshop. 101 p.
[25389]
55. Passey, Howard B.; Hicks, Vernon M. 1970. Grassland restoration and its
effect on wildlife. Part VI. Temple, TX: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service. 29 p. [1835]
56. Prenzlow, E. J.; Gilbert, D. L.; Glover, F. A. 1968. Some behavior
patterns of the pronghorn. Special Report No. 17. GFP-R-S 17. Denver,
CO: Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 16 p. [25691]
57. Ramirez, Bernardo Villa. 1974. Major game mammals and their habitats in
the Chihuahuan Desert region. In: Wauer, Roland H.; Riskind, David H.,
eds. Transactions of the symposium on the biological resources of the
Chihuahuan Desert region, United States and Mexico; 1974 October 17-18;
Alpine, TX. Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 3. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 155-161.
[16059]
58. Reichel, James D. 1991. Relationships among coyote food habits, prey
populations, and habitat use. Northwest Science. 65(3): 133-137.
[17112]
59. Riddle, Phil. 1990. Wyoming antelope status report -- 1990. In:
Proceedings, 14th biennial pronghorn antelope workshop; 1990 May 22-24;
Silver Creek, CO. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown].
24. [25686]
60. Schwartz, Charles C.; Nagy, Julius G. 1976. Pronghorn diets relative to
forage availability in northeastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 40(3): 469-478. [4937]
61. Severson, K.; May, M.; Hepworth, W. 1968. Food preferences, carrying
capacities and forage competition between pronghorn and domestic sheep
in Wyoming's Red Desert. Sci. Mono. 10. Laramie, WY: Agricultural
Experimental Station, Laramie. 51 p. [25477]
62. Sharnoff, Stephen. 1993. Use of lichens by wildlife in North America: A
preliminary compilation. [Publisher unkown]. 20 p. On file with: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [21464]
63. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
64. Shoop, M. C.; Alford, E. J.; Mayland, H. F. 1977. Plains pricklypear is
a good forage for cattle. Journal of Range Management. 30(1): 12-17.
[25528]
65. Sundstrom, C. 1967. Effects of livestock fencing on antelope. Federal
Aid Report, FW-3-R-14. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.
33 p. [25478]
66. Sundstrom, Charles. 1968. Water consumption by pronghorn antelope and
distribution related to water in Wyoming's Red Desert. In: Proceedings
of the biennial antelope states workshop; 1968 February 5-6; Casper, WY.
[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 39-47. [26155]
67. Sundstrom, Charles; Hepworth, William G.; Diem, Kenneth L. 1973.
Abundance, distribution and food habits of the pronghorn: A partial
characterization of the optimum pronghorn habitat. Bulletin No. 12.
Boise, ID: U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of
River Basin Studies. 59 p. [5906]
68. The Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers
and The Nature Conservancy. 1994. Element distribution - North America,
vertebrates. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, Central Conservation
Databases. 31 p. [23374]
69. Thomas, Allan E.; Rosentreter, Roger. 1993. Utilization of lichens by
pronghorn antelope in three valleys in east-central Idaho. Tech.
Bulletin No. 92-3. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, Idaho State Office. 13 p. [23682]
70. Trainer, Charles E.; Willis, Mitchell J.; Keister, George P., Jr.;
Sheehy, Dennis P. 1983. Fawn mortality and habitat use among pronghorn
during spring and summer in southeastern Oregon, 1981-1982. Wildlife
Research Report No. 12. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Wildlife Research and Development Division. 117 p. [25692]
71. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016.
Endangered Species Program, [Online]. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
[86564]
72. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wind Cave
National Park. 1966. Conservation plan: Wind Cave National Park, Custer
County Conservation District. Wind Cave National Park, SD: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wind Cave National
Park. 46 p. [2760]
73. Vavra, Martin; Sneva, Forrest. 1978. Seasonal diets of five ungulates
grazing the cold desert biome. In: Hyder, Donald N., ed. Proceedings of
the 1st International Rangeland Congress; 1978 August 14-18; Denver, CO.
Denver, CO: Society for Range Management; 1978: 435-437. [2429]
74. Wallmo, O. C.; Carpenter, L. H.; Regelin, W. L.; [and others]. 1977.
Evaluation of deer habitat on a nutritional basis. Journal of Range
Management. 30(2): 122-127. [4904]
75. Wright, Philip L.; Dow, Sumner A., Jr. 1962. Minimum breeding age in
pronghorn antelope. Journal of Wildlife Management. 26(1): 100-101.
[25690]
76. Yoakum, Jim. 1980. Habitat management guides for the American pronghorn
antelope. Tech. Note 347. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center. 77 p. [23170]
77. Yoakum, Jim. 1982. Managing vegetation and waters for pronghorn. In:
Western proceedings: 62nd annual conference of the Western Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; 1982 July 19-22; Las Vegas, NV. [Place of
publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 153-158. [5895]
78. Yoakum, Jim. 1972. Antelope--vegetative relationships. In: Proceedings
of the antelope states workshop; [Location unknown]; [Date unknown]. 5:
171-177. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT.
[26536]
79. Yoakum, James D. 1978. Managing rangelands for the American pronghorn
antelope. In: Proceedings, 8th biennial pronghorn antelope workshop;
1978 May 2-4; Jasper, AB. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Recreation, Parks, and
Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division: 321-336. [3299]
80. Yoakum, James D. 1979. Managing rangelands for pronghorns. Rangelands.
1(4): 146-148. [25689]
81. Yoakum, Jim D.; O'Gara, Bart W. 1990. Pronghorn/livestock relationships.
Transactions, 55th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 55: 475-487. [25384]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/animals/mammal/anam/all.html
