An Unexpected Journey: Greater Prairie-
chicken Travels Nearly 4000 km after 
Translocation to Iowa
Authors: Jennifer A. Vogel, Stephanie E. Shepherd, 
and Diane M. Debinski
This is a postprint of an article that originally appeared in American Midland Naturalist on 
October 2015. The final version can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-174.2.343.
Vogel, Jennifer A., Stephanie E. Shepherd, Diane M. Debinski. 2015. An Unexpected Journey: 
Greater Prairie-chicken Travels Nearly 4000 km After Translocation to Iowa. American Midland 
Naturalist. 174: 343-349. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-174.2.343.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
An Unexpected Journey: Greater Prairie-chicken Travels Nearly 4000 km after
Translocation to Iowa
ABSTRACT.—After translocation a female greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido
pinnatus) traveled over 3988 km between 5 April 2013 and 20 June 2014. The bird traveled
a mean distance of 21.5 km per day during the spring (median distance per day 22.2 km;
range 0–115 km per day) moving through portions of four states. Nine other marked birds
traveled a mean distance of 336 km and a mean distance per day of 7.5 km during the spring
(median distance per day 4.6 km; range 0–92 km per day). This is the first record of
movements of this magnitude by a greater prairie-chicken. This report highlights the use of
recent advances in satellite/GPS telemetry methods for advancing our knowledge of wildlife
movements.
INTRODUCTION
The greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) was once common throughout the
Midwestern United States and in the grasslands of Iowa. As native grasslands in Iowa and the Midwest
were converted to intensive agriculture after European settlement, the amount of habitat available for
grassland species decreased. This habitat loss, combined with over-harvesting, led to a dramatic decline
and eventual extirpation of prairie-chickens from Iowa (Stempel and Rodgers, 1961).
Re- introduction efforts by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) in the late 1980s and
early 1990s established a small population of greater prairie-chickens in southern Iowa, but the future of
the population is uncertain (Shepherd, 2011). In order to prevent the extirpation of the remaining
re- introduced prairie-chicken population from the state, the IDNR implemented a plan to translocate
greater prairie-chickens from Nebraska to Iowa (Iowa Greater Prairie-chicken Management Committee,
2013).
Greater prairie-chickens are a resident species with limited evidence of long distance movements
(Niemuth, 2011). Historically, greater prairie-chickens may have exhibited seasonal movements related
to food availability (Scmidt, 1936; Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom, 1949; Schroeder and Braun, 1993).
For resident greater prairie-chickens, most individuals remain in a small area throughout their lives
(Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom, 1951).
Recent developments in radio-tracking technology have enabled the production of satellite/Global
Positioning System (GPS) transmitters small enough to be used on animals the size of greater prairie-
chickens. Available models include solar powered units with up to 3 y of operating time. Using GPS
transmitters allows for the location of animals without the physical presence and intrusion of
a researcher. This lessened disturbance may allow the animal to behave more naturally, resulting in less
biased location data (Mech and Barber, 2002). GPS transmitters also allow year-round data collection
with multiple locations per day recorded for each animal.
We present movement data for 10 translocated female greater prairie-chickens and highlight the first
documented case of extremely long-distance movements made by a translocated greater prairie-chicken.
We also highlight the utility of satellite/GPS transmitters to advance our knowledge of wildlife
movements.
METHODS
Our study area included the capture location in southwestern Nebraska and the release area in
southern Iowa. The capture location in Chase County, Nebraska (40u31960N, 101u389330W) is an
agricultural area consisting primarily of native grass rangeland on the slopes of the sandhills. Level or
gently sloping areas are planted to row crop, including corn (Zea mays) and winter wheat (Triticum sp.).
The release site in Ringgold County, Iowa (40u419370N, 94u59130W) is an agricultural area consisting of
cattle pasture planted to cool-season, nonnative grasses including smooth brome (Bromus inermis),
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), and row crops, primarily corn
and soybeans (Glycine max). The release area also includes extensive wildlife conservation areas with
native grasslands. The distance between the capture and release areas was 715 km.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources trapped and translocated 73 greater prairie-chickens
from southwestern Nebraska to southern Iowa and northern Missouri in April, 2013. Birds were
captured on lek sites in Nebraska using walk-in traps. We weighed, measured, and banded each bird
with a numbered aluminum band. Birds were processed and transported to Iowa within 12 h of capture.
Prior to release we placed solar Argos satellite/GPS transmitters (model PTT-100 22 g, Microwave
Telemetry, Inc., Columbia, Maryland) equipped withmortality switches on 10 adult female prairie-chickens
via rump mounted figure-8 harnesses (modeled after Bedrosian and Craighead, 2007; Fig. 1). Using
a rump mount harness places the solar panel of the GPS transmitter dorsally, allowing maximum solar
exposure and battery life. All 10 birds wearing satellite GPS transmitters were released at known lek sites in
the Grand River Grasslands area of southern Iowa. We handled birds in accordance with the guidelines set
by Iowa State University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (permit # 4-12-7337-Q).
Transmitters were programmed to obtain locations six times per day from 15 March to 15 October
and three times per day from 15 October to 15 March. We reduced the number of locations per day
during the colder months due to the effects of shorter day lengths and colder temperatures on battery
performance of the transmitters. Location data were downloaded weekly using the Argos Web service
(CLS America, Lanham, Maryland). Data were parsed and decoded using MTI Argos-GPS Parser
software (MTI, 2011) and imported and mapped in ArcMap 10.1 (ESRI, 2011). Travel paths and
distances traveled were calculated using the Animal Movements feature in Hawth’s Tools for ArcGIS
(Beyer, 2004). Mean daily distances for each time period were calculated by dividing the distance
traveled during that time period by the number of days in the time period. In cases where mortalities
occurred during a particular time period, we truncated the time period for that individual and divided
by the number of days for which location data were collected. We calculated mean daily distances and
we report median distances for Spring (21 March–20 June), Summer (21 June–22 September), Fall (23
September–20 December), and Winter (21 December–20 March).
RESULTS
The mean distance travelled over the course of the year for the majority of the birds was 336 km.
However, one of the 10 birds (band #112) traveled over 10 times that distance, totaling 3988 km
between 5 April 2013 and 20 June 2014. Bird 112 moved a mean distance of 9 km per day, with her
longest travel distances occurring in the spring season (Table 1). The maximum daily distance recorded
FIG. 1.—Female greater prairie-chicken wearing an ARGOS satellite/GPS transmitter attached via
rump mounted figure-8 harness. Photo by Pete Hildreth, Iowa DNR
for bird 112 was 115 km made on 9 May 2014. Bird 112s path initially spiraled out from the release site
in Ringgold County, Iowa and eventually led back to south-central Iowa (Fig. 2). The bird arrived in
south-central Iowa on 27 July 2013 and remained there throughout the summer and fall of 2013 and
winter of 2014. During this period bird 112 had lower mean daily movement distances compared to
spring movements (Table 1). On 21 March 2014 bird 112 started moving extensively again. Her path
took her east into Illinois and west to the Missouri/Kansas border.
Transmitter loads (weight of transmitter plus harness divided by the weight of the bird) for all birds
were below the accepted limits for wild birds in research (Fair et al., 2010). Bird 112s weight was 4.6%
lower than the mean weight of all birds, and as a result, her transmitter load (3.15%) was slightly higher
than average (3.02%) but was still below accepted limits.
DISCUSSION
Prairie grouse from the genus Tympanuchus are thought to have poor dispersal abilities (Braun et al.,
1994). However, seasonal movements have been reported. In a Colorado population of greater prairie-
chickens, seasonal movements ranged from 2.9 km to 10.6 km (Schroeder and Braun, 1993). Resident
greater prairie-chickens are reported to remain within 8 km of lek sites, and in cases where moderate
movements have been recorded, individuals end up within a few kilometers of their lek sites (Svedarsky
and Van Amburg, 1996). The longest movement distances reported in the literature for prairie grouse
range from 5.8 km to 160 km (Table 2). Maximum values reported for mean daily distances moved
range from 0.15 km per day to 1.23 km per day (Table 2). Previously reported movement distances for
prairie grouse are lower than those we observed for all birds in our study and, in particular, for bird 112
(Table 1). One possible reason for differences between our study and others may be the methods used.
For example our satellite/GPS transmitters provide multiple locations of an individual each day,
whereas a VHF transmitter may only yield one to a few locations per week.
Translocated prairie grouse tend to move more than resident birds (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom,
1949; Toepfer, 1988; Kemink and Kesler, 2013). This phenomenon is common for translocated animals,
and in particular for translocated birds (Toepfer, 1976; Armstrong et al., 1999; Coates et al., 2006).
Translocated greater prairie-chickens make more frequent movements immediately after release, while
also traveling longer distances during these movements than resident birds (Toepfer, 1976). In
addition, translocated individuals have lower survival rates than residents. For example, translocated
greater prairie-chickens in Missouri had lower survival rates than resident birds in the same area
(Carrlson et al., 2014). Lower survival rates among translocated birds may be related to the longer and
more frequent movements made after release (Yoder et al., 2004).
Several studies have found daily movements of prairie-chickens are lowest in the summer
(Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom, 1949; Robel et al., 1970; Toepfer, 1988) and highest early in the
breeding season (Robel et al., 1970; Gratson, 1983). There are many possibilities for differential
movement by season. Seasonal differences in movement rates may be due to seasonal changes in the
availability of food and cover (Robel et al., 1970). Movements exhibited by prairie-chickens after
translocation do not appear to be associated with homing or orientation back to capture locations, but
are more likely searching behavior or exploratory movements (Kemink and Kesler, 2013).
Movement rates for female grouse are highest when they are visiting lek sites in search of mates early
in the breeding season (Robel et al., 1970; Gratson, 1983). Hens may look for suitable nest locations
during this time, therefore increasing their movement rates (Gratson, 1983). Movement rates for
females may decrease later in the summer due to nesting and brood rearing behavior. In addition,
molting of the flight feathers in late summer reduces movement in greater prairie-chickens (Schroeder
and Braun, 1992). Since bird 112 did not attempt to nest during 2013, feather molting may help explain
why bird 112s movements were greatly reduced later in the 2013 breeding season.
Social interaction may also influence how far an individual prairie-chicken moves (Kemink and
Kelser, 2013). There is a social dominance order among groups of female greater prairie-chickens
during lek attendance (Robel, 1970; Robel and Ballard, 1974). This social dominance can influence
nest survival by making it more difficult for less dominant females to mate. This behavior may lead to
delayed breeding and nesting which may result in lower nest survival (Robel, 1970) and fewer offspring
being produced (Robel and Ballard, 1974). In addition aggressive behavior among females at lek sites
TABLE 1.—Distance traveled per day for 10 adult female translocated greater prairie-chickens. Values
are given in kilometers for mean distance traveled per day, range, and median (Med) distance traveled
per day. Weight in grams is given for each bird. Values are given for Spring (21 March–20 June),
Summer (21 June–22 September), Fall (23 September–20 December), and Winter (21 December–
20 March)
Spring 2013 Summer 2013
Band # Weight(g) Mean Range Med Mean Range Med
112 810 21.5 0.2258.2 22.2 2.8 0.1–13.5 1.1
51 830 0.1 0.020.3 0.1 _
52 760 2.9 0.2212.5 0.5 _
53 900 16.9 0.2245.1 16.8 _
63 840 13.4 0.1291.6 7.7 _
111 930 8.7 0.0234.9 4.9 1.5 0.0–5.1 1.2
113 830 13.1 0.1233.6 8.0 _
114 910 1.5 0.022.7 1.5 _
125 800 2.2 0.227.5 1.3 _
131 840 9.1 0.0239.0 4.6 0.2 0.0–1.1 0.1
FIG. 2.—Travel path of translocated female greater prairie-chicken (bird 112) between 5 April 2013
and 20 June 2014. The total distance traveled during the study period was 3988 km. The shaded polygon
indicates the area traveled by all nine of the other birds wearing transmitters
may be associated with extensive movements by less dominant females as they travel to visit other lek
sites (Robel, 1970). Larger movements of translocated birds may be the result of these social
interactions when new individuals are introduced into existing lek social dynamics (Kemink and Kelser,
2013). Social dynamics may have played a role in the extensive movements we observed in bird 112.
Because few active leks remained in the release area, bird 112 may have been looking for other lek sites
where the social structure may have been more favorable.
The satellite/GPS transmitters used in this study enabled us to continue to track bird 112 long after
she left the release area. With a traditional VHF transmitter, even using aircraft flyovers, it would likely
have been impossible to locate bird 112 during much of the study period. The extended battery life of
the transmitter not only allowed us to continue to collect location data on bird 112 through the fall and
winter but also through the breeding season in 2014.
Fall 2013 Winter 2013 Spring 2014
Mean Range Med Mean Range Med Mean Range Med
0.5 0.0–3.5 0.4 0.7 0.0–9.0 0.2 21.5 0.2–114.7 20.0
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
TABLE 1.—Extended
TABLE 2.—Maximum reported distances traveled by prairie grouse from the literature. Reports were
taken from published data and include the species, location (U.S. States), Sex (Unknown, Male,
Female), Age (Juvenile or Adult), maximum linear distance reported in study (km), mean distance
traveled per day (km), and whether the population studied was resident (R) or translocated (T)
Species or subspecies Location Citation Sex Age Max Daily Pop
T. c. pinnatus Iowa Moe (1999) U Adult 80.5 – T
T. c. pinnatus Kansas Bowman and Robel (1977) U,M Juv. 10.8 0.94 R
T. c. pinnatus Oklahoma Patten et al. (2011) F Adult 15+ 0.15 R
T. c. pinnatus Wisconsin Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom (1973) F Adult 48.3 – R
T. c. pinnatus Wisconsin Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom (1949) U Adult 46.7 – R
T. c. pinnatus Wisconsin Toepfer (1988) F Adult 103 1.26 T
T. c. pinnatus Kansas Robel et al. (1970) M Juv. 10.8 0.93 R
T. c. pinnatus Wisconsin Scmidt (1936) F Adult 160 – R
T. c. pinnatus Colorado Schroder and Braun (1993) F Adult 40 – R
T. c. pinnatus Minnesota Svedarsky and Van Amburg (1996) U U 48 – R
T. pallidicinctus Texas Taylor and Guthery (1980) M,F Juv. 12.8 1.23 R
T. pallidicinctus Kansas Jamison (2000) M Adult 44 1.00 R
T. phasianellus Wisconsin Gratson (1983) F Juv. 5.8 0.87 R
The success of a translocation project is dependent on the translocated individuals remaining in the
release area to reproduce. Bird 112 did not remain in the release area and reproduce, but she did
provide alternative information that increased our understanding of the potential for dispersal in
greater prairie-chickens. Our data show translocated greater prairie-chickens are capable of traveling
distances vastly farther than previously known. Understanding the potential movement of individuals
post-release may increase the chance of successfully establishing new populations in the future. This
report also highlights the utility of recent advances in lightweight satellite/GPS transmitters and
advanced telemetry monitoring methods for advancing our knowledge of wildlife movements.
Acknowledgments.—Funding for this project was provided by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the State Wildlife Grants Program, by the Iowa
and Missouri Chapters of The Nature Conservancy, and by The Blank Park Zoo. We thank J. Rusk,
C. Paup, A. Kellner, K. Kinkead, M. McInroy, T. Bogenschutz, and P. Hildreth from the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources; K. Drees from The Blank Park Zoo; R. Arndt from The Nature
Conservancy; project assistants E. Kilburg, G. Milanowski, M. Osier, and J. Williams; J. Obrecht from
Iowa State University.
LITERATURE CITED
ARMSTRONG, D. P., I. CASTRO, J. C. ALLEY, B. FEENSTR, AND J. K. PERROT. 1999. Mortality and behavior of hihi,
an endangered New Zealand honeyeater, in the establishment phase following translocation.
Biol. Conserv., 89:329–339.
BEDROSIAN, B. AND D. CRAIGHEAD. 2007. Evaluation of techniques for attaching transmitters to common
raven nestlings. Northwest. Nat., 88:1–6.
BEYER, H. L. 2004. Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. Available from: http://www.spatialecology.com/
htools.
BOWMAN, T. J. AND R. J. ROBEL. 1977. Brood break-up, dispersal, mobility, and mortality of juvenile prairie
chickens. J. Wildlife Manage., 41:27–34.
BRAUN, C. E., K. MARTIN, T. E. REMINGTON, AND J. R. YOUNG. 1994. North American grouse: issues and
strategies for the 21st century. T. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res., 59:428–438.
CARRLSON, K. M., D. C. KESLER, AND T. R. THOMPSON. 2014. Survival and habitat use in translocated and
resident greater prairie-chickens. J. Nat. Conserv., 22:405–412.
COATES, P. S., S. J. STIVER, AND D. J. DELEHANTY. 2006. Using sharp-tailed grouse movement patterns to
guide release-site selection. Wildlife Soc. Bull., 34:1376–1382.
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
FAIR, J., E. PAUL, AND J. JONES (eds.). 2010. Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research. Ornithological
Council, Washington, D.C. 215 p.
GRATSON, M. W. 1983. Habitat, mobility, and social patterns of sharp-tailed grouse in Wisconsin. M.S.
Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, U.S.A. 182 p.
HAMERSTROM, F. N., JR., AND F. HAMERSTROM. 1949. Daily and seasonal movements of Wisconsin prairie
chickens. Auk, 66:313–337.
———AND ———. 1951. Mobility of the sharp-tailed grouse in relation to its ecology and distribution.
Am. Midl. Nat., 46:174–226.
——— AND ———. 1973. The prairie chicken in Wisconsin: highlights of a 22-year study of counts,
behavior, movements, turnover and habitat. Wisc. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull., 64.
IOWA GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. 2013. Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus
cupido) management plan for Iowa 30 year plan, 2012–2042. S. Shepherd (ed.). Iowa Dept. of
Natural Resources.
JAMISON, B. E. 2000. Lesser prairie-chicken chick survival, adult survival, and habitat selection and
movements of males in fragmented rangelands of southwestern Kansas. M.S. Thesis, Kansas
State University. 197 p.
KEMINK, K. M. AND D. C. KESLER. 2013. Using movement ecology to inform translocation efforts: a case
study with an endangered lekking bird species. Anim. Conserv., 16:449–457.
MECH, L. D. AND S. M. BARBER. 2002. A critique of wildlife radio-tracking and its use in National Parks.
U.S. National Park Service. Fort Collins, CO. 78 p.
MOE, M. 1999. Status and management of the greater prairie chicken in Iowa, p. 123–127. In: W. D.
Svedarsky, R. H. Hier, and N. J. Silvy (eds.). The greater prairie chicken: a national look.
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.
MTI. 2011. Argos-GPS Parser. Microwave Telemetry Inc., Columbia, MD.
NIEMUTH, N. D. 2011. Spatially explicit habitat models for prairie grouse, p. 3–20. In: B. K. Sandercock,
K. Martin, and G. Segelbacher (eds.). Ecology, conservation, and management of grouse.
Studies in Avian Biology 39, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
PATTEN, M. A., C. L. PRUETT, AND D. H. WOLFE. 2011. Home range size and movements of greater prairie-
chickens, p. 51–62. In: B. K. Sandercock, K. Martin, and G. Segelbacher (eds.). Ecology,
conservation, and management of grouse. Studies in Avian Biology 39, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
ROBEL, R. J. 1970. Possible role of behavior in regulating greater prairie chicken populations. J. Wildlife
Manage., 34:306–312.
——— AND W. B. BALLARD, Jr. 1974. Lek social organization and reproductive success in the greater
prairie chicken. Am. Zool., 14:121–128.
———, J. N. BRIGGS, J. J. CEBULA, N. J. SILVY, C. E. VIERS, AND P. G. WATT. 1970. Greater prairie chicken
ranges, movements, and habitat usage in Kansas. J. Wildlife Manag., 34:286–306.
SCHROEDER, M. A. AND C. E. BRAUN. 1992. Seasonal movement and habitat use by greater prairie-chickens
in northeastern Colorado. Colo. Div. Wildlife Rep., 68:44.
——— AND ———. 1993. Partial migration in a population of greater prairie-chickens in Northeastern
Colorado. Auk, 110:21–28.
SCMIDT, F. J. W. 1936. Winter feed of the sharp-tailed grouse and pinnated grouse in Wisconsin. Wilson
Bull., 48:186–203.
SHEPHERD, S. E. 2011. Greater prairie chicken restoration. Trends in Iowa wildlife populations and
harvest. In: P. Fritzell (ed.). Iowa Department of Natural Resources Yearly Report. 276 p.
STEMPEL, M. E. AND S. RODGERS, JR. 1961. History of prairie chickens in Iowa. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci.,
68:314–322.
SVEDARSKY, W. D. AND G. VAN AMBURG. 1996. Integrated management of the greater prairie chicken and
livestock on the Sheyenne National Grassland. North Dakota Game and Fish Department,
Bismark. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online, Jamestown, ND. Available from:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/sheyenne/index.htm.
TAYLOR, M. A. AND F. S. GUTHERY. 1980. Fall-winter movements, ranges, and habitat use of lesser prairie
chickens. J. Wildlife Manage., 44:521–524.
TOEPFER, J. E. 1976. Movements and behavior of transplanted radio-tagged prairie-chickens in Wisconsin.
M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, USA. 84 p.
———. 1988. The ecology of the greater prairie chicken as related to reintroductions. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Montana State Univ., Bozeman, USA. 572 p.
YODER, J. M., E. A. MARSCHALL, AND D. A. SWANSON. 2004. The cost of dispersal: predation as a function of
movement and site familiarity in ruffed grouse. Behav. Ecol., 15:469–476.
JENNIFER A. VOGEL1 , Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State Uni-
versity, Ames 50011; STEPHANIE E. SHEPHERD, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife
Diversity Program, 1436 255th St, Boone 50036; AND DIANE M. DEBINSKI, Department of Ecology,
Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames 50011. Submitted 21 November 2014;
Accepted 28 June 2015.