Index of Species Information

WILDLIFE SPECIES:  Antilocapra americana


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: [].
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]: A. a. americana Ord American pronghorn A. a. oregona Bailey Oregon pronghorn A. a. mexicana Merrian Mexican pronghorn A. a. peninsularis Nelson peninsula pronghorn A. a. 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 peninsula and Sonoran pronghorn are listed as endangered [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 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 :
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


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].


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].


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. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Listed animals. In: Environmental Conservation Online System, [Online]. In: Species reports. Available: [86534] 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