Photo ©1996 Nell Bolen
Special thanks to Bob Smith and Nell Bolen for there assistance in construction of this site. To learn more about prairie grouse, click here.

Background

The Attwater's prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) once numbered about 1 million individuals (Lehmann 1941). This species is currently endangered with 42 individuals inhabiting the coastal prairies of Texas ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). In order to help prevent extinction of this species, captive-breeding techniques are being developed. Currently, there are 4 active captive propagation programs operating in Texas. These are: the Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, Glen Rose, Texas; the Houston Zoo, Houston, Texas; San Antonio Zoo, San Antonio, Texas; and the Small Upland-bird Research Facility (SURF) at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. All 4 of these locations have implemented captive-breeding programs for both Attwater's and greater prairie chickens (T.c. pinnatus). The greater prairie chicken often serves as a research surrogate due to the endangered state of the Attwater's (Drake 1994).

Captive Propagation

Photo ©1996 Nell Bolen

A Population and Habitat Viability Assessment Workshop of Attwater's prairie chickens on 4-6 January 1994, recommended immediate expansion of breeding facilities to maintain 60 breeding hens and produce 600 chicks annually (Seal 1994). To reach these levels of production, improved methods of captive propagation, along with identification of possible physiological and pathological constraints, are imperative.

SURF is located on the Texas A&M University campus on George Bush Drive, 0.6 km west of Wellborn Road in College Station, Texas. The facility has several types of breeding and flight pens and the entire facility is currently dedicated to prairie chicken research. Characteristics for pens are as follows: pens 1-4 are triangular breeding pens measuring 116 sq m; pens 5 and 6 are square breeding pens measuring 160 sq m; pens 7-14 are triangular breeding pens measuring 143 sq m; and pen 15 is a rectangular flight pen measuring 223 sq m. Aside from outdoor pens, 3 temperature regulated rooms measuring 37.5 sq m and one measuring 45 m2 located at the facility are used for incubation, hatching, chick rearing, and isolating diseased birds.

Research

Current research at the facility include a Ph.D. project with the following objectives:
  1. Evaluate photoperiod manipulation as a technique for increasing production of captive prairie chickens.
  2. Evaluate transmission of reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV) and its effects on production in captive prairie chickens.
  3. Determine insect biomass requirements of Attwater's prairie chicken chicks, while assessing restrictions imposed by captive rearing.
Photoperiod Manipulation
Research has been conducted on captive propagation techniques on both Attwater's (Watkins 1971) and greater prairie chickens (Drake 1994). There has been little research concerning photoperiod manipulation in these 2 subspecies and its effect on enhancing reproductive output. Research has been conducted on photoperiodism with other gallinaceous species such as pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) (Blake et al. 1992), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) (Zwickel 1977), and ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus lagopus) (Stokkan and Sharp 1984). In many cases the ultimate question for researchers of photoperiodism involves its relationship to egg production. Egg production in Attwater's prairie chickens is usually limited by seasonal breeding (Lehmann 1941), but captive propagation offers the opportunity to bolster yearly production through multiple clutching so that an increased number of individuals may be available for release into natural environments.

Watkins (1971) was unsuccessful in using photoperiod manipulation to increase yearly production in Attwater's prairie chickens, but altered photoperiod manipulation techniques were used by Fossil Rim Wildlife Center in 1994-96 to produce greater prairie chicken eggs and young prior to their normal seasonal production (Smith 1996). Therefore, photoperiod manipulation of Attwater's may be successful. Unfortunately, no data are available on the physiological parameters associated with photoperiodism in Attwater's or greater prairie chickens. In order for this endeavor to be successful, it is important to understand possible physiological constraints to photoperiod manipulation. Factors for photostimulated individuals which are being examined include: egg production, clutch size, multiple clutching, fertility rates, hatching rates, and chick rearing methods outside of normal breeding season.

Reticuloendotheliosis Virus (REV)

REV is a retro virus which has been documented in poultry (Motha and Egerton 1987), captive turkeys (Hayes et al. 1992), Pekin ducks (Grimes and Purchase 1973) and other species. Recently, REV was found in the captive prairie chicken flock at Texas A&M University. Several captive Attwater's and greater prairie chickens died due to internal lesions/tumors in the gastrointestinal, pulmonary, and/or circulatory tract caused by REV (Griffin unpubl. data). Furthermore, an REV antibody positive wild male was noted in Refugio County, Texas during spring 1995. The dramatic population decline from 229 to 79 males (66% decrease) noted for Refugio County between 1993 and 1994 may possibly be explained by complications from REV (Griffin unpubl. data) . Currently, there are several possible explanations for the initial REV contamination at Texas A&M University. These are: (1) contamination of the captive flock may have occurred through wild-obtained eggs; (2) contamination may be through defecation by viremic wild birds into pens; or, (3) mosquitos are considered a possible vector for REV by some researchers and could be a source of current captive contamination (Witter 1991).

Vertical transmission of REV from viremic males and uninfected females has been documented in chickens (Motha and Egerton 1984), but males appeared to play no role in vertical transmission in similar turkey experiments (Witter and Salter 1989). Death occurred in turkey offspring which were inoculated with REV as well as in contact exposed poults (McDoougall et al. 1980). Breeding of REV positive male and female Attwater's prairie chickens in summer of 1995 resulted in no apparent vertical transmission.

The unusual occurrence of long-term survivors of REV noted in prairie chickens, and its potential role in reproductive physiology, is particularly important in captive propagation of endangered Attwater's prairie chickens. Within the captive setting, each individual and its potential offspring are genetically valuable. Specific questions concerning possible effects of REV on fertility, hatchability, juvenile mortality, and vertical transmission need addressing. Aside from these concerns, proper blood testing, isolation, and culling methodologies are needed. Long-term effectiveness of such methodologies also needs further evaluation as protection of endangered individuals in captive propagation programs becomes increasingly necessary.

Insect Biomass

Attwater's prairie chicken chicks rely primarily on insects for food (Lehman 1941). In captive settings these insects are often obtained using sweep nets, and wild-caught insects are fed to chicks ad libitum with supplementation occurring in the form of commercial crickets and mealworms (Drake 1994). Insect availability also has been indicated as a possible limiting factor for other gallinaceous species such as sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (Johnson and Boyce 1990) and wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) (Hurst and Stringer 1975). There has been no research into daily insect biomass requirements for Attwater's chicks. By determining amounts of food necessary for sustained chick growth in captive birds, it may be possible to estimate amounts necessary for survival of wild Attwater's chicks. This information can be used to evaluate possible brood habitat on the basis of insect availability. Proper brood habitat evaluation may be a critical consideration for future pen-reared Attwater's releases. Photo ©1996 Nell Bolen

Literature Cited

Blake, A. G., R. Balander, C.J. Flegal,and R.K. Ringer. 1987. Ahemeral light-dark cycles and egg production parameters of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus). Poul. Sci. 66:258-263.

Drake, D. 1994. Captive propagation and brood behavior of greater prairie chickens. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M Univ., College Station. 49pp.

Grimes, T. M., and H.G. Purchase. 1973. Reticuloendotheliosis in a duck. Aust. Vet. J. 49: 466-471.

Hayes, L. M., K.A. Langheinrich, , and R.L. Witter. 1992. Reticuloendotheliosis in a wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) from coastal Georgia. J. Wildl. Dis. 28:154-158.

Hurst, G. A., and B.D Stringer. 1975. Food habits of wild turkey poults in Mississippi. Pages 76-85 in L.K. Halls ed. Proc. Third Natl. Turkey Symp.,Texas Chap. Wildl. Soc., San Antonio.

Johnson, G. D., and M. S. Boyce. 1990. Feeding trials with insects in the diet of sage grouse chicks. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:89-91

Lehmann, V. W. 1941. Attwater's prairie chicken: Its life history and management. North Am. Fauna 57. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C., 65pp.

Mc Dougall, J.S., R.W. Shilleto, and P.M. Biggs. 1980. Experimental infection and verticle transmission of reticuloendotheliosis virus in the turkey. Avian Path. 9:445-454.

Mc Ewen, L. C., D. B. Knapp, and E. A. Hilliard. 1969. Propagation of prairie grouse in captivity. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:276-283.

Motha, M. X. J., and J.R. Egerton. 1987. Verticle transmission of Reticuloendotheliosis virus in chickens. Avian Path. 16:141-147.

Seal, U. S. 1994. Attwater's prairie chicken: population and habitat viability assessment. Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minn. 80pp.

Smith, Bob 1997. Photo-period manipulation of greater prairie chickens at Fossil Rim Wildlife Center (personal communication)

Stakkan, K. A., and P.J. Sharp. 1984. The development of photorefractoriness in castrated willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus lagopus). Gen. Comp. Endocrin. 54:402-408.

Watkins, R. M. 1971. The propagation of the Attwater prairie chicken in captivity. M. S. Thesis, Texas A&M Univ., College Station. 38pp.

Witter, R. L. 1991. Reticuloendotheliosis. Pages 406-417 in B.W. Calnek, H.J. Burns, C.W. Beard, W.M. Reid, and H.W. Yoder, Jr., eds. Diseases in poultry. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.

Witter, R. L., and D.W. Salter. 1989. Verticle transmission of Reticuloendotheliosis virus in breeder turkeys. Avian Dis. 33:226-235.

Zwickel, F. C. 1977. Local variations in the time if breeding of female blue grouse. Condor 79: 185-191.

APC.TAMU.EDU
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University