Our study was conducted in 2005 on 3 colonies of black-tailed prairie dogs on lands in Phillips County, Montana administered by the Bureau of Land Management and in 2009 on a colony of black-tailed prairie dogs on Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Pennington County, South Dakota managed by U.S. Forest Service. We live-trapped black-tailed prairie dogs in daylight with wire mesh traps and marked their ears with numbered tags for individual identification. We weighed each individual to the nearest gram and collected Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates of their trapping locations over time. In Montana, trapping began on 15 June 2005 and ended on 1 October 2005. In South Dakota, trapping was conducted during 7 June through 7 October 2009. In both states, trapping was split into two sessions, early summer (June-July) and late summer (August-early October). An individual prairie dog was classified as encountered for the early summer session if it was detected at any time during that session and reencountered if it was detected one or more times during the late summer session. For each site, we calculated the center of activity for individual prairie dog capture locations as the mean of X-coordinates and the mean of Y-coordinates. We located adult black-footed ferrets and adult American badgers via spotlighting on nearly consecutive nights each field season. Ferrets of known age and sex were individually identifiable via passive integrated transponders. In South Dakota, but not Montana, locations of adult American badgers were recorded; adult badgers of unknown sex were not individually identifiable. We transformed prairie dog body mass (from initial capture in each state) into a binomial, categorizing prairie dogs of ≥ 600 grams at first capture as large and those of < 600 grams as small. We calculated the Euclidean distance separating each prairie dog center of activity from the closest location for any adult female ferret, any adult male ferret, and any badger. Given more intense monitoring in South Dakota for prairie dogs and ferrets alike, we were able to define individual prairie dogs as spatially "near" ferrets or badgers if their center of activity was ≤ 20 meters from the nearest adult female, male ferret, or badger spotlight locations. Data collection in Montana was less intense and the prairie dogs and ferrets were more spatially dispersed; thus, we extended the definition of “near” to ≤ 50 meters for Montana. Prairie dogs with activity centers beyond these distance cutoffs were classified as "far" from the nearest adult female, male ferret, or badger. The first dataset (Prey Selection Data.csv) includes variables for state, prairie dog reencounter from early to late summer, prairie dog body size, distance to adult female ferret, distance to adult male ferret, and distance to badger. The second dataset (Juvenile Prairie Dog Mass South Dakota Data.csv) includes data on juvenile prairie dog body mass in South Dakota, and includes variables for date of capture, state, prairie dog age, and the juvenile prairie dog's body mass in grams at capture. Only the mass measurements for juveniles in South Dakota were analyzed in the Larger Work manuscript cited herein. Funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center internally and through the collaborative USGS/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Survival Program.

,This data package was produced by researchers working on the Shortgrass Steppe Long Term Ecological Research (SGS-LTER) Project, administered at Colorado State University. Long-term datasets and background information (proposals, reports, photographs, etc.) on the SGS-LTER project are contained in a comprehensive project collection within the Digital Collections of Colorado (http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/R/?func=collections&collection_id=3429). The data table and associated metadata document, which is generated in Ecological Metadata Language, may be available through other repositories serving the ecological research community and represent components of the larger SGS-LTER project collection. Additional information and referenced materials can be found: http://hdl.handle.net/10217/83465. Thirteen colonies of black-tailed prairie dogs were studied within a 264-km2 area of the Central Plains Experimental Range and the Pawnee National Grasslands in Weld County, Colorado. Tissue Collection, DNA Extraction, and microsatellite genotype scoring was performed.,,

Data were collected in 2017 by researchers at the USGS, USDA-ARS, and University of Wyoming on the food webs of plants, prairie dogs, arthropods, and birds in the Thunder Basin National Grassland. Data were collected from 87 sites in order to parameterize a structural equation model linking prairie dog impacts to changes in vegetation, arthropods, and birds. Abiotic information such as topographic wetness index, terrain roughness, and soil characteristics were estimated at the same set of plots in order to account for abiotic variation across the landscape.

Data were collected in 2017 by researchers at the USGS, USDA-ARS, and University of Wyoming on the food webs of plants, prairie dogs, arthropods, and birds in the Thunder Basin National Grassland. Data were collected from 87 sites in order to parameterize a structural equation model linking prairie dog impacts to changes in vegetation, arthropods, and birds. Abiotic information such as topographic wetness index, terrain roughness, and soil characteristics were estimated at the same set of plots in order to account for abiotic variation across the landscape.

Data blended from a variety of sources to explore the effects of feeding on elk population productivity metrics with the incorporation of climate, predator, and harvest data over a 26-year time frame. Data are for elk herd units in northwestern Wyoming and two herd subunits for southwestern Montana.

Data on annual population change for prairie dogs in Montana and Utah, USA, 2000-2005. Prairie dog species included black-tailed prairie dogs (PDs) (BTPD, Cynomys ludovicianus) in north-central Montana, white-tailed PDs (WTPD, Cynomys leucurus) in eastern Utah, and Utah PDs (UPD, Cynomys parvidens) in southwestern Utah. Field research was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, and colleagues. Data were collected on paired plots. Each pair included a plot treated annually with deltamethrin dust for flea control and plague mitigation and a plot left untreated as baselines. Paired plots had similar ecological features on the same (split) or nearby (separate) colonies. One plot within each pair was randomly selected for deltamethrin dust treatment. We used summertime visual counts as an index to PD population size.We conducted visual counts annually during June-August, after young PDs were aboveground. We used binoculars and spotting scopes to systematically and repeatedly scan the plots (each plot was 3-9 hectares in area), beginning just after sunrise and continuing until warming temperatures caused a decline in counts. We repeated the procedure for three days, using for analysis the highest count obtained. We counted from the same locations each year, simultaneously counting treated and non-treated plots of each pair. Visual counts were transformed into values of finite population change by dividing the PD count at the end of an annual interval by the count at the beginning of the interval. For example, if year is 2001, then population change was for the interval 2000 to 2001. Primary funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management, supplemented by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Utah Department of Natural Resources Endangered Species Mitigation Fund. In-kind support was provided by the Bryce Canyon National Park, Dixie National Forest and BLM offices in Utah (Vernal, Cedar City, Richfield, and Torrey), Colorado (Meeker), and Montana (Malta). R. Reading and B. Miller of the Denver Zoological Foundation provided logistical support for parts of the study.

Data on annual population change for prairie dogs in Montana and Utah, USA, 2000-2005. Prairie dog species included black-tailed prairie dogs (PDs) (BTPD, Cynomys ludovicianus) in north-central Montana, white-tailed PDs (WTPD, Cynomys leucurus) in eastern Utah, and Utah PDs (UPD, Cynomys parvidens) in southwestern Utah. Field research was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, and colleagues. Data were collected on paired plots. Each pair included a plot treated annually with deltamethrin dust for flea control and plague mitigation and a plot left untreated as baselines. Paired plots had similar ecological features on the same (split) or nearby (separate) colonies. One plot within each pair was randomly selected for deltamethrin dust treatment. We used summertime visual counts as an index to PD population size.We conducted visual counts annually during June-August, after young PDs were aboveground. We used binoculars and spotting scopes to systematically and repeatedly scan the plots (each plot was 3-9 hectares in area), beginning just after sunrise and continuing until warming temperatures caused a decline in counts. We repeated the procedure for three days, using for analysis the highest count obtained. We counted from the same locations each year, simultaneously counting treated and non-treated plots of each pair. Visual counts were transformed into values of finite population change by dividing the PD count at the end of an annual interval by the count at the beginning of the interval. For example, if year is 2001, then population change was for the interval 2000 to 2001. Primary funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management, supplemented by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Utah Department of Natural Resources Endangered Species Mitigation Fund. In-kind support was provided by the Bryce Canyon National Park, Dixie National Forest and BLM offices in Utah (Vernal, Cedar City, Richfield, and Torrey), Colorado (Meeker), and Montana (Malta). R. Reading and B. Miller of the Denver Zoological Foundation provided logistical support for parts of the study.

Data on body condition and reproduction of Utah prairie dogs at 5 colonies on the Awapa Plateau, Utah, USA, June-August 2013-2016. Utah prairie dogs were live-trapped and sampled on 5 colonies. We recorded the age (juvenile/adult) and mass (nearest 5 grams) of each prairie dog and marked its ears and body with metal tags and passive integrated transponders, respectively, for permanent identification. We measured each prairie dog's right hind foot length (nearest millimeter). We indexed each adult prairie dog's body condition as the ratio between its mass and hind-foot length. Prairie dogs were allowed to recover from anesthesia and released at their trapping locations. We indexed prairie dog reproduction, by colony and year, as the ratio of the number of juveniles per adult (juvenile:adult ratios). Funding and logistical support were provided by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Colorado State University. Fieldwork was completed by the USGS Fort Collins Science Center, and lab work and flea identifications were completed by the USGS National Wildlife Health Center.

Data on body condition and reproduction of Utah prairie dogs at 5 colonies on the Awapa Plateau, Utah, USA, June-August 2013-2016. Utah prairie dogs were live-trapped and sampled on 5 colonies. We recorded the age (juvenile/adult) and mass (nearest 5 grams) of each prairie dog and marked its ears and body with metal tags and passive integrated transponders, respectively, for permanent identification. We measured each prairie dog's right hind foot length (nearest millimeter). We indexed each adult prairie dog's body condition as the ratio between its mass and hind-foot length. Prairie dogs were allowed to recover from anesthesia and released at their trapping locations. We indexed prairie dog reproduction, by colony and year, as the ratio of the number of juveniles per adult (juvenile:adult ratios). Funding and logistical support were provided by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Colorado State University. Fieldwork was completed by the USGS Fort Collins Science Center, and lab work and flea identifications were completed by the USGS National Wildlife Health Center.