Ammodramus henslowii - (Audubon, 1829)
Henslow's Sparrow
Other English Common Names: Henslow's sparrow
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Ammodramus henslowii (Audubon, 1829) (TSN 179340)
French Common Names: Bruant de Henslow
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100620
Element Code: ABPBXA0030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 11226

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Passerellidae Ammodramus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Ammodramus henslowii
Taxonomic Comments: Often placed in genus Passerherbulus (AOU 1983). See Zink and Avise (1990) for relationships within genus Ammodramus (based on analysis of mtDNA and allozymes); Ammodramus (sensu AOU 1983) possibly is not monophyletic; previous generic limits (AOU 1957) seem better to reflect phylogeny than current taxonomy.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 06Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 04Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Has a spotty distribution, and has experienced population and range reductions due to habitat alteration. Requires a successionally transitory habitat, particularly in the eastern portion of its range. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. list Henslow's Sparrow as Near Threatened.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3B,N4N (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1B,N1M (25Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S2N), Arkansas (S1B,S2N), Connecticut (SHB,SHN), Delaware (SHB,S1N), District of Columbia (S2S3N), Florida (S3N), Georgia (S2), Illinois (S2), Indiana (S3B), Iowa (S3B,S2N), Kansas (S3B), Kentucky (S3B), Louisiana (S3N), Maryland (S2B), Massachusetts (S1), Michigan (S3), Minnesota (S1B), Mississippi (S3N), Missouri (S3), Nebraska (S1), New Hampshire (SHB), New Jersey (S1B,S1N), New York (S3B), North Carolina (S1B,S1N), Ohio (S4), Oklahoma (S2), Pennsylvania (S4B), Rhode Island (SX), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (S1B), Tennessee (S1B), Texas (S2S3N,SXB), Vermont (S1B), Virginia (S1B), West Virginia (S1B), Wisconsin (S2S3B)
Canada Ontario (SHB), Quebec (S1)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (06May2011)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: In Canada, this species occurs sporadically in Ontario and Quebec. Its Canadian population is extremely small, ranging from 0 to 25 individuals depending on the year. Populations in adjacent parts of the U.S., which are a likely source of birds for Canada, are declining. Habitat loss is ongoing for this species.

Status history: Designated Threatened in April 1984. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in April 1993. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2000 and May 2011.

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: locally from southeastern South Dakota (at least formerly), across the Great Lakes region of the eastern U.S. (southeastern Minnesota, north-central Wisconsin, northern Michigan) and to New England (where now extirpated in most areas) and New York, south to central Kansas, northeastern Oklahoma, southwestern and central Missouri, southern Illinois, northern Kentucky, central West Virginia, easterm Virginia, and northern Tennessee, central and eastern North Carolina; formerly in eastern Texas. Casual observations in southern Canada (southern Ontario, southern Quebec) but no confirmed breeding records for more than 20 years (COSEWIC). Currently most abundant in the western portion of the Great Lakes Plain and in Minnesota (Smith 1992). Breeding range extent estimated at 652,000 sq. km. (BirdLife International 2014) and 1,091,323 sq. km. (PIF Science Committee 2013; http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates ). NONBREEDING: mainly southeastern United States; coastal states from South Carolina south to Florida, west to Texas, casually north to Illinois, Indiana, New England, and Nova Scotia (Smith 1992, AOU 1998). Wintering range extent is similar in size to breeding range extent.

Area of Occupancy: Unknown 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Undetermined; Linear occupancy is unknown.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: An estimate given the population size estimate and range extent.

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown. In Oklahoma, estimated three thousand singing males occurred on the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in 1992. Largest known population in Illinois between 1970s and early 1990s consisted of 15-55 pairs (GMSARC 1999). No other sites in the state have more than 15 pairs (Herkert 1994). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data from 1966 - 1996 show highest relative abundance in Ohio (0.20 birds per route). Survey-wide, the relative abundance is 0.15 for same period (n = 149; Sauer et al. 1997).

In winter, most common along the coast of Texas and the Florida panhandle and around Cocoa Beach, Florida (Root 1988). Survey-wide relative abundance on Christmas Bird Count is 0.04 birds per 100 survey hours, 1959-1988 (Sauer et al. 1996). The Partners in Flight (PIF) Science Committee (2013; http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates) estimates global population at 399,000 individuals using BBS and range data. An older estimate of 79,000 individuals was given by Rich et al. (2004) in BirdLife International (2014).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few to some (1-40)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Probably the large majority of occurrences are of relatively poor viability; those with large populations (few) and active management could be considered good.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: HABITAT LOSS: Decline apparently is related to loss of habitat due to encroaching urbanization, successional change to shrubland or forest, and use for row-crop agriculture. Habitat is ephemeral and also often not available due to heavy human use (not allowed to lie idle; Robbins et al. 1986). The disjunct population in eastern Texas (subspecies HOUSTONENSIS, may not be valid) is extinct, presumably due to urban growth and industrial development (Ehrlich et al. 1992). The main threat is most likely the loss of breeding habitat as agricultural grasslands are developed or abandoned and revert to shrublands and forests (Smith 1992). In the Midwest a switch in agriculture methods from hay production and grazing to intensive production of specialized crops (soybeans, corn, etc.) has been a major factor in habitat loss (Illinois Natural History Survey 1983). In the East, increasing urbanization and encroachment of woody species have been major factors. HABITAT FRAGMENTATION: Fragmentation of suitable habitat into small widely scattered plots is another serious threat. Rarely encountered on grassland fragments less than 100 hectares (Herkert 1994). Normal annual population fluctuations can be more dramatic on smaller preserves, reducing local populations to levels where random events could lead to local extirpation. Conflicts may occur between timing of nesting and cutting of hay (Bollinger 1988). Highly productive hayfields may attract sparrows (as well as other grassland species) to establish territories and start nesting early in the breeding season. When the hayfields are then cut, the losses of nests, eggs and nestlings may lead to a decline in local productivity, creating the "sink" effect described for birds in agricultural landscapes (Best 1986, Temple 1990). Fleckenstein (pers. comm.) mentioned that high stocking rates of cattle (probably greater than 10 head per 20 acres) drive out the sparrow. Fire and grazing management with short-term rotations can be too frequent to allow for sufficient litter buildup and a high density of standing dead vegetation (Fleckenstein, pers. comm.; Herkert 1994; Skinner 1975). Nest predation by snakes and small mammals likely.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable to increase of <25%
Short-term Trend Comments: Increasing and expanding range in some areas. In Pennsylvania, has been increasing in abundance over the last 20 years and colonizing grasslands created by the "reclamation" of surface coal mines (Bier, pers. comm.). Recently extended range into Oklahoma (GMSARC 1999, NGS 1999). See Smith (1992) and Herkert (for information on status in particular states in the northeastern U.S. See Hands et al. (1989) for information on status in the north-central U.S. North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data suggest a 6.7% annual increase in North America, 2002-2012 (N = 363 routes; Sauer et al. 2014, http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/atlasa12.pl?05470&1&12 ), perhaps beginning to offset previous population declines.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to increase of >25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Was one of the fastest declining songbirds in North America. In Illinois, may have declined 94 percent between 1957-1979 (Herkert 1994). Has declined significantly across much of range and can no longer be considered common anywhere. This decline is apparently due to the loss of suitable grassland nesting habitat (Smith 1992, Herkert et al. 2002). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicated a large and statistically significant decline survey-wide for the period 1966 - 1998 (-8.1% per year, P = 0.00, N = 146) (Sauer et al. 1999). The decline appeared greatest in the central portion of the breeding range and in the northeastern U.S. (USFWS 1987, Sauer et al. 1999). More recent BBS trend data suggest a non-significant 0.96% annual decline survey-wide, 1966-2012 (N = 363 routes; Sauer et al. 2014, http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/atlasa12.pl?05470&1&12 ) that reflects increasing populations in recent years, most notably Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri (Sauer et al. 2013). In Canada, range probably expanded in the early 1900s following clearing of forests; Knapton (1984) noted range contractions, loss of suitable habitat, and population declines; Austen and Cadman (1993) noted a continuing decline, with probably only one pair present in the early 1990s. No confirmed breeding in Canada over the last 20 years (COSEWIC).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Breeding habitat may be ephemeral and dependent on active management and also precipitation (Herkert et al. 2002).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Requires fairly specific conditions in grassland habitats for breeding.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Document occurrences of Henslow's sparrows on all existing managed areas both public and private. Sites should be monitored over several years. Identify and characterize habitats on wintering grounds in the southeastern U.S., giving special attention to occurrences on any private preserves or public lands.

Protection Needs: Existing habitat must be protected from fragmentation. This and other grassland species would benefit from agressive acquisition and management of grassland habitats (Smith 1992, Smith and Smith 1990). The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which helps create undisturbed grassland habitat, has shown to be an effective tool for increasing Henslow's numbers where used (positive population trends where used, negative trends prior to CRP) (Herkert et al. 2002).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: locally from southeastern South Dakota (at least formerly), across the Great Lakes region of the eastern U.S. (southeastern Minnesota, north-central Wisconsin, northern Michigan) and to New England (where now extirpated in most areas) and New York, south to central Kansas, northeastern Oklahoma, southwestern and central Missouri, southern Illinois, northern Kentucky, central West Virginia, easterm Virginia, and northern Tennessee, central and eastern North Carolina; formerly in eastern Texas. Casual observations in southern Canada (southern Ontario, southern Quebec) but no confirmed breeding records for more than 20 years (COSEWIC). Currently most abundant in the western portion of the Great Lakes Plain and in Minnesota (Smith 1992). Breeding range extent estimated at 652,000 sq. km. (BirdLife International 2014) and 1,091,323 sq. km. (PIF Science Committee 2013; http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates ). NONBREEDING: mainly southeastern United States; coastal states from South Carolina south to Florida, west to Texas, casually north to Illinois, Indiana, New England, and Nova Scotia (Smith 1992, AOU 1998). Wintering range extent is similar in size to breeding range extent.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RIextirpated, SC, SD, TN, TXextirpated, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AR Ashley (05003), Benton (05007), Bradley (05011), Calhoun (05013), Cleveland (05025), Drew (05043), Franklin (05047), Fulton (05049), Hempstead (05057), Monroe (05095), Prairie (05117), Pulaski (05119), Washington (05143)
DE Sussex (10005)*
GA Cobb (13067), Fulton (13121), Glynn (13127), Grady (13131), Mcintosh (13191), Miller (13201), Thomas (13275)
IA Adair (19001), Allamakee (19005), Appanoose (19007), Black Hawk (19013), Boone (19015), Butler (19023), Cass (19029), Clarke (19039), Clayton (19043), Davis (19051), Decatur (19053), Dickinson (19059), Fayette (19065), Floyd (19067), Franklin (19069), Howard (19089), Iowa (19095), Jackson (19097), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Lucas (19117), Madison (19121), Mahaska (19123), Marion (19125), Pocahontas (19151)*, Polk (19153), Ringgold (19159), Union (19175), Van Buren (19177), Wapello (19179), Warren (19181), Washington (19183), Wayne (19185), Winneshiek (19191)*
IL Adams (17001), Boone (17007), Brown (17009), Bureau (17011), Cass (17017), Champaign (17019), Coles (17029), Cook (17031), De Witt (17039), DuPage (17043), Edwards (17047), Effingham (17049), Ford (17053), Fulton (17057), Grundy (17063), Hancock (17067), Henry (17073), Iroquois (17075), Jasper (17079), Jo Daviess (17085), Johnson (17087), Kane (17089), Kankakee (17091), Kendall (17093), Knox (17095), La Salle (17099), Lake (17097), Lawrence (17101), Lee (17103), Logan (17107), Marion (17121), Mcdonough (17109), Mchenry (17111), Mclean (17113), Montgomery (17135), Ogle (17141), Perry (17145), Piatt (17147), Pike (17149)*, Pope (17151), Putnam (17155), Randolph (17157), Saline (17165), Shelby (17173), Vermilion (17183), Wayne (17191), White (17193), Will (17197), Williamson (17199), Winnebago (17201)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Boone (18011), Brown (18013), Clark (18019), Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027), Dubois (18037), Gibson (18051)*, Grant (18053), Greene (18055), Jackson (18071), Jasper (18073), Jefferson (18077), Jennings (18079), Johnson (18081), La Porte (18091), Lagrange (18087), Lake (18089), Lawrence (18093), Martin (18101), Morgan (18109), Newton (18111), Noble (18113), Ohio (18115), Orange (18117), Parke (18121), Perry (18123), Porter (18127)*, Scott (18143), Spencer (18147), St. Joseph (18141), Steuben (18151), Sullivan (18153), Switzerland (18155), Tippecanoe (18157), Vermillion (18165), Vigo (18167), Warren (18171), Warrick (18173), Washington (18175), White (18181), Whitley (18183)
KS Anderson (20003), Bourbon (20011), Butler (20015), Clay (20027), Cloud (20029), Coffey (20031), Crawford (20037), Dickinson (20041), Douglas (20045), Elk (20049), Ellsworth (20053), Franklin (20059), Geary (20061), Greenwood (20073), Harvey (20079), Jackson (20085), Jefferson (20087), Labette (20099), Leavenworth (20103), Linn (20107), Lyon (20111), Nemaha (20131), Neosho (20133), Osage (20139), Ottawa (20143), Riley (20161), Saline (20169), Shawnee (20177), Wilson (20205), Woodson (20207)
KY Adair (21001), Anderson (21005), Bath (21011), Boone (21015), Bourbon (21017), Boyle (21021)*, Bracken (21023), Breckinridge (21027), Butler (21031), Caldwell (21033), Calloway (21035), Carter (21043), Casey (21045)*, Christian (21047), Clark (21049)*, Clinton (21053)*, Crittenden (21055), Cumberland (21057)*, Edmonson (21061), Estill (21065)*, Fayette (21067), Franklin (21073), Garrard (21079), Grant (21081), Grayson (21085), Green (21087), Hardin (21093), Hart (21099), Hopkins (21107), Jefferson (21111), Jessamine (21113), Knott (21119), Larue (21123), Laurel (21125), Lewis (21135), Lincoln (21137)*, Livingston (21139), Madison (21151), Marion (21155), Marshall (21157), Mason (21161), McCracken (21145), Meade (21163), Mercer (21167)*, Metcalfe (21169), Montgomery (21173), Morgan (21175), Muhlenberg (21177), Nicholas (21181), Ohio (21183), Oldham (21185), Owen (21187), Pendleton (21191), Powell (21197)*, Pulaski (21199), Robertson (21201), Rockcastle (21203), Rowan (21205), Russell (21207)*, Scott (21209), Shelby (21211), Taylor (21217), Todd (21219), Trigg (21221), Washington (21229), Wayne (21231), Webster (21233)
LA Natchitoches (22069), Sabine (22085), Vernon (22115)
MA Berkshire (25003)*, Dukes (25007)*, Essex (25009)*, Hampshire (25015)*, Middlesex (25017), Norfolk (25021)*, Worcester (25027)*
MD Allegany (24001), Carroll (24013), Dorchester (24019)*, Garrett (24023), Montgomery (24031)*
MI Alpena (26007), Barry (26015), Bay (26017), Berrien (26021), Branch (26023), Calhoun (26025), Cass (26027), Clinton (26037), Eaton (26045), Genesee (26049), Gladwin (26051), Gratiot (26057), Hillsdale (26059), Huron (26063), Ingham (26065), Ionia (26067), Isabella (26073), Jackson (26075), Kalamazoo (26077), Lake (26085), Lenawee (26091), Livingston (26093), Mason (26105), Montcalm (26117), Muskegon (26121)*, Oakland (26125), Osceola (26133), Saginaw (26145), Sanilac (26151), St. Clair (26147), Tuscola (26157), Van Buren (26159), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MN Aitkin (27001), Big Stone (27011), Brown (27015), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Clay (27027), Cottonwood (27033), Dodge (27039), Douglas (27041), Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Hubbard (27057), Jackson (27063), Lac Qui Parle (27073), Le Sueur (27079), Lincoln (27081), Lyon (27083), Mille Lacs (27095), Norman (27107), Otter Tail (27111), Pipestone (27117), Pope (27121), Red Lake (27125), Redwood (27127), Rock (27133), Scott (27139), Stearns (27145)*, Steele (27147), Stevens (27149), Swift (27151), Todd (27153), Wabasha (27157)*, Washington (27163), Watonwan (27165), Wilkin (27167), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)*
MO Andrew (29003), Barton (29011), Benton (29015), Callaway (29027), Cedar (29039), Clinton (29049), Cole (29051), Dade (29057), Daviess (29061), Franklin (29071), Greene (29077), Harrison (29081), Henry (29083), Jasper (29097), Johnson (29101), Knox (29103), Lafayette (29107), Lawrence (29109), Livingston (29117), Macon (29121), Maries (29125), Mercer (29129), Monroe (29137), Morgan (29141), Newton (29145), Pettis (29159), Polk (29167), Putnam (29171), Randolph (29175), Saline (29195), St. Clair (29185), Ste. Genevieve (29186), Sullivan (29211), Vernon (29217), Worth (29227), Wright (29229)
MS Forrest (28035), Jackson (28059), Pearl River (28109)
NC Beaufort (37013), Bertie (37015), Brunswick (37019), Carteret (37031), Columbus (37047), Edgecombe (37065), Gates (37073), Martin (37117), Onslow (37133), Pender (37141), Pitt (37147), Wilson (37195)
NE Johnson (31097), Lancaster (31109), Otoe (31131), Pawnee (31133), Richardson (31147), Saline (31151)
NH Rockingham (33015)*
NJ Bergen (34003), Camden (34007)*, Cumberland (34011), Gloucester (34015)*, Hunterdon (34019), Mercer (34021)*, Middlesex (34023)*, Morris (34027)*, Somerset (34035)
NY Albany (36001), Allegany (36003), Broome (36007), Cattaraugus (36009), Chautauqua (36013), Chemung (36015), Chenango (36017), Erie (36029), Genesee (36037), Jefferson (36045), Livingston (36051), Monroe (36055), Montgomery (36057), Niagara (36063), Onondaga (36067)*, Orange (36071), Orleans (36073), Oswego (36075), Schoharie (36095), Schuyler (36097), Seneca (36099), St. Lawrence (36089), Steuben (36101), Tompkins (36109), Ulster (36111), Washington (36115), Wyoming (36121)
OH Adams (39001), Columbiana (39029), Harrison (39067), Highland (39071), Pike (39131), Ross (39141), Scioto (39145)
OK Kay (40071), Nowata (40105), Osage (40113), Rogers (40131), Tulsa (40143), Washington (40147)
PA Adams (42001)*, Berks (42011)*, Bradford (42015), Chester (42029)*, Franklin (42055), Lebanon (42075)*, Luzerne (42079)*, Lycoming (42081)*, Monroe (42089)*, Montgomery (42091)*, Northampton (42095)*, Northumberland (42097)*, Pike (42103)*, Susquehanna (42115), Union (42119)*, Wayne (42127)*, York (42133)*
SD Brookings (46011)*, Deuel (46039)*, Hand (46059)*, Hyde (46069)*, McPherson (46089), Miner (46097)
TN Coffee (47031), Lewis (47101), Montgomery (47125), Stewart (47161)
VA Pulaski (51155), Sussex (51183)
WI Calumet (55015), Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dodge (55027), Door (55029), Dunn (55033), Fond Du Lac (55039), Grant (55043), Green (55045), Green Lake (55047), Iowa (55049), Iron (55051), Jackson (55053), Kenosha (55059), La Crosse (55063), Lafayette (55065), Manitowoc (55071), Marathon (55073), Marinette (55075), Marquette (55077), Monroe (55081), Outagamie (55087), Pepin (55091), Polk (55095), Portage (55097), Rock (55105), Sauk (55111), Shawano (55115), St. Croix (55109), Taylor (55119), Vernon (55123), Walworth (55127), Waukesha (55133), Waushara (55137), Wood (55141)
WV Brooke (54009), Grant (54023), Hancock (54029), Mason (54053)*, Ohio (54069), Tucker (54093)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+*, Nashua (01070004)+*, Concord (01070005)+, Miller (01080202)+*, Charles (01090001)+*, Cape Cod (01090002)+*, Blackstone (01090003)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+*
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, Mohawk (02020004)+, Schoharie (02020005)+, Middle Hudson (02020006)+, Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Lackawaxen (02040103)+*, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+*, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+*, Lehigh (02040106)+*, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Lower Delaware (02040202)+*, Schuylkill (02040203)+*, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+*, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+*, Upper Susquehanna (02050101)+*, Chenango (02050102)+, Owego-Wappasening (02050103)+, Tioga (02050104)+, Chemung (02050105)+, Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock (02050106)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+*, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+*, Gunpowder-Patapsco (02060003)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Cacapon-Town (02070003)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, Monocacy (02070009)+*, Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010)+*, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+*, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02080110)+*
03 Lower Roanoke (03010107)+, Nottoway (03010201)+, Ghowan (03010203)+, Fishing (03020102)+, Lower Tar (03020103)+, Pamlico (03020104)+, Middle Neuse (03020202)+, Contentnea (03020203)+*, White Oak River (03020301)+, Northeast Cape Fear (03030007)+, Waccamaw (03040206)+, Coastal Carolina (03040208)+, Ogeechee Coastal (03060204)+, Altamaha (03070106)+, Cumberland-St. Simons (03070203)+, Apalachee Bay-St. Marks (03120001)+, Lower Ochlockonee (03120003)+, Upper Chattahoochee (03130001)+, Spring (03130010)+, Pascagoula (03170006)+, Black (03170007)+, Escatawpa (03170008)+, Mississippi Coastal (03170009)+, Lower Pearl. Mississippi (03180004)+
04 Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Peshtigo (04030105)+, Upper Fox (04030201)+, Wolf (04030202)+, Lake Winnebago (04030203)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Pike-Root (04040002)+*, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+, Maple (04050005)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Thornapple (04050007)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+, Muskegon (04060102)+, Thunder Bay (04070006)+, Kawkawlin-Pine (04080102)+, Pigeon-Wiscoggin (04080103)+, Birch-Willow (04080104)+, Pine (04080202)+, Shiawassee (04080203)+, Cass (04080205)+, St. Clair (04090001)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, Raisin (04100002)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Tiffin (04100006)+, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+, Cattaraugus (04120102)+, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+, Niagara (04120104)+, Oak Orchard-Twelvemile (04130001)+, Upper Genesee (04130002)+, Lower Genesee (04130003)+, Irondequoit-Ninemile (04140101)+, Salmon-Sandy (04140102)+, Seneca (04140201)+, Oneida (04140202)+, Oswego (04140203)+*, Black (04150101)+, Chaumont-Perch (04150102)+, Oswegatchie (04150302)+, Indian (04150303)+
05 Conewango (05010002)+, Cheat (05020004)+, Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Upper Ohio (05030101)+, Upper Ohio-Wheeling (05030106)+, Upper New (05050001)+, Lower Kanawha (05050008)+*, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+, Licking (05100101)+, South Fork Licking (05100102)+, North Fork Kentucky (05100201)+, Upper Kentucky (05100204)+*, Lower Kentucky (05100205)+, Upper Green (05110001)+, Barren (05110002)+, Middle Green (05110003)+, Rough (05110004)+, Lower Green (05110005)+, Pond (05110006)+, Salamonie (05120102)+, Eel (05120104)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Vermilion (05120109)+, Sugar (05120110)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Embarras (05120112)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Little Wabash (05120114)+, Skillet (05120115)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Eel (05120203)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Rockcastle (05130102)+, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, Obey (05130105)+*, Collins (05130107)+, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Red (05130206)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Salt (05140102)+, Rolling Fork (05140103)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+, Lower Ohio-Bay (05140203)+, Saline (05140204)+, Tradewater (05140205)+, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Upper Elk (06030003)+, Upper Duck (06040002)+, Lower Duck (06040003)+, Kentucky Lake (06040005)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 Elk-Nokasippi (07010104)+, Crow Wing (07010106)+, Sauk (07010202)+, Crow (07010204)+, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Rum (07010207)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Pomme De Terre (07020002)+, Lac Qui Parle (07020003)+*, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Chippewa (07020005)+, Redwood (07020006)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Cottonwood (07020008)+, Watonwan (07020010)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, Trempealeau (07040005)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Root (07040008)+, South Fork Flambeau (07050003)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Lake Dubay (07070002)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, South Skunk (07080105)+, North Skunk (07080106)+, Skunk (07080107)+, Shell Rock (07080202)+, Winnebago (07080203)+, West Fork Cedar (07080204)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Upper Rock (07090001)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Sugar (07090004)+, Lower Rock (07090005)+, Kishwaukee (07090006)+, Green (07090007)+, Des Moines Headwaters (07100001)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Lake Red Rock (07100008)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+, South Fabius (07110003)+, The Sny (07110004)+*, North Fork Salt (07110005)+, South Fork Salt (07110006)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+, Chicago (07120003)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+, Upper Illinois (07120005)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+, Lower Fox (07120007)+, Lower Illinois-Senachwine Lake (07130001)+, Vermilion (07130002)+, Lower Illinois-Lake Chautauqua (07130003)+, Mackinaw (07130004)+, Spoon (07130005)+, Upper Sangamon (07130006)+, Lower Sangamon (07130008)+, Salt (07130009)+, La Moine (07130010)+, Lower Illinois (07130011)+, Meramec (07140102)+, Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau (07140105)+, Big Muddy (07140106)+, Upper Kaskaskia (07140201)+, Middle Kaskaskia (07140202)+, Shoal (07140203)+, Lower Kaskaskia (07140204)+
08 Big (08020304)+, Bayou Meto (08020402)+, Little Missouri (08040103)+, Lower Ouachita-Bayou De Loutre (08040202)+, Lower Saline (08040204)+, Upper Calcasieu (08080203)+, Whisky Chitto (08080204)+
09 Bois De Sioux (09020101)+, Mustinka (09020102)+, Otter Tail (09020103)+, Upper Red (09020104)+, Buffalo (09020106)+, Eastern Wild Rice (09020108)+, Clearwater (09020305)+
10 Upper Lake Oahe (10130102)+, Medicine Knoll (10140103)+*, Crow (10140105)+*, Snake (10160008)+, Turtle (10160009)+*, Lower James (10160011)+, Upper Big Sioux (10170202)+*, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Rock (10170204)+, Salt (10200203)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, East Nishnabotna (10240003)+, Little Nemaha (10240006)+, South Fork Big Nemaha (10240007)+, Big Nemaha (10240008)+, West Nodaway (10240009)+, Platte (10240012)+, Lower Republican (10250017)+, Middle Smoky Hill (10260006)+, Lower Smoky Hill (10260008)+, Lower Saline (10260010)+, Solomon (10260015)+, Upper Kansas (10270101)+, Middle Kansas (10270102)+, Delaware (10270103)+, Lower Kansas (10270104)+, Lower Big Blue (10270205)+, Lower Little Blue (10270207)+, Upper Grand (10280101)+, Thompson (10280102)+, Lower Grand (10280103)+, Upper Chariton (10280201)+, Little Chariton (10280203)+, Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+, Marmaton (10290104)+, Harry S. Missouri (10290105)+, Sac (10290106)+, Pomme De Terre (10290107)+, South Grand (10290108)+, Lake of the Ozarks (10290109)+, Lower Osage (10290111)+, Upper Gasconade (10290201)+, Lower Missouri-Crooked (10300101)+, Lower Missouri-Moreau (10300102)+, Lamine (10300103)+, Blackwater (10300104)+
11 Spring (11010010)+, Upper Walnut River (11030017)+, Lower Walnut River (11030018)+, Kaw Lake (11060001)+, Black Bear-Red Rock (11060006)+, Upper Verdigris (11070101)+, Fall (11070102)+, Middle Verdigris (11070103)+, Lower Verdigris (11070105)+, Caney (11070106)+, Bird (11070107)+, Neosho headwaters (11070201)+, Lower Cottonwood (11070203)+, Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+, Spring (11070207)+, Illinois (11110103)+, Frog-Mulberry (11110201)+, Dardanelle Reservoir (11110202)+, Lower Red-Lake Iatt (11140207)+
12 Lower Sabine (12010005)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (sparrow).
General Description: ADULTS: Characterized by large flat head, large gray bill, and short tail. The head, nape, and most of the central crown stripe are olive-colored, with the wings extensively dark chestnut. The breast is finely streaked. When flushed, the bird flies low and jerkily, with a twisting motion of the tail. Otherwise, it is shy and secretive, with its presence most often revealed by its song (Peterson 1980, National Geographic Society 1987). The sexes have similar appearances. A cloacal protuberance (male) and brood patch (female) are reliable indicators of sex for living birds in the hand during the period from May through September (Pyle et al. 1987).

JUVENILES: Juveniles are clay-colored above and streaked on the head and back with black. Below, a faint yellow with tinges of buff on the chin and throat. The sides of the throat are typically unstreaked although occasional streaking may occur (Roberts 1949).

EGGS: The eggs are approximately 18.3 x 14.4 mm in size (Graber 1968) and are white with spots or blotches of brown, mostly at the larger end.

NESTS: Nests can be either open or domed and they are located from 0-50 cm above the litter (Hyde 1939, Robins 1971, Flanigan 1975). Those nests that are off the ground are attached to grass or forb stalks. Hyde (1939) describes a "typical" domed nest in southern Michigan as being located at the base of a clump of grass with dead grass from the clump forming an arched roof over the nest. The single entrance is located at an oblique angle on the side of the nest. Occasionally a nest is placed in a depression in the ground (Johnsgard 1979), but most are at least two cm above the substrate. The nest is loosely woven with dead grass and lined with finer grasses and hair.

VOCALIZATIONS: The song is distinctive and diagnostic: a short, quiet "see-lick," accented on the second syllable (Peterson 1980, National Geographic Society 1987). Sometimes sings on quiet nights, Given this bird's secretive nature, an ability to identify its song is essential for reliable census and survey work.

Diagnostic Characteristics: The striped, olive-colored head and reddish wings together are diagnostic.
Reproduction Comments: Two broods of young per breeding season (Hyde 1939), perhaps three (Robins 1971), are raised. The female does most or all of the nest-building, taking five to six days to complete the process. Clutch size is from three to five eggs. First clutches are normally completed by 20-30 May in the central part of the range (Hyde 1939, Graber 1968). Second nests are initiated in July and August with some extending into September (Robins 1971). Only the female incubates the eggs and broods the young. The incubation period lasts about 11 days and the young stay in the nest nine to ten days. Females make most of the feeding trips during the first four or five days of the nestling period and about 50% of the trips during the latter half (Robins 1971). Young are tended by both parents, leave nest at 9-10 days.

Of the 11 nests found in a southern Michigan brome hayfield, six (54.5%) produced at least one young (Robins 1971). Only one of the 11 nests (9.1%) successfully raised all of the young. Seventeen young were produced from a total of 46 eggs (37.0%).

Ecology Comments: PREDATORS: Potentially important predators include mammals, snakes, and birds of prey. A thirteen-lined ground squirrel (CITELLUS TRIDECEMLINEATUS) was observed taking a young sparrow from its nest in southern Michigan (Robins 1971). Hyde (1939) evicted a blue racer (COLUBER CONSTRICTOR) from a nest in Michigan. Remains have been found in the stomachs of northern harriers (CIRCUS CYANEUS) and sharp-shinned hawks (ACCIPITER STRIATUS) (Hyde 1939, Graber 1968). Skunks (MEPHITIS spp.), weasels (MUSTELA spp.), and raccoons (PROCYON spp.) also may prey on nests, especially those occurring in isolated fragments of suitable habitat.

PARASITISM: There have been very few reports of nests being parasitized by the brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) (Hyde 1939, Robins 1971). Considered an infrequent host for the brown-headed cowbird with a total of 11 instances of brood parasitism from Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Maryland (Friedmann 1963). Since nests are very difficult to find, the available data probably are insufficient to support any final conclusions regarding the frequency or intensity of cowbird brood parasitism and its potential effects on populations.

Territory boundaries not well-defined (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Have been reported to nest in loose "colonies" with contiguous territories (Hyde 1939, Wiens 1969, Johnsgard 1979), although Robins (1971) found that most of the territories in his southwestern Michigan study area were separated by buffer zones where no breeding sparrows occurred. The average size of a territory ranges from 0.3 ha in southwestern Michigan (Robins 1971) to 0.6 ha near Madison, Wisconsin (Wiens 1969). Territory size has been reported to increase through the summer (Robins 1971, Johnsgard 1979), although this may reflect movements of adults in response to the wanderings of recently fledged young that still require parental care. Robins (1971) found that the average territory size was smallest and the population density highest in areas with the tallest and densest vegetation.

Conclusions regarding territory size and management strategies based on published information about territory size need to be interpreted with caution, since it is well known that territory size in many songbirds is closely related to the availability of food. When food is easily available, territory size tends to be smaller than when food is scarce. Likewise, although it is widely reported in the literature that Henslow's sparrows are colonial, it does not appear that they are more colonial than other sparrows. The fact that larger numbers tend to occur in more suitable habitat does not necessarily imply that this bird is colonial in the true sense of the word as it usually is applied to herons, gulls, terns, or colonially nesting swallows. The "clumping" may be a secondary effect of the clumped nature of suitable habitat in most situations.

No specific data are available on site fidelity but several authors have commented that local populations tend to be unstable from year to year (Hyde 1939, Wiens 1969, Robins 1971). On the other hand, birds are reported to have bred consistently in some undisturbed, protected areas, like Hayden Prairie in Iowa (Ennis 1959) and Goose Lake Prairie in Illinois (Birkenholz 1983).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Begins spring migration from wintering grounds in the mid-Atlantic and Gulf coast states in early March (Hyde 1939). By the second or third week of April, the birds have reached Kansas, southern Michigan, West Virginia, and New Jersey (Hyde 1939, Hall 1983, Robins 1971) and, by the middle of May, they have arrived at the northern limits of their range in New England, southern Ontario, and eastern South Dakota (Hyde 1939, Whitney et al. 1978, Johnsgard 1979).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Open fields and meadows with grass interspersed with weeds or shrubby vegetation, especially in damp or low-lying areas, adjacent to salt marsh in some areas. Uses unmowed hayfields (abandoned if cut). Found in a variety of habitats that contain tall, dense grass and herbaceous vegetation (Smith 1968, 1992). Hyde (1939) describes a variety of preferred habitats: upland weedy hayfields or pastures without shrubs, wet meadows, drier areas of saltmarshes, grassy fields, and sedgy hillsides with recently planted pine seedlings (PINUS spp.). Graber (1968) found that their habitat was usually quite dense from 30-61 cm off the ground and reported them to be "adapted" to unmowed hayfields. In New York, Peterson (1983) found them in large, ungrazed fields, often on hilltops, with a variety of moisture regimes and no woody invasion. They are not typically associated with grazed areas (Peterson 1983, Zimmerman 1988), although they can survive quite well in pastures that are only lightly (Skinner 1975) or moderately (Smith and Smith 1990) grazed.

Wiens (1969), in his three year study, found four territories in the first and third years and none in the second year. He found that territories had a low percent cover of forbs, dense vegetation, a high effective vegetation height, little bare ground or low vegetation, and no trees, posts, or fence lines.

In eastern part of range, are reported in "...moist upland meadows not under the plow, grown up to clumps of ferns, tall meadow rue (THALICTRUM spp.), and scattered shrubbery" in Vermont (Kibbe and Laughlin 1985); "...in small swales, meadows or other moist grassy lands...in fields of heavy timothy or clover" in Massachusetts (Forbush 1929); and "...in grassy fields and meadows with scattered bushes and herbaceous plants, both in wet and dry situations" in New York (Bull 1974). In addition to the above types of habitats, occurrences have been reported in wet meadows vegetated by sedges (CAREX spp.), rushes (SCIRPUS spp.) and grasses, in fields of seedling pines, and in drier upland portions of saltmarshes in the Northeast (Craig 1979).

Along the Atlantic Coast, the birds probably nested on the edges of saltmarshes before the arrival of Europeans (Hyde 1939, Craig 1979). In West Virginia, Hall (1983) reports that Henslow's sparrows "...prefer fields with growths of orchard grass [DACTYLIS GLOMERATA] or a rank weedy growth." Birds in Maryland have occurred chiefly in broomsedge (CAREX SCOPARIA) fields and weedy sedge meadows, and occasionally in hayfields (Stewart and Robbins 1958). Near Louisville, Kentucky, "...exclusively in or near fields largely or wholly composed of the orchard grass much raised locally as a crop, and has preferred the crop fields to patches of untended grass" (Mengel 1965). In Kentucky, Mengel (1965) noted that the sparrow often occurred in association with sedge wrens (CISTOTHORUS PLATENSIS) and in dry, upland sites that were in marked contrast to the marshy, meadow habitats considered typical habitat by Hyde (1939).

In the Midwest and Great Plains regions, formerly bred in tallgrass prairie interspersed with forbs and shrubs. Where tallgrass prairie persists, J. Zimmerman (pers. comm.) reports that they still use it for nesting habitat in Kansas and Missouri. At present, typical breeding habitat includes neglected grassy fields, pastures and meadows with scattered shrubby vegetation, or hayfields with dense cover, usually in damp or low-lying areas (Whitney et al. 1978, Johnsgard 1979, AOU 1983). Bajema et al. (2001) document extensive use of grasslands on reclaimed coal mines in southwestern Indiana, and estimated a density of 0.16 males per hectare, suggesting an overall population of 'a few thousand' in the mine grasslands of southwestern Indiana.

In a brome grass/alfalfa/red clover hayfield in southwestern Michigan, they bred in areas with an intermediate moisture range, a continuous cover of grasses and sedges about 0.8 m high, occasional shrubs, mostly less than 0.9 m high, and accumulated litter (no data on litter depth or percent coverage) (Robins 1971).

Fall and Eliason (1982) located a nest in Hennepin County, Minnesota, at the top of a knoll in an old field. Timothy comprised about 80% of the biomass of the 0.5 m-high vegetation. Except for a few shrubs approximately 0.5 m-high, there was no woody vegetation within 100 m, the vegetation covered about 75% of the soil surface, and there was a complete litter layer up to five cm deep.

Wiens (1969) compared the vegetation structure at nests with the vegetation in unoccupied areas in Fitchburg, Wisconsin. Occupied areas had significantly lower coverage and density of forbs, especially broad-leaved types, and the forb height was significantly greater (occupied average height = 27 cm). In occupied areas, the vertical vegetation density was higher and the litter was deeper and covered a higher percentage of the soil surface (average depth = 4.3 cm, 93% coverage).

Nest is well-hidden in grass, either at base of grass tuft (usually) or to 40 cm up in stems of growing herbage.

NON-BREEDING: In migration and winter also occurs in grassy areas adjacent to pine woods or second-growth woods. No detailed descriptions or studies of the habitat requirements of the winter range are available.

Adult Food Habits: Granivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Granivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats crickets, grasshoppers, beetles, caterpillars, and other insects, spiders, and seeds of herbaceous plants; forages on the ground (Terres 1980). Young are fed insects. In birds from southern Michigan, 36% of the adult diet was crickets and short-horned grasshoppers, beetles about 19%, vegetable matter another 18%, and spiders, butterfly larvae and bees the remainder (Hyde 1939). About 80% of the nestling diet in two Michigan studies consisted of grasshopper and butterfly larvae (Hyde 1939, Robins 1971).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 13 centimeters
Weight: 13 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Breeds in a variety of grassland habitats with tall, dense grass and herbaceous vegetation. In the Northeast, uses hayfields, pastures, wet meadows, dry saltmarsh areas, and old grassy fields. Nests are typically constructed on or near to the ground and are comprised of woven grasses. Populations have declined throughout the range, but remain most abundant in the western portion of the Great Lakes Plain and in Minnesota. In the Northeast, they are sparse and localized in the mid-Atlantic and southern states. Population declines have been attributed to the loss of grassland breeding habitats, either from encroaching urbanization or succession to shrublands and forests. Intensive production of row crops also reduces or eliminates the use of hay fields and grazing land. Fragmentation of grasslands into patches less than 30 ha in size may also preclude use. Therefore, a minimum area of 30 ha or more of contiguous grassland habitat should be preserved at any site (Smith and Smith 1990, Zimmerman 1988). Breeding populations should be monitored annually in localized areas that are inhabited. Management activities that enhance grassland productivity such as mowing, burning, and grazing should be encouraged, but units subject to these management efforts should not be disturbed from mid-May through August. Management regimes that produce dense and moderately tall grassy vegetation (> 30 cm) from mid-May through mid-August should be considered. In general, mowing, grazing, and/or burning may be needed to maintain habitat in the long term but may be detrimental to local populations in the short term. Woody species should be removed. At this time, it is not clear what management objectives should be with respect to litter depth. Significant differences appear between nesting habitat preferences in eastern sites when compared to midwestern locations. These differences could correspond to differences in habitat selection by the two recognized subspecies. Therefore, different management recommendations should be considered, particularly with respect to the roles played by fire and grazing, and the requirements for standing dead vegetation and litter depth in the two regions. Also, the role of litter depth in habitat selection has not been sufficiently investigated in eastern locations. Due to the prevalence of this species on reclaimed strip-mines in some areas (e.g., Pennsylvania), management should attempt to maintain these habitats for continued use.

Recommendations from Herkert (1998) are:

Where possible, provide > 30 ha of contiguous grassland (Zimmerman 1988, Smith and Smith 1992, Mazur 1996). If contiguous management units are not available, provide a complex of smaller units located near enough to one another to facilitate colonization from adjacent territories in available habitat (Mazur 1996). Grassland restoration areas should be > 50 ha and preferably > 100 ha in size (Herkert et al. 1993).

Never burn, mow, or otherwise disturb an entire area in one breeding season because disturbance reduces available habitat for one or two growing seasons (Herkert et al. 1993, Hanson 1994, Melde and Koford 1996). Implement a rotational disturbance regime to maintain grassland habitat (Zimmerman 1988, Herkert 1994b, Melde and Koford 1996). In order to avoid destruction of nests, conduct management treatments before birds arrive in the spring (15 April) or after the young have fledged (15 September) (Smith 1992, Hanson 1994, Mazur 1996). In Missouri, implement conservation haying (one annual cut after mid-July) on a two to three year rotation (Swengel 1996) and provide idle or lightly grazed grasslands. Light grazing was defined as grazing pressure that left > 40% vegetative cover at 25 cm (Skinner 1982, Skinner et al. 1984).

Provide dense and moderately tall (> 30 cm) grassy vegetation (Smith 1992). Removal of woody vegetation is needed when it becomes taller than the fully grown herbaceous vegetation (Smith 1992, Herkert et al. 1993, Mazur 1996).

Prevent encroachment of woody vegetation with periodic prescribed fire (Eddleman 1974). In Kansas, use a rotational burning program in which 3-4 adjacent tracts of prairie are burned on a 3-4 yr cycle; incidental observations suggest that each patch should be 30 ha (Zimmerman 1988). In Illinois, use a rotational burning program in which 20-30% of the site is burned each year. Management units should be at least 20-30 ha, if possible (Herkert 1994b). In Missouri tallgrass prairie, annually burn one-third to one-half of a management area to maintain suitable habitat (Clawson 1991). Prescribed burns should be conducted in early spring (March to early April) or late fall (October and November) (Herkert et al. 1993). In New York, burn once every five to six year or mow every four to five year (Mazur 1996). These intervals will allow vegetation to recover between disturbances to provide suitable habitat while keeping succession in check.

Restoration Potential: In the Northeast, urbanization and successional change, with encroachment of woody species into suitable nesting habitats, are reducing the amount of available breeding habitat and seriously affecting populations. It may be difficult to recover or maintain these populations. In the rest of its range, populations probably could be maintained if efforts to preserve the largest and most viable populations and to prevent further fragmentation of suitable habitat are begun immediately. Other grassland species would benefit from aggressive acquisition and management of grassland habitats, as well (Smith and Smith 1990).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Efforts should be made to identify and prevent fragmentation of breeding habitats. In Illinois, rarely encountered on grassland fragments of less than 100 ha (though area at which probability of occurrence was 50% of maximum was 55 ha); preferred areas having tall, dense vegetation with a high proportion of residual standing dead plant material; prescribed burning and mowing removed preferred habitat features and significantly reduced bird densities within parts of grasslands that recently had been managed (Herkert 1994). In New York, present in pastures consisting of at least 30 ha of grassland (Smith and Smith 1990). This result corresponds to the casual observations of Zimmerman (1988) in Kansas, who recommends that management should be carried out on plots of at least 30 ha. These values also fall within Samson's (1980) estimation of 10-100 ha as the minimum area required to support a viable breeding population, though Samson does not elaborate upon the basis for his conclusions. Peterson's (1983) study in Broome County, New York, found that occurrence was related to distance from the horizon, a measure strongly correlated with grassland area. These apparent minimum area requirements are far from proven and may not hold for all regions. Older accounts reported about 12 pairs living in four ha of dense grass in Pymatuning Swamp in northwestern Pennsylvania and four pairs in a field of only 3.6 ha (Graber 1968). The indications from recent work, that size is important in habitat choice, may be confounded by the fact that the bird is declining. During periods of decline, a species is less likely to saturate the available habitats and may occupy only the highest quality sites (O'Connor 1981), giving an inaccurate impression of the range of habitats it potentially may occupy at higher population densities.
Management Requirements: GRAZING: Skinner (1975) gave no data on the intensity or frequency of grazing on his study area, but he found birds on grazed lands with 20.3-30.4 cm-high vegetation. Few birds were found on grazed areas with shorter vegetation heights. Hyde (1939) reports one instance where a cow trampled a nest; this form of nest destruction may be an important consideration. In New York, Smith and Smith (1990) found pastures being used that were grazed by cattle from mid-May through mid-October and from which approximately 60% of each year's annual productivity of herbaceous biomass was removed. Pastures had an average grass height of 61.3 cm. Favorable conditions were produced with maintenance mowing in mid-August and cattle grazing at a stocking rate of 0.05-0.10 head/acre (Smith and Smith 1992). The use of pastures is encouraging, since the likelihood of destruction of nests, eggs, and young by mowing is greatly reduced in such areas.

MOWING: Hyde (1939) and the Illinois Natural History Survey (1983) imply that nesting will occur in hayfields that are mowed every year. Smith (1963) notes that nesting birds in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, abandon hayfields that are mowed in mid to late June, and two nests were destroyed in Vermont during haying operations in August (Kibbe and Laughlin 1983). In New York, mowing of a hayfield in June led to abandonment of the habitat by five territorial males. Smith and Smith (1990) found no relationships between frequency of mowing and occurrences, as long as mowing activities were undertaken well after the nesting season (no earlier than mid-August in upstate New York). Periodic mowing may be a viable option for maintaining grasslands suitable for use, provided that mowing is done well after the breeding season is concluded and young and adults have dispersed.

Zimmerman (1988) noted the apparent preference for areas with large amounts of standing dead vegetation and proposed two possible explanations for his observation: first, that the standing dead vegetation discouraged new growth and provided more ground area for foraging, and second, that the standing dead vegetation served to protect the nest from predation, parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, and microclimate extremes. Studies by Smith and Smith (1990) in New York show that the birds prefer high productivity areas with a higher annual growth of new vegetation, suggesting that Zimmerman's first hypothesis may not be applicable to eastern sites.

In Kansas, Zimmerman (1988) found that the birds did not breed in areas that were moderately grazed the preceding summer. Based on this observation, he concluded that any practice that reduced the standing dead vegetation in a field would eliminate the sparrow. On Finger Lakes National Forest in New York, the occurrence in grazed pastures that were mowed the previous year does not support Zimmerman's conclusion (Smith and Smith 1990); however, the grazing intensities observed by Zimmerman may have been higher than those in New York, accounting for the absence from his sites. The mowing discrepancy may be explained by one of two hypotheses. First, since Zimmerman's work was done during June and the work of Smith and Smith (1990) during July and August, this later seasonal work gave the vegetation a chance to regrow and allowed the birds to move into these newly regrown areas after losing or raising their first brood. This could be the case since Robins (1971) found that most birds in Michigan raise two or three broods, defend territories for as long as two months, and frequently change the location of their territories during the breeding season. Alternatively, mowing during late July and August and removing cattle in mid-October, as practiced on Finger Lakes National Forest, allows time for vegetation to regrow partially before winter, possibly providing enough residual cover in spring to attract Henslow's sparrows.

BURNING: In Kansas, breeding did not occur in areas that were burned the preceding spring (Zimmerman 1988). In Missouri, avoided locating territories in prairie areas burned the previous year, suggesting the importance of residual cover (Figg 1991). In Illinois, recent burning or mowing had a negative impact on populations (Herkert 1994). There is evidence that the bird prefers some litter (Wiens 1969, Zimmerman 1988), and burning reduces litter depth. If burning stimulated herbaceous growth, it could be beneficial to populations because the birds appear to require tall, dense vegetation for nesting. On the other hand, spring burning could prevent or delay nesting until herbaceous cover is reestablished (Bowles 1981).

REMOVAL OF WOODY SPECIES: If allowed to progress to a shrubland seral stage, encroaching woody species will eventually eliminate habitat. It appears that grasslands, hayfields, and moderately grazed pastures are optimal habitats, and that some invasion by woody species will be tolerated. Henslow's sparrows are believed to be disappearing from New England because of conversion of old fields to forest. A reversal of this process may help the bird.

Monitoring Requirements: Annual monitoring of populations is recommended, but nest visits by humans to collect productivity data may lead to increased predation since predators follow human scent trails (Smith 1992). Censusing is best done from one hour before to one hour after sunrise at the peak of the breeding season.
Management Research Needs: The following management research needs are listed in order of decreasing priority:

1) Document occurrences on all existing managed areas, both public and private.

2) Initiate annual monitoring of all populations occurring on preserves, counting all singing males present during each breeding season.

3) Identify and characterize habitats on wintering grounds in the southeastern U.S., giving special attention to occurrences on any private preserves or public lands.

Biological Research Needs: The following research needs were identified by Smith (1992). Initiate studies to determine the degree of site and mate fidelity and annual mortality and reproductive success rates, taking special care not to introduce additional sources of predation into studied populations. The effects of preserve size and habitat fragmentation on populations needs to be documented. Studies should be initiated that examine the impacts of various frequencies and timings of burning, mowing and grazing on existing, stable populations. Zimmerman (pers. comm. 1994) commented on unpublished data that demonstrates that Henslow's sparrows do not show site fidelity or even philopatry. Annual population fluctuations should be investigated (Fleckenstein pers. comm. 1994). Research also needed on how particular management practices influences the reproductive success of the sparrow (Herkert et al. 2002).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Nest Site, Nesting Colony
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding, or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Mapping Guidance: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas.

For swallows and other species that have separate nesting and foraging areas, separations are based on nest sites or nesting areas, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap larger than the separation distance are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Mean foraging radius (from nesting area) of Brown-headed Cowbird females was 4.0 kilometers in California, 1.2 kilometers in Illinois-Missouri (Thompson 1994). Yellow-headed Blackbirds, Brewer's Blackbirds, and probably Red-winged Blackbirds all forage up to 1.6 kilometers away from breeding colony (Willson 1966, Horn 1968). In one study, Brewer's Blackbirds were found as far as 10 kilometers from nesting area (Williams 1952), but this may be unusual.

For swallows and other parrerines with similar behavioral ecology, separation distance pertains to nest sites or nesting colonies, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap of more than 5 km are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: For most passerines: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating individuals (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat.

For swallows: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 100 birds in appropriate habitat (e.g., traditional roost sites).

Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually.

EOs should not be described for species that are nomadic during nonbreeding season: e.g., Lark Bunting.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary but intended to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Any area used traditionally in the nonbreeding season (used for populations that are not resident in a location year-round). Minimally, reliable observations of 10 or more individuals in appropriate habitat for 20 or more days at a time. For G1-G3 species, observations of fewer individuals could constitute an occurrence of conservation value. Sites used during migration should be documented under the 'migratory stopover' location use class.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance is necessarily arbitrary but attempts to balance the high mobility of birds with the need for occurrences of reasonable spatial scope. Note that a population's roost sites and foraging areas are parts of the same occurrence, even if they are more than 5 km apart.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Nonmigratory
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a particular location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in or near appropriate habitat.

These occurrence specifications are used for nonmigratory populations of passerine birds.

Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and breeding-season foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Blue jays have small summer home ranges but fly up to 4 kilometers to harvest mast (Tarvin and Woolfenden 1999). Flocks of pinyon jays range over 21-29 square kilometers (Ligon 1971, Balda and Bateman 1971); nesting and foraging areas may be widely separated. Tricolored blackbirds forage in flocks that range widely to more than 15 kilometers from the nesting colony (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 15Sep2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jennings, R., J.C. Whittaker, and G. Hammerson. REVISIONS BY M. KOENEN AND D.W. MEHLMAN, 2008. Revisions by C. C. NeSmith, 2014.
Management Information Edition Date: 01Jun1992
Management Information Edition Author: SMITH, C. R.; REVISIONS BY D. W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Parts of this abstract were originally published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Schneider and Pence (1992). Funding for the preparation of the original document was made possible by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. Additional state specific information that contributed significantly to this report was supplied by state fish and wildlife agencies and state Natural Heritage Programs. J. Zimmerman and W. Sabin critically reviewed an earlier draft of this status report and made a number of helpful suggestions. Financial support of parts of the research cited in this abstract was provided through Hatch Project NYC-171401, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to C. R. Smith.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 06Dec1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., AND D.W. MEHLMAN

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Alabama Ornithological Society. 2006. Field checklist of Alabama birds. Alabama Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Alabama. [Available online at http://www.aosbirds.org/documents/AOSChecklist_april2006.pdf ]

  • American Ornithologists Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pages.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • Andrle, Robert F. and Janet R. Carroll, editors. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell University Press. 551 pp.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des oiseaux du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 13 pages.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des poissons du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 9 pages.

  • Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithol. 7:1-57.

  • Austen, M. 1997. National Recovery Plan for Henslow's Sparrow. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Report No. 17. 45 pp.

  • Austen, M., R. Pratt, M. Cadman, D. Cuddy and R. Knapton. 1994. National Recovery Plan for Henslow's Sparrow - Draft. Prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region, and the Endangered Species Recovery Fund, c/o World Wildlife Fund. 48 pp.

  • Austen, M.J.W. 1994. Henslow's Sparrow: an up-date. Ontario Birds 12(2):59-66.

  • Austen, M.J.W., M.D. Cadman and R.D. James. 1994. Ontario Birds at Risk: Status and Conservation Needs. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, and Long Point Bird Observatory, Port Rowan, Ontario. 165 pp.

  • Austen, M.J.W., M.D. Cadman, and R.D. James. 1994. Ontario birds at risk: status and conservation needs. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. 165 p.

  • Austen, M.J.W., R. Pratt, M.D. Cadman, D. Cuddy and R. Knapton. 1997. National Recovery Plan for Henslow's Sparrow. RENEW Report No. 17, 45 pp.

  • Austen, M.J.W., and M.D. Cadman. 1993. Updated status report on the Henslow's Sparrow AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario. 26 pp.

  • Austen, M.J.W., and M.D. Cadman. [1993]. Updated status report on the Henslow's sparrow, Ammodramus henslowii, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 22 pp. + appendices.

  • B83COM01NAUS - Added from 2005 data exchange with Alberta, Canada.

  • BRECHEISEN, WILLIAM R. 1987. NOTES FROM TELEPHONE CONVERSA- TION WITH WHB, 9 JULY.

  • Bajema, R. A., T. L. DeVault, P. E. Scott, and S. L. Lima. 2001. Reclaimed coal mine grasslands and their significance for Henslow's Sparrows in the American Midwest. Auk 118:422-431.

  • Balda, R. P., and G. C. Bateman. 1971. Flocking and annual cycle of the piñon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus. Condor 73:287-302.

  • Bellerby, G. 1967. Field notes for "The Green Lane", King Tp., York Co., Henslow's Sparrow colony. 4 pp.

  • Bent, A.C., et al. 1968. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. Part Two. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 237. (reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY).

  • Best, L.B. 1986. Conservation tillage: ecological traps for nesting birds? Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14:308-317.

  • BirdLife International. (2013-2014). IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on various dates in 2013 and 2014. http://www.birdlife.org/

  • Birkenholz, D.E. 1983. Population trends of some birds at Goose Lake Prairie. Illinois Audubon Bulletin 204:37-42.

  • Bohlen, H.D. 1989. The birds of Illinois. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. 221pp.

  • Bolin, K. E. 1996. A draft plan for Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) habitat management at O.L. Kipp State Park, Winona County, Minnesota. 9 pp.

  • Bollinger, E.K. 1988. Breeding dispersion and reproductive success of bobolinks in an agricultural landscape. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 189 pp.

  • Bowles, M. L., editor. 1981. Endangered and threatened vertebrate animals and vascular plants of Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation. 214 pp.

  • Bull, J. 1974. Birds of New York state. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Reprint, 1985 (with Supplement, Federation of New York Bird Clubs, 1976), Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.

  • Bull, John. 1974. Birds of New York State. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 655 pp.

  • Byrd, M. A., and D. W. Johnston. 1991. Birds. Pages 477-537 in K. Terwilliger, coordinator. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publ. Co., Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner (eds.) 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario. 617 pp.

  • Campbell, Jim, and Midge Lechner. 1995. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species. Observation Notes. 4 pp.

  • Carter, M., C. Hunter, D. Pashley, and D. Petit. 1998. The Watch List. Bird Conservation, Summer 1998:10.

  • Carter, M., G. Fenwick, C. Hunter, D. Pashley, D. Petit, J. Price, and J. Trapp. 1996. Watchlist 1996: For the future. Field Notes 50(3):238-240.

  • Clawson, R.L. 1991. Henslow's Sparrow habitat, site fidelity, and reproduction in Missouri. Final Report. Federal Aid Project Number W-13-R-45, Study Number 18, Job Number 1. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 16 pp.

  • Cosburn, T. 1994. Regarding rare and endangered Ontario birds. Unpublished, letter to D.A. Sutherland, dated February 28, 1994. 2 pp.

  • Craig, R.J. 1979. The rare vertebrates of Connecticut. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, CT. 169 pp.

  • DICKEY, S. S. 1914. THE HENSLOW'S SPARROW: A SUMMER RESIDENT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. THE OOLOGIST 30(12):299-300.

  • DICKINSON, MARY B., ED. 1999. FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA, 3RD ED. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 480 PP.

  • Dale, E.M.S. 1932. Some 1930 bird notes from London, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 46:106-108.

  • Dale, E.M.S. 1934. Some 1931 bird notes from London, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 48:95-96.

  • Dale, E.M.S. 1935. Some 1932 bird notes from London, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 49:57-58.

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

  • Eddleman, W.R. 1974. The effects of burning and grazing on bird populations in native prairie in the Kansas Flint Hills. Unpublished report, National Science Foundation-Undergraduate Research Program. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 33 pp.

  • Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.

  • Ennis, J. H. 1959. Some notes on the Hayden Prairie, with special reference to Henslow's sparrow. Iowa Bird Life 29:82-5.

  • Fall, B. A., and R. D. Eliason. 1982. Henslow's sparrow nest, Hennepin County. Loon 54:192.

  • Figg, D. E. 1991. Missouri Department of Conservation Annual Nongame and Endangered Species Report July 1990 - June 1991. ii + 35 pp.

  • Flanigan, A. B. 1975. Banding of nestling Henslow's sparrows. Inland Bird-Banding News 47:136-9.

  • Forbush, E. H. 1925-1929. Birds of Massachusetts and other New England states. 3 vols. Massachusetts Dept. Agric., Boston.

  • Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic Cowbird. Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

  • GM Sutton Avian Research Center (GMSARC). 1999. Henslow Sparrow in Oklahoma. Online. Available: http://www.suttoncenter.org/dist.html.

  • Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 596 pp. + plates.

  • Graber, J. W. 1968. PASSERBERBULUS HENSLOWII HENSLOWII. Pages 779-88 in Bent, A. C. Life Histories of North American Cardinals, Grosbeaks, Buntings, Towhees, Finches, Sparrows, and Allies. Part 2. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 237:603-1248.

  • Greenlaw, Jon S., Bill Pranty, and Reed Bowman.  2014.  Robertson and Woolfenden Florida Bird Species:  An Annotated List.  Special Publication No. 8, Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville, FL.
     

  • HANDS, H.M., R.D. DROBNEY AND M.R. RYAN. 1989. STATUS OF THE HENSLOW'S SPARROW IN THE NORTH CENTRAL UNITED STATES. MO COOP. FISH AND WILDL. RESEARCH UNIT, UNIV. OF MO, FOR THE U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. 12 PP.

  • HANSON, L. 1987. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE HENSLOW'S SPARROW IN SOUTHEASTERN MINNESOTA. THE LOON 59:121-124.

  • HYDE, A.S. 1939. THE LIFE HISTORY OF HENSLOW'S SPARROW, PASSERHEBULUS HESLOWI (AUDUBON). MUSEUM OF ZOOL. MISC. PUBL. NO. 41., UNIV. OF MI, ANN ARBOR. 79 PP.

  • Hall, G.A. 1983. West Virginia birds: distribution and ecology. Spec. Publ. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 7, Pittsburgh. 180 pp.

  • Hands, H. M., R. D. Drobney, and M. R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the Henslow's sparrow in the northcentral United States. Missouri Coop. Fish Wildl. Res. Unit Rep. 12 pp.

  • Hanson, L. G. 1987. Final report on the Henslow's Sparrow in Minnesota. Submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpaged.

  • Hanson, L. G. 1994. The Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) of Minnesota: population status and breeding habitat analysis. M.S. Thesis, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan. 39 pp.

  • Hanson, L.G. 1994. The Henslow's Sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) of Minnesota: population status and breeding habitat analysis. M.S. thesis. Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI. 29 pp.

  • Hanson, Lynelle G. 1987-1989. The Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) of Minnesota: Population Status and Breeding Habitat Analysis. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Thesis. Results in unpublished report.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds' nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.

  • Haw, James. 1994. Summer Observations of Endangered Bird Species.

  • Heagy, A. n.d. Endangered Species Recovery Initiatives: Loggerhead Shrike and Henslow's Sparrow. OBAR Newsletter, Vol. 3(1): 6.

  • Herkert, J. R. 1994. Status of habitat selection of the Henslow's Sparrow in Illinois. Wilson Bulletin 106:35-45.

  • Herkert, J. R. 1994c. Status and habitat selection of the Henslow's sparrow in Illinois. Wilson Bull. 106:35-45.

  • Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

  • Herkert, J.R. 1991. An ecological study of the breeding birds of grassland habitats within Illinois. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Ill., Urbana, IL. 115pp.

  • Herkert, J.R. 1994a. Breeding bird communities of Midwest prairie fragments: the effects of prescribed burning and habitat-area. Natural Areas Journal 14:128-135.

  • Herkert, J.R. 1994b. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4(3):461-471.

  • Herkert, J.R. 1997. Population trends of the Henslow's Sparrow in relation to the conservation reserve program in Illinois, 1975-1995. Journal of Field Ornithology 68(2):235-244.

  • Herkert, J.R. 1998. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Henslow's Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 14 pp.

  • Herkert, J.R., P.D. Vickery and D.E. Kroodsma. 2002. Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/

  • Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen, and J.E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat establishment, enhancement and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage, Natural Heritage Technical Publication 1, Springfield, IL. 20 pp.

  • Herkert, James R., Peter D. Vickery and Donald E. Kroodsma. 2002. Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/672
     

  • Herkert, James. 1990. Species-area relationships of prairie birds withing Illinois. FY90 Nongame Report to IDOC. 21 p.

  • Holler, J. 1991. A study of prairie avifauna in northwestern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 76 pp.

  • Holler, J. 1991. Rothsay bird study. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 28 pp.

  • Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's Blackbird. Ecology 49:682-694.

  • Hyde, A. S. 1939. The life history of Henslow's sparrow, Passerherbulus henslowii (Audubon). University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Misc. Pub. No. 41. 72. pp.

  • Illinois Natural History Survey. 1983. The declining grassland birds. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Rep. 227:1-2.

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pages.

  • JOHNSGARD,P.A.1979.BIRDS OF THE GREAT PLAINS,BREEDING SPECIES AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION. UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PRESS. LINCOLN.

  • JOHNSTON,R.F.1964. THE BREEDING BIRDS OF KANSAS. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. LAWRENCE.

  • JOHNSTON,R.F.1965. A DIRECTORY TO THE BIRDS OF KANSAS. MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. LAWRENCE.

  • Johnsgard, P. A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains: breeding species and their distribution. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 539 pp.

  • Keller, Charles E. 1992. The Birds of Greater Indianapolis and Adjacent Areas. 70 Ind. Aud. Q. 1-5.

  • Kibbe, D.P., and S.B. Laughlin. 1985. Henslow's sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII). Pages 404-405 in S.B. Laughlin and D.P. Kibbe (editors). The atlas of breeding birds of Vermont. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire. 456 pp.

  • Knapton, R.W. 1982. The Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) in Canada: a status report. Prepared under contract for the Nongame Program, Wildlife Branch, OMNR. 77 pp.

  • Knapton, R.W. 1984. A search for Henslow's Sparrows during the 1984 breeding season in the Central and Southwestern Regions, Ontario. Unpublished report for Wildlife Branch, OMNR. 29 pp + 5 maps.

  • Knapton, R.W. 1984. Status report on Henslow's Sparrow AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 77 pp.

  • Knapton, R.W. 1984. Status report on Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii. COSEWIC report. 77pp.

  • Knapton, R.W. 1984. Status report on the Henslow's Sparrow AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario. 77 pp.

  • Knapton, R.W. 1984. The Henslow's Sparrow in Ontario: a historical perspective. Ontario Birds 2:70-74.

  • Knapton, R.W. 1993. The Henslow's Sparrow in Ontario - more disturbing news. Birders Journal 2(5):255-256.

  • Lagacé M., L. Blais et D. Banville. 1983. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Première édition. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 100

  • Levine, E. 1998. Bull's birds of New York State. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.

  • Ligon, J. D. 1971. Late summer-autumnal breeding of the piñon jay in New Mexico. Condor 73:147-153.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The Birds of Louisiana. LSU Press. 651pp.

  • Mazur, R. 1996. Implication of field management for Henslow's Sparrow habitat at Saratoga National Historic Park, New York. M.S. thesis. University of New York, Syracuse, NY. 33 pp.

  • McDonald, E, and R.John. 1974. Birds of the Port Hope and Cobourg Area. Willow Beach Field Naturalists.

  • McGowan, K.J. and K. Corwin, eds. 2008. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State: 2000-2005. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 688 pp.

  • Melde, P.B., and R.R. Koford. 1996. Henslow's Sparrow nesting observations, habitat associations and history in Iowa. Iowa Bird Life 66:117-122.

  • Mengel, R.M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. American Ornithologists' Union, Ornithological Monographs No. 3, Washington, D.C. 581 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Moore, W. S., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1989. The use of banding recovery data to estimate dispersal rates and gene flow in avian species: case studies in the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle. Condor 91:242-253.

  • Mount, R. H., editor. 1986. Vertebrate animals of Alabama in need of special attention. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama. 124 pages.

  • Mumford, Russell E. and Vivian A. Mumford. 1984. Birds of the Willow Slough Fish and Wildlife Area, Indiana. 62 (2) Ind. Aud. Q. 51-65.

  • National Audubon Society (2010). The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online]. Available http://www.christmasbirdcount.org [2014].
     

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field guide to the birds of North America. Second edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1999. Field guide to the birds of North America. Third edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 480 pp.

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

  • NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 19, 2005).

  • NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: various dates, 2014 ).

  • Nelson, E.W. 1876. Birds of north-eastern Illinois. Bull. Essex Inst. 8:90-155.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005. Element Occurrence Database subset. Albany, NY.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005. New York State Breeding Bird Atlas Database. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Albany, NY.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp.

  • Norris, T. 1994. Regarding the Henslow's Sparrow. Unpublished, Email to D.A. Sutherland, dated 3/28/94. 2 pp.

  • O'Connor, R. J. 1981. Habitat correlates of bird distribution in British census plots. Studies in Avian Biology No. 6:533-537.

  • Ontario Field Ornithologists. 1996. Henslow's on the Cutting Edge. OFO News, Newsletter of the Ontario Field Ornithologists 14(3): 1.

  • Ontario Rare Breeding Bird Program. 1992. The Status of the Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) in Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto. 22 pp.

  • Ouellet H., M. Gosselin et J.P. Artigau. 1990. Nomenclature française des oiseaux d'Amérique du Nord. Secrétariat d'État du Canada. 457 p.

  • PETERSON, A. 1983. OBSERVATIONS ON HABITAT SELECTION BY HENSLOW'S SPARROW IN BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK. THE KINGBIRD 33(3):155-164.

  • Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2013. Population Estimates Database, version 2013. Available at http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates. Accessed in 2014.

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1987. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 2: Passerines. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. xi + 387 pp.

  • Peterson, A. 1983. Observations on habitat selection by Henslow's sparrow in Broome County, New York. Kingbird 33:155-164.

  • Peterson, Allen. 1983. Observations of habitat selection by Henslow's sparrow in Broome County, New York. Kingbird 33:155-164.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980a. A Field Guide to the Birds East of the Rockies. Houghton Mifflin Company. 383 pp.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds - East of the Rockies.

  • Post, Tim. 2004. State wildlife comprehensive plan- draft species group report for grassland birds. In: New York State Department of Environmental Coservation. Comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy species reports for: Birds. 114 pgs. September 24, 2004.

  • Pruitt, L. 1996. Henslow's Sparrow status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office, Bloomington, Indiana. 113 pp.

  • Pruitt, L. 1996. Henslow's Sparrow status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, IN.

  • Pyle, P.S., N.G. Howell, R.P. Yunick, and D.F. DeSante. 1987. Identification guide to North American passerines. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California. 273 pp.

  • RENEW. 2000. Annual Report No. 10. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife. 16 pp.

  • RINGLER, R.F. 1983. MD & DC BREEDING BIRD ATLAS VERIFICATION FORM.

  • RINGLER, R.F. 1989. THE SEASON. MD BIRDLIFE 45(1):14-41.

  • ROBINS, J.D. 1971. A STUDY OF HENSLOW'S SPARROW IN MICHIGAN. WILSON BULL. 83(1):39-48.

  • Richardson, H. 1933. Further notes on the Henslow's Sparrow at Toronto. Canadian Field-Naturalist 47:58.

  • Ridgway, R. 1889. The ornithology of Illinois. Vol. 1. Ill. State Lab. Nat. Hist. 520pp.

  • Ridout, R. and M. Austen. 1993. Report on the 1993 Henslow's Sparrow Survey Conducted in Prince Edward County and Walpole Island, Lambton County. Unpublished Report, Long Point Bird Observatory and Ontario Rare Breeding Bird Program, prepared for the Endangered Species Recovery Fund, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa..

  • Rising, J.D. 1996. A guide to the identification and natural history of the sparrows of the United States and Canada. Academic Press, San Diego.

  • Risley, C. 1983. Results of a survey for Henslow's Sparrows in Ontario in 1983. Report prepared for OMNR. 16 pp.

  • Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrak, and P. H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Resource Publ. 157. iii + 196 pp.

  • Roberts, T.S. 1949. Manual for the identification of the birds of Minnesota and neighboring states. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 738 pp.

  • Robins, J. D. 1971a. A study of Henslow's sparrow in Michigan. The Wilson Bulletin 83:39-48.

  • Robins, J. D. 1971b. Differential niche utilization in a grassland sparrow. Ecology 52:1065-70.

  • Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds: An analysis of Christmas Bird Count data. University of Chicago Press. 336 pp.

  • SLAUGHTER, E. 1986. SIGHTING OF AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. MD AND DC BREEDING ATLAS VERIFICATION FORM.

  • Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the conservation of nongame birds. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 45:245-51.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/.

  • Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr. 2013. The North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966-2011: Summary Analysis and Species Accounts. North American Fauna 79: 1?32. doi:10.3996/nafa.79.0001

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997a. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.3. Online. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 1999. The North American Breeding Bird Survey: Results and Analysis 1966 - 1998. Version 98.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. December 3-last update. Online. Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1 U.S.G.S. Biological Resource Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.

  • Saunders, W.E. 1935. Nature Week by Week; an Early Migrant. London Free Press, Saturday July 27, 1935. 1 pp.

  • Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, editors. 1992. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400 pp.

  • Schulenberg, J.H., G.L. Horak, M.D. Schwilling, and E.J. Finck. 1994. Nesting of Henslow's Sparrow in Osage County, Kansas. Kansas Ornith. Soc. Bull. 44:25-28.

  • Skinner, R.M. 1975. Grassland use patterns and prairie bird populations in Missouri. Pages 171-180 in M.K. Wali, editor. Prairie: a multiple view. University of North Dakota Press, Grand Forks, ND. 433 pp.

  • Skinner, R.M. 1982. Vegetation structure and bird habitat selection on Missouri prairies. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 108 pp.

  • Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blendon. 1984. Bird habitat on Missouri prairies. Terrestrial Series 14. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 37 pp.

  • Smith, C. R. 1992. Henslow's sparrow, AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. Pages 315-330 in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400 pp.

  • Smith, C. R. 1992. Henslow's sparrow, AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. Pages 315-330 in K. J. Schneider, and D. M. Pence (editors). Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the northeast. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

  • Smith, C.R. 1992. Henslow's sparrow, Ammodramus henslowii. pgs. 315-330 in K.J. Schneider and D.M. Pence, Eds. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the northeast. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400pp.

  • Smith, C.R. and D.W. Mehlman. 1992. Species Management Abstract for Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). The Nature Conservancy. Unpaginated pp.

  • Smith, D. J., and C. R. Smith. 1992. Henslow's sparrow and grasshopper sparrow: a comparison of habitat use in Finger Lakes National Forest, New York. Bird Observer 20(4):187-194.

  • Smith, D.J., and C.R. Smith. 1990. Summer bird species diversity and the use of pastures by summer birds of the Finger Lakes National Forest. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Forest Serv., Green Mountain Natl. Forest, Final Proj. Rep. P.O. No. 40-1681-9-0470, Middlebury, VT. 55pp.

  • Smith, R. L. 1963. Some ecological notes on the grasshopper sparrow. The Wilson Bulletin 75:159-65.

  • Smith, W. P. 1968g. Eastern Henslow's sparrow. Pages 776-778 in O. L. Austin, Jr. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, bunting, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. Part Two. U.S. National Museum Bulletin No. 237.

  • Snyder, David L., Victor Riemenschneider, Virgil W. Inman and Franz Goller. 1989. Current Status of the Upland Sandpiper Breeding Area of South Bend, Indiana. 67(4) Ind. Aud. Q. 198-202.

  • Snyder, L.L. 1935. First Toronto specimen of Henslow's Sparrow. Can. Field Nat., Vol. 49: 123.

  • Speirs, J.M. 1933. Some Notes on the Henslow Sparrow. Canadian Field-Naturalist 47:35.

  • Stevenson, H.M., and B.H. Anderson. 1994. The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, 891 pp.

  • Stewart, R. E., and C. S. Robbins. 1958. Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. North American Fauna No. 62. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

  • Svingen, P. 1998. Recent status of the Henslow's Sparrow in Minnesota. Loon 70:153-154.

  • THE NATURE CONSERVANCY (PREPARED BY N. DRILLING). 1985. ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT: AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. PP. 38-45.

  • Tarvin, K. A., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). No. 469 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.

  • Temple, S.A. 1990. Sources and sinks for regional bird populations. Passenger Pigeon 52:35-37.

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding brown-headed cowbirds in the midwestern United States. Auk 111:979-990.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 63 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding for a petition to list the Henslow's Sparrow as threatened. Federal Register 63(174):48162-48164.

  • WHITMORE, R.C. 1980. RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS AVIAN HABITAT ISLANDS IN THE EASTERN FOREST. AMERICAN BIRDS 34(1):13-14.

  • Whitney, N. R., B. E. Harrell, B. K. Harris, N. Holden, J. W. Johnson, B. H. Rose and P. F. Springer. 1978. The birds of South Dakota. South Dakota Ornithologists Union, Vermillion, South Dakota. 311 pp.

  • Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships among grassland birds. Ornithological Monographs No. 8:1-93.

  • Williams, L. 1952b. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird. Condor 54:3-47.

  • Willson, M. F. 1966. Breeding ecology of the Yellow-headed Blackbird. Ecological Monographs 36:51-77.

  • Wood, A.A., G.M. Stirrett, and D.A. Arnott. 1941. Observations on some interesting birds in Kent County, Ontario. Can. Field-Nat. 55(2): 15.

  • ZIMMERMAN, J.L. 1988. BREEDING SEASON HABITAT SELECTION BY THE HENSLOW'S SPARROW (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) IN KANSAS. THE WILSON BULL. 100(1):17-25.

  • ZIMMERMAN, J.L. 1988. BREEDING SEASON HABITAT SELECTION BY THE HENSLOW'S SPARROW (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) IN KANSAS. WILSON BULL. 100:17-24.

  • ZIMMERMAN, JOHN. 1987. FINAL REPORT: BREEDING SEASON DISTRI-BUTION AND HABITAT OF THE HENSLOW'S SPARROW (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) IN KANSAS.

  • Zammit, A.E., and D.A. Sutherland. 2000. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form for Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). Unpublished report prepared by Natural Heritage Information Centre for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 7 pp + 4 appendices.

  • Zimmerman, J.L. 1987a. Final report: breeding season distribution and habitat selection of the Henslow's Sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) in Kansas. Unpublished report to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.

  • Zimmerman, J.L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow's Sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) in Kansas. Wilson Bulletin 100(1):17-24.

  • Zimmerman, J.L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow's sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) in Kansas. Wilson Bull. 100(1):17-24.

  • Zink, R. M., and J. C. Avise. 1990. Patterns of mitochondrial DNA and allozyme evolution in the avian genus AMMODRAMUS. Syst. Zool. 39:148-161.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.