Aythya valisineria - (Wilson, 1814)
Canvasback
Other English Common Names: canvasback
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Aythya valisineria (A. Wilson, 1814) (TSN 175129)
French Common Names: fuligule dos blanc
Spanish Common Names: Pato Coacoxtle
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105229
Element Code: ABNJB11020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Waterfowl
Image 10656

© Dick Cannings

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Anseriformes Anatidae Aythya
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: Aythya valisineria
Taxonomic Comments: Considered a superspecies with A. Ferina by some authors (AOU 1998).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 06Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 21Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N5N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N4N5N,N5M (22Jan2018)

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 (S4N), Alaska (S4B), Arizona (S1B,S4N), Arkansas (S3N), California (S2), Colorado (S2B), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (S2N), District of Columbia (S1N), Florida (SNRN), Georgia (S4), Idaho (S3B,S3N), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (S2B,S4N), Kansas (S3N), Kentucky (S3N), Louisiana (S4N), Maine (SNA), Maryland (S3S4N), Massachusetts (S3N), Michigan (SNRN), Minnesota (SNRB,SNRM), Mississippi (S3S4N), Missouri (SNRN,SNRM), Montana (S5B), Navajo Nation (S4N), Nebraska (S3), Nevada (S3S4), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New Mexico (S4B,S4N), New York (SNRN), North Carolina (S3N), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (SNRN), Oklahoma (S4N), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (S3S4N), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (S4), South Dakota (S4B), Tennessee (S3S4N), Texas (S4), Utah (S2S3B,S3N), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNRN), Washington (S3B,S4N), West Virginia (S2N), Wisconsin (S4N), Wyoming (S4B)
Canada Alberta (S4B), British Columbia (S4B), Manitoba (S4B), Northwest Territories (S4S5B), Ontario (S1B,S4N), Saskatchewan (S5B,S5M,S2N), Yukon Territory (S5B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDS: central Alaska, central Yukon, northern Northwest Territories (Mackenzie Delta), and southeastern Manitoba south to northern California, western Nevada, northern Utah, northern Colorado, Nebraska, and Minnesota. WINTERS: southern British Columbia, northwestern Montana, northern Colorado, northern Tennessee to eastern Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, eastern Massachusetts, and Quebec, south to central Mexico, Gulf states, northern Florida; rarely Hawaii. In the U.S., the highest winter densities occur in the Chesapeake Bay region and at the Bitter Lake NWR in eastern New Mexico (Root 1988). Over 25% of the continental population winters in Louisiana. Winter populations in the Atlantic flyway are more concentrated than those in Mississippi flyway (Serie et al. 1983). About 83% of the western North American population overwinters for 4-6 months in California, primarily in San Francisco Bay (Reinecker, 1985, Calif. Fish Game 71:141-149).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Has suffered from loss of breeding habitat (drained and cultivated). Susceptible to lead poisoning due to ingestion of shot while feeding (this threat should gradually disappear with lead shot ban). Declines in the western U.S. are not directly attributable to contaminants acquired by populations wintering in San Francisco Bay; however, evidence of high and increasing Se levels and elevated Hg levels warrant future monitoring (Miles and Ohlendorf 1993).

Short-term Trend: Unknown
Short-term Trend Comments: After record low levels in 1988, there were indications of a population rebound in San Francisco Bay in the early 1990s (see Miles and Ohlendorf 1993). Overall, reproductive success was excellent in the mid-1990s (USFWS).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Wintering population in the U.S. and Canada declined by 57% from 1955 to 1974. Breeding population index declined from the mid-1970s until at least the late 1980s; spring breeding index for the eastern population was below the USFWS management objective in the 1980s (USFWS 1988, Di Silvestro 1986).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDS: central Alaska, central Yukon, northern Northwest Territories (Mackenzie Delta), and southeastern Manitoba south to northern California, western Nevada, northern Utah, northern Colorado, Nebraska, and Minnesota. WINTERS: southern British Columbia, northwestern Montana, northern Colorado, northern Tennessee to eastern Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, eastern Massachusetts, and Quebec, south to central Mexico, Gulf states, northern Florida; rarely Hawaii. In the U.S., the highest winter densities occur in the Chesapeake Bay region and at the Bitter Lake NWR in eastern New Mexico (Root 1988). Over 25% of the continental population winters in Louisiana. Winter populations in the Atlantic flyway are more concentrated than those in Mississippi flyway (Serie et al. 1983). About 83% of the western North American population overwinters for 4-6 months in California, primarily in San Francisco Bay (Reinecker, 1985, Calif. Fish Game 71:141-149).

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 AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, MB, NT, ON, SK, YT

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; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Ada (16001), Bear Lake (16007), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Bonner (16017), Boundary (16021), Camas (16025), Canyon (16027), Cassia (16031), Fremont (16043), Gooding (16047), Jefferson (16051), Kootenai (16055), Nez Perce (16069), Power (16077)
NE Arthur (31005), Brown (31017), Cherry (31031), Garden (31069), Grant (31075)*, Morrill (31123), Sheridan (31161)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Upper Middle Loup (10210001)+, Dismal (10210002)+
16 Bear Lake (16010201)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Camas (17040220)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Middle Snake-Payette (17050115)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Clutch size is 7-12 (usually 9-10). Incubation lasts 23-29 days, by female (Terres 1980). Nestlings are precocial and downy. Young are tended by female, first fly at 10-12 weeks (Harrison 1978). Commonly lays one or more eggs in nests of conspecifics, but this is a relatively unsuccessful reproductive tactic; parasitic female may or may not also lay eggs in her own nest (Sorenson, 1993, Auk 110:57-69). Nests commonly are parasitized by redhead in some areas.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Begins migrating northward in February from coastal U.S. Reaches northern nesting areas in April (late May or early June in far north). In fall may begin migrating southward October-November. Upper Mississippi River is an important staging area for populations wintering in different areas (Serie et al. 1983).
Estuarine Habitat(s): Bay/sound, Herbaceous wetland, Lagoon, River mouth/tidal river, Tidal flat/shore
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, Low gradient
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND
Habitat Comments: Marshes, ponds, lakes, rivers and bays. Winters on deep, freshwater lakes and rivers as well as on sheltered bays and estuaries (AOU 1983).

Nests in emergent vegetation in freshwater marshes, including those bordering lakes, ponds, or rivers; study in Manitoba indicated need for secure nesting site in a diversified wetland complex containing a variety of size, permanency, and cover types (favored different conditions for acitivities such as nesting, feeding, and brood rearing) (Stoudt 1982). Sometimes nests on old muskrat house or on dry ground. Females typically breed in their natal area.

Adult Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Feeds on aquatic plants; pondweeds, wild celery, water lilies, seeds of grasses, wild rice, CYPERUS, SAGITTARIA, SCIRPUS, etc.; rhizomes, tubers, and seeds figure prominently in winter diet. Also eats some animal food; mollusks, aquatic insects, small fishes, etc. Feeds by diving from surface of water.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 53 centimeters
Weight: 1248 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: See Marcy (1986) for specifications for the construction and placement of wire nest baskets.
Monitoring Requirements: See Serie and Cowardin (1990) for information on the use of counts of social groupings to predict reproductive success.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Diving Ducks and Sea Ducks

Use Class: Breeding
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.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Little information on breeding home ranges; separation distance somewhat arbitrary. Territories not defended in eiders, but goldeneyes defend small (0.18 to 1.45 hectares) territories (Eadie et al. 2000). Philopatry to breeding area strong in Common Eider (Reed 1975, Wakeley and Mendall 1976, Swennen 1990), and Spectacled Eider (Grand and Flint 1997).
Date: 29May2001
Author: Cannings, S.
Notes: Contains all members of the tribes Aythini, Mergini and Oxyurini.

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Staging area, Foraging area, Roosting area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating or staging flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds/square kilometer in appropriate habitat. 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. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 10 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Molting area, Migration staging area, Wintering area, Non-breeding feeding concentration area, Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of molting, staging, or wintering flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds/square kilometer in appropriate habitat. For wintering occurrences, it would be preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Mapping Guidance: Map roosting and feeding areas with separate polygons in same EO.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Fidelity to molting sites (one or two lakes) high in Barrow's Goldeneye (van de Wetering 1997); fidelity to wintering sites probably high in Barrow's Goldeneye (Savard 1985). Separation distance somewhat arbitrary, set at 10 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 21Mar2001
Author: Cannings, S.
Notes: Contains all members of the tribes Aythini, Mergini and Oxyurini.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 21Aug1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G.

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 ]

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • 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/.

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. Maxent-based species distribution models. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andrews, R. R. and R. R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 442 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.

  • Barbour, R.W. et al. 1973. Kentucky Birds.

  • Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

  • BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

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

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1995. Last Mountain Lake and Stalwart National Wildlife Areas: Bird Checklist - Fourth Edition. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1996. Population status and trends in waterfowl in Canada. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 5: 1-7.

  • Colorado Bird Observatory. 1997. 1996 Reference Guide to the Monitoring and Conservation Status of Colorado's Breeding Birds. Colorado Bird Observatory, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, and Partners, March 21, 1997.

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

  • Di Silvestro, R. L., editor. 1986. Audubon wildlife report1986. National Audubon Society, New York. 1094 pp. [available from Academic Press, San Diego, CA]

  • Dorn, Jane L. and R.D. Dorn. 1990. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne.

  • Drennan, Susan R. 1986. 86th Christmas bird count. American Birds 40(4):575-1117.

  • Dunn, E. H., C. M. Downes, and B. T. Collins. 2000. The Canadian Breeding Bird Survey, 1967-1998. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Notes No. 216. 40 pp.

  • Eadie, J. M., L.-P. L. Savard, and M. L. Mallory. 2000 Barrow's Goldeneye (BUCEPHALA ISLANDICA). No. 548 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.

  • 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.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

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

  • Grand, J.B., and P.L. Flint. 1997. Productivity of nesting Spectacled Eiders on the lower Kashunuk River, Alaska. Condor 100:926-932.

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

  • Hochbaum, H. A. 1944. The canvasback on a prairie marsh. Am. Wildlife Inst., Washington, D.C. 201 pp. [also reissued by Univ. Nebraska Press in 1981]

  • Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

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

  • Johnson, S. R. and D. R. Herter. 1989. The Birds of the Beaufort Sea. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 372 pp.

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

  • Marcy, L. E. 1986. Waterfowl nest baskets. Section 5.1.3, US Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Tech. Rep. EL-86-15. Waterways Expt. Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 16 pp.

  • Miles, A. K., and H. M. Ohlendorf. 1993. Environmental contaminants in canvasbacks wintering on San Francisco Bay, California. California Fish & Game 79:28-38.

  • Mills, Charles E. 1991. The Birds of a Southern Indiana Coal Mine Reclamation Project. 69 Ind. Aud. Q. 65-79.

  • Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, editors. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 3. Imperiled amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 225 pages.

  • 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.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1984. Preliminary species distribution maps, 1980-1984. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, 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.

  • North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 1998. Expanding the vision 1998 update. Canadian Wildlife Service. 32 pp.

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 384 pages.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1980b. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1990b. A field guide to western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Poole, A. F. and F. B. Gill. 1992. The birds of North America. The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. and The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Raffaele, H., J. Wiley, O. Garrido, A. Keith, and J. Raffaele. 1998. A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 511 pp.

  • Rappole, J.H., Morton, E.S., Lovejoy, T.E. and Ruos, J.L. 1983. Nearctic avian migrants in the Neotropics. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.

  • Reed, A. 1975. Migration, homing, and mortality of breeding female eiders SOMATERIA MOLLISSIMA DRESSERI of the St. Lawrence estuary, Quebec. Ornis Scand. 6:41-47.

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

  • See SERO listing

  • Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 391 pp.

  • Serie, J. R., D. L. Trauger, and D. E. Sharp. 1983. Migration and winter distribution of canvasbacks staging on the upper Mississippi River. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:741-753.

  • Serie, J. R., and L. M. Cowardin. 1990. Use of social indices to predict reproductive success in canvasbacks. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:66-72.

  • Sibley, D. A. 2000a. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Stokes, D. W., and L. Q. Stokes. 1996. Stokes field guide to birds: western region. Little, Brown & Company Limited, Boston.

  • Stoudt, J. H. 1982. Habitat use and productivity of canvasbacks in southwestern Manitoba, 1961-72. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 248. 31 pp.

  • Swennen, C. 1990. Dispersal and migratory movements of eiders SOMATERIA MOLLISSIMA breeding in the Netherlands. Ornis Scand. 21:17-27.

  • THOMPSON,M.C., AND C. ELY.1989. BIRDS IN KANSAS VOLUME ONE.

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. SEIS 88. Final supplemental environmental impact statement: issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport hunting of migratory birds. x + 340 pp.

  • Wakeley, J. S., and H. L. Mendall. 1976. Migrational homing and survival of adult female eiders in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 40:15-21.

  • Wilkins, K.A., M.C. Otto and G.W. Smith. 2000. Trends in duck breeding populations, 1955-2000. Administrative Report. Office of Migratory Bird Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 19 pp.

  • van de Wetering, D. 1997. Moult characteristics and habitat selection of post-breeding male Barrow's Goldeneye (BUCEPHALA ISLANDICA) in northern Yukon. Technical Report Series No. 296, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region.

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.