Certhia americana - Bonaparte, 1838
Brown Creeper
Other English Common Names: brown creeper
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Certhia americana Bonaparte, 1838 (TSN 178803)
French Common Names: grimpereau brun
Spanish Common Names: Trepador Americano
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102429
Element Code: ABPBA01010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 11003

© Jeff Nadler

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Certhiidae Certhia
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 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: Certhia americana
Taxonomic Comments: This species formerly was regarded as conspecific with the Eurasian treecreeper (C. familiaris); however, it may be more closely related to the short-toed treecreeper (C. brachydactyla) (AOU 1998).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 02Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Widespread, reasonably common, and demonstrably secure in many areas of North America; likely to be missed in standard surveys, and so may be underestimated in some counts; not particularly threatened globally at present.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5N,N5M (02Jan2018)

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 (S4), Arizona (S5), Arkansas (S1B,S5N), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S1B,S4N), District of Columbia (S3N), Florida (SNRN), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S4), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S2B), Iowa (S3B), Kansas (S5N), Kentucky (S1S2B,S4S5N), Louisiana (S4N), Maine (S5), Maryland (S4), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB,SNRN), Mississippi (S5N), Missouri (SU), Montana (S3), Navajo Nation (S3S4), Nebraska (S2), Nevada (S5), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S4B,S4N), New Mexico (S4B,S4N), New York (S5), North Carolina (S3B,S5N), North Dakota (SNRN), Ohio (S3), Oklahoma (S5N), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (S4), Rhode Island (S3B), South Carolina (S4N), South Dakota (S2B,S3N), Tennessee (S2B,S4N), Texas (S4), Utah (S4), Vermont (S5B,S5N), Virginia (S3B,S5N), Washington (S4S5B,S5N), West Virginia (S3B,S4N), Wisconsin (S4B), Wyoming (S4)
Canada Alberta (S3S4), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (S3B,SUM), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (S3), Northwest Territories (SUB), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5B), Prince Edward Island (S5), Quebec (S4), Saskatchewan (S4B,S3N), Yukon Territory (S3B)

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: Breeding range extends from southcentral Alaska across Canada to southcentral Quebec and Newfoundland; south to southern California, southern Nevada, central and southeastern Arizona; in the mountains of Middle America through Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras to north-central Nicaragua; to western Texas, southeastern Nebraska, southern Iowa, southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois, southern Michigan, southern Ontario, central Ohio, West Virginia; in the Appalachians to western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee; and to lowlands of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware (AOU 1998). During the nonbreeding season, the range extends from southern coastal Alaska and southern Canada southward throughout the breeding range, except higher latitudes and elevations, to southern Texas, the Gulf Coast, and northern Florida, and to lowlands of the western United States and northern Mexico (AOU 1998). The species is resident in the Queen Charlotte Islands and in mountains from southeastern Arizona and southwest New Mexico south to Nicaragua (AOU 1998).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Global population was estimated at 5,400,000 individuals by Rich et al. (2004). Over 16,000 pairs were estimated in a small portion of Ontario alone. The highest density populations are in the heavily wooded Canadian Shield area of Ontario, where populations reach 100 pairs per square kilometer over a large area.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)

Overall Threat Impact: Low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: On a range-wide scale, no major threats are known. Locally, this species may be threatened by loss of forested wetlands and floodplain forest (Herkert, pers. comm.), forest fragmentation (Keller and Anderson 1992), and forest management practices that eliminate dead trees. The species is apparently area-sensitive (i.e., requires large blocks of habitat) and is intolerant of heavy logging or thinning. Nest failures have been caused by alteration of the nest site by wind or rain, predation, human disturbance, and in one case, brood parasitism by a cowbird (Davis 1978).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Assessment of range-wide population trend is difficult because this species is recorded infrequently in standard surveys (e.g., Breeding Bird Survey, BBS); individuals are easily missed, and the species typically occurs at fairly low densities. BBS data for 1966-2004 indicate a basically stable population in North America (nonsignificant increase averaging 0.4 percent per year) and stable or decreasing trend throughout the United States (-0.6 percent per year, P < 0.34, n = 482; Sauer et al. 2005b). BBS data suggest that populations may be quite variable and that more studies on population dynamics are needed before BBS data can be reliably interpreted.

Canada-wide BBS data suggest that populations increased nationwide by approximately 5.2 percent (P<0.03, n=108) between 1966 and 2004 (Sauer et al. 2005b), although observations at several migration monitoring stations in northern Canada showed declines (Bird Studies Canada 2000 in ASRD 2003). Trend information is sparse across North America in general.

Brown creepers take advantage of major tree die-offs, recently flooded areas, and disease-killed stands. Movement into such areas temporarily inflates local populations.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Monitoring is needed across the range; effort should focus on occupied areas that are subject to intense logging or areas where populations have declined or are expected to decline. Surveys specific to this species are needed because the BBS is not very effective for this elusive, low-density species. Brown Creepers are perhaps best monitored in conjunction with research on neotropical migrants because they co-occur in mixed flocks during migration.

Protection Needs: Promote policies that protect old growth on public forested lands and maintain standing deadwood over large areas of forested land.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Breeding range extends from southcentral Alaska across Canada to southcentral Quebec and Newfoundland; south to southern California, southern Nevada, central and southeastern Arizona; in the mountains of Middle America through Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras to north-central Nicaragua; to western Texas, southeastern Nebraska, southern Iowa, southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois, southern Michigan, southern Ontario, central Ohio, West Virginia; in the Appalachians to western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee; and to lowlands of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware (AOU 1998). During the nonbreeding season, the range extends from southern coastal Alaska and southern Canada southward throughout the breeding range, except higher latitudes and elevations, to southern Texas, the Gulf Coast, and northern Florida, and to lowlands of the western United States and northern Mexico (AOU 1998). The species is resident in the Queen Charlotte Islands and in mountains from southeastern Arizona and southwest New Mexico south to Nicaragua (AOU 1998).

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, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, 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; NatureServe, 2003; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
DE Kent (10001), New Castle (10003), Sussex (10005)
ID Ada (16001), Idaho (16049), Latah (16057), Shoshone (16079)
IL Adams (17001)*, Cass (17017)*, DuPage (17043)*, Jo Daviess (17085)*, Johnson (17087), Kane (17089)*, Kankakee (17091)*, La Salle (17099), Marshall (17123), Mason (17125)*, Ogle (17141)*, Piatt (17147), Rock Island (17161), Sangamon (17167), Vermilion (17183)*, Winnebago (17201)*
IN Allen (18003), Elkhart (18039), Hamilton (18057), Jackson (18071), Jasper (18073), Kosciusko (18085), La Porte (18091), Lake (18089), Lawrence (18093), Marion (18097), Marshall (18099), Newton (18111), Noble (18113), Posey (18129), Pulaski (18131), St. Joseph (18141), Starke (18149), Steuben (18151), Wabash (18169)
KY Ballard (21007), Henderson (21101), Marshall (21157), Union (21225)
MO Benton (29015), Pulaski (29169), Saline (29195)
MT Beaverhead (30001), Broadwater (30007), Carbon (30009), Carter (30011), Cascade (30013), Chouteau (30015), Deer Lodge (30023), Fergus (30027), Flathead (30029), Gallatin (30031), Glacier (30035), Golden Valley (30037), Granite (30039), Jefferson (30043), Judith Basin (30045), Lake (30047), Lewis and Clark (30049), Lincoln (30053), Madison (30057), Meagher (30059), Mineral (30061), Missoula (30063), Park (30067), Powder River (30075), Powell (30077), Ravalli (30081), Rosebud (30087), Sanders (30089), Silver Bow (30093), Stillwater (30095), Sweet Grass (30097), Teton (30099), Wheatland (30107)
NC Avery (37011), Buncombe (37021), Burke (37023), Caldwell (37027), Clay (37043), Graham (37075), Haywood (37087), Jackson (37099), Macon (37113), Madison (37115), McDowell (37111), Mitchell (37121), Swain (37173), Transylvania (37175), Watauga (37189), Yancey (37199)
NE Brown (31017), Dawes (31045), Sarpy (31153), Washington (31177)
SD Custer (46033), Lawrence (46081), Pennington (46103)
WY Albany (56001), Carbon (56007)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+
03 Upper Catawba (03050101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+
04 St. Joseph (04050001)+, St. Marys (04100004)+
05 Upper New (05050001)+, Upper Wabash (05120101)+, Salamonie (05120102)+, Eel (05120104)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Vermilion (05120109)+*, Upper White (05120201)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+, Lower Ohio-Bay (05140203)+, Lower Ohio (05140206)+*
06 Watauga (06010103)+, Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Pigeon (06010106)+, Lower French Broad (06010107)+, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Tuckasegee (06010203)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 Apple-Plum (07060005)+*, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+*, Sugar (07090004)+*, Lower Rock (07090005)+*, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+*, Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+, Chicago (07120003)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+*, Lower Fox (07120007)+*, Lower Illinois-Senachwine Lake (07130001)+, Lower Illinois-Lake Chautauqua (07130003)+*, Upper Sangamon (07130006)+, South Fork Sangamon (07130007)+*, Lower Sangamon (07130008)+, Cache (07140108)+*
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+
09 St. Marys (09040001)+, Belly (09040002)+
10 Red Rock (10020001)+, Beaverhead (10020002)+, Ruby (10020003)+, Big Hole (10020004)+, Jefferson (10020005)+, Boulder (10020006)+, Madison (10020007)+, Gallatin (10020008)+, Upper Missouri (10030101)+, Upper Missouri-Dearborn (10030102)+, Smith (10030103)+, Sun (10030104)+, Belt (10030105)+, Cut Bank (10030202)+, Teton (10030205)+, Judith (10040103)+, Upper Musselshell (10040201)+, Flatwillow (10040203)+, Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Upper Yellowstone (10070002)+, Shields (10070003)+, Stillwater (10070005)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+, Shoshone (10080014)+, Lower Tongue (10090102)+, Little Powder (10090208)+, Upper Little Missouri (10110201)+, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Rapid (10120110)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Upper White (10140201)+, Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, South Grand (10290108)+, Upper Gasconade (10290201)+, Lower Missouri-Crooked (10300101)+, Blackwater (10300104)+
17 Upper Kootenai (17010101)+, Fisher (17010102)+, Yaak (17010103)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Elk (17010106)+, Upper Clark Fork (17010201)+, Flint-Rock (17010202)+, Blackfoot (17010203)+, Middle Clark Fork (17010204)+, Bitterroot (17010205)+, North Fork Flathead (17010206)+, Middle Fork Flathead (17010207)+, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, South Fork Flathead (17010209)+, Stillwater (17010210)+, Swan (17010211)+, Lower Flathead (17010212)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, Hells Canyon (17060101)+, Upper Selway (17060301)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Small, bark-gleaning songbird.
Reproduction Comments: Four to eight eggs, most commonly five or six, are laid (Bent 1948, Davis 1978). Incubation begins once the entire clutch is laid (Davis 1978). Incubation lasts 14 to 17 days, but 15 is apparently most common (Davis 1978). Young fledge in 15 to 16 days, and are fed by both parents for about two more weeks.

Davis (1978) found that 58% of nests with at least one egg or nestling (out of 19 observed) succeeded in fledging young. Survival rates, calculated from a total of 94 eggs laid were 60% from laying to hatching, and 94% from hatching to fledging, or 52% overall (from laying to fledging).

Ecology Comments: Territories ranged from 2.3 to 6.4 ha in a study in Michigan (Davis 1978). Rough approximations of density, calculated from maps of nest locations at the study sites in Davis (1978) yielded these figures for three study sites: two ha per pair, and 1.5 ha per pair for two areas of swamp forest habitat; 5.6 ha per pair in a more upland site. In the latter area, nests were close to streams, so that the area of appropriate habitat may have been smaller than the overall study area, and 5.6 ha per pair may be exaggerated by the inclusion of inappropriate habitat away from streams.

Few observations of predators appear in the literature. One incidence of a creeper chased (but not captured) by a northern shrike is recounted in Bent (1948). Creepers are known to respond defensively to the scream of a hawk (Bent 1948, Davis 1978).

NON-BREEDING: Bent (1948) reported that creepers are quite solitary, but there have been reports of communal roosting and huddling in winter. Fledglings roost in a characteristic huddle (Davis 1978, Ryser 1985). They were reported to move in mixed-species flocks in the winter in Louisiana, Maryland, and in summer in Maine (Morse 1970). In Louisiana, they were nearly always observed in mixed-species flocks in winter rather than singly (Morse 1970).

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: South of a line from southeastern British Columbia, North Dakota, Minnesota, Ontario, to Nova Scotia, are year round residents and do not migrate. In the mountains of the west they undertake altitudinal seasonal migrations, moving down into the foothills and valleys during the winter (Ryser 1985). In the vicinity of Bozeman, Montana, elevational movements occur Feb 20 to Apr 20 and Sep 10 to Oct 30).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Preferred habitat includes forest, woodlands, forested floodplains and swamps. Scrub and parks are also used in winter and during migration. Most often found in coniferous and mixed forests. A study by Franzreb (1985) describes the habitat in Arizona as mixed-coniferous forest, dominated by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and southwestern white pine. Within the habitat, birds selected the largest (tallest) trees most often for foraging. Hejl (pers. comm.) reported finding larger numbers in western redcedar stands than in the Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands in 1992 field work.

In the eastern U.S. south of the northern conifer zone, populations occur regularly in forested floodplains, and sometimes swamps. Hamas (pers. comm.), based on his experience, suggested that floodplain forests may be important habitat in Michigan. Davis (1978) studied populations in Michigan in two different forest types. One was an old white cedar, balsam fir, and black spruce swamp, with components of sugar maple, red maple, white pine, basswood and paper birch. The other was more topographically varied and drier; tree species included red maple, American beech, with less common white oak, eastern hemlock, large-toothed aspen, butternut hickory, and American elm. In the wetter areas of this site, dead American elms were common, and in the wettest areas, white cedar and eastern hemlock occurred. Davis (1978) found that all nests were in dead trees, and all nest trees were near water. Two were in swamps, while all others were within 60 m of flowing streams.

A component of dead trees is essential for nesting, so brown creepers tend to be associated with older forests. Hejl and Woods (1991) found them in old growth forests (200+ yr), but never in rotation-aged (80 to 120 yr) Douglas- fir/ponderosa pine stands in western Montana and adjacent Idaho. The birds have also been known to move into areas where many trees have died due to flooding or disease (Bent 1948).

Temporary positive impacts have been created by Dutch elm and other forest diseases, and by artificial floodings in forested areas. Both diseases and floodings leave standing dead wood and create large numbers of good nesting sites. However, the suitability of the habitat is, of course, only temporary in these situations. Creepers have been reported to become abundant in such situations (Bent 1948, Davis 1978, Nicholson pers. comm.), suggesting a certain degree of opportunism. Forest, woodland, swamps; also scrub and parks in winter and migration. Negatively impacted by forest fragmentation in southern Wyoming (Keller and Anderson 1992).

Nests usually behind loose slab of bark still attached to living or dead tree, average of 1.5-5 m above ground (Harrison 1979). Also occasionally in knot holes when loose bark is not available (Bent 1948). One observer (Bent 1948) noted that nests were often under the only remaining piece of bark on a dead tree. Davis (1978) found that tree canopy was partially open at each nest site in a Michigan study.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Creepers feed on arthropods gleaned off the surface and in the crevices of tree bark. They feed primarily on the main trunk of trees, moving from bottom to top, almost invariably forward and upward, and then flying to a low point on the next tree when branch density begins to restrict their movement (Willson 1970). Willson (1970) found that brown creepers in southern Illinois had highly specialized feeding behavior. Among a group of six bird species that all fed on insects from tree trunk or branch gleaning, creepers were the most specialized to feeding site in terms of tree structure in both winter and spring. While they favored oaks and maple in winter, and hackberry in spring, they also used several other species fairly equally in spring (i.e. they were less fussy about tree species in spring) (Willson 1970). Eats mainly insects and other invertebrates, including immature stages, obtained from bark of tree trunks and branches; also eats some nuts and seeds (Terres 1980).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 13 centimeters
Weight: 8 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: This small bark-gleaning bird primarily inhabits northern coniferous forests, but is opportunistic enough to take advantage of large stands of dying timber of other types on occasion, especially on the southern periphery of its range. It is rarest in the south-central portions of its range, from the western Appalachians to the eastern edge of the Great Plains. In this region, attention to maintenance of a standing deadwood component in forest stands is critical. Elsewhere, though special protection and management may not currently be warranted for this relatively common bird, long term management should provide for standing deadwood. In Oregon, and apparently in Vermont and Connecticut, marked declines have occurred in recent years, presumably in response to logging of old growth stands. In Oregon, probably Washington, and wherever else old growth stands are being logged, compatible management plans are especially important for survival. Preservation of small old growth stands by purchase is not likely to be an adequate protection tool because of its tendency toward low-density populations.
Restoration Potential: A change of forest management practices to favor maintenance of a standing dead wood component and to reduce forest fragmentation would be beneficial, and is feasible.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: The appropriate size for a preserve is unknown, but is believed to be large. Peterjohn and Rice (1991) observed that "nesting creepers are occupants of extensive woodlands and will not be found in isolated woodlots and narrow wooded corridors." Negatively impacted by forest fragmentation in southern Wyoming (Keller and Anderson 1992). Measured territories ranged up to about 6.5 ha per pair (Davis 1978). This can be used as a guideline to establish minimum preserve size until more studies have been completed.
Management Requirements: Brown creepers require that the dead tree component in forests be allowed and encouraged. The coniferous, mixed species character of forests should be maintained where populations reside. Best to protect or manage stands to have at least some trees or groves of trees over 100 years old to have dead trees with flaking bark for nest sites (Ewert, unpubl. MS). Response to burning: more common on unburned plots in breeding season in Arizona (Finch et al. 1997).
Monitoring Requirements: In light of the minimal amount of information on population status, and the suggestion of slow decline in the Breeding Bird Survey data, periodic monitoring across the range, plus extra effort where intense logging is ongoing, or where populations have declined or are expected to decline, is warranted. Surveys specific to this species are needed because Breeding Bird Survey is not very effective for this elusive, low density species. Brown creepers are perhaps best monitored in conjunction with research on neotropical migrants because they co-occur in mixed flocks during migration.
Management Research Needs: Management research needs include determination of the appropriate size for a preserve, investigation of the effects of forest management practices in different forest types, and knowledge of population dynamics.
Biological Research Needs: The degree to which this species is affected by timber-harvesting practices and forest fragmentation is uncertain; need to determine response to various forest management practices. Research should attempt to determine the size of tract necessary to attract a breeding pair and size of area required to maintain viable subpopulations, metapopulations, etc. The relationship between demographic parameters (nesting success, survivorship, and dispersal) and habitat or management treatments should be determined. Information is needed on breeding biology, taxonomic relationship to Eurasian (C. familiaris) and short-toed treecreepers (C. brachydactyla) and validity of subspecies, geographic variation in vocalizations, and the effectiveness of current methods for sexing and aging (Hejl 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: 14Jan2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Soule, Judith D., and G. Hammerson
Management Information Edition Date: 28Sep1992
Management Information Edition Author: SOULE, J.; REVISIONS BY G. HAMMERSON AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Thanks to all those Heritage program and state agency employees who responded to my questionnaires, even in the middle of field season: Alaska - Ed West; Arkansas - Bill Shepherd; Arizona - Susan Sferra; British Columbia - Syd Cannings; California - Darlene McGriff; Colorado - Judy Sheppard; Georgia - John Ambrose; Indiana - Michelle Martin; Idaho - Craig Groves; Illinois - Jean Karnes, Vern Kleen; Iowa - Daryl Howell; Kansas - Bill Busby; Kentucky - Brainard Palmer-Ball; Louisiana - Richard Martin; Massachusetts - Bradford Blodget; Mississippi - Tom Mann; Montana - Cedron Jones; Missouri - Leslie Burger; Nebraska - Mary Clausen; New Hampshire - Andy Cutko; New Jersey - Rick Dutko; New Mexico - Tina Carson; North Carolina - Harry LeGrand; North Dakota - Randy Kreil; New York - Paul Novak; Ohio - Dan Rice; Oklahoma - Mark Lomolino; Ontario - Michelle Woulfe; Oregon - Mark Stern; Pennsylvania - Barb Barton; Rhode Island - Rick Enser; Quebec - Guy Jolicoeur; Saskatchewan - Jim Duncan and Robert Warnock; South Carolina - J. E. Cely; South Dakota - Eileen Dowd Stukel; Tennessee - Paul Hamel; TVA - Chuck Nicholson; Utah - Robin Toone; Vermont - Chris Fichtel; Virginia - Steve Roble; West Virginia - Donna Mitchell and Barbara Sargent; Wyoming - Chris Garber. Thanks to Bruce Peterjohn for BBS trend analysis and guidance in interpretation, and to all the volunteers who participate in the BBS each year so that such data is available. James D. Wilson, of Missouri Department of Conservation, and Sallie J. Hejl of U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Research Center also kindly supplied information. John Castrale, Indiana Dept. Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Michael Hamas, Central Michigan University, Department Biology reviewed an earlier draft.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 17Mar1994
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 ]

  • Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2003. Status of the Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 49, Edmonton, AB. 30 pp.

  • 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/.

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

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

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

  • Bent, A.C. 1948. Life histories of North American nuthatches, wrens, thrashers, and their allies. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 195. Washington, DC.

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

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

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

  • Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. 1987. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Canada. 617pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 3, Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. UBC Press in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 700pp.

  • Davis, C. M. 1978. A nesting study of the brown creeper. Living Bird 17:237-63.

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

  • Dionne C. 1906. Les oiseaux de la province de Québec. Dussault et Proulx.

  • Downes, C.M., and B.T. Collins. 2007. Canadian Bird Trends Web site Version 2.2. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3.

  • 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.

  • Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of breeding birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing and the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  • Finch, D.M., J.L. Ganey, W. Yong, R.T. Kimball, and R. Sallabanks. 1997. Effects and interactions of fire, logging, and grazing. Pages 103-136 in Songbird ecology in southwestern Ponderosa Pine forests: a literature review, W.M. Block and D.M. Finch, technical editors. USFS, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-292.

  • Franzreb, K. E. 1985. Foraging ecology of brown creepers in a mixed-coniferous forest. Journal of Field Ornithology 56(1):9-16.

  • Franzreb, K.E., and R.D. Ohmart. 1978. The effects of timber harvesting on breeding birds in a mixed-coniferous forest. Condor 80:431-441.

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

  • 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.

  • Hejl, S. J., K. R. Newlon, M. E. McFadzen, J. S. Young, and C. K. Ghalambor. 2002. Brown Creeper (Certhia americana). In: The birds of North America, No 669 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32 pp.

  • Hejl, S.J., and R.E. Woods. 1991. Bird assemblages in old-growth and rotation-aged Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands in the northern Rocky Mountains: a preliminary assessment. In D.M. Baumgartner and J.E. Lotan, editors. Interior Douglas-fir: the species and its management. Proceedings of Symposium held Feb. 27-Mar. 1, 1990 in Spokane, WA. Dept. Natural Res. Sci., Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Keller, M. E., and S. H. Anderson. 1992. Avian use of habitat configurations created by forest cutting in southeastern Wyoming. Condor 94:55-65.

  • Kennicott, R. 1855. Catalogue of animals observed in Cook County, Illinois. Trans. Ill. State Agr. Soc. for 1835-1855, Vol. 1: 580-591.

  • Komar, O. 2002. Birds of Montecristo National Park, El Salvador. Ornitologia Neotropical 13:167-193.

  • 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.

  • McAtee W.L. 1959. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. 74 pages.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Morse, D. H. 1970. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecological Monographs 40:119-168.

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

  • 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 Breeding Bird Atlas. 1985. Final breeding bird distribution maps, 1980-1985. 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.

  • Nixon, W. and C. Eckert. 2000. Yukon bird species at risk; status assessments. Canadian Wildlife Service (Whitehorse, Yukon), unpublished Report.

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

  • 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.

  • Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 1984-1987. UNPUBLISHED

  • Peterjohn, B. G., J. R. Sauer, and W. A. Link. 1994. The 1992 and 1993 summary of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Populations 2:46-61.

  • Peterjohn, B.G., and D.L. Rice. 1991. Ohio breeding bird atlas. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Columbus, Ohio. 416 pp.

  • 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.

  • Pogson, T.H., S.E. Quinlan and B. Lehnhausen. A Manual of Selected Neotropical Migrant Birds of Alaska National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska.

  • Resource Inventory Committee. 1999e. Inventory Methods for Forest and Grassland Songbirds. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity. No. 15. Version 2.0.

  • Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Online. Available:

  • Ryser, F.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin a natural history. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005b. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • See SERO listing

  • Soule, J., G. Hammerson, and D.W. Mehlman. 1998. Species Management Abstract for Brown Creeper (Certhia americana). The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Unpaginated

  • TURCOTTE, W. BIRDS OF MISSISSIPPI (DRAFT OF BOOK; IN PREPARATION FOR PUBLICATION AS OF 1997)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Willson, M.F. 1970. Foraging behavior of some winter birds of deciduous woods. Condor 72:169-174.

  • Wood, MERRILL. 1979. BIRDS OF PENNSYLVANIA. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., UNIVERSITY PARK. 133 PP.

  • Zook, J. L. 2002. Distribution maps of the birds of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Unpublished.

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.