Charadrius melodus - Ord, 1824
Piping Plover
Other English Common Names: piping plover
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Charadrius melodus Ord, 1824 (TSN 176507)
French Common Names: pluvier siffleur
Spanish Common Names: Chorlo Chiflador
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106046
Element Code: ABNNB03070
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Shorebirds
Image 21569

© Dennis Donohue

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Charadriidae Charadrius
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ 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: Charadrius melodus
Taxonomic Comments: Electrophoretic analyses (Haig and Oring 1988) did not support current subspecific designations (2 subspecies, C. m. circumcinctus in the northern Great Plains, C. m melodus on the Atlantic coast, with intermediates in the Great Lakes region). However, a more recent study of the species' genetics suggests that the Atlantic population is in fact reproductively isolated from the interior population, and Great Lakes individuals do not differ genetically from those on the Great Plains and Canadian Prairies (S. Haig, personal communication, cited in Boyne 2000).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 11Jan2001
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Widespread but local breeder in North America; major rangewide declines followed by some recovery; some regional declines still occurring. Strong threats related primarily to human activity; disturbance by humans, predation, and development pressure are pervasive threats along the Atlantic coast; inappropriate water management a threat on the northern Great Plains. Current favorable population trends depend on intensive management.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3B,N3N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3B,N3M (04Dec2017)

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 (S1N), Arkansas (SNA), Colorado (S1B), Connecticut (S1B), Delaware (S1B), Florida (S2), Georgia (S2), Illinois (S1), Indiana (SXB), Iowa (S1B), Kansas (S1B,S2N), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (S2N), Maine (S2B), Maryland (S1B), Massachusetts (S2B), Michigan (S2), Minnesota (S1B), Mississippi (S2N), Missouri (SNA), Montana (S2B), Nebraska (S2), New Hampshire (S1B), New Jersey (S1B,S1N), New York (S3B), North Carolina (S1B,S1N), North Dakota (S1S2), Ohio (SX), Oklahoma (SU), Pennsylvania (SX), Rhode Island (S1B,S1N), South Carolina (SNRN), South Dakota (S2B), Tennessee (S2N), Texas (S2), Virginia (S2B,S1N), Wisconsin (S1), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada Alberta (S2B), Manitoba (S1B), New Brunswick (SNRB), Newfoundland Island (S1B,SUM), Nova Scotia (SNRB), Ontario (S1B), Prince Edward Island (SNRB), Quebec (S1B), Saskatchewan (S3B)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE, LT: Listed endangered, listed threatened (11Dec1985)
Comments on USESA: Listed by USFWS as Endangered in Great Lakes watersheds of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; Threatened elsewhere (Federal Register, 11 December 1985). Draft revised recovery plan (1994) suggested that status in the Northern Great Plains should be changed to Endangered.
Implied Status under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC):E
Comments on COSEWIC: The species was considered a single unit and designated Threatened in April 1978. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in April 1985. In May 2001, the species was re-examined and split into two groups according to subspecies. The melodus subspecies and circumcinctus subspecies were each designated Endangered in May 2001. The original designation was de-activated.
IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: Locally in the northern Great Plains region from southern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, northwestern and (formerly) southwestern Ontario, south to eastern Montana, the Dakotas, southeastern Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992), Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska; sporadic nesting occurs in Oklahoma; breeding birds are widely distributed in small populations (Haig 1992, Haig and Plissner 1993). Formerly throughout much of the Great Lakes region, now locally only in northern Michigan (Haig 1992, Evers 1992). On the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland, southeastern Quebec, and New Brunswick to North Carolina (Haig 1992); 82 percent of nesting pairs in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia (USFWS 1992). See USFWS (1994) for further information on breeding distribution in particular states.

NON-BREEDING: Complete winter distribution is not known. Birds have been reported wintering from North Carolina south to Florida, the Gulf coast states, Mexico, and the Caribbean. About 5 percent of the total North American breeding population and 14 percent of the entire Atlantic coast breeding population winters from North Carolina through Florida. Plovers wintering on the Atlantic coast occurred most frequently in Georgia and least frequently in Florida. Approximately 35 percent of the total breeding population winters along the gulf coast from Florida to Texas and represents 56 percent of the Great Lakes/Great Plains population. Also in small numbers in the Bahamas and Greater Antilles, and probably eastern Mexico. See Nicholls and Baldasarre (1990) and Haig and Plissner (1993) for further information on winter distribution in the southeastern U.S., including listings of important sites.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Number of occurrences difficult to determine from available literature - most reports state number of pairs only.

Population Size: 2500 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: No comprehensive surveys since 1996. The 1996 International Piping Plover Census yielded the following: 5913 plovers on the breeding grounds; Atlantic coast population increased to 2581 individuals, Great Lakes population increased to 48, and Northern Great Plains population decreased to 3284 adults (Plissner and Haig 2000). The 1996 International Winter Census yielded of 2541 individuals; the Gulf Coast counts were hampered by weather and tides (Plissner and Haig 1997). The 1991 international census estimated the number of breeding pairs in the Northern Great Plains at 1486, with 897 pairs in the U.S. and 589 pairs in Canada (USFWS 1994). Estimates for the Atlantic coast were 702 pairs in the U.S. and 236 pairs in Canada. The Great Lakes population included only 17 pairs, all in Michigan. The range-wide population in the early 1990s, based on intensive surveys, was 5482 breeding adults and 3451 wintering birds (Haig 1992, Haig and Plissner 1993). USFWS (1994) reported the range-wide population at 2441 breeding pairs, based on the 1991 census. The Atlantic coast population was 1150 pairs in 1994 (USFWS, Federal Register, 6 February 1995, p. 7067; USFWS 1995). Morrison (1993/1994) estimated the population in Canada at 1950 individuals.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Primary threats are destruction and degradation of summer and winter habitat, shoreline erosion, human disturbance of nesting and foraging birds, and predation (Burger 1993).

HUMAN DISTURBANCE: Disturbance during nesting is the major factor in many areas, and is the most serious threat in Canada (Flemming et al. 1988). Human presence may inhibit courtship, incubation, and brooding (Haig 1983). Nests may also be trampled and destroyed (Lambert and Ratcliff 1979, Haig 1983, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Cairns (1977) found that reproductive success was lower on beaches used for recreation in Nova Scotia. Lambert and Ratcliff (1979) found very low reproductive success (30 percent hatching rate, 0.6 young fledged per pair) at a Michigan state park with heavily used beaches. Compression of beaches by vehicular traffic may also reduce invertebrate prey populations (Ryan 1996).

HABITAT ALTERATION: Habitat alteration and destruction is an additional concern. Rising lake levels in the Great Lakes narrowed beaches and may have caused habitat loss (Bradstreet et al. 1977). Hay and Lingle (1981) discuss destruction of nests due to flooding. In the Great Plains, lowering of the water table due to irrigation projects and strip mines is a growing concern (Kantrud 1979, Dinsmore 1981, USFWS 1988). On the Canadian Prairies, reservoir water management is a major concern; water is impounded in the spring, causing levels to rise throughout the breeding season, flooding nests and reducing brood rearing habitat (Boyne 2000). Woody species encroachment of lake shorelines and riverbanks may be responsible for habitat loss (Dinsmore 1981, Haig 1983, Hay and Lingle 1981, USFWS 1988; Lingle, pers. comm.). Invasion of sites by Marram Grass (Ammophila breviligulata), Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), and even spruces (Picea sp.) is a problem on the east coast; areas may need to be weeded (Haig 1992, Master, pers. comm.). Plans for dredging and recreational developmen along the Gulf of Mexico coast, particularly on Laguna Madre in Texas, pose a serious threat (USFWS 1994).

PREDATION AND DISTURBANCE: Greatest threat to nest success in South Dakota (Gaines and Ryan 1988) is nest predation. In Massachusetts, predators, primarily Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), destroyed 52-81 percent of nests in one study area (MacIvor et al. 1990). On Assateague Island, Maryland and Virginia, predators, mainly red fox and raccoon (Procyon lotor), accounted for about 90 percent of the known causes of nest loss (Patterson et al. 1992). Gulls potentially disastrous to plovers. Cartar (1976) reported that nest sites at Long Point, Ontario were invaded by large flocks of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) that destroyed nests. Nol (1980) documented adverse effects of non-breeding gull flocks on Piping Plover and Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Other important predators include Virginia Opossums (Didelphis virginiana), Striped Skunks (Mephitis mephitis), grackles (Quiscalus spp.), Fish Crows (Corvus ossifragus), and domestic cats and dogs (Patterson et al. 1990). Free-running dogs may be a major concern (Cairns and McLaren 1980, Quinn and Walden 1966, Lambert and Ratcliff 1979, USFWS 1988; Master, pers. comm.). Halbeisen (1977) found that dogs frighten snowy plovers from nests an average of twice as long (5.8 versus 2.8 minutes) compared to people. This increases the chance of egg failure and chick mortality from overexposure, starvation, and predation. Cattle trampling along alkali lakes may also be a problem.

POLLUTION: Wilcox (1959) observed adult mortality following oiling from highway tars. Dinsmore (1981) speculates that pesticides may be a major concern. Wintering populations along the Gulf Coast are potentially threatened by major oil spills (USFWS 1994).

HUNTING: In the mid-1800's piping plovers were harvested for food and brought to the verge of extinction (Bent 1929, Hull 1981). Piping plovers were protected from hunting by legislation in 1913, but populations have not increased to former levels (Hull 1981).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Generally increasing, but trend varies with region. International censuses in 1991 and 1996 revealed a rangewide increase of 7.7 per cent over that five-year period, from 5488 individuals to 5913 individuals.

ATLANTIC COAST: there has been a 50-80 percent decline over the past 50 years. The Long Island, New York population declined from over 500 pairs (Wilcox 1939) to about 100 pairs in 1988 (Cairns and McLaren 1980, USFWS 1988). In 1980 the Atlantic coast population was estimated at 910 pairs (Cairns and McLaren 1980); this estimate declined to 790 pairs in 1986 (550 pairs in the U.S. and 240 pairs in Canada) (USFWS 1988). However, many populations have increased with management attention since the mid-1980s. Most of the increase since 1989 has been in New England; the Mid-Atlantic and Canadian Atlantic populations have declined somewhat since 1989 (USFWS 1995). The 1991-1996 international census data indicate an overall increase of 30.4 per cent, from about 1979 individuals to 2581 (Plissner and Haig 2000). However, the Canadian Atlantic populations declined 16.6 per cent over the same period, from about 513 individuals to 428 (Plissner and Haig 2000). Subsequently, these numbers began to increase again, reaching 475 in 1999 (Boyne 2000).

GREAT LAKES: Long-term declines followed by recent small increases. Viable populations have disappeared from eight states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York) during last 50 years. Now extirpated in Minnesota, Wisconsin and southern Ontario (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988, Boyne 2000). In Michigan, reduced range and essentially eliminated from the southern portion of the state (Cottrille 1957, Lambert and Ratcliff 1979). USFWS (1990) categorized the Great Lakes population as declining, but Powell (1991) found that the population has remained stable since its listing in 1986; reproductive success has been low in recent years (Evers 1992, Powell and Cuthbert 1992). The 1991-1996 international census data indicate an increase of 20 per cent, from 40 to 48 individuals (Flemming 1994, Plissner and Haig 2000). Subsequently, 60-62 individuals were counted on the U.S. Great Lakes in 1998, a further increase of about 27 per cent (J. Hathaway, unpublished data cited in Boyne 2000). At Long Point, Ontario there were over 100 pairs in 1928 (Snyder 1931). Populations in Ontario dropped to an estimated 50 birds in the early 1930s (Sheppard 1935). Seven pairs were reported from Ontario in 1961-1965 (Hussel and Montgomerie 1966), and two pairs in 1976-1977 (Bradstreet et al. 1977). One pair of piping plovers nested along Lake Ontario in 1984 (Zickefoose, pers. comm.). No breeding pairs seen along the Canadian shores of the Great Lakes in the 1991 and 1996 censuses (Boyne 2000).

GREAT PLAINS: As of 1993, declining more than 7 percent annually (Ryan et al. 1993). International censuses in 1991 and 1996 revealed a 17.4 per cent increase in Canadian Great Plains populations and a 21.4 per cent decline in U.S. populations. Overall, there was a small decline over the five year period, from 3469 to 3284 individuals (Flemming 1994, Plissner and Haig 2000).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Annual surveys of population abundance, disturbance, and productivity. Further research is needed on wintering areas in the Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Mexico (Nichols and Baldasarre 1990).

Protection Needs: 1) It is critically important to eliminate or reduce human disturbance. 2) Prohibit free-running dogs. 3) Restrict vehicles during late-May to late-July. 4) Post signs and mount public relations campaign to reduce impact on nesting areas. 5) Use fences and other barriers to reduce predation. 6) Protect breeding sites from habitat alteration and recreational overuse. 7) Protect wintering grounds.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: Locally in the northern Great Plains region from southern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, northwestern and (formerly) southwestern Ontario, south to eastern Montana, the Dakotas, southeastern Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992), Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska; sporadic nesting occurs in Oklahoma; breeding birds are widely distributed in small populations (Haig 1992, Haig and Plissner 1993). Formerly throughout much of the Great Lakes region, now locally only in northern Michigan (Haig 1992, Evers 1992). On the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland, southeastern Quebec, and New Brunswick to North Carolina (Haig 1992); 82 percent of nesting pairs in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia (USFWS 1992). See USFWS (1994) for further information on breeding distribution in particular states.

NON-BREEDING: Complete winter distribution is not known. Birds have been reported wintering from North Carolina south to Florida, the Gulf coast states, Mexico, and the Caribbean. About 5 percent of the total North American breeding population and 14 percent of the entire Atlantic coast breeding population winters from North Carolina through Florida. Plovers wintering on the Atlantic coast occurred most frequently in Georgia and least frequently in Florida. Approximately 35 percent of the total breeding population winters along the gulf coast from Florida to Texas and represents 56 percent of the Great Lakes/Great Plains population. Also in small numbers in the Bahamas and Greater Antilles, and probably eastern Mexico. See Nicholls and Baldasarre (1990) and Haig and Plissner (1993) for further information on winter distribution in the southeastern U.S., including listings of important sites.

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, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, INextirpated, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OHextirpated, OK, PAextirpated, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WY
Canada AB, MB, NB, NF, NS, ON, PE, QC, SK

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)
AL Mobile (01097)
CO Bent (08011), Kiowa (08061), Prowers (08099)
CT Fairfield (09001), Middlesex (09007), New Haven (09009), New London (09011)
DE Sussex (10005)
FL Bay (12005), Charlotte (12015), Citrus (12017), Collier (12021), Duval (12031), Escambia (12033), Franklin (12037), Gulf (12045), Hillsborough (12057), Lee (12071), Manatee (12081), Miami-Dade (12086), Monroe (12087), Nassau (12089), Pasco (12101), Pinellas (12103), Santa Rosa (12113), St. Johns (12109), Taylor (12123), Volusia (12127)
GA Camden (13039), Chatham (13051), Glynn (13127), Liberty (13179), Mcintosh (13191)
IA Harrison (19085)*, Jasper (19099)*, Pottawattamie (19155), Poweshiek (19157)*, Wapello (19179)*, Woodbury (19193)
IL Lake (17097)
IN Lake (18089)*
KS Barton (20009), Douglas (20045), Jefferson (20087), Pottawatomie (20149), Riley (20161), Rooks (20163), Russell (20167), Shawnee (20177), Stafford (20185), Wabaunsee (20197)
LA Cameron (22023), Jefferson (22051), Lafourche (22057), Plaquemines (22075), St. Bernard (22087), St. Mary (22101), Terrebonne (22109), Vermilion (22113)
MA Barnstable (25001), Bristol (25005), Dukes (25007), Essex (25009), Nantucket (25019), Plymouth (25023), Suffolk (25025)
MD Worcester (24047)
MI Alger (26003), Alpena (26007), Bay (26017), Benzie (26019), Berrien (26021)*, Charlevoix (26029), Cheboygan (26031), Chippewa (26033), Delta (26041), Emmet (26047), Huron (26063)*, Iosco (26069), Leelanau (26089), Luce (26095)*, Mackinac (26097), Manistee (26101), Mason (26105), Muskegon (26121), Oceana (26127), Schoolcraft (26153)
MN Lake of the Woods (27077), Marshall (27089)*, St. Louis (27137), Traverse (27155)*
MS Hancock (28045), Harrison (28047), Jackson (28059)
MT Dawson (30021), Garfield (30033), McCone (30055), Phillips (30071), Pondera (30073), Richland (30083), Roosevelt (30085), Sheridan (30091), Valley (30105)
NC Brunswick (37019), Carteret (37031), Currituck (37053), Dare (37055), Hyde (37095), New Hanover (37129), Onslow (37133), Pender (37141)
ND Benson (38005), Burke (38013), Burleigh (38015), Divide (38023), Dunn (38025), Eddy (38027), Emmons (38029), Kidder (38043), Logan (38047), McHenry (38049), McIntosh (38051), McKenzie (38053), McLean (38055), Mercer (38057), Morton (38059), Mountrail (38061), Nelson (38063)*, Oliver (38065), Pierce (38069), Ramsey (38071)*, Renville (38075), Rolette (38079), Sargent (38081), Sheridan (38083), Sioux (38085), Slope (38087), Stutsman (38093), Ward (38101), Williams (38105)
NE Boyd (31015), Brown (31017), Buffalo (31019), Butler (31023), Cass (31025), Cedar (31027), Colfax (31037), Cuming (31039), Custer (31041), Dawson (31047), Dixon (31051), Dodge (31053), Douglas (31055), Hall (31079), Hamilton (31081), Holt (31089), Howard (31093), Keith (31101), Keya Paha (31103), Knox (31107), Lincoln (31111), Madison (31119), Merrick (31121), Nance (31125), Phelps (31137), Platte (31141), Rock (31149), Sarpy (31153), Saunders (31155), Stanton (31167), Valley (31175)
NH Rockingham (33015)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Cape May (34009), Monmouth (34025), Ocean (34029)
NY Bronx (36005), Jefferson (36045), Nassau (36059), Oswego (36075), Queens (36081), Suffolk (36103)
OK Cleveland (40027), McClain (40087)
PA Erie (42049)*
RI Newport (44005), Washington (44009)
SD Bon Homme (46009), Campbell (46021), Charles Mix (46023), Clay (46027), Codington (46029)*, Corson (46031), Day (46037), Dewey (46041), Hughes (46065), Kingsbury (46077), Potter (46107), Stanley (46117), Sully (46119), Union (46127), Walworth (46129), Yankton (46135)
TN Benton (47005), Cocke (47029), Humphreys (47085), Jefferson (47089), Shelby (47157)
TX Aransas (48007), Brazoria (48039), Calhoun (48057), Cameron (48061), Galveston (48167), Jefferson (48245), Kenedy (48261), Kleberg (48273), Matagorda (48321), Nueces (48355), San Patricio (48409), Willacy (48489)
VA Accomack (51001), Hampton (City) (51650), Northampton (51131), Portsmouth (City) (51740)*
WI Ashland (55003), Brown (55009), Door (55029), Douglas (55031), Kenosha (55059)*, Marinette (55075), Oconto (55083)*, Sheboygan (55117)*
WY Carbon (56007), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Goshen (56015), Natrona (56025)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+, Merrimack (01070002)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Charles (01090001)+, Cape Cod (01090002)+, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+, Thames (01100003)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+, Housatonic (01100005)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+
02 Bronx (02030102)+, Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+, Northern Long Island (02030201)+, Southern Long Island (02030202)+, Long Island Sound (02030203)+, Delaware Bay (02040204)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02040304)+, Lynnhaven-Poquoson (02080108)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+, Hampton Roads (02080208)+*
03 Albemarle (03010205)+, Pamlico Sound (03020105)+, White Oak River (03020301)+, New River (03020302)+, Lower Cape Fear (03030005)+, Coastal Carolina (03040208)+*, Ogeechee Coastal (03060204)+, Altamaha (03070106)+, Cumberland-St. Simons (03070203)+, St. Marys (03070204)+, Nassau (03070205)+, Daytona - St. Augustine (03080201)+, Cape Canaveral (03080202)+, Florida Bay-Florida Keys (03090203)+, Big Cypress Swamp (03090204)+, Florida Southeast Coast (03090206)+, Charlotte Harbor (03100103)+, Sarasota Bay (03100201)+, Tampa Bay (03100206)+, Crystal-Pithlachascotee (03100207)+, Econfina-Steinhatchee (03110102)+, New (03130013)+, Apalachicola Bay (03130014)+, St. Andrew-St. Joseph Bays (03140101)+, Pensacola Bay (03140105)+, Perdido Bay (03140107)+, Pascagoula (03170006)+, Mississippi Coastal (03170009)+, Lower Pearl. Mississippi (03180004)+
04 Beaver-Lester (04010102)+, St. Louis (04010201)+, Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Bad-Montreal (04010302)+, Betsy-Chocolay (04020201)+, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+*, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Duck-Pensaukee (04030103)+*, Peshtigo (04030105)+, Tacoosh-Whitefish (04030111)+, Fishdam-Sturgeon (04030112)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+*, Pike-Root (04040002)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+, Brevoort-Millecoquins (04060107)+, Lake Michigan (04060200)+, Carp-Pine (04070002)+*, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+, Au Sable (04070007)+, Au Gres-Rifle (04080101)+, Kawkawlin-Pine (04080102)+, Pigeon-Wiscoggin (04080103)+*, Lake Huron (04080300)+, Lake Erie (04120200)+*, Salmon-Sandy (04140102)+
06 Lower French Broad (06010107)+, Kentucky Lake (06040005)+
07 North Skunk (07080106)+*, Skunk (07080107)+*, Middle Iowa (07080208)+*, Lower Iowa (07080209)+*, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+*
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Horn Lake-Nonconnah (08010211)+, Atchafalaya (08080101)+, Vermilion (08080103)+, Mermentau (08080202)+, Lower Calcasieu (08080206)+, Lower Mississippi-New Orleans (08090100)+, Eastern Louisiana Coastal (08090203)+, East Central Louisiana Coastal (08090301)+, West Central Louisiana Coastal (08090302)+
09 Des Lacs (09010002)+, Lower Souris (09010003)+, Willow (09010004)+, Deep (09010005)+*, Moose Mountain Creek-Souris River (09010008)+, Bois De Sioux (09020101)+*, Western Wild Rice (09020105)+, Devils Lake (09020201)+, Upper Sheyenne (09020202)+, Middle Sheyenne (09020203)+, Thief (09020304)+*, Lake of the Woods (09030009)+
10 Two Medicine (10030201)+, Fort Peck Reservoir (10040104)+, Big Dry (10040105)+, Middle Milk (10050004)+, Lower Milk (10050012)+, Beaver (10050014)+, Prarie Elk-Wolf (10060001)+, Redwater (10060002)+, Poplar (10060003)+, Charlie-Little Muddy (10060005)+, Big Muddy (10060006)+, Brush Lake closed basin (10060007)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, Lake Sakakawea (10110101)+, Little Muddy (10110102)+, Middle Little Missouri (10110203)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Painted Woods-Square Butte (10130101)+, Upper Lake Oahe (10130102)+, Apple (10130103)+, Beaver (10130104)+, Lower Lake Oahe (10130105)+, West Missouri Coteau (10130106)+, Knife (10130201)+, Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Lower Niobrara (10150007)+, James Headwaters (10160001)+, Pipestem (10160002)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, South Big Sioux Coteau (10170103)+, Middle Big Sioux Coteau (10170201)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Horse (10180012)+, Lower North Platte (10180014)+, Lower South Platte (10190018)+, Middle Platte-Buffalo (10200101)+, Wood (10200102)+, Middle Platte-Prairie (10200103)+, Lower Platte-Shell (10200201)+, Lower Platte (10200202)+, Salt (10200203)+, Lower Middle Loup (10210003)+, Lower North Loup (10210007)+, Loup (10210009)+, Upper Elkhorn (10220001)+, Lower Elkhorn (10220003)+, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Upper Saline (10260009)+, Upper South Fork Solomon (10260013)+, Upper Kansas (10270101)+, Middle Kansas (10270102)+, Delaware (10270103)+, Lower Kansas (10270104)+
11 Upper Arkansas-John Martin (11020009)+, Big Sandy (11020011)+, Rush (11020012)+, Rattlesnake (11030009)+, Cow (11030011)+, Lower Canadian-Walnut (11090202)+
12 Sabine Lake (12040201)+, East Galveston Bay (12040202)+, West Galveston Bay (12040204)+, Austin-Oyster (12040205)+, Lower Brazos (12070104)+, Lower Colorado (12090302)+, San Bernard (12090401)+, East Matagorda Bay (12090402)+, Central Matagorda Bay (12100401)+, West Matagorda Bay (12100402)+, East San Antonio Bay (12100403)+, Aransas Bay (12100405)+, North Corpus Christi Bay (12110201)+, South Corpus Christi Bay (12110202)+, North Laguna Madre (12110203)+, Central Laguna Madre (12110207)+, South Laguna Madre (12110208)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small shorebird (plover).
General Description: A small plover; wings approximately 117 mm; tail 51 mm; weight 46-64 g (average 55 g); length averages about 17-18 cm (NGS 1983).

ADULT MALE: Forehead, sides of head (including lores, underparts and collar around hindneck) plain white with a dark band across the front of the crown from eye-to-eye and black shoulder patches that often extend across the breast. Inland birds have more complete breast band than Atlantic coast birds. Nonbreeding birds lose the dark bands. Upper parts pale gray-brown, lightest on the rump and upper tail-coverts; primaries dusky-black at tips, the inner webs largely white, and all but the outer two or three more or less white on outer webs; secondaries largely white; greater wing-coverts tipped with white; axillaries and lining of wing white; tail white at base with the features darkening towards the end and tipped with white; outer retrices mostly white. Bill dull orange, tipped with black; all dark in winter. Legs and feet orange-yellow; iris dark brown; eyelids pale yellow (Bent 1929, Roberts 1955, Wilcox 1959, Dinsmore 1981). Immature plumage resembles adult nonbreeding plumage; juveniles acquire adult plumage the spring after they fledge.

VOCALIZATIONS: The call is a two-noted "peep-lo" with an organ-like sound (Robbins et al. 1983).

EGGS: creamy white and spotted; 25 x 32 mm.

Diagnostic Characteristics: The piping plover differs from the snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) in having a thicker bill, generally paler upperparts, and orange rather than dark or grayish feet and legs. It is much paler than other plovers.
Reproduction Comments: The breeding season begins when the adults reach the breeding grounds in mid- to late-April or in mid-May in northern parts of the range. The adult males arrive earliest, select beach habitats, and defend established territories against other males (Hull 1981). When adult females arrive at the breeding grounds several weeks later, the males conduct elaborate courtship rituals including aerial displays of circles and figure eights, whistling song, posturing with spread tail and wings, and rapid drumming of feet (Bent 1929, Hull 1981).

Often returns to the same nesting area in consecutive years (but few return to natal sites). Sometimes shifts breeding location by up to several hundred kilometers between consecutive years. Wilcox (1959) has shown that only 20 percent settle at a nest site farther than 1,000 feet from the previous year's locality. Adult females tend to choose new nest sites within the same geographic area with over 50 percent choosing a new nest site over 1,000 feet from the previous year. Previous reproductive success apparently does not increase the probability of returning to specific breeding sites (see USFWS 1994). In Manitoba, adults that experienced nest failure the previous year usually changed general nesting location (Haig and Oring 1988).

Generally monogamous during a single breeding season. Adults tend to pick new mates each year (Wilcox 1959). In southern Manitoba, most breeders changed mates in subsequent years (but hatching success was lower than for birds that retained mates; some birds changed mates within breeding season after nest destruction [Haig and Oring 1988]).

Nest sites are simple depressions or scrapes in the sand (Bent 1929, Wilcox 1959). The average nest is about 6 to 8 cm in diameter, and is often lined with pebbles, shells, or drift wood to enhance the camouflage effect. Males make the scrapes and may construct additional (unused) nests in their territories, which may be used to deceive predators or may simply reflect over-zealousness (Wilcox 1959, Hull 1981). Occupied nests are generally 50 to 100 meters apart (Wilcox 1959, Cairns 1977, Niemi and Davis 1979, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982).

Egg-laying commences soon after mating (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982, Hull 1981). Eggs are laid every second day. The average clutch size is four eggs (Wilcox 1959) and 3-egg clutches occur most commonly in replacement clutches. The average number of young fledged per nesting pair usually is two or fewer. The young hatch about 27 to 31 days after egg laying, and incubation is shared by both adults (Wilcox 1959, Hull 1981).

Young leave the nest about two hours after hatching and are capable of running and swimming. The young remain within about 200 meters of the nest, although they do not return after hatching (Wilcox 1959, Hull 1981, Johnsgard 1979). When disturbed or threatened, the young either freeze or combine short runs with freezing and blend very effectively into their surroundings (Wilcox 1959, Hull 1981). The adults will feign injury to draw intruders away from the nest or young (Wilcox 1959, Bent 1929). Adults also defend the nest territory against other adult piping plovers, gulls, and song birds (Wilcox 1959, Matteson 1980). First (unsustained) flight has been observed at around 18 days, with chicks molting into first juvenile plumage by day 22 (Zickefoose, pers. comm.).

Nest success depends heavily upon camouflage (Hull 1981). Hatching success ranges widely: 91 percent for undisturbed beaches on Long Island (Wilcox 1959), 76 percent for undisturbed beaches in Nova Scotia (Cairns 1977), 44 percent on relatively undisturbed beaches at Lake of the Woods (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982), and 30 percent maximum at disturbed Michigan beaches (Lambert and Ratcliff 1979). Will renest if first clutch is lost. Never raised more than one brood per season in southern Manitoba.

Ecology Comments: Defends territory during breeding season and at some winter sites. Nesting territory may or may not contain the foraging area. Home range during the breeding season generally is confined to the vicinity of the nest. If nest is destroyed, may change home range before renesting; in Manitoba, shifts of 3-100 kilometers have occurred (Haig and Oring 1988).

In the Great Plains, annual survivorship was 66 percent in adults, 60 percent in immatures; calculated that a 31 percent increase in chicks fledged per pair (to 1.2 chicks fledged per pair annually) was needed to stabilize the population (Root et al. 1992, Ryan et al. 1993). Data from Massachusetts indicate that mean annual productivity of one chick per pair will maintain a stationary population (Melvin et al. 1992).

Longevity records indicate that only 13 percent of females and 28 percent of the males lived to five years. Eleven years of age is probably the maximum age (Wilcox 1959).

In Duluth Harbor, nest within a Common Tern (STERNA HIRUNDO) colony and benefit from the terns' defense against ring-billed (LARUS DELAWARENSIS) and Herring Gulls (LARUS ARGENTATUS) (Niemi and Davis 1979). Great Plains populations are sometimes associated with Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) colonies (Faanes 1983, Hay and Lingle 1981; Dinan, pers. comm.). Most eastern sites also have Least Terns (Vickery, pers. comm.; L. Master, pers. comm.). Also have commensal relationship with American Avocets (RECURVIROSTRA AMERICANA) (Prindiville and Ryan 1984). Plovers nesting in areas used by avocets had a 62 percent nesting success, compared to a 29 percent success in areas without avocets. Once hatched, chick survival rates were similar, regardless of avocet presence.

NON-BREEDING: In Laguna Madre, Texas, non-breeding home ranges were larger in winter than in fall or spring; overall mean was 12.6 +/- 3.3 square kilometers (n=48, Drake et al. 2001). Mean linear distance moved was 1.9 +/-0.4 km in fall (n=13), 4.2 +/- 0.6 km in winter (n=14), and 3.6 +/- 0.6 km in spring (n=19).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Begins northward migration from southern U.S. wintering areas in March, arrives on nesting grounds March-May; males arrive prior to females. Begins arriving in northern inland breeding areas in mid-April and most have arrived by mid-May (see USFWS 1994). Begin fall migration in mid- to late summer. The juveniles may remain later but are generally gone by mid- to late August (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Breeders from Northern Great Plains and Great Lakes migrate mainly to Gulf Coast for winter; Atlantic coast breeders migrate primarily to Atlantic coast sites farther south (Virginia to Florida, Bahamas) (Haig and Oring 1988, Haig and Plissner 1993). In Minnesota, the majority of breeding adults left the nesting grounds by early August; most juveniles were gone by late August (Wiens, 1986, M.S. thesis, Univ. Minnesota, Duluth).
Estuarine Habitat(s): Tidal flat/shore
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Sand/dune
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Sandy upper beaches, especially where scattered grass tufts are present, and sparsely vegetated shores and islands of shallow lakes, ponds, rivers, and impoundments. Nests may also be built on sandy open flats among shells or cobble behind foredunes (e.g., in Michigan and New Jersey) (Master, pers. comm.).

ATLANTIC COAST: breeds mainly on gently sloping foredunes and blow-out areas behind primary dunes of sandy coastal beaches, and on suitable dredge oil deposits (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). In Maine, piping plovers nest only on sandy beaches notably lacking in small or large stones (Vickery, pers. comm.).

GREAT LAKES: Breeds on sand and gravel shorelines, and behind foredune among cobble and sparse vegetation on islands (Powell and Cuthbert 1992). Lambert and Ratcliff (1979) found that the average beach used for nest habitat in Michigan was 37 meters wide and that the nests were located an average of 13 meters from the water's edge (14 meters from the first dune and 109 meters from the nearest tree line). They also found a preference for nesting near other water bodies (beach pools, lagoons, or cuts) that may provide additional food sources. In Minnesota Point (Duluth, Minnesota), the average ground cover was less than 5 percent, and plants were an average of 13 centimeters tall (Niemi and Davis 1979). Niemi and Davis (1979) found that less than 8 percent of the available beach habitat was suitable for piping plover nesting. At Pine and Curry Islands (Lake of the Woods, Minnesota), nest on a sandy island where vegetation rarely exceeds 1 meter in height (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Vegetation included Salix interior, Artemisia campestris, Lathyrus japonicus, Xanthium spp., Populus balsamifera, Polygonum spp., Oenothera spp., grasses, and sedges.

GREAT PLAINS: 60 percent of breeding birds use shorelines around small alkaline lakes, 18 percent use large reservoir beaches, 20 percent use river islands and adjacent sand pits, 2 percent use beaches on large lakes, and 0.4 percent use industrial pond shorelines (Haig and Plissner 1993). Suitable breeding habitats are wide beaches (> 20 meters) with highly clumped vegetation, having less than 5 percent overall vegetation cover and/or with extensive gravel (USFWS 1988).

Vegetation cover on nesting islands is generally less than 25 percent (USFWS 1988). Woody species encroachment is a problem at many alluvial island sites due to reduced flows (Hay and Lingle 1981; Lingle, pers. comm.). This is also a problem on saline wetland shorelines due to drawdown and irrigation pumping (Soine, pers. comm.).

NONBREEDING: Usually on ocean beaches or on sand or algal flats in protected bays (Haig 1992). Most abundant on expansive sandflats, sandy mudflats, and sandy beach in close proximity; usually in areas with high habitat heterogeneity. At Laguna Madre, Texas, Drake et al. (2001) found this species to be most abundant on algal flats in fall and spring, but used exposed sand flats more often in winter. See Nicholls and Baldasarre (1990) for further information on winter habitat associations in the southeastern U.S.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Food consists of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates (Bent 1928). The chicks learn to feed themselves and eat smaller versions adult food items (Hull 1981). Piping plovers feed more leisurely than other sandpipers, alternately running and pausing to search for prey (Bent 1928). Open shoreline areas are preferred, and vegetated beaches are avoided (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982).

Eats various small invertebrates, though relatively little information is available on breeding and winter diet. In New Jersey, intertidal polychaetes were the main prey of plovers foraging at night (Staine and Burger 1994). In the Magdalen Islands, Quebec, Staphylinidae, Curculionidae, and Diptera were the organisms most commonly found in fecal droppings (Shaffer and Laporte 1994).

Forages along ocean beaches, on intertidal flats, tidal pool edges, etc. Obtains food from surface of substrate, or occasionally probes into sand or mud. In Massachusetts, preferred mudflat, intertidal, and wrack habitats for foraging (Hoopes et al. 1992). On Assateague Island, bay beaches and island interiors were much more favorable as brood-rearing habitats than were ocean beaches (Patterson et al. 1992).

Adult Phenology: Circadian
Immature Phenology: Circadian
Phenology Comments: Forages day and night (Burger 1993, Staine and Burger 1994).
Length: 18 centimeters
Weight: 55 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: In many areas, population maintenance depends on intensive management. Nesting and foraging areas need to be protected from human disturbances. Habitat can be created with dredge material. Predator exclosures have been used to improve nest success. Continued population monitoring, and research on diet and feeding habits and on the effects of pesticides and pollutants, is advisable.
Restoration Potential: Rapid recovery is possible with intensive protection. Full recovery of the Atlantic coast population is anticipated by the year 2010 (USFWS 1995). To acquire essential habitat, a coordinated effort between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service is needed. Coordinated efforts between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife agencies, Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, and state conservation groups are needed to acquire and manage essential habitat. The Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988) and the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988) should be consulted. Future research will determine the recovery potential.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Access to beaches should be restricted for nesting during late May to late July. Dogs should be leashed, and people requested to avoid the upper beach area. In the Great Plains, preserve design considerations should include control or restrictions overwater flow, as reduced flows permit woody species invasion of nest habitat (Lingle, pers. comm.). Untimely flooding also can eliminate potential feeding or nesting habitat (Howe, pers. comm.). The shorelines of alkali lakes should be fenced to restrict cattle use.
Management Requirements: Increasingly dependent on local conservation efforts and management (Collar et al. 1992). See draft revised recovery plan (USFWS 1994, 1995). Protection and management strategies employed to date (fencing, predator exclosures, etc.) generally are very labor-intensive and most require annual implementation (Hecht 1992), but they are effective in increasing productivity and breeding population size (Melvin et al. 1992). May benefit from erection of plover-permeable fencing to restrict human and carnivore access to nesting areas or specific nests. See Mayer and Ryan (1991) for information on the use of electric fences to reduce mammalian predation on nests and chicks. The use of predator exclosures increases hatching success compared to unprotected nests (Rimmer and Deblinger 1990). Cross (1992) recommended that managers should consider also lethal removal of predators if egg loss exceeds 25 percent.

Reducing human disturbance and eliminating off-road vehicles in nesting areas has increased reproductive success (Flemming et al. 1988). Cartar (1976) found that reproductive success at Long Point, Ontario nearly doubled following attempts to restrict access to the nesting areas. Nightime recreational use of beaches should be considered in management plans because plovers forage at night or during the day (Staine and Burger 1994).

Management actions intended to create or maintain habitat, such as breaching and drawdown of coastal ponds, should be considered with caution; periodic high water levels in ponds may be important in providing suitable habitat over the long term. In South Dakota, increases in amount of available beach habitat resulted in larger numbers of nesters (Gaines and Ryan 1988).

Monitoring Requirements: To assess conservation efforts on population trends, monitoring should continue. During the two-week period from the middle to the end of incubation, observers should visit sites early in the morning, when plovers are least susceptible to intrusion. Generally a pair of binoculars (7X+) or a spotting scope (of 20X+) is sufficient for proper identification. Two observers is ideal. One person may monitor from a distance, while the other approaches more closely. In typical beach situations, walking a route parallel to the shoreline is recommended, using caution so as to not disturb potential nests (USFWS 1988).
Management Research Needs: 1) Continue to monitor populations. 2) Research diet and feeding habits, and the effects of pesticides and pollutants. 3) Monitor responses to habitat management. Habitat restoration should be attempted (Haig 1983; Lingle, pers. comm.). 4) Locate reliable wintering sites and migration routes. Investigate wintering ground ecology.
Biological Research Needs: Develop site evaluation procedure; determine spatial and temporal wintering and migration patterns; investigate ecology, behavior, and population dynamics of predators.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Shorebirds

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Feeding Area, Breeding Site
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 of nesting adults and broods. Because separations are based on nesting areas, the foraging areas of different occurrences may overlap if nesting birds are traveling to distant places to feed.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance pertains specifically to nesting areas, not to locations of dispersed 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.

The separation distance is an arbitrary value; it is impractical to attempt to delineate shorebird occurrences on the basis of dispersal patterns or metapopulation dynamics. Foraging ranges of some nesting shorebird species (see following) may suggest use of a larger separation distance, but this likely would result in occurrences that are too large and less effective for conservation planning.

Separation distance based on larger 'typical' breeding home ranges with diameters of 1.5 to 3 kilometers. Semipalmated Plovers have breeding home ranges up to 3 square kilometers, i.e. a diameter of just under 2 kilometers (Nol and Blanken 1999). Red-necked Phalaropes have a core home range of 1-3 hectares, but occasionally travel 1.5 kilometers to feed (Rubega et al. 2000). Stilt Sandpipers can forage up to 8 kilometers from nest (Jehl 1973). Mountain Plovers have an average home range of 56.6 hectares (Knopf 1996) but broods typically move 1-2 kilometers shortly after hatching (Knopf and Rupert 1996).

Territories: Common Snipe, 6.4-28.6 hectares (Mueller 1999); Long-billed Dowitcher, 100-300 meter diameter (Johnsgard 1981); golden-plovers, average 10-59 hectares (Johnson and Connors 1996); Long-billed Curlew, 6-20 hectares (Johnsgard 1981).

Nesting densities: Black-bellied Plover, 0.3-2.3 pairs per square kilometer (44 ha per pair at latter density; Hussell and Page 1976, Parmelee et al. 1967); Marbled Godwit, maximum density 1 pair/32 hectares (Stewart and Kantrud 1972).

Foraging distances: Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, up to 13 kilometers from nest (Elphick and Tibbits 1998, Tibbits and Moskoff 1999).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a smaller 'typical' home ranges (see Separation Justification).
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Roost, Foraging concentration area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat (minimum can be reduced in the case of rarer species). 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 Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 15Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Roost, Winter Feeding Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds 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 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: S. Cannings
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: 23Mar2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Michaud, J., G. Hammerson, and S. Cannings
Management Information Edition Date: 23Dec2004
Management Information Edition Author: Evans, J. E., G. Hammerson, J. Michaud, M. Koenen, and D. W. Mehlman
Management Information Acknowledgments: W. E. Cairns, J. J. Dinan, D. Ewert, R. W. Howe, L. L. Master, B. Vickery, J. Zickefoose, and G. R. Lingle supplied helpful comments.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 16May1996
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G. Minor revisions by S. Cannings.

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

References
Help
  • ANONYMOUS. 1988. RECOVERY PLANS: PIPING PLOVER: GREAT LAKES AND NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS POPULATIONS. ENDANGERED SPECIES TECH, BULL. 13(8):10-11.

  • ARBIB, R. 1977. THE BLUE LIST OF 1978. AMER. BIRDS 31(6):1087-1096.

  • 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/.

  • Anderson, B. 1979. Observations from Pine/Curry Islands - Lake of the Woods. Loon 51:144-5.

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

  • Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum Natural History xxxviii + 442 pp.

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

  • Anonymous, 1988. Piping Plover survey - 1988: South Saskatchewan River - Lake Diefenbaker (Riverhurst to Gardiner Dam).

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

  • Arbib, R. 1976. The blue list for 1976. Blue Jay 34(3):157-163.

  • Audubon Society. 1981-1985. Breeding Bird Atlas of New Hampshire. (unpublished).

  • 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.

  • Azevedo Junior, S. M. de, M. E. de Larrazebal and O. Pena. 2003. First record of Charadrius melodus Ord (Aves Charadriiformes) in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 20:559-560.

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

  • BOTTITTA, G.E., ET AL. 1994. MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING OF THE PIPING PLOVER AT ASSATEAGUE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARYLAND: 1994 SUMMARY REPORT. UNPUBLISHED, 38 PP.

  • BURGER, J. 1991. FORAGING BEHAVIOR AND THE EFFECT OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE ON THE PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS). JOURNAL OF COASTAL RESEARCH 7(1):39-52.

  • Bailey, A. M. and R. J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. 2 vols. 895 pp.

  • Beaulieu, H. 1992. Liste des espèces de la faune vertébrée susceptibles d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 107 p.

  • Bell, F.H. 1978. Status report on Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus, in Canada. COSEWIC report. 35 pp. + maps.

  • Bent, A. C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds (Part II). U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 146. Washington, D.C.

  • Bent, A.C. 1928. Life histories of the North American shore birds, Vol. 11. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, New York. 412 pp.

  • Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds (Part II). U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 146. Washington, D.C.

  • Bierly, M.L. 1980. Bird Finding in Tennessee. 3825 Bed- ford Ave., Nashville, TN 37125.

  • 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.

  • Boyne, A. 2000. Draft update COSEWIC status report on Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 45pp.

  • Boyne, A. 2000. Update COSEWIC Status Report on Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Unpublished report prepared by Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada - Atlantic Region, Sackville, NB for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 45 pp.

  • Bradstreet, M. S. W., G. W. Page and W. G. Johnson. 1977. Shorebirds at Long Point, Lake Eire, 1966-1971: seasonal occurrence, habitat preference, and variation in abundance. Canadian Field Naturalist 91:225-36.

  • Bull, J. and J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. The Audubon Society field guide to North American birds (eastern region). Alfred A. Knopf Publ. Co., New York, NY. 775pp.

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

  • Burger, J. 1987. Physical and social determinants of nest-site selection in piping plover in New Jersey. Condor 89: 811-818.

  • Burger, J. 1993. Shorebird squeeze. Natural History 5/93, pp. 8-14.

  • 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.

  • CAIRNS, W.E. 1982. BIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR OF BREEDING PIPING PLOVERS. WILSON BULLETIN. 94(4):531-545.

  • CAIRNS, W.E. AND I.A. MCLAREN. 1980. STATUS OF THE PIPING PLOVER ON THE EAST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA. AMERICAN BIRDS. 34(2):206-208.

  • COASTAL ECOLOGY RESEARCH LABORATORY. 1987. PROCEEDINGS: ASSATEAGUE ISLAND RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM. U OF MD EASTERN SHORE, PRICESS ANNE, MD.

  • COSSARO. 2014. Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). May 2014 (final). 17pp.

  • 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.

  • Cairns, W. E. 1977. Breeding biology and behavior of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in southern Nova Scotia. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. M.S. thesis. 155 pp.

  • Cairns, W. E., and I. A. McLaren. 1980. Status of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) on the East Coast of North America. American Birds 34:206-8.

  • Cairns, W.E. 1982. Biology and Behavior of Piping Plovers. Wilson Bull. 94(4):531-545.

  • Cairns, W.E. 1982. Biology and Behavior of Piping Plovers. Wilson Bull. 94(4):531-545.

  • Campbell, L. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life History and Management. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Endangered Resources Branch, Austin, Texas. ix + 129 pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1989. Hinterland Who's who: Piping Plover. Environment Canada. Canada. 4p.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1993. Prairie Threatened Wildlife: Piping Plover. Manitoba Natural Resources, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, Alberta Environmental Portection, Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation, and North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Canada. 4p.

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

  • Cartar, R. 1976. The status of the Piping Plover at Long Point, Ontario, 1966-1975. Ont. Field Biol. 30(2): 42-45.

  • Cartar, R. 1976. The status of the piping plover at Long Point, Ontario, 1966-1974. Ont. Field Biol. 30:42-5.

  • Collar, N. J., L. P. Gonzaga, N. Krabbe, A. Madroño-Nieto, L. G. Naranjo, T. A. Parker III, and D. C. Wege. 1992. Threatened Birds of the Americas. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. 3rd edition, Part 2. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK.

  • 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.

  • Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Biological Conservation Datasystem. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.

  • Cooper, S. 1990. Notes on piper plover nesting at Cape Hatteras National Seashore during 1987. Chat 54:1-6.

  • Cottrille, B. C. 1957. Summer distriubtion of the piping plover in Michigan. Jack-pine Warbler 35:26-33.

  • Cross, R. R. 1992. Effects of predator control on piping plover reproductive success. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 49.

  • Cuthbert, F. J., and T. Wiens. 1982. Status and breeding biology of the piping plover in Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota. Report submitted to Non-Game Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 18 pp.

  • Cuthbert, F. J., and T. Wiens. 1985. Status and breeding biology of the piping plover in Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota. Report submitted to NonGame Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 37 pp.

  • Cyr, A. et J. Larivée. 1995. Atlas saisonnier des oiseaux du Québec. Les Presses de l'Université de Sherbrooke et La Société de Loisir Ornithologique de l'Estrie, inc. Sherbrooke 711p.

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

  • DYER, R. 1987. ATLANTIC COAST PIPING PLOVER RECOVERY PLAN (DRAFT). U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 77pp.

  • Dale, B. 1986. Land tenure of areas critical to piping plovers in Saskatchewan. SNHS Report. Mimeo 24pp. plus Tables.

  • Davis, T. 1984. St. Louis River Estuary Colonial Bird Program 1984. Prepared for the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 23 pp.

  • Davis, T. 1986. St. Louis River Estuary Colonial Bird Program 1986. Prepared for the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 16 pp.

  • Davis, Tom. 1983-1988. St. Louis River Estuary Colonial Bird Program. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program; the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission and the Northwest Regional Planning Commission (Metropolitan Interstate Committee). Results in unpublished report.

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

  • Dinsmore, J. J. 1981. Piping plovers - a synthesis of the literature and an annotated bibliography. Unpublished report. 28 pp.

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

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

  • Drake, K. R., J. E. Thompson, K. L. Drake, and C. Zonick. 2001. Movements, habitat use, and sruvival of nonbreeding Piping Plovers. Condor 103:259-267.

  • Dunlop, L. 2001. The 2001 International Piping Plover Breeding Census - Saskatchewan. Nature Saskatchewan.

  • 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.

  • Elias-Gerken, S. P., J. D. Fraser, and P. A. Buckley. 1995. Piping plover habitat suitability on central Long Island, New York barrier islands. USDI National Park Service, North Atlantic region, Tech. Rep. NPS/NAROSS/NRTR/95-29. xvii + 246 pp.

  • Erickson, Kathy and Prellwitz, Dwain M. 1999. Piping plover surveys for Nelson Reservoir, Bowdoin NWR and Hewitt Lake NWR.

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

  • Estelle, V. and T. Mabee. 1995. Breeding success of Least Terns, Piping Plovers and Snowy Plovers: evaluation of predator exclosures in southeast Colorado, 1994. Report submitted to Colorado Division of Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management.

  • Evers, D. C. 1992. A guide to Michigan's endangered wildlife. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. viii + 103 pp.

  • FLEMING, S.P., ET AL. 1988. PIPING PLOVER STATUS IN NOVA SCOTIA RELATED TO ITS REPRODUCTIVE AND BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE. J. FIELD ORNITHOL. 59(4):321-330.

  • FRASER, J.D. 1991. INVESTIGATOR'S ANNUAL REPORT: FORAGING HABITATS AND BEHAVIOR OF PIPING PLOVER.

  • Faanes, C. A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in central Nebraska. Prairie Nat. 15(4):145-154.

  • Faanes, C. A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in central Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 15:145-154.

  • Ferland, C. L., and S. M. Haig. 2002. 2001 International Piping Plover Census. United States Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 293 pp.

  • Flemming, S. P. (editor). 1994. The 1991 International Piping Plover Census in Canada. Occasional Paper No. 82., Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 59 pp.

  • Flemming, S. P., R. D. Chiasson, P. C. Smith, P. J. Austin-Smith, and R. P. Bancroft. 1988. Piping Plover status in Nova Scotia related to its reproductive and behavioral responses to human disturbance. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:321-330.

  • GAINES, E.P. AND M.R. RYAN. 1988. PIPING PLOVER HABITAT USE AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS IN NORTH DAKOTA. J. WILDL. MGMT. 52(2):266-273.

  • Gaines, E. P. and M. R. Ryan. 1988. Piping plover habitat use and reproductive success in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 52(2):266-273.

  • Gaines, E. P., and M. R. Ryan. 1988. Piping plover habitat use and reproductive success in North Dakota. J. Wildlife Management 52:266-273.

  • Gauthier, J. et Y. Aubry (sous la direction de) 1995. Les oiseaux nicheurs du Québec : Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Association québécoise des groupes d'ornithologues, Société québécoise de protection des oiseaux, Service canadien de l

  • Godfrey, W. E. 1967. Les oiseaux du Canada.. Bulletin No 203, No 73 de la série Biologie. Musée national du Canada 506 p.

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

  • Goldin, M. R., et al. 1992. The effects of human disturbance and off-road vehicles on piping plover (Charadrius melodus) behavior and reproductive success. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 65.

  • Goosen, J. P. 1990. Piping plover research and conservation in Canada. Blue Jay 48:139-153.

  • Goosen, J.P. 1989. Piping Plover: Hinterland Who is Who. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Goosen, J.P. 1990. Prairie piping plover conservation: second annual report (1989). Canadian Wildlife Service Recovery Team Report.

  • Green, J. C., and R. B. Janssen. 1975. Minnesota birds: where, when, and how many. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 217 pp.

  • HAIG, S. 1983. THE PIPING PLOVER. NATURAL AREAS JOURNAL 3(3):35-37.

  • HAIG, S.M. AND L.W. ORING. 1988. DISTRIBUTION AND DISPERSAL IN THE PIPING PLOVER. AUK. 105:630-638.

  • HAIG, S.M. AND L.W. ORING. 1988. MATE, SITE, AND TERRITORY FIDELITY IN PIPING PLOVERS. AUK. 105:268-277.

  • HAIG, SUSAN M. AND JONATHAN H. PLISSNER. 1992. 1991 INTERNATIONAL PIPING PLOVER CENSUS. REPORT TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 3, DIVISION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES, FT. SNELLING, MINNESOTA, 148 PP.

  • Haig, S. 1983. The Piping Plover. Natural Areas Journal 3(3):35-37.

  • Haig, S. 1983. The Piping Plover. Natural Areas Journal 3(3):35-37.

  • Haig, S. 1985. Status Report on the Piping Plover in Canada (Charadrius melodus). Prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 23 pp.

  • Haig, S. 1985. The status of the Piping Plover in Canada. COSEWIC report, Ottawa, Ontario. 23 pp.

  • Haig, S. 1985. Updated status report on the Piping Plover, CHARADRIUS MELODUS, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 36 pp.

  • Haig, S. M. 1987. The population biology and life history patterns of the piping plover. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Northland College, Grand Forks, North Dakota. 121 pp.

  • Haig, S. M. 1992. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Number 2 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • Haig, S. M. 1992. Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS). In: A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, (eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 2. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: The American Ornithologists Union. 18 pp.

  • Haig, S. M. 1992. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). No. 2 in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

  • Haig, S. M. and J. H. Plissner. 1993. Distribution and abundance of piping plovers: results and implications of the 1991 international census. Condor 95:145-156.

  • Haig, S. and L. W. Oring. 1985. 1985 status and breeding summary of piping plovers at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Report submitted to the Non-game Program Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpaged.

  • Haig, S. and L. W. Oring. 1986. Population evaluation of piping plovers at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Report submitted to the Non-game Program Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpaged.

  • Haig, S. and L. W. Oring. 1987. 1987 status and breeding summary of piping plovers at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Report submitted to the Non-game Program Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpaged.

  • Haig, S.M. 1992. Distribution and status of piping plovers in winter. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 69.

  • Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 2. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.

  • Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 2. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.

  • Haig, S.M. and J.H. Plissner. 1993. Distribution and abundance of piping plovers: results and implications of the 1991 international census. Condor 95:145-156.

  • Haig, S.M. and L.W. Loring. 1987. The Piping Plover. pp509-519 IN, R.L. DiSilvestro (ed.) Audobon Wildlife Report 1987. Academic Press Inc. London. 697pp.

  • Haig, S.M. and L.W. Oring. 1988a. Genetic differentiation of piping plovers across North America. Auk 105:260-267.

  • Haig, S.M. and L.W. Oring. 1988b. Mate, site, and territory fidelity in piping plovers. Auk 105:268-277.

  • Haig, S.M. and L.W. Oring. 1988c. Distribution and dispersal in the piping plover. Auk 105:630-638.

  • Haig, Susan M. 1992. Piping Plover; The Birds of North America. Vol. 1, No. 2. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Haig, Susan and Lewis W. Oring. 1985-1987. Population Evaluation of Piping Plovers at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

  • Halbeisen, R. 1977. Disturbances of incubating snowy plovers on Pt. Reyes. Point Reyes Bird Obs. 42:2-3.

  • Harris, W.C. 1986. Big Quill Lake piping plover population census -1986. Prepared for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. 13pp. plus maps.

  • Harris, W.C. 1987. Big Quill Lake piping plover population census -1986. Prepared for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. 11pp.

  • Harris, W.C. 1988. Piping plover census and evaluation of effects of experimental habitat enhancement at Chaplin Lake, Saskatchewan. SNHS Special Report. 7pp plus map.

  • Harris, W.C. 1988. Piping plover survey -1988: South Saskatchewan River -Lake Diefenbaker segment (Riverhurst Ferry to the Dams). Prairie Environmental Services for SNHS. 7pp. plus tables and appendices.

  • Harris, W.C. 1992. Impact assessment of piping plover breeding habitat on twenty-one lakes in southern Saskatchewan. Prepared for Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation.

  • Harris, W.C. and S.M. Lamont. 1989. Saskatchewan piping plover surveys -1989: Big Quill Lake, Lake Diefenbaker and Redberry Lake. SNHS Special Report. Mimeo 33pp. plus tables and maps.

  • Harris, W.C. and S.M. Lamont. 1990. Saskatchewan piping plover assessment -1990: Big Quill Lake, Chaplin Lake, Lake Diefenbaker, Redberry Lake and the South Saskatchewan River (Gardiner Dam to Saskatoon). Unpubl. Report by Saskatchewan Environmental Society. Mimeo. 32pp. plus figures, tables and maps.

  • Harris, W.C., G. Qapple, R. Wapple, K. De Smet and S. Lamont. 1985. Saskatchewan Piping Plover 1984. Prepared for the Saskatchewan Natural History Society and Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch by Prairie Environmental Services Inc. 107pp.

  • Harris, W.C., S.M. McAdam and D.A. Weidl. 1987. Chaplin Lake, Saskatchewan piping census and habitat evaluation. Prairie Environmental Services for SNHS. 8pp. plus maps.

  • 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.

  • Hay, M. A., and G. R. Lingle. 1981. The birds of Mormon Island Crane Meadows, Nebraska. Report to The Nature Conservancy, June 1981. 206 pp.

  • Hecht, A. 1992. Status of the Atlantic coast piping plover recovery program. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 72.

  • Heckbert, M. 1995. Letter to Park Ranger (Miquelon Lake Provincial Park) regarding Piping Plover nest success. 2pp + map and tables.

  • 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.

  • Heyens, L. 1996. 1996 Ontario Report. Prairie Piping Plover Recovery Team. 3 pp. + map, figs.

  • Heyens, L.E. 1994. The 1991 Piping Plover census in Ontario. Pp. 30-31, in, S.P. Flemming. 1994. The 1991 International Piping Plover Census in Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 82.

  • Higgins, K.F. and M.R. Brashier (eds). 1993. Proceedings, The Missouri River and its tributaries; piping plover and least tern symposium. South Dakota State University, Brookings 205pp.

  • Hjertaas, D. 1991. 1990 Piping plover distribution survey in Saskatchewan. SNHS Special Report. 9pp plus tables and appendices.

  • Holroyd, G.L., G. Burns and H.C. Smith. 1991. Proceedings of the Second Endangered Species and Prairie Conservation Workshop. Natural History Occasional Paper No. 15. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton. 284 pp.

  • Hoopes, E. M., C. R. Griffin, and S. M. Melvin. 1992. Foraging ecology of piping plovers in Massachusetts. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 74.

  • Houston, C.S. 1986. OPINION: Redberry Lake Sanctuary - will the Pelicans survive? Blue Jay 44(4):213-221.

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

  • Hull, C. 1981. Great Lakes piping plover in trouble. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan. 2 pp.

  • Hussel, D. J. J., and R. D. Montgomerie. 1966. The status of the piping plover at Long Point, 1960-1965. Ontario Field Biol. 20:14-6.

  • Hussell, D.J.T. and J.K. Woodford. 1965. Piping Plover's nest containing eight eggs. The Wilson Bulletin 77(3): 294.

  • Hussell, D.J.T. and R.D. Montgomerie. 1966. The status of the Piping Plover at Long Point, 1960-1965. Ont. Field Biol., No. 20. 3 pp.

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

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. Univ. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pp.

  • Jehl, J. R., Jr. 1973. Breeding biology and systematic relationships of the stilt sandpiper. Wilson Bulletin 85:115-147.

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

  • Johnson, R.H. and A.C. Seguin. 1989. Piping plover distribution and monitoring survey of three regions in south-central Saskatchewan. SNHS Report. Mimeo 39pp.

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

  • Kerbes, R.H. and J.L. Howard. 1986. Summary of bird studies and management recommendations for the Redberry Lake area. Canadian Wildlife Service and Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources Report. Mimeo 14pp plus figures and tables.

  • Knopf, F.L. 1996. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 211. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 16 pp.

  • Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1996. Productivity and movements of mountain plovers breeding in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 108:28-35.

  • Lakela, O. 1940. The status of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) on Minnesota Point. Flicker 12:34.

  • Lambert, A. and E. Nol. 1978. Status of the Piping Plover at Long Point, 1978. Unpublished report. Long Point Bird Observatory. 40 pp.

  • Lambert, A., and B. Ratcliff. 1979. A survey of piping plovers in Michigan, 1979. Report submitted to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan.

  • Leberman, R.C. 1987. A FIELD LIST OF THE BIRDS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND ADJACENT REGIONS. UNPUBLISHED.

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

  • Lewis, A. R., A. G. Tossas, J. A. Colón, and B. Hernández. 2006. Endangered Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) overwintering in Puerto Rico. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 19:27-30.

  • Long Point Bird Observatory. 1978. The status and breeding performance of the Long Point Piping Plovers -- 1978. A Project Proposal by the Long Point Bird Observatory. 5 pp.

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

  • MACIVOR, L.H. 1986. MANAGEMENT, HABITAT SELECTION AND POPULATION DYNAMICS OF PIPING PLOVERS ON OUTER CAPE COD, MA. SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT, THE MA COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT. 39(1):17-26.

  • MAYER, P.M. AND M.R. RYAN. 1991. ELECTRIC FENCES REDUCE MAMMALIAN PREDATION ON PIPING PLOVER NESTS AND CHICKS. WILDL. SOC. BULL. 19(1):59-63.

  • MELVIN, S.M., C.R. GRIFFIN AND L.H. MAC IVOR. 1991. RECOVERY STRATEGIES FOR PIPING PLOVERS IN MANAGED COASTAL LANDSCAPES. COASTAL MANAGEMENT 19:21-34.

  • MacIvor, L. H., S. M. Melvin and C. R. Griffin. 1990. Effects of research activity on piping plover nest predation. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:443-447.

  • MacIvor, L. H., S. M. Melvin, and C. R. Griffin. 1990. Effects of research activity on piping plover nest predation. J. Wildlife Management 54:443-447.

  • Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1996. Conservation plan for piping plovers in Massachusetts. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Westborough, Massachusetts. 35 pp. and appendices.

  • Matteson, S. W. 1980. 1980 survey of breeding gulls and terns in Chequamegon Bay. Report submitted to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. 19 pp.

  • Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.

  • Maxson, S. J., and K. V. Haws. 2000. Population studies of Piping Plovers at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota: 19 year history of a declining population. Waterbirds 23(3): 475-481.

  • Mayer, P. M., and M. R. Ryan. 1991a. Survival rates of artificial piping plover nests in American avocet colonies. Condor 93:753-755.

  • Mayer, P. M., and M. R. Ryan. 1991b. Electric fences reduce mammalian predation on piping plover nests and chicks. Wildlife Society Bull. 19:59-63.

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

  • 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.

  • McKearnan, J., and S. Maxon. 1993. Piping Plover Recovery and Monitoring in Minnesota. Research funded by the Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources, Nongame Research Program.

  • Melvin, S. M., et al. 1992. Demographic responses to management of piping plovers on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 96.

  • Melvin, S.M., L.H. MacIvor and C.R. Griffin. 1992. Predator Exclosure: A Technique to Reduce Predation of Piping Plover Nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:143-148.

  • Miller, G.W. 1977. The current status and breeding performance of the Long Point Piping Plovers -- A survey of an endangered species population. Long Point Bird Observatory, Port Rowan, Ontario. 28 pp.

  • 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.

  • Moffat, B.D. n.d. Canadian Piping Plover Recovery Plan.

  • Montana Bird Distribution Online Database. 2001. Helena, Montana, USA. April-September 2003. http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/mbd/.

  • Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2003. Online informational search on Piping Plovers in Montana. http://www.fwp.state.mt.us/wildthings/t&e/threatened.asp.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1988. Results of surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in northeastern Montana - summer 1987. Unpublished report.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1989. Results of surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana - summer 1988. 39 pp.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1990. Results of surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana - summer 1989. Unpublished report. 43 pp.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1991. Results of surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana, summer 1990. Unpublished report. 60 pp.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1992. Results of surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana - summer 1991. Unpublished report. 62 pp.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1993. Surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana - summer 1992. Unpublished report. 66 pp.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1994. 1993 Surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana. Unpublished report. 116 pp. plus appendices.

  • Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1995. 1994 Surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana. 117 pp. plus appendices.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 1993/1994. Shorebird population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (3):3-5. Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 5-9.

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

  • Murphy, R. K., M. J. Rabenberg, M. L. Sondreal, B. R. Casler, and D. A. Guenther. 2000. Reproductive success of piping plovers on alkali lakes in North Dakota and Montana. Prairie Naturalist 32:233-242.

  • NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND MD DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1998. MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING OF THE PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) AT ASSATEAGUE ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARYLAND: 1998 SUMMARY REPORT. 30 PP.

  • NDIS 2007. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) website http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/

  • NICHOLLS, J.L. AND G.A. BALDASSARRE. 1990. HABITAT ASSOCIAITONS OF PIPING PLOVERS WINTERING IN THE UNITED STATES. WILSON BULLETIN 102(4):581-590.

  • NICHOLLS, J.L. AND G.A. BALDASSARRE. 1990. WINTER DISTRIBUTION OF PIPING PLOVERS ALONG THE ATLANTIC AND GULF COASTS OF THE UNITED STATES. WILSON BULLETIN. 102(3):400-412.

  • NORDSTROM, L.H. AND M.R. RYAN. 1990. ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT REESTABLISHMENT OF PIPING PLOVERS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION. RESTOR. AND MGMT. NOTES 8(1):49-50.

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

  • Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. 1996. Minnesota's list of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern species. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 16 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.

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

  • 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.

  • Nicholls, J. L., and G. A. Baldassare. 1990. Winter distribution of piping plovers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Wilson Bulletin 102:400-412.

  • Nicholls, J. L., and G. A. Baldassare. 1990. Winter distribution of piping plovers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Wilson Bulletin 102:400-412.

  • Nicholls, J. L., and G. A. Baldassarre. 1990. Habitat associations of piping plovers wintering in the United States. Wilson Bull. 102:581-590.

  • Nicholls, J. L., and G. A. Baldassarre. 1990. Habitat associations of piping plovers wintering in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 102:581-590.

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

  • Niemi, G., and T. Davis. 1979. Notes on the nesting ecology of the piping plover. Loon 51:74-9.

  • Nol, E. 1980. Factors affecting the nesting successof the killdeer (Charadrius melodus) on Long Point, Ontario. University of Guelph, Ontario. M.S. thesis. 155 pp.

  • Nol, E., and M. S. Blanken. 1999. Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). No. 444 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 24pp.

  • Oakleaf, B, B. Luce, S. Ritter and A. Cerovski, eds. 1992. Wyoming bird and mammal atlas. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Game Division, Biological Services; Cheyenne, WY. 170 p. + 1994 addendum.

  • Office of Migratory Bird Management. 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 27 pp + appendices.

  • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1987. Recovery Plan for the Piping Plover in Ontario. Draft. OMNR, Wildlife Branch, Toronto. 25 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.

  • Ouellet, H. 1979. Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus. Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2 pp.

  • PATTERSON, M.E., J.D. FRASER, AND J.W. ROGGENBUCK. 1986. THE IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON PIPING PLOVERS NESTING ON ASSATEAGUE ISLAND. V.P.I., SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE SCIENCES.

  • Parham, G., and J. Dingledine. 2001. Numbers of Great Lakes Piping Plovers Up in 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service News Release (http://midwest.fws.gov/ExternalAffairs/Release01-57.html). 2 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.

  • Patterson, M. E., J. D. Fraser and J. W. Roggenbuck. 1990. Piping plover ecology, management and research needs. Virginia Jour. Sci. 41(4A):419-26.

  • Patterson, M. E., J. D. Fraser, and J. W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecting piping plover productivity on Assateague Island. J. Wildlife Management 55:525-531.

  • Patterson, M. E., J. P. Loegering, and J. D. Fraser. 1992. Piping plover breeding biology and foraging ecology on Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 103.

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1983. The Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 1: Nonpasserines. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. xii + 321 pp.

  • Peterson, D.M. 1984 Long Island tern and piping plover survey. Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology, Seatuck Research Program, Islip, NY. 56 pp.

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

  • Plissner, J. H. and S.M. Haig. 1997. 1996 International Piping Plover Census. Report to U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 231 pp.

  • Plissner, J. H., and S. M. Haig. 1997. 1996 International Piping Plover Census. U. S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division. Corvallis, OR. 231pp.

  • Plissner, J. H., and S. M. Haig. 2000. Status of a broadly distributed endangered species: results and implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:128-139.

  • Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 2000. Status of a broadly distributed endangered species: results and implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78: 128-139 pp.

  • 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.

  • Powell, A. N. 1991. Great Lakes piping plovers: recovery or extirpation? Endangered Species Update 8(9-10):1-4.

  • Powell, A. N., and F. J. Cuthbert. 1992. Habitat and reproductive success of piping plovers nesting on Great Lakes islands. Wilson Bull. 104:155-161.

  • Prindiville, E., and M. Ryan. 1984. Preliminary results of a study on the productivity and habitat requirements of piping plovers in central North Dakota. Unpublished report submitted to The Nature Conservancy.

  • Purdy, M.A. and B.J. Weichel. 1988. Piping plover survey: South Saskatchewan River - Red Deer River confluence to Miry Bay and Gardiner Dam to Saskatoon. SNHS Special Report. 13pp. plus appendices and maps.

  • Quinn, J. R., and R. B. Walden. 1966. Notes on the incubation and rearing of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Avicultural Mag. 72:145-6.

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

  • Raffaele, H. A. 1983a. A guide to the birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Fondo Educativo Interamericano, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 255 pp.

  • 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.

  • Renaud, W.E., G.J. Wapple and D.W. Edgett. 1979. The Piping Plover in Saskatchewan: a status report. Blue Jay, 37(2): 90-103.

  • Ridgely, R. S. 2002. Distribution maps of South American birds. Unpublished.

  • Rimmer, D. W., and R. D. Deblinger. 1990. Use of predator exclosures to protect piping plover nests. J. Field Ornithology 61:217-223.

  • Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1983. A guide to field identification. Birds of North America. Revised edition. Golden Press, NY. 360 pp.

  • Robert, M. 1989. Les oiseaux menacés du Québec. Association québécoise des groupes d'ornithologues et Environnement Canada. 109 p.

  • Roberts, T. S. 1955. A manual for the identification of the birds of Minnesota and neighboring states. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 738 pp.

  • Root, B. G., M. R. Ryan, and P. M. Macer. 1992. Piping plover survival rate in the Great Plains. J. Field Ornithology 63:10-15.

  • Rubega, M. A., D. Schamel, and D. M. Tracy. 2000. Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). No. 538 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28pp.

  • Ruelle, R., compiler. 1991. A contaminant evaluation of interior least tern and piping plover eggs and chicks on the Missouri River, South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, SD.

  • Russell, D. 1973. The extirpation of the piping plover as a breeding species in Illinois and Indiana. Ill. Audubon Bull. 165:46-48.

  • Russell, R.P. 1983. The piping plover in the Great Lakes Region. American Birds 37(6): 951-955.

  • Ryan, J. 1996. Plover on the run. Massachusetts Audubon Society. 31pp.

  • Ryan, M. J., B. G. Root, and P. M. Mayer. 1993. Status of Piping Plovers in the Great Plains of North America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7(3):581-585.

  • Ryan, M. R., B. G. Root and P. M. Mayer. 1993. Status of piping plovers in the great Plains of North America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7(3):581-585.

  • Ryan, M. R., B. G. Root, and P. M. Mayer. 1993. Status of piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7(3):781-

  • Ryke, N., D. Winters, L. McMartin and S. Vest. 1994. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. May 25, 1994.

  • SIDLE, J.G. 1990. TO LIST OR NOT TO LIST. LIVING BIRD QUART. 9(3):22-23.

  • SIDLE, J.G. ET AL. 1991. PROTECTING THE PIPING PLOVER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 15(3):349-356.

  • SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES. 1989. SPECIAL SESSION ON THE MANAGEMENT OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: ABSTRACTS. OCTOBER 31, 1989. SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES.

  • Shaffer, F. P. Laporte et M. Robert. 1997. Description du domaine vital du Pluvier siffleur, du Grèbe cornu et de la Sterne de Dougall en période de reproduction. Service Canadien de la Faune, région de Québec. 8 p.

  • Shaffer, F. et P. Laporte. 1995. Rapport sur la situation du Pluvier siffleur (Charadrius melodus) au Québec. Service canadien de la faune, Série de rapports techniques No.244. 53 p.

  • Shaffer, F., and P. Laporte. 1994. Diet of piping plovers on the Magdalen Islands, Quebec. Wilson Bull. 106:531-536.

  • Sheppard, R. W. 1935. Midsummer bird notes from Long Point, Norfolk, Co., Ontario. The Auk 52:196-7.

  • Sibley, C.G., and B.L. Monroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. xxiv + 1111 pp.

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

  • Skeel, M. 1991. Potential basins to search for piping plovers in Saskatchewan in 1991. SNHS Special Report. Mimeo 17pp.

  • Skeel, M. 1991. The 1991 International Piping Plover Breeding Census - Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Box 4348, Regina, Saskatchewan. 69pp.

  • Skeel, M. and D. Hjertaas. 1993. Saskatchewan Results of the 1991 International Piping Plover Census. Blue Jay 51(1):34-36

  • Skeel, M.A. 1990. Areas in Saskatchewan previously searched for piping plovers. SNHS Report. Mimeo 20pp.

  • Snyder, L. L. 1931. The birds of Long Point and vicinity. Trans. Royal Canadian Instit. 18:117-236.

  • Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. 2003. Les espèces menacées [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site Internet. - Accès :«http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/etu_rec/esp_mena_vuln/index.htm». La société, 2003 [Réf. 3 novembre 2003] .

  • Staine, K. J., and J. Burger. 1994. Nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) in New Jersey. Auk 111:579-587.

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

  • THE NATURE CONSERVANCY (PREPARED BY J.E. EVANS). 1985. ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT: CHARADRIUS MELODUS. 14 PP.

  • Tate, J., Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds 40:227-236.

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

  • The Nature Conservancy. 1986. Element stewardship abstract: piping plover.

  • Theobald, D.M., N. Peterson, and G. Wilcox. 2005. Colorado Ownership, Management, and Protection v4 database. Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 30 June 2005. www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/comap

  • U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1984. PIPING PLOVER PROPOSED AS AN ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES. 50 CFR PART 17, 49 (218):44712-44715.

  • U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1988. ATLANTIC COAST PIPING PLOVER RECOVERY PLAN. NEWTON CORNER, MA. 74 PP.

  • U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1996. PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS), ATLANTIC COAST POPULATION, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN. HADLEY, MASSACHUSSETS.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton, MA. 77 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton, Mass. 77 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains piping plover recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 160 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains piping plover recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 160 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. 1989 summary U.S. Atlantic coast piping plover. USFWS, Northeast region, Newton Corner, MA.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. 1991 status update, U.S. Atlantic coast piping plover. USFWS, Northeast Region, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plovers, Charadrius melodus, breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains of the United States. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota. v + 121 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic coast population, revised recovery plan. Techinical/agency draft. Hadley, Massachusetts. 238 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Final determinations of critical habitat for wintering Piping Plovers; final rule. Federal Register 66:36037-36143.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Designation of critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of Piping Plover. Federal Register 67:57638-57717.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Determination of endangered and threatened status for the piping plover: final rule. Federal Register 50(238):50726-50734.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Great Lakes and northern Great Plains Piping Plover recovery plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 160 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. 1991 status update, U.S. Atlantic coast piping plover. USFWS, Northeast Region, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plovers, Charadrius melodus, breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains of the United States. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota. v + 121 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final determination of critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover. Federal Register 66(88):22938-22969.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Designation of critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover. Federal Register 67(176):57638-57717.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Online informational search on Piping Plover in Montana. http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/pipingplover/Piping_Plover_Q&A_Sept5.htm.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 141 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species County Distribution. 3 pp.

  • U.S. Fish et Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS), Atlantic coast population, revised recovery plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 p.

  • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Revised recovery plan for piping plovers, Charadrius melodus, breeding on the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains. Technical/Agency review draft. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN.

  • WIENS, T.P. AND F.J. CUTHBERT. 1988. NEST-SITE TENACITY AND MATE RETENTION OF PIPING PLOVER. WILSON BULL. 100(4):545-553.

  • Wiens, T. P. 1986. Nest-site tenacity and mate retention in the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). A thesis presented to the University of Minnesota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. 34 pp.

  • Wiens, T. P. 1986. Nest-site tenacity and mate retention in the piping plover. MS thesis, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota. 34 pp.

  • Wiens, T. P. and F. Cuthbert 1982. Status and breeding biology of the Piping plover in Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota. An unpublished progress report submitted to Nongame Wildlife Program, MN DNR. 18 pp.

  • Wiens, T. P., and F. Cuthbert. 1986. Nest-site tenacity and mate retention in the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). A thesis presented to the University of Minnesota for the degree of Master of Science. 34 pp.

  • Wiens, T. P., and F. Cuthbert. 1988. Nest-site tenacity and mate retention in the piping plover. Wilson Bull 100(4):545-553.

  • Wiens, Terry P., and Francesca Cuthbert. 1982-1984. Status and Breeding Biology of the Piping Plover in Lake of The Woods County, Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program and the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Results in unpublished report.

  • Wilcox, L. 1939. Notes on the life history of the piping plover. Pages 3-13 in The Birds of Long Island. Bird Club of Long Island, New York, New York.

  • Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the Piping Plover. Auk 75:129-152.

  • Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty-year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76:129-152.

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

  • World Wildlife Fund. 1990. The official World Wildlife Fund guide to endangered species of North America. D. W. Lowe, J. R. Matthews, and C. J. Moseley (eds.). Beacham Publishing, Inc. Washington, D.C.

  • Zammit, A.E. and D.A. Sutherland. 2001. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form for Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Natural Heritage Information Centre. Prepared for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. February, 12 pp.

  • Zammit, A.E., and D.A. Sutherland. 2000. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form for Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Prepared for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) by the Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario (September 2000). 8 pp. + 5 appendices.

  • Ziewitz, J. W., J. G. Sidle, and J. J. Dinan. 1992. Habitat conservation for nesting least terns and piping plovers on the Platte River, Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 24(1):1-20.

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 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.