Coccothraustes vespertinus - (Cooper, 1825)
Evening Grosbeak
Other English Common Names: evening grosbeak
Synonym(s): Hesperiphona vespertina
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Coccothraustes vespertinus (W. Cooper, 1825) (TSN 179173)
French Common Names: gros-bec errant
Spanish Common Names: Picogrueso Norteño
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102678
Element Code: ABPBY09020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 11023

© Jeff Nadler

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Fringillidae Coccothraustes
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Coccothraustes vespertinus
Taxonomic Comments: Often placed in the genus hesperiphona (AOU 1998). See Prescott (1994) for information on geographical variation in body size.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 04Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range, fairly common, stable populations.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4B,N4N,NUM (25Jan2018)

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 (S3N), Arizona (S3), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNR), Colorado (S4), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S1N), Georgia (S4), Idaho (S4), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (S3N), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (S5B,S5N), Maryland (S2N), Massachusetts (S2B,S3S4N), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB,SNRN), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (S3), Navajo Nation (S4N), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (S2), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (SNA), New Mexico (S4B,S4N), New York (S5), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNRN), Oklahoma (S2N), Oregon (S5), Pennsylvania (S5N), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNRN), South Dakota (S4B,S4N), Tennessee (S4N), Texas (S2N), Utah (S3?B), Vermont (S5B,S4N), Virginia (S1N), Washington (S4B,S4N), West Virginia (S2N), Wisconsin (S2S3B), Wyoming (S5B,S5N)
Canada Alberta (S4), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (SNA), Manitoba (S3), New Brunswick (S3B,S3S4N,SUM), Newfoundland Island (S4), Northwest Territories (S4), Nova Scotia (S3S4B,S3N), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (S1S2B,S2S3N), Quebec (S4), Saskatchewan (S4), Yukon Territory (S2B)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (27Nov2016)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This large finch is widely distributed across Canada?s forests, but has exhibited significant long-term declines (77-86%) over most of its range, since 1970. Over the past decades, some data suggest a further decline of nearly 40%, while other data indicate stabilization at a lower level. Threats to the species include reduced availability of mature and old-growth mixed wood and conifer forests, collisions with windows, and mortality associated with feeding on grit and salt along roads in winter.

Status history: Designated Special Concern in November 2016.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDS: British Columbia, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, across southern Canada to Nova Scotia, south in mountains to central California and Veracruz, Mexico; in East to Minnesota, northern New York, Massachusetts. WINTERS: throughout breeding range; irregularly to Gulf Coast and central Florida.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Breeding Bird Survey data indicate relatively stable populations in North America during the years 1966-1989 (Droege and Sauer 1990).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDS: British Columbia, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, across southern Canada to Nova Scotia, south in mountains to central California and Veracruz, Mexico; in East to Minnesota, northern New York, Massachusetts. WINTERS: throughout breeding range; irregularly to Gulf Coast and central Florida.

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Cochise (04003)
CT Windham (09015)*
ID Ada (16001), Latah (16057), Shoshone (16079)
NM Rio Arriba (35039), San Miguel (35047), Sandoval (35043)
UT Beaver (49001)*, Cache (49005)*, Carbon (49007)*, Daggett (49009)*, Duchesne (49013)*, Emery (49015)*, Garfield (49017)*, Grand (49019)*, Iron (49021)*, Kane (49025)*, Millard (49027)*, Salt Lake (49035), San Juan (49037)*, Sanpete (49039)*, Summit (49043), Uintah (49047)*, Utah (49049)*, Wasatch (49051), Washington (49053)*, Wayne (49055)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Shetucket (01100002)+*
13 Rio Chama (13020102)+, Jemez (13020202)+, Pecos headwaters (13060001)+
14 Westwater Canyon (14030001)+*, Lower Dolores (14030004)+*, Upper Colorado-Kane Springs (14030005)+*, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+*, Lower White (14050007)+*, Ashley-Brush (14060002)+*, Duchesne (14060003)+*, Lower Green-Desolation Canyon (14060005)+*, Willow (14060006)+*, Price (14060007)+*, San Rafael (14060009)+*, Fremont (14070003)+, Paria (14070007)+*, Montezuma (14080203)+*
15 Upper Virgin (15010008)+*, Upper San Pedro (15050202)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+
16 Upper Bear (16010101)+*, Middle Bear (16010202)+*, Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+*, Upper Weber (16020101)+, Lower Weber (16020102)+, Spanish Fork (16020202)+*, Provo (16020203)+, Jordan (16020204)+, Pine Valley (16020302)+*, Upper Sevier (16030001)+*, East Fork Sevier (16030002)+*, San Pitch (16030004)+*, Lower Sevier (16030005)+*, Escalante Desert (16030006)+*, Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver (16030007)+*, Sevier Lake (16030009)+*
17 Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: A large (20-cm-long), robust finch with a large thick bill (pale yellow or greenish in spring and summer, whitish in fall and winter), black tail, black wings with white patch on inner wing, and yellow wing linings; adult male has yellow forehead and eyebrow, and dark brown and yellow body; female is grayish-tan, with a thin dark whisker stripe, white-tipped tail, and a conspicuous (in flight) second white patch on the primaries; juvenile has a brown bill, with each sex resembling the adult of the same sex (though juvenile male is significantly duller than adult male); loud call, "clee-ip" or "peeer" (NGS 1983).
Reproduction Comments: In Colorado, most nest are initiated in late May or early June (Scott and Bekoff 1991). Clutch size 2-5 (usually 3-4). Incubation about 12-14 days, by female (male provides most of female's food during incubation). Young tended by both adults, leave nest at 13-14 days (Terres 1980, Bekoff et al. 1987, Scott and Bekoff 1991). Typically monogamous in Colorado (Scott and Bekoff 1991).
Ecology Comments: Gregarious. Travels and forages in flocks througout much of the year.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Irruptive migrant. Flocks move irregularly eastward and southward, beyond regular range, in years when population is high or seed food crop is low (Terres 1980). In eastern North America, males generally winter farther north than do females (Prescott 1991).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Coniferous (primarily spruce and fir) and mixed coniferous- decidouous woodland, second growth, and occasionally parks; in migration and winter in a variety of forest and woodland habitats, and around human habitation (AOU 1983).

Nests usually nests in dense foliage of deciduous tree or conifer, 2-21 m above ground (Terres 1980). See Bekoff et al. (1987) for nest-site characteristics in Colorado.

Adult Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore
Immature Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore
Food Comments: Most of its diet consists buds and seeds of deciduous trees and shrubs and conifers. During the summer also eats some insects.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 20 centimeters
Weight: 60 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02May1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Behle, W. H. 1981. The birds of northeastern Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History Occasional Publications 2: i-iv + 1-136 pp.

  • Behle, W. H., E. D. Sorensen, and C. M. White. 1985. Utah birds: a revised checklist. Occas. Publ. No. 4, Utah Museum of Natural History, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. xv + 108 pp.

  • Behle, W. H., J. B. Bushman, and C. M. Greenhalgh. 1958. Birds of the Kanab area and adjacent high plateaus. University of Utah Biological Series 11(7): 1-92.

  • Behle, W. H., and M. L. Perry. 1975. Utah birds: check-list, seasonal and ecological occurrence charts and guides to bird finding. Utah Museum of Natural History, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. vii + 144 pp.

  • Bekoff, M., A. C. Scott, and D. A. Conner. 1987. Nonrandomnest-site selection in evening grosbeaks. Condor 89:819-829.

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

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

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I.McT.-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, A.C. Stewart, and M.C.E. McNall. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 4, Passerines: Wood-Warblers through Old World Sparrows. UBC Press, in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv., and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch and Resour. Inventory Branch, and Royal B.C. Mus. 744pp.

  • Cannings, S. 2001. EO Specifications for Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus). NatureServe, Unpublished. 1 pp.

  • Colorado Bird Observatory. 1996. DRAFT 1996 Status of Colorado Birds. Submitted to Colorado Division of Wildlife. December 31, 1996. 137 p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Gillihan, Scott W. and Bruce Byers. 2001. Evening Grosbeak. The Birds of North America. Vol. 15, No. 599: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

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

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

  • Hayward, C. L., C. Cottam, A. M. Woodbury, and H. H. Frost. 1976. Birds of Utah. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 1: 229 pp.

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

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

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

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

  • JOHNSTON,R.F.1960. DIRECTORY TO THE BIRD LIFE OF KANSAS. MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. LAWRENCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1985. Final breeding bird distribution maps, 1980-1985. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Peterjohn, B. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Orsillo. 1995. Breeding bird survey: population trends 1966-1992. Pages 14-21 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our Living Resources. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

  • Prescott, D. R. C. 1991. Winter distribution of age and sex classes in an irruptive migrant, the evening grosbeak (COCCOTHRAUSTES VESPERTINUS). Condor 93:694-700.

  • Prescott, D. R. C. 1994. Intraspecific and geographical trends in body size of a differential migrant, the evening grosbeak. Auk 111:693-702.

  • Scott, A. C., and M. Bekoff. 1991. Breeding behavior of evening grosbeaks. Condor 93:71-81.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sinclair, P.H., W.A. Nixon, C.D. Eckert and N.L. Hughes. 2003. Birds of the Yukon Territory. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 595pp.

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

  • TORDOFF,H.B.1956.CHECK-LIST OF THE BIRDS OF KANSAS. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS,MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.LAWRENCE.

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

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

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

  • Walters, R. E., and E. Sorensen (eds.). 1983. Utah bird distribution: latilong study. Publ. No. 83-10, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 97 pp.

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

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

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

  • Woodbury, A. M., C. Cottam, and J. W. Sugden. 1949. Annotated check-list of the birds of Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah 39(16) [Biol. Ser. 11(2)]: 1-40.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1994. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Winter 1994. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1995. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 1995. 20pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1995. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 1995. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1995. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Winter 1995. 20pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1997. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 1997. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2002. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2002. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2003. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2003. 30pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2004. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2004. 32pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2007. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall/Winter 2007. 20pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2008. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2008. 26pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2009. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2009. 23pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2010. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2010. 30pp.

  • eBird. 2016. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed in 2016.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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