Contopus virens - (Linnaeus, 1766)
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Other English Common Names: eastern wood-pewee
Other Common Names: Piui-Verdadeiro
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Contopus virens (Linnaeus, 1766) (TSN 178359)
French Common Names: pioui de l'Est
Spanish Common Names: Pibí Oriental
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103459
Element Code: ABPAE32060
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Tyrannidae Contopus
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: Contopus virens
Taxonomic Comments: Regarded as conspecific with C. sordidulus by some authors (AOU 1983). Constitutes a superspecies with C. sordidulus and C. cinereus (AOU 1998).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 02Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5M (26Jan2018)

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 (S5B), Arkansas (S4B), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S5B), Florida (SNRB), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4B), Iowa (S4B,S4N), Kansas (S5B), Kentucky (S5B), Louisiana (S5B), Maine (S4B), Maryland (S5B), Massachusetts (S5B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (SNRB), Nebraska (S4), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S4B), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S5B), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5B), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (S5B,S5N), South Carolina (S5B), South Dakota (S3B), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S4B), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S5B)
Canada Manitoba (S4S5B), New Brunswick (S4B,S4M), Nova Scotia (S3S4B), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (S3B), Quebec (S3S4), Saskatchewan (S4B)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: SC (02Nov2017)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (25Nov2012)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This species is one of the most common and widespread songbirds associated with North America's eastern forests. While the species is apparently resilient to many kinds of habitat changes, like most other long-distance migrants that specialize on a diet of flying insects, it has experienced persistent declines over the past 40 years both in Canada and the United States. The 10-year rate of decline (25%) comes close to satisfying the criteria for Threatened. The causes of the decline are not understood, but might be linked to habitat loss or degradation on its wintering grounds in South America or changes in availability of insect prey. If the population declines continue to persist, the species may become Threatened in the foreseeable future.

Status history: Designated Special Concern in November 2012.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: southeastern Saskatchewan east across southern Canada to Nova Scotia; south to Texas, Gulf Coast, and central Florida; west to central North Dakota, central South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, western Oklahoma, and east Texas and Edwards Plateau (McCarty 1996). NON-BREEDING: Colombia and Venezuela south to southern Peru, northern Bolivia, and western Brazil, rarely north to Costa Rica (Hilty and Brown 1986, McCarty 1996).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Not detected in areas of experimentally high White-tailed Deer density (>7.9 deer/km2) in Pennsylvania, possibly due to alteration of intermediate canopy (deCalesta 1994). The relationship between ungulate density and pewee density is not clear, however, because in another study pewees were observed significantly more often in stands over-browsed by White-tailed Deer, Elk (CERVUS ELAPHUS), and Mouflon Sheep (OVIS MUSIMON) than in unbrowsed stands (Casey and Hein 1983). Furthermore, deer density (ranging from high [13-23/km2] to low [1-3/km2]) had no significant influence on pewee density in oak woodlands in New England (DeGraaf, et al. 1991). Nests are parasitized by Brown-headed Cowbirds (MOLOTHRUS ATER) at variable rates. In Canada, 5.1% of 117 nests were parasitized by Brown-headed Cowbirds (McCarty 1996), whereas in Illinois, 67% of three nests were parasitized (Robinson 1992). Spraying of the insecticide diflubenzuron to control the gypsy moth (LYMANTRIA DISPAR) reduced body fat levels of birds (Whitmore et al. 1993). No information on predation (McCarty 1996). Development for human habitation results in habitat loss or degradation. Density in an urban environment was found to be lower than in a forested environment (Beissinger and Osborne 1982).

Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate significant survey-wide population declines of -1.6%/year, for the period, 1966-1998. Significant declines were observed in the eastern and central BBS regions. Canadian populations are declining more rapidly (-4.1%/year) than United States populations (-1.4%/year; Sauer et al. 1999). Other data sets provide additional trend information. Migration data collected at Long Point, Ontario from 1961-1988 detected a decline (-6.6%/year) between 1961 and 1970, and increases during 1970-1979 (3.3%/year) and 1979-1988 (7.5%/year). Overall, there was no net population change during the 27-year period (Hussell, et al. 1992). However, changes in numbers of migrants at a particular site may not reflect actual changes in population size, but simply changes in migratory behavior and stopover use (J. McCarty, pers. comm.) An increase in density of breeding pairs was documented for Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, New York, between 1949-1950 and 1979-1980 (Litwin and Smith 1992).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: southeastern Saskatchewan east across southern Canada to Nova Scotia; south to Texas, Gulf Coast, and central Florida; west to central North Dakota, central South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, western Oklahoma, and east Texas and Edwards Plateau (McCarty 1996). NON-BREEDING: Colombia and Venezuela south to southern Peru, northern Bolivia, and western Brazil, rarely north to Costa Rica (Hilty and Brown 1986, McCarty 1996).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada MB, NB, 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; WILDSPACETM 2002

Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (wood-pewee).
Reproduction Comments: Nesting dates (eggs or young) across the range vary from 6 May-1 September, with earliest nests occurring in the southern states and latest in the northern states and Canada. Later nests may represent renests or multiple broods, but data are lacking. Average clutch size is 3 eggs (range 2-4). Eggs are laid on consecutive days, but beginning of incubation in relation to oviposition is unknown. Incubation, by female only, requires 12-14 days. Young, who are fed by both parents, fledge in 16-18 days. Although multiple clutches/broods have not been documented, they are suspected to occur (McCarty 1996). Nest success (defined as a nest that fledged at least one young) was 100% in four nests studied in managed forests in Minnesota (Hanski et al. 1996) and 100% for seven nests examined in oak-hickory forest in Maryland (Chasko and Gates 1982). Thought to first breed at one year of age (J. McCarty, pers. comm.).
Ecology Comments: Estimates of population density vary widely. Population density in Arkansas varies from 2-11 individuals/40.5 hectares [0.05-0.27 birds/ha] in uplands forests and from 2-13 individuals/40.5 hectares [0.04-0.32/ha] in bottomland forests, and territorial males are most abundant (25/40.5 hectares or 0.62/ha) in Ozark Mountain cedar glades (James and Neal 1986). Breeding pair density in Connecticut ranges from 0.4-1.7/10 hectares (0.04-0.17/ha; Askins and Philbrick 1987). In Illinois, breeding population density ranges from 1-67 birds/40.5 hectares (0.02-1.65/ha; Graber et al. 1974). In open, mixed pine-hardwood forest in Arkansas, density ranges from 5.2-14.9 birds/ha (Wilson et al. 1995). In Red Oak (QUERCUS RUBRA) forest in the Smoky Mountains, breeding pair density is 1.2/10 hectares (0.12/ha; Wilcove 1988). In three Illinois forest fragments, densities ranged from 0.32-0.86 pairs/ha during a 5-year period (Robinson 1992). In two studies conducted in Illinois, territory size averaged 0.76, 1.09, and 1.17 hectares (range 0.4-1.25) depending upon year of study. Territories were smaller in years of higher populations and larger with lower population densities (Graber et al. 1974). Exhibits breeding site fidelity. For example, 22.2% of individuals banded one year were recaptured the following year on the same net line in the same forest fragment in Illinois (Robinson 1992). Maximum life span is > 7 years (McCarty 1996).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Although there are reports of spring migrants arriving in the United States as early as mid-March (Oberholser 1974, Stevenson and Anderson 1994), most first arrivals occur in April (J. McCarty, pers. comm.). By mid-May, species occurs throughout the breeding range. Fall migration typically begins in mid- to late August, peaks in mid-September, and continues into mid-October. Migrants move through Gulf Coastal Mexico and Central America to wintering grounds in South America. Some individuals cross the Caribbean (McCarty 1996). Migrates through Costa Rica from mid-August to mid-November and from early March to mid-May (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Winters in South America from September through late April (McCarty 1996).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Inhabits a wide variety of wooded upland and lowland habitats including deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forests (Bond 1957, McCarty 1996). Occurs most frequently in forests with some degree of openness, whether it be the result of forest structure, natural disturbance, or human alteration (Palmer-Ball 1996). Intermediate-aged forests with a relatively sparse midstory are preferred (Crawford et al. 1981, Johnston and Odum 1956). Territories in such forests can be equally abundant under both an open or closed canopy (Johnston 1971). However, under some circumstances may be absent from closed-canopied forests (Hespenheide 1971). Tends to inhabit edges of younger forests having a relatively dense midstory (Palmer-Ball 1996, Strelke and Dickson 1980). Also occurs in anthropogenic habitats providing an open forested aspect such as parks and suburban neighborhoods (Palmer-Ball 1996). Nest is constructed atop a horizontal branch, 1.2-21.4 meters above the ground, in a wide variety of deciduous and coniferous trees (McCarty 1996, Terres 1991). NON-BREEDING: During migration through Central America, inhabits edges, clearings, and canopy of tall forest to second-growth scrub forest (Blake and Loiselle 1992, Greenberg 1992, Stiles and Skutch 1989). On wintering grounds inhabits secondary forest as well as edges or canopy gaps of primary forest (Fitzpatrick 1980, Pearson 1980, Stotz et al. 1992).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Feeds principally on flying insects captured during sallies from a perch in the canopy or subcanopy; occasionally gleans insects from foliage or the ground (McCarty 1996). The diet of adults in Virginia and West Virginia consisted of insects (Coleoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera [adults, larvae, and pupae], Hymenoptera, Homoptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera, and spiders (Araneae; Johnston 1971, Sample et al 1993). Examination of 369 stomachs collected from throughout the range contained 99% invertebrates (principally insects) and 1% berries and seeds of dogwood (CORNUS sp.), blueberry (VACCINIUM sp.), blackberry (RUBUS sp.), Poison Ivy (RHUS TOXICODENDRON), and panic grass (PANICUM sp.; Beal 1912 cited in McCarty 1995). Density along prairie streams in Kansas was significantly correlated with emergence of aquatic insects. Chironomids (Diptera) and mayflies (Ephemeroptera) were important prey items (Gray 1993).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 16 centimeters
Weight: 14 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: A forest interior and forest edge species that inhabits forest fragments as small as 0.5 hectares and riparian corridors as narrow as 20 meters during the breeding season. Prefers intermediate-aged, closed- or open-canopy forests having little understory and/or relatively small clearings. Habitat can be maintained or improved by selective logging, group selection cuts, small to moderately-sized (£10 hectares) clearcuts, and prescribed fire. North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a significant survey-wide population decline. Declines are most apparent in the eastern and central BBS regions and Canada. Possible threats include habitat loss, habitat alteration by White-tailed Deer (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS), Brown-headed Cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) nest parasitism, and pesticide use. Need to continue to monitor populations closely and determine reason(s) for apparent decline.
Restoration Potential: Probably good as this species inhabits a wide variety of forested habitats.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: A forest interior and forest edge species (Blake and Karr 1987, Freemark and Collins 1992, Graber et al. 1974). Selection of forest fragments in fragmented landscapes is generally area independent (Freemark and Collins 1992). Has been observed in forest fragments as small as 0.5 hectares in South Carolina, 1.8 hectares in Illinois, and 2.0 hectares in New Jersey (Blake and Karr 1987, Forman et al. 1976, Galli et al. 1976, Kilgo et al. 1997). In Maryland, found to be significantly more abundant in smaller forest fragments (Lynch and Whigham 1984). In South Carolina, found in isolated hardwood stands surrounded by fields, but not in those surrounded by pine plantations (Kilgo et al. 1997). Will use wooded riparian habitats as narrow as 20 meters wide (Stauffer and Best 1980). Although observed in all riparian habitats studied in Maryland (50-200 meters wide), significantly more likely to inhabit wider riparian corridors (Keller et al. 1993). Forest-dividing corridors (e.g., powerlines, roads) can affect distribution. In deciduous forest in eastern Tennessee, distribution of pewees was random with respect to a powerline corridor (Anderson et al. 1977). In New Jersey, however, pewees exhibited an aversion to wider corridors traversing oak-pine forest (Rich et al. 1994). In oak-hickory forest in Maryland, pewees nested an average of 44.5-50 meters away from the edge of a forest-dividing corridor (Chasko and Gates 1982).
Management Requirements: Management that favors intermediate-aged, closed- or open-canopy forests having little understory and/or relatively small clearings will benefit this species (Crawford et al. 1981, Noon et al. 1980, Thompson and Capen 1988, Yahner 1993, Webb et al. 1977). In mixed pine (PINUS)-hardwood forest in Arkansas, pewees preferred stands opened by hardwood thinning and prescribed fire (Wilson et al. 1995). Habitat can be maintained or improved by selectively removing large trees, or making group selection cuts or scattered, moderately-sized (ca. 10 ha) clearcuts (Crawford et al. 1981). In deciduous forest in Illinois, found to be significantly more abundant in recently selectively logged ravines than in uncut or older cut ravines (Robinson and Robinson 1999).
Management Research Needs: Need additional data on impact of high White-tailed Deer (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS) density and indirect effects of pesticides that reduce the food supply (J. McCarty, pers. comm.).
Biological Research Needs: Winter ecology, including distributional limits of wintering habitat, as well as threats to wintering birds, needs study. Reproductive biology is poorly known; determining factors that influence reproductive success is especially critical. Studies of diseases and parasites species are also needed (McCarty 1996).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: PALIS, J.
Management Information Edition Date: 28Jun2000
Management Information Edition Author: PALIS, J: REVISONS BY S. CANNINGS
Management Information Acknowledgments: The author thanks John McCarty for his thoughtful review of a draft of this abstract. Support for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center through The Nature Conservancy's Tennessee Field Office and Wings of the Americas program.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 29Dec1993
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G. AND J. PALIS

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 Breeding Bird Atlas 2000-2006 Homepage. 2009. T.M. Haggerty (editor), Alabama Ornithological Society. Available at http://www.una.edu/faculty/thaggerty/BBA%20website/Index.htm.

  • 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/.

  • Anderson, S. H., K. Mann, and H. H. Shugart, Jr. 1977. The effect of transmission-line corridors on bird populations. American Midland Naturalist 97:216-221.

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

  • Askins, R. A. and M. J. Philbrick. 1987. Effect of changes in regional forest abundance on the decline and recovery of a forest bird community. Wilson Bulletin 99:7-21.

  • 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.

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

  • Beal, F. E. L. 1912. Food of our more important flycatchers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Biological Survey Bulletin 44. 67 pp.

  • Beissinger, S. R. and D. R. Osborne. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84:75-83.

  • Bent, A.C. 1942. Life histories of North American flycatchers, larks, swallows, and their allies. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 179. Washington, DC.

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

  • Blake, J. G. and J. R. Karr. 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68:1724-1734.

  • Blake, J. G., and B. Loiselle. 1992. Habitat use by neotropical migrants at La Selva Biological Station and Braulio Carrillo National Park, Costa Rica. Pages 257-72 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Bond, R. R. 1957. Ecological distribution of breeding birds in the upland forests of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:351-84.

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

  • COSSARO. 2013. Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens). January 2013 (final). 15pp.

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

  • Casey, D. and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:829-836.

  • Chasko, G. G., and J. E. Gates. 1982. Avian habitat suitability along a transmission-line corridor in an oak-hickory forest region. Wildlife Monographs, Vol. 82.

  • Crawford, H. S., R. G. Hooper, and R. W. Titterington. 1981. Songbird population response to silvicultural practices in central Appalachian hardwoods. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:680-92.

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

  • DeGraaf, R. M., W. M. Healy, and R. T. Brooks. 1991. Effects of thinning and deer browsing on breeding birds in New England oak woodlands. Forest Ecology Management 41:179-191.

  • Decalesta, D. S. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Manage. 58: 711-718.

  • 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.

  • Droege, S., and J.R. Sauer. 1990. North American Breeding Bird Survey, annual summary, 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(8). 22 pp.

  • 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.

  • Fauth, Peter T. 1995. Wood Thrush Breeding Productivity Within a Fragmented Indiana Landscape. Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. 18 pp.

  • Fitzpatrick, J. W. 1980. Wintering of North American tyrant flycatchers in the neotropics. Pages 67-78 IN Migrant birds in the neotropics (A. Keast and E. S. Morton, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Forman, R. T., A. E. Galli, and C. F. Leck. 1976. Forest size and avian diversity in New Jersy woodlots with some land use implications. Oecologia 26:1-8.

  • Frazer, Carolyn. 1989. An Investigation of Bird-Habitat Relationships in Hoosier National Forest, Indiana. Unpublished. 45 pp.

  • Freemark, K., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. Pages 443-454 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds, J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, editors. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Galli, A. E., C. F. Leck, and R. T. T. Forman. 1976. Avian distribution patterns in forest islands of different sizes in central New Jersey. The Auk 93:356-64.

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

  • Graber, R. R., J. W. Graber, and E. L. Kirk. 1974. Illinois Birds: Tyrannidae. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological Notes no. 86.

  • Gray, L. J. 1993. Response of insectivorous birds to emerging aquatic insects in riparian habitats of a tallgrass prairie stream. American Midland Naturalist 129:288-300.

  • Greenberg, R. 1992. Forest migrants in non-forest habitats on the Yucatan Peninsula. Pages 273-286 IN Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Hagan, J. M., III, and D. W. Johnston, editors. 1992. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

  • Hanski, I. K., T. J. Fenske, and G. J. Niemi. 1996. Lack of edge effect in nesting success of breeding birds in managed forest landscapes. Auk 113:578-585.

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

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

  • Haw, James A. 1994. Nesting Bird Survey: Salamonie River State Forest. 2 pp.

  • Hespenheide, H. A. 1971. Flycatcher habitat selection in the eastern deciduous forest. The Auk 88:61-74.

  • Hilty, S.L. and W. L. Brown. 1986. A Guide to the Birds of Colombia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. 836 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.

  • Hussell, D. J. T., M. H. Mather, and P. H. Sinclair. 1992. Trends in numbers of tropical- and temperate-wintering migrant landbirds in migration at Long Point, Ontario, 1961-1988. Pages 101-14 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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

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

  • James, D. A. and J. C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas Birds - Their Distribution and Abundance. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

  • Johnston, D. W. 1971. Niche relationships among some deciduous forest flycatchers. Auk 88:796-804.

  • Johnston, D. W., and E. P. Odum. 1956. Breeding bird populations in relation to plant succession on the piedmont of Georgia. Ecology 37:50-62.

  • Keast, A., and E.S. Morton. 1980. Migrant birds in the neotropics: ecology, distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Keller, C. M. E., C. S. Robbins, and J. S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13:137-144.

  • Kilgo, J. C., R. A. Sargent, K. V. Miller, and B. R. Chapman. 1997. Landscape influences on breeding bird communities in hardwood fragments in South Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:878-885.

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

  • Litwin, T. S., and C. R. Smith. 1992. Factors influencing the decline of Neotropical migrants in a northeastern forest fragment: isolation, fragmentation, or mosaic effects? Pages 483-496 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

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

  • Lynch, J. F. and D. F. Whigham. 1984. Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding bird communities in Maryland, USA. Biological Conservation 28:287-324.

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

  • McCarty, J.P. 1996. Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 245. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • McCarty, J.P. 1996. Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 245. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • McCarty, John P. 1996. Eastern Wood-Pewee; The Birds of North America. Vol. 7, No. 245. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Noon, B. R., D. K. Dawson, D. B. Inkly, C. S. Robbins, and S. H. Anderson. 1980. Consistency in habitat preference of forest bird species. Transactions North American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference 45:226-244.

  • Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.

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

  • Palis, J. and S. Cannings. 2000. Species Management Abstract for Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens). The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Unpaginated.

  • Palmer-Ball, B.L., Jr. 1996. The Kentucky Breeding Bird Atlas. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

  • 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.

  • Pearson, D. L. 1980. Bird migration in Amazonian Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Pages 273-283 IN Migrant birds in the neotropics (A. Keast and E. S. Morton, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, 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.

  • 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.

  • Rich, A. C., D. S. Dobkin, and L. J. Niles. 1994. Defining forest fragmentation by corridor width: the influence of narrow forest-dividing corridors on forest-nesting birds in southern New Jersey. Conser. Biol. 8:1109-21.

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

  • Ridgely, R. S. and J. A. Gwynne, Jr. 1989. A Guide to the Birds of Panama. 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

  • Robinson, S. K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding neotropical migrants in a fragmented Illinois landscape. Pages 408-18 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Robinson, W.D., and S.K. Robinson. 1999. Effects of selective logging on forest bird populations in a fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 13(1):58-66.

  • Sample, B. E., R. J. Cooper, and R. C. Whitmore. 1993. Dietary shifts among songbirds in a diflubenzuron-treated forest. Condor 95:616-24.

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

  • Sauer, J.R., and S. Droege. 1992. Geographical patterns in population trends of Neotropical migrants in North America. Pages 26-42 in J.M. Hagan, III, and D.W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • See SERO listing

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

  • Stauffer, D.F., and L.B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:1-15.

  • Stevenson, H. M., and B. H. Anderson. 1994. The birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 892 pp.

  • Stiles, F. G. and A. F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 511 pp.

  • Stotz, D. F., et al. 1992. The status of North American migrants in central Amazonian Brazil. Condor 94:608-621.

  • Strelke, W. K. and J. G. Dickson. 1980. Effect of forest clear-cut edge on breeding birds in east Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:559-567.

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

  • 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.

  • Terres, J.K. 1991. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Thompson, F. R., III and D. E. Capen. 1988. Avian assemblages in seral stages of a Vermont forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:771-777.

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

  • Webb, W.L., D.F. Behrend, and B. Saisorn. 1977. Effect of logging on songbird populations in a northern hardwood forest. Wildlife Monographs 55.

  • Whitmore, R. C., R. J. Cooper, and B. E. Sample. 1993. Bird fat reductions in forest treated with Dimilin [registered trademark]. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:2059-64.

  • Wilcove, D. S. 1988. Changes in the avifauna of the Great Smoky Mountains: 1947-1983. Wilson Bulletin 100:256-271.

  • 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.

  • Wilson, C. W., R. E. Masters, and G. A. Bukenhofer. 1995b. Breeding bird response to pine-grassland community restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:56-67.

  • Yahner, R. H. 1993. Effects of long-term forest clear-cutting on wintering and breeding birds. Wilson Bull. 105:239-255.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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