Setophaga chrysoparia - (Sclater and Salvin, 1860)
Golden-cheeked Warbler
Synonym(s): Dendroica chrysoparia Sclater and Salvin, 1860
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Dendroica chrysoparia P. L. Sclater & Salvin, 1860 (TSN 178901)
French Common Names: Paruline ā dos noir
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Mejilla Dorada
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104938
Element Code: ABPBX03110
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 12070

Public Domain

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Setophaga
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Dendroica chrysoparia
Taxonomic Comments: Setophaga townsendi, S. occidentalis, S. virens, and S. chrysoparia constitute a superspecies (Mengel 1964). Setophaga townsendi and S. occidentalis hybridize extensively in Washington, where S. townsendi appears to be expanding its range at the expense of S. occidentalis (Rohwer et al. 2001, Krosby and Rohwer 2009) (AOU 2011).

Formerly in the genus Dendroica. Phylogenetic analyses of sequences of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that all species formerly placed in Dendroica, one species formerly placed in Wilsonia (citrina), and two species formerly placed in Parula (americana and pitiayumi) form a clade with the single species traditionally placed in Setophaga (ruticilla). The generic name Setophaga has priority for this clade (AOU 2011).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Oct2008
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Small breeding range in central Texas; much breeding and nonbreeding habitat has been destroyed and degraded, and this continues especially in winter range; detrimentally affected by cowbird parasitism; ongoing conservation actions have improved conservation status in recent years.

Global rank needs further review. NatureServe rank estimator version 6.11 yielded a rank of G3 or G4, depending overall threat assessment.

Nation: United States
National Status: N2B (19Mar1997)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Texas (S2B)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (04May1990)
Comments on USESA: In a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the golden-cheeked warbler from the Federal List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife, USFWS (2016) found the petition action is not warranted.

Emergency rule to list as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act was published 4 May 1990 (Federal Register 55:18844-18845); final rule published 27 December 1990 (Federal Register 55:53153-53160). Also listed as Endangered by Texas Parks and Wildlife (Executive Director Order 91-001, issued 27 February 1991) and Texas Organization for Endangered Species (1995).

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R2 - Southwest
IUCN Red List Category: EN - Endangered

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Breeding range encompasses central Texas from Dallas, Palo Pinto, and Bosque counties south through the eastern and south-central portions of the Edwards Plateau (AOU 1998, Ladd and Gass 1999). During the nonbreeding season, the range includes highlands (1,500-2,500 meters) of from Chiapas (Mexico) through Guatemala, Honduras, and north-central Nicaragua; transients occur from June to August and in March in Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, and western Veracruz, Mexico (AOU 1998, Ladd and Gass 1999).

Breeding range extent appears to be roughly 20,000 square kilometers.

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Total amount of suitable habitat within the known breeding range has been estimated at 6,434 square kilometers (see Rappole et al. 2003, 2005).

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: USFWS (1992) estimated population size in 1990 at 13,800 territories (presumably 27,600 adults). Rich et al.(2004) estimated population size at 21,000; they cited the 1991 and 1992 recovery plans for the black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler, respectively, as the sources for that estimate. Ladd and Gass (1999) estimated population size at 9.644-32.032 adults. Rappole et al. (2003) estimated winter population size at 35,527 individuals, including young birds produced during the previous breeding season.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Breeding habitat has diminished due to juniper eradication programs and continuing urbanization (e.g., around Austin, San Antonio, and Waco) (USFWS 1990, 1992). Significant amounts of the remaining breeding habitat is in more or less isolated fragments less than 50 hectares in size; these small patches may support few or no breeding birds despite being apparently otherwise suitable for the species (Wahl et al. 1990).

A primary cause of decline may be habitat loss from logging, firewood extraction, and agricultural conversion for cattle production in pine-oak habitats in southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras (USFWS 1992; Ladd and Gass 1999; Rappole et al. 2003, 2005).

This species suffers from heavy cowbird parasitism, which may be increasing as habitat becomes fragmented.

It is potentially threatened by a widespread Mediterranean fruit-fly eradication program (using malathion) proposed for Guatemala (Young, in Collar et al. 1992).

Short-term Trend: Unknown
Short-term Trend Comments: USFWS (1990) categorized the status as "declining." Overall trend over past 10 years or three generations is not well documented. The population at Fort Hood, Texas, increased steadily from 1992 to 2001; habitat protection and a cowbird-control program might have contributed to the increasing population (Anders and Dearborn 2004).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Over the long term, area of occupancy, population size, and habitat quality have decreased. (USFWS (1992) estimated that the number of territories declined by about 25 percent between 1962 and 1990.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)) Breeding range encompasses central Texas from Dallas, Palo Pinto, and Bosque counties south through the eastern and south-central portions of the Edwards Plateau (AOU 1998, Ladd and Gass 1999). During the nonbreeding season, the range includes highlands (1,500-2,500 meters) of from Chiapas (Mexico) through Guatemala, Honduras, and north-central Nicaragua; transients occur from June to August and in March in Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, and western Veracruz, Mexico (AOU 1998, Ladd and Gass 1999).

Breeding range extent appears to be roughly 20,000 square kilometers.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
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, but breeds in a single state or province

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States TX

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


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
TX Bandera (48019), Bell (48027), Bexar (48029), Blanco (48031), Bosque (48035), Burnet (48053), Comal (48091), Coryell (48099), Edwards (48137), Erath (48143), Hays (48209), Hill (48217), Johnson (48251), Kendall (48259), Kerr (48265), Kimble (48267), Lampasas (48281), Medina (48325), Palo Pinto (48363), Real (48385), San Saba (48411), Somervell (48425), Stephens (48429), Travis (48453), Uvalde (48463), Williamson (48491), Young (48503)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
12 Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto (12060201)+, Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney (12060202)+, North Bosque (12060204)+, Leon (12070201)+, Cowhouse (12070202)+, Lampasas (12070203)+, San Gabriel (12070205)+, Buchanan-Lyndon B (12090201)+, Llano (12090204)+, Austin-Travis Lakes (12090205)+, Pedernales (12090206)+, Upper Guadalupe (12100201)+, San Marcos (12100203)+, Upper San Antonio (12100301)+, Medina (12100302)+, Cibolo (12100304)+, Nueces headwaters (12110101)+, West Nueces (12110102)+, Upper Frio (12110106)+, Hondo (12110107)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small songbird (warbler).
General Description: Males have a black back, throat, upper breast, and crown; white belly; black-streaked sides; white wing bars; and a black line through the eye (contrasting with the large yellow area above and below the eye). Females and immatures are duller, the upperparts being olive with dark streaks and the chin yellowish or white; sides of throat are streaked; belly is white (NGS 1983).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from black-throated green warbler (DENDROICA VIRENS) in lacking yellow on the underparts and in having a more clearly defined yellow ear patch; male has black back (olive in black-throated green warbler).
Reproduction Comments: Eggs are laid mostly April-June (May-June nests evidently represent renesting after failed first tries). Clutch size is 3-5 (usually 4). Incubation, by female, lasts about 12 days. Young are tended by both parents, fledge in about 9 days, may accompant an adult for 30-40 days after fledging. Single-brooded. Nests usually in loose groups of fewer than 6 pairs (sometimes up to 21 pairs) (Pulich 1976). Deserts nest and renests if parasitized by cowbird; renestings tend to more more successful (see Morse 1989).
Ecology Comments: BREEDING: Territory size reportedly is about 4-8 ha (Kroll 1980) or 1.2-4.0 ha (1990, End. Sp. Tech. Bull. 15[6]:1). At Fort Hood, territories averaged 4.15 ha (Weinberg et al. 1996, cited in Ladd and Gass 1999); In Kendall County, territories were smaller, ranging from 1.27-2.44 hectares, mean 1.72 hectares (n=14; Pulich 1976, cited in Ladd and Gass 1999).

Dispersal distance for adult males (median year-to-year distance between territories) was estimated to be 141 meters (average 223 meters, range 0-3523 meters, n=74; Jette et al. 1998).

Of nine failed nests, 4 or 5 were depredated; rat snakes and Western Scrub-Jays are known to prey on young (Gass 1996).

NON-BREEDING: in Chiapas occurred almost exclusively in mixed-species flocks (Vidal et al. 1994). Species co-occurring most frequently in flocks were Wilson's Warbler (WILSONIA PUSILLA), Black-throated Green Warbler (DENDROICA VIRENS), Hermit Warbler (D. OCCIDENTALIS), Townsend's Warbler (D. TOWNSENDI), and Blue-headed Vireo (VIREO SOLITARIUS) (Rappole et al. 1999).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Arrives on breeding grounds in early to mid-March (Pulich 1976). Departs on southward migration mid-June; most are gone by end of July, some present to early August (Texas Ornithological Society 1995, Wauer 1996, Ladd and Gass 1999). Reported on wintering grounds in Chiapas, Mexico, from early August to early April (Vidal et al. 1994). Most migrants pass through a narrow Mexican cloud-forest along the eastern slope of the Sierra Madre Oriental (Perrigo et al. 1990, Ehrlich et al. 1992).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Breeding habitat consists of old-growth and mature regrowth Ashe juniper-oak woodlands in limestone hills and canyons, at 180 to 520 meters elevation (summarized in Ladd and Gass 1999), including edges and open mosaics of Ashe juniper-scrub oak association in broken terrain in canyons and slopes, and closed canopy stands with plenty of old junipers and a sufficient proportion of deciduous oaks in the canopy (Sexton 1992); occupied sites contain junipers at least 40 years old. This species may occupy habitat patches as small as perhaps 50 hectares (larger if close to urban areas) (Sexton 1992). Nests usually are in upright forks of mature junipers, about 1.5-9 meters above ground. Sloughed juniper bark is an important nesting material material. Both males and females tend to return to the previously occupied nesting territory.

In migration and winter, golden-cheeked warblers occur mainly in montane pine or pine-oak associations (Vidal et al. 1994) but also in broadleaf associations in lower montane wet and tropical forest (Vannini, in Collar et al. 1992). In Honduras and Guatemala, the species occurs primarily above 1,300 meters in pine-oak forest; dominant pine species was ocote (Pinus oocarpa) and dominant oaks were "encino" oaks (Quercus sapotifolia, Q. eliptica, Q. elongata, and Q. cortesii) (Rappole et al. 1999).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats insects (especially soft-bodied caterpillars), and other arthropods in breeding season (Pulich 1976, Kroll 1980). Forages mostly in hardwoods (oaks) on breeding range, in shrubby understory of winter habitat (Kroll 1980). Nonbreeders in Chiapas foraged in the upper half of trees (Vidal et al. 1994).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 14 centimeters
Weight: 10 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (undated web brochure) summarized recovery efforts as follows. "Research is underway to better understand the life history, habitat requirements, limiting factors, and land management practices affecting the Golden-cheeked Warbler. Population surveys during the breeding season are being conducted in known and potential habitat areas. Efforts to provide information and educational opportunities to landowners and the public regarding life history and habitat requirements of the warbler are also a vital part of the recovery effort. Major recovery efforts are being conducted on Department of Defense's Fort Hood and Camp Bullis, Travis County and the City of Austin's Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, and many properties owned and/or managed by the Nature Conservancy. Additionally, Environmental Defense [Fund] through their Safe Harbor Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is assisting many landowners to manage and/or create habitat for the benefit of the warbler. Voluntary cowbird trapping is being conducted by more than 400 landowners in counties throughout the range of the warbler. Recently, a consortium of researchers in governmental and nongovernmental agencies has proposed a multinational effort to better understand and coordinate approaches to managing and recovering the Golden-cheeked Warbler. Additional research in Mexico and Central America is planned to gather information concerning life history and habitat requirements on the wintering range. Studies are needed to assess the potential for income generating activities, such as selective harvest of juniper, which may be compatible with habitat protection."
Management Requirements: BREEDING: See Diamond et al. (1995) for information on conservation of Ashe juniper woodlands.

NONBREEDING: Appears to be tolerant of moderate timbering and grazing. However, clear-cutting or severe understory reduction by grazing or burning may reduce habitat suitability. Possibly negatively impacted by forest fragmentation because of reduced suitability of fragmented habitat for mixed-species flocks (Rappole et al. 1999).

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 24Mar2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 09Oct2008
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
  • 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/.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). Chesser, R.T., R.C. Banks, F.K. Barker, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, Jr., J.D. Rising, D.F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 128(3):600-613.

  • Anders, A. D., and D. C. Dearborn. 2004. Population trends of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler at Fort Hood, Texas, from 1992-2001. Southwestern Naturalist 49:39-47.

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

  • Bent, A. C. 1953. Life histories of North American wood warblers. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 203. Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

  • Diamond, D. D., G. A. Rowell, and D. P. Keddy-Hector. 1995. Conservation of Ashe juniper (JUNIPERUS ASHEI Buchholz) woodlands of the Central Texas Hill Country. Natural Areas Journal 15:189-197.

  • Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.

  • Gass, L. 1996. Nesting behavior of Golden-cheeked Warblers in Travis County, Texas. Master's thesis, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Kroll, J. C. 1980. Habitat requirements of the golden- cheeked warbler: management implications. J. Range Management 33:60-65.

  • Ladd, C., and L. Gass. 1999. Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). No. 420 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 24 pp.

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

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

  • Morse, D. H. 1989. American warblers: an ecological and behavioral perspective. Harvard University Press. 384 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Perrigo, G., et al. 1990. Spring migration corridor of golden-winged warblers in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Am. Birds 44:28.

  • 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.

  • Pulich, W. M. 1976. The Golden-cheeked Warbler -- A bio-ecological Study. Texas. 172 pp.

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

  • Rappole, J. H., D. King, J. Diez, and J. V. Rivera. 2005. Factors affecting population size in Texas' golden-cheeked warbler. Endangered Species Update 22:95-103.

  • Rappole, J. H., D. I. King, and J. Diez. 2003. Winter versus breeding habitat limitation for an endangered avian migrant. Ecological Applications 13:735-742

  • Rappole, J.H., D.I. King, and W.C. Barrow, Jr. 1999. Winter ecology of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler. Condor 101(4):762-770.

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

  • Sexton, C. 1992. The golden-cheeked warbler. Birding December 1992:373-6.

  • Shaw, D. M., and S. F. Atkinson. 1990. An introduction to the use of geographic information systems for ornithological research. Condor 92:564-570.

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

  • 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.

  • Texas Organization for Endangered Species. 1995. Endangered, threatened, and watch list of vertebrates of Texas. TOES Publication 10. Austin, Texas.

  • Texas Ornithological Society. 1995. Checklist of the birds of Texas. Third edition. Texas Ornithological Society; printed by Capital Printing, Inc., Austin, Texas.

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Emergency rule to list the golden-cheeked warber as endangered. Federal Register 55(87):18844-5.

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 88 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Availability of a draft environmental assessment and receipt of an application for an incidental take permit for the proposed Lake Pointe development, Austin, Travis County, Texas. Federal Register 58(165):45353-45354. 27 August 1993.

  • Vidal, R. M., C. Macias-Caballero, and C. D. Duncan. 1994. The occurrence and ecology of the golden-cheeked warbler in the highlands of northern Chiapas, Mexico. Condor 96:684-91.

  • Wahl, R., D. D. Diamond, and D. Shaw. 1990. The golden-cheeked warbler: a status review. Ecological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Worth, Texas.

  • Wauer, R. H. 1996. A field guide to the birds of the Big Bend, second edition. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas.

  • Weinberg, H. J., L. A. Jette, and J. D. Cornelius. 1996. Field studies of the endangered Black-capped Vireo and Golden-cheeked Warbler, and the cowbird control program on Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood Natural Resources Branch, Fort Hood, Texas, and Natural Resources Assessment and Management Division, USACERL, Champaign, Illinois.

  • 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.

  • 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 November 2016.
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 © 2017 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. 2017. 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.