Helmitheros vermivorum - (Gmelin, 1789)
Worm-eating Warbler
Other English Common Names: worm-eating warbler
Synonym(s): Helmitheros vermivorus (Gmelin, 1789)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Helmitheros vermivorum (Gmelin, 1789) (TSN 726195)
French Common Names: Paruline vermivore
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Gusanero
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104782
Element Code: ABPBX08010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 7757

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Helmitheros
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
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: Helmitheros vermivorus
Taxonomic Comments: See Banks and Browning (1995) for a brief discussion of nomenclature.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 03Dec1996
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Fairly large breeding range in the eastern U.S.; numerous occurrences; relatively stable population in recent decades.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)

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 (S4B), Arizona (SNA), Arkansas (S4B), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S3B), District of Columbia (S2N), Florida (S1), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3B), Iowa (S2B,S2N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (S4S5B), Louisiana (S3B), Maryland (S4B), Massachusetts (S2B), Mississippi (S3B), Missouri (SNRB), Nebraska (SNRN), New Jersey (S3B), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S4B), North Carolina (S4B), Ohio (S3S4), Oklahoma (S1B), Pennsylvania (S4B), Rhode Island (S2B), South Carolina (S4B), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S3B), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S3B), Wisconsin (S1B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: discontinuously from northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska east across southern Great Lakes region to southern New England, south to northeastern Texas, southcentral Alabama, northwestern Florida, and South Carolina (AOU 1983). NON-BREEDING: southern Mexico (Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, and Yucatan Peninsula) south along the Caribbean slope of Middle America to central Panama; also in the Bahama Islands, Greater Antilles, and Virgin Islands (AOU 1983) (uncommon in Puerto Rico and St. John, rare on other Virgin Islands).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Occurs in relatively low densities rangewide, and populations appear to be patchily distributed (Rosenberg and Wells 1995).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Dependence on large forests for nesting may make this species highly vulnerable to population decreases. Considered "highly vulnerable" to population decline because of anthropogenic alteration of tropical, broadleaved forests (Petit et al. 1993).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a significant population decrease in eastern North America, 1978-1988 (Sauer and Droege 1992); no significant change, 1966-1989 (Droege and Sauer 1990); nonsignificant increase of 7% from 1966 to 1993, nonsignificant decline of 4% from 1984 to 1993 (Price et al. 1995). In the Northeast, long-term population trends have declined the most in regions where the greatest proportion of the population occurs (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee). Species has shown increases in southern New England. Estimated population trends for this species based on BBS data are suspect because sample sizes are small in most areas (Rosenberg and Wells 1995).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: discontinuously from northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska east across southern Great Lakes region to southern New England, south to northeastern Texas, southcentral Alabama, northwestern Florida, and South Carolina (AOU 1983). NON-BREEDING: southern Mexico (Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, and Yucatan Peninsula) south along the Caribbean slope of Middle America to central Panama; also in the Bahama Islands, Greater Antilles, and Virgin Islands (AOU 1983) (uncommon in Puerto Rico and St. John, rare on other Virgin Islands).

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, but breeds in a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; NatureServe, 2004


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
FL St. Lucie (12111)
IA Clayton (19043), Fremont (19071)*, Lee (19111), Muscatine (19139), Van Buren (19177)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Boone (18011), Brown (18013), Clark (18019)*, Crawford (18025), Dubois (18037), Floyd (18043), Fountain (18045), Harrison (18061), Hendricks (18063), Jackson (18071), Jennings (18079), Johnson (18081), Lawrence (18093), Marion (18097), Martin (18101), Monroe (18105), Montgomery (18107), Morgan (18109), Ohio (18115), Parke (18121), Perry (18123), Putnam (18133), Ripley (18137), Scott (18143), Spencer (18147), Switzerland (18155), Wabash (18169), Warrick (18173), Washington (18175)
LA Catahoula (22025), East Feliciana (22037), Natchitoches (22069), Rapides (22079), Vernon (22115), West Feliciana (22125)
MS Adams (28001), Choctaw (28019), Hinds (28049), Jones (28067)*, Oktibbeha (28105), Rankin (28121), Tishomingo (28141), Warren (28149), Wilkinson (28157), Winston (28159)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Bergen (34003), Burlington (34005), Camden (34007), Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Gloucester (34015), Hunterdon (34019), Middlesex (34023), Monmouth (34025), Morris (34027), Ocean (34029), Passaic (34031), Somerset (34035), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
RI Kent (44003)
WI Grant (55043), Pepin (55091), Sauk (55111), Vernon (55123), Walworth (55127), Waukesha (55133)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Narragansett (01090004)+
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Lower Delaware (02040202)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+
03 Florida Southeast Coast (03090206)+, Noxubee (03160108)+, Lower Leaf (03170005)+*, Upper Pearl (03180001)+, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+
05 Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+, Salamonie (05120102)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Sugar (05120110)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Eel (05120203)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
06 Bear (06030006)+
07 Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+
08 Lower Yazoo (08030208)+, Lower Ouachita (08040207)+, Little (08040304)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+*, Homochitto (08060205)+, Buffalo (08060206)+*, Bayou Sara-Thompson (08070201)+, Amite (08070202)+
10 West Nishnabotna (10240002)+*, Nishnabotna (10240004)+*
11 Lower Red-Lake Iatt (11140207)+
12 Lower Sabine (12010005)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A 13-cm-long bird (warbler).
General Description: Overall body plumage is grayish olive-green above, paler on abdomen, turning rich creamy buff on breast, throat and cheek. Two broad but strongly contrasted lateral crown stripes and a post-ocular stripe of blackish mouse-gray are separated by the same buff of the throat and cheek. Sexes are indistinguishable, although males tend to be larger than females. Young birds generally resemble adults but may have tertials lightly tipped with rusty brown (Ridgway 1902, Dwight 1975). Body length 11-12 cm (Ridgway 1902), wing length 66-75 mm, tarsus length 17.8-19.3 mm (Patton and Hanners, unpub. data). Eggs have a white background speckled with rust; 17.4 mm by 13.6 mm (Bent 1953). Song is similar to chipping sparrow (SPIZELLA PASSERINA) but sweeter and with chips rolling together. Chip note is sharp and strident.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Strongly streaked crown against olive-green body; often seen hopping and climbing on or hanging from shrub and subcanopy branches while foraging. Often forages in clusters of dead leaves, especially on wintering grounds.
Reproduction Comments: Eggs are laid in May, will lay replacement clutches through June. In the middle Atlantic region, nests from mid-May to mid-July (Bushman and Therres 1988). In Connecticut, extreme egg dates for first or subsequent clutches range from 13 May to 21 June, with nestlings last observed on 11 July (Patton and Hanners, unpub. data). Clutch size is 5-6 for first clutches; replacement clutch size is usually 4. Single-brooded. Incubation lasts 13 days, by females only. Young are brooded by the female and fed by both parents. Mean nestling duration is 8.5 days but young may fledge as early as day 5 if disturbed (Patton and Hanners, unpub. data).
Ecology Comments: In Missouri, density was 2.13 males per 10 ha in continuous forest (Wenny et al. 1993). In Connecticut, density ranged from 4.46 males per 10 ha at a 300-ha TNC preserve to 0.26 per 10 ha at a wooded 56-ha site (Gale et al. 1997). Territorial in winter in Mexico (Rappole and Warner 1980); may forage in mixed-species flocks with resident, tropical forest birds (Greenberg 1987).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Arrives in North America during spring migration in early April, and at breeding grounds in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut in late April or early May. Departure dates from breeding grounds not well known but some birds may depart by mid-July (Patton and Hanners, unpub. data). Fall dates in southern United States range from 30 August to 1 October (Chapman 1907). Extreme dates in Central America range from 31 August to 18 April in the Honduras (Monroe 1968). Arrives in Puerto Rico in October, departs by end of April (Raffaele 1983). Arrives in Costa Rica early September, rarely late August, through October, departs by mid- to late April (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Hardwood
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Well-drained upland deciduous forests with understory patches of mountain laurel or other shrubs, drier portions of stream swamps with an understory of mountain laurel, deciduous woods near streams; almost always associated with hillsides (Gale 1995, Bushman and Therres 1988). Coastal plain habitats in Maryland include well-drained oak and oak-hickory forests, flatland white oak forests along river terraces, and drier islands of nontidal forested wetlands (Stasz 1996). Dense patches of shrubs or saplings may be an important component of territories (Patton and Hanners, unpub. data; Bushman and Therres 1988). Most abundant in mature woods but also may be common in young and medium-aged stands (see Bushman and Therres 1988). Nests on the ground, usually on hillsides, in cryptic nests among dead leaves, usually against roots or stems of shrubs or saplings, in a slight cavity (Harrison 1978), or up against rock outcrops. Nests are constructed of skeletonized leaves and lined with sporophyte stems of hairy cap moss (POLYTRICHUM sp.).

NON-BREEDING: In migration, occurs in various forest, woodland, scrub, and thicket situations, but specific habitat requirements are not known. In winter, inhabits undergrowth shrub and subcanopy layers of forests. Wunderle and Waide (1993) reported that worm-eating warblers are forest specialists but use a variety of forest types in the Caribbean, including "montane pine and broadleaf forest, wet limestone and dry forest, and dry scrub and residential habitats in the Bahamas." On the Caribbean slope of Central America, habitats include scrub and broadleaf and gallery forests (Rappole et al. 1983).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats primarily caterpillars, various insects and spiders. Obtains food from live and dead foliage in spring and summer using an array of foraging techniques including gleaning, reaching, hanging, probing, gaping, pecking, prying, pulling, leaping, sallying, and flutter-chasing (see Remsen and Robinson (1990) for definitions). Reaches into dead leaf clusters to remove caterpillars and spiders. Feeds at tree tops with early leaf-out and moves into subcanopy and understory as the summer progresses. In the nonbreeding season, most prey is obtained from dead curled leaves in the forest understory; also gleans prey from dense foliage, vine tangles, sometimes ground litter, or pecks into rotten twigs for termites (Stiles and Skutch 1989). See also Rappole and Warner (1980).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 13 centimeters
Weight: 13 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Principle management concern is that large tracts (300-1000 ha) of unfragmented suitable habitat are required for nesting and must be protected. Primary habitat requirements on the breeding grounds are mature deciduous forest, understory patches of dense shrubs (e.g., mountain laurel), and a topography of moderate to steep slopes. Winter habitat requirements are less well known but believed to be dependent primarily on mature moist to wet broad-leaved forests. Specific habitat requirements during migration are not known.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Probably requires large forest tracts for successful reproduction. Large contiguous areas with a minimum of nonforested edge produce the highest densities of breeding individuals (Gale et al. 1997) and increase reproductive success by decreasing cowbird parasitism and nest predation (Robinson et al. 1995). Several studies suggest that viable populations occur in forest tracts of 300 ha or more (Robbins et al. 1989, Wenny et al. 1993, Robinson et al. 1995). Reported as rare or absent in forest tracts smaller than about 20-70 ha in Maryland (see Bushman and Therres 1988). In Illinois, occurred in a forest tract of 65 ha but not in tracts of 25 ha or 14 ha (Robinson 1992). In Missouri, bred in a large continuous forest tract but not in two similar but smaller (300 ha) isolated sites (Wenny et al. 1993). In Connecticut, may nest in tracts as small as 20 ha but density is very low (Gale et al. 1997). It is unknown whether individuals nesting at small sites contribute offspring to future generations.

Robinson et al. (1995) suggested that a good regional conservation strategy for worm-eating warblers and other migrant songbirds, at least in the Midwest, is to identify, maintain, and restore the large tracts that are most likely to be population sources. Fragmentation of large forests into smaller ones may result in loss of local populations that will need to be replenished from birds from large, unfragmented forests.

Management Requirements: Further studies are required to assess effects of various logging practices on both wintering and breeding grounds. However, this warbler probably is tolerant of many different forest management and logging practices; selective logging and thinning "overmature" trees may create favorable conditions; may nest in clearcut areas as young as 7 years old where several hardwoods have been left standing in the clearcuts (see Bushman and Therres 1988).
Monitoring Requirements: Species is inconspicuous and easily overlooked during surveys.
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: 20Sep1995
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Dirrigl, F., Jr. & G. Hammerson
Management Information Edition Date: 01Jun1996
Management Information Edition Author: PATTON, S., AND L. HANNERS; REVISIONS BY F. DIRRIGL, JR., G. HAMMERSON, AND
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 12Sep1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2004. Forty-fifth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 121(3):985-995.

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

  • BUSHMAN, E.S. AND G.D. THERRES. 1988. HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR FOREST INTERIOR BREEDING BIRDS OF COASTAL MARYLAND. WILDLIFE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION 88-1. MD DNR, FOREST, PARK, AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 50 PP.

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

  • Banks, R. C., C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz. 2004. Forty-fifth supplement to the American Ornithologists Union check-list of North American birds. The Auk 121: 985-995.

  • Banks, R. C., and M. R. Browning. 1995. Comments on the status of revived old names for some North American birds. Auk 112:633-648.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Bushman, E. S., and G. D. Therres. 1988. Habitat management guidelines for forest interior breeding birds of coastal Maryland. Maryland Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Tech. Publ. 88-1. 50 pp.

  • CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION. 1986. A GUIDE TO THE CONSERVATION OF FOREST INTERIOR DWELLING BIRDS IN THE CRITICAL AREA. GUIDANCE PAPER NO. 1. STATE OF MARYLAND. 13 PP.

  • Campbell, Jim, and Midge Lechner. 1995. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species. Observation Notes. 4 pp.

  • Carter, M., C. Hunter, D. Pashley, and D. Petit. 1998. The Watch List. Bird Conservation, Summer 1998:10.

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

  • Donegan, T. M. and B. C. Huertas H. 2002. First mainland record of Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus for Colombia. Cotinga 17:77-78.

  • 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.

  • Dwight, J. 1975. Sequence of plumages and moults of the passerine birds of New York. Annal. New York Acad. Sci. XIII(2):73-360.

  • Gale, G. A. 1995. Habitat selection in the Worm-easting Warbler (HELMITHEROS VERMIVORUS): testing different spatial scales. University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. Ph.D. dissertation.

  • Galindo-Leal, C., and G. Zuleta. 1997. The distribution, habitat, and conservation status of the Pacific water shrew, SOREX BENDIRII, in British Columbia. Canadian-Field Naturalist 111:422-428.

  • Greenberg, R. 1987. Seasonal foraging specialization in the worm-eating warbler. Condor 89:158-168.

  • Griscom, L., and A. Sprunt, Jr. 1979. The warblers of America. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York. 302 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Harrison, H.H. 1984. Wood warblers' world. Simon and Schuster, New York. 335 pp.

  • Hilty, S. J., J. A. Gwynne, and G. Tudor. 2003. The birds of Venezuela, 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

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

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

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

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

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

  • KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS. 1989. COLLECTION OF STATE MAPS DEPICTING COUNTY RECORDS FOR OCCURENCE OF KANSAS BIRD SPECIES.

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

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

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

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

  • Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, editors. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 3. Imperiled amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 225 pages.

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

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

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

  • 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.

  • PETERSON, R.T. 1980. A FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS EAST OF THE ROCKIES. 4TH ED.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Petit, D. R., J. F. Lynch, R. L. Hutto, J. G. Blake, and R. B. Waide. 1993. Management and conservation of migratory landbirds overwintering in the neotropics. Pages 70-92 in D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel (editors). Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229.

  • Price, J., S. Droege, and A. Price. 1995. The summer atlas of North American birds. Academic Press, New York. x + 364 pp.

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

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

  • Rappole, J. H., E. S. Morton, T. E. Lovejoy, and J. L. Ruos. 1983. Nearctic avian migrants in the neotropics. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) WR207. Washington, D.C. 646pp.

  • Rappole, J. H., and D. W. Warner. 1980. Ecological aspects of migrant bird behavior in Veracruz, Mexico. Pages 353-393 in A. Keast and E.S. Morton, editors. Migrant birds in the neotropics: ecology, distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

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

  • Ridgway, R. 1902. The birds of North and Middle America. Part. II. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 50. xx + 834 pp. + 22 plates.

  • Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildl. Monogr. 103:1-34

  • 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, S. K., F. R. Thompson, III, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987-90.

  • Rosenberg, K. V., and J. V. Wells. 1995. Importance of geographic areas to neotropical migrant birds in the northeast. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

  • 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.

  • Stasz, J.L. 1996. Worm-eating Warbler (HELMITHEROS VERMIVORUS). Pages 352-353 in C.S. Robbins and E.A.T. Blom, editors. Atlas of the breeding birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • U87LSU02LAUS - Created by EO conversion

  • Wenny, D. G., et al. 1993. Population density, habitat selection and minimum area requirements of three forest-interior warblers in central Missouri. Condor 95:968-979.

  • 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.

  • Wunderle, J. M. Jr., and R. B. Waide. 1993. Distribution of overwintering Nearctic migrants in the Bahamas and Greater Antillies. Condor 95:904-33.

  • 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.