Hirundo rustica - Linnaeus, 1758
Barn Swallow
Other English Common Names: barn swallow
Other Common Names: Andorinha-da-Chaminé, Andorinha-do-Bando
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 (TSN 178448)
French Common Names: hirondelle rustique
Spanish Common Names: Golondrina Tijereta
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104225
Element Code: ABPAU09030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 10520

© Bruce A. Sorrie

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Hirundinidae Hirundo
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: Hirundo rustica
Taxonomic Comments: Composed of two groups: erythrogaster (Barn Swallow) breeding in North America and rustica (European Swallow) breeding in Eurasia (AOU 1998). Zink et al. (1995) found that populations on Asian and North American sides of Beringia exhibited a level of mtDNA differentiation intermediate between populations and species; however, sample sizes were small and no formal taxonomic change was recommended. See Sheldon and Winkler (1993) for information on intergeneric phylogenetic relationships of Hirundininae based on DNA-DNA hybridization. May form a superspecies with H. lucida, H. aethiopica, H. angolensis, H. albigularis, H. dumicola, H. tahitica, and H. neoxena (AOU 1998)
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 08Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 02Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern. (Birdlife International, 2014)
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3N4B,N3N4M (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), Alaska (S4B), Arizona (S5), Arkansas (S5B), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S4B), Delaware (S5B), District of Columbia (S5B,S5N), Florida (S5B), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S5B), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S5B), Iowa (S5B,S5N), Kansas (S5B), Kentucky (S5B), Louisiana (S5B), Maine (S4B), Maryland (S5B), Massachusetts (S5B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (SNRB), Montana (S5B), Navajo Nation (S3?B), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (S5B), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S4B), New Mexico (S5B,S5N), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S5B), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5B), Oregon (S5), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (S5B), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S5B), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5B), Utah (S5B), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S5), Washington (S4S5B), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S5B), Wyoming (S5B)
Canada Alberta (S3B), British Columbia (S3S4B), Manitoba (S4B), New Brunswick (S3B,S3M), Newfoundland Island (S2B,SUM), Northwest Territories (S3B), Nova Scotia (S3B), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (S2B), Quebec (S4?), Saskatchewan (S5B,S5M), Yukon Territory (S2B)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (02Nov2017)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Threatened (06May2011)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This is one of the world's most widespread and common landbird species. However, like many other species of birds that specialize on a diet of flying insects, this species has experienced very large declines that began somewhat inexplicably in the mid to late 1980s in Canada. Its Canadian distribution and abundance may still be greater than prior to European settlement, owing to the species' ability to adapt to nesting in a variety of artificial structures (barns, bridges, etc.) and to exploit foraging opportunities in open, human-modified, rural landscapes. While there have been losses in the amount of some important types of artificial nest sites (e.g., open barns) and in the amount of foraging habitat in open agricultural areas in some parts of Canada, the causes of the recent population decline are not well understood. The magnitude and geographic extent of the decline are cause for conservation concern.

Status history: Designated Threatened in May 2011.

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: south-coastal and southeastern Alaska, across much of Canada south through much of U.S. to central Mexico; also eastern Buenos Aires province, Argentina, in early 1980s (Ridgely and Tudor 1989); across Eurasia to Mediterranean region, northern Africa, China, Japan. NON-BREEDING: mainly South America, regularly from Costa Rica and West Indies to Tierra del Fuego (but in low numbers south of central Chile and northern Argentina, Ridgely and Tudor 1989); Africa and southern Asia; uncommon in Puerto Rico. Accidental in Hawaii.

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Extent of occurrence for breeding/resident is estimated to be 43,400,000 sqare km. (Birdlife International, 2014)

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations). It has an extremely large range and extremely large population size. Partners in Flight (2013) estimate its global population to be 120 million.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: The global population is estimated to number > c.190,000,000 individuals (Richÿet al.ÿ2004), while national population estimates include: c.10,000-1 million breeding pairs and > c.1,000 individuals on migration in China; c.10,000-100,000 breeding pairs, > c.10,000 individuals on migration and < c.50 wintering individuals in Taiwan; c.10,000-1 million breeding pairs and > c.1,000 individuals on migration in Korea; c.10,000-1 million breeding pairs, > c.1,000 individuals on migration and c.50-1,000 wintering individuals in Japan and c.10,000-100,000 breeding pairs and c.1,000-10,000 individuals on migration in Russia (Brazil 2009) (Birdlife International, 2014).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Considering it is the most widely distributed and abundant swallow in the world, the species should have many good element occurrences.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: See Turner and Rose 1989 for comments on status in Old World. In general, has benefited from presence of humans and their structures. Small numbers inadvertently killed by intentional spraying of Dickcissel (SPIZA AMERICANA) roosts in Venezuela in non-breeding season (Basili and Temple 1999). On balance, human activity has had strongly positive effects on this species: construction of artificial structures has provided abundant nesting sites, leading to population size that is probably several orders of magnitude greater than before European settlement of North America. Barn Swallows are popular with people, and farmers often protect (rarely persecute) the birds on their property. The species seems to have adapted well to nesting in human-altered habitats in North America and worldwide. House Sparrows can be serious nest-site competitors, apparently extirpating Barn Swallows from parts of New England in 1800s (Brewster 1906); sparrows reduced Barn Swallow fledging success by 45% at 1 site in Maryland (Weisheit and Creighton 1989). Cold and rainy weather occurring in late spring and early summer causes mortality among both adults (Brown and Brown 1999) and nestlings (Mason 1953, Anthony and Ely 1976) as result of starvation. (Brown and Brown, 1999)

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicated a population decrease surveywide of -1.2% annually from 1966 through 2011, but surveywide there was no significant change (0.0%) from 2001-2011. (Sauer, et. al. 2014). In Europe, the populations have been stable since 1980 (Birdlife International, 2014).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to increase of <25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species has undergone a small or statistically insignificant decrease over the last 40 years in North America (data from Breeding Bird Survey and/or Christmas Bird Count: Butcher and Niven 2007). In Europe, trends since 1980 have been stable, based on provisional data for 21 countries from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands; P. Vorisek in litt. 2008). (Birdlife International, 2014). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicated a population decrease surveywide of -1.1% annually from 1966 through 2012. The decline is most extreme in the north: Canada had a significant decline of -3.5% annually 1966-2012, and other significant declines greater or equal to -5% per year were registered in the following BBS regions: Atlantic Northern Forest (-5.5%), Boreal Hardwood Transition (-5.0%), New Brunswick (-5.4%), British Columbia (-5.0), and Maine (-6.1%). The most significant increases were in the southeast and Texas: Louisiana had an annual increase of 7.4%, Edwards Plateau showed an increase of 5.4%, and Gulf Coastal Prairie increased by 9.7 % annually (Sauer, et. al. 2014).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable to not intrinsically vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: The most widely distributed and abundant swallow in the world. Human activity has had strongly positive effects on this species. But insectivorous diet makes it potentially vulnerable to pesticides and unusally cold weather.

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Reproduction depends on availability of suitable nesting sites, such as eaves of buildings or bridges, that include a vertical or horizontal substrate (often enclosed) underneath some type of roof or ceiling, and a body of water that provides mud for nest-building.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Because it is one of the most thoroughly studied birds in the world, there are fairly good population data available.

Protection Needs: Attempts to improve stability of nests and to relocate nests are usually successful. Farmers in some areas nail narrow wooden ledges to walls or under eaves to give birds support for their nests, and birds can sometimes be enticed to relocate their nests to more desirable sites if intact nest with nestlings is moved slowly and then reattached (Winkler and McCarty 1990, CRB, MBB). There is little information about impacts of pesticides and other contaminants/toxins on North American race; declines of H. r. rustica in Israel in 1950s were attributed to pesticides (Turner 1991) (Brown and Brown, 1999).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: south-coastal and southeastern Alaska, across much of Canada south through much of U.S. to central Mexico; also eastern Buenos Aires province, Argentina, in early 1980s (Ridgely and Tudor 1989); across Eurasia to Mediterranean region, northern Africa, China, Japan. NON-BREEDING: mainly South America, regularly from Costa Rica and West Indies to Tierra del Fuego (but in low numbers south of central Chile and northern Argentina, Ridgely and Tudor 1989); Africa and southern Asia; uncommon in Puerto Rico. Accidental in Hawaii.

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002; WWF-US, 2000


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Ada (16001), Blaine (16013), Bonneville (16019), Cassia (16031), Franklin (16041), Owyhee (16073), Shoshone (16079)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
16 Middle Bear (16010202)+
17 Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Willow (17040205)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, Middle Owyhee (17050107)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird (swallow).
Reproduction Comments: Clutch size is usually 4-5. Incubation lasts 13-17 days (less often 11-19 days), mainly or totally (e.g., in Europe) by female. Often 2 broods, except in far north. Young are tended by both adults, fledge at 18-23 days, stay together and are fed by parents for about a week. Females first breed at 1 year, a few males remain unpaired until 2 years old. Adults often have same mate in successive years (Shields 1984). Juveniles may help feed young of second brood.
Ecology Comments: Nonbreeding: may form flocks of up to thousands.
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Arrives in much of U.S. in April, Alaska in May (Terres 1980). Common migrant in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Migrates through Costa Rica mainly early to mid-August through October and early March-late May or early June (Stiles and Skutch 1989). In South America mainly August to May (though some may linger throughout year) (Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely and Tudor 1989). See Turner and Rose 1989 for information on Old World migrations.
Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland
Riverine Habitat(s): Aerial
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Aerial
Palustrine Habitat(s): Aerial, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cliff, Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Savanna, Suburban/orchard
Habitat Comments: Open situations, less frequently in partly open habitats, frequently near water (AOU 1983). Wintering concentrations often associated with sugar cane fields (Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely and Tudor 1989). Nests in barns or other buildings, under bridges, in caves or cliff crevices, usually on vertical surface close to ceiling. Commonly reuses old nests. Usually returns to same nesting area in successive years; yearlings often return to within 30 km or closer to natal site (Turner and Rose 1989, Shields 1984).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Flies over open land and water and forages on insects; forages nearer to the ground than other swallows (usually not greater than 10 meters and often less than 1 meter above the ground) (Brown and Brown 1999). Feeds opportunistically on a wide variety of flying insects; primarily true flies (Diptera), but also beetles, true bugs, leafhoppers, Hymenoptera, dragonflies and damselflies, butterflies and moths, and occasionally grasshoppers and crickets (Beal 1918, Hoskyn 1988). Usually forages within a few hundred meters of nest when breeding. Occasionally may take insects from ground or vegetation; rarely eats berries (Beal 1918).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 17 centimeters
Weight: 19 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Restoration Potential: See Mitchell (1988) for specifications for the construction and placement of nest shelves. See Winkler and McCarty (1990) for information on a method for transplanting nestlings from one site to another.
Biological Research Needs: Major priorities should be to resolve the systematics of the Hirundo rustica group and its sister species from Africa, Asia, and Australia. Additional genetic analyses are needed to determine how divergent the North American Barn Swallow is from the nominate race of Europe and the Siberian subspecies. However, as a consequence of both its wide distribution and its nesting on accessible artificial structures near people, the Barn Swallow has been studied extensively throughout the world and especially in Europe. More papers have been published on this species than on any other swallow, and it is one of the most thoroughly studied birds in the world. Need to resolve the systematics of this species and its genus. Studies on sexual selection in North American race would be valuable (Brown and Brown 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: 12Mar2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jue, Sally S.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 14Oct1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., REVISED BY S. CANNINGS

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

References
Help
  • 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.

  • Alves, V. S., A. B. A. Soares, G. S. do Couto, A. B. B. Ribeiro, and M. A. Efe. 1997. Aves do Arquipelago dos Abrolhos, Bahia, Brasil. Ararajuba 5:209-218.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Basili, G.D., and S.A. Temple. 1999. Winter ecology, behavior, and conservation needs of Dickcissels in Venezuela. Studies in Avian Biology 19:289-299.

  • Beal, F. E. L. 1918. Food habits of the swallows, a family of valuable native birds. U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 619.

  • 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. (2013-2014). IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on various dates in 2013 and 2014. http://www.birdlife.org/

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

  • Braun, M. J., D. W. Finch, M. B. Robbins, and B. K. Schmidt. 2000. A field checklist of the birds of Guyana. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

  • Brown, C. R., and M. B. Brown. 1999. Barn Swallow (HIRUNDO RUSTICA). No. 452 IN A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.

  • Brown, Charles R. and Mary B. Brown. 1999. Barn Swallow. The Birds of North America. Vol. 12, No. 452: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

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

  • COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barn Swallow Hirondo rustica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 37 pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 3, Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. UBC Press in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 700pp.

  • Castro, I. and A. Phillips. 1996. A guide to the birds of the Galapagos Islands. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

  • Crook, J.R. and W.M. Shields. 1985. Sexually selected infanticide by adult male barn swallows. Animal Behavior 33(3):754-761.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Erskine, A.J., B.T. Colins, E. Hayakawa, and C. Downes. 1992. The cooperative breeding bird survey in Canada, 1989-91. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Notes No. 199, Ottawa, ON. 14 pp.

  • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission2003, January 6. Florida's breeding bird atlas: A collaborative study of Florida's birdlife. http://legacy.myfwc.com/bba/species.asp.
     

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

  • Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa. 428 pp.

  • Greenlaw, Jon S., Bill Pranty, and Reed Bowman.  2014.  Robertson and Woolfenden Florida Bird Species:  An Annotated List.  Special Publication No. 8, Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville, FL.
     

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Lagacé M., L. Blais et D. Banville. 1983. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Première édition. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 100

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • Mitchell, W. A. 1988. Songbird nest boxes. Section 5.1.8, US Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Tech. Rep. EL-88-19. Waterways Expt. Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 48 pp.

  • Moller, A. P. 1994. Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford. 376 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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 Agency. 2017e. Multi-species Action Plan for Fort Rodd Hill National Historic Site of Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. iv + 18 pp.

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

  • Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2013. Population Estimates Database, version 2013. Available at http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates. Accessed in 2014.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • Ridgely, R. S. and G. Tudor. 1989. The birds of South America. Volume 1. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA. 516 pp.

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

  • Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrak, and P. H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Resource Publ. 157. iii + 196 pp.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
     

  • 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

  • Sheldon, F. H., and D. W. Winkler. 1993. Intergeneric phylogenetic relationships of swallows estimated by DNA-DNA hybridization. Auk 110:798-824.

  • Shields, W. M. 1984. Factors affecting nest and site fidelity in Adirondack barn swallows (HIRUNDO RUSTICA). Auk 101:780-789.

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

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

  • Spahn, R. 1987. Highlights of the spring season. Kingbird 37(3):133-142.

  • Stevenson, H.M., and B.H. Anderson. 1994. The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, 891 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.

  • 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.

  • Turner, A., and C. Rose. 1989. Swallows and martins an identification guide. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

  • 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.

  • Winkler, D. W., and J. P. McCarty. 1990. Method for transplanting nests of barn swallows. J. Field Ornithol. 61:426-430.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2007. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring Summer 2007. 12pp.

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

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2008. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring/Summer 2008. 12pp.

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

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2012. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2012. 15pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2015. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring-Summer 2015.12 pp.

  • Zink, R. M., S. Rohwer, A. V. Andreev, and D. L. Dittman. 1995. Trans-Beringia comparisons of mitochondrial DNA differentiation in birds. Condor 97:639-649.

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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