Melanerpes erythrocephalus - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Red-headed Woodpecker
Other English Common Names: red-headed woodpecker
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Melanerpes erythrocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 178186)
French Common Names: pic à tête rouge
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103539
Element Code: ABNYF04040
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Other Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Piciformes Picidae Melanerpes
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: Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 02Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species has declined dramatically but its numbers are still estimated to be in the millions.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N5N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4B (17Mar2011)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S5), Arkansas (S4B,S4S5N), Colorado (S3B), Connecticut (S1), Delaware (S1), District of Columbia (S1N,SHB), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S4), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S5B), Kansas (S5B), Kentucky (S4B,S4N), Louisiana (S4), Maryland (S4), Massachusetts (S1B,S2N), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB,SNRN), Mississippi (S4S5), Missouri (SNRB,SNRN), Montana (S3B), Nebraska (S5), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (S2B,S2N), New Mexico (S3B,S3N), New York (S2?B), North Carolina (S4B,S4N), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4S5), Pennsylvania (S4B,S4N), Rhode Island (S1B,S1N), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S5B), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S3B), Vermont (S1B), Virginia (S4B), West Virginia (S2B,S3N), Wisconsin (S3B), Wyoming (S3B)
Canada Alberta (SU), Manitoba (S2B), Ontario (S4B), Quebec (S1B), Saskatchewan (S1B,S1M)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (05Mar2009)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Threatened (22Apr2007)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: The brightly-colored woodpecker of open deciduous forests of southeastern Canada and southern parts of western Canada has experienced a significant population decline over the long-term associated with habitat loss and the removal of dead trees in which it nests. There is no evidence to suggest that the population trend will be reversed.

Status History: Designated Special Concern in April 1996. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in April 2007. Last assessment based on an update status report.

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: Southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan to southern New Brunswick (formerly), south to central Texas, Gulf Coast, and Florida, west to central Montana, eastern Wyoming, eastern Colorado, and central New Mexico (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: regularly through the southern two-thirds of the breeding range, rarely to the northern limits of the breeding range (AOU 1998).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Assuming the 2.5 million global population estimate is correct, estimates of between 1 to 10 pairs per 40 hectares would easily put this species at over 20,000 square kilometers

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations), but it has shown long-term declines which have continued at a moderately rapid rate owing to loss and degradation of its habitat in recent decades. Consequently it is considered Near Threatened (Birdlife International, 2014). Partners in Flight (2013) estimates a global population of 1.2 million. There should be at least 81 element occurrences with such a population number.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: National Audubon estimates global population to be 2.5 million (National Audubon Society, 2014) but Partners in Flight (2013) estimates 1.2 million

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to many (13-125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: With a large range encompassing many states, populations in national wildlife refuges and state parks should be reasonably good EOs.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Habitat degradation, as a result of the removal of dead trees and branches in urban areas (Pulich 1988), and loss of nesting habitat to firewood cutting, clear cutting, agricultural development and river channelling in rural areas (Ehrlich et al. 1992, Melcher 1998), appears to be responsible for the decline. Collisions with moving vehicles may be a contributing factor, but persecution as a pest by farmers and utility companies is currently minimal (Smith et al. 2000, del Hoyo et al. 2002; from Birdlife International, 2014). HABITAT: Local declines probably have been due to loss of nesting habitat as a result of firewood cutting and forest clearing for agriculture and residential development. Loss of mature bottomland hardwood forest continues to pose threats to breeding and wintering habitat (Kilham 1958, Moscovits 1978). More than 63 percent of the original southeastern bottomland hardwood forests have been lost, and the rate of loss per decade in eastern Texas is 14 percent (USFWS 1984). Declining in urban and suburban areas due to removal of dead limbs and branches (Pulich 1988). Reforestation of eastern U.S., loss of small orchards, loss of chestnuts, decline of oak savannah habitat, fire suppression in the 20th century, and the switch to "cleaner" agricultural practices (e.g., removal of hedgerows, odd corners on fields, larger monoculture fields) probably have all contributed to the decline (Smith et al., in press). Habitat areas in isolated woodlots and trees surrounded by cropland may increase exposures to pesticides, but this has not been documented. COMPETTION: In Michigan, 52 percent of nest cavities were usurped by European Starling (STURNUS VULGARIS; Ingold 1989). In Ohio, 15 percent of cavities were lost to starlings (Ingold 1994). Woodpeckers do not necessarily incur a reduction in fecundity because they may be able to re-nest successfully later in the season, though this is not without its problems (Ingold 1994).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Blue Listed by National Audubon Society in 1972 and 1981, listed as Special Concern in 1982. By 1986, still warranted Special Concern and were widely reported as declining or severely declining (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Local declines have been reported, especially in the southeastern U.S. From the 2002 through the 2012 BBS, there has been an annual 0.62 decline in the population survey-wide, which translates to a 6% decline over the 10-year period (Sauer, et. al. 2014).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >50%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species has undergone a large and statistically significant decrease over the last 40 years in North America (-65.5% decline over 40 years, equating to a -23.3% decline per decade; data from Breeding Bird Survey and/or Christmas Bird Count: Butcher and Niven 2007) (Birdlife International, 2014).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable to not intrinsically vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Fairly adaptable to different habitats as long as there are large snags for nesting and open areas for catching insects.

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Environmental specificity is for large snags

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Given the major population highs and lows over the last several hundred years, a study / inventory range-wide that can determine the population trends for this species would be a valuable study.

Protection Needs: Continue to monitor population trends. Monitor rates of habitat loss and degradation. Use fire for its positive effects - prescribed burning and understorey thinning increased numbers in Arkansas by creating more open forest stands, improving foraging opportunities; however, whilst burning may create nest-snags, it also destroys existing nest-snags. Creation or maintenance of snags for nesting and roosting is of prime importance. Snags should be retained, in groups if possible. Dead branches should be retained on big trees in non-urban areas and only selectively pruned where hazardous in urban areas. Selective thinning of live trees appears to have a positive effect (e.g. removal of 50% of oak trees for prairie restoration on a reserve in Ohio immediately attracted nesting birds) (Birdlife International, 2014).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: Southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan to southern New Brunswick (formerly), south to central Texas, Gulf Coast, and Florida, west to central Montana, eastern Wyoming, eastern Colorado, and central New Mexico (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: regularly through the southern two-thirds of the breeding range, rarely to the northern limits of the breeding range (AOU 1998).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, MB, ON, QC, SK

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

Range Map Compilers: WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Fairfield (09001)*, Hartford (09003)*, Litchfield (09005)*, Middlesex (09007), New London (09011)*
DE Kent (10001)*, Sussex (10005)
MT Carter (30011), Custer (30017), Fallon (30025), Musselshell (30065), Petroleum (30069), Powder River (30075), Prairie (30079), Richland (30083), Roosevelt (30085), Rosebud (30087), Valley (30105), Wibaux (30109), Yellowstone (30111)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Bergen (34003), Burlington (34005), Camden (34007), Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Essex (34013), Gloucester (34015), Hunterdon (34019), Mercer (34021), Middlesex (34023), Monmouth (34025), Morris (34027), Ocean (34029), Salem (34033), Somerset (34035), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
NY Allegany (36003), Cayuga (36011), Chautauqua (36013), Clinton (36019), Erie (36029), Jefferson (36045), Livingston (36051), Monroe (36055), Oneida (36065), Onondaga (36067), Orleans (36073), Suffolk (36103), Tompkins (36109), Ulster (36111)
SC Anderson (45007), Charleston (45019)
VT Addison (50001), Franklin (50011), Grand Isle (50013), Orange (50017), Windsor (50027)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Waits (01080103)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Westfield (01080206)+*, Farmington (01080207)+*, Thames (01100003)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+*
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Lower Hudson (02030101)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Southern Long Island (02030202)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+, Lower Delaware (02040202)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+
03 Cooper (03050201)+, Upper Savannah (03060103)+
04 Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+, Oak Orchard-Twelvemile (04130001)+, Upper Genesee (04130002)+, Lower Genesee (04130003)+, Seneca (04140201)+, Oneida (04140202)+, Oswego (04140203)+, Black (04150101)+, Indian (04150303)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
10 Upper Musselshell (10040201)+, Middle Musselshell (10040202)+, Flatwillow (10040203)+, Prarie Elk-Wolf (10060001)+, Charlie-Little Muddy (10060005)+, Upper Yellowstone-Pompeys Pillar (10070007)+, Lower Tongue (10090102)+, Lower Yellowstone-Sunday (10100001)+, Rosebud (10100003)+, Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, Upper Little Missouri (10110201)+, Boxelder (10110202)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird (woodpecker).
Reproduction Comments: In the southeastern U.S. and Ohio, nests generally are initiated in early May (Ingold 1989, 1994). Clutch size is four to seven (usually five). Incubation about 14 days, by both sexes. Young are tended by both parents, leave nest at about 27 days. Commonly two broods annually in south.
Ecology Comments: In Michigan, 52% of red-headed woodpecker nest cavities were usurped by starlings (Ingold 1989). In Ohio, 15% of cavities were lost to starlings (Ingold 1994). Woodpeckers do not necessarily incur a reduction in fecundity because they may be able to renest successfully later in the season, though this is not without its problems (Ingold 1994). High fidelity to breeding site--15 of 45 banded adults returned to previous year's nest area (Ingold 1991); one male moved 1 kilometer between breeding seasons (Belson 1998).

Summer territories 3.1-8.5 hectares (Venables and Collopy 1989); winter territories smaller (0.17 hectare to 1 hectare (Williams and Batzli 1979, Venables and Collopy 1989, Moskovits 1978).

Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Breeding populations in west and north move east and/or south for winter.
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Open woodland, especially with beech or oak, open situations with scattered trees, parks, cultivated areas and gardens (AOU 1983). Nests in hole excavated 2-25 meters above ground by both sexes in live tree, dead stub, utility pole, or fencepost. Sometimes uses existing holes in poles or posts. Individuals typically nest in the same tree or cavity in successive years (Ingold 1991).
Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats insects and other invertebrates, berries and nuts, sap, young and eggs of birds. Flycatches, forages on ground and in trees (dead wood) and shrubs. Animal food about 50% of diet. Rarely drills into trees for insects (Terres 1980). Caches food items in crevices. Young are fed insects, worms, spiders, and berries.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 24 centimeters
Weight: 72 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Widespread over much of eastern North America, southern Canada to Florida, west to Utah. Associated with mature, open woodlots, parks, riverbottoms, cultivated areas with scattered trees and snags. Winter migration to bottomland forest in some areas during years of low mast production. Declining over much of breeding range. North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate the most serious declines in the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau, Ohio Hills, Northern Spruce Hardwoods, Great Lakes Plain, and the Southeast in general. It is the fastest declining cavity-nesting bird in Florida (Smith et al., in press). Main threat is nesting habitat loss due to the reduction in the number of dead trees and snags (Raphael and White 1984), loss of bottomland forest used for wintering (Conner et al. 1994). Management/preserve design need to consider habitats and practices favorable for production of a diverse size of snag/dead limbs, maintenance of open areas and low density ground cover for aerial and ground foraging, and mast production.
Species Impacts: Was a major agricultural pest in colonial America (Brewer 1853), but much less so today, due to extensive monocultures. Probably caused more agricultural losses when small fields alternated with woodlands (Skutch 1985). In some areas of the Midwest and South, reported to cause considerable damage to utility poles (Stemmerman 1988), but probably responsible for only minor damage on a large scale (Dennis 1964).
Restoration Potential: Probably good, provided adequate nesting and foraging substrates and good mast production areas are available. In the midwest, Brawn (1998) found population densities increasing in areas of oak savannah restoration.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Preserves need to include woodlot fragments greater than 1.99 hectares (Gutzwiller and Anderson 1987) with a diverse size selection of dead limbs and snags, preferably in groups because birds require multiple snags for roosting and/or foraging (Conner 1976, Sedgewick and Knopf 1990). Open areas above and on the ground are needed for flycatching and ground foraging (Conner and Adkisson 1977). Preserves in longleaf pine savannah should encourage maintenance of a greater basal area of mature pines and numerous large diameter snags and logs (Shackelford and Conner 1997).

Open bottomland forest is extremely important as breeding and wintering habitat (Dickson 1978) and supports large wintering populations in some areas. The correlation of wintering numbers with mast crop abundance (Smith 1986) suggests a need to provide ample mast (e.g., acorns and beechnuts). In a Colorado study, a high density of medium sized trees were important for nest selection (Sedgewick and Knopf 1990), with open areas of 30 meters or greater around nest trees. (Jackson 1976). One model of nesting habitat suggests that fragment area and size of nearest streamside habitat were significantly related to probability of nesting in southeastern Wyoming (Smith et al., in press).

Management Requirements: Management in bottomland forest should include provision of a mature overstory where trees are left to die of natural causes to supply a sufficient number of small and large snags and logs. In some habitats, prescribed burning to deter pioneering hardwoods and remove ground cover could be utilized to maintain a savannah-like condition with increased aerial and ground foraging opportunities (Shackelford and Conner 1997). Preference for dead limbs as nesting substrates and sensitivity to management that reduces dead limb length suggest a need to maintain dead limbs on large living and dead trees in urban park-like areas and vacant lots (Sedgewick and Knopf 1990). Young trees could be planted in a temporal sequence to provide replacement trees in areas where natural replacement is reduced (Conner 1976). Will forage in clearcuts that retain hardwood snags and nest in ones with pine snags (Dickson et al. 1983). Partners in Flight suggests a patch size of 17,400 hectares to support a goal of about 500 breeding pairs. Will nest in artificial nest boxes. See Mitchell (1988) for specifications for the construction and placement of nest boxes.
Monitoring Requirements: Population fluctuations in response to mast production may make trends difficult to detect. Shackleford and Conner (1997) found a 71 percent increase in detection rate during 3-minute counts with use of a barred owl (STRIX VARIA) call.
Management Research Needs: Knowledge of size, species, bark condition, and decay conditions of nest and foraging trees and determination of forest structure that is conducive to snag formation could aid management (Conner et al. 1994). Nest success, effects of predation and the ecological relationships with other organisms are not well known. The demise of the American Chestnut and the widespread loss of Beech forests have deprived it of two historically important food sources. It may be a keystone species in certain ecosystems due to effects on cavity nesting animals and plant species composition (Smith et al., in press); its present reliance on acorns may have substantial importance for the dispersal of oak trees.
Biological Research Needs: This species has experienced major population highs and lows over the last several hundred years, making the current decreasing trends difficult to put in perspective. Are changes in land-use patterns negatively affecting the Red-headed Woodpecker? What are the impacts of removal of dead trees and branches from urban areas on this species? How does one assess the long-term health of an erratic species? The assumption seems to be that if the species is not here, then it most be somewhere else. Current population trends, however, would suggest that Red-headed Woodpeckers are decreasing dramatically throughout their range for some as-yet-to-be-determined reason. Gaps remain in our knowledge of the species' basic biology and ecological relations with other organisms (Smith, Withgott, and Rodewald, 2000).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Woodpeckers

Use Class: Breeding
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.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: The high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by fairly large distances makes 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 woodpeckers; 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.

Territories generally smaller than non-breeding home ranges. Territories/home ranges: Red-headed Woodpecker, summer territories 3.1-8.5 hectares (Venables and Collopy 1989), winter territories smaller (0.17 hectare to 1 hectare (Williams and Batzli 1979, Venables and Collopy 1989, Moskovits 1978); Lewis's Woodpecker, 1.0-6.0 hectares (Thomas et al. 1979); Golden-fronted Woodpecker, summer ranges larger than breeding territories, ranging from 15.4 to 41.7 hectares (average 24.9, Husak 1997); Gila Woodpecker, pair territories ranged from 4.45 to 10.0 hectares (n = 5) (Edwards and Schnell 2000); Nuttall's Woodpecker, about 65 hectares (0.8 kilometers diameter; Miller and Bock 1972); Hairy Woodpecker: breeding territories averaged 2.8 hectares, range 2.4 to 3.2 hectares (Lawrence 1967); Black-backed Woodpecker, home ranges 61-328 hectares (Goggans et al. 1988, Lisi 1988, Dixon and Saab 2000); White-headed Woodpecker, mean home ranges 104 and 212 hectares on old-growth sites and 321 and 342 hectares on fragmented sites (Dixon 1995a,b); Williamson's Sapsucker, home ranges 4-9 hectares (Crockett 1975).

Fidelity to breeding site: high in Red-headed Woodpeckers--15 of 45 banded adults returned to vicinity following year (Ingold 1991); one adult moved 1.04 kilometers between breeding seasons (Belson 1998).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a conservatively small home range of 3 hectares.
Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson
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: 08Oct2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jue, Sally S. and Dean K.
Management Information Edition Date: 03Dec1999
Management Information Edition Author: BROWN, B.; REVISIONS BY M. KOENEN AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: The author thanks Kimberly G. Smith for providing valuable information and Allison V. Level and Diana Niskern for valuable library assistance. Support for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Initiative, through challenge grant number 97-270 to The Nature Conservancy, Wings of the Americas Program. Matching funds for this grant were donated by Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 11Jan1995
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
  • ASSOCIATION QUÉBECOISE DES GROUPES D'ORNITHOLOGUES 2002. Suivi des sites de nidification des oiseaux en péril. Guide du participant. Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. p.19.

  • 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 ]

  • 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/.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2003. Forty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 120(3):923-931.

  • 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.

  • Beaulieu, H. 1992. Liste des espèces de la faune vertébrée susceptibles d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 107 p.

  • Belson, , M. S. 1998. Red-headed Woodpecker (MELANERPES ERYTHROCEPHALUS) use of habitat at Wekiwa Springs State Park, Florida. M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Cnetral Florida, Orlando.

  • Bent, A.C. 1939d. Life histories of North American woodpeckers, U.S. Nat'l. Mus. Bull. 174. Washington, D.C.

  • 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/

  • Brawn, J. D. 1998. Effects of Oak Savannah restoration on avian populations and communities in Illinois. Final Report, Illinois Natural History Survey.

  • Brewer, T. M. 1853. Wilson's American Ornithology. H. S. Samuels, NY.

  • Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. 1987. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Canada. 617pp.

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

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

  • Conner, R. N. , S. D. Jones, and G .D Jones. 1994. Snag condition and woodpecker foraging ecology in a bottomland hardwood forest. Wilson Bulletin 106:242-257.

  • Conner, R. N. and C. S. Adkisson. 1977. Principal component analysis of woodpecker nesting habitat. Wilson Bulletin 89(1):122-129.

  • Conner, R.N. 1976. Nesting habitat for Red-headed Woodpeckers in southwestern Virginia. Bird Banding 47:40-43.

  • Crockett, A. B. 1975. Ecology and behavior of the Williamson's Sapsucker in Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.

  • Cyr, A. et J. Larivée. 1995. Atlas saisonnier des oiseaux du Québec. Les Presses de l'Université de Sherbrooke et La Société de Loisir Ornithologique de l'Estrie, inc. Sherbrooke 711p.

  • David, N. 2002. Pic à tête rouge. QuébecOiseaux, vol.14, Hors série 2002. p. 58-60.

  • Dennis, J. V. 1964. Woodpecker damage to utility poles: with special reference to the role of territory and resonance. Bird-Banding 35:225-53.

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

  • Dickson, J. G. 1978. Seasonal bird populations in a south central Louisiana bottomland hardwood forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:875-883.

  • Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and J. H. Williamson. 1983. Snag retention increases bird use of a clear-cut. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:799-804.

  • Dixon, R. D. 1995a. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use, and behavior of white-headed woodpeckers. Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Nongame Report 93-3-01.

  • Dixon, R. D. 1995b. Ecology of White-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. M. Sc. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

  • Dixon, R. D., and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed Woodpecker (PICOIDES ARCTICUS). No. 509 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 20pp.

  • 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.

  • Edwards, H. H., and G. D. Schnell. 2000. Gila Woodpecker (MELANERPES UROPYGIALIS). No. 532 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 16pp.

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

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

  • Gauthier, J. et Y. Aubry (sous la direction de) 1995. Les oiseaux nicheurs du Québec : Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Association québécoise des groupes d'ornithologues, Société québécoise de protection des oiseaux, Service canadien de l

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

  • Goggans, R., R. D. Dixon and L. C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by Three-toed and Black-backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - Nongame Wildlife Program Report 87-3-02. 43pp.

  • Gutzwiller, K. J., and S. H. Anderson. 1987. Multiscale associations between cavity-nesting birds and features of Wyoming streamside woodlands. Condor 89:534-548.

  • 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.

  • Husak, M. S. 1997. Seasonal variation in territorial behavior of the Golden-fronted Woodpecker. M.Sc. thesis, Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas.

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

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. Univ. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pp.

  • Ingold, D. J. 1989. Nesting phenology and competition for nest sites among red-headed and red-bellied woodpeckers and European starlings. Auk 106:209-217.

  • Ingold, D. J. 1994. Influence of nest-site competition between European starlings and woodpeckers. Wilson Bull. 106:227-241.

  • Ingold, D.J. 1991. Nest-site fidelity in Red-headed and Red-bellied Woodpeckers. Wilson Bulletin 103(1):118.

  • Jackson, J. A. 1976. A comparison of some aspects of the breeding ecology of Red-headed Woodpeckers and Red-bellied Woodpeckers in Kansas. Condor 78:67-76.

  • Kilham, L. 1958. Territorial behavior of wintering Red-headed Woodpeckers. Wilson Bulletin 70:347-358.

  • Kilham, L. 1983. Life history studies of woodpeckers of eastern North America. Nuttall Ornithol. Club Pub. No. 20. vii + 240 pp.

  • Lawrence, L. deK. 1967. A comparative life-history study of four species of woodpeckers. Ornithological Monographs No. 5. 156 pages.

  • Lisi, G. 1988. A field study of Black-backed Woodpeckers in Vermont. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Technical Report 3.

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

  • Miller, A. H., and C. E. Bock. 1972. Natural history of the Nuttall Woodpecker at the Hastings Reservation. Condor 74:284-294.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Moskovits, D. 1978. Winter territorial and foraging behavior of Red-headed Woodpecker in Florida. Wilson Bulletin 90:521-535.

  • National Audubon Society. 2014. View all Species. Website accessible at http://birds.audubon.org/species. Accessed on various dates in 2014.

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

  • Page A.M. 1996. COSEWIC status report on the Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • Page, A.M. 1996. Status report on the Red-headed Woodpecker MELANERPES ERYTHROCEPHALUS in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 50 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.

  • 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.

  • Pulich, W. M. 1988. The birds of northcentral Texas. Texas A & M Univ. Press, College Station.

  • Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs 86:1-66.

  • Robert, M. 1989. Les oiseaux menacés du Québec. Association québécoise des groupes d'ornithologues et Environnement Canada. 109 p.

  • SMITH, K. G., J. H. WITHGOTT et P. G. RODEWALD. 2000. Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus). In The Birds of America, No. 518 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The bird of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

  • Sedgewick, J. A., and F. L. Knopf. 1990. Habitat relationships and nest site characteristics of cavity nesting birds in cottonwood floodplains. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):112-124

  • See SERO listing

  • Service canadien de la faune 2003. Les espèces en péril [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site internet. -Accès :«http://www.especesenperil.gc.ca/default_f.cfm». Service canadien de la faune, 2003. [Réf. 14 janvier 2003]. .

  • Shackelford, C. E. and R. N. Conner. 1997. Woodpecker abundance and habitat use in three forest types in eastern Texas. Wilson Bulletin 109(4):614-629.

  • Short, L. L. 1982. Woodpeckers of the World. Museum of Natural History [Greenville, Delaware], Monograph Series xviii + 676 pp.

  • Skutch, A. F. 1985. Life of the Woodpecker. Ibis Publ. Co., Santa Monica, CA.

  • Smith, K. G. 1986. Winter population dynamics of Blue Jays, Red-headed Woodpeckers, and Northern Mockingbirds in the Ozarks. American Midland Naturalist 115:52-62.

  • Smith, K.G., J.H. Withgott and P.G. Rodewald. 2000. Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/518

  • Smith, K.G., et al. In press. Red-headed Woodpecker (MELANERPES ERYTHROCEPHALUS). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 18 pp.

  • Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. 2003. Les espèces menacées [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site Internet. - Accès :«http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/etu_rec/esp_mena_vuln/index.htm». La société, 2003 [Réf. 3 novembre 2003] .

  • Stemmerman, L. A. 1988. Observations of woodpecker damage to electrical distribution line poles in Missouri. Proc. 13th Vertebrate Pest Conference 13:260-265.

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

  • Thomas, J. W., R. G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E. L. Bull. 1979. Snags. Pages 60-77 in J. W. Thomas (editor). Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S.D.A. Handbook 553.

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Texas bottomland hardwood preservation program, category 3. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque, New Mexico.

  • Venables, A., and M. W. Collopy. 1989. Seasonal foraging and habitat requirements of Red-headed Woodpeckers in north-central Florida. Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm. Nongame Wildlife Program Final Report Project no. GFC-84-006.

  • Williams, J. B., and G. O. Batzli. 1979. Competition among bark-foraging birds in central Illinois: experimental evidence. Condor 81:122-132.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

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

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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