Mniotilta varia - (Linnaeus, 1766)
Black-and-white Warbler
Other English Common Names: black-and-white warbler
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Mniotilta varia (Linnaeus, 1766) (TSN 178844)
French Common Names: paruline noir et blanc
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Trepador
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106290
Element Code: ABPBX05010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 7555

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Mniotilta
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Mniotilta varia
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N4N5N (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5M (29Jan2018)

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,S3N), Arizona (S1), Arkansas (S5B), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S3B), District of Columbia (S4N), Florida (SNRN), Georgia (S5), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (S2S3), Indiana (S1S2B), Iowa (S5N), Kansas (S3B), Kentucky (S4S5B), Louisiana (S4B), Maine (S5), Maryland (S4B), Massachusetts (S5B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (SNRB), Montana (S4B), Nebraska (S3), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S4B), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S5B,S1N), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S4), Oklahoma (S4B), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (S5B), South Carolina (SNRB,SNRN), South Dakota (S2S3B), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S4B), Utah (SNA), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S4B), Wisconsin (S4B), Wyoming (S5N)
Canada Alberta (S4B), British Columbia (S4S5B), Labrador (S3B,SUM), Manitoba (S5B), New Brunswick (S5B,S5M), Newfoundland Island (S5B,S5M), Northwest Territories (S4B), Nova Scotia (S5B), Ontario (S5B), Prince Edward Island (S5B), Quebec (S5B), Saskatchewan (S5B), Yukon Territory (S1B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: western Mackenzie to central Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, south to northeastern British Columbia, southern Saskatchewan, eastern Montana, central Nebraska, central Kansas, Texas, central Georgia, and Carolinas (Kricher 1995, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: extremely widespread, from southernmost U.S., southern Baja California, and Nayarit south throughout Mexico and Central America; also throughout West Indies (including Bermuda); in South America in northern and western Venezuela, much of Colombia (except Amazonian region), western Ecuador, and northern Peru (Kricher 1995, Ridgely and Tudor 1989). One of the most common wintering warblers in the West Indies (Pashley 1988a, Pashley 1988b, Pashley and Hamilton 1990).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threatened, in the short-term, by forest management techniques that greatly reduce canopy cover. HABITAT CHANGE: Recent clearcuts were avoided in Texas, Nova Scotia, and Alberta (Freedman et al. 1981, Strelke and Dickson 1980, Westworth and Telfer 1993). Thinning and burning pine-hardwood stands in Arkansas to improve habitat for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (PICOIDES BOREALIS) reduced habitat suitability for Black-and-White Warblers which prefer fire-suppressed, closed-canopy pine-hardwood stands (Wilson et al. 1995). In Pennsylvania, not observed in forest overgrazed by White-tailed Deer (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS) and Mouflon Sheep (OVIS MUSIMON; Casey and Hein 1983). HABITAT FRAGMENTATION: Forest-dividing corridors can negatively impact warbler distribution. In New Jersey, warblers were significantly more abundant in forest adjacent to corridors averaging 8 m wide than in corridors averaging 16-23 m wide (Rich et al. 1994). Also negatively affected by forest fragmentation and overgrazing. In New Jersey, not observed in forest fragments smaller than 7.5 hectares in size (Forman et al. 1976, Galli et al. 1976). In Maryland, usually does not breed in forest patches smaller than 70 hectares (Bushman and Therres 1988). NEST PARASITISM: Formerly an uncommon host for the Brown-headed Cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER), now commonly parasitized (Kricher 1995). Based on nest records for the late 1800s through the early 1900s, the rate of Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism was 9.2% (Kricher 1995). In Ontario, 20.9% of nests were parasitized (Peck and James 1983 cited in Kricher 1995). PREDATION: Potential nest predators include the Blue Jay (CYANOCITTA CRISTATA), Deer Mouse (PEROMYSCUS MANICULATUS), Eastern Chipmunk (TAMIAS STRIATUS), Northern Flying Squirrel (GLAUCOMYS VOLANS), Red Squirrel (TAMIASCIURUS HUDSONICUS), Raccoon (PROCYON LOTOR), and Black Bear (URSUS AMERICANUS; Reitsma et al. 1990). TOXINS: In New Brunswick, warblers declined in areas sprayed with fenithrotion and phosphamidon (Pearse et al. 1976, cited in Kricher 1995). OTHER: Numerous individuals are killed annually by flying into windows and television towers (Kricher 1995). WINTERING: On the wintering grounds threatened by deforestation, replacement of diverse native plant communities with agricultural and silvicultural monocultures, and subsistence hunting (Arendt 1992).

Short-term Trend Comments: This species is not exhibiting the decline reported for some other neotropical migrants (Kricher 1995). Survey-wide, BBS data gathered from 1966-1996, suggest a population increase of 0.5%/year, but this is not statistically significant (Sauer et al. 1997). While some areas have shown significant population declines during this time period, others have exhibited significant population increases. Whereas United States populations have declined 1.2%/year, Canada populations have increased 1.8%/year. Texas has experienced the most drastic significant population decline (-10.5%/year) and Missouri has experienced the most significant population increase (9.1%/year). These data must be viewed with caution, however, due to low sample sizes (17 BBS routes in Texas, 22 in Missouri). Counts of migrants at Long Point, Ontario, did not detect a net population change from 1961 through 1988 (Hussell et al. 1992), whereas a study of spring migration in eastern Massachusetts from 1937-1989, indicated a decline (Hill and Hagan 1991). Fall migration data from Manomet Observatory and Patuxent Bird Banding Lab, indicated a downward trend in numbers from 1970-1988, but it was not statistically significant (Hagan et al. 1992). The breeding population at Sapsucker Woods, New York, went extinct between 1949-1950 and 1979-1980 (Litwin and Smith 1992). In the Great Smoky Mountains, the population generally increased in cove-, oak-, and beech forests, between 1949 and 1983 (Wilcove 1988). Few data are available to examine trends on the winter range. Christmas Bird Count data for the southern United States indicates a statistically insignificant population increase (0.7%/year) from 1959-1988 (Sauer et al. 1996). However, because the majority of individuals overwinter south of the United States these data are of limited value in evaluating population trends. The population of individuals wintering in Puerto Rico showed no net change during a 16-year period (Faaborg and Arendt 1992).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: BREEDING: western Mackenzie to central Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, south to northeastern British Columbia, southern Saskatchewan, eastern Montana, central Nebraska, central Kansas, Texas, central Georgia, and Carolinas (Kricher 1995, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: extremely widespread, from southernmost U.S., southern Baja California, and Nayarit south throughout Mexico and Central America; also throughout West Indies (including Bermuda); in South America in northern and western Venezuela, much of Colombia (except Amazonian region), western Ecuador, and northern Peru (Kricher 1995, Ridgely and Tudor 1989). One of the most common wintering warblers in the West Indies (Pashley 1988a, Pashley 1988b, Pashley and Hamilton 1990).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, 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, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, 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; NatureServe, 2005; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Maricopa (04013), Mohave (04015), Pima (04019)
IA Ringgold (19159)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Boone (18011), Brown (18013), Crawford (18025), Delaware (18035), Dubois (18037), Fountain (18045), Gibson (18051), Grant (18053), Hendricks (18063), Jackson (18071), Jasper (18073), Kosciusko (18085), La Porte (18091), Lawrence (18093), Marion (18097), Martin (18101), Monroe (18105), Montgomery (18107), Morgan (18109), Newton (18111), Orange (18117), Parke (18121), Perry (18123), Pike (18125), Porter (18127), Putnam (18133), St. Joseph (18141), Wabash (18169)
NE Brown (31017), Cherry (31031), Dawes (31045), Dixon (31051), Keya Paha (31103)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Burlington (34005), Cumberland (34011), Ocean (34029), Sussex (34037)
SD Hughes (46065), Pennington (46103), Todd (46121)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+
05 Mississinewa (05120103)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Sugar (05120110)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Eel (05120203)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+
07 Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+
10 Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Rapid (10120110)+, Middle Cheyenne-Elk (10120111)+, Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Upper White (10140201)+, Little White (10140203)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Upper Grand (10280101)+
15 Havasu-Mohave Lakes (15030101)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+, Hassayampa (15070103)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (warbler).
Reproduction Comments: Breeding begins as early as mid-April at southern latitudes and as late as late July at northern latitudes. Clutch size is usually five, and ranges from 4-6 eggs. Eggs are laid daily until the clutch is complete. Incubation, which requires 10-12 days, begins when the penultimate or last egg is laid and is by the female only. The young are fed by both parents and leave the nest at 8-12 days posthatching. Single brooded, though double broods are suspected (Kricher 1995). In Arkansas, 73.7% of 19 nests were successful (fledged at least one young; Martin 1993). Age at sexual maturity is unknown (Kricher 1995).
Ecology Comments: DENSITY/TERRITORIALITY: Density of breeding birds is low in Illinois, averaging 0.1 individuals/40.5 hectares (Graber et al. 1983). Density of territorial males in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas ranges from 6-29/40.5 hectares depending upon forest type (James and Neal 1986). Breeding pair density in various forest types in the southern Appalachian Mountains varied from 1.2-4.2/10 hectares (Wilcove 1988). In the Missouri Ozarks, territory density ranged from 0.47-3.24/10 hectares depending upon forest stand age (Thompson et al. 1992). Breeding territories in aspen forest in Alberta range from 14-28.7/100 hectares (Westworth and Telfer 1993). In Nova Scotia, density of breeding pairs ranged from 15-50/km2 in uncut forest and from 15-70/km2 in strip-cut forest (Freedman et al. 1981). Density of individuals ranged from 0.9-2.3/10 hectares in Pennsylvania (Yahner 1993). In trembling aspen (POPULUS TREMULOIDES) forest in Alberta, male pairing success was lower in forest fragments (56%) than in continuous forest (80%) but, due to small sample sizes, the difference was not statistically significant (Sodhi and Paszkowski 1997). In winter in the Virgin Islands, occurs commonly in small mixed species flocks of warblers; density in moist forest was less than 1/ha on St. Thomas and 1-2/ha on St. John (Ewert and Askins 1991). Conflicting reports of winter territoriality (Faaborg and Arendt 1984, Morton 1980).

SITE FIDELITY: Exhibits site fidelity: on the wintering grounds in Puerto Rico, 22% of banded birds were recaptured at the study site. The average time between banding and recapture was 1.9 years, the longest interval was 4 years (Faaborg and Arendt 1984). Twenty percent of birds captured in Cuba were birds banded there the previous year (Gonzalez-Alonso et al. 1992).

POPULATION PARAMETERS: Average annual adult survivorship is estimated to be 71%, and the oldest known individual lived to be 11 years, 3 months old (Klimkiewicz et al. 1983, Kricher 1995).

PARASITES: Parasitized by blood parasites (HAEMOPROTEUS spp. and LEUCOCYTOZOON spp.), feather mites, a louse (MYRSIDEA INCERTA), and a fly (ORNITHOICA CONFLUENS) (Bent 1953, Kricher 1995). Maggots destroyed a nestful of young (Bent 1953).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Spring migrants typically reach central Florida and Texas by early March, the central United States (Illinois and Kentucky) by early-late April, and Alberta by mid-May (Graber et al. 1983, Kricher 1995, Palmer-Ball 1996). Fall migrants leave Ontario beginning in late June and Ohio between early August and late September (Kricher 1995). Arrives in Costa Rica between late August and October, and departs between late March and mid-April (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Winters in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from late August through April (Raffaele 1989). Some individuals arrive in South America as early as 21 August. Migrates at night. Crosses the Gulf of Mexico between North America and Central and South America (Kricher 1995).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Inhabits young, medium-aged and mature deciduous and mixed forests (Bushman and Therres 1988, Kricher 1995). Studies of habitat selection have yielded conflicting results which appear to be due to geography, as well as variations in forest type and stand age. In the southern part of its range, this species appears to be most closely associated with relatively closed-canopied forests having low shrub density (Conner et al. 1983, Crawford et al. 1981, Noon et al. 1980, Wilson et al. 1995). In Maine and Michigan, it occupies relatively open forests having high shrub density (Noon et al. 1980). Associated with intermediate canopy closure and dense understory vegetation in American Beech-Yellow Birch-Sugar Maple forests in Vermont (Thompson and Capen 1988). More abundant in mature than successional aspen and oak stands in managed forests of Pennsylvania, where its presence correlates with density of understory trees and tall shrubs (Yahner 1986).

In aspen forests of Alberta, however, stands with high shrub density were avoided (Westworth and Telfer 1993). Associated with high tree density and high canopy volume (indicative of mid- to late-successional forests) in mixed forests of central Ontario (Clark et al. 1983). In Red Maple (ACER RUBRUM)-Sugar Maple-Paper Birch (BETULA PAPYRIFERA)-Yellow Birch forests in Nova Scotia, closed-canopied stands having low shrub density were preferred over open-canopied stands with high shrub density (Freedman et al. 1981). In Northern Red Oak (QUERCUS RUBRA)-Red Maple forest in Massachusetts, relatively open canopied stands with moderate shrub densities were preferred (Chadwick et al. 1986). Typically nests on the ground, often adjacent to a tree, shrub, rock, stump or log, under a shrub or dead branches, or, more rarely, atop stumps (Bent 1953, Kricher 1995).

NON-BREEDING: Uses a wide variety of habitats during the winter, from early successional disturbed areas to mature forests (Kricher 1995). Caribbean habitats utilized include coastal forest, dry interior forest, wet forest, forest edge, pine woods, riparian areas, wetlands, urban habitats that provide plant cover, and some open areas (Arendt 1992). Also inhabits cacao, citrus, mango, shade coffee, and pine plantations in Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Costa Rica (Robbins et al. 1992). In Costa Rica, inhabits both young, second-growth forest and primary forest, as well as parks and gardens having large trees (Blake and Loiselle 1992, Stiles and Skutch 1989). Considered a habitat generalist in western Mexico, even though it showed a preference for undisturbed habitats, particularly forest (Hutto 1992). Prefers primary forest over other habitat types in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Greenberg 1992, Lynch 1989) and in Veracruz, Mexico (Rappole et al. 1992). In the Virgin Islands, exhibited a preference for moist forest (90.5% of detections) over other habitat types (Askins et al. 1992).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Forages principally by creeping along tree trunk and branches, but also by foliage gleaning (Bent 1953, Kricher 1995). Food is chiefly insects, including beetles (Coleoptera), caterpillars and moths (Lepidoptera), ants and other Hymenoptera, flies (Diptera), and bugs (Hemiptera), but also spiders (Arachnida) and harvestmen (Phalangida; Bent 1953). Lepidopteran larvae are important prey during spring migration (Graber and Graber 1983). The remains of a small lizard was found in the stomach of one Texas specimen (Oberholser 1974).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 13 centimeters
Weight: 11 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Classified as a forest-interior, area sensitive species. During the breeding season, has been observed in forest fragments as small as 7.5 hectares and in narrow (< 50 m wide) riparian corridors. The minimum size of continuous forest needed to maintain a viable breeding population, however, is estimated to be 300 ha. Although avoids recent clearcuts, tolerates some stand thinning (particularly when restricted to periods when the species is absent) and recolonizes regenerating forests following clearcutting. Forest-dividing corridors and overgrazing degrade habitat suitability. As a result of forest fragmentation, rates of nest predation and Brown-headed Cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) nest parasitism have apparently increased over historic levels. Although considered a forest generalist on the wintering grounds, exhibits a preference for primary forest.
Restoration Potential: Due to its present abundance, there is no urgent need for recovery/restoration efforts (Kricher 1995). Declines caused by tree removal are temporary because the species recolonizes harvested areas as forests regenerate (Conner et al. 1983, Thompson et al. 1992, Titterington et al. 1979, Webb et al. 1977).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Classified as a forest-interior, area sensitive species (Freemark and Collins 1992). In Maryland, positively correlated with forest patch size, and negatively correlated with distance to forest tract 3 50 hectares in size (Lynch and Whigham 1984). Robbins (1979) estimated that 300 hectares of continuous forest are needed to support a viable breeding population. In Maine, significantly more abundant in riparian zones contiguous with upslope forest than in riparian buffers adjacent to clearcuts (Meiklejohn and Hughes 1999). However, in Georgia observed with similar frequency in bottomland forest stands ranging from < 50 to 2500 m wide (Kilgo et al. 1998). Distribution within adjacent deciduous forest unaffected by 30.5 m cleared, forest-dividing transmission line in Tennessee (Anderson et al. 1977; i.e., no avoidance of edge); but in New Jersey, found to be significantly less abundant in forest adjacent to wide corridors (mean = 16-23 m wide) than small corridors (mean = 8 m wide; Rich et al. 1994).
Management Requirements: Tolerates some stand thinning and recolonizes regenerating forests following clearcutting (Bushman and Therres 1988). However, results of studies examining habitat use following timber harvest vary. In oak (QUERCUS)-aspen (POPULUS) forest in Pennsylvania, Black-and-White Warblers were equally abundant in 1-ha uncut forest plots as in 1-ha plots from which 50-75% of the trees were removed (Yahner 1993). In oak-hickory (CARYA)-pine (PINUS) forest in the Missouri Ozarks, Black-and-White Warblers were more abundant in young (0-10 and 11-20 years-old) regenerating stands than older regenerating stands or mature stands (Thompson et al. 1992). In oak-maple (ACER) forest in Massachusetts, oak forest in western Virginia, and American Beech (FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA)-Yellow Birch (BETULA LUTEA)-Sugar Maple (ACER SACCHARUM) forest in Vermont distribution was skewed towards older, regenerating stands (Chadwick et al 1986, Crawford et al. 1981, Thompson and Capen 1988). Birds preferred intermediate-aged aspen stands in Alberta and intermediate-aged spruce (PICEA)-fir (ABIES) stands in Maine, but older, mature stands in northern hardwood forest in Nova Scotia (Freedman et al. 1981, Titterington, et al. 1979, Westworth and Telfer 1993). Found to be more abundant in regenerating clearcuts than uncut or selectively cut stands in northern hardwood forest of the Adirondack Mountains, New York (Webb et al. 1977). Because human activity or disturbance of the understory is not tolerated, forest management practices should be confined to the nonbreeding season (Bushman and Therres 1988).
Monitoring Requirements: On the breeding grounds, point counts or spot-mapping of territorial males or breeding pairs can provide estimates of abundance. Capture-recapture banding studies can also be used on the breeding and wintering grounds to monitor taxon.
Management Research Needs: Need additional data on impact of forest fragmentation and various forms of timber harvest on habitat use, nest predation, brood parasitism, pairing success, and reproductive success (Kricher 1995). Determination of minimum area requirements, on both breeding and wintering grounds, should be a research priority.
Biological Research Needs: Life history needs additional study; specifically need to determine age at maturity, nest predation and brood parasitism rates, variability in nesting success, annual and lifetime reproductive output, territoriality, juvenile/adult survivorship, and breeding site fidelity (Kricher 1995).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: PALIS, J.
Management Information Edition Date: 28Jun2000
Management Information Edition Author: PALIS, J: REVISIONS BY S. CANNINGS
Management Information Acknowledgments: Support for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center through The Nature Conservancy's Tennessee Field Office and Wings of the Americas program.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Mar1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G. AND J. PALIS

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

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

  • Alabama Ornithological Society. 2006. Field checklist of Alabama birds. Alabama Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Alabama. [Available online at http://www.aosbirds.org/documents/AOSChecklist_april2006.pdf ]

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Alvarez Alonso, J. and B. M. Whitney. 2003. New distributional records of birds from white-sand forests of the northern Peruvian Amazon, with implications for biogeography of northern South America. Condor 105:552-566.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • Arendt, W. J., and collaborators. 1992. Status of North American migrant landbirds in the Caribbean region: A summary. Pages 143-71 in J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

  • Askins, R. A., D. N. Ewert, and R. L. Norton. 1992. Abundance of wintering migrants in fragmented and continuous forests in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Pages 197-206 IN Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I.McT.-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, A.C. Stewart, and M.C.E. McNall. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 4, Passerines: Wood-Warblers through Old World Sparrows. UBC Press, in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv., and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch and Resour. Inventory Branch, and Royal B.C. Mus. 744pp.

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

  • Chadwick, N. L., D. R. Progulske, and J. T. Finn. 1986. Effects of fuelwood cutting on birds in southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:398-405.

  • Clark, K., D. Euler, and E. Armstrong. 1983. Habitat associations of breeding birds in cottage and natural areas in central Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 95:77-96.

  • Conner, R.N., J.G. Dickson, B.A. Locke, and C.A. Segelquist. 1983. Vegetation characteristics important to common songbirds in East Texas. Wilson Bulletin 95:349-361.

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

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

  • Davis, W.E. Jr. 1989. Distraction display or injury feigning in birds. Bird Observer, 17:125-127.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Ewert, D. N., and R. A. Askins. 1991. Flocking behavior of migratory warblers in winter in the Virgin Islands. Condor 93:864-868.

  • Faaborg, J. and W. J. Arendt. 1984. Population sizes and philopatry of winter resident warblers in Puerto Rico. Journal of Field Ornithology 55:376-378.

  • Faaborg, J., and W. J. Arendt. 1992. Long-term declines of winter resident warblers in a Puerto Rican dry forest: which species are in trouble? Pages 57-63 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

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

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

  • Freedman, B., C. Beauchamp, I. A. McLaren, and S. I. Tingley. 1981. Forestry management practices and populations of breeding birds in a hardwood forest in Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:307-311.

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

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

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

  • Gonzalez-Alonso, H., M. K. McNicholl, P. B. Hamel, M. Acosta, E. Godinez, J. Hernandez, D. Rodriguez, J. A. Jackson, C. M. Grego, R. D. McRae, and J. Sirois. 1992. A cooperative bird-banding project in Peninsula de Zapata, Cuba, 1988-1989. Pages 131-142 IN Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Graber, J. W. and R. R. Graber. 1983. Feeding rates of warblers in spring. Condor 1985:139-150.

  • Graber, J. W., R. R. Graber, and E. L. Kirk. 1983. Illinois birds: wood warblers. Biological Notes 118. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.

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

  • Hagan, J. M., III, T. L. Lloyd-Evans, J. L. Atwood, and D. S. Wood. 1992. Pages 115-130 IN Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

  • Hill, N. P. and J. M. Hagan, III. 1991. Population trends of some northeastern North American landbirds: a half century of data. Wilson Bulletin 103:165-182.

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

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

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

  • Hutto, R. L. 1992. Habitat distribution of migratory landbird species in western Mexico. Pp. 221-239 in J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Kilgo, J. C., R. A. Sargent, B. R. Chapman, and K. V. Miller. 1998. Effect of stand width and adjacent habitat on breeding bird communities in bottomland hardwoods. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:72-83.

  • Klimkiewicz, M. K., R. B. Clapp, and A. G. Futcher. 1983. Longevity records of North American birds. Journal of Field Ornithology 54:287-294.

  • Kricher, J.C. 1995. Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 158. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • Kricher, J.C. 1995. Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 158. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • Kricher, John C. 1995. Black-and-White Warbler; The Birds of North America. Vol. 4, No. 158. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • 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

  • Lemon, R.E., J. Struger, and M.J. Lechowicz. 1983. Song features as species discriminants in American wood-warblers (Parulidae). Condor 85: 308-322.

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

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

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

  • Lynch, J. F. 1989. Distribution of overwintering Nearctic migrants in the Yucatan Peninsula, I: general patterns of occurrence. Condor 91:515-544.

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

  • Martin, T.E. 1993b. Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. American Naturalist 141:897-913.

  • Meiklejohn, B. A. and J. W. Hughes. 1999. Bird communities in riparian buffer strips of industrial forests. American Midland Naturalist 141:172-184.

  • 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.

  • Montana Bird Distribution Online Database. 2001. Helena, Montana, USA. April-September 2003. http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/mbd/.

  • 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.

  • Morton, E. S. 1980. Adaptations to seasonal changes by migrant land birds in the Panama Canal zone. Pages 437-453 IN Migrant birds in the neotropics: ecology, distribution, and conservation (A. Keast and E. S. Morton, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • OShea, T. J., and T. A. Vaughan. 1999. Population changes in bats from central Arizona: 1972 and 1977. Southwestern Naturalist 44:495-500.

  • 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.

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

  • Palis, J. and S. Cannings. 2000. Species Management Abstract for Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia). The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Unpaginated.

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

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

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

  • Pashley, D. N. 1988a. Warblers of the West Indies. I. The Virgin Islands. Caribbean J. Sci. 24:11-22.

  • Pashley, D. N. 1988b. Warblers of the West Indies. II. The Western Caribbean. Caribbean J. Sci. 24:112-126.

  • Pashley, D. N., and R. B. Hamilton. 1990. Warblers of the West Indies. III. The Lesser Antilles. Caribbean J. Sci. 26:75-97.

  • Pearse, P. A., D. D. Peakall, and A. J. Erskine. 1976. Impact on forest birds of the 1975 spruce budworm spray operation in New Brunswick. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Note 62.

  • Peck, G. K., and R. D. James. 1983. Breeding birds of Ontario, nidology and distribution, volume 1: nonpasserines. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada.

  • 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.

  • Poole, A. F. and F. B. Gill. 1992. The birds of North America. The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. and The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

  • 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. A. 1989a. A guide to the birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Revised edition. Princeton Univ. Press. 220 pp.

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

  • Rappole, J. H., E. S. Morton, and M. A. Ramos. 1992. Density, philopatry, and population estimates for songbird migrants wintering in Veracruz. Pages 337-344 IN Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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

  • Reitsma, L. R., R. T. Holmes, and T. W. Sherry. 1990. Effects of removal of red squirrels, TAMIASCIURUS HUDSONICUS, and eastern chipmunks, TAMIAS STRIATUS, on nest predation in a northern hardwood forest: an artificial nest experiment. Oikos 57:375-380.

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

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

  • Ridgely, R. S. and 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., B. A. Dowell, D. K. Dawson, J. A. Colon, R. Estrada, A. Sutton, R. Sutton, and D. Weyer. 1992. Comparison of Neotropical migrant landbird poulations wintering in tropical forest, isolated forest fragments, and agricultural habitats. Pages 207-20 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effect of forest fragmentation on bird populations. Pages 198-212 in R.M. DeGraff and K.E. Evans, editors. Management of north central and northeastern forests for nongame birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-51.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997b. July 29-last update. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1 U.S.G.S. Biological Resource Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.

  • 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.

  • Skaar, P.D. (1923-1983). Notes in the unpublished P.D. Skaar files; notebook 1 of 2. Housed at Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana.

  • Sodhi, N. S. and C. A. Paszkowski. 1997. The pairing success of male Black-and-White Warblers, MNIOTILTA VARIA, in forest fragments and a continuous forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:457-458.

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

  • 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.

  • Stokes, D. W., and L. Q. Stokes. 1996. Stokes field guide to birds: western region. Little, Brown & Company Limited, Boston.

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

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

  • Thompson, F. R., III, W. D. Dijak, T. G. Kulowiec, and D. A. Hamilton. 1992. Breeding bird populations in Missouri ozark forests with and without clearcutting. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:23-30.

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

  • Titterington, R. W., H. S. Crawford, and B. N. Burgason. 1979. Songbird responses to commercial clear-cutting in Maine spruce-fir forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:602-609.

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

  • Westworth, D. A. and E. S. Telfer. 1993. Summer and winter bird populations associated with five age-classes of aspen forest in Alberta. Canada Journal of Forestry Research 23:1830-1836.

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

  • Williams, L. 1952b. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird. Condor 54:3-47.

  • Willson, M. F. 1966. Breeding ecology of the Yellow-headed Blackbird. Ecological Monographs 36:51-77.

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

  • Yahner, R. H. 1986. Structure, seasonal dynamics, and habitat relationships of avian communities in small even-aged forest stands. Wilson Bulletin 98:61-82.

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

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2003. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2003. 30pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2004. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2004. 24pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2006. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2006. 20pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2007. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall/Winter 2007. 20pp.

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

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2013. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2013. 11pp.

  • 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.