Numenius phaeopus - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Whimbrel
Other Common Names: Maçaricão-Galego
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Numenius phaeopus (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 176599)
French Common Names: courlis corlieu
Spanish Common Names: Zarapito Trinador, Playero Trinador
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105017
Element Code: ABNNF07020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Shorebirds
Image 10556

© Bruce A. Sorrie

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Scolopacidae Numenius
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 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: Numenius phaeopus
Taxonomic Comments: American populations sometimes have been regarded as a separate species, N. hudsonicus, distinct from N. phaeopus. Populations on Asian and North American sides of Beringia exhibit mtDNA differentiation consistent with species-level distinctness (Zink et al. 1995); because sample sizes were small, Zink et al. did not recommend a formal taxonomic change.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Although still very numerous, close monitoring of the population of this species is warranted because of the potential for changes to its breeding areas with climate change and development of the tidal flats upon which this species relies upon during the winter season.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N5N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4N5B,N4N5M (25Jan2018)

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 (S3N), Alaska (S3S4B), Arizona (S2M), California (SNRN), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S1N), Florida (S2N), Georgia (S3), Idaho (SNA), Iowa (S1N), Kansas (S2N), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (S2N), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (S3N), Michigan (SNRN), Minnesota (SNRM), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Navajo Nation (S2M), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (S3N), New York (SNRN), North Carolina (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (S1N), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (S3N), South Carolina (SNRN), Texas (S4), Utah (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (S3N), Wisconsin (S2S3N), Wyoming (S4N)
Canada Alberta (S4M), British Columbia (S4S5M), Labrador (S3M), Manitoba (S3S4B), New Brunswick (SNRM), Newfoundland Island (S4M), Northwest Territories (S4B), Nova Scotia (SNRM), Nunavut (S4B,S4M), Ontario (S3B,S4N), Prince Edward Island (SNRN), Quebec (S3M), Saskatchewan (S4M), Yukon Territory (S3B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDS: northern Alaska east to northwestern Mackenzie, south to western and central Alaska and southwestern Yukon, and along western side of Hudson Bay from southern Keewatin south to northwestern James Bay; Iceland, Faroes, and northern Eurasia east to Ob River, and from Yana River east across northeastern Siberia. NORTHERN WINTER: central California, Gulf Coast, and South Carolina south through Middle America, West Indies, and South America to Galapagos Islands, southern Chile, southern Brazil (important wintering areas in Suriname, north-central coast of Brazil, and Chiloe Island in Chile; Morrison and Ross 1989); south to southern Africa, Australia, islands of South Pacific (AOU 1983). Nonbreeders may summer in winter rnge.

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Estimated. With a global population of over one million, the area of occupancy should ekxceed 20,000 square kilometers since this bird is not a colonial nester.

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: With a global population estimate of between one and two million birds and the various populations being found in North America, Europe and Asia (Birdlife International, 2014), there should definitely be greater than 300 element occurrences for this species.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: The global population is estimated to number between 1 and 2.3 million individuals (Birdlife International, 2014) Morrison et al. (2001) estimate the global population to be at least 797,000, but this is based only on estimates for four of six known populations. Most of these birds breed in Siberia. The North American population is estimated to be 57,000: 39,000 N. P. HUDSONICUS west and south of Hudson Bay, and 18,000 N. P. RUFIVENTRIS breeding from Alaska east to the Melville Hills, Nunavut (Morrison et al. 2001).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Estimate. With such a wide distribution and such large population size, there should be more than 125 good occurrences on a global scale.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: The degradation and destruction of coastland wetlands continue (National Audubon Society, 2014; Skeel and Mallory, 1996).). Environmental contaminants are an increase threat (Birdlife International, 2014). Climate change is a large unknown factor since this species breeds in the high northern latitudes.

Short-term Trend: Decline of >90% to Relatively Stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Morrison (1993/1994) categorized the population trend in Canada as "stable?/decreasing?". Birdlife International notes that although the overall population trend is still downward, some populations may be stable or have unknown trends.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >70%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species has suffered almost a 85% decline in North America over the last 40 years (Birdlife International, 2014). The overall population trend isdecreasing, although some poulations may be stable

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly to moderately vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Its use of the high northern latitudes make its breedingn grounds vulnerable to change while its use of coastal tidal flats during its wintering range represent areas that are prime areas for development.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow to broad.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species utlizes muddy tidal flats in its wintering grounds. Breeding is done at in the high latitudes, where it utilizes low-lying wet abd niust tauga and tundra (Skeel and Mallory, 1996).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Comprehensive spring surveys are needed to estimate population size and trends and to determine important staging areas (Skeel and Mallory, 1996).

Protection Needs: Important wintering coastal wetlands and nesting and migratory sites need to be protected from destruction or manipulation. Also, this bird is still hunted for food in parts of South America (Birdlife International, 2014).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDS: northern Alaska east to northwestern Mackenzie, south to western and central Alaska and southwestern Yukon, and along western side of Hudson Bay from southern Keewatin south to northwestern James Bay; Iceland, Faroes, and northern Eurasia east to Ob River, and from Yana River east across northeastern Siberia. NORTHERN WINTER: central California, Gulf Coast, and South Carolina south through Middle America, West Indies, and South America to Galapagos Islands, southern Chile, southern Brazil (important wintering areas in Suriname, north-central coast of Brazil, and Chiloe Island in Chile; Morrison and Ross 1989); south to southern Africa, Australia, islands of South Pacific (AOU 1983). Nonbreeders may summer in winter rnge.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KS, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Blaine (16013), Canyon (16027), Fremont (16043), Jefferson (16051), Nez Perce (16069)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Cape May (34009), Monmouth (34025), Ocean (34029)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+
17 Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeding begins in early June. Usually 2, sometimes 3-5, eggs are incubated by both sexes, 22-23.5 days (also reported as averaging 24.5 days and as 27-28 days). Young are tended by both parents, can fly at about 30-40 days. Nesting density averages 0.1- 0.5 pairs/ha in various habitats in Manitoba (Skeel 1983).
Ecology Comments: Nonbreeding: scatters over foraging areas, may defend feeding territory (Hayman et al. 1986); aggregates for sleeping or resting (e.g., at high tide) (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: In U.S. migrates northward along Pacific coast in March, along Atlantic coast March-May (Terres 1980). Most have departed breeding range by end of August. Migrants peak on Yukon-Kuskokwin Delta mid- to late July and late August. (Handel and Dau 1988). Migrates through Costa Rica August-September and mid-March to early May (Stiles and Skutch 1989). In fall, those that nest in Alaska and western Canadian arctic generally retrace spring route along Pacific coast (Johnson and Herter 1989). Migrates in flocks. Flys high during migration.
Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland, Tidal flat/shore
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Tundra
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Nests in sedge-dwarf shrub tundra, sedge-meadow, hummock-bog, moorlands, and heath-tundra. Nests in depression. Often returns to same nesting area in successive years (Skeel 1983). NON-BREEDING: beaches, tidal mudflats, marshes, estuaries, edges of tidal creeks, sandy or rocky shores, flooded fields and pastures (AOU 1983). Roosts on saltpond flats and dikes, or in mangroves (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Feeds on beaches and sand flats. Eats insects, worms, spiders, small mollusks, crustaceans (often crabs). Also eats berries. Probes mud and picks prey from surface.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Phenology Comments: Fed principally during daylight in northeastern Venezuela (Robert et al. 1989).
Length: 45 centimeters
Weight: 404 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Breeding biology affecting nest success is needed over much of its range. The identification and protection of important staging areas would benefit this speices (Skeel and Mallory, 1996).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Shorebirds

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Feeding Area, Breeding Site
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 of nesting adults and broods. Because separations are based on nesting areas, the foraging areas of different occurrences may overlap if nesting birds are traveling to distant places to feed.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance pertains specifically to nesting areas, not to locations of dispersed 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.

The separation distance is an arbitrary value; it is impractical to attempt to delineate shorebird occurrences on the basis of dispersal patterns or metapopulation dynamics. Foraging ranges of some nesting shorebird species (see following) may suggest use of a larger separation distance, but this likely would result in occurrences that are too large and less effective for conservation planning.

Separation distance based on larger 'typical' breeding home ranges with diameters of 1.5 to 3 kilometers. Semipalmated Plovers have breeding home ranges up to 3 square kilometers, i.e. a diameter of just under 2 kilometers (Nol and Blanken 1999). Red-necked Phalaropes have a core home range of 1-3 hectares, but occasionally travel 1.5 kilometers to feed (Rubega et al. 2000). Stilt Sandpipers can forage up to 8 kilometers from nest (Jehl 1973). Mountain Plovers have an average home range of 56.6 hectares (Knopf 1996) but broods typically move 1-2 kilometers shortly after hatching (Knopf and Rupert 1996).

Territories: Common Snipe, 6.4-28.6 hectares (Mueller 1999); Long-billed Dowitcher, 100-300 meter diameter (Johnsgard 1981); golden-plovers, average 10-59 hectares (Johnson and Connors 1996); Long-billed Curlew, 6-20 hectares (Johnsgard 1981).

Nesting densities: Black-bellied Plover, 0.3-2.3 pairs per square kilometer (44 ha per pair at latter density; Hussell and Page 1976, Parmelee et al. 1967); Marbled Godwit, maximum density 1 pair/32 hectares (Stewart and Kantrud 1972).

Foraging distances: Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, up to 13 kilometers from nest (Elphick and Tibbits 1998, Tibbits and Moskoff 1999).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a smaller 'typical' home ranges (see Separation Justification).
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Roost, Foraging concentration area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat (minimum can be reduced in the case of rarer species). 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. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 15Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Roost, Winter Feeding Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat. 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 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: S. Cannings
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: 24Jul2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jue, Dean K.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 15Feb1990
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU), Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Bornschein, M. R., B. L. Reinert, and M. Pichorim. 1997. Notas sobre algumas aves novas ou pouco conhecidas no sul do Brasil. Ararajuba 5:53-59.

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

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

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1995. Last Mountain Lake and Stalwart National Wildlife Areas: Bird Checklist - Fourth Edition. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • 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.

  • Drennan, S.R. 1981. Where to Find Birds in New York State. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.

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

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

  • Handel, C. M., and C. P. Dau. 1988. Seasonal occurrence of migrant whimbrels and bristle-thighed curlews on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Condor 90:782-790.

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

  • Hayman, P., J. Marchant, and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: an identification guide to the waders of the world. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

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

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

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

  • Jehl, J. R., Jr. 1973. Breeding biology and systematic relationships of the stilt sandpiper. Wilson Bulletin 85:115-147.

  • Johnson, S. R. and D. R. Herter. 1989. The Birds of the Beaufort Sea. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 372 pp.

  • Knopf, F.L. 1996. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 211. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 16 pp.

  • Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1996. Productivity and movements of mountain plovers breeding in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 108:28-35.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Morrison, R. I. G., R. E. Gill, Jr., B. A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G. W. Page, C. L. Gratto-Trevor, and S. M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occasional Paper Number 104, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 64 pages.

  • Morrison, R. I. G., and R. K. Ross. 1989. Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America. Vols. 1 and 2. Canadian Wildl. Serv. Spec. Publ. 325 pp.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 1993/1994. Shorebird population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (3):3-5. Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 5-9.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. and Ross, R.K. 1989. The atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America. Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication, Ministry of Environment, Canada.

  • Morrison, R.I.G., and P. Hicklin. 2001. Recent trends in shorebird populations in the Atlantic Provinces. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 16-19.

  • National Audubon Society (2010). The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online]. Available http://www.christmasbirdcount.org [2014].
     

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

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

  • 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.

  • Nol, E., and M. S. Blanken. 1999. Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). No. 444 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 24pp.

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

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

  • Parks Canada Agency. 2017. Unpublished data. Wildlife observations made in the vicinity of Kluane National Park and Reserve from July 30, 1944 to October 12, 2017. Last updated October 13, 2017.

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

  • 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.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1980b. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1990b. A field guide to western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • 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., Morton, E.S., Lovejoy, T.E. and Ruos, J.L. 1983. Nearctic avian migrants in the Neotropics. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.

  • Reeves, T. and A. Nelson. 1996. Birds of Morgan Lake: a guide to common species. Arizona Public Service, Four Corners Power Plant. 25 p.

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

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

  • Robert, M., R. McNeil, and A. Leduc. 1989. Conditions and significance of night feeding in shorebirds and other water birds in a tropical lagoon. Auk 106:94-101.

  • Rubega, M. A., D. Schamel, and D. M. Tracy. 2000. Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). No. 538 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • 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.

  • Skeel, M. A. 1983. Nesting success, density, and nest-siteselection of the whimbrel (NUMENIUS PHAEOPUS) in different habitats. Can. J. Zool. 61:218-225.

  • Skeel, M.A., and E.P. Mallory. 1996. Whimbrel (NUMENIUS PHAEOPUS). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 219. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 28 pp.

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

  • Stiles, F. G. and A. F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 511 pp.

  • Stucchi, M. and J. Figueroa. 2006. La avifauna de las Islas Lobos de Afuera y algunos alcances sobre su biodiversidad. Report de Investigación No. 2, Asociación Ucumari, Lima, Peru.

  • THOMPSON,M.C., AND C. ELY.1989. BIRDS IN KANSAS VOLUME ONE.

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

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1995. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Winter 1995. 20pp.

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

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.