Oporornis agilis - (Wilson, 1812)
Connecticut Warbler
Other Common Names: Mariquita-de-Connecticut
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Oporornis agilis (A. Wilson, 1812) (TSN 178938)
French Common Names: paruline à gorge grise
Spanish Common Names: Reinita de Connecticut
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101957
Element Code: ABPBX11020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Oporornis
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 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: Oporornis agilis
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 09Apr2016
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Widespread in the breeding season, but there is evidence of ongoing declines. Possible threats not well understood. Forest conversion to agriculture is continuing along southern edge of boreal forest in western Canada.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N4N5M (15Jan2018)

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 (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S2N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNRN), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (S1N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (S2N), Michigan (S3), Minnesota (SNRB), Nebraska (SNRN), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNRN), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Oklahoma (S1N), Pennsylvania (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S3N), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (S2B)
Canada Alberta (S4B), British Columbia (S3B), Manitoba (S4S5B), Northwest Territories (SU), Ontario (S4B), Quebec (S4B), Saskatchewan (S2B)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Candidate (Low) (26Jan2015)
IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: east-central British Columbia across southern Canada to west-central Quebec, south to southern Manitoba, northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, central Michigan, and south-central Ontario. MIGRATION: Rare autumn transient through the eastern West Indies (and most notably on Bermuda) and through northern Venezuela and northeastern Colombia; western and central Venezuela, northern and eastern Colombia, western and central Amazonian Brazil, and southeastern Peru (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). WINTER: Winter range poorly known, since small population is spread over large area. Winters in northern South America, primarily east of the Andes around the Amazon basin (Pitocchelli et al. 1997). Noted rarely in spring as a transient through northern South America and Panama.

Area of Occupancy: 501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Territory size ranges from 0.24 hectares in open spruce to 0.48 hectares in closed spruce forest in Minnesota (based on data from Niemi and Hanowski 1984, presented in Pitocchelli et al. 1997).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Generally uncommon and local on breeding grounds (Flack 1976, DeGraaf et al. 1991). Densities in open spruce woodlands in Minnesota ranged from 2.9-5.6 pairs per hectare; densities in closed spruce forests lower, 1.7-2.7 pairs per hectare (Niemi and Hanowski 1984). Mean numbers on Breeding Bird Survey routes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Wisconsin were 19.3, 11.4, and 9.7 respectively (Price et al. 1995). These latter densities would suggest a minimum population size in the hundreds of thousands.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: HABITAT LOSS/DEGRADATION: Few data, needs study (Pitocchelli et al. 1997). Much of the core of this species' range is in the western boreal forest, so is threatened by forest conversion to agriculture along the southern edges of the boreal zone. In Saskatchewan alone, 4368 square kilometers of forest was lost to agriculture in the period 1966-1994, a rate of -0.87%/year (Hobson et al. 2002). Much of the remaining southern boreal forest in western Canada has been leased to forestry companies (Cummings et al. 1994, Stelfox 1995). May be suffering from habitat loss on wintering grounds (Rappole 1995).

COLLISIONS: Many reports of migrants striking buildings, lighthouses, or towers (Pitocchelli et al. 1997); in Wisconsin, 300 birds were reported killed in this fashion in one season, 140 in one night in Eau Claire (Robbins 1991).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a significant population decline of 3.1 percent per year for the period 1980-2000 (n=71, p=0.02; Sauer et al. 2001). In Canada, the rate of decline is averaging 3.4 percent per year (n=43, p=0.02), but in the U.S. no trend is apparent (n=28). These data should be viewed with some caution, since there are relatively few routes that report this species, and densities are low on many routes.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Rangewide, Breeding Bird Survey data for 1966-2000 indicate an average annual decline of 1.9 percent (n=87, p=0.06), but these data should be used with some caution (see above; Sauer et al. 2001).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: The wintering distribution is poorly known (Pitocchelli et al. 1997).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: east-central British Columbia across southern Canada to west-central Quebec, south to southern Manitoba, northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, central Michigan, and south-central Ontario. MIGRATION: Rare autumn transient through the eastern West Indies (and most notably on Bermuda) and through northern Venezuela and northeastern Colombia; western and central Venezuela, northern and eastern Colombia, western and central Amazonian Brazil, and southeastern Peru (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). WINTER: Winter range poorly known, since small population is spread over large area. Winters in northern South America, primarily east of the Andes around the Amazon basin (Pitocchelli et al. 1997). Noted rarely in spring as a transient through northern South America and Panama.

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, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, MI, MN, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OK, PA, SD, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada AB, BC, MB, NT, ON, QC, SK

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
WI Ashland (55003), Bayfield (55007), Burnett (55013), Douglas (55031), Forest (55041), Jackson (55053), Sawyer (55113), Vilas (55125), Washburn (55129), Wood (55141)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 St. Louis (04010201)+, Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Bad-Montreal (04010302)+, Menominee (04030108)+
07 Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Namekagon (07030002)+, Black (07040007)+, Flambeau (07050002)+, South Fork Flambeau (07050003)+, Upper Wisconsin (07070001)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (warbler).
Reproduction Comments: Eggs are laid in June. Clutch size: 3-5.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Spring migration in North America is chiefly west of the Appalachians. Migrates mostly through West Indies. Present in South America mostly October-April (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Breeds in spruce and tamarack bogs, dry ridges, poplar and aspen woods, moist areas with low shrubby growth, thick undergrowth, or sapling thickets. In thickets of low wet woods or wet meadows in migration. (Terres 1980, Harrison 1978). NON-BREEDING: woodland, forest borders, shrubby clearings (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). BREEDING: Nests on ground, in small hollow, on moss mound in bog, or in grasses or weeds, or at base of shrub (Harrison 1978).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats insects and spiders obtained from cracks and crevices of bark; feeds on or near ground (Terres 1980).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 15 centimeters
Weight: 15 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: This is one of the poorest known birds in North America. Any studies on its general biology would be valuable contributions; the highest priority is a thorough study of its biology on the breeding grounds (Pitocchelli et al. 1997).
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
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 29Jan1990
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 ]

  • 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, J. 2005. Addendum 2009. Identified Wildlife songbird survey and Wildlife Habitat Area assessment: Peace Forest District June 2004. Unpublished report for Ministry of Environment. 30 pp + appendices. (2004-07-Warbler-Survey-South-Peace).

  • Anderson, J., A. Goddard and M. Phinney. 2008. Electronic database containing Black-throated Green Warbler - Connecticut Warbler records from 1992 to 2007, created for WHA proposals 9-111 to 9-143. B.C. Ministry of Environment.

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

  • B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2012. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed February 1, 2012).

  • B.C. Ministry of Forests. 2002. Timber Supply Area Analysis Report: Fort St. John. Victoria, B.C. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa40/tsr2/analysis.pdf

  • B.C. Ministry of Forests. 2002. Dawson Creek Timber Supply Area Analysis Report. Victoria, B. C. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa41/tsr2/analysis.pdf

  • B.C. Ministry of Forests. 2005. Timber Supply Area Analysis Report: Fort Nelson. Victoria, B.C. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa08/tsr3/08ts05ar.pdf

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

  • Bachmann, K., A. Deans and N. Hentze. 2007. Forest songbird and woodpecker monitoring project in the Mackenzie defined forest area: Phase 1 (2006-2007). Report prepared by Manning, Cooper and Associates Ltd. for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Mackenzie, BC. 20 pp + appendices.

  • Bachmann, K., J. Cooper, T. Manning, N. Hentze and A. Deans. 2006. 2006 Forest songbird and woodpecker monitoring in the Fort Nelson Forest District. Report prepared by Manning, Cooper and Associates Ltd., Prince George B.C. for Canadaian Forest Products Ltd., Prince George, B.C. 64 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.

  • Bennett, S., P. Sherrington, P. Johnstone, B. Harrison. 2000. Habitat Use and Distribution of Listed Neotropical Migrant Songbirds in Northeastern British Columbia. In L. Darling (Ed.) At Risk: Proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Victoria, BC.

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

  • Blood, D.A., and F. Backhouse. 1998. Rare Warblers of Northeastern British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 6pp.

  • British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas. 2011. Data (including raw breeding evidence, point count data and rare species and colonial data) accessed from NatureCounts, a node of Avian Knowledge Network, Bird Studies Canada. Available: http://www.naturecounts.ca/ (accessed 20 October 2011).

  • British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Connecticut Warbler. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife Accounts V. 2004. www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/documents/Birds/b_connecticutwarbler.pdf

  • Bull, John. 1964. Birds of the New York area. New York: Harper and Row Publications 540 pp.

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

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E.McNall. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 4, Passerines, Warblers through finches, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC

  • 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.

  • Cannings, R.J. 1998. The Birds of British Columbia - a taxonomic catalogue. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, Wildl. Bull. B-86. 266pp.

  • Chytyk, P., Cooper, J.M. and S. Bennett. 2002. 2001 Northern Goshawk inventory of Block 4, Canfor TFL 48, Chetwynd, BC; Canfor - Chetwynd operation. Unpublished report prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Chetwynd operation, Chetwynd, BC. 34 pp + appendices.

  • Cooper, J.M. et al. 1997d. Status of the Connecticut Warbler in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working rep. WR-83. 32pp.

  • Cummings, S. G., P. J. Burton, S. Prahacs, and M. R. Garland. 1994. Potential conflicts between timber supply and habitat protection in the boreal mixedwood of Alberta, Canada: a simulation study. Forest Ecology and Management 68:281-302.

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

  • Darling, L.M., B. Booth, M. Merkens and M. Gebauer. 2002. Songbird, forest owl and small mammal diversity in mature and harvested aspen and mature mixed-wood forests in the Dawson Creek Forest District. Minist. Water, Land and Air Protection. Biodiversity Brance. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-104. 78pp + appendices.

  • Davidson, P.J.A., R.J. Cannings, A.R. Couturier, D. Lepage, and C.M. Di Corrado (eds.). 2014. The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of British Columbia, 2008-2012. Bird Studies Canada, Delta, B.C. < http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/ e > [2015 Apr 20]

  • Dawson Creek Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review Data Package. 2011.

  • DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson, 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. Agriculture Handbook 688, USDA Forest Service. January 1991.

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

  • 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.

  • Dunn, J. L., and K. L. Garrett. 1997. A field guide to warblers of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Ecological Reserves. British Columbia Parks. www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/eco_reserve/ (accessed March 29, 2012).

  • Enns, K., and C. Siddle. 1996. The distribution, abundance and habitat requirements of selected Passerine birds of the boreal and taiga plains of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, B.C. Ministry of the Environment, Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Rep. WR-76.

  • Enns, K., and C. Siddle. 1996. The distribution, abundance and habitat requirements of warblers of the taiga and boreal plains of British Columbia: a first approximation. Unpubl. rep. for B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria. 46pp.

  • Environment Canada, 2014. North American Breeding Bird Survey - Canadian Trends Website, Data-version 2012. Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3

  • Find a Park. British Columbia Parks. www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/ (accessed March 24, 2012).

  • Flack, J. A. D. 1976. Bird populations of aspen forests in western North America. Ornithological Monographs No. 19.

  • Forest Operations Schedule #2: Final Version. 2011. Fort St. John Pilot Project. www.fsjpilotproject.com/fos.html.

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

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

  • Hagan, J. M., III, and D. W. Johnston, editors. 1992. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

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

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

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

  • Hobson, K. A., E. M. Bayne, and S. L. Van Wilgenburg. 2002. Large-scale conversion of forest to agriculture in the boreal plains of Saskatchewan. Conservation Biology 16:1530-1541.

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

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

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

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

  • K.A. Hobson, E. Bayne. The effects of stand age on avian communities in aspen-dominated forests of central Saskatchewan, Canada. 2000. Forest Ecology and Management 136. 121-134.

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

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

  • Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd., W. Blashill and C. Guppy. 2006. Peace River wildlife surveys summary report: Rare plant, butterfly, amphibian, owl, waterfowl and songbird surveys. Report sumbitted to BC Hydro and Power Authority, Burnaby.

  • Klimkiewicz, M.K., R.B. Clapp, and A.G. Futcher. 1983. Longevity records of North American birds: Remizidae through Parulinae. J. Field Ornith. 54:287-294.

  • Kudell-Ekstrum, J. 2002. Conservation Assessment for Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

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

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

  • Manning, T., J.M. Cooper. 2003. Best Management Practices for Species at Risk in the Fort St. John Timber Supply Area. Report prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Chetwynd, BC. http://cooperbeauchesne.com/upload/images/publications_1061912243.pdf

  • McKenzie, P. M., and R. E. Noble. 1989. Sight records for Connecticut warbler (OPORORNIS AGILIS) and yellow-throated vireo (VIREO FLAVIFRONS) in Puerto Rico. Florida Field Nat. 17:69-72.

  • Ministry of Forests. 1994. Dawson Creek Timber Supply Area timber supply analysis. B.C. Minist. For., Victoria, BC. 67pp.

  • Minnesota Ornithological Records Committee. 1999. Checklist of the birds of Minnesota. Minnesota Ornithologists' Union, January 1999. 16pp.

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

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

  • Munro, J.A., and I.McT. Cowan. 1947. A review of the bird fauna of British Columbia. B.C. Prov. Mus. Spec. Publ. No. 2, Victoria.

  • 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.

  • Niemi, G. J., and J. M. Hanowski. 1984. Effects of a transmission line on bird populations in the Red Lake peatland, northern Minnesota. Auk 101:487-498.

  • 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.

  • Penner, D.F. 1976. Peace River Sites C and E environmental impact studies: wildlife resources. Unpubl. rep. prepared by Thurber Consultants Ltd. for BC Hydro, Vancouver, BC. 307pp.

  • 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.

  • Phinney, M. 1998. Spring and Summer Birds of Dawson Creek, 1991-1995. Wild Bird Trust of British Columbia Wildlife Report No. 4. Victoria, B.C.

  • Phinney, M. 2007. Assessment of habitat attributes at Connecticut Warbler occurrence locations in the South Peace, northeast BC. Electronic Database associated with the report: Preston, M.I., F.L. Bunnell, and P. Vernier. 2007. Identification of habitat variables and information gaps for providing scale-dependent management recommendations to monitor Black-throated Green Warbler and Connecticut Warbler in Northeast British Columbia. Unpublished report prepared for Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC, and Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd., Dawson Creek, BC. 65pp.

  • Pitocchelli, J., J. Bouchie, and D. Jones. 1997. Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis). in A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 320. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, PA, and Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, DC. 16pp.

  • Pitocchelli, J., J. Bouchie, and D. Jones. 1997. Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 320. Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 16 pp.

  • Pitocchelli, Jay, Julie Bouchie, and David Jones. 1997. Connecticut Warbler; The Birds of North America. Vol. 8, No. 320. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • 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.

  • Preston, M. 2008. Monitoring birds in TFL48 for sustainable forestry: Six-year summary, occurrence of "listed" species, and pre-treatment herbicide application summary. Report prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Chetwynd, British Columbia. Westcam Consulting Services. 35 pp + appendices.

  • Preston, M.I. 2009. Monitoring birds for sustainable forest management: Species-habitat associations in the Fort St. John Timber Supply Area. Report prepared by Westcam Consulting Services, Victoria, B.C. for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Fort St. John, B.C. 87 pp.

  • Preston, M.I., F.L. Bunnell, and P. Vernier. 2007. Identification of habitat variables and information gaps for providing scale-dependent management recommendations to monitor Black-throated Green Warbler and Connecticut Warbler in Northeast British Columbia. Report prepared for Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC, and Lousiana-Pacific Canada Ltd., Dawson Creek, BC. 65pp.

  • Preston, M.I., P. Vernier, amd R.W. Campbell. 2007. Using birds for species accounting and effectiveness monitoring in tree farm license 48 and the Fort St. John Timber Supply Area. Report prepared by Westcam Consulting Services, Victoria B.C. for Canadian Forest Products Ltd and Environment Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario. 60 pp.

  • Price, J., S. Droege, and A. Price. 1995. The summer atlas of North American birds. Academic Press, New York. x + 364 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. 1995. The ecology of migrant birds; a neotropical perspective. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington and London. 269 pp.

  • Resource Inventory Committee. 1995. Standards for terrestrial ecosystem mapping in British Columbia: review draft. Ecosystems Working Group, B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 222pp.

  • Resource Inventory Committee. 1997. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Forest and Grassland Songbirds, version 1.1. Prepared for the Resour. Inventory Comm., B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 20pp.

  • 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.

  • Ridgely, R. S. and P. J. Greenfield. 2001. The birds of Ecuador: Status, distribution, and taxonomy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.

  • 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.

  • Robbins, S. D., Jr. 1991. Wisconsin birdlife: population and distribution past and present. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

  • Rothenbach, C., K. Sittler, and F. Juelfs. 2010. 2009 Forest songbird and woodpecker monitoring in the Fort Nelson District. Report prepared by Cooper Beauchesne and Associates Ltd., Prince George, B.C. for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Fort Nelson, B.C. 46 pp.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J.R., et al. 1997. The North American breeding bird survey results and analysis. Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildl. Res. Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997a. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.3. Online. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J.R., and S. Droege. 1992. Geographical patterns in population trends of Neotropical migrants in North America. Pages 26-42 in J.M. Hagan, III, and D.W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Savignac, C. 1998. Songbird diversity and cavity-nesting bird habitat in the Prophet Territory of northeastern British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Fort St. John, B.C. Unpublished report. 27 pp + appendices. (1998-Songbirds-Prophet River-Ft.St.John-MELP-Point Count).

  • See SERO listing

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

  • Siddle, C. 1992. The declining populations of warblers in northeastern British Columbia. Pages 143-151 in S. Rautio, ed. Community action for endangered species: a public symposium on B.C.'s threatened and endangered species and their habitat. Fed. B.C. Nat. and Northwest Wildl. Preservation Soc., Vancouver, BC.

  • Stantec (Preston, M., P.R. Vernier, J. Preston and M. O'Neill). 2010. Monitoring birds for sustainable forest management in the Fort St. John Timber Supply Area: Species-habitat relationships, trends, and species of conservation concern. Report prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. 71 pp + appendices.

  • Stelfox, B. 1995. Relationships between stand age, stand structure, and biodiversity in aspen mixedwood forests in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Centre and Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Canada.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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