Phalaropus tricolor - (Vieillot, 1819)
Wilson's Phalarope
Other Common Names: Pisa-n'Água
Synonym(s): Steganopus tricolor
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Phalaropus tricolor (Vieillot, 1819) (TSN 176736)
French Common Names: phalarope de Wilson
Spanish Common Names: Falaropo Pico Largo, Pollito de Mar Tricolor
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105425
Element Code: ABNNF20010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Shorebirds
Image 7760

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Scolopacidae Phalaropus
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: Phalaropus tricolor
Taxonomic Comments: Often placed in monotypic genus Steganopus (AOU 1983). Based on allozyme data, clearly genetically distinct from other phalaropes; may not be part of monophyletic phalarope group (Dittman et al. 1989). However, combined allozyme, morphologic, and mtDNA data suggest that Wilson's phalarope evolved shortly after the phalarope lineage itself arose and that the phalaropes are monophyletic (Dittman and Zink 1991).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 26Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large breeding range, mainly in the interior portion of western North America and the Great Lakes region; Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a significant population decline (41%) between 1984 and 1993, though the BBS may not be a good technique for determining the status of this species.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (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 (SNRM), Arizona (S1B,S5N), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNRB,SNRN), Colorado (S4B,S4N), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S1N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNRN), Idaho (S4B), Illinois (S1), Indiana (SHB), Iowa (S3N), Kansas (S2B,S4N), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (S1B,S2N), Michigan (S3), Minnesota (S2B), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (S4B), Navajo Nation (S4S5M), Nebraska (S4), Nevada (S2S3B,S4M), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (S4N), New Mexico (S2B,S4N), New York (S1B), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNRB), Oklahoma (S5N), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (S3N), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (S4B), Tennessee (S3N), Texas (S3B,S5N), Utah (S2S3B), Virginia (SNA), Washington (S3?B), Wisconsin (S1B), Wyoming (S3B,S3N)
Canada Alberta (S5B), British Columbia (S4B), Manitoba (S4B), New Brunswick (S1B,S1M), Northwest Territories (SUB), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (S3B), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (S3B), Saskatchewan (S5B,S5M), Yukon Territory (S1B)

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: BREEDING: coastal British Columbia, southern Yukon, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, central Manitoba, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, northeastern New York, and New Brunswick, south to east-central California, central Nevada, central Utah, eastern Arizona, northern New Mexico, northern Texas, central Kansas, western Nebraska, eastern South Dakota, northern Iowa, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, and northern Ohio. Nonbreeders recorded in summer north to central Alaska, central Mackenzie, northern Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia (McAlpine et al. 1988, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: mainly in saline lakes of highlands of western and southern South America, from Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay south through Chile and Argentina, casually north to central California, Utah, central New Mexico, southern Texas, southwestern Louisiana, and Florida (Colwell and Jehl 1994, AOU 1998).

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: With an average of one nest per hectare and an estimated population size of 1.5 million (Colwell and Jehl, 1994), the paired birds would occupy 7500 square kilometers during nesting season.

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Many breeding occurrences. May be quite concentrated in the non-breeding season: as many as 500,000 individuals winter at Laguna Mar Chiquita, Argentina (Morrison et al. 2001).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Morrison, et. al. (2006) said there was no new data on this species population numbers. Jehl (1988) and Morrison et al. (2001) estimated the total population to be about 1.5 million individuals.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few to some (4-40)
Viability/Integrity Comments: An estimate based on estimated population size of 1.5 million individuals (Morrison, et. al. 2006).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Declined in some areas due to loss and degradation of wetlands. An accidental and unsuitable host of the Brown-headed Cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER), an obligate brood parasite (Friedmann 1963, Hatch 1971).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Morrison, et. al. (2006) noted that the USSCP indicates the trend for this species is decreasing (a value of 5). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a significant population increase in western North America, 1966-1988 (Sauer and Droege 1992). However, BBS data for 1984-1993 indicate a significant 41 percent decline overall (Price et al. 1995). Range is expanding in eastern Canada (NGS 1987). Morrison (1993/1994) categorized the population trend in Canada as "stable?"

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species has had a small or statistically insignificant increase bsed on Breeding Bird Survey and/or Christmas Count data through the early 2000's (Birdlife International, 2014).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable to not intrinsically vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: This bird is a semi-colonial nester and winters in a relatively small area in the high Andes (Colwell and Jehl, 1994).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species nests in the wetlands of internior North America, which is an increasingly rare commodity with agricultural development of those areas (National Audubon Society, 2014).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Better monitoring of population levels is warranted because the US Shorebird Conservation Plans regards this species as one of high concern (National Audubon Society, 2014).

Protection Needs: Protect the staging and wintering habitats of this species because the bird is highly concentrated during those periods (National Audubon Society, 2014).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: coastal British Columbia, southern Yukon, northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, central Manitoba, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, northeastern New York, and New Brunswick, south to east-central California, central Nevada, central Utah, eastern Arizona, northern New Mexico, northern Texas, central Kansas, western Nebraska, eastern South Dakota, northern Iowa, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, and northern Ohio. Nonbreeders recorded in summer north to central Alaska, central Mackenzie, northern Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia (McAlpine et al. 1988, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: mainly in saline lakes of highlands of western and southern South America, from Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay south through Chile and Argentina, casually north to central California, Utah, central New Mexico, southern Texas, southwestern Louisiana, and Florida (Colwell and Jehl 1994, AOU 1998).

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO La Plata (08067), Las Animas (08071), Moffat (08081), Rio Grande (08105)
IL Cook (17031)*, Kane (17089), Lake (17097), Lawrence (17101), Putnam (17155), Shelby (17173), Wabash (17185)
IN Allen (18003)*, Gibson (18051)*, Lake (18089)*, Newton (18111)*
KS Barton (20009), Lincoln (20105), Sheridan (20179), Stafford (20185)
MI Monroe (26115)*
MN Aitkin (27001), Anoka (27003), Becker (27005), Beltrami (27007), Big Stone (27011), Brown (27015), Cass (27021), Chisago (27025), Clay (27027), Clearwater (27029), Cottonwood (27033)*, Douglas (27041), Jackson (27063), Kandiyohi (27067), Kittson (27069), Lac Qui Parle (27073), Lake of the Woods (27077), Lincoln (27081), Lyon (27083), Mahnomen (27087), Marshall (27089), Morrison (27097), Murray (27101), Nobles (27105), Norman (27107), Otter Tail (27111), Pennington (27113), Polk (27119), Pope (27121), Red Lake (27125), Roseau (27135), Stearns (27145), Stevens (27149), Swift (27151), Todd (27153), Washington (27163), Wilkin (27167), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
NM Chaves (35005), Mckinley (35031), Mora (35033), Otero (35035), Sierra (35051), Socorro (35053)
WI Barron (55005), Burnett (55013), Kewaunee (55061)*, Manitowoc (55071), Walworth (55127)
WY Albany (56001), Big Horn (56003), Campbell (56005), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Goshen (56015), Hot Springs (56017), Johnson (56019), Laramie (56021), Lincoln (56023), Natrona (56025), Niobrara (56027), Park (56029), Platte (56031), Sheridan (56033), Sublette (56035), Sweetwater (56037), Teton (56039), Uinta (56041), Washakie (56043), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+*, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+*, St. Joseph (04100003)+*, Lake Erie (04120200)+*
05 Embarras (05120112)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+
07 Leech Lake (07010102)+, Prairie-Willow (07010103)+, Elk-Nokasippi (07010104)+, Crow Wing (07010106)+, Platte-Spunk (07010201)+, Sauk (07010202)+, Crow (07010204)+, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Pomme De Terre (07020002)+, Lac Qui Parle (07020003)+, Chippewa (07020005)+, Redwood (07020006)+, Cottonwood (07020008)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Root (07040008)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Des Moines Headwaters (07100001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+*, Chicago (07120003)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+, Lower Fox (07120007)+, Lower Illinois-Senachwine Lake (07130001)+, Upper Kaskaskia (07140201)+
09 Bois De Sioux (09020101)+, Mustinka (09020102)+, Otter Tail (09020103)+, Upper Red (09020104)+, Buffalo (09020106)+, Eastern Wild Rice (09020108)+, Sandhill-Wilson (09020301)+, Red Lakes (09020302)+, Red Lake (09020303)+, Thief (09020304)+, Clearwater (09020305)+, Grand Marais-Red (09020306)+, Snake (09020309)+, Lower Red (09020311)+, Two Rivers (09020312)+, Roseau (09020314)+, Lower Rainy (09030008)+, Lake of the Woods (09030009)+
10 Madison (10020007)+, Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Little Wind (10080002)+, Popo Agie (10080003)+, Muskrat (10080004)+, Lower Wind (10080005)+, Badwater (10080006)+, Upper Bighorn (10080007)+, Nowood (10080008)+, Greybull (10080009)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+, Dry (10080011)+, North Fork Shoshone (10080012)+, South Fork Shoshone (10080013)+, Shoshone (10080014)+, Little Bighorn (10080016)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Upper Powder (10090202)+, South Fork Powder (10090203)+, Salt (10090204)+, Crazy Woman (10090205)+, Clear (10090206)+, Middle Powder (10090207)+, Little Powder (10090208)+, Upper Little Missouri (10110201)+, Antelope (10120101)+, Dry Fork Cheyenne (10120102)+, Upper Cheyenne (10120103)+, Lance (10120104)+, Lightning (10120105)+, Angostura Reservoir (10120106)+, Beaver (10120107)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Upper Big Sioux (10170202)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Rock (10170204)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Little Medicine Bow (10180005)+, Sweetwater (10180006)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Horse (10180012)+, Crow (10190009)+, Upper North Fork Solomon (10260011)+, Solomon (10260015)+
11 Apishapa (11020007)+, Rattlesnake (11030009)+, Cow (11030011)+, Upper Canadian (11080003)+
13 Alamosa-Trinchera (13010002)+, Rio Grande-Albuquerque (13020203)+, Rio San Jose (13020207)+, Caballo (13030101)+, El Paso-Las Cruces (13030102)+, Tularosa Valley (13050003)+, Upper Pecos-Long Arroyo (13060007)+
14 Upper Green (14040101)+, New Fork (14040102)+, Upper Green-Slate (14040103)+, Big Sandy (14040104)+, Bitter (14040105)+, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+, Blacks Fork (14040107)+, Muddy (14040108)+, Vermilion (14040109)+, Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+, Lower Yampa (14050002)+, Little Snake (14050003)+, Muddy (14050004)+, Animas (14080104)+
16 Upper Bear (16010101)+, Central Bear (16010102)+, Upper Weber (16020101)+
17 Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Salt (17040105)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A 24-cm shorebird (phalarope).
Reproduction Comments: In the central and northern Great Plains (Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota), arrives on the breeding grounds from mid-April to early May and departs from mid-August to early September (Roberts 1932, Howe 1972, Johnsgard 1980, Murray 1983). In Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, arrives on breeding grounds from late April to early May and is observed until early September (Hohn 1967; Maher 1974; Reynolds et al. 1986; Colwell 1987; Colwell and Oring 1988a,b). Females arrive on the breeding grounds earlier than males (Reynolds et al. 1986, Colwell 1987), and commonly depart from breeding areas earlier than males, usually from early June to early July (Hohn 1967; Howe 1972; Colwell 1987; Colwell and Oring 1988a,b).

May renest after nest failure, and females are capable of laying multiple clutches (Colwell and Jehl 1994). Polyandry was first documented in Saskatchewan, where a color-banded female laid two clutches with two individual males (Colwell 1986a, Colwell 1987). Philopatry is uncommon, although males return to breeding areas in successive years more often than females (Colwell 1987, Colwell and Oring 1988b). Of 154 adult male phalaropes banded over four years in Saskatchewan, 16 percent returned to their previous breeding area in successive years, whereas only 2 percent of 69 banded adult females returned (Colwell 1987).

Ecology Comments: Reproductive success varies greatly (17-56%); most clutch failures result from predation (Colwell 1992). Exhibits annual variation in nest site selection, moving to deeper, more permanent wetlands in dry years (Hohn 1967, Colwell 1991).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates northward through U.S. (mostly over interior prairies west of Mississippi River, uncommon along east coast) mainly April-May (Terres 1980). Migrates regularly through Middle America (September-October and mid-April to late May in Costa Rica), Colombia and Ecuador. Southward migration begins in mid-June (mostly females). The Great Salt Lake (Utah) has the world's largest concentration in fall (500,000-700,000 individuals) (Paton et al. 1992).
Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland, Tidal flat/shore
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Shallow freshwater and saline ponds, marshes and wet meadows (AOU 1998). Nests on the ground in wet meadows, grassy marshes, and along edges of shallow inland waters. The nest is a well-concealed scrape, lined with grass. Uses both fresh and alkali wetlands with three characteristics: open water, emergent vegetation, and open shoreline (Saunders 1914, Hohn 1967, Stewart 1975, Prescott et al. 1995, Naugle 1997). Nesting habitat varies widely, including wetlands, wet meadows, upland grasslands, and road rights-of -way (Bent 1927, Roberts 1932, Hohn 1967, Stewart 1975, Murray 1983, Bomberger 1984, Colwell 1987, Colwell and Oring 1990, Einemann 1991, Faanes and Lingle 1995, Dinsmore and Schuster 1997). Occasionally occur in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields and dense nesting cover (Johnson and Schwartz 1993; Prescott et al. 1993; D.H. Johnson, unpubl. data).

In North Dakota, densities were highest in undifferentiated tillage wetlands (wetlands with frequently tilled soils), followed by temporary, seasonal, semipermanent, fen, alkali, and permanent wetlands (Kantrud and Stewart 1984). Often occupied the peripheral low prairie and wet-meadow areas of most classes of wetlands in North Dakota. In South Dakota, occurrence was associated positively with the presence of seasonal and semipermanent wetlands, stock ponds, and intermittent streams; area of alfalfa (MEDICAGO SATIVA) hayland; area of surface water; and the percentage of grazed shoreline (Weber 1978, Weber et al. 1982). In eastern South Dakota, the probability of occurrence in semipermanent wetlands was related positively to the proportion of untilled uplands and the number of emergent hydrophyte species (e.g., willow [SALIX spp.]) composing > 10% of the vegetated wetland area; were associated negatively with wetlands dominated by thick-stemmed plants (e.g., cattail [TYPHA spp.] and river bulrush [SCIRPUS FLUVIATILIS]) (Naugle 1997). Within seasonal wetlands, the probability of occurrence was related negatively to wetlands dominated by thick-stemmed plants (Naugle 1997).

Nest site selection varies seasonally. Nests in upland vegetation early in the breeding season and wet-meadow vegetation later in the season (Colwell and Oring 1990). Usually nests less than 100 meters from shoreline (Hohn 1967, Hatch 1971, Colwell and Oring 1990, Eldridge in prep.). Nest sites in Nebraska were in wet sedge (CAREX) meadows (Faanes and Lingle 1995). In North Dakota and Iowa, nested in wetlands associated with river floodplains (Murray 1983, Koenig 1984). In Alberta, Saskatchewan, and North Dakota nested in grasses of various heights on islands or in wet-meadow zones around lakes and wetlands; in Saskatchewan, brood rearing occurred in patches of foxtail barley (HORDEUM JUBATUM) (Bent 1927, Hohn 1967, Kagarise 1979, Colwell 1987). In Saskatchewan, Colwell and Oring (1990) found that nest sites had taller, denser, and more homogeneous vegetation and less bare ground than randomly selected sites. However, in the Nebraska sandhills, nest sites had shorter vegetation than random sites (Bomberger 1984).

NON-BREEDING: on lake shores, mudflats, salt marshes, freshwater marshes, alkaline ponds; rarely along seacoasts; stages on salt lakes (Colwell and Jehl 1994, AOU 1998). Also at sewage ponds; rarely reported at sea.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats insects (larvae and adults), especially mosquitoes and crane flies. On salt flats may feed on alkali flies, brine shrimps, seeds of aquatic plants. Feeds as it walks along muddy shores, wades in shallow water, or swims in whirls.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 24 centimeters
Weight: 68 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Protect wetland complexes with both seasonal and semipermanent wetlands to provide suitable habitat during both wet and dry years (Kantrud and Stewart 1984, Colwell and Oring 1988c).

Ensure the presence of wet-meadow areas near deeper wetlands during the breeding season (Colwell and Oring 1988c). This may make it easier for adults to move young from nests to wetlands by decreasing overland travel distance.

Prevent diversion of water from saline lakes and wetlands in western staging areas (Colwell and Jehl 1994). Preserve and/or restore wetlands (Johnson 1996).

Consider shorebird needs when creating impoundments for waterfowl; provide nesting islands and beaches with gentle inclines (Colwell and Oring 1988c). In Alberta, Saskatchewan, and North Dakota nested on islands or in wet-meadow zones around lakes and wetlands (Bent 1927, Hohn 1967, Kagarise 1979).

Do not disturb (e.g., drain, mow, burn, or heavily graze) nesting habitat during the breeding season, which generally extends from early May to late July (Kantrud and Higgins 1992).

Use burning to improve nesting habitat (Eldridge in prep.).

Defer livestock grazing (after 15 July) in pastures that contain wetlands important to breeding birds (Prescott et al. 1993). Idle grasslands and previously grazed areas provide habitat for nesting, but areas with cattle present during the breeding season are less suitable (Renken 1983, Renken and Dinsmore 1987, Kantrud and Higgins 1992). In Alberta, were present in deferred-grazed (grazed after 15 July) native pasture (Prescott et al. 1993).

Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: There is some evidence that birds occupying CRP fields are area sensitive; the species was rare in patches of CRP grassland that were less than 100 hectares (D.H. Johnson, unpubl. data).
Management Requirements: Nest in idle, hayed, and grazed grasslands adjacent to wetlands (Hohn 1967, Kantrud and Higgins 1992). Burning can improve nesting habitat (Eldridge in prep.). In North Dakota, nested at higher densities in hayland mowed the previous year than in grazed areas (Kantrud 1981). Idle grasslands and previously grazed areas provided habitat for nesting, but areas with cattle present during the breeding season were less suitable (Renken 1983, Renken and Dinsmore 1987, Kantrud and Higgins 1992). In Alberta, were present in deferred-grazed (grazed after 15 July) native pasture (Prescott et al. 1993). Nesting occurred in areas that were moderately grazed in Nebraska (Faanes and Lingle 1995) and heavily grazed in Saskatchewan (Colwell 1987). Although occasionally nested in cropland (small-grain stubble) in North Dakota (Higgins 1975), native grassland was preferred over cropland and tame grassland in southern Canada and the northern United States (Owens and Myres 1973, Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Eldridge in prep.). In the northern Great Plains, favor CRP grassland blocks > 100 hectares in size (D.H. Johnson, unpubl. data). Johnson and Schwartz (1993) reported that phalaropes were present in low numbers in CRP fields in the northern Great Plains (North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern Montana). In Saskatchewan aspen parkland, were observed in dense nesting cover that contained wetlands (Prescott et al. 1993, 1995).
Biological Research Needs: Relatively little is known about the habits of this bird while in the wintering areas (Colwell and Jehl, 1994).
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: 22Sep2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., and F. J. Dirrigl, Jr.
Management Information Edition Date: 14May1999
Management Information Edition Author: DECHANT, J.A., D.H. JOHNSON, L.D. IGL, C.M. GOLDADE, A.L. ZIMMERMAN, AND B.R. EULISS; REVISIONS BY G. HAMMERSON, M. KOENEN, AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Parts of this abstract were originally researched and written by staff of the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and published as Dechant et al. (1999). Additional support for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Initiative, through challenge grant number 97-270 to The Nature Conservancy, Wings of the Americas Program. Matching funds for this grant were donated by Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 19Sep1995
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), 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/.

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

  • Austen, M.J.W., M.D. Cadman and R.D. James. 1994. Ontario Birds at Risk: Status and Conservation Needs. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, and Long Point Bird Observatory, Port Rowan, Ontario. 165 pp.

  • Austen, M.J.W., M.D. Cadman, and R.D. James. 1994. Ontario birds at risk: status and conservation needs. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. 165 p.

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

  • Bent, A.C. 1927. Life histories of North American shorebirds (Part I). U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 142, Washington, D.C.

  • Bierly, M.L. 1980. Bird Finding in Tennessee. 3825 Bed- ford Ave., Nashville, TN 37125.

  • 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.

  • Bohlen, H.D. 1989. The birds of Illinois. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. 221pp.

  • Bomberger, M.L. 1984. Quantitative assessment of the nesting habitat of Wilson's Phalarope. Wilson Bulletin 96:126-128.

  • 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.

  • Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner (eds.) 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario. 617 pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia Vol. 2: Nonpasserines: Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC.

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

  • Colwell, M. A., and J. R. Jehl, Jr. 1994. Wilson's Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor). Number 83 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • Colwell, M.A. 1986. The first documented case of polyandry for Wilson's phalarope. Auk 103:611-612.

  • Colwell, M.A. 1987. Breeding biology, intrasexual competition, and philopatry in Wilson's Phalarope. Ph.D. dissertation. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND. 123 pp.

  • Colwell, M.A. 1991. Effects of fluctuating wetland conditions on prairie shorebirds. Pages 173-180 in G.L. Holroyd, G. Burns, and H.C. Smith, editors. Proceedings of the second endangered species and prairie conservation workshop, Natural History Occasional Paper 15. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

  • Colwell, M.A. 1992. Wilson's Phalarope nest success is not influenced by vegetation concealment. Condor 94:767-772.

  • Colwell, M.A. and J.R. Jehl Jr. 1994. Wilson's Phalarope; The Birds of North America. Vol. 3, No. 83. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Colwell, M.A. and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 1994. Wilson's Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/083/doi:10.2173/bna.83.

  • Colwell, M.A., and L.W. Oring. 1988a. Habitat use by breeding and migrating shorebirds in southcentral Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 100(4):554-566.

  • Colwell, M.A., and L.W. Oring. 1988b. Return rates of prairie shorebirds: sex and species differences. Wader Study Group Bulletin 55:21-24.

  • Colwell, M.A., and L.W. Oring. 1988c. Breeding biology of Wilson's Phalarope in southcentral Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 100:567-582.

  • Colwell, M.A., and L.W. Oring. 1990. Nest site characteristics of prairie shorebirds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:297-302.

  • Cory, C.B. 1909. The birds of Illinois and Wisconsin. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ. 131, Zool. Ser. 9:1-766.

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

  • Dechant, J. A., D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss. 1999 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Wilson's Phalarope. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 15 pp.

  • Dechant, J.A., D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, A.L. Zimmerman, and B.R. Euliss. 1999. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Wilson's Phalarope. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 13 pp.

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

  • Dinsmore, J.J., and W. Schuster. 1997. Wilson's Phalarope nest in Boone County. Iowa Bird Life 67:67.

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

  • Dittman, D. L., R. M. Zink, and J. A. Gerwin. 1989. Evolutionary genetics of phalaropes. Auk 106:326-331.

  • Dittmann, D. L., and R. M. Zink. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA variation among phalaropes and allies. Auk 108:771-779.

  • 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.

  • Einemann, L. 1991. A nesting report of a Wilson's Phalarope in Lancaster County. Nebraska Bird Review 59:59-61.

  • Eldridge, J. In prep. Management for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest.

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

  • Faanes, C.A., and G.R. Lingle. 1995. Breeding birds of the Platte River Valley of Nebraska. Online. Available: http://www.npwrc.org/resource/distr/birds/platte/platte.htm.

  • Ford, E.R. 1956. Birds of the Chicago region. Chicago Acad. Sci. Spec. Pub. 12. 117 p.

  • Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic Cowbird. Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

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

  • 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.

  • Hatch, D.R.M. 1971. Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism on Spotted Sandpiper and Wilson's Phalarope. Blue Jay 29:17-18.

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

  • Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

  • Higgins, K.F. 1975. Shorebird and game bird nests in North Dakota croplands. Wild. Soc. Bull. 3:176-179.

  • Hohn, E.O. 1967. Observations on the breeding biology of Wilson's Phalaropes in central Alberta. Auk 84:220-244.

  • Howe, M.A. 1972. Pair bond formation and maintenance in Wilson's Phalarope, PHALAROPUS TRICOLOR. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 169 pp.

  • 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. 1988. Biology of the Eared Grebe and Wilson's Phalarope in the nonbreeding seson: a study of adaptations to saline lakes. Cooper Ornithol. Soc., Studies in Avian Biology No. 12. iv + 74 pp.

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

  • Johnsgard, P.A. 1980. A preliminary list of the birds of Nebraska and adjacent plains states. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 156 pp.

  • Johnson, D.H. 1996. Management of northern prairies and wetlands for the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds. Pages 53-67 in F.R. Thompson, III, editor. Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-187.

  • Johnson, D.H., and M.D. Schwartz. 1993b. The conservation reserve program and grassland birds. Conservation Biology 7:934-937.

  • Kagarise, C.M. 1979. Breeding biology of the Wilson's Phalarope in North Dakota. Bird Banding 50:12-22.

  • Kantrud, H. A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404-417.

  • Kantrud, H.A., and K.F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and nest site characteristics of some ground-nesting, non-passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie Naturalist 24:67-84.

  • Kantrud, H.A., and R.E. Stewart. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:426-437.

  • 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.

  • Koenig, D. 1984. A Wilson's Phalarope nest in Allamakee County. Iowa Bird Life 54:123.

  • LaRue, C.T. 1994. Birds of northern Black Mesa, Navajo County, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 54(1):1-63.

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

  • Maher, W.J. 1974. Matador Project: Birds II. Avifauna of the Matador area. Canadian Committee for the International Biological Pragramme, Matador Project, Technical Report 58. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 31 pp.

  • McAlpine, D.F., M. Phinney, and S. Makepeace. 1988a. New Brunswick breeding of Wilson's phalarope, PHALAROPUS TRICOLOR, confirmed. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:77-78.

  • 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. 1994. Shorebird population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (3):3-5. Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • 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 T.H. Manning. 1976. First breeding records of Wilson's Phalarope for James Bay, Ontario. Auk 93: 656-657.

  • Morrison, R.I.G., McCaffery, B.J., Gill, R.E., Skagen, S.K., Jones, S.K., Page, G.W., Gratto-Trevor, C.L., and Andres, B.A. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2006. Waders Study Group Bulletin 111: 67-85.

  • Murray, B.G., Jr. 1983. Notes on the breeding biology of Wilson's Phalarope. Wilson Bulletin 95:472-475.

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

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field guide to the birds of North America. Second edition. National Geographic Society, 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.

  • Naugle, D.E. 1997. Habitat area requirements of prairie wetland birds in eastern South Dakota. Ph.D. dissertation. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 85 pp.

  • Nelson, E.W. 1876. Birds of north-eastern Illinois. Bull. Essex Inst. 8:90-155.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Owens, R. A., and M. T. Myres. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51:697-713.

  • 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.

  • Paton, P. W., C. Kneedy, and E. Sorensen. 1992. Chronology of shorebird and ibis use of selected marshes at Great Salt Lake. Utah Birds 8(1):1-19.

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1983. The Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 1: Nonpasserines. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. xii + 321 pp.

  • 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.

  • Pratt, H. D., P. L. Bruner, and D. G. Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 409 pp. + 45 plates.

  • Prescott, D.R.C., A.J. Murphy, and E. Ewaschuk. 1995. An avian community approach to determining biodiversity values of NAWMP habitats in the aspen parkland of Alberta. Alberta NAWMP Centre. NAWMP-012. Edmonton, Alberta. 58 pp.

  • Prescott, D.R.C., R. Arbuckle, B. Goddard, and A. Murphy. 1993. Methods for the monitoring and assessment of avian communities on NAWMP landscapes in Alberta, and 1993 results. Alberta NAWMP Centre. NAWMP-007. Edmonton, Alberta. 48 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.

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

  • Renken, R. B. 1983. Breeding bird communities and bird-habitat associations on North Dakota waterfowl production areas of three habitat types. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 90 pp.

  • Renken, R. B., and J. J. Dinsmore. 1987. Nongame bird communities on managed grasslands in North Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:551-557.

  • Reynolds, J.D., M.A. Colwell, and F. Cooke. 1986. Sexual selection and spring arrival times of Red-necked and Wilson's phalaropes. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18:303-310.

  • 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.

  • Ridgway, R. 1889. The ornithology of Illinois. Vol. 1. Ill. State Lab. Nat. Hist. 520pp.

  • Roberts, T. S. 1932. The Birds of Minnestoa. Vol. 2. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 821 pp.

  • Roberts, T. S. 1932. The birds of Minnesota. Volume 1. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 691 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Saunders, A.A. 1914. The birds of Teton and northern Lewis and Clark counties, Montana. Condor 16:124-144.

  • See SERO listing

  • Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 391 pp.

  • 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.

  • Stewart, R. E. 1975. Breeding Birds of North Dakota. Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies, Fargo ND.

  • 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.

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

  • Weber, M.J. 1978. Non-game birds in relation to habitat variation on South Dakota wetlands. M.S. thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 54 pp.

  • Weber, M.J., P.A. Vohs, Jr., and L.D. Flake. 1982. Use of prairie wetlands by selected bird species in South Dakota. Wilson Bulletin 94:550-554.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1995. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Summer 1995. 8pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1997. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 1997. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2002. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2002. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2002. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2002. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2003. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2003. 24pp.

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

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2004. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring 2004. 32pp.

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

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

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2013. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2013. 16pp.

  • 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.