Pluvialis dominica - (Müller, 1776)
American Golden-Plover
Other Common Names: Batuiruçu
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Pluvialis dominica (Muller, 1776) (TSN 176564)
French Common Names: pluvier bronzé
Spanish Common Names: Chorlo Dominico, Playero Dorado
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100680
Element Code: ABNNB02030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Shorebirds
Image 10587

© Bruce A. Sorrie

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Charadriidae Pluvialis
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: Pluvialis dominica
Taxonomic Comments: Pluvialis dominica and P. fulva formerly were regarded as conspecific (P. dominica). Connors et al. (1993) documented clear and consistent differences in breeding vocalizations and nesting habitat, and strict assortative mating in areas of sympatry in western Alaska; they concluded that P. dominica and P. fulva are distinct species. Sibley and Monroe (1990) and AOU (1993) also treated these taxa as separate species. See AOU (1995) for explanation of change in spelling of specific name from dominica to dominicus.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species still ranks in the 100,000s and does not appear to be threatened at this point in time (Birdlife International, 2014; National Audubon Society, 20114).
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4N5B,N5M (13Jan2018)

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), Alaska (S5B), Arizona (S1M), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S1N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNRN), Hawaii (SNR), Idaho (S1M), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (S3M), Iowa (S5N), Kansas (S3N), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (S2N), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (S2N), Michigan (SNRN), Minnesota (SNRM), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Navajo Nation (S2M), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNRN), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (S2N), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (S2N), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S3N), Texas (S3), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (S3N), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (S3N), Wyoming (S4N)
Canada Alberta (S4M), British Columbia (S3S4B), Labrador (S3M), Manitoba (S3S4B), New Brunswick (S2S3M), Newfoundland Island (S3M), Northwest Territories (S3S4B), Nova Scotia (S1S2M), Nunavut (S3B,S3M), Ontario (S2B,S4N), Prince Edward Island (S2S3M), Quebec (S4), Saskatchewan (S5M), Yukon Territory (S3B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDS: northern North America, from Baffin Island in Canada west to western Alaska. NORTHERN WINTER: Bolivia, Uruguay, and southern Brazil south to northern Chile and northern Argentina (some present in Central and South America in northern summer).

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Densities on breeding grounds vary significantly between regions and from year to year (Johnson and Connors, 2010).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species breeds across northern Canada from Manitoba west to Alaska. With such a range and an estimated population size of about 200,000, (Johnson and Connors, 2010), here should be at least 81 or more EOs.

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Johnson and Connors (2010) cites a study in 2006 that estimated the global population as being 200,000 individuals but the accuracy is uncertain.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: An estimate based on the total number of individuals estimated worldwide.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Breeding sites are relatively secure but winter ranges and migratory routes are less secure. The species continues to be hunted in some countries but this species does not appear to be threatened at this time (National Audubon Society, 2014).

Short-term Trend: Unknown
Short-term Trend Comments: Johnson and Connors (2010) note that the trends are unclear and reports are often conflicting. Formerly abundant; populations much reduced by market hunters in 1880s. Now protected and increasing in numbers. Morrison (1993/1994) categorized the population trend in Canada as "stable?"

Long-term Trend: Decline of <70% to increase of <25%
Long-term Trend Comments: There is no doubt that there has been a severe decline since the 1800's, when a single day's kill was estimated at 48,000. The species has rebouned since hunting was prohibited but it has still not returned to its former abundance (National Audubon Society, 2014).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable to not intrinsically vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: There is evidence of population stability at the current population levels (Johnson and Connors, 2010). But longer-term the negative impacts of climate change on its breeding grounds in the tundra may have negative impacts on this species.

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Wintering birds tend to concentrate on flooded pampas in Argentina. This species is said to be less able to coexist with humans during the non-breeding season than the Pacific Golden-Plover (Johnson and Connors, 2010).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: This species is in need of systematic monitoring wherever possible so that population trends can be determined (Johnson and Connors, 2010).

Protection Needs: This species would benefit from habitat preservation and international shorebird educational programs (National Audubon Society, 2014).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDS: northern North America, from Baffin Island in Canada west to western Alaska. NORTHERN WINTER: Bolivia, Uruguay, and southern Brazil south to northern Chile and northern Argentina (some present in Central and South America in northern summer).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Canyon (16027), Fremont (16043), Nez Perce (16069), Power (16077)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
17 Upper Henrys (17040202)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeding begins late May in south to early or mid-June in north (Harrison 1978). Usually 4 eggs are incubated (by male during the day, by female at night) for 26 days (Terres 1980). Young are precocial, tended by both adults. Monogamous. Some begin breeding at 1 year.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Arrives in U.S. March-April, in northern breeding areas late May-early June. Rare fall migrant in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands August-December (Raffaele 1983). Southward migration occurs mostly over oceans; northward migration through Middle America and from the Rockies to the Mississippi Valley. Young remain on tundra until around mid-August, at which time they form flocks and begin to migrate. In fall, Nova Scotia is a staging area for many that migrate to South America (but some may pass over Maritime provinces and fly nonstop from to South America). Amazonia apparently is an important migratory route (Stotz et al. 1992).
Estuarine Habitat(s): Tidal flat/shore
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Sand/dune, Tundra
Habitat Comments: Nonbreeding: short grasslands, pastures, golf courses, mudflats, sandy beaches, and flooded fields (AOU 1983). Nests on grassy tundra; prefers dry upland areas. The nest is a shallow scraped-out depression, lined with mosses, leaves, grass, and lichens. In western Alaska, where DOMINICA and FULVA are sympatric, DOMINICA nests occurred more often in areas of higher elevation and slope, with sparser and shorter vegetation, and more rocks; FULVA nests were usually at lower elevations in denser and taller vegetative cover; both forms used relatively dry upland tundra (Connors et al. 1993).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Feeds primarily on insects (grasshoppers, crickets, grubs of beetles, caterpillars, cutworms, wireworms, etc.). Also eats some small mollusks and crustaceans.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 27 centimeters
Weight: 145 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: There are many unanswered questions, including potential impacts of climate change on nesting, improved knowledge of migration constraints and requirements, and wintering ground behavior and site fidelity (Johnson and Connors, 2010).
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: 24Jun2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jue, Dean K.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 29Aug1994
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
  • "Morrison, R. I. G., B. J. McCaffery, R. E. Gill, S. K. Skagen, S. L. Jones, G. W. Page, C. L. Gratto-Trevor, and B. A. Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American Shorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85. "

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

  • Allen, A. A. 1934. The golden plover. Bird Lore 36:321-332.

  • Allen, A.A. 1939. Golden plover and other birds. 240 pp.

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

  • 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). 1995. Fortieth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 112:819-30.

  • 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/.

  • Andres, B.A. and B.T. Browne. 1998. Spring migration of shorebirds on the Yakutat Forelands, Alaska. Wilson bulletin 110: 326-331.

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

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

  • Armstrong, R.H. 1995. Guide to the birds of Alaska, 4th ed. Alaska Northwest Books, Anchorage, Alaska. 322 pp.

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

  • Baker, A.J., and J.G. Strauch Jr. 1988. Genetic variation and differences in shorebirds: Proc. x1x Int. Ornithol. Congr. (1986) 1637-1645.

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

  • Bennet, A. J. 1998. Pacific and American golden-plovers breeding in southwestern Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 77: 49-51.

  • 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.

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

  • Bull, John. 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. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia Vol. 2: Nonpasserines: Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC.

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

  • 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.

  • Connors, P. G. 1983. Taxonomy, distribution, and evolution of golden plovers (PLUVIALIS DOMINICA and PLUVIALIS FULVA). Auk 100:607-620.

  • Connors, P. G., B. J. McCaffery, and J. L. Marion. 1993. Speciation in golden-plovers, PLUVIALIS DOMINICA and P. FULVA: evidence from the breeding grounds. Auk 110:9-20.

  • Cotter, P. A. and B. A. Andres. 2000. Breeding bird habitat associations on the Alaska Breeding Bird Survey: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0010, 53 p.

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

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

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

  • Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The Birds of Canada, rev. ed. Natl. Mus. Can., Ottawa, ON. 595pp.

  • Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The Birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottowa, Canada. 595 pp.

  • Gratto-Trevor, C.L., V.H. Johnston, and S.T. Pepper. 2001. Evidence for declines in Arctic populations of shorebirds. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 27-29.

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

  • 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.

  • Isacch, J. P., and M. M. Martínez. 2003. Temporal variation in abundance and the population status of non-breeding Nearctic and Patagonian shorebirds in the flooding pampa grasslands of Argentina. J. Field Ornithol., 74:233-242.

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

  • Johnson, O. W. and P. G. Connors. 1996. American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica) and Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No.201-202. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C.

  • Johnson, O. W., P. L. Bruner, A. E. Bruner, P. M. Johnson, R. J. Keinholz, and P. A. Brusseau. 2001. Features of breeding biology in Pacific and American Golden-Plovers on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Wader Study Group Bulletin 95:59-65.

  • Johnson, O.W., and P.G. Connors. 1996. American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica), Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva). in A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 201-202. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, PA, and Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, DC. 40pp.

  • Johnson, O.W., and P.G. Connors. 2010. American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica). 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/201/doi:10.2173/bna.201.

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

  • Kendall, S., A. Taylor, and S. Brown. 2008. Post-breeding studies on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Pp.23 in Summaries of ongoing or new studies of Alaska shorebirds during 2007 (J. Leibezeit, ed.), Alaska Shorebird Group.

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

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

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

  • Manitoba Avian Research Committee. 2003. The Birds of Manitoba. Manitoba Naturalists Society, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 504 pp.

  • Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2019. Manitoba Bird Rank Review by Ken De Smet and Christian Artuso.

  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918, Ch. 128, 40 Stat. 755 (1918) (current version at 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712).

  • Mills, Charles E. 1991. The Birds of a Southern Indiana Coal Mine Reclamation Project. 69 Ind. Aud. Q. 65-79.

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

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

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

  • NEILL, ROBERT L. 1992. RECENT TRENDS IN SHOREBIRD MIGRATION FOR NORTH-CENTRAL TEXAS. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 37(1):87-88.

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

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

  • New York State 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 384 pages.

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

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

  • Raffaele, H. A. 1983a. A guide to the birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Fondo Educativo Interamericano, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 255 pp.

  • Raffaele, H., 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Ruthrauff, Daniel R., T. Lee Tibbitts, Robert E. Gill, Jr., and Colleen M. Handel. 2007. Inventory of montane-nesting birds in Katmai and Lake Clark National Parks and Preserves. Unpublished final report for National Park Service. U. S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.

  • Savage, S. and L. Tibbitts. 2008. Alaska Peninusula shorebird inventory. Pp.33 in Summaries of ongoing or new studies of Alaska shorebirds during 2007 (J. Leibezeit, ed.), Alaska Shorebird Group.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sibley, C.G., and B.L. Monroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. xxiv + 1111 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.

  • 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.

  • Stotz, D. F., et al. 1992. The status of North American migrants in central Amazonian Brazil. Condor 94:608-621.

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

  • Taylor, A., A. Powell, R. Lanctot, S. Kendall, and D. Nigro. 2008. Distribution, movements, and physiology of post-breeding shorebirds on Alaskas Arctic Coastal Plain. Pp.37 in Summaries of ongoing or new studies of Alaska shorebirds during 2007 (J. Leibezeit, ed.), Alaska Shorebird Group.

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

  • Tibbitts, T.L., D. R. Ruthrauff, R.E. Gill, Jr., and C.M. Handel. 2006. Inventory of Montane-nesting Birds in the Arctic Network of National Parks, Alaska. Arctic Network Inventory and Monitoring Program, USDI National Park Service. NPS/AKARCN/NTRT-2006/02. Fairbanks, AK. 156 pp.

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

  • 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.