Parkesia motacilla - (Vieillot, 1809)
Louisiana Waterthrush
Other English Common Names: Louisiana waterthrush
Synonym(s): Seiurus motacilla (Vieillot, 1809)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Seiurus motacilla (Vieillot, 1809) (TSN 178935)
French Common Names: paruline hochequeue
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Arroyero
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105622
Element Code: ABPBX10030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 11076

© Jeff Nadler

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Parkesia
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: Seiurus motacilla
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly (AOU 1983, 1998) placed in the genus Seiurus; transferred to Parkesia by AOU (2010).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3B (15Jan2013)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S5B), Arizona (S1N), Arkansas (S4B), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S3B), District of Columbia (S2B,S3S4N), Florida (S2), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S4B), Iowa (S3B,S4N), Kansas (S3B), Kentucky (S5B), Louisiana (S3B), Maine (S2B), Maryland (S5B), Massachusetts (S4B), Michigan (S2S3), Minnesota (S3B), Mississippi (S3B), Missouri (SNRB), Nebraska (S1), New Hampshire (S4B), New Jersey (S4B), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S4B), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4B), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (S4B), South Carolina (S4B), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S3B), Vermont (S4B), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S3B)
Canada Ontario (S3B), Quebec (S1B)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: SC (13Dec2007)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Threatened (26Nov2015)
Comments on COSEWIC: Designated Special Concern in April 1991. Status re-examined and confirmed in April 1996 and April 2006. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in November 2015.

2006 - This wood warbler breeds along clear, shaded, coldwater streams in southern Ontario and possibly southwestern Quebec. The Canadian population is small - probably less than 200 pairs - but has been stable over the last two decades and immigration from United States populations probably occurs. Habitat degradation, particularly from ATVs, may be a threat at some sites.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: eastern Nebraska, southern Great Lakes region (including southern Ontario and perhaps rarely in southwestern Quebec), and New England south to eastern Texas, Gulf states, northern Florida, and South Carolina (Robinson 1995, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: southern Sonora, southern Nuevo Leon, and southwestern Tamaulipas south through Mexico (generally absent from Yucatan peninsula) and Central America into northern and western Colombia and northwestern Venezuela; also from southern Florida and Bahamas throughout West Indies (fairly common in Puerto Rico, uncommon in Virgin Islands) (Robinson 1995, AOU 1998)

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Potential threats include forest fragmentation and activities that cause reductions in forest canopy cover or negatively impact aquatic insect communities. In Western Pennsylvania and throughout the Appalachian region, streams are affected by acid precipitation and acid discharge from countless mines (Mulvihill et al. 1997). The low pH reduces food availability.

Short-term Trend Comments: Overall population levels are believed to be stable in Canada and the U.S., with local declines due to habitat loss and degradation (McCraken 1991). Breeding range apparently expanding northward in northeastern states including New York (Andrle and Carroll 1988), Vermont (Laughlin and Kibbe 1985), and Connecticut (Bevier 1994). Expansion may be a response to reforestation of areas that were heavily forested in late 1800s and early 1900s (Andrle and Carroll 1988). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) shows a slight but nonsignificant survey-wide increase during the period 1966-1998 (0.5% per year, P = 0.32, N = 524) (Sauer et al. 1999).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: BREEDING: eastern Nebraska, southern Great Lakes region (including southern Ontario and perhaps rarely in southwestern Quebec), and New England south to eastern Texas, Gulf states, northern Florida, and South Carolina (Robinson 1995, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: southern Sonora, southern Nuevo Leon, and southwestern Tamaulipas south through Mexico (generally absent from Yucatan peninsula) and Central America into northern and western Colombia and northwestern Venezuela; also from southern Florida and Bahamas throughout West Indies (fairly common in Puerto Rico, uncommon in Virgin Islands) (Robinson 1995, AOU 1998)

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
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, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada ON, QC

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)
FL Calhoun (12013), Gadsden (12039), Hamilton (12047), Jackson (12063), Liberty (12077), Taylor (12123)
LA Bienville (22013), Catahoula (22025), Claiborne (22027), East Feliciana (22037)*, La Salle (22059), Natchitoches (22069), Sabine (22085), Vernon (22115), Washington (22117), West Feliciana (22125)*, Winn (22127)
MI Allegan (26005), Berrien (26021)*, Cass (26027), Hillsdale (26059), Kalamazoo (26077)*, Kent (26081), Manistee (26101), Mason (26105), Montcalm (26117), Muskegon (26121), Oceana (26127), St. Clair (26147), Tuscola (26157), Washtenaw (26161)
MN Anoka (27003), Blue Earth (27013), Chisago (27025), Fillmore (27045), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Isanti (27059), Nicollet (27103), Olmsted (27109), Pine (27115), Ramsey (27123), Rice (27131), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169)
NE Cass (31025), Douglas (31055), Jefferson (31095), Richardson (31147), Sarpy (31153), Washington (31177)
WI Adams (55001), Burnett (55013), Grant (55043), Green Lake (55047), Iowa (55049), Jackson (55053), Juneau (55057), Marinette (55075), Monroe (55081), Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Rusk (55107), Sauk (55111), Vernon (55123), Washburn (55129), Waukesha (55133)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Econfina-Steinhatchee (03110102)+, Upper Suwannee (03110201)+, Lower Ochlockonee (03120003)+, Apalachicola (03130011)+, Chipola (03130012)+, Bogue Chitto (03180005)+
04 Peshtigo (04030105)+, Upper Fox (04030201)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+*, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+, Manistee (04060103)+, Cass (04080205)+, St. Clair (04090001)+, Huron (04090005)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Rum (07010207)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Kettle (07030003)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, Black (07040007)+, Root (07040008)+, South Fork Flambeau (07050003)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Upper Rock (07090001)+
08 Bayou D'arbonne (08040206)+, Lower Ouachita (08040207)+, Castor (08040302)+, Little (08040304)+, Bayou Sara-Thompson (08070201)+*, Upper Calcasieu (08080203)+
10 Lower Platte (10200202)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, South Fork Big Nemaha (10240007)+, Lower Little Blue (10270207)+
11 Bayou Pierre (11140206)+, Lower Red-Lake Iatt (11140207)+, Saline Bayou (11140208)+
12 Lower Sabine (12010005)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (wood warbler).
Reproduction Comments: Clutch size is four-six (usually five). Incubation by female lasts 14-16 days; sometimes less than 14 days (Robinson 1995). Young are tended by both parents, leave nest at about ten days, can fly at six days after leaving nest, begin feeding on own at about seven days after leaving nest. One brood per year. Breeds earlier in year than most other warblers (April-June) (Robinson 1995).
Ecology Comments: Maintains foraging territory in winter (Stiles and Skutch 1989, Rappole and Warner 1980). In Mexico, commonly returns to the same winter territory in successive years (Rappole and Warner 1980).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Arrives in Puerto Rico in September (some birds as early as August), remains through April-May (Raffaele 1983). Arrives in Costa Rica early to mid-August, departs by mid-April (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Woodland - Hardwood
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Moist forest, woodland, and ravines along streams; mature deciduous and mixed floodplain and swamp forests. Prefers areas with moderate to sparse undergrowth (Prosser and Brooks 1998) near rapid-flowing water of hill and mountain streams. Ground dweller. Nests on the ground along stream banks, hidden in the underbrush or among the roots of fallen trees, in crevices or raised sites in tree roots, or in rock walls of ravines over water (Harrison 1978, Bushman and Therres 1988).

NON-BREEDING: In migration and winter also in riparian woodland, scrub and thickets, generally near running water; avoids extensive openings and still water (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats primarily aquatic insects, also small mollusks, killifishes, minnows (Terres 1980), and salamanders (Mulvihill et al. 1999). Forages mostly on or near the ground along streams or in damp or wet stream beds. NON-BREEDING: In Jamaica, feeds while standing on rocks beside or in water. In lowlands, confined to rocks near running water; at higher elevations, may forage also on mud and beside standing water (Lack 1976). In Trinidad, forages on mud among mangroves, on floor of dry lowland forest, and beside rocky streams in montane forest (Lack 1976).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 15 centimeters
Weight: 21 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Fairly common resident of headwater riparian woodlands, rocky streams, swamps and scrub, thickets and ravines near streams in much of the eastern and mid-western U.S., less common in the Gulf Coastal Plain, somewhat rare in southern Georgia and Florida. Main threats are loss and degradation of headwater riparian habitat, due to agriculture, logging, acid pollution (acid mine drainage and/or acid deposition, especially in the central Appalachians), and urbanization. Frequent brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) host in some regions, but rarely parasitized (less than 10 percent of nests) in Pennsylvania based on recent studies (Mulvihill et al. 1997; Mulvihill, pers. comm.). Management should focus on protecting core wooded riparian habitat, including establishment or maintenance of a buffer strip of undisturbed riparian forest cover at least 100 meters wide (50 meters each side), and preservation and improvement of water quality to ensure aquatic insect biomass and diversity.
Restoration Potential: Local declines not statistically significant, and expansion of northern range limit suggest no immediate need for restoration.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Essential habitat includes large (probably greater than 100 hectares) tracts of mature, deciduous and deciduous-mixed forest along ravines with running water; secondary habitat is characterized by mature, deciduous swamp forest with standing pools of water; generally a forest interior species (McCraken 1991). Headwater streams and wetlands of high water quality and well developed pool and riffle complexes are important (Prosser and Brooks 1998). Fallen trees with exposed root masses and riparian banks with abundant crevices are preferred nest sites. Species often absent in highly fragmented landscapes, and where sediments from agricultural and urban landscapes have negatively affected water quality and stream substrates. Surdick (1995) found that most foraging sites had close to three times more surface area of exposed rock than the territory average. In northeastern U.S. where range overlaps with northern waterthrush (SEIURUS NOVEBORACENSIS), tends to select sites with faster flowing water (Craig 1981, 1985). Also breeds in cypress swamps and bottomland forest along mud-bottomed streams, but in lower densities than upland forest (Graber et al. 1983).
Management Requirements: Wooded streambanks and ravines should be protected. Maintain areas of thicker cover well away from the stream (more than 50 meters) for use during the post-fledging stage (Mulvihill, pers. comm.).
Monitoring Requirements: BBS data may not provide adequate counts because most routes are surveyed after this species stops singing and do not adequately cover riparian communities (Robinson 1995).
Management Research Needs: Little information is currently available on habitat use, behavior, and population ecology in the wintering range. Population and migration ecology and effects of brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) parasitism also need to be further studied (Robinson 1995).
Biological Research Needs: May be a good candidate for conceptual studies. Stream-dwelling populations have long, linear territories that may help elucidate central place foraging theory (Orians and Pearson 1979). In southern Illinois, nests are often placed far from main foraging areas, suggesting that avoidance of predation may be more important than foraging economics in determining nest-site selection (Robinson 1995). Also, it is an excellent indicator of healthy forested riparian ecosystems in the eastern U.S. (D. Prosser et al., unpubl. data). Being a top predator and the only obligate avian species of this ecosystem, it is an ideal calibrator for an index of headwater ecosystems (Brooks et al. 1998).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Management Information Edition Date: 16Nov1999
Management Information Edition Author: BROWN, B.; REVISIONS BY M. KOENEN AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: 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: 24Jan1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G.

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

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

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

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

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2010. Fifty-first Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 127(3):726-744.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). Chesser, R.T., R.C. Banks, F.K. Barker, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, Jr., J.D. Rising, D.F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2010. Fifty-first supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 127(3):726-744.

  • American Ornithologists' Union. 2010. Check-list of North American Birds [web application], 7th edition. . Accessed 6 August 2010.

  • Andrle, R. F., and J. R. Carrol, editors. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York. 551 pp.

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

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

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

  • Bevier, L. R., editor. 1994. The atlas of breeding birds of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut Bull. 113. xvii + 461 pp.

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

  • Brooks, R. P., T. J. O'Connell, D. H. Wardrop. L. E. Jackson. 1998. Towards a regional index of biological integrity: The example of forested riparian ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assesments 51: 131-143.

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

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

  • Craig, R. J. 1981. Comparative ecology of the Louisiana and Northern Waterthrushes. Phd. Diss., Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs.

  • Craig, R. J. 1985. Comparative habitat use by Louisiana and Northern Waterthrushes. Wilson Bulletin 97:347-355.

  • Eliason, B. C., and B. A. Fall. 1989. Louisiana Waterthrushes in Washington County: results of the 1988 Minnesota County Biological Survey work. Loon 61:34-37.

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

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

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

  • Hamel, P. B. 1992. The land manager's guide to the birds of the south. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, NC. 367 pp + several appendices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Janssen, R. B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 352 pp.

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

  • Lack, D. 1976. Island biology illustrated by the land birds of Jamaica. Studies in Ecology, Vol. 3. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 445 pp.

  • Laughlin, S. B., and D. R. Kibbe, eds. 1985. The atlas of the breeding birds of Vermont. Univ. Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 456 pp.

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

  • Macouzet, T. and P. Escalante-Pliego. 2000. First record of Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) from Cozumel Island, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Ornitologia Neotropical 11:183-184.

  • Macouzet, T. and P. Escalante-Pliego. 2000. First records of Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) from Cozumel Island, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Ornitología Neotropical 11: 183-184.

  • McCracken, J. D. 1991. Status report on the Louisiana waterthrush SEIURUS MOTACILLA in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 22 pp.

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

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

  • Mulvihill, R. S., T. L. Master, R. C. Leberman, and J. E. Sanchez. 1999. Ornithological notes from Costa Rica: Winter ecology of Louisiana Waterthrush; First nest description for the Green-crowned Brilliant. Abstracts of presented papers, VI Neotropical Ornithological Congress, Monterrey, Mexico.

  • Mulvihill, R., M. Mackay, T. Master, and F. Terranova. 1997. Population biology of Louisiana Waterthrushes, seiurus motacilla, in undisturbed headwater riparian habitats in eastern and western Pennsylvania. Abstracts of presented papers, 1997 Pennsylvania Natural History Conference, Powdermill Biological Station, Rector, PA.

  • NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. . Accessed 3 June 2008.

  • NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [NatureServe]. 2000. Version 1.1. NatureServe homepage . Accessed June 2003.

  • Orians, G. H., and N. E. Pearson. 1979. On the theory of central place foraging. Pages 155-177 in Analysis of ecological systems, D. J. Horn, G. R. Stairs, and R. D. Mitchell, editors. Ohio State Univ. Press, Columbus, OH.

  • Page, A.M. 1996. Updated Status report on the Louisiana Waterthrush SEIURUS MOTACILLA in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 20 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Prosser, D. J., and R. P. Brooks. 1998. A verified Habitat Suitability Index for the Louisiana Waterthrush. Journal of Field Ornithology 69(2):288-298.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Ridgely, R. S. and G. Tudor. 1989. The birds of South America. Volume 1. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA. 516 pp.

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

  • Robinson, W. D. 1995. Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) . Number 151 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • Robinson, W.D. 1995. Louisiana Waterthrush (SEIURUS MOTACILLA). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 151. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 1999. The North American Breeding Bird Survey: Results and Analysis 1966 - 1998. Version 98.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. December 3-last update. Online. Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • See SERO listing

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

  • 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.

  • Stucker, J. H. 2000. Biodiversity of southeastern Minnesota forested streams: relationships between trout habitat improvement practices, riparian communities and Louisiana Waterthrushes. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

  • Surdick, J. 1995. The Louisiana Waterthrush in Southeast Minnesota. The Loon 62:201-206.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
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 © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. 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.