Setophaga striata - (Forster, 1772)
Blackpoll Warbler
Other English Common Names: blackpoll warbler
Other Common Names: Mariquita-de-Perna-Clara, Figuinha-Riscada
Synonym(s): Dendroica striata (Forster, 1772)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Dendroica striata (J. R. Forster, 1772) (TSN 178913)
French Common Names: paruline rayée
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Gorra Negra, Arañero Estriado
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103335
Element Code: ABPBX03230
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 10990

© Jeff Nadler

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Setophaga
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ 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: Dendroica striata
Taxonomic Comments: Phylogenetic analyses of sequences of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that all species formerly placed in Dendroica, one species formerly placed in Wilsonia (citrina), and two species formerly placed in Parula (americana and pitiayumi) form a clade with the single species traditionally placed in Setophaga (ruticilla). The generic name Setophaga has priority for this clade (AOU 2011).

Banks and Browning (1995) rejected the name Dendroica breviunguis for this species, but others have used it in the past (Hunt and Eliason 1999). Burleigh and Peters (1948) described morphological variation in eastern and western birds and proposed subspecies Dendroica striata lurida (western) and D. s. striata (eastern); Parkes (1954) subsequently refuted this distinction, and subsequently no subspecies were recognized by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU 1957).
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
Reasons: Large breeding range in North America; numerous; secure.
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), Alaska (S4B), Arkansas (S4N), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S4S5N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNRN), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (S4N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (S4B), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (S1B,S5M), Michigan (SNRN), Minnesota (SNA), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNRN), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (SNA), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S3B), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (S2N), Pennsylvania (S1B), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S4N), Texas (S3), Utah (SNA), Vermont (S4B), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5B), Labrador (S5B,S5M), Manitoba (S5B), New Brunswick (S3S4B,S5M), Newfoundland Island (S5B,S5M), Northwest Territories (S5B), Nova Scotia (S3S4B), Nunavut (SUB,SUM), Ontario (S4B), Quebec (S5B), Saskatchewan (S5B), Yukon Territory (S5B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Breeding range extens from western and north-central Alaska and northwestern Canada (Mackenzie Delta) to northern Labrador and Newfoundland, and south to southern Alaska, south-central British Columbia, northern Saskatchewan, eastern New York, northern New England, and Nova Scotia. During the northern winter, this warbler occurs primarily in the Amazon basin in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and Bolivia, and has been found several times in southern South America, where the species is perhaps common locally in southeastern Brazil (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). This species is an autumn transient in Bermuda, Bahamas, eastern Greater Antilles, and throughout the Lesser Antilles; spring transient in western Greater Antilles and Bahamas; casual in Central America (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species isrepresented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Global abundance estimated at 21,000,000 birds (Rich et al. 2004).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats include habitat loss at breeding and nonbreeding areas, in-flight collisions during migration, mortality during migration associated with increased storm frequency/severity, and climate change related habitat loss of favored riparian and bog habitats.

Habitat loss: Breeding densities declined in 20-meter riparian buffers after the surrounding habitat was removed by clearcutting in the Canadian boreal forest (Darveau et al. 1995). Degradation of red spruce and subalpine spruce-fir forests from acid rain in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada may adversely affect this species (Darveau et al. 1995, Hunt and Eliason 1999, Moegenburg and Greenberg 2004). Deforestation on wintering grounds in lowland Amazonia may also impact the species; blackpoll warblers were considered one of the 12 species most vulnerable to extinction due to tropical deforestation (Petit et al. 1993, Petit et al. 1995).

Collisions: This species commonly collides with towers during migration (e.g., communication, wind turbines, buildings), presumably due to their attraction to lights and disorientation during night migration (Bent 1953, Ogden 1996, Hunt and Eliason 1999). Hundreds to thousands of deaths have been reported at single locations over one season (Ogden 1996). In a study of tower kills in the United States since 1949, blackpoll warblers were the seventh most commonly killed bird (of 230 reported species) with 6,304 documented dead at 32 towers (Shire et al. 2000). Of concern is the marked increase in the number of towers constructed in the United States and Canada following the growth of the cell phone industry and wind energy development (Shire et al. 2000, ADFG 2005).

Climate change: Rates of survival and productivity of trans-oceanic migrants are associated with El Niño and North Atlantic Oscillation events (Nott et al. 2002). Abundance of breeding blackpoll warblers from 1967 to 1996 was negatively correlated with the frequency and severity of storms over the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico during fall migration the previous year (Butler 2000). During this long, transoceanic flight (the longest of any North American warbler), birds may be particularly susceptible to mortality, which has been found to account for 90% of annual mortality in congeneric Black-throated Blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens (Sillett and Holmes 2002). Climate change may reduce riparian and bog habitats favored by this species through permafrost degradation and drying (ADFG 2005).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicted an Increasing trend from 1966 to 1980 (Sauer et al. 2005). Since 1980, North American BBS data indicate that this species has suffered the steepest long-term decline of any neotropical-nearctic migrant landbird (9.6 percent per year, P< 0.00, n = 59), with population declines of over 50 percent and 90 percent across breeding ranges in Alaska and Canada, respectively (Sauer et al. 2004, 2005). When the entire BBS data set is considered, the long-term trend is a nonsignificant decrease of 2.6 percent per year (1966-2005). Only in New Brunswick is this long-term trend significant (6.3% per year, P< 0.00, n = 8; Hunt and Eliason 1999, Sauer et al. 2005).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Continue participation in North American BBS; examine independent data on trends from migration stations and other breeding and nonbreeding surveys (including off-road surveys) to determine if declines are evident in other datasets (ADFG 2005).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Breeding range extens from western and north-central Alaska and northwestern Canada (Mackenzie Delta) to northern Labrador and Newfoundland, and south to southern Alaska, south-central British Columbia, northern Saskatchewan, eastern New York, northern New England, and Nova Scotia. During the northern winter, this warbler occurs primarily in the Amazon basin in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and Bolivia, and has been found several times in southern South America, where the species is perhaps common locally in southeastern Brazil (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). This species is an autumn transient in Bermuda, Bahamas, eastern Greater Antilles, and throughout the Lesser Antilles; spring transient in western Greater Antilles and Bahamas; casual in Central America (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

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, CA, CO, CT, 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, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, 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; WWF-US, 2000


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Fremont (16043), Jefferson (16051), Minidoka (16067)
MA Berkshire (25003)
PA Wyoming (42131)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Deerfield (01080203)+*
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock (02050106)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+
17 Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A large warbler.
Reproduction Comments: Eggs laid June-July. Clutch size 3-5 (usually 4-5). Incubation at least 11 days, by female. Young tended by both sexes, leave nest at 10-12 days. (Terres 1980, Harrison 1978). Some males bigamous (Eliason 1986).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Late migrant in spring in Atlantic states; moves through northeast May-June (Terres 1980). Migrates from eastern North America to northern South America, nonstop or through West Indies, with most apparently not going through the southeastern U.S. before going to South America (McNair and Post 1993). Fairly common in fall in Puerto Rico, rare in spring (Raffaele 1983, Murray 1989). Present in South America mostly September-April, occasionally to May (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Old field, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Cool, wet boreal coniferous forest (primarily spruce), usually dominated by low trees; locally also mixed second growth, regenerating burns, peatlands, and alder thickets (AOU 1998). In migration in various forest, forest border, woodland, scrub, and brushy habitats (AOU 1983), clearings with scattered trees. In winter, mostly (exclusively?) on islands in and vegetation surrounding major rivers.

Nests usually are well hidden in small trees, to about 3 m above ground. Adults usually return to previously used breeding sites (Eliason 1986).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats various small insects and spiders gleaned from leaves and twigs of trees; also flycatches and eats some small fruits (Terres 1980).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 14 centimeters
Weight: 13 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Research needs include the following: evaluate potential threats on both breeding and wintering grounds, and assess their contribution to the observed decline; examine the role of Atlantic storm frequency on mortality during migration (Butler 2000); develop ways to reduce the frequency of tower strikes during migration (e.g., study the attractiveness of different light types to this species; Shire et al. 2000, Jones and Francis 2003); obtain better information on habitat use at migration stopover sites and on wintering grounds.
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
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 14Jan2008
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 21Mar1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., REVISED BY S. CANNINGS

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 ]

  • Alaska Bird Observatory. 2000. National Park Service 2000 Passerine Report Executive Summary. Available at: Accessed 17 Mar 2005.

  • Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2005. Our wealth maintained: a strategy for conserving Alaska's diverse wildlife and fish resources, a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy emphasizing Alaska's nongame species. Anchorage, AK. Submitted to USFWS. Anchorage, Alaska.

  • Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2005. Our wealth maintained: a strategy for conserving Alaska's diverse wildlife and fish resources, a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy emphasizing Alaska's nongame species. Anchorage, AK. Submitted to USFWS. Anchorage, Alaska.

  • 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). 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 128(3):600-613.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1957. The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds, 5th ed. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 691 pp.

  • 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). 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. 2009. Fiftieth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 126(3):705-714.

  • 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. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 128(3):600-613.

  • 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.

  • Audubon Society. 1981-1985. Breeding Bird Atlas of New Hampshire. (unpublished).

  • 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.

  • Banks, R. C., and M. R. Browning. 1995. Comments on the status of revived old names for some North American birds. Auk 112:633-648.

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

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

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

  • Boreal Partners in Flight (BPIF) Working Group. 1999. Landbird conservation plan for Alaska biogeographical regions. Version 1.0 Unpubl Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage AK. 45 pp. Accessed 24 October 2003.

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

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

  • Burleigh, T.D. and H.S. Peters. 1948. Geographic variation in Newfoundland birds. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 61: 111-126.

  • Butler, R. W. 2000. Stormy seas for some North American songbirds: are declines related to severe storms during migration? Auk 117:518-522.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I.McT.-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, A.C. Stewart, and M.C.E. McNall. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 4, Passerines: Wood-Warblers through Old World Sparrows. UBC Press, in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv., and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch and Resour. Inventory Branch, and Royal B.C. Mus. 744pp.

  • 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. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 128:600-613.

  • 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.

  • Darveau, M., P. Beauchesene, L. Belanger, J. Huot, and P. Larue. 1995. Riparian forest strips as habitat for breeding birds in boreal forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 59 (1):67-78.

  • DeFusco, R.P., J.T. Harper and W. Ruhe. 2005. Alaska Bird Avoidance Model (AK BAM) development and implementation. International Bird Strike Committee meeting, 23-27 May 2005, Athens.

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

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

  • Dorn, Jane L. and R.D. Dorn. 1990. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne.

  • 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.

  • Eliason, B. C. 1986. Female site fidelity and polygyny in the blackpoll warbler (DENDROICA STRIATA). Auk 103:782-790.

  • Eliason, B.C. 1986. Female site fidelity and polygyny in the blackpoll warbler (DENDROICA STRIATA). Auk 103:782-790.

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

  • Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The birds of Alaska. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, PA and Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C. 922 pp.

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

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

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

  • Hannah, K. 2003. Creamer's Field Migration Station: spring report, 2003. Alaska Bird Observatory, Fairbanks, AK.

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

  • Harwood, C.M. 2002. 2002 Lower Yukon River Watershed Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

  • Hines, J.Q. 1963. Birds of the Noatak River, Alaska. Condor 65:410-425.

  • 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.

  • Hunt, P. D. and B.C. Eliason. 1999. Blackpoll Warbler. The Birds of North America. Vol. 11, No. 431: American Ornithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Hunt, Pamela D. and Bonita C. Eliason. 1999. Blackpoll Warbler. The Birds of North America. Vol. 11, No. 431: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • 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.

  • Isleib, M.E., and B. Kessel. 1973. Birds of the north Gulf Coast-Prince William Sound region, Alaska. Biological Papers of the Univ. of Alaska 14. Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. 149 pp.

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

  • Johnson, J.A. and S. Matsuoka. 2004. Species at risk- Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata): summary of ecology, abundance, and population trends in North America. Poster. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK.

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

  • Jones, J and C.M. Francis. 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses. Journal of Avian Biology 34: 328-333.

  • Jones, J. and C. M. Francis. 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses. Journal of Avian Biology 34: 328-333.

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

  • Kessel, B. 1989. Birds of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska: their biogeography, seasonality, and natural history. Univ. of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK. 330 pp.

  • Kessel, B. 1998. Habitat characteristics of some passerine birds in western North American taiga. University of Alaska Press. Fairbanks, AK.

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

  • Laughlin, S.B. and D.P. Kibbe, eds. 1985. The Atlas of Bre eding Birds of Vermont. Univ. Press of New England. 456pp.

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

  • 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.

  • McCaffery, B.J. 1996. Distribution and relative abundance of gray-cheeked thrush (CATHARUS MINIMUS) and blackpoll warbler (DENDROICA STRIATA) on Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. unpub. report U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bethel, Alaska.

  • McNair, D. B., and W. Post. 1993. Autumn migration routes of blackpoll warblers: evidence from southeastern North America. J. Field Ornithol. 64:417-425.

  • 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.

  • Moegenburg, S. and R. Greenberg. 2004. Linking population declines to tree species loss in eastern forests. Available online at: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/MigratoryBirds/Research/Forest_Change/default.cfm. Accessed 17Feb2005.

  • 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.

  • Murray, B. G., Jr. 1989. A critical review of the transoceanic migration of the blackpoll warbler. Auk 106:8-17.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1985. Final breeding bird distribution maps, 1980-1985. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • 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.

  • Nott, P. M., D. F. Desante, R. B. Siegel, and P. Pyle. 2002. Influences of the El Niño/ Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation on avian productivity in forests of the Pacific Northwest of North America. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11: 333-342.

  • Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.

  • Ogden, L.J.E. 1996. Collision course: the hazards of lighted structures and windows on migrating birds. Report published by World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal Light Awareness Program. Available at: http://www.flap.org/new/ccourse.pdf Accessed 3 Mar 2005.

  • Ogden, L.J.E. 1996. Collision course: the hazards of lighted structures and windows on migrating birds. Report published by World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal Light Awareness Program. Toronto, ONT. Available at: http://www.flap.org/new/ccourse.pdf. Accessed 3Mar2005.

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

  • PETERSON, R.T. 1980. A FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS EAST OF THE ROCKIES. 4TH ED.

  • 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.

  • Parkes, K.C. 1954. Notes on some birds of the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains, New York. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 33: 149-178.

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

  • Petersen, M.R., Douglas N. Weir, and Matthew H. Dick. 1991. Birds of the Kilbuck and Ahklun Mountain Region, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1991.

  • 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.

  • Petit, D. R., J. F. Lynch, R. L. Hutto, J. G. Blake, and R. B. Waide. 1993. Management and conservation of migratory landbirds overwintering in the neotropics. Pages 70-92 in D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel (editors). Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229.

  • Petit, D.R., J.F. Lynch, R.L. Hutto, J.G. Blake, and R.B. Waide. 1995. Habitat use and conservation in the Neotropics. Pages 145-197 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds. Oxford University Press, New York.

  • Pogson, T.H., S.E. Quinlan, and B. Lehnhausen. 1997. A Manual of Selected Neotropical Migrant Birds of Alaska National Forests. Compiled and edited by: Ellen Campbell, Project Leader and Nancy Andison, Editor, USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Online. Available:

  • 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 with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras. Second edition. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 534 pp.

  • Rosenberg, K.V. 2004a. Partners in Flight continental priorities and objectives defined at the state and Bird Conservation Region levels, part 1: Alaska. Unpublished report, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

  • Rosenberg, K.V. 2004b. Partners in Flight continental priorities and objectives defined at the state and Bird Conservation Region levels, part 2: Alaska. Unpublished report, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005a. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center , Laurel, MD

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon, 2004. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • See SERO listing

  • Shire, G.G., K. Brown, and G. Winegrad. 2000. Communication Towers: a deadly hazard to birds. American Bird Conservancy. Available at: http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkillweb.pdf Accessed 3 Mar 2005.

  • Shire, G.G., K. Brown, and G. Winegrad. 2000. Communication towers: a deadly hazard to birds. American Bird Conservancy. Available online at: http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkillweb.pdf. Accessed 3Mar2005.

  • 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.

  • Sillett, T.S. and R.T. Holmes. 2002 .Variation in survivorship of a migratory songbird throughout its annual cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:296-308.

  • Spahn, R. 1987. Highlights of the spring season. Kingbird 37(3):133-142.

  • 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.

  • Stokes, D. W., and L. Q. Stokes. 1996. Stokes field guide to birds: western region. Little, Brown & Company Limited, Boston.

  • 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.

  • USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2006. North American Breeding Bird Survey Internet data set. Available online at: (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/retrieval/).

  • USGS. 2008a. Alaska Off-road Breeding Bird Survey: Database of Bird Distribution (ALMS). Available online at http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/bpif/OBS/database/index.html. (Accessed 5/15/2008).

  • Weller, A.-A. and C. Rengifo, G. 2003. Notes on the avifauna of the Cordillera de Mérida, Venezuela. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 123:261-270.

  • 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

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

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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