Setophaga fusca - (Müller, 1776)
Blackburnian Warbler
Other English Common Names: Blackburnian warbler
Other Common Names: Mariquita-Papo-de-Fogo
Synonym(s): Dendroica fusca (Müller, 1776)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Dendroica fusca (Statius Muller, 1776) (TSN 178904)
French Common Names: paruline à gorge orangée
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Garganta Naranja
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104385
Element Code: ABPBX03120
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
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 fusca
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).
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: 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), Arkansas (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S3N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (S4), Illinois (SNA), Iowa (S3N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (S1S2B), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (S5B), Maryland (S3B), Massachusetts (S4B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Nebraska (SNRN), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S3B), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S4B), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S2N), Pennsylvania (S4B), Rhode Island (S1B,S1N), South Carolina (S2?), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S3B,S4N), Texas (S3), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S2S3B), West Virginia (S3B), Wisconsin (S4B)
Canada Alberta (S2B), Labrador (S1?B,SUM), Manitoba (S5B), New Brunswick (S5B,S5M), Newfoundland Island (S2B,SUM), Nova Scotia (S4B), Ontario (S5B), Prince Edward Island (S5B), Quebec (S5B), Saskatchewan (S4B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: central Saskatchewan and central Alberta east to Nova Scotia and southwestern Newfoundland, south to southern Manitoba, Great Lakes region, southern Appalachians (to Georgia), and southern New England (Morse 1994, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: mid-elevations from Costa Rica and Panama (rarely) south to Colombia and Venezuela and along slopes of Andes of Ecuador, Peru, and northwestern Bolivia (Morse 1994, AOU 1998). In South America, most common in Colombian Andes (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). Transient in eastern Mexico and northern Central America; accidental in Caribbean during migration.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: HABITAT: Loss of tropical broad-leaved forests in the wintering areas in South America poses a significant threat. Diamond (1991) predicted (based on projections of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) that habitat area in 2000 would be only 66 percent of that available in 1985 due to logging and the conversion of forests to agriculture. Considered "highly vulnerable" to alterations of its winter habitat; included on a list of 45 long-distance migratory land birds most likely to suffer from such alterations (Petit et al. 1993, 1995). Reforestation of cleared areas with non-native tree species which are avoided by wintering birds is a special concern (De La Zerda Lerner and Stauffer 1998). PREDATION: Nest predators include red squirrels (TAMIASCIURUS HUDSONICUS) and blue jays (CYANOCITTA CRISTATA), but these do not seem to control populations (Stewart and Aldrich 1952). PARASITISM: Brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) parasitism not likely a significant limiting factor (Morse 1994).

Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate an increase of 1.2 percent annually survey-wide from 1966-1998. Results vary regionally, with increases in Canada and decreases in the Appalachians (Sauer et al. 1997). In Vermont, relatively stable populations in undisturbed forest habitats from 1989-1996 (Faccio et al. 1997, 1998). Counts of migrating birds at Long Point Bird Observatory in Ontario, Canada, show marked oscillations from 1961-1998, especially in fall migration. These are assumed to be linked to the cycle of outbreaks of the spruce budworm, which is an important food item.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: BREEDING: central Saskatchewan and central Alberta east to Nova Scotia and southwestern Newfoundland, south to southern Manitoba, Great Lakes region, southern Appalachians (to Georgia), and southern New England (Morse 1994, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: mid-elevations from Costa Rica and Panama (rarely) south to Colombia and Venezuela and along slopes of Andes of Ecuador, Peru, and northwestern Bolivia (Morse 1994, AOU 1998). In South America, most common in Colombian Andes (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). Transient in eastern Mexico and northern Central America; accidental in Caribbean during migration.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada AB, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, ON, PE, QC, SK

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe 2008


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
KY Bell (21013), Harlan (21095)
MD Allegany (24001), Frederick (24021), Garrett (24023), Washington (24043)
NJ Cumberland (34011), Morris (34027), Ocean (34029), Passaic (34031), Sussex (34037)
RI Providence (44007)
VA Augusta (51015), Highland (51091), Madison (51113)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Quinebaug (01100001)+
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Cacapon-Town (02070003)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+, Monocacy (02070009)+, Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock (02080103)+, Maury (02080202)+
05 Cheat (05020004)+, Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+
06 Powell (06010206)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (warbler).
Reproduction Comments: Eggs laid mostly late May to June. Clutch size four to five (usually four). Incubation about 11-12 days, by female. Young tended by both parents.
Ecology Comments: In a study in Maine, appeared to depress numbers of black-throated green warblers (DENDROICA VIRENS) where they coexisted (Morse 1976). Usually solitary in winter but may join mixed flocks (Stiles and Skutch 1989, Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates through Costa Rica late August-late October and in April (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Present in South America mostly September-April, sometimes May (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Old field, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Coniferous (primarily balsam fir or hemlock) and mixed forest, open woodland, second growth. In Upper Michigan, breeds in natural, older age (60-167 years old), pole, and sawlog size-class stands on mesic upland sites, with canopy closure averaging 80 percent and basal area of conifer trees about three times greater than that of hardwoods (Doepker et al. 1992). There may be some preference for red spruce over white spruce (Morse 1976). Tall trees are important; birds seldom nest in forests without substantial vegetation over 18 meters (Morse 1971, 1976). Loss of forest canopy in the black spruce-Fraser fir forest on Mount Mitchell, North Carolina, from 1959 to 1985 correlated with warbler disappearance (Adams and Hammond 1991). Nests on horizontal branch of conifer, well out from trunk, in site well concealed by foliage or lichen, 2-24 meters above ground.

NON-BREEDING: In migration in various forest, woodland, scrub, and thicket habitats (AOU 1983). In winter, forests and woodlands of mountain slopes; forest canopy and edge, semi-open areas, tall second growth (Stiles and Skutch 1989). De La Zerda Lerner and Stauffer (1998) report a preference for dense trees, shrubs, and snags, with use of both large forest fragments and small or linear patches, but not solitary trees in pastures or non-native pine plantations. Birds were observed most commonly in the upper third of tree canopies.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats insects, also berries; forages among leaves and twigs high in upper branches or in outer foliage, also flycatches. In breeding areas, forages generally above 10.6 - 12.1 meters; in a wintering area in Colombia, foraged commonly at lower levels as well (Chipley 1980).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 13 centimeters
Weight: 10 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: While populations have been generally stable, they are sensitive to the loss of mature native forests on both the breeding and wintering grounds. Accelerating harvest cycles on commercially-utilized forests in North America, along with the loss of tropical forests to agriculture, may ultimately be significant threats. Preserves should emphasize the inclusion of conifers (even in portions of the breeding range where the forest is largely deciduous) and tall vegetation.
Species Impacts: An important predator of spruce budworms, it can (with other canopy-feeding species) suppress an early increase in budworm numbers and help protect spruce and fir forests. However, once budworm populations pass a threshold, birds no longer limit increases (Crawford and Jennings 1989).
Restoration Potential: Generally good, except in managed forests where harvest cycles are short and natural communities are replaced with pine monocultures. As noted, the most serious threats may come on wintering areas.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Preserves in most regions should incorporate at least some conifers; nesting densities increase with increased percentage of conifers (Morse 1976 and 1977). Territories range from 0.4 to 1.1 hectare depending on habitat quality, and even islands of less than 1 hectare support birds if enough tall vegetation is present (see citations in Morse 1994).

In wintering areas, preserves should also emphasize dense, undisturbed forests. Native tree species rather than introduced species should be included. There is also some suggestion that larger forest fragments may be preferred (De La Zerda Lerner and Stauffer 1998).

Management Requirements: Webb et al. (1977) describe this as "truly [a] species of the undisturbed forest," and it is therefore more sensitive to logging than most species. Timber harvest tends to decrease or eliminate breeding populations. In a comparative study in northern New Hampshire, birds were more abundant in mature forest, significantly less abundant in shelterwood cuts, and significantly least abundant in clearcuts. Changes in vegetation structure as a result of the different treatments appear to be responsible for the differences (King and DeGraaf, in press). Populations were also negatively correlated with logging intensity in the Adirondacks of New York (Webb et al. 1977).

Current silvicultural practices in many areas do not favor development or retention of suitable breeding habitat. In Upper Michigan, accelerated harvest schedules prevent the development of mature mesic conifers (pine, hemlock, white spruce, balsam fir), and the high level of mechanization used in logging for pulpwood kills much of the advanced coniferous growth, preventing it from dominating mixed hardwood-conifer stands and producing good habitat (Doepker et al. 1992). Retention of buffer strips around lakes and along riparian corridors as currently practiced appears to be inadequate; reduced warbler numbers were found in buffer strips as compared to controls in two separate studies (Johnson and Brown 1990, Meiklejohn and Hughes 1999).

Management of breeding populations should favor the preservation of old-growth conifers where possible. In forests managed for timber production, there must be longer rotation schedules to permit the development of taller trees. In mixed hardwood-conifer stands, management should include (1) longer rotation schedules, (2)leaving a residual canopy to reduce competition from hardwood sprouts, (3) leaving conifer seed-trees, and (4) using site preparation techniques which favor the establishment of conifer seedlings (see citations in Doepker et al. 1992).

Management of wintering populations should also place a priority on the preservation of mature, undisturbed forest (Petit et al. 1995, De La Zerda Lerner and Stauffer 1998).

Monitoring Requirements: On breeding areas, can be sampled using point-count methods, although roadside surveys may be somewhat unreliable because of the warbler's forest-interior habits. Verification of nesting success may be complicated by the height and inaccessibility of the nests.
Management Research Needs: Nesting biology has been inadequately determined and needs greater study (Morse 1994). More study needs to be done of distribution, habitat use and social behavior during winter in order to maintain wintering populations in the face of the loss of tropical broad-leafed forests.
Biological Research Needs: Morse (1994) mentions that regional variations in morphology might be explored, but also suggests that these variations may be slight.
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: 29Dec1999
Management Information Edition Author: CATLIN, D.; REVISIONS BY M. KOENEN AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: David I. King of the University of Massachusetts kindly provided a draft of a paper still in preparation. Steven Faccio of the Vermont Institute of Natural Science sent detailed information about the Vermont Forest Bird Monitoring Program. Chris Haney of The Wilderness Society steered the author to some recently published materials. The author also thanks Jane Fitzgerald of Partners in Flight, John Sauer of the U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Matthew Rowe of Appalachian State University, and Giff Beaton and Bo Brown for answering questions and providing useful suggestions. 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: 29Dec1999
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): CATLIN, D., AND G. HAMMERSON

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

References
Help
  • Adams, D. A. and J. S. Hammond. 1991. Changes in forest vegetation, bird, and small mammal populations at Mount Mitchell, North Carolina--1959/62 and 1985. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 107:3-12.

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

  • Allen, 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). 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. 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.

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

  • BREEDING BIRD ATLAS. MARYLAND AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 1982-1987.

  • BUCKELEW, A. AND G. HALL. 1994. WV BREEDING BIRD ATLAS. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PRESS.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • Catlin, D., M. Koenen, and D.W. Mehlman. 1999. Species Management Abstract for Blackburnion Warbler (Dendroica fusca). The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Unpaginated.

  • Chipley, R. M. 1980. Nonbreeding ecology of the blackburnian warbler. Pages 309-317 in B80KEA02NA.

  • Crawford, H. S., and D. T. Jennings. 1989. Predation by birds on spruce budworm CHORISTONEURA FUMIFERANA: functional, numerical, and total responses. Ecology 70:152-163.

  • DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1994. HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATIONS. WV DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CHARLESTON, WV.

  • De La Zerda Lerner, S., and D.F. Stauffer. 1998. Habitat selection by Blackburnian Warblers wintering in Colombia. Journal of Field Ornithology 69(3):457-465.

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

  • Diamond, A. W. 1991. Assessment of the risks from tropical deforestation to Canadian songbirds. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:177-194.

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

  • Doepker, R. V., R. D. Earle, and J. J. Ozoga. 1992. Characteristics of blackburnian warbler, DENDROICA FUSCA, breeding habitat in upper Michigan. Can. Field-Nat. 106:366-371.

  • 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.

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

  • Faccio, S.D., C.C. Rimmer, and K.P. McFarland. 1997. Monitoring forest bird populations in Vermont: results of the Vermont forest bird monitoring program, 1989-1996. Report of the Vermont Institute of Natural Science, Woodstock, VT.

  • Faccio, S.D., C.C. Rimmer, and K.P. McFarland. 1998. Results of the Vermont Forest Bird Monitoring Program. Northeastern Naturalist 5:293-312.

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

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

  • HALL, G. 1983. BIRDS OF WV. CARNEGIE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.

  • HILL, N.P., AND J.M. HAGAN, III. 1991. POPULATION TRENDS OF SOME NORTHEASTERN NORTH AMERICAN LANDBIRDS: A HALF-CENTURY OF DATA. WILSON BULL. 103(2): 165-182.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Johnson, W. N. and P. W. Brown. 1990. Avian use of a lakeshore buffer strip and an undisturbed lakeshore in Maine. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 7:114-117.

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

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

  • King, D. I., and R. M. DeGraaf. In press. Bird species diversity and nesting success in mature, clearcut and shelterwood forest in northern New Hampshire, USA.

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

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

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

  • Meiklejohn, B. A. and J. W. Hughes. 1999. Bird communities in riparian buffer strips of industrial forests. American Midland Naturalist 141:172-184.

  • 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.

  • Morse, D. H. 1971. The foraging of warblers isolated on small islands. Ecology 52: 216-228.

  • Morse, D. H. 1976. Variables affecting the density and territory size of breeding spruce-woods warblers. Ecology 57:290-301.

  • Morse, D. H. 1977. The occupation of small islands by passerine birds. Condor 79:399-412.

  • Morse, D.H. 1994. Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 102. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • Morse, D.H. 1994. Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 102. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1984. Preliminary species distribution maps, 1980-1984. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Patten, M. A. and J. C. Burger. 1988. Spruce budworm outbreaks and the incidence of vagrancy in eastern North American wood-warblers. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:433-439.

  • Peterjohn, B. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Orsillo. 1995. Breeding bird survey: population trends 1966-1992. Pages 14-21 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our Living Resources. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

  • 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.

  • 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., 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.

  • 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.

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

  • See SERO listing

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

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

  • Stewart, R. E. and J. W. Aldrich. 1951. Ecological studies of breeding bird populations in northern Maine. Ecology 33:226-238.

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

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

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

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

  • Webb, W.L., D.F. Behrend, and B. Saisorn. 1977. Effect of logging on songbird populations in a northern hardwood forest. Wildlife Monographs 55.

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

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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