Sterna hirundo - Linnaeus, 1758
Common Tern
Other English Common Names: common tern
Other Common Names: Trinta-Réis-Boreal
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Sterna hirundo Linnaeus, 1758 (TSN 176888)
French Common Names: sterne pierregarin
Spanish Common Names: Charrán Común, Gaviotín Golondrina
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101840
Element Code: ABNNM08070
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Other Birds
Image 7210

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Laridae Sterna
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 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: Sterna hirundo
Taxonomic Comments: Zink et al. (1995) found that populations on Asian and North American sides of Beringia exhibited a level of mtDNA differentiation intermediate between populations and species; however, sample sizes were small and no formal taxonomic change was recommended. Regional breeding populations in western Great Lakes area are not differentiated genetically into subpopulations. Very rarely hybridizes with roseate tern (e.g., see Zingo et al., 1994, Connecticut Warbler 14(2):50-55).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 27Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,NUN,N5M (08Jan2018)

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 (S1B,S4N), Alaska (S2M), Arizona (S3M), Arkansas (S2N), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S3B), Delaware (S1B), District of Columbia (S1S2N), Florida (SNR), Georgia (SNRN), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (S1), Indiana (SXB), Iowa (S2B,S3N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (S1B,S3N), Maine (S4B), Maryland (S1B), Massachusetts (S3B,S4N), Michigan (S2), Minnesota (S2B), Mississippi (S1B), Montana (S3B), Navajo Nation (S3M), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (S2B), New Jersey (S3B,S4N), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S3B), North Carolina (S2B), North Dakota (SU), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S1N), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SXB), Rhode Island (S3B), South Carolina (S3?B), South Dakota (S2B), Tennessee (S3N), Texas (S1B,S3N), Utah (SNA), Vermont (S1B), Virginia (S3B), Washington (S4N), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (S1B,S2N), Wyoming (S1)
Canada Alberta (S4), British Columbia (S4M), Labrador (S4B,SUM), Manitoba (S4S5B), New Brunswick (S3B,SUM), Newfoundland Island (S4B,SUM), Northwest Territories (S4B), Nova Scotia (S3B), Nunavut (SUB,SUM), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (S1B), Quebec (S4B), Saskatchewan (S5B,S5M)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (01Apr1998)
Comments on COSEWIC: This species is widespread and fairly common across its range in Canada with an overall population estimated to be 50,000-100,000 breeding pairs. The species is thought to be declining in some regions, such as Atlantic Canada and the Lower Great Lakes, due to competition and predation by gulls, human disturbance and other limiting factors.

Designated Not at Risk in April 1998.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: northern Alberta across central Ontario and southern Quebec to southern Labrador, south to eastern Washington, southeastern Alberta, northeastern Montana, North Dakota, northeastern South Dakota, central Minnesota, northeastern Illinois, northwestern Indiana, southern Michigan, northern Ohio, northwestern Pennsylvania, central and northern New York, and northwestern Vermont, locally along coast to North Carolina, and locally on Gulf Coast and Bermuda, Greater Antilles, and Netherlands Antilles (AOU 1983, van Halewyn and Norton 1984). In Old World. Nonbreeders occur in summer at James Bay, throughout Great Lakes region, along Atlantic-Gulf coast, south in Middle America to Costa Rica, and throughout West Indies. NON-BREEDING: Baja California and South Carolina to Peru and northern Argentina (AOU 1983); rare in Hawaii. In Old World.

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Breeding population estimates for the early 1980s: 15,200 in Massachusetts, 5800 in Connecticut, 56,000 on Long Island, 4500 in North Carolina, a few dozen on Gulf Coast. Breeding population estimates for the late 1970s: Great Lakes, about 5000 in the U.S., 16,000 in Canada; New Jersey, 9600.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Populations initially were decimated by the millinery trade. Major current threats in different areas include nest-site competition from expanding ring-billed gull populations (Great Lakes region); predation by owls, black-crowned night heron, rats, or herring gull; loss of beach habitat; flooding and rising water levels (Great Lakes region); human disturbance; and possibly biocide contamination (Buckley and Buckley 1984).

Short-term Trend Comments: Most colonies in eastern Canada are declining, though significant increases have occurred recently in other areas (Hyslop and Kennedy 1992). See Spendelow and Patton (1988) and Buckley and Buckley (1984) for further details. St. Lawrence River population increased by 13% between 1982 and 1990 (Chapdelaine and Brousseau 1992, Karwowski et al. 1995). Local populations sometimes may increase, in spite of low productivity and interactions with gulls, due to immigration from other (disturbed) colonies (Howes and Montevecchi 1993).

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: In northwestern Europe, appears to have declined in many areas in 1800s, then increased, at least locally, with protection (Evans 1984).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: northern Alberta across central Ontario and southern Quebec to southern Labrador, south to eastern Washington, southeastern Alberta, northeastern Montana, North Dakota, northeastern South Dakota, central Minnesota, northeastern Illinois, northwestern Indiana, southern Michigan, northern Ohio, northwestern Pennsylvania, central and northern New York, and northwestern Vermont, locally along coast to North Carolina, and locally on Gulf Coast and Bermuda, Greater Antilles, and Netherlands Antilles (AOU 1983, van Halewyn and Norton 1984). In Old World. Nonbreeders occur in summer at James Bay, throughout Great Lakes region, along Atlantic-Gulf coast, south in Middle America to Costa Rica, and throughout West Indies. NON-BREEDING: Baja California and South Carolina to Peru and northern Argentina (AOU 1983); rare in Hawaii. In Old World.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Mobile (01097)
CT Fairfield (09001), Middlesex (09007), New Haven (09009), New London (09011)
DE Sussex (10005)
ID Ada (16001), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Boundary (16021), Cassia (16031), Fremont (16043), Nez Perce (16069), Power (16077)
IL Lake (17097)
IN Huntington (18069)*, Wabash (18169)*
MA Barnstable (25001), Bristol (25005), Dukes (25007), Essex (25009), Middlesex (25017), Nantucket (25019), Plymouth (25023), Suffolk (25025)
MI Alpena (26007), Arenac (26011), Bay (26017), Charlevoix (26029), Cheboygan (26031)*, Chippewa (26033), Delta (26041), Emmet (26047)*, Huron (26063), Mackinac (26097), Macomb (26099)*, Midland (26111), Monroe (26115)*, Presque Isle (26141)*, Schoolcraft (26153)*, St. Clair (26147), Tuscola (26157)*, Wayne (26163)
MN Becker (27005), Beltrami (27007), Cass (27021), Lake of the Woods (27077), Mille Lacs (27095), St. Louis (27137), Wright (27171)*
MS Harrison (28047), Jackson (28059)
MT Blaine (30005), Broadwater (30007), Cascade (30013), Chouteau (30015), Daniels (30019), Flathead (30029), Hill (30041), Lake (30047), McCone (30055), Petroleum (30069), Phillips (30071), Roosevelt (30085), Sheridan (30091), Teton (30099), Valley (30105)
NC Brunswick (37019)*, Carteret (37031), Dare (37055), Hyde (37095), New Hanover (37129), Onslow (37133), Pamlico (37137)*, Pender (37141)
ND Benson (38005), Bottineau (38009), Burke (38013), Burleigh (38015), Kidder (38043), McHenry (38049), McLean (38055), Mountrail (38061), Ramsey (38071), Renville (38075), Rolette (38079), Sheridan (38083), Stutsman (38093)
NH Rockingham (33015), Strafford (33017)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Cape May (34009), Monmouth (34025), Ocean (34029)
NY Erie (36029), Jefferson (36045), Kings (36047), Madison (36053), Nassau (36059), New York (36061), Niagara (36063), Oswego (36075), Queens (36081), Seneca (36099), St. Lawrence (36089), Suffolk (36103), Westchester (36119)
OH Erie (39043), Lucas (39095), Ottawa (39123)
PA Erie (42049)*
SD Bennett (46007), Brookings (46011)*, Butte (46019), Clark (46025), Day (46037), Dewey (46041), Hamlin (46057)*, Kingsbury (46077)*, Marshall (46091), McPherson (46089), Roberts (46109), Stanley (46117), Sully (46119)
VT Franklin (50011), Grand Isle (50013)
WI Ashland (55003), Bayfield (55007), Brown (55009), Door (55029), Douglas (55031), Fond Du Lac (55039), Marinette (55075)*, Milwaukee (55079), Oconto (55083), Winnebago (55139)
WY Albany (56001), Big Horn (56003), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Fremont (56013), Goshen (56015), Lincoln (56023), Sweetwater (56037), Teton (56039)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+, Merrimack (01070002)+, Charles (01090001)+, Cape Cod (01090002)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+
02 Bronx (02030102)+, Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+, Northern Long Island (02030201)+, Southern Long Island (02030202)+, Long Island Sound (02030203)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+
03 Albemarle (03010205)+, Pamlico Sound (03020105)+, Lower Neuse (03020204)+, White Oak River (03020301)+, New River (03020302)+, Lower Cape Fear (03030005)+, Mobile Bay (03160205)+, Pascagoula (03170006)+*, Mississippi Coastal (03170009)+
04 Beaver-Lester (04010102)+, St. Louis (04010201)+, Cloquet (04010202)+, Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Lake Superior (04020300)+, Duck-Pensaukee (04030103)+, Oconto (04030104)+, Peshtigo (04030105)+*, Tacoosh-Whitefish (04030111)+, Fishdam-Sturgeon (04030112)+, Upper Fox (04030201)+, Lake Winnebago (04030203)+, Lower Fox (04030204)+, Pike-Root (04040002)+, Milwaukee (04040003)+, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+*, Brevoort-Millecoquins (04060107)+, Lake Michigan (04060200)+, St. Marys (04070001)+, Carp-Pine (04070002)+, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+*, Thunder Bay (04070006)+*, Pigeon-Wiscoggin (04080103)+*, Tittabawassee (04080201)+, Saginaw (04080206)+*, Lake Huron (04080300)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+*, Cedar-Portage (04100010)+, Sandusky (04100011)+, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+, Niagara (04120104)+, Lake Erie (04120200)+*, Salmon-Sandy (04140102)+, Seneca (04140201)+, Oneida (04140202)+, Chaumont-Perch (04150102)+, Upper St. Lawrence (04150301)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Upper Wabash (05120101)+*, Salamonie (05120102)+*
07 Leech Lake (07010102)+, Clearwater-Elk (07010203)+*, Rum (07010207)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+*
09 Des Lacs (09010002)+, Lower Souris (09010003)+, Willow (09010004)+, Deep (09010005)+, Moose Mountain Creek-Souris River (09010008)+, Otter Tail (09020103)+, Devils Lake (09020201)+, Red Lakes (09020302)+, Rainy Headwaters (09030001)+, Vermilion (09030002)+, Lake of the Woods (09030009)+
10 Upper Missouri (10030101)+, Upper Missouri-Dearborn (10030102)+, Teton (10030205)+, Box Elder (10040204)+, Middle Milk (10050004)+, Whitewater (10050011)+, Lower Milk (10050012)+, Beaver (10050014)+, Porcupine (10050016)+, Prarie Elk-Wolf (10060001)+, Big Muddy (10060006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Greybull (10080009)+, Lake Sakakawea (10110101)+, Antelope (10120101)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)+, Painted Woods-Square Butte (10130101)+, Apple (10130103)+, Lower Lake Oahe (10130105)+, West Missouri Coteau (10130106)+, Little White (10140203)+, Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Upper James (10160003)+, Middle Big Sioux Coteau (10170201)+, Upper Big Sioux (10170202)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Horse (10180012)+
14 Blacks Fork (14040107)+, Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, Lower Flathead (17010212)+, Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small sea bird (tern).
Reproduction Comments: Eggs are laid mostly May-July. Clutch size is 2-3. Incubation lasts 21-27 days, mainly by female. Both sexes tend young, which may leave nest after 3 days (return for brooding) and first fly at about 4 weeks. May lay 2 clutches/year, but second brood rarely fledges. In New York, breeding season was timed to overlap with seasonal increase in food abundance, but food availability began to decline before period of peak demand for food by chicks (Safina and Burger 1988); in a two-year study, fish abundance affected reproductive performance (Safina et al. 1988).
Ecology Comments: In Massachusetts, loss of eggs and chicks was attributed to nocturnal desertion of nests by adults in response to predation by great horned owl (Nisbet and Welton 1984). Presence of mink can reduce reproductive success (Condor 95:708-711). Nonbreeding: singly or in small loose groups, sometimes in large flocks in migration (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Arrives in breeding areas April-May (Bent 1921). Migration in Costa Rica occurs late September to mid-November and April-May (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Marine Habitat(s): Near shore
Estuarine Habitat(s): Bay/sound, Herbaceous wetland, Lagoon, River mouth/tidal river, Tidal flat/shore
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVER
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Sand/dune
Habitat Comments: Seacoasts, estuaries, bays, lakes, rivers, and marshes. Nests on sandy, pebbly, or stony beaches, matted vegetation, marsh islands, and grassy areas; typically on isolated, sparsely vegetated islands in large lakes or along coast, also in rivers. Breeds successfully on human-made islands, including navigational aids or cribs (Karwowski et al. 1995). See Spendelow and Patton (1988) and Ramos and del Nevo (1995) for further details on nesting habitat in different regions.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Food Comments: Eats mainly small fishes (sometimes also crustaceans and insects) obtained at surface of water by diving from air. Susceptible (especially females just prior to laying) to poisoning from dinoflagellate toxin accumulated in fishes (Nisbet 1983). Pair may defend feeding territory away from nest, especially prior to incubation (Ehrlich et al. 1992).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 37 centimeters
Weight: 120 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Gull control has benefited this species in Maine (Buckley and Buckley 1984). See Minsky (1981) for discussion of tern management on Cape Cod.
Monitoring Requirements: See Morris and Burness (1992) for information on a procedure for attaching a radio transmitter to a USFWS leg band (did not adversely affect parental behavior).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Gulls and Terns

Use Class: Adult foraging area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Applies to both adults and juveniles. Evidence of one or more individuals seeking food in suitable habitat. Evidence of prey capture is not a prerequisite, as importance of a given location for foraging may vary temporally with shifting prey.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Scientific basis for assigning foraging separation distances is weak because terns are widespread across the Massachusetts coast and highly mobile. Most gaps in foraging observations likely reflect lack of survey effort.
Date: 10Jan2017
Author: Mostello, C. S.

Use Class: Breeding
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.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Occurrences include nesting areas and associated nesting-season foraging areas (regardless of how far apart they are), but separation distance pertains to nesting areas (breeding colonies). Thus different breeding occurrences may overlap if birds from different nesting areas forage in the same area. Separation distance is not intended to delineate demographically independent populations or metapopulations (such units would be quite large). Instead, separation distance is a compromise between the high mobility of these birds (see following) and the need for occurrences that are of practical size for conservation/management use.

California Gulls foraged an average of 17.4 kilometers from colony (Baird 1976); maximum foraging distances ranged from 32 to 61 kilometers (Rothweiler 1960, Baird 1976). Ring-billed Gulls foraged an average of 11 km from colony (Baird 1977). Least Terns foraged up to 3-12 kilometers from nests (summarized in Thompson et al. 1997). Forster's Terns has a reported feeding radius of 3.2 kilometers (Van Rossem 1932). Black Terns foraged up to 10 kilometers from nests, over continuous suitable but unoccupied habitat (M. A. Stern, pers. comm. 1998). Caspian terns in a colony at the mouth of the Columbia River: 90% of adults foraged within 21 kilometers (Collis et al. 1999).

Date: 21Jul2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 50 birds in appropriate habitat. Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set such that occurrences are of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences are defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 26Apr2004

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Concentration Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat. Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set such that occurrences are of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences are defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 16Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.
Notes: Includes all inland-nesting gulls and terns, in the genera LARUS, STERNA, and CHLIDONIAS.

Use Class: Staging
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of flocks resting, roosting, and/or feeding young at a given location prior to breeding or after breeding has been completed. Staging may occur near the breeding site, preceding or following major migratory movements such as oceanic crossings, or it may occur after individuals have departed on migration, but before they have arrived at their final destination (a "stopover"). Staging may occur at sites also used for breeding, but often does not. Staging habitat may be ephemeral. For Common/Roseate Terns in Massachusetts, a minimum of 100 individuals in appropriate habitat is used.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: In Massachusetts, staging areas are separated somewhat arbitrarily, often by jurisdictional or property boundaries, as are nesting areas for coastal birds.
Date: 10Jan2017
Author: Mostello, C. S.
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: 30Apr1996
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 30Apr1996
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

References
Help
  • Alabama Breeding Bird Atlas 2000-2006 Homepage. 2009. T.M. Haggerty (editor), Alabama Ornithological Society. Available at http://www.una.edu/faculty/thaggerty/BBA%20website/Index.htm.

  • 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 ]

  • Alberico, J. A. R., J. M. Reed, and L. W. Oring. 1991. Nesting near a common tern colony increases and decreases spotted sandpiper nest predation. Auk 108:904-910.

  • 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/.

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

  • Andrle, Robert F. and Janet R. Carroll, editors. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell University Press. 551 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.

  • Baird, P. 1976. Comparative ecology of California and Ring-billed Gulls (Larus californicus and L. delawarensis.)Ph.D. dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula.

  • Baird, P. A. 1977. Feeding ecology of ring-billed and California gulls (Larus delawarensis and L. californicus). Pacific Seabird Bulletin 4:16-17.

  • Barcena, F., A. M. Teixeira, and Andres Bermejo. 1984. Breeding seabird populations in the Atlantic sector of the Iberian Peninsula. Pages 335-345 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Barrett, R. T., and W. Vader. 1990. The status and conservation of breeding seabirds in Norway. Pages 323-333 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Bent, A.C. 1921. Life histories of North American gulls and terns. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 113. Washington, D.C.

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

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

  • Blokpoel, H., G.D. Tessier, and R.A. Andress. 1997. Successful restoration of the Ice Island Common Tern colony requires on-going control of Ring-Billed Gulls. Colonial Waterbirds 20(1):98-101.

  • Blokpoel, H., P.M. Catling and G.T. Haymes. 1978. Relationship between nest sites of common terns and vegetation on the Eastern Headland, Toronto Outer Harbour. Can. J. Zool. 56: 2057-2061.

  • Blokpoel, H., and A. Harfenist. 1986. Comparison of 1980 and 1984 inventories of Common Tern, Caspian Tern and Double-crested Cormorant colonies in the Eastern North Channel, Lake Huron, Ontario, Canada. Colonial Waterbirds 9:61-67.

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

  • Bosanko, D., and J. H. Miller. 1990. 1990 Management common terns and ringed-billed gulls at Leech Lake, Cass County, Minnesota. Final report to the Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources, Nongame Research Program. Unpaged.

  • Bosanko, D., and J. H. Miller. 1990. 1990 Management plan for common terns and ringed-billed gulls at Leech Lake, Cass County, Minnesota. Research funded by the Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources, Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

  • 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.

  • Brown, R. G. B., and D. N. Nettleship. 1984. The seabirds of northeastern North America: their present status and conservation requirements. Pages 85-100 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Buckley, P. A., and F. G. Buckley. 1984. Seabirds of the north and middle Atlantic coast of the United States: their status and conservation. Pages 101-133 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Bugoni, L. and C. M. Vooren. 2004. Feeding ecology of the Common Tern Sterna hirundo in a wintering area in southern Brazil. Ibis 146:438-453.

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

  • Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. The common tern: its breeding biology and social behavior. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 413 pp.

  • Burness, G. P. and R. D. Morris. 1993. Direct and indirect consequences of mink presence in a common tern colony. Condor 95:708-711.

  • Burness, G. P., and R. D. Morris. 1992. Shelters decrease gull predation on chicks at a Common Tern colony. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:186-189.

  • Burns, K. J., and R. M. Zink. 1990. Temporal and geographic homogeneity of gene frequencies in the fox sparrow (PASSERELLA ILIACA). Auk 107:421-425.

  • Cardan, J. 1975. Success, Eggs Evaporate Water Loss, and Visual Cliff Behaviour of Chicks of Common Terns Nesting on Gull Islands, Presqu'ile Provincial Park, 1975. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa.

  • Casey, D. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan Montana Version 1.0. Montana Partners in Flight. Kalispell, Montana.

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

  • Chapdelaine, G., and P. Brousseau. 1992. Distribution, abundance, and changes of seabird populations of the Gaspe Peninsula, Quebec, 1979-1989. Can. field-Nat. 106:427-434.

  • Chardine, J.W. (ed). 1999. Overview of seabird status and conservation in Canada. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 7: 1-7.

  • Clapp, R. B., and P. A. Buckley. 1984. Status and conservation of seabirds in the southeastern United States. Pages 135-155 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Cooper, J., A. J. Williams, and P. L. Britton. 1984. Distribution, population sizes and conservation of breeding seabirds in the Afrotropical region. Pages 403-419 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Cordeiro, P. H. C., J. M. Flores, and J. L. X. Nascimento. 1996. Análise das recuperações de Sterna hirundo no Brasil entre 1980 e 1994. Ararajuba 4 (1).

  • Countney, T.A., and H. Blokpoel. 1983. Distribution and numbers of Common Terns on the Lower Great Lakes During 1900-1980: a review. Colonial Waterbirds 6:107-120.

  • Courtney, P. A., and H. Blokpoel. 1979. Food and indicators of food availability for Common Terns on the lower Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 58:1318-1323.

  • Courtney, P.A. and H. Blokpoel. 1980. Food and indicators of food availability for common terns on the lower Great Lakes. Can. J. Zool. 58: 1318-1323.

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

  • Davis, T. 1984. St. Louis River Estuary Colonial Bird Program 1984. Prepared for the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 23 pp.

  • Davis, T. 1986. St. Louis River Estuary Colonial Bird Program 1986. Prepared for the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 16 pp.

  • Davis, Tom. 1983-1988. St. Louis River Estuary Colonial Bird Program. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program; the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission and the Northwest Regional Planning Commission (Metropolitan Interstate Committee). Results in unpublished report.

  • 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.

  • Dunlop, C. L., H. Blokpoel, and S. Jarvie. 1991. Nesting rafts as a management tool for a declining Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) colony. Colonial Waterbirds 14:116-120.

  • Dunlop, C.L., H. Blokpoel, and S. Jarvie. 1991. Nesting rafts as a management tool for a declining Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) colony. Colonial Waterbirds 14(2):116-120.

  • 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.

  • Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.

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

  • Erwin, R. M. 1980. Breeding habitat used by colonially nesting waterbirds in two mid-Atlantic US regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biol. Conserv. 18: 39-51.

  • Evans, P. G. H. 1984b. Status and conservation of seabirds in northwest Europe (excluding Norways and the USSR). Pages 293-321 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Evers, D. C. 1992. A guide to Michigan's endangered wildlife. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. viii + 103 pp.

  • Feigley, H. P. 1997. Colonial nesting bird survey on the Bureau of Land Management Lewistown District: 1996. Unpublished report to the Bureau of Land Management. 23pp. plus appendix.

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

  • Gaston, A. J. 1992. Monitoring studies of marine birds in Canada. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 2: 2-5.

  • Gaston, A.J. 1996. Conservation issues and Canadian Wildlife Service priorities for marine birds. Canadian Wildlife Service. 32 pp.

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

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

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

  • Havelka, T. 2000. Colonial Waterbird Surveys. email to Colin Jones dated Jan. 13, 2000 - includes an incomplete table of # of nests and colonies on each of the Great Lakes. 5 pp.

  • Haymes, G.T., and H. Blokpoel. 1978. Reproductive success of larids nesting on the eastern headland of the Toronto outer harbour in 1977. Ontario Field Biologist 32(2):1-17.

  • Hays, H. 1984. Common terns raise young from successive broods. Auk 101:274-280.

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

  • Howes, L.-A., and W. A. Montevecchi. 1993. Population trends and interactions among terns and gulls in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland. Can. J. Zool. 71:1516-1520.

  • Hyslop, C., and J. Kennedy, editors. 1992. Bird trends: a report on results of national ornithological surveys in Canada. Number 2, Autumn 1992. Migratory Birds Conservation Division, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 20 pp.

  • 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.

  • James, P. C. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Mediterranean region. Pages 371-375 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Jaramillo, A. 2003. Birds of Chile. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

  • Karwowski, K., J. E. Gates, and L. H. Harper. 1995. Common terns nesting on navigational aids and natural islands in the St. Lawrence River, New York. Wilson Bulletin 107:423-436.

  • 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

  • Le Grand, G., K. Emmerson, and A. Martin. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Macaronesian Islands. Pages 377-391 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Lemmetyinen, R. 1976. Feeding segregation in the Arctic and Common Terns in southern Finland. The Auk, Vol. 93, No. 3: 636-640.

  • Levine, E. 1998. Bull's birds of New York State. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.

  • Mauco, L. and M. Favero. 2004. Diet of the Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) during the nonbreeding season in Mar Chiquita Lagoon, Buenas Aires, Argentina. Ornitologia Neotropical 15:121-132.

  • Maxson, S. J., S. A. Mortensen, D. L. Goodermote, C. S. Lapp. 1996. Success and failure of Ring-billed Gull deterrents at Common Tern and Piping Plover colonies in Minnesota. Colonial Waterbirds 19:242-247.

  • McAtee W.L. 1959. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. 74 pages.

  • McGowan, K.J. and K. Corwin, eds. 2008. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State: 2000-2005. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 688 pp.

  • McKearnan, J. E. 1986. Status and breeding success of Common Terns in Minnesota. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. 53 pp.

  • McKearnan, J. E., and F. J. Cuthbert. 1989. Status and breeding success of common terns in Minnesota. Colonial Waterbirds 12:185-190.

  • McKearnan, Joan E., and Francesca J. Cuthbert. 1984. Status and Breeding Success of Common Terns in Minnesota. Funded by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Results in unpublished report.

  • Melville, D. S. 1984. Seabirds of China and the surrounding seas. Pages 501-511 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.

  • Miller, J. H., and D. Bosanko. 1989. Status and reproductive success in 1988 of common terns and ring-billed gulls at Leech Lake, Cass County, Minnesota. A final report submitted to: Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 12 pp.

  • Miller, J. H., and D. M. Bosanko. 1989. New common tern colony in 1989, Little Pelican Island, Leech Lake, Minnesota. Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR.

  • Miller, Jacob H. 1976-1988. Population Trends and Factors Influencing Breeding Success of the Leech Lake Larid Breeding Colony. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program and the University of Minnesota. Unpublished. Thesis.

  • Miller, Jacob H. 1988-1989. Status and Reproductive Success in in 1988 of Common Terns and Ring-billed Gulls at Leech Lake, Cass County, Minnesota. Funded by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

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

  • Minsky, D. 1981. The terns of Cape Cod. The Associaiton for the Preservation of Cape Cod, Informational Bull. No. 9. 34 pp.

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

  • Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P.D. Skaar's Montana Bird Distribution, fifth edition. Montana Natural Heritage Program Special Publication No. 3.

  • Montana Bird Distribution Online Database. 2001. Helena, Montana, USA. April-September 2003. http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/mbd/.

  • Morris, R. D., and G. P. Burness. 1992. A new procedure for transmitter attachment: effects on brood attendance and chick feeding rates by male common terns. Condor 94:239-243.

  • Morris, R.D. 1976. Demography and Management of the Gull Island Common Tern Colony (Presqu'ile Provincial Park) During the Summer of 1976. OMNR, Napanee District, Napanee.

  • Morris, R.D., I.R. Kirkham and J.W. Chardine. 1980. Management of a Declining Common Tern Colony. Journal of Wildlife Management 44(1): 241-245.

  • Morris, R.D., R.A. Hunter and J.F. McElman. 1976. Factors affecting the reproductive success of common tern (Sterna hirundo) colonies on the lower Great Lakes during the summer of 1972. Can. J. Zool. 54: 1850-1862.

  • Narosky, T. and D. Yzurieta. 2003. Birds of Argentina and Uruguay. Asociación Ornitológica del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

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

  • Nettleship, D.N. 1997. Ecosystem disturbance and seabirds in crisis: Eastern and Atlantic Canada. Ecosystem disturbance and seabirds in crisis: Eastern and Atlantic Canada. Pp. 54-76 IN P.J. Ewins and K. Ferguson, editors. Proceedings of the World Wildlife Fund Atlantic Canada Workshop on Recovery of Species at Risk. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto.

  • 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.

  • Nisbet, I. C. T. 1975. Selective effects of predation in a Tern colony. Condor 77:221-226.

  • Nisbet, I. C. T. 1983. Paralytic shellfish poisoning: effects on breeding terns. Condor 85:338-345.

  • Nisbet, I. C. T., and M. J. Welton. 1984. Seasonal variations in breeding success of common terns: consequencesof predation. Condor 86:53-60.

  • Nisbet, I.C.T. 2002. Common Tern (Sterna hirundo). In Birds of North America, No. 618 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • Nisbet, Ian C.T. 2002. Common Tern. The Birds of North America. Vol. 16, No. 618: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Palmer, R. S. 1941. A behavior study of the common tern. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 42. 119 pp.

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

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

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 2000. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution Volume 1: Nonpasserines (Additions and Revisions). Ontario Birds 17(3): 105-123.

  • Penning, W. L. 1993. The common tern (Sterna hirundo) in western Lake Superior: history, management, and population modeling. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota. 59 pp.

  • Penning, W. L., F. J. Cuthbert. 1993. The history of colonial waterbird management in the Duluth-Superior Harbor, 1937-1990. Loon 65:163-174, Winter 1993.

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

  • Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds - East of the Rockies.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Ramos, J. A., and A. J. del Nevo. 1995. Nest-site selection by roseate terns and common terns in the Azores. Auk 112:580-589.

  • Reed, J. M., L. W. Oring, and J. A. Alberico. 1991. Common Terns at Minnesota's largest colony: breeding site shift, population decline, and reproductive success. Loon 63:12-16, Spring 1991.

  • Reichel, J. D. 1996. Preliminary colonial nesting bird survey of the Bureau of Land Management Lewistown District: 1995. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 97 pp.

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

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

  • Rothweiler, R. A. 1960. Food habits, movements, and nesting of gulls, Freezout Lake, Teton County, Montana. Montana Fish and Game Department, Helena. Paper No. 494. 26pp.

  • Safina, C. and J. Burger. 1985. Common tern foraging: Seasonal trends in prey fish densities and competition with bluefish. Ecology 66:1457-1463.

  • Safina, C., and J. Burger. 1988. Prey dynamics and the breeding phenology of common terns (STERNA HIRUNDO). Auk 105:720-726.

  • Safina, C., et al. 1988. Evidence for prey limitation of common and roseate tern reproduction. Condor 90:852-859.

  • See SERO listing

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

  • Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.

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

  • Smith, Gerald A. 1985. A selected and annotated bibliography for use in management of the common tern (Sterna hirundo). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Delmar, NY. 44 pp.

  • Sommers, Laura and Michelle L. Alfieri. 1998. 1997 Long Island Colonial waterbird and piping plover survey. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Nongame and Habitat Unit. Delmar, NY and Region 1, Stony Brook, NY.

  • Spendelow, J. A. and S. R. Patton. 1988. National Atlas of Coastal Waterbird Colonies in the Contiguous United States: 1976-1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(5). x + 326 pp.

  • 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.

  • Switzer, B., V. Lewin and F.H. Wolfe. 1971. Shell thickness, DDE levels in eggs, and reproductive success in common terns (Sterna hirundo), in Alberta. Can. J. Zool. 49: 69-73.

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

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

  • Thompson, B. C., J. A. Jackson, J. Burger, L. A. Hill, E. M. Kirsch, and J. L. Atwood. 1997. Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 290. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 32 pp.

  • Van Rossem, A. J. 1933. Terns as destroyers of birds' eggs. Condor 35:49-51.

  • Vermeer, K. 1973. Comparison of food habits and mercury residues of Caspian and Common Terns. Can. Field-Nat. 87(3): 305.

  • Wiggins, D. A., et al. 1984. Occurrence and timing of second clutches in common terns. Auk 101:281-284.

  • Zingo, J.M., C.A. Church and J.A. Spendelow. 1994. Two hybrid Common x Roseate Terns fledged at Falkner Island, Connecticut. Connecticut Warbler 14(2): 50-55.

  • Zink, R. M., S. Rohwer, A. V. Andreev, and D. L. Dittman. 1995. Trans-Beringia comparisons of mitochondrial DNA differentiation in birds. Condor 97:639-649.

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

  • van Halewyn, R., and R. L. Norton. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Caribbean. Pages 169-222 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2

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.