Strix varia - Barton, 1799
Barred Owl
Other English Common Names: barred owl
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Strix varia Barton, 1799 (TSN 177921)
French Common Names: chouette rayée
Spanish Common Names: Buho Listado
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103621
Element Code: ABNSB12020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Other Birds
Image 7529

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Strigiformes Strigidae Strix
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: Strix varia
Taxonomic Comments: Known to hybridize with S. occidentalis (AOU 1998). Considered conspecific with S. fulvescens of Middle America by some authors (AOU 1983).
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: N5 (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (02Jan2018)

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 (S5), Alaska (S3S4), Arkansas (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S2S3), District of Columbia (S2), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S4), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S5B), Kansas (S5), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S5), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (SNR), Montana (S4), Nebraska (S2), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S2B,S2N), New York (S5), North Carolina (S4), North Dakota (SU), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4S5), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (S4B,S4N), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SU), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5B), Vermont (S4), Virginia (S5), Washington (S5), West Virginia (S5B,S5N), Wisconsin (S4B)
Canada Alberta (S3S4), British Columbia (S5B), Labrador (SNR), Manitoba (S4), New Brunswick (S5), Northwest Territories (SU), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S5), Quebec (S4), Saskatchewan (S3), Yukon Territory (SU)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix II

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: RESIDENT from southeastern Alaska (possibly), British Columbia (Dunbar et al. 1991), western Washington, eastern Oregon (probably), and northeastern California east through northern Idaho, northwestern Montana, central Alberta, and central Saskatchewan, and from southern Manitoba east to southern Quebec and Nova Scotia, and south to southern Texas, Gulf Coast and southern Florida, west to eastern Great Plains woodlands; also in central Mexico. Map in Allen (1987) shows range extending north to extreme southeastern Yukon and extreme southwestern Northwest Territories, and does not include southeastern Alaska. Range has expanded into Pacific Northwest in last few decades (e.g., see Sharp 1989); now common in forested areas in southwestern British Columbia and northern Washington and rapidly increasing in Oregon and northern California (see Hamer et al. 1994). Range expansion apparently associated with conversion of pure coniferous forest to mixed deciduous-coniferous forest as a result of lumbering (see Allen 1987).

Population Size Comments: Guesstimated number of breeding pairs in Canada in the early 1990s was 10,000-50,000 (Kirk et al. 1995).

Short-term Trend Comments: Trend in Canada was reported as "?stable or increasing" by Kirk et al. (1995).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: RESIDENT from southeastern Alaska (possibly), British Columbia (Dunbar et al. 1991), western Washington, eastern Oregon (probably), and northeastern California east through northern Idaho, northwestern Montana, central Alberta, and central Saskatchewan, and from southern Manitoba east to southern Quebec and Nova Scotia, and south to southern Texas, Gulf Coast and southern Florida, west to eastern Great Plains woodlands; also in central Mexico. Map in Allen (1987) shows range extending north to extreme southeastern Yukon and extreme southwestern Northwest Territories, and does not include southeastern Alaska. Range has expanded into Pacific Northwest in last few decades (e.g., see Sharp 1989); now common in forested areas in southwestern British Columbia and northern Washington and rapidly increasing in Oregon and northern California (see Hamer et al. 1994). Range expansion apparently associated with conversion of pure coniferous forest to mixed deciduous-coniferous forest as a result of lumbering (see Allen 1987).

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, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
DE Kent (10001), New Castle (10003), Sussex (10005)
ID Ada (16001), Adams (16003), Benewah (16009), Bonner (16017), Boundary (16021), Canyon (16027), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Idaho (16049), Kootenai (16055), Latah (16057), Madison (16065), Minidoka (16067), Nez Perce (16069), Shoshone (16079), Valley (16085), Washington (16087)
ND McHenry (38049)*, Morton (38059)*, Pembina (38067)*
NE Dixon (31051), Dodge (31053), Lancaster (31109), Nance (31125), Nemaha (31127), Otoe (31131), Platte (31141), Sarpy (31153), Saunders (31155), Seward (31159), Washington (31177)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Bergen (34003), Burlington (34005), Camden (34007), Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Essex (34013), Gloucester (34015), Hunterdon (34019), Mercer (34021), Monmouth (34025), Morris (34027), Ocean (34029), Passaic (34031), Salem (34033), Somerset (34035), Sussex (34037), Union (34039), Warren (34041)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+, Lower Delaware (02040202)+, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Choptank (02060005)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+
09 Lower Souris (09010003)+*, Lower Red (09020311)+*, Lower Pembina River (09020316)+*
10 Upper Lake Oahe (10130102)+*, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Salt (10200203)+, Loup (10210009)+, Lower Elkhorn (10220003)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, Little Nemaha (10240006)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, St. Joe (17010304)+, Upper Spokane (17010305)+, Teton (17040204)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Little Salmon (17060210)+, Lower Selway (17060302)+, Lochsa (17060303)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Upper North Fork Clearwater (17060307)+, Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird.
Reproduction Comments: Egg dates: late March-May in southern New England, late February-April in New Jersey, Illinois, and Iowa, January-March in Florida. Nesting peaks from early March to early May in Maryland (see Bushman and Therres 1988). Clutch size usually is 2-3. Incubation lasts 28-33 days. Young may leave nest at 4-5 weeks, fly at 6 weeks, may still receive some food from parents at 4 months.
Ecology Comments: Home range usually is less than 400 ha (but up to 760 ha) over 2-7 months in Minnesota, average 273 hectares; usually no overlap except in mated pair; boundaries generally are constant from year to year (Nicholls and Warner 1972). Annual home range averaged 282 hectares in Michigan (Elody and Sloan 1985) and 971 hectares in Saskatchewan (Mazur et al. 1998). Reported density: 0.03-1.0 pairs/sq km.

Expanding populations in Pacific Northwest could threaten spotted owl through competiton and/or hybridization (see Hamer et al. 1994).

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Northernmost populations partially migratory. None of 158 band recoveries in North America occurred more than 10 km from banding location (Johnson 1987).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Dense woodland and forest (coniferous or hardwood), swamps, wooded river valleys, cabbage palm-live oak hammocks; often in areas bordering streams, marshes, and meadows (AOU 1983), but also commonly in upland areas; habitat use reflects vegetation characteristics rather than proximity of water per se. Generally in expansive forested area with large mature and decadent trees that provide cavities suitable for security and nesting (Allen 1987). Appears to prefer older stands but uses earlier stages of forest succession if enough large trees or snags (or nest boxes) are present (Allen 1987). Often in forests with relatively open understory. Prefers canopy closure of 60% or greater. Often replaced by the great horned owl in fragmented open forests.

Nests in tree cavity, in abandoned nest of squirrel, crow, or hawk, or in top of hollow tree stub, usually at least 7-8 m above ground. Uses both living and dead trees. Trees with cavity suitable for nesting generally at least 51 cm DBH; habitat suitability index model assumes that a density of at least 2 stems of this diameter per 0.4 ha represents high quality habitat for reproduction; high quality reproductive habitat also indicated by canopy cover of overstory trees of 60% or more (Allen 1987). Nest sites typically used in successive years.

Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats mostly mice but also wide variety of other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates (Terres 1980). Small mammals such as MICROTUS, PEROMYSCUS, and BLARINA often comprise bulk of diet. In Mississippi, invertebrates (especially crayfishes) may be more important than small mammals (see Allen 1987). Little used habitats such as marshes and old fields may nevertheless be important as sources of prey organisms that immigrate into cover types favored by the owls (Allen 1987).
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Birds feeding young may also forage diurnally. Opportunistic foraging may occur at any time.
Length: 53 centimeters
Weight: 801 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Readily uses artificial nest boxes for nesting; see Johnson (1987) for specifications. Tolerates light selective cutting if suitable nest sites are available. Retention of actual or potential nest cavity trees may prevent owl population declines in intensively managed forests.
Monitoring Requirements: See Bosakowski (1987) for census methods. Broadcast or imitated vocalizations facilitate detection during surveys (Fuller and Mosher 1987; see also McGarigal and Fraser 1985).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Large Owls

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: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance based conservatively on larger home ranges (greater than 800 hectares). Home ranges generally well over 100 hectares, often over 500 hectares. Northern Hawk-Owl: average 372 hectares (Baekken et al. 1987). Great Horned Owl: average 483 hectares in Yukon (Rohner 1997), average about 106 hectares in Utah (Smith 1969). Barred Owl: average 273-971 hectares (Elody and Sloan 1985, Nicholls and Fuller 1987, Mazur et al. 1998). Great Gray Owl, varied from 239-400 hectares (Craighead and Craighead 1956, Winter 1982). Barn Owl: averages range from 198-921 hectares (Byrd 1982, Colvin 1984, Hegdal and Blaskiewicz 1984, Rosenburg 1986, Byrd and Johnston 1991, Gubanyi 1989).
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a conservatively small home range of just under 200 hectares (see Separation Justification).
Date: 02Nov2001
Author: Cannings, S.
Notes: Contains all North American owls larger than Screech-Owls, except Spotted, Long-eared, and Short-eared Owls.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering individuals outside their breeding area (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location. 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: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance based conservatively on larger home ranges (greater than 800 hectares; see Separation Justification in Breeding class).
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a conservatively small home range of just under 200 hectares (see Separation Justification in Breeding Class).
Date: 16Oct2002
Author: Cannings, S.
Notes: Contains all North American owls larger than Screech-Owls, except Spotted, Long-eared, and Short-eared Owls.

Use Class: Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring, nonbreeding, communal roosting at a given location; reliable observation of multiple individuals roosting in a distinct habitat patch in multiple years. To avoid creating EOs for ephemeral situations, there should be evidence of communal roosting over at least two different (though not necessarily consecutive) nonbreeding seasons.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance is arbitrary. Pertinent biologically based separation criteria do not exist.
Date: 25Oct2012
Author: Hammerson, G
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: 08Mar1995
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 08Mar1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., MINOR REVISIONS BY S. CANNINGS

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

References
Help
  • Alabama 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 ]

  • Allen, A. W. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: barred owl. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.143). 17 pp.

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

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 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/.

  • 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.

  • BUSHMAN, E.S. AND G.D. THERRES. 1988. HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR FOREST INTERIOR BREEDING BIRDS OF COASTAL MARYLAND. WILDLIFE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION 88-1. MD DNR, FOREST, PARK, AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 50 PP.

  • Baekken, B. T., J. O. Nybo, and G. A. Sonerud. 1987. Home range size of Hawk Owls: dependence on calculation method, number of tracking days, and number of plotted perches. Pp. 145-148 IN Nero, R.W., R. J. Clark, R. J. Knapton, and H. Hamre, eds. Biology and conservation of northern forest owls. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

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

  • Bell, R. E. 1964. A sound triangulation method for counting barred owls. Wilson Bull. 76:292-294.

  • Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part 2. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 170. 482 pp., 92 pls.

  • Bent, A.C. 1961. Northern Barred Owl. In Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey; Part 2. Dover Publishing Inc., New York.

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

  • Bosakowski, T. 1987. Census of barred owls and spotted owls. Pages 307-308 in Nero, R. W., et al., eds. Biology and conservation of northern forest owls. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142.

  • Bosakowski, T., et al. 1987. Distribution, density, and habitat relationships of the barred owl.... Pp. 135-143 in Nero, R. W., et al., eds. Biology and conserv. of northern forest owls. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech Rep. RM-142.

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

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

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

  • Byrd, C. L. 1982. Home range, habitat and prey utilization of the barn owl in south Texas. Texas A and I University, Kingsville, Texas. M.S. thesis. 64 pp.

  • Byrd, M. A., and D. W. Johnston. 1991. Birds. Pages 477-537 in K. Terwilliger, coordinator. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publ. Co., Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION. 1986. A GUIDE TO THE CONSERVATION OF FOREST INTERIOR DWELLING BIRDS IN THE CRITICAL AREA. GUIDANCE PAPER NO. 1. STATE OF MARYLAND. 13 PP.

  • Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner (eds.) 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario. 617 pp.

  • Chambers, R.E. 1983. Integrating timber and wildlife management. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

  • Clark, R. J., D. G. Smith, and L. H. Kelso. 1978. Working bibliography of owls of the world. National Wildlife Federation, Sci. & Tech. Ser. No. 1. 336 pp.

  • Colvin, B. A. 1984. Barn owl foraging behavior and secondary poisoning hazard from rodenticide use on farms. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. 326 pp. Ph.D. dissertation.

  • Copland, H.C. 1994. Prairie Nest Record Card Scheme. c/o Museum of Man and Nature. 190 Rupert Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba.

  • Craighead, J. J., and F. C. Craighead, Jr. 1956. Hawks, Owls and Wildlife. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

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

  • 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.

  • Dunbar, D. L., et al. 1991. Status of the spotted owl, STRIX OCCIDENTALIS, and barred owl, STRIX VARIA, in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 106:464-468.

  • Duncan, J.R. & P.A. Duncan. 1993. Manitoba's Nocturnal Owl Survey 1993 Progress Report. Manitoba Department of Natural Resources. Winnipeg. Mimeo. 10 pp.

  • 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.

  • Eckert, Allan W. 1978. The Owls of North America. Weather-vane Books, New York. 278 pp.

  • Elody, B. I., and N. F. Sloan. 1985. Movements and habitat use of Barred Owls in the Huron Mountains of Marquette County, Michigan, as determined by radiotelemetry. Jack Pine Warbler 63:3-8.

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

  • Fisher, A.K. 1893. The hawks and owls of the United States in their relation to agriculture. Washington U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Bull. no. 6. 210 pp.

  • Francis, C.M. and B. Whittam. 2000. Ontario nocturnal owl survey: 1999 pilot study. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada for the Wildlife Assessment Program, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 34 pp.

  • Fuller, M. R., and J. A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor survey techniques. Pages 37-65 in B. A. Giron Pendleton, et al., eds. Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.

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

  • Hamer, T. E., et al. 1994. Hybridization between barred and spotted owls. Auk 111:487-492.

  • 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.

  • Hegdal, P. L., and R. W. Blaskiewicz. 1984. Evaluation of the potential hazard to barn owl of Talon (Brodifacoum bait) used to control rats and house mice. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 3:167-79.

  • 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.

  • Johnsgard, P. 1988. North American owls: biology and natural history. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 336 pp.

  • Johnson, D. H. 1987. Barred owls and nest boxes--results of a five-year study in Minnesota. Pages 129-134 in Nero, R. W., et al., eds. Biology and conservation of northern forest owls. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142.

  • Kirk, D. A., D. Hussell, and E. Dunn. 1995. Raptor population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 4:2-9.

  • Kirk, D.A., and C. Hyslop. 1998. Population status and recent trends in Canadian raptors: a review. Biological Conservation 83 (1): 91-118.

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

  • Mazur, K. M., S. D. Frith, and P. C. James. 1998. Barred Owl home range and habitat selection in the boreal forest of central Saskatchewan. Auk 115:746-754.

  • Mazur, Kurt M. and Paul C. James. 2000. Barred Owl. The Birds of North America. Vol. 13, No. 508: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

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

  • McGarigal, K., and J. D. Fraser. 1985. Barred owl responses to recorded vocalizations. Condor 87:552-553.

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

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

  • 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 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.

  • Nicholls, T. H. and D. W. Warner. 1972. Barred owl habitat use as determined by radiotelemetry. J. Wildl. Manage. 36: 213-224.

  • Nicholls, T. H., and M. R. Fuller. 1987. Owl telemetry techniques. Pages 294-301 IN R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark, R.J. Knapton, and R.H. Hamre, editors. Biology and conservation of northern forest owls. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142.

  • Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp.

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

  • 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. 1983. The Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 1: Nonpasserines. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. xii + 321 pp.

  • 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.

  • Pendleton, B. A. G., B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird. 1987. Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Sci. and Tech. Ser. No. 10. 420 pp.

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

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

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

  • Rohner, C. 1997. Non-territorial 'floaters' in Great Horned Owls: space use during a cyclic peak of snowshoe hares. Animal Behaviour 53:901-912.

  • Rosenburg, C. P. 1986. Barn owl habitat and prey use in agricultural eastern Virginia. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. M.S. thesis. 114 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Sharp, D. U. 1989. Range extension of the barred owl in western Washington and first breeding record on the Olympic Peninsula. J. Raptor Res. 23:179-180.

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

  • Sinclair, P.H., W.A. Nixon, C.D. Eckert and N.L. Hughes. 2003. Birds of the Yukon Territory. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 595pp.

  • Smith, D. G. 1969. Nesting ecology of the Great Horned Owl, Bubo virginianus. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin Biol. Series 10(4):16-25.

  • Smith, D.G. 1987b. Owl census techniques. Pages 304-307 in R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark, R.J. Knapton, and R.H. Hamre, editors. Biology and conservation of northern forest owls. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142.

  • 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.

  • Voous, K. H., and A. Cameron. 1989. Owls of the Northern Hemisphere. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 320 pp.

  • Walker, L.W. 1974. The book of owls. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 255 pp.

  • Winter, J. 1982. Further investigations on the ecology of the great gray owl in the central Sierra Nevada. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA. Final Report. Contract No. 43-2348. 35pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2012. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2012. 15pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2013. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2013. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2015. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring-Summer 2015.12 pp.

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.