Tringa semipalmata - (Gmelin, 1789)
Willet
Other English Common Names: willet
Other Common Names: Maçarico-de-Asa-Branca
Synonym(s): Catoptrophorus semipalmatus (Gmelin, 1789) ;Tringa semipalmatus (Gmelin, 1789)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Catoptrophorus semipalmatus (J. F. Gmelin, 1789) (TSN 176638)
French Common Names: chevalier semipalmé
Spanish Common Names: Playero Pihuiuí, Playero Ala Blanca
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100605
Element Code: ABNNF02010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Shorebirds
Image 7746

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Scolopacidae Tringa
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: Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly placed in the genus Catoptrophorus (AOU 1998).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N5N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5M (29Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S2B,S5N), Arizona (S4M), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNR), Colorado (S1B), Connecticut (S4B), Delaware (S4B), District of Columbia (S2N), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S3B), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (S3N), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (S3), Maine (S3B), Maryland (S3S4B), Massachusetts (S3B,S3N), Michigan (SNRN), Minnesota (SXB,SNRM), Mississippi (S4B,S4N), Missouri (SNA), Montana (S4B), Navajo Nation (S3M), Nebraska (S4), Nevada (S3B), New Hampshire (S3B), New Jersey (S4B), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S3B), North Carolina (S4B,S4N), North Dakota (SU), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (S3N), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (S1B,S3N), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S5B), Tennessee (S3N), Texas (S5B), Utah (S3?B), Virginia (S4), Washington (S3N), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (S4B,S4N)
Canada Alberta (S4B), Labrador (SUM), Manitoba (S4B), New Brunswick (S3B,S3M), Newfoundland Island (S1B,SUM), Nova Scotia (S2S3B), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (S4B), Quebec (S3), Saskatchewan (S5B,S4M)

Other Statuses

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: locally from eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and southwestern Manitoba south to northeastern California, western Nevada, central Utah, northern Colorado, western and northern Nebraska, and eastern South Dakota (formerly in Minnesota and Iowa); locally along Atlantic-Gulf coast from southern New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia south to southern Florida and west to southern Texas and Tamaulipas; the Bahamas; Antilles (Cuba, St. Croix and Anegada, Antigua, Guadeloupe); Cayman Islands; and Los Roques off Venezuela (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: north to California and Virginia, south along coasts to South America (to Galapagos Islands, central Chile, Uruguay, and southern Brazil) (AOU 1998). Most abundant in coastal Suriname and north-central Brazil (Morrison and Ross 1989). Nonbreeders may summer in winter range.

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Morrison et al. (2001) estimated the global population to be at least 250,000, 90,000 in the eastern subspecies C. S. SEMIPALMATUS and 160,000 in the western subspecies C. S. INORNATUS.

Short-term Trend Comments: Morrison (1993/1994) categorized the population trend in Canada as "stable?"

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: locally from eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and southwestern Manitoba south to northeastern California, western Nevada, central Utah, northern Colorado, western and northern Nebraska, and eastern South Dakota (formerly in Minnesota and Iowa); locally along Atlantic-Gulf coast from southern New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia south to southern Florida and west to southern Texas and Tamaulipas; the Bahamas; Antilles (Cuba, St. Croix and Anegada, Antigua, Guadeloupe); Cayman Islands; and Los Roques off Venezuela (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: north to California and Virginia, south along coasts to South America (to Galapagos Islands, central Chile, Uruguay, and southern Brazil) (AOU 1998). Most abundant in coastal Suriname and north-central Brazil (Morrison and Ross 1989). Nonbreeders may summer in winter range.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Delta (08029), Jackson (08057), Rio Grande (08105)
CT Fairfield (09001), Middlesex (09007), New Haven (09009), New London (09011)
ID Ada (16001), Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonneville (16019), Camas (16025), Canyon (16027), Caribou (16029), Clark (16033), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Franklin (16041), Fremont (16043), Gooding (16047), Idaho (16049), Jefferson (16051), Latah (16057), Lincoln (16063), Madison (16065), Nez Perce (16069), Oneida (16071), Owyhee (16073), Power (16077), Teton (16081), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085)
ND McLean (38055), Sargent (38081)*
NE Cherry (31031), Garden (31069), Sheridan (31161)
NH Rockingham (33015)
RI Newport (44005), Washington (44009)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Narragansett (01090004)+, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+, Thames (01100003)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+
02 Long Island Sound (02030203)+
10 Painted Woods-Square Butte (10130101)+, Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Upper James (10160003)+*, North Platte Headwaters (10180001)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Upper Middle Loup (10210001)+
13 Alamosa-Trinchera (13010002)+
14 Lower Gunnison (14020005)+
16 Central Bear (16010102)+, Bear Lake (16010201)+, Middle Bear (16010202)+, Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+, Curlew Valley (16020309)+
17 Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Willow (17040205)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Camas (17040220)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, C. J. Idaho (17050101)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, Jordan (17050108)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Middle Snake-Payette (17050115)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird (shorebird).
Reproduction Comments: Arrive on Saskatchewan breeding grounds from late April to mid-May, and depart from mid-August to early September (Maher 1974). In the northern Great Plains, breed from early May through late July, with broods present from about early June until late July (Stewart 1975, Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Sedivec 1994). Ryan et al. (1981) reported two cases of renesting after initial nests were destroyed. In Saskatchewan, adults of both sexes and juvenile females exhibited breeding-site fidelity (Colwell and Oring 1988b).
Ecology Comments: Territories are large and include both feeding and nesting areas. In North Dakota, mean territory size was 44.3 hectares (Ryan and Renken 1987). Nonbreeding: forages singly or small loose groups; gathers in large flocks to sleep or rest (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Northern interior breeding populations make extensive migrations; arrive in northern breeding areas April-May, depart by September-October (Bent 1929); departure from breeding areas may begin June-July. Migratory status of coastal breeding populations in southeastern U.S.? (probably fairly sedentary). Migrates mainly through coastal areas. Migrates through Costa Rica August-September and late March-late May (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Arrives in South America by September, most depart by end of April (Hilty and Brown 1986). In northeastern Venezuela, earliest migrants arrived in late July, numbers peaked by late October; migrants departed mainly between early March and mid-April; some remained during the summer (Rompre and McNeil 1994).
Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland, Tidal flat/shore
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, TEMPORARY POOL
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous, Sand/dune
Habitat Comments: Marshes, tidal mudflats, beaches, lake margins, mangroves, tidal channels, river mouths, coastal lagoons, sandy or rocky shores, and, less frequently, open grassland (AOU 1983, Stiles and Skutch 1989). Nests along marshy lake margins in western North America, salt marshes in eastern North America. Nests on the ground in open places, coastal marshes, beaches, or islands; and inland in wet grassland by lakes, or short grass or bare ground by water.

Breeding requires large expanses of short, sparse grasslands for nesting and foraging, and wetland complexes for foraging (Stewart 1975; Weber 1978; Kantrud and Stewart 1984; Ryan and Renken 1987; Colwell and Oring 1988a, 1990; Kantrud and Higgins 1992; Prescott et al. 1995). In both upland and wetland habitats, adults with broods use somewhat taller, denser grass cover than do breeding pairs during nesting (Ryan and Renken 1987). In North Dakota, uplands used by Willets had a thinner litter layer than surrounding areas (Renken 1983). They often nest near a conspicuous object such as a piece of wood, dried cattle dung, or a stone (Higgins et al. 1979, Kantrud and Higgins 1992).

Prefer native grass to tame vegetation (Stewart 1975, Ryan and Renken 1987, Kantrud and Higgins 1992). They prefer pastures that are idle during the nesting season, and to a lesser extent actively grazed pasture, to other land-use types (Higgins et al. 1979, Ryan and Renken 1987, Kantrud and Higgins 1992). Although tilled lands usually are avoided (Weber 1978), nests have been reported in hayland and cropland, including small-grain, flax, and stubble fields (Higgins et al. 1979, Kantrud and Higgins 1992). In North Dakota, pairs nesting in native vegetation had higher hatching success than pairs nesting in cultivated fields (Higgins et al. 1979). In the prairie and aspen parkland regions of Alberta, mean number of birds/site was nonstatistically compared among several habitats (Prescott et al. 1995, Prescott 1997). In prairie, were most abundant in native mixed-grass, followed by coulee, upland shrub, planted cropland, and hayland (Prescott 1997). Coulee was defined as a valley containing an ephemeral creek or seepage that may contain other, undescribed, habitat types. Hayland was planted to grasses (species not given) or alfalfa (MEDICAGO SATIVA). In the uplands of aspen parkland, were most abundant in deferred native pastures grazed after 15 July, followed by idle native grassland, continuously grazed native parkland, and tame dense nesting cover (Prescott et al. 1995). They were not found in tame pasture, deferred tame pasture, idle tame uplands, idle tame grasslands, continuously grazed native grasslands, idle parkland, or native dense nesting cover.

In wetlands, avoid dense, emergent vegetation, preferring shallow-water areas with short, sparse shoreline vegetation (Ryan and Renken 1987, Colwell and Oring 1988a, Eldridge in prep.). Suitable wetlands range in salinity from fresh to saline, and vary widely in size and permanence (Stewart 1975, Kantrud and Stewart 1984, Ryan and Renken 1987, Prescott et al. 1995, Eldridge in prep.). In North Dakota, were more common in alkali or permanent wetlands than in temporary, seasonal, or semipermanent wetlands (D. H. Johnson et al., unpubl. data). Shifts in wetland use occur seasonally and during climatic extremes (Ryan and Renken 1987; Gratto-Trevor, in press). Semipermanent wetlands were used most often, but ephemeral, temporary, seasonal, and alkali ponds were preferred relative to their availability (Ryan and Renken 1987). Semipermanent wetlands were used later in the summer than other wetland types. Semipermanent and permanent wetlands were used during drought years.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats mainly small invertebrates (crustaceans, mollusks, insects, worms) obtained from surface, in mud, and in shallow water.
Adult Phenology: Circadian
Immature Phenology: Circadian
Phenology Comments: Nonbreeders foraged both day and night in northeastern Venezuela (Robert et al. 1989, Rompre and McNeil 1994).
Length: 38 centimeters
Weight: 215 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Provide a diversity of wetlands (Kantrud and Stewart 1984, Ryan et al. 1984, Ryan and Renken 1987, Colwell and Oring 1988a). Willets use wetlands of widely varying types and salinity, and may need to use larger, more permanent, wetlands during droughts or in late summer (Ryan and Renken 1987, Prescott et al. 1995).

Protect wetlands from drainage (Ryan et al. 1984, Ryan and Renken 1987) and restore drained wetlands (Berkey et al. 1993, Johnson 1996).

Provide native grassland habitat for upland nesting and foraging (Ryan and Renken 1987, Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Eldridge in prep.).

Protect wetland and grassland habitats such that they are extensive enough to support territories, which averaged 44.3 hectares in North Dakota (Ryan and Renken 1987). Willets were not found in small (< 100 hectares) blocks of wetland and grassland habitat (Ryan and Renken 1987; D.H. Johnson, unpublished data). Areas also must be large enough to provide both grassland habitat and a diverse range of wetland types and sizes (Stewart 1975, Kantrud and Stewart 1984, Ryan and Renken 1987, Colwell and Oring 1988a, Kantrud and Higgins 1992).

Burning, mowing, and grazing can be used to provide areas of shorter, sparser vegetation in uplands and wetlands (Kantrud and Stewart 1984, Messmer 1985, Ryan and Renken 1987, Berkey et al. 1993, Eldridge in prep.). Fall burning or mowing of upland sites and wetland edges can produce suitable cover for the following spring (Ryan et al. 1984). Moderate to dense regrowth in burned areas may be too dense for nesting, but may provide the denser, taller cover used by broods (Ryan et al. 1984).

Choose a rotational grazing system, such as twice-over deferred grazing, over a season-long grazing system (Messmer 1985, 1990; Sedivec 1994). Berkey et al. (1993) suggested that short-term grazing (2-4 weeks in May) may be beneficial in North Dakota. Willets prefer previously grazed areas that are idle during the current breeding season (Kantrud and Higgins 1992).

Delay grazing until late May to early June when implementing a rotational grazing system; grazing should be delayed until mid-June when implementing season-long grazing (Sedivec 1994).

Protect grasslands from tilling (Ryan et al. 1984, Ryan and Renken 1987). Encourage no-tillage and minimum-tillage practices on cropland (Kantrud and Higgins 1992).

Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Territories averaged 44.3 hectares in North Dakota (Ryan and Renken 1987). Not found in small (< 100 hectares) blocks of wetland and grassland habitat (Ryan and Renken 1987; D.H. Johnson, unpubl. data). Areas also must be large enough to provide both grassland habitat and a diverse range of wetland types and sizes (Stewart 1975, Kantrud and Stewart 1984, Ryan and Renken 1987, Colwell and Oring 1988a, Kantrud and Higgins 1992).
Management Requirements: Ryan and Renken (1987) recommended burning, mowing, or grazing of both upland and wetland habitat to maintain short, sparse vegetation and a thin litter layer. BURNING: Little specific information is available about the effects of prescribed burning or haying; densities were unrelated to time since burning in a North Dakota grassland study (Johnson 1997). Ryan et al. (1984) suggested that fall burning can provide dense, taller regrowth (15-60 centimeters) later in the summer; broods used vegetation > 15 centimeters (Ryan and Renken 1987).

GRAZING: Grazed uplands often are more attractive for breeding than are idle grasslands (Messmer 1985, 1990; Renken and Dinsmore 1987; Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Sedivec 1994). In Alberta, densities were higher (not statistically tested) on deferred native pastures than on native pastures grazed in early summer, but were not present on continuously grazed native pastures (Prescott and Wagner 1996). However, they were present on tame pastures of crested wheatgrass (AGROPYRON CRISTATUM) grazed in spring from late April to mid-June. In Saskatchewan, Willets were observed on both grazed and ungrazed areas (Dale 1984). In North Dakota, densities of breeding birds were significantly higher on the twice-over deferred grazing system than on season-long or short-duration grazing systems, or on idle pastures (Messmer 1990). Twice-over rotation involves grazing a number of pastures twice per season, with about a 2-month rest between grazing. Season-long grazing involves leaving cattle on the same pasture for the entire growing season. Short-duration grazing involves a system of pastures rotated through a grazing schedule of about 1-week grazed and 1-month ungrazed, repeated throughout the growing season (usually late May or early June until October). The twice-over deferred pastures were composed of silty range, thin upland range, and shallow-to-gravel range sites (Messmer 1990, Sedivec 1994). Silty range and thin upland range sites were characterized by thin topsoil, loamy soil, 1-25 percent slope, grassy cover, low shrub cover, and moderate to high litter cover. Maximum vegetation height ranged from 50 to 70 centimeters and average litter depth ranged from 3.8 to 9.1 centimeters. Shallow-to-gravel range sites were characterized by sparse cover and reduced litter.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Shorebirds

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Feeding Area, Breeding Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding, or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.
Mapping Guidance: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas of nesting adults and broods. Because separations are based on nesting areas, the foraging areas of different occurrences may overlap if nesting birds are traveling to distant places to feed.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance pertains specifically to nesting areas, not to locations of dispersed foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap of more than 5 km are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas.

The separation distance is an arbitrary value; it is impractical to attempt to delineate shorebird occurrences on the basis of dispersal patterns or metapopulation dynamics. Foraging ranges of some nesting shorebird species (see following) may suggest use of a larger separation distance, but this likely would result in occurrences that are too large and less effective for conservation planning.

Separation distance based on larger 'typical' breeding home ranges with diameters of 1.5 to 3 kilometers. Semipalmated Plovers have breeding home ranges up to 3 square kilometers, i.e. a diameter of just under 2 kilometers (Nol and Blanken 1999). Red-necked Phalaropes have a core home range of 1-3 hectares, but occasionally travel 1.5 kilometers to feed (Rubega et al. 2000). Stilt Sandpipers can forage up to 8 kilometers from nest (Jehl 1973). Mountain Plovers have an average home range of 56.6 hectares (Knopf 1996) but broods typically move 1-2 kilometers shortly after hatching (Knopf and Rupert 1996).

Territories: Common Snipe, 6.4-28.6 hectares (Mueller 1999); Long-billed Dowitcher, 100-300 meter diameter (Johnsgard 1981); golden-plovers, average 10-59 hectares (Johnson and Connors 1996); Long-billed Curlew, 6-20 hectares (Johnsgard 1981).

Nesting densities: Black-bellied Plover, 0.3-2.3 pairs per square kilometer (44 ha per pair at latter density; Hussell and Page 1976, Parmelee et al. 1967); Marbled Godwit, maximum density 1 pair/32 hectares (Stewart and Kantrud 1972).

Foraging distances: Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, up to 13 kilometers from nest (Elphick and Tibbits 1998, Tibbits and Moskoff 1999).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a smaller 'typical' home ranges (see Separation Justification).
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Roost, Foraging concentration area
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 25 birds in appropriate habitat (minimum can be reduced in the case of rarer species). 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 at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 15Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Roost, Winter Feeding 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 at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: S. Cannings
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Management Information Edition Date: 15May1999
Management Information Edition Author: DECHANT, J.A., M.L. SONDREAL, D.H. JOHNSON, L.D. IGL, C.M. GOLDADE, B.D. PARKIN, AND B.R. EULISS; REVISIONS BY G. HAMMERSON, M. KOENEN, AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Parts of this abstract were originally researched and written by staff of the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and published as Dechant et al. (1999). Additional support for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Initiative, through challenge grant number 97-270 to The Nature Conservancy, Wings of the Americas Program. Matching funds for this grant were donated by Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 11Jan1994
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 ]

  • 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), Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

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

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2006. Forty-seventh supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 123(3):1926-936.

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

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

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des oiseaux du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 13 pages.

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

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

  • Bailey, A. M. and R. J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. 2 vols. 895 pp.

  • Banks, R. C., C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz. 2006. Forty-seventh supplement to the American Ornithologists Union check-list of North American birds. The Auk 123: 926-936.

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

  • Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds (Part II). U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 146. Washington, D.C.

  • Berkey, G., R. Crawford, S. Galipeau, D. Johnson, D. Lambeth, and R. Kreil. 1993. A review of wildlife management practices in North Dakota: effects on nongame bird populations and habitats. Report submitted to Region 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 51 pp.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1995. Last Mountain Lake and Stalwart National Wildlife Areas: Bird Checklist - Fourth Edition. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • Carter, M., C. Hunter, D. Pashley, and D. Petit. 1998. The Watch List. Bird Conservation, Summer 1998:10.

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

  • Colorado Bird Observatory. 1997. 1996 Reference Guide to the Monitoring and Conservation Status of Colorado's Breeding Birds. Colorado Bird Observatory, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, and Partners, March 21, 1997.

  • Colwell, M.A., and L.W. Oring. 1988a. Habitat use by breeding and migrating shorebirds in southcentral Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 100(4):554-566.

  • Colwell, M.A., and L.W. Oring. 1988b. Return rates of prairie shorebirds: sex and species differences. Wader Study Group Bulletin 55:21-24.

  • Colwell, M.A., and L.W. Oring. 1990. Nest site characteristics of prairie shorebirds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:297-302.

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

  • Dale, B. C. 1984. Birds of grazed and ungrazed grasslands in Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 42:102-105.

  • Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, B.D. Parkin, and B.R. Euliss. 1999. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Willet. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 10 pp.

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

  • Dobos, R.Z. 1998. Ontario Bird Records Committee Report for 1997. Ontario Birds 16(2):51-80.

  • 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.

  • Eldridge, J. In prep. Management for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest.

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

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

  • Gratto-Trevor, C. 1999. Use of managed and natural wetlands by upland breeding shorebirds in southern Alberta. Pages 252-259 in Proceedings of the fifth prairie conservation and endangered species conference, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

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

  • Hayman, P., J. Marchant, and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: an identification guide to the waders of the world. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

  • Higgins, K. F., L. M. Kirsch, M. R. Ryan, and R. B. Renken. 1979. Some ecological aspects of Marbled Godwits and Willets in North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 11:115-118.

  • Hilty, S.L. and W. L. Brown. 1986. A Guide to the Birds of Colombia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. 836 pp.

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

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

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

  • James, R.D. 1991. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Ontario (2nd ed., rev.). Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 128 pp.

  • Jehl, J. R., Jr. 1973. Breeding biology and systematic relationships of the stilt sandpiper. Wilson Bulletin 85:115-147.

  • Johnson, D.H. 1996. Management of northern prairies and wetlands for the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds. Pages 53-67 in F.R. Thompson, III, editor. Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-187.

  • Johnson, D.H. 1997. Effects of fire on bird populations in mixed-grass prairie. Pages 181-206 in F.L. Knopf and F.B. Samson, editors. Ecology and conservation of Great Plains vertebrates. Springer-Verlag, New York.

  • Kantrud, H.A., and K.F. Higgins. 1992. Nest and nest site characteristics of some ground-nesting, non-passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie Naturalist 24:67-84.

  • Kantrud, H.A., and R.E. Stewart. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:426-437.

  • Keller, Charles E. 1992. The Birds of Greater Indianapolis and Adjacent Areas. 70 Ind. Aud. Q. 1-5.

  • Knopf, F.L. 1996. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 211. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 16 pp.

  • Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1996. Productivity and movements of mountain plovers breeding in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 108:28-35.

  • LaRue, C.T. 1994. Birds of northern Black Mesa, Navajo County, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 54(1):1-63.

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

  • Lowther, Peter E., Hector D. Douglas III and Cheri L. Gratto-Trevor. 2001. Willet. The Birds of North America. Vol. 15, No. 579: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Maher, W.J. 1974. Matador Project: Birds II. Avifauna of the Matador area. Canadian Committee for the International Biological Pragramme, Matador Project, Technical Report 58. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 31 pp.

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

  • Messmer, T.A. 1985. Effects of specialized grazing systems on upland nesting birds in southcentral North Dakota. M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 112 pp.

  • Messmer, T.A. 1990. Influence of grazing treatments on nongame birds and vegetation structure in south central North Dakota. Ph.D. dissertation. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 164 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.

  • Morrison, R. I. G., R. E. Gill, Jr., B. A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G. W. Page, C. L. Gratto-Trevor, and S. M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occasional Paper Number 104, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 64 pages.

  • Morrison, R. I. G., and R. K. Ross. 1989. Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America. Vols. 1 and 2. Canadian Wildl. Serv. Spec. Publ. 325 pp.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 1993/1994. Shorebird population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (3):3-5. Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 5-9.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 2001. Trends in shorebird populations in North America using Breeding Bird Survey data. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 12-15.

  • NEILL, ROBERT L. 1992. RECENT TRENDS IN SHOREBIRD MIGRATION FOR NORTH-CENTRAL TEXAS. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 37(1):87-88.

  • 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.

  • Nol, E., and M. S. Blanken. 1999. Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). No. 444 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 24pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Prescott, D.R.C. 1997. Avian communities and NAWMP habitat priorities in the northern Prairie biome of Alberta. Land Stewardship Centre of Canada, NAWMP-029. St. Albert, Alberta. 41 pp.

  • Prescott, D.R.C., A.J. Murphy, and E. Ewaschuk. 1995. An avian community approach to determining biodiversity values of NAWMP habitats in the aspen parkland of Alberta. Alberta NAWMP Centre. NAWMP-012. Edmonton, Alberta. 58 pp.

  • Prescott, D.R.C., and G.M. Wagner. 1996. Avian responses to implementation of a complementary/rotational grazing system by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in southern Alberta: the Medicine Wheel Project. Alberta North American Waterfowl Management Plan Centre. NAWMP-018. Edmonton, Alberta. 24 pp.

  • Raffaele, H. A. 1983a. A guide to the birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Fondo Educativo Interamericano, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 255 pp.

  • Raffaele, H., J. Wiley, O. Garrido, A. Keith, and J. Raffaele. 1998. A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 511 pp.

  • Rappole, J.H., Morton, E.S., Lovejoy, T.E. and Ruos, J.L. 1983. Nearctic avian migrants in the Neotropics. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.

  • Reeves, T. and A. Nelson. 1996. Birds of Morgan Lake: a guide to common species. Arizona Public Service, Four Corners Power Plant. 25 p.

  • Renken, R. B. 1983. Breeding bird communities and bird-habitat associations on North Dakota waterfowl production areas of three habitat types. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 90 pp.

  • Renken, R. B., and J. J. Dinsmore. 1987. Nongame bird communities on managed grasslands in North Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:551-557.

  • 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.

  • Robert, M., R. McNeil, and A. Leduc. 1989. Conditions and significance of night feeding in shorebirds and other water birds in a tropical lagoon. Auk 106:94-101.

  • Rompre, G., and R. McNeil. 1994. Seasonal changes in day and night foraging of willets in northeastern Venezuela. Condor 96:734-738.

  • Rubega, M. A., D. Schamel, and D. M. Tracy. 2000. Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). No. 538 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28pp.

  • Ryan, M.R., J.J. Dinsmore, and R.B. Dahlgren. 1981. Ecology of Willets and Marbled Godwits in the glaciated prairie region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Project 2170. 3 pp.

  • Ryan, M.R., R.B. Renken, and J.J. Dinsmore. 1984. Marbled godwit habitat selection in the northern prairie region. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1206-1218.

  • Ryan, M.R., and R.B. Renken. 1987. Habitat use by breeding Willets in the northern Great Plains. Wilson Bull. 99(2):175-189.

  • Sedivec, K.K. 1994. Grazing treatment effects on and habitat use of upland nesting birds on native grassland. Ph.D. dissertation. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 124 pp.

  • See SERO listing

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

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

  • Stewart, R. E. 1975. Breeding Birds of North Dakota. Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies, Fargo ND.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Weber, M.J. 1978. Non-game birds in relation to habitat variation on South Dakota wetlands. M.S. thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 54 pp.

  • Weber, M.J., P.A. Vohs, Jr., and L.D. Flake. 1982. Use of prairie wetlands by selected bird species in South Dakota. Wilson Bulletin 94:550-554.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

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

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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