Vermivora chrysoptera - (Linnaeus, 1766)
Golden-winged Warbler
Other English Common Names: golden-winged warbler
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Vermivora chrysoptera (Linnaeus, 1766) (TSN 178852)
French Common Names: Paruline à ailes dorées
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Ala Dorada
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102068
Element Code: ABPBX01030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 10872

© Michael Patrikeev

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Vermivora
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: Vermivora chrysoptera
Taxonomic Comments: Hybridizes regularly and extensively with V. pinus, producing variable hybrids (e.g., "Brewster's" and "Lawrence's" warblers) (AOU 1983). Constitutes a superspecies with V. pinus (AOU 1998).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Fairly large breeding range in the central and eastern U.S. and adjacent southern Canada; secure in several regions but declining in some areas; threats include loss of breeding habitat due to reforestation and human activities, possibly loss of wintering habitat due to deforestation, possibly competition and hybridization with the blue-winged warbler, and brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4B,NUM (14Dec2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNRM), Arkansas (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S1B), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S3N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (S1), Illinois (S1S2), Indiana (S1B), Iowa (S1N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (S2B), Louisiana (SNA), Maryland (S2B), Massachusetts (S1B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Nebraska (SNRN), New Hampshire (S2B), New Jersey (S3B,S3N), New York (S3B), North Carolina (S3B), North Dakota (S3), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (SU), Pennsylvania (S4B), Rhode Island (SXB,S2N), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S3B), Texas (S3), Vermont (S3B), Virginia (S3B), West Virginia (S1B), Wisconsin (S3S4B)
Canada Manitoba (S3B), Ontario (S4B), Quebec (S2)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (13Dec2007)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Threatened (29Apr2006)
Comments on COSEWIC: Assessment Criteria Met criterion for Endangered, but designated Threatened because the species is still widespread, shows the ability to maintain small pure populations within the Blue-winged Warbler range, is still expanding in Manitoba, and is thus not in imminent danger of extinction. Criterion met for Threatened.

This small songbird has declined by 79% over the last 10 years according to Breeding Bird Survey data from Canada. The main threat appears to be competition and genetic swamping (hybridization) from the closely-related Blue-winged Warbler, which is spreading north because of habitat change and perhaps climate change.

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 8000 to >1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Birdlife International (2014) estimates a breeding range size of 943,000 square kilometers. Breeding range extends from northeastern North Dakota, Saskatchewan (very small numbers), and Manitoba (Cumming 1998, Artuso et al. 2008) eastward across southern Ontario (Mills 1988, Vallender 2009), the Great Lakes region (common in central and northern Michigan, central and northern Wisconsin, and central Minnesota), southern Quebec, and New York (sparsely distributed, with concentrations in the St. Lawrence River valley and Hudson Highlands; Confer 2008) to New England (remnant populations of a few individuals each were found in selected sites in Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts in 2000-2003; Swarthout et al. 2009), and southward to extreme northern Georgia (Klaus 2010), including southeastern Iowa (last known breeding in 1988; Cecil 1996, Confer et al. 2011), Illinois (no confirmed breeding in recent decades; Confer et al. 2011), northern Indiana (last known breeding in 1983; Mumford and Keller 1984, Confer et al. 2011), Ohio (virtually extirpated; Peterjohn 2001), Pennsylvania (locally common; isolated portions of northeastern and north-central Pennsylvania and diffusely distributed across southern part of state; J. L. Larkin, in Swarthout et al. 2009), New Jersey (low numbers, Petzinger 2009), southeastern Kentucky (small, ephemerel populations), higher elevations of Tennessee (Buehler, pers. Comm., cited by Confer et al. 2011), West Virginia (locally common in higher elevations but declining or extirpated in other areas; Wilson et al. 2007), western Maryland (Maryland and the District of Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas 2002-2006), western Virginia (localized at higher elevations; Wilson et al. 2007, Swarthout et al. 2009), and western North Carolina (Klaus and Buehler 2001, Swarthout et al. 2009). The highest breeding densities for the species now occur in central Minnesota west of a line between Duluth and Minneapolis (excepting the prairies) and in adjacent northwestern Wisconsin (Confer et al. 2011). The above range include a disjunct, northern population that extends from southeastern Quebec along the St. Lawrence River valley, the Ontario border, and the U.S. border with New York and Vermont (Jobin, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, cited by Confer et al. 2011) westward into Ontario near the southern Great Lakes.

During the northern winter, this species occurs from central Guatemala and northern Honduras south to northern Venezuela and western Colombia; generally it is more abundant on the Caribbean slope than on the Pacific slope(Confer 1992). It is a rare transient through eastern Mexico and, perhaps accidently, the Caribbean (AOU 1983). Most records are in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia, and Venezuela (M. Moreno, pers. comm., cited by Confer et al. 2011). Records north of Nicaragua and in the Caribbean are suspected to be birds in passage (Confer et al. 2011).

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: An estimate given population size.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Recorded in 38 atlas blocks in the two western-most counties in Maryland from 2002-2006 (Maryland and the District of Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas 2002-2006); virtually extirpated in Ohio (1, Peterjohn 2001); found northeast into Pennsylvania where it is locally common; a few in e. New Jersey (~20 in 2008, Petzinger 2009). Sparsely distributed throughout NY State, with concentrations in the St. Lawrence River valley and Hudson Highlands (Confer 2008); remnant populations in Vermont (7), Massachusetts (1) and Connecticut (7, numbers from Swarthout et al. 2009). Most of these breeders are part of a disjunct, northern population that extends from se. Quebec along the St. Lawrence River valley, the Ontario border, and the U.S. border with New York and Vermont (Jobin, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada) westward into Ontario near the s. Great Lakes. Species common in central and n. Michigan, central and n. Wisconsin and central Minnesota, with an expanding population in Manitoba (333, Artuso et al. 2008) and a few individuals in Saskatchewan. (Confer, Hartman, and Roth, 2011).

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total population size is unknown but probably exceeds 100,000 (Rich et al. 2004). The National Audubon Society website (2014) estimates a global population of 210,000 while the Partners in Flight estimates a population size of 410,000 (Partners in Flight, 2013).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to many (13-125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Many occurrences comprise small populations with low long-term viability. The population is declining in many areas and has disappeared from previously occupied regioins (Confer, Hartman, and Roth, 2011).

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Where the species has been declining, the decrease is attributed to loss of breeding habitat (reforestation, loss of fire-maintained ecosystems, intensive agriculture, urban/suburban development), possibly loss of wintering habitat (by deforestation), and possibly competition and hybridization with the blue-winged warbler; nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird may additionally contribute to the decline (Coker and Confer 1990, Confer 1992, Klaus 2010, Confer et al. 2011). Loss of anthropogenic disturbance habitat is an important cause of the decline (Confer and Pascoe 2003, Confer et al. 2011).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Reliability of Breeding Brid Survey trend data for this species is not very high, but available data indicate a range-wde increase averaging 1.5% annually for 1999-2009 (6.2% in Canada, 0.3% in the United States). Trend varies greatly among different geographic areas (increases are mainly in the northern part of the range; decreases in the southern part). The latest 2002 - 2012 trend data show a 20% decline (Sauer, et. al. 2014).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >50%
Long-term Trend Comments: The pre-colonial distribution is poorly known, but historically the range and abundance have fluctuated with changing habitat conditions. Range expansion and population increase occurred during the 1800s and 1900s and was facilitated by large-scale anthropogenic habitat disturbance. Expansion into southern, coastal New England was recorded more than a century ago (Gill 1980). In the late 1800s to mid-1900s, range expanded in New York and New Jersey and into New England, with nesting often in abandoned farmland (Confer et al. 2003, 2011; Buehler et al. 2007).

Recent expansion has been to the north and west. In the late 1800s to early 1900s, the species may have increased in abundance, if not range, in disturbance ecosystems, especially clear cuts, in the northern Midwest. Range expansion and increased abundance have occurred in extreme southwestern Quebec, northern New York (Confer et al. 1991), much of southern Ontario (Mills 1987), and Manitoba (Artuso et al. 2008). In Canada, BBS data indicate an increase averaging 2.4% per year for the period 1966-2009 (6.2% for 1999-2009), though the data are rated as not very robust. The areas of expansion in Canada may be under-represented in BBS routes, and the regional trend for the eastern U.S. may partially reflect a bias in the distribution of routes.

On the other hand, there has been widespread decline and even local extinction from areas first colonized about a century ago. Range and abundance have declined in many areas (Confer et al. 2003, Buehler et al. 2007). Range-wide Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a decline averaging 2.3% annually for the period 1966 to 2009 (annual increase of 1.5% for 1999-2009), though the data are rated as not very robust. Birdlife International (2014) notes a 63.8% decline over the last 40 years.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly to moderately vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: This species is vulnerable due to loss of breeding and winter habitat, parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds, and hybridization with Blue-winged Warblers (Confer, Hartman, and Roth, 2011).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species utilizes a wide variety of plant communities but it prefers habitat with a low to moderate canopy cover and a high density of shrubs and herb covers (Confer, Hartman, and Roth, 2011).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Continue monitoring population trends. Investigate the control and removal of nest parasites such as Brown-headed Cowbird on loca Golden-winged Warbler populations (Birdlife International, 2014

Protection Needs: May need to manage for disturbance-dependent habitat in order to enusre adequate habitat for this species.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 8000 to >1,000,000 square miles)) Birdlife International (2014) estimates a breeding range size of 943,000 square kilometers. Breeding range extends from northeastern North Dakota, Saskatchewan (very small numbers), and Manitoba (Cumming 1998, Artuso et al. 2008) eastward across southern Ontario (Mills 1988, Vallender 2009), the Great Lakes region (common in central and northern Michigan, central and northern Wisconsin, and central Minnesota), southern Quebec, and New York (sparsely distributed, with concentrations in the St. Lawrence River valley and Hudson Highlands; Confer 2008) to New England (remnant populations of a few individuals each were found in selected sites in Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts in 2000-2003; Swarthout et al. 2009), and southward to extreme northern Georgia (Klaus 2010), including southeastern Iowa (last known breeding in 1988; Cecil 1996, Confer et al. 2011), Illinois (no confirmed breeding in recent decades; Confer et al. 2011), northern Indiana (last known breeding in 1983; Mumford and Keller 1984, Confer et al. 2011), Ohio (virtually extirpated; Peterjohn 2001), Pennsylvania (locally common; isolated portions of northeastern and north-central Pennsylvania and diffusely distributed across southern part of state; J. L. Larkin, in Swarthout et al. 2009), New Jersey (low numbers, Petzinger 2009), southeastern Kentucky (small, ephemerel populations), higher elevations of Tennessee (Buehler, pers. Comm., cited by Confer et al. 2011), West Virginia (locally common in higher elevations but declining or extirpated in other areas; Wilson et al. 2007), western Maryland (Maryland and the District of Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas 2002-2006), western Virginia (localized at higher elevations; Wilson et al. 2007, Swarthout et al. 2009), and western North Carolina (Klaus and Buehler 2001, Swarthout et al. 2009). The highest breeding densities for the species now occur in central Minnesota west of a line between Duluth and Minneapolis (excepting the prairies) and in adjacent northwestern Wisconsin (Confer et al. 2011). The above range include a disjunct, northern population that extends from southeastern Quebec along the St. Lawrence River valley, the Ontario border, and the U.S. border with New York and Vermont (Jobin, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, cited by Confer et al. 2011) westward into Ontario near the southern Great Lakes.

During the northern winter, this species occurs from central Guatemala and northern Honduras south to northern Venezuela and western Colombia; generally it is more abundant on the Caribbean slope than on the Pacific slope(Confer 1992). It is a rare transient through eastern Mexico and, perhaps accidently, the Caribbean (AOU 1983). Most records are in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia, and Venezuela (M. Moreno, pers. comm., cited by Confer et al. 2011). Records north of Nicaragua and in the Caribbean are suspected to be birds in passage (Confer et al. 2011).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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)
CT Litchfield (09005), New Haven (09009)*, Tolland (09013)*
GA Fannin (13111), Union (13291)*
IN Fayette (18041), Gibson (18051), Jasper (18073), Kosciusko (18085), Lagrange (18087), Newton (18111), Pike (18125), Porter (18127), Pulaski (18131), St. Joseph (18141), Starke (18149)
KY Bell (21013), Harlan (21095), Hopkins (21107)*, Letcher (21133)*, Whitley (21235)
MA Dukes (25007)*, Essex (25009), Franklin (25011)*, Hampden (25013), Hampshire (25015)*, Middlesex (25017)*, Norfolk (25021)*, Suffolk (25025)*, Worcester (25027)
MI Oceana (26127)
NC Alleghany (37005), Ashe (37009), Avery (37011), Clay (37043), Graham (37075), Haywood (37087), Jackson (37099), Macon (37113), Madison (37115), Watauga (37189)
ND Bottineau (38009), Cavalier (38019)
NH Rockingham (33015), Strafford (33017)
NJ Bergen (34003), Cape May (34009), Mercer (34021), Morris (34027), Passaic (34031), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
OH Cuyahoga (39035), Franklin (39049), Lorain (39093), Lucas (39095), Portage (39133), Summit (39153)
TN Anderson (47001), Campbell (47013), Carter (47019), Claiborne (47025), Cumberland (47035), Hamilton (47065), Monroe (47123), Morgan (47129), Scott (47151), Unicoi (47171), White (47185)
VT Addison (50001), Franklin (50011)
WV Harrison (54033), Nicholas (54067), Pendleton (54071), Pocahontas (54075)*, Preston (54077), Randolph (54083)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+, Merrimack (01070002)+, Concord (01070005)+*, Merrimack (01070006)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+*, Chicopee (01080204)+, Westfield (01080206)+, Charles (01090001)+, Blackstone (01090003)+*, Shetucket (01100002)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Lower Maumee (04100009)+, Huron-Vermilion (04100012)+, Cuyahoga (04110002)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Tygart Valley (05020001)+, West Fork (05020002)+, Cheat (05020004)+, Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Mahoning (05030103)+, Upper New (05050001)+, Greenbrier (05050003)+*, Gauley (05050005)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Whitewater (05080003)+, North Fork Kentucky (05100201)+*, Middle Fork Kentucky (05100202)+*, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+, Caney (05130108)+, Tradewater (05140205)+*
06 Watauga (06010103)+, Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Pigeon (06010106)+, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Tuckasegee (06010203)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Powell (06010206)+, Lower Clinch (06010207)+, Emory (06010208)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Ocoee (06020003)+
07 Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+
09 Willow (09010004)+, Lower Pembina River (09020316)+
CA CAPE COD (CAPE COD)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small songbird (warbler).
General Description: Typical warbler size, shape, and bright coloration. Male has a slate-gray back and nape and a white chest and abdomen. The crown and forehead are bright yellow and contrast with a black cheek and throat patch. Thin white lines separate the crown from the cheek patch, and the cheek patch from the throat patch. The slate-gray wings have a yellow patch. In females the cheek and throat patch are gray and the back and chest may have a hint of yellow or olive.

Hybridization with the blue-winged warbler (VERMIVORA PINUS) produces two color patterns once thought to be separate species: the Brewster's and Lawrence's warblers. The Brewster's warbler has a white throat and, like the golden-winged warbler, usually has a white breast and gray back, but has a thin eye line and separate wing bars typical of the blue-winged warbler. The Lawrence's warbler has the black eye and black throat patch of a golden-winged warbler but has the yellow undersides and yellow-olive back of a blue-winged warbler. Intermediate forms occur and may result from matings between two hybrids and between hybrids and parental phenotypes. Intermediates show all degrees of variation in color hue and pattern between the parental types. Short (1963) and Gill (1980) derived a hybrid index to help distinguish among the intermediate and parental phenotypes.

NEST: coarse with an outer wrapping of bark and straw with leaf petioles protruding outward. All of about 20 nests in central New York contained many large strands of reddish viburnum bark in the bottom and outer portions of the cup (J. Confer, pers. obs.). The nest is lined with a criss-cross of fine, reddish-brown material. The cup is only two to three cm deep.

EGGS: pale cream to very pale blue with a scattering of fine reddish-brown dots concentrated at the blunt end, occasionally with a variety of other dark markings.

VOCALIZATIONS: two song types, which have been extensively studied (e.g., Ficken and Ficken 1967, Gill and Murray 1972, Highsmith 1989). One, common early in the breeding season, appears to advertise the territorial boundary and the male's presence and seems to have primarily an intersexual function. This Type 1 song is usually given intermittently during the morning for a few hours after sunrise, and sometimes shortly before dusk. The song is quite unmusical with one rasping note followed by two to eight buzzy notes on a constant, lower pitch. Phonetically this is sometimes represented as "bee-buzz-buzz-buzz." A Type 2 song is given during male to male encounters. This song is a series of staccato, rapid notes followed by a lower pitched, raspy trill. The blue-winged warbler has a song that is very similar in behavioral context and sound. Males of both species also sing the Type 2 song almost constantly for about a half hour just before sunrise from the beginning of the nesting season up to the time of fledging. Almost all males can be detected, barring inclement weather, in May and early June by their singing in this pre-dawn period. Females are usually inconspicuous and both sexes are usually secretive around the nest. However, as young fledge the adults become very noisy, frequently giving a distinctive "zzzzzp" call as they seem to lead the young from the nest or bring food to them.

Reproduction Comments: Produces one brood per year. Commonly renests after nest loss. Nests commonly in loose colonies of 2-6 pairs (Confer 1992). Monogamy is the norm, but polygamy occurs (J. Confer, pers. obs.). Renesting is not known to occur after a successful clutch, but can occur after an initial nest failure.

Eggs are laid in May-June. For New York, the earliest egg date is 18 May (Andrle and Carroll 1988) and the latest nestling date is 22 July (J. Confer, pers. obs.). The latter is almost certainly a renesting attempt. During three years of study in central Michigan, the first egg dates were 15, 18, and 25 May (Will 1986). Usually four to six (maximum of seven) eggs are laid per nest. Incubation by the female lasts 10-11 days. The nestling stage lasts eight to ten days (Andrle and Carroll 1988) with feeding by both sexes. Thirteen nests in central Michigan fledged an average of 3.4 young (Will 1986), while five nests in northern New York fledged an average of 2.6 young (J. Confer, pers. obs.).

HYBRIDIZATION: Hybridization between golden-winged and blue-winged warblers has received considerable attention. Three collections from zones of overlap for these two species consisted of 11%, 17%, and 22% hybrids (Short 1962, Gill 1980). Field observations, which might not detect all hybrids, indicated that hybrids comprised 3%, 10%, and 14% of three sample sites (Frech and Confer 1987). Despite some hybridization, the parental phenotypes always appear to be more common than the hybrids, which supports the contention that these are valid, but very closely-related species. Historically, the blue-winged warbler nested to the southwest of the golden-winged warbler (Gill 1980). Apparently, the abandonment of farmland and resultant areas of secondary succession provided routes for expansion of the blue-winged warbler into the golden-winged warbler range.

Hybrid phenotypes give the firsthand impression that the plumage differences between the two species are caused by two pairs of genes. The first generation hybrid (Brewster's warbler) gives the appearance of being heterozygous for both gene pairs. A much rarer form (Lawrence's warbler) gives the appearance of being homozygous recessive for both gene pairs. However, all gradations of color and all mixtures of color pattern between the two species have been noted (Short 1963, Gill 1980). This variation suggests that the inheritance of color is more complicated involving, perhaps, multiple but tightly-linked loci, incomplete dominance, or modifying genes.

Ecology Comments: Territories are about one to two ha (Ficken and Ficken 1968, Murray and Gill 1976, Confer and Knapp 1977, Confer 1992).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Usually arrive in the mid-latitude of their breeding range in central New York during the first week of May (Confer 1992). Fairly common migrant in Costa Rica early September-late October, departs mid- to late April (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Present in South America September-March (Ridgely and Tudor 1989). In May and early June the birds sing frequently, especially before and shortly after dawn. In July and August, after the cessation of singing and feeding of young, the birds become very inconspicuous. Extreme dates for coastal New York are 26 April (arrival) and 10 October (departure) (Bull 1974).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Old field, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Deciduous woodland, usually in dry uplands or areas of thick undergrowth in swampy areas; woodland edge with low cover; hillside scrub; overgrown pastures; abandoned farmland; powerline right-of-ways; recently logged sites; bogs; forest openings; territories usually have patches of herbs and shrubs, sparse tree cover, and a wooded perimeter (Confer 1992). Habitat tracts of 10-15 ha can support several pairs and are preferred over both smaller and larger areas (Confer 1992). Habitat can be created through logging, burning, and intermittent farming (Confer 1992). Habitat is ephemeral and requires periodic disturbance to return it to favorable early successional conditions. Nests on or a little above ground, in grass tuft, fern or weed clump, or concealed in herbage at base of shrub, tree, ferns, briars, or goldenrod (Harrison 1978, Confer 1992). Often the clump includes a taller stem used for descent to the nest. Nests usually at the ecotone of a forest with a field or marsh, or in a small opening in a forest (Confer 1992).

Nested abundantly in the chestnut-sprout (CASTANEA DENTATA) forests of West Virginia following the spread of the chestnut blight (Hall 1983). Commonly nest in upland sites on abandoned farmland in early stages of succession (e.g., Confer and Knapp 1981), or occasionally in logged areas (e.g., Will 1986). In the Canadian shield in Ontario, they nest "...in alder [ALNUS spp.] bogs, especially when a few taller species [of trees] are present" (Mills 1987). Several observers have mentioned nesting in powerline right-of-ways. In southern Michigan they nested in and around the edges of thickly wooded portions of tamarack (LARIX LARICINA) swamps as well as in small, brushy clearings (Will 1986). In northern Michigan, Will described their habitat as including dry fields overgrown with shrubs, and woodland clearings, as well as very wet areas that were recently logged and covered with felled trees and a homogenous cover of new saplings. Will suggested that, overall, they "...appeared to require proximal access to mature or second-growth woodlands as well as open areas in which there has been considerable invasion by brush, shrubs, and sapling trees."

Vegetative characteristics of territories have been quantified for southern, central, and northern New York (Confer and Knapp 1981, Frech and Confer 1987). In southern New York and contiguous New Jersey, nesting takes place in the Ramapo Mountains (Confer and Knapp 1981, Skully, in press). In this rugged topography, territories occurred in marshes between rock outcrops often with a perimeter of alder surrounded by forest. In central and northern New York, territories usually were located on dry, upland sites of abandoned farmland but occasionally in wet sites. All territories had areas with dense herb growth without shrubs or trees. Herb growth of at least moderate density covered 60% or more of the ground, including the growth under woody plants. All territories had patches of dense shrubs which covered about half of each territory. Tree canopy covered less than 15% of the northern and central territories but up to 40% of the southern territories. Central and northern territories usually extended no more than 20 m into a forest, while southern territories frequently extended considerably further. In wetter sites sedges (CAREX spp.) were the dominant herb and alders were the dominant shrub. In upland sites a wide variety of herbs occurred while VIBURNUM spp., narrow-leaved meadowsweet (SPIREA ALBA), and dogwood (CORNUS spp.) were the dominant shrubs.

All New York territories had a similar vegetative pattern with patches of herbs and shrubs, a few trees scattered throughout, and a tree row or forest edge forming most of the perimeter (Confer and Knapp 1981, Frech and Confer 1987). In New York, abandoned farmland undergoing secondary succession has this distinctive pattern of vegetation for only about 10-20 years. Thus, golden-winged warblers at upland sites are restricted to a specific and brief stage of succession. Because of this restriction, Confer and Knapp (1981) suggested that this warbler was in some sense a habitat specialist. However, a species that can nest in chestnut-sprout forests in Virginia, tamarack bogs in Michigan, and alder swamps in Ontario clearly tolerates a wide range of conditions. It would be valuable to determine if nesting warblers require a specific plant profile but tolerate a wide range of plant species, or tolerate a wide range of both plant profile and plant species.

NON-BREEDING: In migration and winter in various open woodland habitats, pine-oak, and scrub, often in foothill regions (AOU 1983). Found in evergreen and semi-deciduous forest, particularly the canopy, gaps, or edges and in tall second growth (Stiles and Skutch 1989, DeGraaf and Rappole 1995, Howell and Webb 1995).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats insects (especially caterpillars) and spiders; forages among foliage and twigs from treetops to lower shrubs (Terres 1980). Nonbreeding: specializes in gaping and probing into rolled dying and dead leaves in thickety tangles for caterpillars, spiders, and crickets (Stiles and Skutch 1989); forages at levels but usually quite high (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 12 centimeters
Weight: 9 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Nest in a variety of early-successional forest sites, including abandoned farmland, powerline right-of-ways, recently logged sites, bogs and swamps, and forest openings. Nests are placed on the ground and are well concealed by vegetation. They breed throughout the central and southern states of the Northeast and are sparse in northern New England. Populations have declined in many northeastern states, particularly in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and West Virginia. Succession of forests and farmlands is a major factor in the decline, coupled with the expansion of the closely-related blue-winged warbler into secondary-successional habitats. Hybrid phenotypes of the two species, known as the Brewster's and Lawrence's warblers, occur in the zones of overlap. Competition between the two species may reduce golden-winged warbler nesting success, although some observations to the contrary do not support this hypothesis. Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds may additionally contribute to the decline. Habitat for the golden-winged warbler can be created through logging, burning, and intermittent farming. Moderately-sized sites of 10-15 ha can support several pairs, and are preferred over both smaller and larger areas (Confer 1992).
Restoration Potential: Appears to be a fugitive species. Major shifts in location and abundance show that it has the potential to colonize appropriate habitat throughout northeastern North America. However, its ability to colonize or recolonize areas where blue-winged warblers have subsequently arrived is not known. This capability is a major concern for management of golden-winged warblers in those many areas where the blue-winged warbler is now abundant. Also, the possible future loss of winter habitat and its effect is not known.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Often nest in loose clusters of two to six or more pairs in a contiguous site. Speculatively, the birds may attract each other so that one site sufficient to support several pairs might be more productive than several small sites that are each large enough to support only one pair. On the other hand, the golden-winged warbler does not occur in high densities in large, uniform fields of over 25 ha. Perhaps the middle of such fields do not provide the forest edge which is usually part of the territory. Sites of 10-15 ha can support six pairs (Pfannmuller 1979; J. Confer, pers. obs.), and this size may be close to the optimum.

At a density of five pairs per ten ha, 100-200 pairs would require 200-400 ha of suitable habitat. With a 40-year cycle of burning, only about half of the managed habitat would be suitable at any one time, requiring a total of 400-800 ha of managed habitat. It is worth noting that many other species would use this habitat, including several species whose abundance is a matter of concern. For the first ten years after a burn, the successional habitat would favor field species including perhaps Henslow's sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII), American woodcock (SCOLOPAX MINOR), and possibly the upland sandpiper (BARTRAMIA LONGICAUDA). As shrubs invaded and a site became suitable for golden-winged warblers, such habitat would provide resources for other species, including winter browse for deer (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANA). Allowing aspen (POPULUS spp.) to develop would support many other species including ruffed grouse (BONASA UMBELLUS) which use aspen buds as a major winter food source (Confer 1992).

The necessity for control of blue-winged warblers and brown-headed cowbirds should be assessed by research as discussed below.

Management Requirements: Any management program needs to address four concerns to be beneficial. First, the program must maintain or create sufficient amounts of appropriate habitat. Second, the management program needs to assess the impact of blue-winged warblers and may need to institute control measures. Third, a management program needs to assess the effect of nest parasitism by cowbirds and may need to institute control measures. Fourth, the effect of loss of winter habitat needs to be assessed and corrective efforts need to be considered.

For upland sites, habitat can be created through succession following farming or fires, and sometimes logging. In New York, clearcutting is often followed by a dense and uniform growth of saplings without openings for patches of herbs. Such openings are rarely if ever used by golden-winged warblers in New York. Brushhogging, i.e., cutting woody stems of shrubs at their base, has not been followed by nesting bird occupancy in the few sites studied. Perhaps cutting shrubs stimulates regeneration of a dense growth of woody stems without the requisite herbaceous growth. Golden-winged warblers sometimes nest under powerline right-of-ways if maintenance produces the appropriate patches of shrubs. Frequent application of herbicides may prevent the development of the requisite shrubbiness (G. Hall, pers. comm.).

The optimal management practice may be a rotation of burning or intermittent farming. A cycle of about 40 years with about 25% of the managed area burned once each decade could produce the following successional sequence. Golden-winged warbler habitat would begin to appear perhaps within ten years and last about 10-20 years, although these times are approximations and would be influenced by factors such as soil quality, the size and intensity of the burn, and proximity to seed sources. Allowing succession to continue for approximately 40 years would provide the forest edge that is used in almost all territories (Confer 1992).

Monitoring Requirements: The annual data from BBS routes combined with a repetition of statewide atlases at approximately 30-year intervals would provide an overview of the population status in large areas. Large changes in local abundance occurring within 10-20 years have been documented (Gill 1980; Confer et al., in press). Consequently, populations that are suspected to be changing should be monitored every several years. Managed areas and research sites should be monitored annually to assess the status and help determine the causes of shifts in abundance (Confer 1992).
Management Research Needs: A research program for the management and regional recovery should determine the effect of habitat loss and blue-winged warbler competition. Previous studies have shown that the decline of the golden-winged warbler correlates with both the loss of habitat and expansion of the blue-winged warbler. However, habitat loss and blue-winged warbler expansion are themselves correlated, which makes it difficult to separate the relative significance of these events.

The current and historical relationship between golden-winged warbler abundance and habitat availability should be determined. Habitat abundance may be determined by high resolution aerial photographs, such as those available from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Satellite imagery might be useful but it is not certain that the variety of suitable habitats such as swamps, ungrazed shrubby fields, and logged areas could be detected.

The potential influence of blue-winged warblers could be measured in several ways. Observations of interactions between blue-winged and golden-winged warblers could document behavioral dominance, which would provide inference about a potential effect on reproductive success. Measurements of golden-winged warbler nesting success in the presence of blue-winged warblers could detect a reduction in fledging rate perhaps caused by resource competition. A comparative analysis of habitat selection by golden-winged warblers in the presence and absence of blue-winged warblers could detect habitat displacement perhaps due to interference competition. An analysis of the recruitment of new, breeding males to a suitable patch could show behavioral exclusion of one species by the other.

Analyses of the effect of blue-winged warblers on recruitment, habitat selection, and nesting success by the golden-winged warbler requires comparisons between a control site with both species and an experimental site without blue-winged warblers. This experimental design may require the removal of blue-winged warblers by intensive mist-netting or perhaps shooting. Experimental sites should be close enough to each other to have nearly identical habitat and climate.

Cowbird nest parasitism is one more stress which may cumulatively reduce reproductive success below maintenance level. The influence of cowbird parasitism on nest success should be monitored at several sites. If parasitism causes a 30% reduction in nesting success, a cowbird control program might be justified.

The distribution, use and abundance of golden-winged warbler winter habitat should be monitored.

Loss of breeding habitat, loss of winter habitat, interactions with blue-winged warblers, and nest parasitism may all contribute to the decline of the golden-winged warbler. These are new stresses that occur directly or indirectly because of human activities. Passive acquiescence to the negative effect of human activities, which reduces wildlife abundance and diversity, should not be confused with the slow evolution of species that are better adapted to natural selective forces. Wildlife management, involving habitat manipulation and localized control of some species, may partially redress the inadvertent imbalance resulting from our actions. For much of the northeastern U.S., present trends show that maintenance of regional populations of golden-winged warblers will require deliberate management efforts (Confer 1992a,b).

Biological Research Needs: Assess the impact of succession, invasive species, and climate change on breeding density. Distinguish source and sink habitats for this species, especially with regions sympatric with Blue-winged Warblers (Confer, Hartman, and Roth, 2011).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Nest Site, Nesting Colony
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding, or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Mapping Guidance: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas.

For swallows and other species that have separate nesting and foraging areas, separations are based on nest sites or nesting areas, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap larger than the separation distance are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Mean foraging radius (from nesting area) of Brown-headed Cowbird females was 4.0 kilometers in California, 1.2 kilometers in Illinois-Missouri (Thompson 1994). Yellow-headed Blackbirds, Brewer's Blackbirds, and probably Red-winged Blackbirds all forage up to 1.6 kilometers away from breeding colony (Willson 1966, Horn 1968). In one study, Brewer's Blackbirds were found as far as 10 kilometers from nesting area (Williams 1952), but this may be unusual.

For swallows and other parrerines with similar behavioral ecology, separation distance pertains to nest sites or nesting colonies, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap of more than 5 km are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: For most passerines: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating individuals (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat.

For swallows: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 100 birds in appropriate habitat (e.g., traditional roost sites).

Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually.

EOs should not be described for species that are nomadic during nonbreeding season: e.g., Lark Bunting.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary but intended to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Any area used traditionally in the nonbreeding season (used for populations that are not resident in a location year-round). Minimally, reliable observations of 10 or more individuals in appropriate habitat for 20 or more days at a time. For G1-G3 species, observations of fewer individuals could constitute an occurrence of conservation value. Sites used during migration should be documented under the 'migratory stopover' location use class.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance is necessarily arbitrary but attempts to balance the high mobility of birds with the need for occurrences of reasonable spatial scope. Note that a population's roost sites and foraging areas are parts of the same occurrence, even if they are more than 5 km apart.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Nonmigratory
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a particular location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in or near appropriate habitat.

These occurrence specifications are used for nonmigratory populations of passerine birds.

Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and breeding-season foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Blue jays have small summer home ranges but fly up to 4 kilometers to harvest mast (Tarvin and Woolfenden 1999). Flocks of pinyon jays range over 21-29 square kilometers (Ligon 1971, Balda and Bateman 1971); nesting and foraging areas may be widely separated. Tricolored blackbirds forage in flocks that range widely to more than 15 kilometers from the nesting colony (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 10Nov2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., and J. Confer; Reviewed and modified by Jue, Dean K.
Management Information Edition Date: 01Jun1992
Management Information Edition Author: CONFER, J.L.; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Parts of this abstract were originally published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Schneider and Pence (1992). Funding for the preparation of the original document was made possible by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. The personal experiences with golden-winged warblers that have gone into this account have resulted from the gracious support of the author's wife, Karen, who was abandoned for many years during the breeding season for warblers. Personal observations mentioned in the text have resulted from field work supported by the Max McGraw Foundation, an NSF-ROA supplement to grant number BSR-8817950 to H.R. Pulliam and J.B. Dunning, funds from the National Geographic Society, and funds from Ithaca College. S. Droege provided considerable personal help with BBS data analyses. G. Hall and F. Gill critically reviewed an earlier draft of this status report and made a number of helpful suggestions.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 26Dec1995
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 Ornithological Society. 2006. Field checklist of Alabama birds. Alabama Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Alabama. [Available online at http://www.aosbirds.org/documents/AOSChecklist_april2006.pdf ]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Andrle, R. F., and J. R. Carrol, editors. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York. 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.

  • Artuso, C., S. Van Wilgenberg, and W. Vanderschuit. 2008. Bird Studies Canada. [Online.] http://www.birdscanada.org/research/speciesatrisk/gwwa

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

  • Balda, R. P., and G. C. Bateman. 1971. Flocking and annual cycle of the piñon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus. Condor 73:287-302.

  • Bannon, P. 2002. Paruline à ailes dorées. QuébecOiseaux, vol. 14, Hors série 2002, p. 73-75.

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

  • Beaulieu, H. 1992. Liste des espèces de la faune vertébrée susceptibles d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 107 p.

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

  • BirdLife International. (2013-2014). IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on various dates in 2013 and 2014. http://www.birdlife.org/

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

  • Buehler, D. A., A. M. Roth, R. Vallender, T. C. Will, J. L. Confer, R. A. Canterbury, S. B. Swarthout, K. V. Rosenberg, and L. P. Bulluck. 2007. Status and conservation priorities of golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) in North America. Auk 124:1-7.

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

  • CONFER, J.L. AND K. KNAPP. 1981. GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLERS AND BLUE-WINGED WARBLERS: THE RELATIVE SUCCESS OF A HABITAT SPECIALIST AND A GENERALIST. AUK 98:108-114.

  • Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. 1987. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Canada. 617pp.

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

  • Carter, M., G. Fenwick, C. Hunter, D. Pashley, D. Petit, J. Price, and J. Trapp. 1996. Watchlist 1996: For the future. Field Notes 50(3):238-240.

  • Cecil, R. 1996. Golden-winged warbler. Pages 416 in Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas (Jackson, L. S., J. J. Dinsmore, and C. A. Thompson, editors) University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa.

  • Coker, D. R, and J. L. Confer. 1990. Brown-headed cowbird parasitism on golden-winged and blue-winged warblers. Wilson Bulletin 102:550-552.

  • Confer, J. L. 1992. Golden-winged warbler. Pages 369-383 in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400 pp.

  • Confer, J. L., J. L. Larkin, and P. E. Allen. 2003. Effects of vegetation, interspecific competition, and brood parasitism on golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) nesting success. Auk 120:138-144.

  • Confer, J. L., K. W. Barnes, and E. C. Alvey. 2010. Golden and blue-winged warblers: distribution, nesting success, and genetic differences in two habitats. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:273-278.

  • Confer, J. L., P. Hartman, and A. Roth. 2011. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/020.

  • Confer, J. L., and K. Knapp. 1981. Golden-winged warblers and blue-winged warblers: the relative success of a habitat specialist and a habitat generalist. Auk 98:108-114.

  • Confer, J.L. and M.H. French. 1987. The golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) in New York: changes in range, abundance and habitat use. Abstract of paper presented at Wilson Orhnithology Society meeting, Utica, NY. 28-31 May, 1987.

  • Confer, J.L., G. Hammerson, and D.W. Mehlman. 1992. Species Management Abstract for Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Unpaginated.

  • Confer, J.L., K. Knapp, D. Coker, M. Armstrong, and J. Doherty. 1991. The rapidly changing distribution of the Golden-winged Warber (VERMIVORA CHRYSOPTERA) in central New York. Kingbird 41:5-10.

  • Confer, J.L., and K. Knapp. 1977. Hybridization and interactions between blue-winged and golden-winged warblers. Kingbird 27:181-190.

  • Confer, John L. 1992. Golden-Winged Warbler; The Birds of North America. Vol. 1, No. 20. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Confer, John L., Patricia hartman, and Amber Roth.  2011.  Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera).  The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/584 doi:10.2173/bna.584. 

  • Cumming, E. E. 1998. Distribution and habitat associations of Golden-winged Warblers in Duck Mt., Riding Mt., and Porcupine Hills, Manitoba. Report prepared for Canadian Wildlife Service, Forest Bird Research Division.

  • Cyr, A. et J. Larivée. 1995. Atlas saisonnier des oiseaux du Québec. Les Presses de l'Université de Sherbrooke et La Société de Loisir Ornithologique de l'Estrie, inc. Sherbrooke 711p.

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

  • DeGraaf, R.M., and J.H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical migratory birds: natural history, distribution, and population change. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.

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

  • Droege, S., and J.R. Sauer. 1990. North American Breeding Bird Survey, annual summary, 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(8). 22 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.

  • 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.

  • Ficken, M. S., and R. W. Ficken. 1967. Singing behaviour of blue-winged and golden-winged warblers and their hybrids. Behaviour 28:149-181.

  • Ficken, M. S., and R. W. Ficken. 1968. Territorial relationships of blue-winged warblers, golden-winged warblers, and their hybrids. Behaviour 28:149-181.

  • Frech, M.H., and J.L. Confer. 1987. The Golden-winged Warbler: competition with the Blue-winged Warbler and habitat selection in portions of southern, central, and northern New York. Kingbird 37(2):65-72.

  • Gauthier, J. et Y. Aubry (sous la direction de) 1995. Les oiseaux nicheurs du Québec : Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Association québécoise des groupes d'ornithologues, Société québécoise de protection des oiseaux, Service canadien de l

  • Gauthier, J., and Y. Aubry (editors). 1996. The breeding birds of Quebec. Atlas of the breeding birds of southern Quebec. Association quebecoise des groupes d'ornithologues, Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Quebec Region, Montreal, 1302 pp.

  • Gill, F. B., and B. G. Murray, Jr. 1972. Song variation in blue-winged and golden-winged warblers. Auk 89:625-643.

  • Gill, F.B. 1980. Historical aspects of hybridization between blue-winged and golden-winged warblers. Auk 97:1-18.

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

  • Greenlaw, Jon S., Bill Pranty, and Reed Bowman.  2014.  Robertson and Woolfenden Florida Bird Species:  An Annotated List.  Special Publication No. 8, Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville, FL.
     

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

  • Hagan, J. M., III, and D. W. Johnston, editors. 1992. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

  • Hall, G.A. 1983. West Virginia birds: distribution and ecology. Spec. Publ. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 7, Pittsburgh. 180 pp.

  • Hands, H. M., R. D. Drobney, and M. R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the golden-winged warbler in the northcentral United States. Missouri Coop. Fish Wildl. Res. Unit Rep. 12 pp.

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

  • Harrison, H.H. 1984. Wood warblers' world. Simon and Schuster, New York. 335 pp.

  • Highsmith, R. T. 1989. The singing behavior of golden-winged warblers. Wilson Bulletin 101:36-50.

  • Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's Blackbird. Ecology 49:682-694.

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

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

  • JOHNSGARD,P.A.1979.BIRDS OF THE GREAT PLAINS,BREEDING SPECIES AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION. UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PRESS. LINCOLN.

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

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

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

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

  • Mills, A. 1987. Golden-winged warbler. Page 358 in M. D. Cadman, P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner (editors). Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario.

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

  • Moore, W. S., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1989. The use of banding recovery data to estimate dispersal rates and gene flow in avian species: case studies in the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle. Condor 91:242-253.

  • Murray, B. G., and F. B. Gill. 1976. Behavioral interactions of blue-winged and golden-winged warblers. Wilson Bulletin 88:231-254.

  • National Audubon Society. 2014. View all Species. Website accessible at http://birds.audubon.org/species. Accessed on various dates in 2014.

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

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

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

  • New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. 1986. Allegany State Park SCOPING finding.

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

  • OUELLET, H 1967. The distribution of the Cerulean Warbler in the Province of Quebec, Canada. Auk 84 p. 272-274.

  • OUELLET, H. 1966. HISTOIRE ET DISPERSION DE LA FAUVETTE AZURÉE DENDROICA CERULEA (WILSON) DANS LA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC, CANADA. NATURALISTE CANADIEN 93 335-337

  • 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.

  • Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2013. Population Estimates Database, version 2013. Available at http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates. Accessed in 2014.

  • 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.

  • Pfannmuller, L. A. 1979. Bird communities of the regional copper-nickel study area. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. M.S. thesis. 147 pp.

  • Poole, A. F. and F. B. Gill. 1992. The birds of North America. The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. and The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

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

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

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

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

  • Ridgely, R. S. and G. Tudor. 1989. The birds of South America. Volume 1. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA. 516 pp.

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

  • Robert, M. 1989. Les oiseaux menacés du Québec. Association québécoise des groupes d'ornithologues et Environnement Canada. 109 p.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/.

  • Sauer, J.R., and S. Droege. 1992. Geographical patterns in population trends of Neotropical migrants in North America. Pages 26-42 in J.M. Hagan, III, and D.W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, editors. 1992. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Short, L. L. 1963. Hybridization in the wood warblers VERMIVORA PINUS and V. CHRYSOPTERA. Proc. 13th Intl. Ornithol. Congr. 147-160.

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

  • Skully, R. [In press]. A field study of the golden-winged warbler in the Pequannock watershed, Sussex County, New Jersey. Proc. Linnaean Soc.

  • Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. 2003. Les espèces menacées [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site Internet. - Accès :«http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/etu_rec/esp_mena_vuln/index.htm». La société, 2003 [Réf. 3 novembre 2003] .

  • Stevenson, H.M., and B.H. Anderson. 1994. The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, 891 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.

  • Sutherland, D.A. 2005. COSSARO Candidate Species At Risk Evaluation Form for Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). Natural Heritage Information Centre. Prepared for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. October, 13 pp.

  • Swarthout, S., K. V. Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, and R. S. Hames. 2009. Golden-winged warbler atlas project. Contract 50181-1-J048. Final Technical Report submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

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

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The 1987 List. Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 63 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 63 pp.

  • Will, T. C. 1986. Behavioral ecology of species replacement: blue-winged and golden-winged warblers in Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ph.D dissertation. 126 pp.

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

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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