Vireo olivaceus - (Linnaeus, 1766)
Red-eyed Vireo
Other English Common Names: red-eyed vireo
Other Common Names: Juruviara-Oliva
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Vireo olivaceus (Linnaeus, 1766) (TSN 179021)
French Common Names: viréo aux yeux rouges
Spanish Common Names: Vireo Ojo Rojo, Chiví Común
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104140
Element Code: ABPBW01240
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Vireonidae Vireo
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Vireo olivaceus
Taxonomic Comments: Species limits in this complex are uncertain; some authors separate V. FLAVOVIRIDIS and V. GRACILIROSTRIS as distinct species. The CHIVI group (Chivi Vireo) is closely related to the OLIVACEUS group and presumably conspecific with it (AOU 1998). V. FLAVOVIRIDIS was recognized as a distinct species by AOU (1987), based in part on genetic distinctness (Johnson and Zink 1985). May constitute a superspecies with V. GRACILIROSTRIS, V. FLAVOVIRIDIS, V. ALTILOQUUS, and V. MAGISTER (AOU 1998). See Banks and Browning (1995) for information on the use of the specific name OLIVACEUS over VIRESCENS. See Johnson et al. (1988) and Murray et al. (1994) for analyses of the phylogenetic relationships among vireos.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range, common in many areas, stable or increasing populations in most regions, with significant declines in a few states.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5N,N5M (02Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S5B), Alaska (S3B), Arizona (S1M), Arkansas (S5B), Colorado (S3B), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S5B), District of Columbia (S5B,S5N), Florida (SNRB), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S4B), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4B), Iowa (S5B,S5N), Kansas (S4B), Kentucky (S5B), Louisiana (S4B), Maine (S5B), Maryland (S5B), Massachusetts (S5B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (SNRB), Montana (S4B), Nebraska (S4), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S4B), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S5B), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5B), Oregon (S3S4B), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (S5B), South Carolina (SNRB), South Dakota (S5B), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5B), Utah (SNA), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S5), Washington (S3B), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S5B), Wyoming (S3B)
Canada Alberta (S5B), British Columbia (S5B), Labrador (S3B,SUM), Manitoba (S5B), New Brunswick (S5B,S5M), Newfoundland Island (S4B,SUM), Northwest Territories (S4S5B), Nova Scotia (S5B), Ontario (S5B), Prince Edward Island (S5B), Quebec (S5B), Saskatchewan (S5B), Yukon Territory (S2B)

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: BREEDS: British Columbia, probably southeastern Alaska, and Mackenzie to northern Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, south to northern Oregon, northern Idaho, eastern Colorado, Texas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida; CHIVI group: South America from Colombia, Venezuela and adjacent islands, and Guianas south, west of Andes to western Ecuador and east of Andes to eastern Peru, Bolivia, and central Argentina, also on Fernando de Noronha off Brazil (AOU 1983, 1987). NORTHERN WINTER: South America (western Amazonia); eastern Colombia, southern Venezuela, eastern Ecuador, eastern Peru, and western Brazil; CHIVI group: northern part of breeding range south to Amazon basin (AOU 1983).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Removal and/or excessive fragmentation of mature forest is detrimental. May be negatively impacted by drought and brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbird.

Short-term Trend: Increase of >10%
Short-term Trend Comments: Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a significant population increase in eastern North America, 1966-1989; for the U.S. and Canada overall, the increase averaged 1.5% per year (Droege and Sauer 1990, Sauer and Droege 1992).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDS: British Columbia, probably southeastern Alaska, and Mackenzie to northern Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, south to northern Oregon, northern Idaho, eastern Colorado, Texas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida; CHIVI group: South America from Colombia, Venezuela and adjacent islands, and Guianas south, west of Andes to western Ecuador and east of Andes to eastern Peru, Bolivia, and central Argentina, also on Fernando de Noronha off Brazil (AOU 1983, 1987). NORTHERN WINTER: South America (western Amazonia); eastern Colombia, southern Venezuela, eastern Ecuador, eastern Peru, and western Brazil; CHIVI group: northern part of breeding range south to Amazon basin (AOU 1983).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Ada (16001), Blaine (16013), Latah (16057), Shoshone (16079)
WY Albany (56001), Carbon (56007), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Johnson (56019), Lincoln (56023), Park (56029), Platte (56031), Sheridan (56033), Sweetwater (56037)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Greybull (10080009)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Clear (10090206)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+
14 Upper Green-Slate (14040103)+, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+, Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+, Little Snake (14050003)+
17 Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, Clearwater (17060306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: A 15-cm-long bird with a sturdy, slightly hooked bill, blue-gray crown, white eyebrow (bordered above and below with black), dark olive back, darker wings and tail, pale, unstreaked underparts, and a red eye (brown in fall juveniles); immatures and some fall adults are yellow on the flanks and undertail coverts; subspecies FLAVOVIRIDIS, which sometimes occurs in California and Texas, is yellower overall, with less distinct black lines on the head (NGS 1983).
Reproduction Comments: Nests from mid-May to mid-August (peak late May to mid-July) in the mid-Atlantic region (see Bushman and Therres 1988). Clutch size 3-5 in north (usually 4). Occasionally 2 broods per year. Incubation 11-14 days, mostly or entirely by female. Young tended by both parents, leave nest at 10-14 days. One of commonest cowbird hosts.
Ecology Comments: 45 territories averaged 0.7 ha per pair (Harrison 1979). In maple forests in Quebec, density averaged 1.2 pairs/ha (Darveau et al. 1992). In the Great Lakes region, populations were negatively affected by drought (Hagan and Johnston 1992).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates northward through the eastern U.S. March-May (Terres 1980). North American breeders winter mostly in Amazon basin (Hilty and Brown 1986). Colombia inhabited by resident populations, as well as migrants from temperate and tropical areas to the north and south (Hilty and Brown 1986). North American breeders migrate through Costa Rica mainly late August-early November and early April-late May (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Breeders in southern South America move to Amazonia and southern Venezuela for austral winter (mainly April-August) (Ridgely and Gwynne 1989).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard
Habitat Comments: Open deciduous (less frequently coniferous) forest (especially with sapling undergrowth), mixed forest with deciduous understory, second-growth woodland, scrub, thickets, gardens, mangroves. Most abundant in mature stands. In much of the range, prefers shady oak forests with a high, well-developed closed canopy and a fairly open understory with scanty ground cover (see Bushman and Therres 1988). Most common in forest tracts of at least 15-20 ha but may occur in patches as small as a few hectares (see Bushman and Therres 1988). Prefers closed canopy but tolerates a wide range of canopy closures. In Pennsylvania, more sensitive than other area-dependent birds to increased fragmentation via forest clear-cutting (Yahner 1993). In migration and winter in various open forest, forest edge, woodland, scrub, and brush habitats. Colombia: low to fairly high in shrubby clearings and forest borders (Hilty and Brown 1986).

Nests in fork of slender branch of shrub or low tree, 1-15 m (usually 1-3 m) above ground.

Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: In north, eats mostly insects, also eats small fruits and arillate seeds; forages in tree canopy, gleans insects from high deciduous foliage (Terres 1980, Bushman and Therres 1988). Notably frugivorous, almost totally so away from breeding areas (Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely and Gwynne 1989, Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 15 centimeters
Weight: 17 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Generally tolerant of a wide range of timber harvesting techniques, including selective logging, thinning "overmature" trees, and small or narrow clearcuts, though a decline with selective logging has been noted in Indiana (see Bushman and Therres 1988).
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
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02May1995
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). 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). 1987. Thirty-sixth supplement to the AOU Checklist of North American Birds. Auk 104:591-596.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • Barlow, J.C. 1980. Patterns of ecological interactions among migrant and resident vireos on the wintering grounds. Pages 79-107 in A. Keast and E.S. Morton, editors. Migrant birds in the neotropics: ecology, distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Bent, A.C. 1950. Life histories of North American wagtails, shrikes, vireos, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 197. Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 3, Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. UBC Press in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 700pp.

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

  • Cimprich, David A., Frank R. Moore and Michael P. Guilfoyle. 2000. Red-eyed Vireo. The Birds of North America. Vol. 14, No. 527: American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • 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.

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

  • Darveau, M., J. L. DesGranges, and G. Gauthier. 1992. Habitat use by three breeding insectivorous birds in declining maple forests. Condor 94:72-82.

  • DeGraph, R.M. and Rappole, J.H. 1995. Neotropical Migratory Birds. 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

  • Downes, C.M., and B.T. Collins. 2007. Canadian Bird Trends Web site Version 2.2. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3.

  • 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.

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

  • Fauth, Peter T. 1995. Wood Thrush Breeding Productivity Within a Fragmented Indiana Landscape. Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. 18 pp.

  • Frazer, Carolyn. 1989. An Investigation of Bird-Habitat Relationships in Hoosier National Forest, Indiana. Unpublished. 45 pp.

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • Haw, James A. 1994. Nesting Bird Survey: Salamonie River State Forest. 2 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

  • JOHNSTON,R.F.1960. DIRECTORY TO THE BIRD LIFE OF KANSAS. MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. LAWRENCE.

  • JOHNSTON,R.F.1964. THE BREEDING BIRDS OF KANSAS. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. LAWRENCE.

  • Johnson, N. K., R. M. Zink, and J. A. Marten. 1988. Genetic evidence for relationships in the avian family Vireonidae. Condor 90:428-445.

  • Johnson, N. K., and R. M. Zink. 1985. Genetic evidence for relationships among red-eyed, yellow-green, and chivi vireos. Wilson Bull. 97:421-435.

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

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

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

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

  • Machado, C. G. 1990. Vireo olivaceus (Vireonidae): uma espécie migratória nos bandos mistos de aves na Mata Atlântica do sudeste brasileiro. Ararajuba 1.

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

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

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

  • 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.W., W.B. McGillivray, and J.C. Barlow. 1994. The use of cytochrome B sequence variation in estimation of phylogeny in the Vireonidae. Condor 96(4):1037-1054.

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

  • Nelson, D. 1993. Colorado Bird Atlas: Manual on Use of Breeding Codes. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 27 pp.

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

  • New York State 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.

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

  • PETERSON, R.T. 1980. A FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS EAST OF THE ROCKIES. 4TH ED.

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

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

  • Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 1984-1987. UNPUBLISHED

  • Pereira, L. E., A. Suzuki, R. P. Souza, and G. Flauto. 1998. Sazonalidade das populações de Vireo olivaceus (Linnaeus, 1766) (Aves, Vireonidae) em regiões da Mata Atlântica do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Ararajuba 6 (2).

  • 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.

  • Pogson, T.H., S.E. Quinlan and B. Lehnhausen. A Manual of Selected Neotropical Migrant Birds of Alaska National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska.

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

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

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

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

  • Ridgely, R. S., and J. A. Gwynne, Jr. 1989. A guide to the birds of Panama with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras. Second edition. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 534 pp.

  • 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.

  • See SERO listing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • Wood, MERRILL. 1979. BIRDS OF PENNSYLVANIA. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., UNIVERSITY PARK. 133 PP.

  • Yahner, R. H. 1993. Effects of long-term forest clear-cutting on wintering and breeding birds. Wilson Bull. 105:239-255.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2003. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2003. 30pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2004. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2004. 24pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2007. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring Summer 2007. 12pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2008. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring/Summer 2008. 12pp.

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

  • eBird. 2016. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed in 2016.

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.