Ardenna creatopus - (Coues, 1864)
Pink-footed Shearwater
Synonym(s): Puffinus creatopus Coues, 1864
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Puffinus creatopus Coues, 1864 (TSN 174547)
French Common Names: Puffin ŕ pieds roses
Spanish Common Names: Pardela Blanca, Pardela Patas Rojas
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101181
Element Code: ABNDB07010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Other Birds
Image 10594

© Bruce A. Sorrie

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Procellariiformes Procellariidae Ardenna
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: Puffinus creatopus
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly (AOU 1983, 1998) Ardenna was considered part of Puffinus, but now treated as separate on the basis of genetic data (Penhallurick and Wink 2004, Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011), which indicate that species in Ardenna and Puffinus form two deeply divergent clades that may not be sister groups. Analyses of morphology and biogeography (Oberholser 1917, Kuroda 1954) had previously recognized species of Puffinus, Ardenna, and the extralimital Calonectris as distinctive groups. Linear sequence of species follows Pyle et al. (2011) (AOU 2016).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 31Oct2008
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Breeds only on a few islands off Chile, where predation by introduced mammals is a concern, and illegal harvest by humans may be causing a decline in the largest occurrence; species ranges widely at sea in the Pacific Ocean, where it may be negatively affected by commerical fisheres; total breeding population is roughly 20,000-30,000 pairs, with recent trend probably relatively stable or slowly declining.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3N,N3M (08Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alaska (S1S2N), Oregon (SNA), Washington (S1S2N)
Canada British Columbia (S3N)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (14Jul2005)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (27Nov2016)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This long-lived seabird nests on only three islands off the coast of Chile, where it has suffered significant declines due to nest predation by introduced predators, exploitation by humans and habitat degradation. It also experiences mortality due to incidental take by fisheries across its range, including important foraging areas off the coast of British Columbia. Bycatch risk from fisheries has increased over the last three generations. This species is also sensitive to offshore oil spills.

Status history: Designated Threatened in May 2004. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in November 2016.

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: <100-250 square km (less than about 40-100 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Breeding range is restricted to islands off Chile (Más á Tierra [Robinson Crusoe] and Santa Clara in the Juan Fernández group, and Isla Mocha in Arauco Bay) (AOU 1998). Away from nesting islands, the species ranges at sea off the Pacific coast of the Americas, north at least as far as south-coastal Alaska (AOU 1998).

Coded range extent refers to the terrestrial breeding range, which is less than 150 square kilometers, based on the sizes of the nesting islands..

Area of Occupancy: 3-500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Area of occupancy has not been precisely determined but likely is less than 100 square kilometers.

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: Breeds at only three locations (AOU 1998, COSEWIC 2004, BirdLife International 2008).

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: The most recent data, based on burrow counts (e.g., Guicking 1999, Hodum and Wainstein 2003) suggest that the global adult population is approximately 20,000-30,000 pairs (COSEWIC 2004, BirdLife International 2008), with at least a couple thousand pairs on Más á Tierra, about 2,500 pairs on Santa Clara, and up to 25,000 pairs on Isla Mocha.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats include mortality from introduced predators (coatis, rats, and feral cats on Isla Robinson Crusoe; rats on Isla Santa Clara; rats and probably feral cats on Isla Mocha) (Collar et al. 1992, Guicking 1999, IUCN 2000); illegal harvest of chicks for food on Isla Mocha (Guicking 1999); likely incidental mortality in commercial fisheries; habitat degradation by goats, rabbits, and cattle on Robinson Crusoe (IUCN 2000, BirdLife International 2008); and burrow destruction by chick harvesters on Isla Mocha (Guicking 1999). The species is also vulnerable to mortality from oil contamination (COSEWIC 2004). Predation by coatis may be the biggest threat on Isla Robinson Crusoe (Guicking and Fiedler 2000). Chick harvest may be causing a decline on Isla Mocha (Guicking 1999). The effect of introduced predators on population size and trend on Isla Mocha is unknown (Hodum and Wainstein 2002). The level of incidental mortality in commercial fisheries is unknown, but there is substantial overlap between fishing areas and shearwater locations (e.g., Guicking et al. 2001).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Although there is no direct evidence, populations on Isla Mocha (the largest subpopulation) are believed to be declining due to the effects of chick harvesting (Guicking 1999). Populations in the Juan Fernández group appear to have been more or less stable over the 15 years prior to the late 1990s (Guicking 1999).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: The population on Más á Tierra (Robinson Crusoe) probably is much smaller than in the past, prior to introduction of coastis (Bourne et al. 1992, Guicking and Fiedler 2000), but the degree of decline is unknown.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Control of introduced mammals and protection of nesting islands are the most important conservation needs.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (<100-250 square km (less than about 40-100 square miles)) Breeding range is restricted to islands off Chile (Más á Tierra [Robinson Crusoe] and Santa Clara in the Juan Fernández group, and Isla Mocha in Arauco Bay) (AOU 1998). Away from nesting islands, the species ranges at sea off the Pacific coast of the Americas, north at least as far as south-coastal Alaska (AOU 1998).

Coded range extent refers to the terrestrial breeding range, which is less than 150 square kilometers, based on the sizes of the nesting islands..

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, but breeds in a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, OR, WA
Canada BC

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

Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A seabird (shearwater).
Reproduction Comments: Eggs are laid in December-January. Clutch size is 1. Young begin to fly 89-95 days after hatching (Terres 1980).
Ecology Comments: Solitary or gregarious at sea (Stiles and Skutch 1989). May be seen in association with sooty shearwater.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates off Central American coast mainly May-June and September-October. Occurs off Pacific coast of North America mainly spring-fall; the vast majority of the population is off the North American coast during the northern spring and summer. Observed October-December at sea near Hawaii (Pratt et al. 1987).
Marine Habitat(s): Aerial, Pelagic
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: This is a pelagic seabird that prefers cold waters of the open ocean (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Nests are on islands with soils suitable for burrowing; nesting areas are in forests (Isla Mocha) or in open grassy areas (Juan Fernández Archipelago).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Food Comments: Fishes and small crustaceans. Eats more fishes than do most shearwaters (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Length: 48 centimeters
Weight: 721 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Better information is needed on the level of mortality in commercial fisheries and on the imapct of chick harvest.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Colonial Seabirds

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Breeding 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: Map foraging areas as separate polygons if they are separated from the breeding colony by areas simply flown over on commuting routes.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Where colonies are closer than 5 kilometers, separate occurrences may be created if research shows little genetic mixing between colonies.
Separation Justification: Occurrences include nesting and foraging areas, but occurrence separations are based on nesting areas (i.e., distance between nesting areas, regardless of foraging locations). Hence, different occurrences may overlap.

Occurrences are not based on discrete populations or metapopulations. Instead, the separation distance is arbitrarily small such that occurrences are of of practical size for data management purposes.

Evidence from a number of species of seabirds indicates that even though the 'home ranges' of individual nesting seabirds may be immense when foraging trips are taken into account, little movement or feeding overlap may occur between nearby colonies. For example, Thick-billed Murres may commute up to 170 kilometers one way on a feeding trip from the colony, but birds from a colony only 8 kilometers away may forage in a completely different direction; even birds from different sub-colonies only 1.5 kilometers apart mostly fed in completely separate areas (Gaston and Hipfner 2000).

Most seabirds have strong breeding site fidelity; e.g., Thick-billed Murres (Gaston and Hipfner 2000, Gaston et al. 1994), Gray-backed Tern (Mostello et al. 2000), Red-footed Booby (Schreiber et al. 1996).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Somewhat arbitrary, but generally very conservative for this group, many members of which travel long distances to foraging grounds.
Date: 20Oct2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Feeding area, Loafing site, Roosting site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of flocks of nonbreeding birds (including historical), including nonbreeding birds within the breeding season and breeding individuals outside the breeding season; and potential recurring presence at a given location. Normally only areas where concentrations greater than 25 birds regularly occur for more than 20 days per year would be deemed EOs; the number of individuals may be reduced for very rare species. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance arbitrary; defined this small to aid in conservation planning. Sites more than 10 kilometers apart may be joined as one occurrence if research shows that predominantly the same individuals are using both sites.
Date: 07Mar2001
Author: Cannings, S.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 31Oct2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 31Oct2008
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
  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Checklist of North American birds. 6th ed. American Ornithologists' Union, Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). Chesser, R.T., K.J. Burns, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, Jr., J.D. Rising, D.F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2016. Fifty-seventh Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 133:544-560.

  • B.C. Ministry of Environment. Recovery Planning in BC. B.C. Minist. Environ. Victoria, BC.

  • Barnett, J. M. and J. R. Navas. 1998. Primer registro de la Pardela Patas Rojas Puffinus creatopus en las costas argentinas. Hornero 15:43-44.

  • Becker, P. H. 2000. Mercury levels in Pink-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus creatopus) breeding on Mocha Island, Chile. Ornitologia Neotropical 11:165-168.

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

  • BirdLife International. 2008. Species factsheet: Puffinus creatopus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 31 October 2008.

  • BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Puffinus creatopus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 31 May 2010.

  • Bourne, W.R.P., M. de L. Brooke, G. S. Clark, and T. Stone. 1992. Wildlife conservation problems in the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile. Oryx 26(1):43-51.

  • COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the pink-footed shearwater Puffinus creatopus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 22 pp.

  • COSEWIC. 2004b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Pink-footed Shearwater Puffinus creatopus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 22 pp.

  • Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, and M. C. E. McNall. 1990a. The Birds of British Columbia. Volume 1. Nonpasserines: Introduction and loons through waterfowl. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 514 pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I.McT. Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 1. Nonpasserines: Introduction, Loons through Waterfowl. Royal B.C. Mus. in association with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. 514pp.

  • Carboneras, C. 1992a. Family Procellariidae (petrels and shearwaters). Pages 216-257 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and J. Sargatal (Eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 1. Lynx Editions, Barcelona, Spain.

  • Collar, N. J., L. P. Gonzaga, N. Krabbe, A. Madrońo-Nieto, L. G. Naranjo, T. A. Parker III, and D. C. Wege. 1992. Threatened Birds of the Americas. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. 3rd edition, Part 2. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK.

  • Environment Canada. 2008b. Recovery Strategy for the Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) and the Pink-footed Shearwater (Puffinus creatopus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vii + 46 pp.

  • Gaston, A. J., and J. M. Hipfner. 2000. Thick-billed Murre (Uria lomvia). No. 497 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.

  • Gaston, A. J., et al. 1994. Population parameters of thick-billed murres at Coats Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Condor 96:935-948.

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

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

  • Gould, P.J., D.J. Forsell, and C.J. Lensink. 1982. Pelagic distribution and abundance of seabirds in the Gulf of Alaska and eastern Bering Sea. Biol. Rep. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Services Program, FWS/OBS-82/84.

  • Guicking, D. 1999. Pink-footedsShearwaters on Isla Mocha, Chile. World Birdwatch Special Issue 21(4):20-23.

  • Guicking, D., D. Ristow, P. H. Becker, R. Schlatter, P. Berthold, and U. Querner. 2001. Satellite tracking of the pink-footed shearwater in Chile. Waterbirds 24(1):8-15.

  • Guicking, D., W. Fiedler, C. Leuther, R. Schlatter and P. H. Becker. 2004. Morphometrics of the Pink-footed Shearwater (Puffinus creatopus): influence of sex and breeding site. Journal of Ornithology 145:64-68.

  • Guicking, D., and W. Fiedler. 2000. Report on the excursion to the Juan Fernández Islands, Chile, 4-23 February 2000.

  • Hodum, P., and M. Wainstein. 2003. Biology and conservation of the Juan Fernández Archipelago seabird community. Field season report.

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2000. 2000 IUCN Red list of threatened species. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission, Cambridge, U.K.

  • Kessel, B., and D.D. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds. Studies Avian Biology. In: Studies in Avian Biology No. 1. R. J. Raitt, Ed. Cooper Ornithological Society. 1:1-100.

  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918, Ch. 128, 40 Stat. 755 (1918) (current version at 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712).

  • Mostello, C. S., N. A. Palaia, and R. B. Clapp. 2000. Gray-backed Tern (Sterna lunata). No. 525 in A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Pratt, H. D., P. L. Bruner, and D. G. Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 409 pp. + 45 plates.

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

  • Schlatter, R. P. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in Chile. Pages 261-269 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 2.

  • Schreiber, E. A., R. W. Schreiber, and G. A. Schenk. 1996. Red-footed Booby (Sula sula). No. 241 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The Amerian Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 24 pp.

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

  • 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.

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. North Pacific Seabird Colony Database. USFWS, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. Available online at: http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/northpacificseabirds/colonies/default.htm. Accessed 25Apr2006.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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