Setophaga americana - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Northern Parula
Other English Common Names: northern parula
Synonym(s): Parula americana (Linnaeus, 1758)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Parula americana (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 178868)
French Common Names: Paruline à collier
Spanish Common Names: Parula Norteña
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102108
Element Code: ABPBX02010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 7644

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Setophaga
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: Parula americana
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly placed in the genus Parula. Phylogenetic analyses of sequences of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that all species formerly placed in Dendroica, one species formerly placed in Wilsonia (citrina), and two species formerly placed in Parula (americana and pitiayumi) form a clade with the single species traditionally placed in Setophaga (ruticilla). The generic name Setophaga has priority for this clade (AOU 2011).

Constitutes a superspecies with P. pitiayumi (AOU 1998). A mitochondrial DNA study by Lovette and Bermingham (2001) suggests that the two taxa are conspecific and, in addition, do not form a monophyletic group with P. superciliosa and P. gutteralis of Central America; P. americana and P. pitiayumi group with dendroica whereas P. superciliosa and P. gutteralis group with vermivora. Moldenhauer (1992) documented the existence of two song populations and recommended that the eastern population be recognized as subspecies americana and the western population as subspecies ludoviciana.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5M (15Jan2018)

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), Arizona (S2N), Arkansas (S4B,S4N), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S1B), Delaware (S1B), District of Columbia (S3B,S3N), Florida (SNRB), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4B), Iowa (S3B,S3N), Kansas (S4B), Kentucky (S4S5B), Louisiana (S5B), Maine (S5), Maryland (S4S5B), Massachusetts (S1B,S4M), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (SNRB), New Hampshire (S5B), New Jersey (S3B), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S3S4B), North Carolina (S5B), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (S3), Oklahoma (S3B), Pennsylvania (S4), Rhode Island (S1B,S1N), South Carolina (SNRB), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S4B), Vermont (S4B), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S4B)
Canada Manitoba (S3B), New Brunswick (S5B,S5M), Newfoundland Island (S1B?,SUM), Nova Scotia (S5B), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (S5B), Quebec (S5B), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: southeastern Manitoba across southern Canada to Nova Scotia, south to east Texas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida; absent or rarely breeds in southern Michigan, northwestern Ohio, northern Indiana, northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin, southern Minnesota, and most of Iowa (Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996). NON-BREEDING: primarily in West Indies, from central Bahamas to Lesser Antilles; also west to western Caribbean and Gulf slopes of mainland, in Mexico from Veracruz through Yucatan peninsula; also in Belize and rarely as far south as Nicaragua and Costa Rica. This is the most common wintering warbler throughout the West Indies (Raffaele 1983, Pashley 1988, Pashley 1988, Pashley and Hamilton 1990).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: HABITAT LOSS: In the southeastern U.S. large tracts of bottomland hardwood forest are becoming increasingly rare. Habitat loss is the primary factor adversely impacting migrant bird populations throughout the Caribbean region. Population and land use trends suggest this trend is likely to continue. Few natural areas and reserves have been set aside throughout the region, but where land conservation has been coupled with subsequent natural and artificial reforestation migrant landbirds have made recoveries (Arendt 1992). In southern Michigan, southern Wisconsin, and the Mississippi lowlands of Missouri, eradicated due to habitat destruction (Robbins 1990, Brewer et al. 1991, Robbins and Easterla 1992 in Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996). Currently, acid precipitation may pose a more important threat to this habitat component (Dunn and Garrett 1997). Logging, agricultural conversion and coastal development continue to threaten resident and migrant landbirds throughout the Yucatan (Lynch 1992), where Northern Parula winters. While Northern Parula tends to shun disturbance, it may do well in second-growth tropical forest edges, or woodlots. However, deforestation in the tropics only rarely results in such habitats, but more often results in vast expanses of overgrazed pastures, canefields and other inhospitable habitats (Ehrlich et al.1988). POLLUTION: Has disappeared from many parts of the Northeast and Great Lakes region where increasing levels of air pollution has limited growth of moss and lichens that are a key component of nesting habitat. Affected areas include: Massachusetts (Veit and Petersen 1993), Connecticut (Zeranski and Baptist 1990), New Jersey (Sibley 1993), New York (Bull 1974), Rhode Island (Enser 1992), and Vermont (Kibbe 1985). PESTICIDES AND CONTAMINANTS: Earlier use of DDT to combat outbreaks of spruce budworm (CHORISTONEURA FUMIFERANA) caused population declines in the Maritime Provinces (Erskine 1992). COLLISIONS: Significant deaths attributed to collisions with human-made structures such as TV towers throughout range (Graber et al. 1983, Robbins and Easterla 1992, Ralph 1981 Robbins 1990). From 1955-1985 a total of 1,469 Northern Parulas hit one tower in Leon Co., FL (Stevenson and Anderson 1994). HURRICANES: Hurricanes may reduce local wintering populations of neotropical migrants in the West Indies. Abundance of Northern Parula in coastal Louisiana decreased following Hurricane Andrew, possibly due to decreased abundance of Spanish moss or defoliation of forest canopy (Torres and Leberg 1996). PARASITISM: Some instances of nest parasitism, but owing to the closed structure of its nest, probably an uncommon cowbird host (Dunn and Garrett 1997).

Short-term Trend Comments: Populations appear stable. Some increases have been reported in the boreal and northeastern parts of range (Dunn and Garrett 1997). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) survey-wide results show slight increases over the short and long-term in the North American population; a 0.7% per year increase (P = 0.05) from 1966-1999 and 2% per year increase (P = 0.05) from 1966-1979. Results for 1979-1999 show no significant trend (Sauer et al. 2000). BBS data indicate a significant population decrease in eastern North America, 1978-1988. In the eastern region, the population declined significantly from 1978 to 1988 (-1.91%; P < 0.01). In the western part of the range, the population declined significantly from 1966 to 1988 (-2.51%; P < 0.01, Sauer and Droege 1992). Local declines and extirpations in the southern Great Lakes states and from southern New England south to New Jersey in the early 1900s are likely attributable to loss of USNEA sp. lichen due to air pollution (Dunn and Garrett 1997). Apparently has become less common in winter habitat in Puerto Rico (Faaborg and Arendt 1989, Faaborg and Arendt 1992). Endangered in Delaware, threatened in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and a species of concern in Connecticut. Reed (1992) ranked this species as a low conservation priority because of its lack of specificity of habitat, its apparently large population size and its geographical distribution. Stotz et al. (1996) describe this bird as a low relative conservation priority in the neotropics.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: BREEDING: southeastern Manitoba across southern Canada to Nova Scotia, south to east Texas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida; absent or rarely breeds in southern Michigan, northwestern Ohio, northern Indiana, northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin, southern Minnesota, and most of Iowa (Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996). NON-BREEDING: primarily in West Indies, from central Bahamas to Lesser Antilles; also west to western Caribbean and Gulf slopes of mainland, in Mexico from Veracruz through Yucatan peninsula; also in Belize and rarely as far south as Nicaragua and Costa Rica. This is the most common wintering warbler throughout the West Indies (Raffaele 1983, Pashley 1988, Pashley 1988, Pashley and Hamilton 1990).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Litchfield (09005), New London (09011)*
DE Kent (10001), New Castle (10003), Sussex (10005)
IA Jones (19105), Lee (19111), Van Buren (19177)
ID Ada (16001), Jefferson (16051)
MA Barnstable (25001), Bristol (25005)*, Dukes (25007)*, Essex (25009)*, Plymouth (25023)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Bergen (34003), Burlington (34005), Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Gloucester (34015), Hunterdon (34019), Middlesex (34023), Monmouth (34025), Ocean (34029), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
RI Washington (44009)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Farmington (01080207)+, Charles (01090001)+*, Cape Cod (01090002)+, Narragansett (01090004)+, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+, Quinebaug (01100001)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Lower Delaware (02040202)+, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Choptank (02060005)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+
07 Maquoketa (07060006)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
17 Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (warbler).
General Description: ADULT MALE: Head and upperparts mostly grayish blue; patch on center of back greenish yellow; wings and tail grayish blue, the wings showing two prominent white bars and the tail having white spots on the outer feathers near its end; throat and breast mostly yellow, the breast crossed by a band of bluish black bordered with chestnut; belly white; flanks slightly washed with rufous. ADULT FEMALE: Similar, but patch on back duller and underparts light yellow with breast band generally lacking.
Reproduction Comments: Nest built in hanging bunches of mosses or lichens (Spanish moss, beard moss or lace lichen), usually at the end of the branch, 2 to 30 m from the ground. Usually near water (Baicich and Harrison 1997, Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996). Inside of nest lined with moss or lichen fibers, hair, fine grass, pine needles or plant down (Bent 1953). A hole leading through the moss is usually located at the level of the nest bowl. Occasionally two holes are used. Where epiphytes are absent, other materials are used (Petrides 1942, Hall 1983).

Eggs white to creamy white and speckled. Clutch size usually 3-5 eggs, range 2-7. One egg laid per day. Incubation period 12-14. Incubation 12-14 days, by female. Young tended by both parents. Brooding usually by female. Young fed mainly by female (Baicich and Harrison 1997, Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996).Young leave nest 10-11 days after hatching (Graber and Graber 1951, Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996) but are unable to fly. After fledging they remain near their parents, begging constantly. Female continues to do most of the feeding, while male sings. Time to independence from parents unknown (Baicich and Harrison 1997, Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996). Single brooded, but second broods reported (Potter et al. 1980).

Ecology Comments: BREEDING: Relatively nonsocial on breeding grounds. Males arrive early to establish territories and defend them with singing and chasing. Potential competitors affect territory size and density. Territories in mainland spruce forests of Maine were 0.4 hectares, but on offshore islands were only 0.16 hectares in size (Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996).

NON-BREEDING: Social behavior is quite variable during the non-breeding season sometimes showing site-fidelity with restricted home ranges (Ewert and Askins 1991). Forms mixed flocks or "temporary social aggregations" with other paruline species and residents (Post 1978, Stacier 1992, Stiles and Skutch 1989). Found singly, but most often associated with a mixed flock; a "nucleus species" (Eaton 1953). In southwestern Puerto Rico, ranged from territorial to gregarious to wandering (Hagan and Johnston 1992). Breeding and winter-site fidelity is suggested by banding results (Stacier 1992).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Short- to long-distance nocturnal neotropical migrant. Leaves breeding grounds beginning in August, with peak migration September through mid-October. Most birds move down the Atlantic coast to Florida, then cross to the West Indies; a significant number move through the Mississippi valley and across the Gulf of Mexico to Yucatan or along the coast to Central America.

Leaves Caribbean beginning in February, with peak migration mid-March to mid-April (Curson et al. 1994). Spring migration route from West Indies to eastern breeding areas probably via Florida peninsula; from eastern-central Mexico and northern-Central Americas to western breeding areas across Gulf of Mexico (Williams 1950, Stevenson 1957).

Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Old field, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Breeding habitat varies considerably throughout range, but primarily a riparian species associated with epiphytic growth. Found in open deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forest, woodland, floodplain and swamp forest. Prefers mature forest but also occurs in young deciduous woods (Bushman and Therres 1988). Favors woods with a very dense understory of saplings and shrubs near slow or non-flowing water; canopy may range from poorly developed to mainly closed (see Bushman and Therres 1988).

Southern populations occupy the canopy or subcanopy of riparian bottomland forest, especially where Spanish moss (TILLANDSIA) is found.. In eastern Texas, prefers floodplain hardwood forest dominated by water oak (QUERCUS NIGRA), willow oak (Q. PHELLOS), swamp chestnut oak (Q. MICHAUXII), and black gum (NYSSA SYLVANTICA) with an understory of dwarf palmetto (SABAL MINOR). Found less abundantly in mixed pine-hardwood forests. In the coastal plain of Georgia, breeds in mature hardwood bottomlands with Spanish moss, but in northern Georgia where Spanish moss is absent, breeds in moist wooded ravines of eastern hemlock (TSUGA CANADENSIS, Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996).

In northern part of range, prefers tall, mature, coniferous forest with spruce (PICEA), hemlock (TSUGA), true fir (ABIES), White Cedar, and Tamarack in moist bogs and swamps where Old Man's Beard lichen (USNEA spp.) or lace lichen (RAMALINA RETICULATA) is abundant. In Nova Scotia, found in stands of Sugar Maple (ACER SACCHARUM), Red Maple (A. RUBRUM), Paper Birch (BETULA PAPYRIFERA), and Yellow Birch (B. ALLEGHANIENSIS) and most abundantly in 40-yr-old stands of trees. Less abundant in both older and younger stands (Morgan and Freedman 1986). Density positively correlated with tree density, basal area, percent canopy cover, and canopy height (Morgan 1984). In northern-central Minnesota, inhabits primarily mature undisturbed mixed forest of predominantly deciduous trees with moderate ground and shrub cover and greater than 75 per cent canopy cover (Collins et al. 1982). In Illinois, numbers positively correlated with the presence of sycamore (PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS, Graber et al. 1983). Appalachian populations favor wet ravines dominated by hemlocks. Found at edges of spruce forests, spruce-covered islands off the Maine coast (Dunn and Garrett 1997).

NON-BREEDING: A habitat generalist in winter. Occurs in nearly equal frequencies in most common habitat types available. Tropical lowland evergreen forest, pine-oak forest, gallery forest, and secondary forest up to a maximum elevation of 1500 m (Stotz et al. 1996). In scrub and brushy areas (AOU 1998), woodland edge, and mangroves but also arboreal agriculture, sun coffee, citrus plantations, croplands (Arendt et al. 1992, Robbins et al. 1992) and tall second growth, usually from middle heights to high in the canopy (Lynch et al. 1985). Has exhibited sexual segregation in Quintana Roo, Yucatan, Mexico with more males in taller forest and more females in scrub habitats (Morton et al. 1987)

In Mexico occupies humid to semiarid forest and edge, plantations, and mangroves. Found singly at mid- to upper-levels (Howell and Webb 1995). In Costa Rica found at woodland edges, in semi-open and tall second growth, usually from middle amid foliage to high in canopy (Stiles and Skutch 1989). In Cuba, occupies forest, where it usually forages in higher branches (Garrido and Kirkconnell 2000). In Jamaica, most common in damper woods; trees with broad, thin leaves (Lack 1976).

MIGRATION: Uses all kinds of wooded areas on migration including humid lowland forest, second growth, scrub and brushy areas (AOU 1998), but shows a preference for deciduous woods; occasionally found in overgrown fields and hedgerows. (Dunn and Garrett 1997).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Actively feeds throughout the mid- and upper tree canopy, gleaning for insects among foliage at the tips of branches, less often on trunk (Terres 1980, Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996). Sometimes forages in understory or hawks insects on the wing, rarely on the ground (Bent 1953, Morse 1967). During most of the breeding season, where there is a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees, prefers to forage in coniferous rather than deciduous trees (Morse 1967). In Jamaica in winter, feeds in trees with broad thin leaves; prefers upper half of taller and denser trees, often feeds near trunk and on creepers (Lack 1976).

Eats insects, spiders, caterpillars, and rarely bud scales. Beetles are a large portion of diet on non-breeding grounds. In winter, especially in suboptimal habitat, berries, seeds, and nectar (Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996). Plant material consumed during winter includes: berries of the camecey (MICONIA PRASINA; Wetmore 1916) and VARRONIA ANGUSTIFOLIA (Danforth 1925), fruit of cecropia tree (CECROPIA) (Leck 1972), and nectar of several species of flowering plants, including CHIOCOCCA ALBA (Rubiaceae), HAMPEA TRILOBATA (Malvaceae), CAESALPINIA GAUMERI (Greenberg 1992), and tiger's claw tree (ERYTHRINA sp.; Wunderle 1978 in Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996).

Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 11 centimeters
Weight: 9 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Commonly breeds in the southeastern U.S. wherever there is suitable habitat: open deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forest, woodland, floodplain and swamp forest with epiphytic growth. Most studies indicate populations of this neotropical migrant are stable, but regional declines have occurred in the northeastern U.S. where air pollution has eliminated the epiphytes it requires. Stewardship needs include better monitoring, especially on the non-breeding grounds; alteration of forest management and logging practices, especially in riparian areas; and preventing new construction of tall communication towers. Evidence suggests forest tracts greater than 3000 hectares should be protected.
Restoration Potential: Not currently in need of restoration. Populations appear stable.

In floodplains that have been used extensively for farming, the forest can be replanted, especially in areas where soybean farming is not economical because of frequent flooding. Growing oaks and other high-value hardwoods on this land may provide an alternative source of income for landowners (Askins 2000).

Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Large forest tracts, preferably greater than 3000 hectares, should be preserved on the breeding and wintering grounds. Forest fragmentation may negatively impact populations in tracts smaller than 65-100 hectares (Bushman and Therres 1988).
Management Requirements: BREEDING: Available data suggests that management efforts in the U.S. should concentrate on maintaining large tracts of undisturbed breeding habitat and allowing disturbed habitat to mature. Highest relative abundance is in forest tracts of greater than 3000 hectares in the Middle Atlantic states (Robbins et al. 1989); probability of occurrence drops to 50 per cent for forest areas of 520 hectares.

Logging should be limited and should avoid riparian areas altogether. While this species may persist with various forest management practices, studies in the Missouri Ozarks found that it is detected more often in single-tree selection logging, less often in group selected and shelterwood cuts, and least frequently in clearcuts and mature, even-aged stands (Annand and Thompson 1997). Abundance is positively correlated with increasing width of riparian bottomland hardwood tracts in South Carolina. While narrow riparian stands are valuable, strips of > 500 m should be maintained (Kilgo et al. 1998). Clearcutting has negatively affected this species in southern Michigan (Brewer et al. 1991), southern Wisconsin (Robbins 1990), and the Mississippi lowlands of Missouri (Robbins and Easterla 1992).

Habitat degradation that results in altering the flow or hydrologic characteristics of rivers and other bodies of water or the should be avoided as they have been implicated in population declines in southern Wisconsin (Robbins 1990) and New York (Bull 1974). Use of pesticides targeted at agricultural and forestry pests may cause population declines (Erskine 1992). Efforts to control pollution from power plants and other sources that negatively impact epiphytes required for nesting and contribute to acid rain are needed. Also, efforts to limit the number of tall communication towers, especially near strong light sources, will likely reduce the number of fatal collisions of this and other migratory species.

NON-BREEDING: Maintaining large tracts of undisturbed habitat also a priority on wintering grounds. While it has low vulnerability to tropical deforestation (Morton 1992), is somewhat area-sensitive, uncommon in small forests (Freemark and Collins 1992). Three times more common in undisturbed dry tropical habitat than in disturbed habitat on the Yucatan Peninsula (Tramer 1974). However, other studies indicated it uses disturbed habitat on both wintering (Arendt et al. 1992) and breeding (Brooks 1940) grounds.

There are indications that fragmentation of tropical forests may lead to increased mortality for migrants occupying those patches. Until further research proves otherwise, limiting fragmentation and increasing forest connectivity should be guidelines for forest management in the tropics as well as in the temperate forests of North America (Petit et al. 1996).

Monitoring Requirements: North American populations adequately monitored by the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), but programs that specifically target hard-to-survey riparian areas are needed. Greater monitoring of populations on non-breeding grounds is needed.
Management Research Needs: 1) Determine if there an eastward shift in the migration route(s) from spring to fall, 2) Determine if two song populations winter in different areas (Moldenhauer and Regelski 1996).

The effect of habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity in tropical environments is also poorly understood. Further investigation of this question is of immediate concern because of the rapidly increasing human populations throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean.

Biological Research Needs: 1) More complete basic observations of social and reproductive behavior, particularly from different parts of the breeding range.

2) Little is known of breeding phenology, pair-bonding, nest-site selection, number of broods, hatching, fledgling stage, and nesting success.

3) Nothing is known of types or frequency of predation on adults, young, or eggs.

4) Determination of the genetic diversity of the species using additional markers and /or more sensitive techniques.

5) Comparison of the habitat, nest-site characteristics, and singing behavior of the California population with the eastern population (Moldenhauer and Regelski (1996).

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: 09Apr2001
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Robertson, B.
Management Information Edition Date: 09Apr2001
Management Information Edition Author: ROBERTSON, B.; REVISIONS BY S. CANNINGS
Management Information Acknowledgments: Funding for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the Department of Defense, Partners in Flight Program, through The Nature Conservancy, Wings of the Americas Program.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02Apr1993
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., AND B. ROBERTSON

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1957. The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds, 5th ed. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 691 pp.

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

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. [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., R.C. Banks, F.K. Barker, 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. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 128(3):600-613.

  • American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American birds. Fifth edition. American Ornithologists' Union. Port City Press, Inc. Baltimore, MD. 691 pp. (Reprinted in 1961 by Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland.)

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

  • Annand, E. M. and F. R. Thompson, III. 1997. Forest bird response to regeneration practices in central hardwood forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:159-171.

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

  • Arendt, W. J., and collaborators. 1992. Status of North American migrant landbirds in the Caribbean region: A summary. Pages 143-71 in J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Baicich, P. J., and C. J. O. Harrison. 1997. A guide to the nests, eggs and nestlings of North American birds. Second edition. Academic Press, New York.

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

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

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

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

  • Brewer, R., G.A. McPeek, and R.J. Adams, Jr. 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. xvii + 594 pp.

  • Brooks, M. 1940. The breeding warblers of the central Allegheny Mountain region. Wilson Bulletin 52(4):249-66.

  • Bull, J. 1974. Birds of New York state. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Reprint, 1985 (with Supplement, Federation of New York Bird Clubs, 1976), Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.

  • Bull, John. 1964. Birds of the New York area. New York: Harper and Row Publications 540 pp.

  • 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.

  • Chesser, R. T., R. C. Banks, F. K. Barker, 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. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 128:600-613.

  • Collins, S. L., F. C. James, and P. G. Risser. 1982. Habitat relationships of wood warblers (Parulidae) in north central Minnesota. Oikos 39:50-8.

  • Curson, J., D. Quinn, and D. Beadle. 1994. Warblers of the Americas: an identification guide. Houghton Mifflin, New York. ix + 252 pp.

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

  • Danforth, S. T. 1925. Porto Rican herpetological notes. Copeia (147):76-79.

  • 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

  • Dionne C. 1906. Les oiseaux de la province de Québec. Dussault et Proulx.

  • 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.

  • Dunn, J. L., and K. L. Garrett. 1997. A field guide to warblers of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Eaton, S. W. 1953. Wood warblers wintering in Cuba. Wilson Bulletin 65: 169-174.

  • Enser, R.W. 1992. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Rhode Island (1982-1987). Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management: Rhode Island. 206 pp.

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

  • Ewert, D. N., and R. A. Askins. 1991. Flocking behavior of migratory warblers in winter in the Virgin Islands. Condor 93:864-868.

  • Faaborg, J., and W. J. Arendt. 1989. Long-term declines in winter resident warblers in a Puerto Rican dry forest. Am. Birds 43:1226-1230.

  • Faaborg, J., and W. J. Arendt. 1992. Long-term declines of winter resident warblers in a Puerto Rican dry forest: which species are in trouble? Pages 57-63 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • 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.

  • Freemark, K., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. Pages 443-454 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds, J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, editors. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • Garrido, O. H., and A. Kirkconnell. 2000. Field guide to the birds of Cuba. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 253 pp.

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

  • Graber, J. W., R. R. Graber, and E. L. Kirk. 1983. Illinois birds: wood warblers. Biological Notes 118. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.

  • Greenberg, R. 1992. Forest migrants in non-forest habitats on the Yucatan Peninsula. Pages 273-286 IN Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • James, F. C. 1971. Ordinations of habitat relationships among breeding birds. Wilson Bulletin 83:215-236.

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

  • Kilgo, J. C., R. A. Sargent, B. R. Chapman, and K. V. Miller. 1998. Effect of stand width and adjacent habitat on breeding bird communities in bottomland hardwoods. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:72-83.

  • Lack, D. 1976. Island biology illustrated by the land birds of Jamaica. Studies in Ecology, Vol. 3. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 445 pp.

  • 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

  • Laughlin, S.B. and D.P. Kibbe, eds. 1985. The Atlas of Bre eding Birds of Vermont. Univ. Press of New England. 456pp.

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

  • Lovette, I. J., and E. Bermingham. 2001. Mitochondrial perspective on the phylogenetic relationships of the PARULA wood-warblers. Auk 118:211-215.

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

  • Lynch, J. F. 1992. Distribution of overwintering Neararctic migrants in the Yucatan Peninsula, II: Use of native and human-modified vegetation. Pages 178-96 in J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Lynch, J. F., E. S. Morton, and M. E. Van der Voort. 1985. Habitat segregation between the sexes of wintering hooded warblers (WILSONIA CITRINA). Auk 102:714-721.

  • Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, editors. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 3. Imperiled amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 225 pages.

  • 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.

  • Moldenhauer, R. R. 1992. Two song populations of the northern parula. Auk 109:215-222.

  • Moldenhauer, R.R., and D.J. Regelski. 1996. Northern Parula (Parula americana). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 215. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 24 pp.

  • Moldenhauer, R.R., and D.J. Regelski. 1996. Northern Parula (Parula americana). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 215. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 24 pp.

  • Moldenhaver, Ralph R. and Daniel J. Regelski. 1996. Northern Parula; The Birds of North America. Vol. 6, No. 215. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • 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.

  • Morgan, K. H. 1984. Breeding bird communities of a post-clearcutting secondary succession in a Nova Scotian hardwood forest. Master's thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  • Morgan, K., and B. Freedman. 1986. Breeding bird communities in a hardwood forest succession in Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:506-519.

  • Morse, D. H. 1967. Competitive relationships between Parula Warblers and other species during the breeding season. Auk 84:490-502.

  • Morse, D. H. 1989. American warblers: an ecological and behavioral perspective. Harvard University Press. 384 pp.

  • Morton, E. S., et al. 1987. Do male hooded warblers exclude females from nonbreeding territories in tropical forest? Auk 104:133-135.

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

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

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

  • Oberholser, Harry C. 1974. The Bird Life of Texas, Volume 1. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas. 530 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.

  • Pashley, D. N. 1988a. Warblers of the West Indies. I. The Virgin Islands. Caribbean J. Sci. 24:11-22.

  • Pashley, D. N. 1988b. Warblers of the West Indies. II. The Western Caribbean. Caribbean J. Sci. 24:112-126.

  • Pashley, D. N., and R. B. Hamilton. 1990. Warblers of the West Indies. III. The Lesser Antilles. Caribbean J. Sci. 26:75-97.

  • Peterjohn, B. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Orsillo. 1995. Breeding bird survey: population trends 1966-1992. Pages 14-21 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our Living Resources. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

  • 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.

  • Petit, D.R., J.F. Lynch, R.L. Hutto, J.G. Blake, and R.B. Waide. 1995. Habitat use and conservation in the Neotropics. Pages 145-197 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds. Oxford University Press, New York.

  • Petrides, G. A. 1942. Variable nesting habits of the Parula Warbler. Wilson Bulletin 54:252-253

  • 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.

  • Post, W. 1978. Social and foraging behavior of warblers wintering in Puerto Rican coastal scrub. Wilson Bulletin 90:197-214.

  • Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 408 pp.

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

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

  • Ralph, C. J. 1981. Age ratios and their possible use in determining autumn routes of passerine migrants. Wilson Bulletin 93:164-188.

  • Reed, J.M. 1992. A system for ranking conversation priorities for Neotropical migrant birds based on relative susceptibility to extinction. Pages 524-536 in J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smiethsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

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

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

  • Robbins, C. S., B. A. Dowell, D. K. Dawson, J. A. Colon, R. Estrada, A. Sutton, R. Sutton, and D. Weyer. 1992. Comparison of Neotropical migrant landbird poulations wintering in tropical forest, isolated forest fragments, and agricultural habitats. Pages 207-20 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Robbins, M. B., and D. A. Easterla. 1992. Birds of Missouri, Their Distribution and Abundance. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri.

  • Robbins, S. D., Jr. 1991. Wisconsin birdlife: population and distribution past and present. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

  • 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. 1993. The birds of Cape May. Cape May Bird Observatory, Cape May, NJ.

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

  • Stacier, C.A. 1992. Social behavior of the Northern Parula, Cape May Warbler, and Prairie Warbler wintering in second-growth forest in southwestern Puerto Rico. Pp. 308- IN J. M. Hagen III and D. W. Johnston, eds., Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Stevenson, H.M. 1957. The relative magnitude of the trans-Gulf and circum-Gulf spring migrations. Wilson Bulletin 69:39-77.

  • 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.

  • Stotz, D. F., J. W. Fitzpatrick, T. A. Parker III, D. K. Moskovits. 1996. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press.478pp.

  • TURCOTTE, W.H., AND DAVID L. WATTS. 1999. BIRDS OF MISSISSIPPI. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND PARKS. 455pp.

  • 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.

  • Torres, A. R. and P. L. Leberg. 1996. Initial changes in habitat and abundance of cavity-nesting birds and the Northern Parula following Hurricane Andrew. Condor 98:483-490.

  • Tramer, E. J. 1974. Proportions of wintering North American birds in disturbed and undisturbed dry tropical habitats. Condor 76:460-464.

  • Veit, R. R., and W. R. Peterson. 1993. Birds of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, Massachusetts. xv + 514 pp.

  • Wetmore, A. 1927. The birds of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 9, pt. 3, pp. 145-406. New York Acad. Sci.

  • 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.

  • Wunderle, J. M. 1978. Territorial defense of a nectar source by a Palm Warbler. Wilson Bulletin 90:297-299.

  • Zaranski, J. D., and T. R. Baptist. 1990. Connecticut birds. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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