Vireo flavifrons - Vieillot, 1808
Yellow-throated Vireo
Other English Common Names: yellow-throated vireo
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Vireo flavifrons Vieillot, 1808 (TSN 179009)
French Common Names: Viréo à gorge jaune
Spanish Common Names: Vireo Garganta Amarilla
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103231
Element Code: ABPBW01170
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Vireonidae Vireo
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Vireo flavifrons
Taxonomic Comments: See Johnson et al. (1988) and Murray et al. (1994) for analyses of the phylogenetic relationships among vireos.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Fairly large range and increasing populations throughout range, with little or no indication of current threat on breeding or non-breeding grounds.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N4N (20Oct2000)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4N5B,N4N5M (25Jan2018)

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), Arkansas (S5B), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S5B), Delaware (S3B), District of Columbia (S2S3B,S2S3N), Florida (SNRB), Georgia (S4), Illinois (S4S5), Indiana (S4B), Iowa (S4B,S4N), Kansas (S3B), Kentucky (S5B), Louisiana (S4B), Maine (S3B), Maryland (S4S5B), Massachusetts (S4B), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (SNRB), Nebraska (S3), New Hampshire (S4B), New Jersey (S4B), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S4B), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S2B), Pennsylvania (S4B), Rhode Island (S4B), South Carolina (S3?B), South Dakota (S2B), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S4), Vermont (S4B), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S4B)
Canada Manitoba (S4B), Ontario (S4B), Quebec (S3B), Saskatchewan (S2B,S3N)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: southeastern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, southern Ontario, southwestern Quebec, northern New Hampshire, and southwestern Maine south to eastern Texas, the Gulf coast, and central Florida, and west to central North Dakota, eastern South Dakota, eastern Nebraska, eastern Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, and west-central Texas (AOU 1998). The Breeding Bird Survey strata with the highest average counts were the heavily forested Cumberland Plateau and Blue Ridge Mountains. Highest abundances were in West Virginia and Virginia. NON-BREEDING: extreme southern Florida, casually in southern California and the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas, St. John), and central Mexico south to northern South America (mountains of Colombia, northern and western Venezuela), Trinidad, Tobago, Bahamas, Cuba; mainly in Middle America. No documented winter records in the eastern United States north of southern Florida (AOU 1998). MIGRATES: regularly through eastern North America east of the Rockies, Bermuda (rare), and eastern Mexico, casually through western North America from northern California, Nevada, eastern Colorado, and western Texas southward (AOU 1998). Casual or accidental north to central Saskatchewan, western Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Accidental in the Lesser Antilles, Tobago, Chacachacare Island, and the British Isles; sight reports for Idaho and Nebraska (AOU 1998).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Greatest threat is the continual loss and fragmentation of habitat. Habitat alterations in both non-breeding and breeding ranges may place additional stress on migrant populations. Specific effects caused by habitat alterations are not clearly understood. Possible effects include increased nest predation by edge species (e.g. raccoons, domestic cats) and increased cowbird parasitism. Forest fragmentation produces an edge effect increasing contact with predator species. Most of these predators are found in disturbed, open habitats. Little is known of the relationship between this vireo and its habitat features, especially where habitat manipulations are occurring. Pin-pointing specific threats is difficult due to this lack of information.

Short-term Trend: Increase of >10%
Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data from 1966 to 1996 indicate a survey-wide population increase of 1.0% per year, P < 0.01 (Sauer et al. 1997). James (1973, 1979) reports evidence of range expansion. However, numbers have apparently declined in this century. Bent (1950) suggests a significant decrease in numbers in the early part of the century. He attributed the majority of loss in New England to pesticides which where sprayed on fruit trees.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: southeastern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, southern Ontario, southwestern Quebec, northern New Hampshire, and southwestern Maine south to eastern Texas, the Gulf coast, and central Florida, and west to central North Dakota, eastern South Dakota, eastern Nebraska, eastern Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, and west-central Texas (AOU 1998). The Breeding Bird Survey strata with the highest average counts were the heavily forested Cumberland Plateau and Blue Ridge Mountains. Highest abundances were in West Virginia and Virginia. NON-BREEDING: extreme southern Florida, casually in southern California and the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas, St. John), and central Mexico south to northern South America (mountains of Colombia, northern and western Venezuela), Trinidad, Tobago, Bahamas, Cuba; mainly in Middle America. No documented winter records in the eastern United States north of southern Florida (AOU 1998). MIGRATES: regularly through eastern North America east of the Rockies, Bermuda (rare), and eastern Mexico, casually through western North America from northern California, Nevada, eastern Colorado, and western Texas southward (AOU 1998). Casual or accidental north to central Saskatchewan, western Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Accidental in the Lesser Antilles, Tobago, Chacachacare Island, and the British Isles; sight reports for Idaho and Nebraska (AOU 1998).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
NE Boyd (31015), Dixon (31051), Holt (31089), Knox (31107), Nemaha (31127), Richardson (31147), Sarpy (31153), Thomas (31171)
OK McCurtain (40089), Pushmataha (40127)
SD Brookings (46011), Clay (46027), Day (46037), Grant (46051)*, Lincoln (46083), Marshall (46091), Minnehaha (46099), Roberts (46109)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
07 Upper Minnesota (07020001)+
09 Western Wild Rice (09020105)+*
10 Lower Niobrara (10150007)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Middle Big Sioux Coteau (10170201)+, Upper Big Sioux (10170202)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Upper Middle Loup (10210001)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, South Fork Big Nemaha (10240007)+
11 Kiamichi (11140105)+, Upper Little (11140107)+, Mountain Fork (11140108)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (vireo).
General Description: Male has a brilliant yellow throat, breast, and eye rings that look like spectacles. Its belly and two wing bars are white. The upper parts are olive-green with a contrasting gray rump. The female is similar to the male, and slightly paler. Fledglings are similar to adults, but paler.

NESTS: suspended between forks of slender branches, usually those growing laterally from a larger upright limb, and placed within the tree canopy. Typically eight to 13 m from ground, but range from 0.9 to 24 m. The nest is a well-made deep cup of grasses and strips of bark, woven together with spider silk and plant down. It is decorated on the outside with moss and lichens, and lined with fine grasses. The rim is incurved.

EGGS: white to cream-white and lightly spotted with shades of brown, mostly at the larger end. For additional information, see Hamel (1993), Hamel et al. (1982), Terres (1980), Harrison (1975), James (1973), Hamilton (1958), and Bent (1950).

Diagnostic Characteristics: The only spectacled vireo with bright yellow on the breast and throat only. It may be confused with Pine Warbler (DENDROICA PINUS) and Yellow-breasted Chat (ICTERIA VIRENS). The Pine Warbler has dusky streaks on its side and white tail spots. It also frequents pine woods, whereas this vireo is almost always seen in deciduous trees. The Yellow-breasted Chat lacks wing bars, is larger, and has a much longer tail. The Chat also is seldom seen away from dense thickets (Peterson 1980, Bent 1950).
Reproduction Comments: Nests from mid-April to late July (peak mid-May to late June) in the mid-Atlantic region (Bushman and Therres 1988). Clutch size 3-5 (usually 4). Incubation 14-15 days, by both sexes. Young tended by both parents, leave nest at about 15 days. Fledglings are independent in about four weeks, but remain with parents until August (Terres 1980, Harrison 1975, James 1973, Bent 1950). Males establish territories before mating occurs.

Male nest displays are apparently important to attracting mates (James 1978). Once paired, activities are confined to a smaller area than the unmated male's territory. Nest construction begins within 24 hours of pairing and takes eight days; the first egg laid on the ninth day. Both sexes participate in nest construction, although females are dominant at the nest (James 1973). Very sensitive to observations by humans during early nest building or searches. Nests or even mates will be deserted if an observer approaches within 50 m. Once nests are half built pairs will not desert when approached. Most nests are built in the upper halves of deciduous trees; mean nest heights were found to be above mean foraging heights (James 1973).

Sutton (1949) records rearing of two broods per season. No renesting unless the first clutch destroyed (James 1973). Both parents share in feeding and brooding of young. After brooding ceases, parents are intolerant of observers (James 1973). Prior to this time, Bent (1950) reports that this vireo "... is a close and steadfast sitter, allowing close approach and even handling...". Sutton (1949) reports that the male occasionally sings at all hours throughout the summer and frequently sings on the nest.

Ecology Comments: Solitary in winter, probably territorial (Stiles and Skutch 1989). This bird is usually solitary or in interspecific flocks (Bent 1950). Reported as common cowbird host in some areas, but in other areas, even where both species are numerous, the vireo is relatively unparasitized. Has been known to successfully rear cowbirds to fledgling stage (Friedmann 1963). Occasionally buries cowbird eggs in nest lining, if it has no eggs of its own. Specific information on additional nest predators has not been located.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates to U.S. breeding areas in March-April (Terres 1980). Arrives in Costa Rica as early as mid-September but more regularly in October; remains through late April (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Uncommon migrant and winter resident in Colombia, mainly early December-late March (Hilty and Brown 1986), or November-April (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Estuarine Habitat(s): Scrub-shrub wetland
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Primarily open deciduous forest and woodland, riparian woodland, tall floodplain forest, lowland swamp forest, and less frequently, mixed forest; also orchards, groves, roadside trees. Most abundant in mature woods but also occurs in medium-aged forests and some pioneer stands; requires a high, partially open canopy and prefers woods with an intermediate tree density or basal area (Bushman and Therres 1988). Apparently has a relatively low tolerance to forest fragmentation, though this may depend on forest quality and proximity to other forested areas. Nests usually in the canopy of a deciduous tree, in horizontal twig fork, usually more than 6 m above ground (Harrison 1978).

NON-BREEDING: In migration and winter also in various forest, woodland, second growth, and mangrove habitats. In migration in more open areas and low scrub (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats mainly insects, also some fruits; forages among foliage in tops of trees (Terres 1980). Gleans prey from foliage or bark (Bushman and Therres 1988). Consumes eggs and caterpillars of moths and butterflies, adult moths, stink bugs, assassin bugs, scale insects, aphids, leafhoppers, beetles, sawflies, grasshoppers, crickets, dragonflies, cicadas, mosquitoes, and midges. Will also eat sassafras berries and wild grapes (Terres 1980). Foraging techniques consist primarily of stalking (James 1973) deliberately, searching above and below for food, rather than moving rapidly from perch to perch. This bird tends to forage in the taller trees within a habitat, however it will primarily use the lower strata of these trees (James 1979, 1973).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 14 centimeters
Weight: 18 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: A fairly common forest bird of the central and eastern United States. BBS data indicate stable population trends through most of its range. Although its behavior is probably the best studied of the vireos (James, pers. comm.), knowledge of its biology and habitat requirements is limited. In order to maintain populations, efforts are needed to understand seasonal requirements. Three management needs have been identified and should cover seasonal ranges: 1) research focusing on natural history and specific habitat requirements; 2) increased efforts to monitor populations; and 3) research on effects of habitat manipulation (e.g., fragmentation, forest loss).
Restoration Potential: Currently reported as common and stable throughout range with only a few speculations of decline. Population restoration is currently not an issue. However, efforts should be made to maintain populations thus eliminating the need for restoration in the future.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Specific habitat requirements are not documented. Some studies indicate that large tracts of forest are required, but others have reported this species in forest islands as small as 6-16 ha (Bushman and Therres 1988). Suggestions for conserving area-sensitive birds in forest landscapes were offered by Robbins et al. (1989). They concluded that forest areas under 10 ha are unsuitable and 3,000 ha are the minimum forest size that may retain all the species of forest-interior avifauna of eastern North America. However, critical habitat features that influence species success have not been thoroughly investigated (Martin 1992). These habitat features will have a great influence on preserve designs.
Monitoring Requirements: In addition to abundance and distribution, monitoring efforts need to include breeding, foraging, and other seasonal range requirements. Monitoring efforts are needed that cover all range distributions (breeding, non-breeding, and migration).
Management Research Needs: In order to understand specific management needs, additional life history information is needed. In addition, effects of forest loss and fragmentation need to be addressed. Issues of primary concern should include: 1) effects of habitat loss comparing non-breeding and breeding ranges; 2) identification of specific habitat features (e.g. habitat size, composition) and associated resources that directly influence reproduction and survival; and 3) simultaneous consideration of the consequences of those features for coexisting species and any interacting species, and the effects they have on one another (biodiversity approach) (Martin 1992).
Biological Research Needs: Information is lacking on all aspects of natural history. Research has been limited to a few intense local studies (e.g., James 1973). Any information is worthwhile, including information on breeding behavior, diet and foraging, non-breeding range criteria, and habitat criteria.
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: 21Nov1997
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Mehlman, D.W.
Management Information Edition Date: 30Jun1993
Management Information Edition Author: ZELLER, N.S.; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: An earlier draft of this abstract was sent to Ross James, Royal Ontario Museum. As the foremost expert on the Yellow-throated Vireo, his suggestions and clarifications were greatly appreciated. A draft was also sent to Harry LeGrand, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program; his comments and suggestions were appreciated. Thanks to Bruce Peterjohn of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, for BBS data and to all the volunteers who help generate that data year after year. Thanks to all Heritage biologists who responded to the ESA questionnaire. Alabama - Mike Bailey; Arizona - Dale Ward; Arkansas - Cindy Osborne; Connecticut - Dawn McKay; Florida - Dale Jackson; Georgia - Greg Krakow; Illinois - Vernon Kleen, Susan Dees; Indiana- Michelle Martin, John Castrale; Iowa - John Fleckenstein; Kansas - Bill Busby; Kentucky - Brainard Palmer-Ball; Louisiana - Bill Vermillion; Maine - John Albright; Maryland - Lynn Davidson; Michigan - Mary Rabe; Minnesota - Mary Miller; Mississippi - Tom Mann; Missouri - Jim Wilson; Nebraska - Mary Clausen; New Hampshire - Andy Cutko; New Jersey - Rick Dutko; New York - Kathryn Schneider; North Carolina - Harry LeGrand; North Dakota - Randy Kreil; Ohio - Daniel Rice; Oklahoma - Mark Lomolino; Pennsylvania - Barb Barton; Rhode Island - Rick Enser; South Carolina - Lex Glover; South Dakota - Eileen Down Stukel; Tennessee - Bob Ford; Vermont - Chris Fichtel; Virginia - Sarah Mabey; West Virginia - Barbara Sargent; Wisconsin - Karen Gaines. Currently only three Canadian provinces have Conservation Data Centres (Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Ontario). Because of this, obtaining information for the provinces required contacting many different sources. Their combined efforts were greatly appreciated: Saskatchewan - Jim Duncan; Quebec - Guy Jolicoeur, Jon Gauthier; Manitoba and Saskatchewan - Rudolf Koes; Ontario - Mike Cadman, Tony Urskin. Thanks to Rex Sallabanks of North Carolina State University for his assistance in starting this project. Also thanks to the staff of North Carolina State University, D.H. Hill Library, especially the Inter-library Loan Office, for their assistance in locating resources.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 18Jan1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Alabama Breeding Bird Atlas 2000-2006 Homepage. 2009. T.M. Haggerty (editor), Alabama Ornithological Society. Available at http://www.una.edu/faculty/thaggerty/BBA%20website/Index.htm.

  • Alabama Ornithological Society. 2006. Field checklist of Alabama birds. Alabama Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Alabama. [Available online at http://www.aosbirds.org/documents/AOSChecklist_april2006.pdf ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Brauning, D. W., editor. 1992. Atlas of breeding birds in Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 484 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles, and F.M Helleiner, compilers. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory. Universtiy of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario.

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

  • 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.

  • Duecy, J. E. 1988. Nebraska birds. Simmons-Boardman Books.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic Cowbird. Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

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

  • Hall, G. A. 1985. West Virginia birds: distribution and ecology. Special Publication of Carnegie Museum of Nautral History, No. 7. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

  • Hamel, P. B. 1993. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy and U.S. Forest Service. Chapel Hill and Asheville, North Carolina.

  • Hamel, P. B., H. E. LeGrand Jr., M. R. Lennartz, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1982. Bird-habitat relationships on southeastern forest lands. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-22.

  • Hamilton, T. H. 1958. Adaptive variation in the genus VIREO. Wilson Bulletin 70(4):306-43.

  • 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. 1975. A field guide to bird's nests in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 257 p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • James, D. A. and J. C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas Birds - Their Distribution and Abundance. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

  • James, R. D. 1973. Ethological and ecological relationships of yellow-throated and solitary vireos (Aves: Vireonidae) in Ontario. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • James, R. D. 1978. Pairing and nest site selection in solitary and yellow-throated vireos with a description of a ritualized nest building display. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56;1163-8.

  • James, R. D. 1979. The comparative foraging behavior of Yellow-throated and solitary vireos: the effect of habitat and sympatry. In J. G. Dickson, et al. (editors). The Role of Insectivorous Birds in forest Ecosystems. Academic Press, Inc.

  • Janssen, R. B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 352 pp.

  • Johnsgard, P. A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains: breeding species and their distribution. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 539 pp.

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

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

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

  • Laughlin, S. B., and D. P. Kibbe, editors. 1985. The atlas of breeding birds of Vermont. University Press of New England, Hanover Vermont. 456 pp.

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

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

  • Martin, T. E. 1992d. Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features for management? In J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

  • McKenzie, P. M., and R. E. Noble. 1989. Sight records for Connecticut warbler (OPORORNIS AGILIS) and yellow-throated vireo (VIREO FLAVIFRONS) in Puerto Rico. Florida Field Nat. 17:69-72.

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

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

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

  • Mumford, R. E., and C. E. Keller, 1984. The birds of Indiana. Indiana University Press.

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

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field guide to the birds of North America. Second edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Palmer, R. S. 1949. Maine Birds. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Vol. 102. 656 pp.

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

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

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 384 pages.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980b. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 384 pp.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA.

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

  • Raffaele, H., 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.

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

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

  • Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrak, and P. H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Resource Publ. 157. iii + 196 pp.

  • Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs No. 103.

  • Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs, No. 103.

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

  • Rodewald, Paul G. and Ross D. James. 1996. Yellow-Throated Vireo; The Birds of North America. Vol. 7, No. 247. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997a. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.3. Online. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

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

  • See SERO listing

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

  • 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.

  • Sutton, G. M. 1949. Studies of the nesting birds of the Edwin S. George Reserve. Part I: the vireos. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Miscellaneous Publication, No. 74. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

  • 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.

  • Thompson, M. C., and C. Ely. 1992. Birds in Kansas. Vol. 2. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Lawrence, Kansas.

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

  • Williamson, P. 1971. Feeding ecology of Red-eyed vireo (V. OVIVACEUS) and associated foliage-gleaning birds. Ecological Monographs 41(2):129-52.

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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