Calidris subruficollis - (Vieillot, 1819)
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Other Common Names: Maçarico-Acanelado, Maçarico-de-Coleira
Synonym(s): Tryngites subruficollis (Vieillot, 1819)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Tryngites subruficollis (Vieillot, 1819) (TSN 176684)
French Common Names: bécasseau roussâtre
Spanish Common Names: Playero Leonado, Chorlito Canela
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103684
Element Code: ABNNF14010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Shorebirds
Image 10627

© Bruce A. Sorrie

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Scolopacidae Calidris
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Tryngites subruficollis
Taxonomic Comments: Phylogenetic analyses of sequences of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Gibson and Baker 2012) indicate that the species previously known as Aphriza virgata, Eurynorhynchus pygmeus, Limicola falcinellus, Tryngites subruficollis, and Philomachus pugnax form a clade with species already in Calidris. The name Calidris has priority for this clade (Banks 2012). Linear sequence of species derived from Gibson and Baker (2012) (AOU 2013).

Kessel (1989) suggested that a western population of T. subruficollis breeds in western Chukotka (Russia) and migrates along the coast of the Pacific Ocean (in contrast to the interior of North America), but no banding, morphometric, or genetic studies have been conducted to define the differences between western and eastern populations.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 26Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Highly restricted range in far northern North America; population has increased somewhat since large numbers were killed in the late 1800s and early 1900s by commercial hunters; current total population size (approximately 15,000 birds worldwide) is relatively small and may be declining; large segments of population are localized at vulnerable locations.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2N4B,N4N5M (02Dec2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNRM), Alaska (S2B), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNRN), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (S3M), Iowa (S3N), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (S3N), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (S1N), Michigan (SNRN), Minnesota (SNRM), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Nebraska (S2N), New Jersey (S4N), New York (SNRN), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (SU), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (S1N), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S3N), Texas (S2S3), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), Wisconsin (S3N), Wyoming (S4N)
Canada Alberta (S3M), British Columbia (SUM), Labrador (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Northwest Territories (S2S4B), Nunavut (S3B,S3M), Ontario (SNA), Quebec (S3M), Saskatchewan (S4M), Yukon Territory (S1B)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: SC (03Feb2017)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (04May2012)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: The Canadian Arctic supports about 87% of the North American breeding range of this shorebird, and about 75% of its global population. The species was once common and perhaps even abundant historically, but it suffered severe declines stemming from intensive market hunting in the late 1800s and early 1900s. By the 1920s, it was thought to be at the brink of extinction. Its population has grown since hunting was banned in North America, but numbers remain much lower than those before hunting began. There is evidence for population decline in recent decades, and many conservation organizations consider the species to be of concern throughout its range. However, this species is difficult to monitor effectively, and data necessary to estimate population trends are currently lacking. Outside the breeding period, loss and degradation of its specialized grassland habitat, both on its wintering grounds in South America and along its migration routes, are believed to pose the most significant threats.

Status history: Designated Special Concern in May 2012.

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Breeding range encompasses the low and high acrtic in eastern Russia, northern Alaska, northern Yukon, northwestern Mackenzie, and the region fromBanks, Melville, Bathurst, and Devon islands south to southern Victoria, Jenny Lind, and King William islands; the bulk of the breeding population appears to occupy coastal portions of the Yukon and Northwest Territories and most of the Queen Elizabeth Islands (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). During the nonbreeding season, this species occurs in South America (Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina). Due to destruction of native grasslands by agriculture, most winter in coastal portions of the R¡o de La Plata grasslands where livestock grazing maintains suitable habitat. Migration in the United States is mainly through the central plains; juveniles are more common along the east coast in fall migration, rare along the west coast during southward migration.

Area of Occupancy: 501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Area of occupancy is difficult to estimate because of the lek nature of this species for breeding. Birdlife International (2014) estimates a distirbution size of 600,000 square kilometers.

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Estimate. Population estimates run from 15,000 (National Audubon Society, 2014) up to perhaps 84,000 (Morrison, et. al. 2006), with a suggestion of 30,000 birds as a good estimate pending additional studies and better data. This bird only breeds in the high Arctic of Alaska, Yukon, and some adjacent islands. The lek mating system (Lanctot and Laredo, 1994) makes it especially hard to estimate the number of element occurrences.

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Morrison et. al. (2006) suggested uping the estimate to 30,000 individuals or more. Morrison et al. (2001) estimated about 15,000 individuals in total, perhaps as many as 20,000. An estimated 2,000 adults on Banks Island (Manning et al. 1956, cited by Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Breeding adults did not exceed "several tens of nesting birds" on Wrangel Island (Dorogoi 1983, cited by Lanctot and Laredo 1994).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few to some (4-40)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Estimate.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Numbers declined in late 1800s due to market hunting. Lanctot (pers. comm.) believes major threats lie along migratory routes. Habitat along migratory route in the central United States and on wintering grounds has been lost, and continues to be lost, to agricultural development or overgrazing (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Agriculture-associated pesticides are a potential threat there as well. No direct threats to habitat are apparent on the breeding ground at this time, but potential negative effects from oil and other development exist. Small mammals (e.g., arctic fox [Alopex lagopus], red fox [Vulpes vulpes]), owls, and corvids are potential predators during nesting and brooding. Predation accounted for 50-65 percent of nest loss in northern Alaska in 1992 and 1993 (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Predation near developed sites in the Arctic may be abnormally high due to an increased number of predators that result from human-augmented food resources. Various raptors take adults or juveniles on breeding or wintering grounds. See Lanctot and Laredo (1994). Human disturbance to nests has led to abandonment and increased predation (Lanctot and Laredo 1994).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Birdlife International (2014) states there is a "moderate and on-going decline" basedon surveys at staging postings. Morrison (1993/1994) categorized the population trend in Canada as "decreasing?". Lanctot and Laredo (1994) noted that recent surveys in the migration corridor also suggest that the population is declining. On the wintering grounds, density estimates at Estancia Medaland, Argentina declined from 8-15 birds/ha in 1973 to 0.25-2.7 birds/ha in 1992 (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). It is possible, however, that this decline is the result of birds changing wintering areas. Lanctot (pers. comm.) estimated that the decline over the past 30 years to be on the order of 20-40%, but cautions that there are few data to substantiate this estimate.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Originally numbered in the hundreds of thousands to millions (Gotthardt and Lanctot 2002, citing Forbush 1912 and Hudson 1920); now only 15,000-20,000 remain (Morrison et al. 2001). A conservative estimate of the decline would be 200,000 to 20,000, or 90 per cent.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: The lek mating system of this sandpiper concentrates individuals at lek grounds so any habitat degradation at those sites may affect breeding success. Also, high Arctic is subject to rapid environmental changes during the next few decades.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow to moderate.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species needs well-drainged tundra for breeding and depends heavily on short grasslands created by intensive grazing of livestocks (Birdlife International, 2014).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: An accurate population estimate at the global scale is needed. Habitat suitability maps of South American wintering areas are needed to allow researchers to extrapolate population density estimates for each country and generate an overall population estimate. Surveys on species secondary wintering range in western Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay are needed to document their relative importance on a regional, national, and international level (Lanctot et al. 2002) and to define seasonal abundance and changes in bird numbers.

Protection Needs: A coordinated system of preserves that protect breeding, migration, and wintering habitat is needed. Protection of upland habitat is especially important (Lanctot 1995). In the winter habitat, compatible pesticide application schedules and livestock grazing patterns need to be enacted (Lanctot 1995).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Breeding range encompasses the low and high acrtic in eastern Russia, northern Alaska, northern Yukon, northwestern Mackenzie, and the region fromBanks, Melville, Bathurst, and Devon islands south to southern Victoria, Jenny Lind, and King William islands; the bulk of the breeding population appears to occupy coastal portions of the Yukon and Northwest Territories and most of the Queen Elizabeth Islands (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). During the nonbreeding season, this species occurs in South America (Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina). Due to destruction of native grasslands by agriculture, most winter in coastal portions of the R¡o de La Plata grasslands where livestock grazing maintains suitable habitat. Migration in the United States is mainly through the central plains; juveniles are more common along the east coast in fall migration, rare along the west coast during southward migration.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Nome (CA) (02180), North Slope (02185), Northwest Arctic (02188), Southeast Fairbanks (CA) (02240)*, Yukon-Koyukuk (CA) (02290)*
ID Ada (16001)
NE Platte (31141), Seward (31159), York (31185)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Lower Platte-Shell (10200201)+, Upper Big Blue (10270201)+, West Fork Big Blue (10270203)+
17 Lower Boise (17050114)+
19 Eagle To Circle (19040401)+*, Tok (19040502)+*, Healy Lake (19040503)+*, Upper Koyukuk River (19040601)+*, Galena (19040705)+*, Unalakleet (19050102)+*, Norton Bay (19050103)+, Nome (19050104)+, Imuruk Basin (19050105)+, Shishmaref (19050201)+, Lower Noatak River (19050403)+, Wulik-Kivalina Rivers (19050404)+, Lisburne Peninsula (19050405)+*, Kotzebue Sound (19050500)+, Kuk River (19060201)+*, Northwest Coast (19060202)+, Meade River (19060203)+, Ikpikpuk River (19060204)+, Harrison Bay (19060205)+*, Admiralty Bay-Dease Inlet (19060206)+, Chandler-Anaktuvuk Rivers (19060303)+*, Lower Colville River (19060304)+, Kuparuk River (19060401)+, Sagavanirktok River (19060402)+, Mikkelson Bay (19060403)+, Canning River (19060501)+, Camden Bay (19060502)+, Beaufort Lagoon (19060503)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A medium-sized sandpiper.
General Description: Distinctive, medium-sized wader, often associated with grassy habitats (Johnsgard 1981). Easily identified because the face and underparts are strongly buff in all plumages (Johnsgard 1981, Paulson 1993). Plover-like in appearance, with bill shorter than the head, slender and tapering (Johnsgard 1981, Paulson 1993), yet walks like a typical sandpiper (Paulson 1993). Moderately long legs, a hind toe, and no webbing between the front toes (Johnsgard 1981). Wings are long and pointed, and flight feathers are marked with black vermiculation on inner vanes. Tail is rounded, consisting of twelve rectices, with the middle pair not projecting beyond the others. The downy young are Calidris-like.
Reproduction Comments: Males and females arrive simultaneously on the arctic breeding grounds late May through early June (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Lek breeding system (Sutton 1967, Johnson and Herter 1989, Lanctot and Laredo 1994, Lanctot and Weatherhead 1997). Leks change location from year to year. Within 2 to 11 days of arrival, males begin to display together on leks. Approximately 2 to 20 males occur together in a lek, although some males may display in solitary locations (Lanctot and Weatherhead 1997). Females visit leks only for copulation (Sutton 1967). Males and females do not pair (Johnson and Herter 1989). Males may mate with several females but take no part in incubation, leaving the breeding grounds in mid-June to early July (Parmelee et al. 1967, Sutton 1967, Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Females lay a single clutch per year (Lanctot and Laredo 1994), normally consisting of 4 eggs (Harrison 1978, Johnsgard 1981, Godfrey 1986). Incubation lasts 22-25 days (Troy 1988 in Johnson and Herter 1989, Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Peak hatching during second and third week of July, although hatching has been documented as early as July 5, 1992 and July 4, 1993 (Lanctot and Laredo 1994).
Ecology Comments: Gregarious. Nonbreeding: roosts at night in flocks often of about 600-1000; often seen in mixed flocks in association with golden and upland sandpipers, or Baird's or pectoral sandpipers (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Many defend small feeding territories in winter, but they roost in monospecific flocks (Hayman et al. 1986).

Breeding densities are low and can vary dramatically from year to year; in Alaska, densities were 0.5-14.0 individuals per sq km from 1981 to 1989 (see Lanctot 1995).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Northward migration begins in early February to mid-March (Palmer 1967, Myers and Myers 1979). Migration via central Amazonia/Pantanal flyway, over Brazil, Venezuela, Guyana, and Surinam (Haverschmidt 1972, Lanctot and Laredo 1994), across the Gulf of Mexico, and arriving in coastal Texas and Louisiana between mid-March and early April (Lanctot and Laredo 1994, Lanctot 1995). Passes through US in May, arrives in breeding areas late May - early June (Palmer 1967, Johnson and Herter 1989).

Southward migration begins from mid-June to early July; most depart breeding areas by end of August, but females with broods may remain in the Arctic as late as early September; rare in fall on Pacific islands; arrives in northern South America between August and October; most arrive in Argentina in mid-September, many depart in late January, a few still present in March (Hayman et al. 1986).

This sandpiper migrates as singles, pairs, or occasional small flocks. It may concentrate at particular staging areas. Variation of habitat use may coincide with changes in local food abundance or other conditions. Adults and juveniles may use different migration routes (Lanctot and Laredo 1994).

Estuarine Habitat(s): Tidal flat/shore
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Tundra
Habitat Comments: Breeding: Dry slopes with numerous sedge tussocks, on grass tundra with mosses and willows, in moist or wet sedge-grass meadows, in well-drained sandy areas with scant vegetation, and on well-vegetated hummocky ground bordering marshy ponds (Johnsgard 1981, Cramp and Simmons 1983, Godfrey 1986, Johnson and Herter 1989, Lanctot 1995). Prefers raised and grassy terrain, although the nature of the tundra often involves proximity to moist or wet ground (Cramp and Simmons 1983). Overall, avoids marshy areas (Johnsgard 1981).

During incubation breaks, females occur along stream banks with scant vegetation (Lanctot 1995). Females with broods occur primarily in moist and emergent vegetation along wetlands and stream beds (Lanctot 1995).

Landforms at leks are dominated by non-patterned ground, with reticulate-patterned ground, polygons, strangmoor, and frost-boils less commonly used (Lanctot and Slater 1992). Vegetation at leks is dominated by moist, graminoid (Carex aquatilis and Eriophorum angustifolium) and wet, graminoid meadows (Lanctot and Slater 1992). A third of all leks occur at traditional sites along bends and junctions of rivers (Lanctot 1995).

Non-breeding: Southern temperate zone on predominantly dry to moist open ground, short grass uplands (grass height < 3 cm). Individuals have also been observed in open mudflats or muddy shores near lakes and channels, abandoned and newly planted rice fields, and on burnt stubble after cutting sugar cane (Myers and Myers 1979, Cramp and Simmons 1983, Paulson 1993, Lanctot et al. 2001). Also utilize dry riverine sandbars, rain pools in pastures, golf courses, and airfields (Cramp and Simmons 1983).

Migration: Frequents short grass plains and dry uplands (Johnsgard 1981). Have been observed in man-altered habitats such as sod fields, airport runways, golf courses, cemeteries, burnt-over grasslands, cotton fields, recently ploughed fields, newly planted rice fields, flat, hard, sun-baked stubble, and barren recently inundated land (Cramp and Simmons 1983, Lanctot, unpubl. data). Edges of ponds are used for wading, drinking, and bathing, but not feeding (Cramp and Simmons 1983).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Feed primarily on insects (adults, larvae, and pupae) (Bent 1929, Palmer 1967). Also eat spiders, mollusk species, and seeds of aquatic plants (Bent 1929). On breeding grounds, foods consist of terrestrial invertebrates, especially the adults and larvae of beetles and the larvae and pupae of dipterans (Johnsgard 1981). Diets differ from other arctic shorebirds because this species tends to occupy upland habitats (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). As a result, diets are highly dependent on insect larvae and adults, feeding less on Chironomidae larvae and other wetland invertebrates (Lanctot and Laredo 1994).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Phenology Comments: Flies at night during migration.
Length: 21 centimeters
Weight: 71 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: May be impacted on breeding grounds by exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources. Pre-development surveys of upland habitats should be conducted to prevent construction of resource facilities in areas with large numbers of birds and associated preferred habitats co-exist (e.g., lek locations; Lanctot 1995).

Additional information is needed to determine relative importance of wintering sites in Brazil and Uruguay, including basic wintering ecology information to include data on site tenacity within and between years, seasonal abundances and changes in bird numbers, movement of birds among sites, and effects of different management regimes on bird use of the areas.

On the migration route, research is needed to determine if important regional stopover sites exist, and if so, whether they can be protected and included in the WHSRN (Lanctot et al. in press). Additional research is also needed at specific migration stopover sites in the United States and Canada identified either historically or through the USFWS' Shorebird Sister Schools Program (SSSP) to be important. Efforts should be made to document the timing and duration of migration, site tenacity within and between years by individual birds, and potential for pesticide and herbicide exposure. Birds should be collected or sampled in various man-altered habitats to document current levels of contaminants in their bodies.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Shorebirds

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Feeding Area, Breeding Site
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 of nesting adults and broods. Because separations are based on nesting areas, the foraging areas of different occurrences may overlap if nesting birds are traveling to distant places to feed.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance pertains specifically to nesting areas, not to locations of dispersed 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.

The separation distance is an arbitrary value; it is impractical to attempt to delineate shorebird occurrences on the basis of dispersal patterns or metapopulation dynamics. Foraging ranges of some nesting shorebird species (see following) may suggest use of a larger separation distance, but this likely would result in occurrences that are too large and less effective for conservation planning.

Separation distance based on larger 'typical' breeding home ranges with diameters of 1.5 to 3 kilometers. Semipalmated Plovers have breeding home ranges up to 3 square kilometers, i.e. a diameter of just under 2 kilometers (Nol and Blanken 1999). Red-necked Phalaropes have a core home range of 1-3 hectares, but occasionally travel 1.5 kilometers to feed (Rubega et al. 2000). Stilt Sandpipers can forage up to 8 kilometers from nest (Jehl 1973). Mountain Plovers have an average home range of 56.6 hectares (Knopf 1996) but broods typically move 1-2 kilometers shortly after hatching (Knopf and Rupert 1996).

Territories: Common Snipe, 6.4-28.6 hectares (Mueller 1999); Long-billed Dowitcher, 100-300 meter diameter (Johnsgard 1981); golden-plovers, average 10-59 hectares (Johnson and Connors 1996); Long-billed Curlew, 6-20 hectares (Johnsgard 1981).

Nesting densities: Black-bellied Plover, 0.3-2.3 pairs per square kilometer (44 ha per pair at latter density; Hussell and Page 1976, Parmelee et al. 1967); Marbled Godwit, maximum density 1 pair/32 hectares (Stewart and Kantrud 1972).

Foraging distances: Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, up to 13 kilometers from nest (Elphick and Tibbits 1998, Tibbits and Moskoff 1999).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a smaller 'typical' home ranges (see Separation Justification).
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Roost, Foraging concentration area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat (minimum can be reduced in the case of rarer species). 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. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 15Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Roost, Winter Feeding Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat. 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 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: S. Cannings
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: 10Sep2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jue, Dean K.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 10Mar2003
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Gotthardt, T.A., and R. Lanctot

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

References
Help
  • "Morrison, R. I. G., B. J. McCaffery, R. E. Gill, S. K. Skagen, S. L. Jones, G. W. Page, C. L. Gratto-Trevor, and B. A. Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American Shorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85. "

  • 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 ]

  • Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2005. Our wealth maintained: a strategy for conserving Alaska's diverse wildlife and fish resources, a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy emphasizing Alaska's nongame species. Anchorage, AK. Submitted to USFWS. Anchorage, Alaska.

  • 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). 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). Chesser, T.R., 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. 2013. Fifty-Fourth Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 130(3):558-571.

  • Andres, B.A. 1994. Coastal zone use by postbreeding shorebirds in northern Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(2):206-213.

  • 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.

  • Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds (Part II). U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 146. Washington, D.C.

  • Bergman, R.D., R.L. Howard, K.F. Abraham, and M.W. Weller. 1977. Water birds and their wetland resources in relation to oil development at Storkersen Point, Alaska. Resource Publ. 129. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 38 pp.

  • Bierly, M.L. 1980. Bird Finding in Tennessee. 3825 Bed- ford Ave., Nashville, TN 37125.

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

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

  • Bornschein, M. R., B. L. Reinert, and M. Pichorim. 1997. Notas sobre algumas aves novas ou pouco conhecidas no sul do Brasil. Ararajuba 5:53-59.

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

  • Britten, M. and C. McIntyre. 1986. A preliminary survey of plants, birds and mammals in the vicinity of placer mining disturbance in the Coal Creek drainage. Research and resource management report series 86-02. Unpubl. report, National Park Service, Fairbanks, Alaska.

  • Brooks, W.S. 1915. Notes on birds from east Siberia and arctic Alaska. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 59(5):361-413.

  • Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill (eds). 2001. The U.S Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.

  • Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington (eds.). 2000. The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.

  • 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.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia Vol. 2: Nonpasserines: Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1995. Last Mountain Lake and Stalwart National Wildlife Areas: Bird Checklist - Fourth Edition. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 2001. Birds of the Yukon database. Environment Canada, Whitehorse, Yukon.

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

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

  • Chesser et al. 2013. Fifty-fourth supplement to the America Ornithologists? Union Checklist of North American Birds. The Auk 130(3):558-571.

  • Cotter, P.A. and B.A. Andres. 2000. Nest density of shorebirds inland from the Beaufort Sea coast, Alaska. Can. Field-Nat. 114:287-291.

  • Cramp, S., and K. E. L. Simmons, editors. 1983. The birds of the Western Palearctic. Volume 3: waders to gulls. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

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

  • Dean, F.C. and D.L. Chesemore. 1974. Studies of birds and mammals in the Baird and Schwatka Mountains, Alaska. Biol. Pap. Univ. Alaska 15. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 80 p.

  • Derksen, D.V., T.C. Rothe, and W.D. Eldridge. 1981. Use of wetland habitats by birds in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Resource Pub. 141. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 27 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.

  • Dorogoi, I. V. 1983. Biological data on the Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). Bull. Mocow Soc. Nat. 88: 50-55. In Russian.

  • Forbush, E.H. 1912. A history of game birds, wild-fowl and shore birds of Massachusetts and adjacent states. Wright and Potter, Boston.

  • Gill, R.E. and S.E. Senner. 1996. Alaska and its importance to Western Hemisphere shorebirds. International Wader Studies 8: 8-14.

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

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

  • Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa. 428 pp.

  • Gotthardt, T. and R. Lanctot. 2002. Status report on the Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services. Anchorage, Alaska.

  • Gotthardt, T. and R. Lanctot. 2002. Status report on the Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK. 49 pp.

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

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A field guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North American birds. The Stephen Greene Press, Brattleboro, VT.

  • Haverschmidt, F. 1972. The migration of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper through Surinam. Wilson Bull. 84: 341-342.

  • Hayman, P., J. Marchant, and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: an identification guide to the waders of the world. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

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

  • Hudson, W. H. 1920. Birds of La Plata (Vol. 2.). E. P. Dutton, New York.

  • 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.

  • Irving, L. 1960. Birds of Anaktuvuk Pass, Kobuk, and Old Crow. A study in arctic adaptation. United States National Museum Bulletin 217. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 409 pp.

  • Isacch, J. P., and M. M. Martínez. 2003. Temporal variation in abundance and the population status of non-breeding Nearctic and Patagonian shorebirds in the flooding pampa grasslands of Argentina. J. Field Ornithol., 74:233-242.

  • Jehl, J. R., Jr. 1973. Breeding biology and systematic relationships of the stilt sandpiper. Wilson Bulletin 85:115-147.

  • Johnsgard, P. A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers, and snipes of the world. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 493 pp.

  • Johnson, S. R. and D. R. Herter. 1989. The Birds of the Beaufort Sea. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 372 pp.

  • Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of the Beaufort Sea. British Petroleum Exploration Inc. Anchorage, AK. 372 pp.

  • Johnston, V.H. 2001. A checklist survey of birds in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 26.

  • Jones, S.G. 1980. Abundance and habitat selection of shorebirds at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Masters thesis, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT.

  • Kendall, S., A. Taylor, and S. Brown. 2008. Post-breeding studies on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Pp.23 in Summaries of ongoing or new studies of Alaska shorebirds during 2007 (J. Leibezeit, ed.), Alaska Shorebird Group.

  • Kessel, B. 1989. Birds of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska: their biogeography, seasonality, and natural history. Univ. of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK. 330 pp.

  • Kessel, B. 1989. Birds of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska: their biogeography, seasonality, and natural history. Univ. of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK. 330 pp.

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

  • Klinkhart, E. G. 1977. A Fish and Wildlife resource inventory of western and arctic Alaska. Volume I. Compiled by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game under contract to the Alaska Coastal Management Program Division of Policy Development and Planning (P.L. 92-583, Section 305), State of Alaska Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • Knopf, F.L. 1996. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 211. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 16 pp.

  • Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1996. Productivity and movements of mountain plovers breeding in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 108:28-35.

  • Kondratev, A. Ya. 1989. Rare vertebrates of the Soviet Far East and their protection. Nauka Publ. House, Leningrad.

  • Lanctot, R. B. 1995. A closer look: Buff-breasted Sandpiper. Birding 27(5):384-390.

  • Lanctot, R. B. 1995. A closer look: buff-breasted sandpiper. Birding 27(5):384-390.

  • Lanctot, R. B., D. E. Blanco, R. A. Dias, J. P. Isacch, V. A. Gill, J. B. Almeida, K. Delhey, P. F. Petracci, G. A. Bencke, and R. A. Balbueno. 2002. Conservation status of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper: Historic and contemporary distribution and abundance in South America. Wilson Bulletin 114:44-72.

  • Lanctot, R. J. Johnson, and B. Andres. 2008. Avian influenza sampling and shorebird surveys in the Teshepuk Lake Special Areas of the National Petroleum Reserv - Alaska, in 2007. Pp.27 in Summaries of ongoing or new studies of Alaska shorebirds during 2007 (J. Leibezeit, ed.), Alaska Shorebird Group.

  • Lanctot, R.B. 1994. Blood sampling in juvenile Buff-breasted Sandpipers: Movement, mass change and survival. Journal of Field Ornithology 65:534-542.

  • Lanctot, R.B. and C.D. Laredo. 1994. Buff-Breasted Sandpiper; The Birds of North America. Vol. 3, No. 91. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Lanctot, R.B. and C.D. Laredo. 1994. Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Calidris subruficollis).  The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/091/doi:10.2173/bna.91.

  • Lanctot, R.B. and C.D. Laredo. 1994. Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 91. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 19 pp.

  • Lanctot, R.B. and L.M. Ronan. 1994. Breeding ecology of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) on the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, Alaska, in 1993. Progress Report for Alaska Science Center, National Biological Survey, Anchorage, AK.

  • Lanctot, R.B. and P.J. Weatherhead. 1997. Ephemeral lekking behavior in the Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Tryngites subruficollis. Behavioral Ecology. 8:268-278.

  • Lanctot, R.B. and P.J. Weatherhead. 1997. Ephemeral lekking behavior in the Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Tryngites subruficollis. Behavioral Ecology. 8:268-278.

  • Lanctot, R.B., D.E. Blanco, R.A. Dias, J.P. Isacch, V.E. Gill, J. Bosi de Almeida, K. Delhey, P.F. Petracci, G.A. Bencke, and R. Balbueno. In press. Conservation status of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper: historic and contemporary distribution and abundance in South America. Wilson Bull.

  • Lanctot, R.B., and C.D. Laredo. 1994. Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 91. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • Lanctot, R.R. and C.L. Slater. 1992. Breeding biology and habitat use of Buff-breasted Sandpipers (Tryngites subruficollis) on the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, Alaska. Unpubl. report, prepared for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

  • Manning, T. H., E. O. Hoehn, and A. H. Macpherson. 1956. The birds of Banks Island. Natl. Mus. Can. Bull. No 143.

  • Martin, P.D. 1983. Bird use of arctic tundra habitats at Canning River delta, Alaska. M.S. thesis. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 117 pp.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Morrison, R. I. G. 1994. Shorebird population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (3):3-5. Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Morrison, R. I. G., R. E. Gill, Jr., B. A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G. W. Page, C. L. Gratto-Trevor, and S. M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occasional Paper Number 104, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 64 pages.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 1993/1994. Shorebird population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (3):3-5. Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 8: 5-9.

  • Morrison, R.I.G. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Bird Trends 8: 5-9.

  • Morrison, R.I.G., McCaffery, B.J., Gill, R.E., Skagen, S.K., Jones, S.K., Page, G.W., Gratto-Trevor, C.L., and Andres, B.A. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2006. Waders Study Group Bulletin 111: 67-85.

  • Murdoch, J. 1885. Part IV. Natural History. Pages 91-176 In: Report of the International Polar Expedition to Point Barrow, Alaska, in response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of 12/11/1984. Washington Government Printing Office.

  • Myers, J.P., and L.P. Myers. 1978. Shorebirds of coastal Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Ibis 121:186-200.

  • NEILL, ROBERT L. 1992. RECENT TRENDS IN SHOREBIRD MIGRATION FOR NORTH-CENTRAL TEXAS. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 37(1):87-88.

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

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

  • New York State 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.

  • Nol, E., and M. S. Blanken. 1999. Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). No. 444 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 24pp.

  • Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.

  • Osgood, W.H. 1909. Biological investigations in Alaska and Yukon Territory. North American Fauna 30: 1-92. Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington D.C.

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

  • Palmer, R.S. 1967. Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). Pp. 212-214 in: G.D. Stout, ed. Shorebirds of North America. Viking Press, New York.

  • 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.

  • Parmelee, D. F., H. A. Stephens, and R. H. Schmidt. 1967. The birds of southeastern Victoria Island and adjacent small islands. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Bulletin No. 222. 229pp.

  • Paulson, D. 1993. Shorebirds of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle. xv + 406 pp.

  • Paulson, D..R. and W. J. Erckmann. 1985. Buff-breasted Sandpipers nesting in association with Black-bellied Plovers. The Condor 87:429-430.

  • 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.

  • Pitelka, F.A. 1974. An avifaunal review for the Barrow region and North Slope of arctic Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research 6:161-184.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Rubega, M. A., D. Schamel, and D. M. Tracy. 2000. Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus). No. 538 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28pp.

  • See SERO listing

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

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

  • 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. 1967. Behaviour of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper at the nest. Arctic 20: 3-7.

  • THOMPSON,M.C., AND C. ELY.1989. BIRDS IN KANSAS VOLUME ONE.

  • Taylor, A., A. Powell, R. Lanctot, S. Kendall, and D. Nigro. 2008. Distribution, movements, and physiology of post-breeding shorebirds on Alaskas Arctic Coastal Plain. Pp.37 in Summaries of ongoing or new studies of Alaska shorebirds during 2007 (J. Leibezeit, ed.), Alaska Shorebird Group.

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

  • Troy Ecological Research Associates. 1993. Population dynamics of birds in the Pt. McIntyre reference area 1981-1992. Prepared for: BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Department, Anchorage, AK. 30 pp.

  • Troy Ecological Research Associates. 1996a. Distribution of terrestrial birds in the vicinity of Milne Point, Alaska: coastal gradients. Unpubl. report prepared by Troy Ecological Research Associates for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.

  • Troy, D.M. 1994. Bird use of coastal tundra at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: 1991-1992. Unpubl. report prepared by Troy Ecological Research Associates for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.

  • Troy, D.M. 1996b. Population dynamics of breeding shorebirds in Arctic Alaska. International Wader Studies. 8:15-27.

  • Troy, D.M. and J.K. Wickliffe. 1990. Trends in bird use of the Pt. McIntyre reference area 1981-1989. Rep. for BP Exploration, Inc., Anchorage, AK. Troy Ecological Research Assoc., Anchorage, AK. 45 p. + appendix.

  • Troy, D.M. and R.M. Burgess. 1983. Prudhoe Bay Unit-Eileen West End Environmental Studies Program, Summer 1982. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. for Sohio Alaska Petroleum Company, Anchorage, AK.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. National Wildlife Refuges bird species checklist. Supplied by Brad Andres, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, Alaska.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006c. Regulations for the 2006 Alaska subsistence spring/summer Migratory Bird Harvest. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Mgt Council, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

  • Yukon Bird Club. 1997. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Winter 1997. 36pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2006. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2006. 20pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2008. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2008. 26pp.

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

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2013. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall 2013. 16pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2014. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Fall-Winter 2014.12 pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2015. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Spring-Summer 2015.12 pp.

  • Yukon Bird Club. 2015. Yukon Warbler: Newsletter of the Yukon Bird Club - Winter 2015. 16pp.

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

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

  • eBird. 2018. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed in 2018.

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.