Sturnella neglecta - Audubon, 1844
Western Meadowlark
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Sturnella neglecta Audubon, 1844 (TSN 179039)
French Common Names: sturnelle de l'Ouest
Spanish Common Names: Pradero Occidental
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105149
Element Code: ABPBXB2030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
Image 10780

© Dick Cannings

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Icteridae Sturnella
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: Sturnella neglecta
Taxonomic Comments: Sturnella neglecta and S. magna Constitutes a superspecies; they rarely interbreed and hybrids are sterile (AOU 1998). Banks and Browning (1995) regarded the specific name S. ludovicianus as a nomen dubium and recommended that S. neglecta be retained as the proper name.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 04Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range in North America; large population size; many occurrences; apparently undergoing a slow decline.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N4N,N5M (15Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Arizona (S5), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Florida (SNA), Idaho (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S2B), Iowa (S4B,S4N), Kansas (S5B,S4N), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (S2N), Michigan (S4), Minnesota (SNRB), Missouri (SNR), Montana (S5B), Navajo Nation (S5), Nebraska (S4), Nevada (S5), New Mexico (S5B,S5N), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S2), Oklahoma (S5), Oregon (S4), South Dakota (S5B), Tennessee (S2N), Texas (S5B), Utah (S5), Washington (S4N,S4S5B), Wisconsin (S2B), Wyoming (S5B,S5N)
Canada Alberta (S5B), British Columbia (S4B,SNRN), Manitoba (S4S5B), Ontario (S3B), Saskatchewan (S5B)

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 range extends from central British Columbia, northernl Alberta, central Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, western Ontario, northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, and southern Ontario south to northwestern Baja California, southern California, northwestern Sonora, central Arizona, Mexican highlands (to Jalisco, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Nuevo León, and western Tamaulipas), west-central Texas, southeastern Kansas, northwestern Missouri, central Illinois, northern Indiana, northwestern Ohio, and extreme northwestern New York (Davis and Lanyon 2008).

Winter range extends primarily from southern British Columbia, central Idaho, central Utah, central Colorado, southern South Dakota, southern Wisconsin, and northern Indiana south to southern Baja California, Michoacán, the state of México, Veracruz, and U.S. Gulf Coast east to northwestern (Davis and Lanyon 2008).

Introduced and established in Hawaii (Kauai) (AOU 1998, Davis and Lanyon 2008).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrnces (subpopulations).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown bu presumably exceeds 1,000,000. Rich et al. (2004) estimated population size at 32,000,000.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Many occurrences appear to have at least good estimated viability.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Much habitat has been lost to intensive agricultural development of habitat. Cultivation of habitat generally eliminates successful nesting until revegetation occurs. Grassland alterations that result in tall dense vegetation reduce habitat suitability for meadowlarks (Davis and Lanyon 2008). Hay cutting during the nesting season generally precludes successful nesting (Davis and Lanyon 2008).

Moderate grazing generally is not a threat, unless vegetation already is very low and sparse. Grazing may increase habitat suitability of areas that have tall, dense vegetation.

Encroachment of woody vegetation generally reduces suitability of habitat for meadowlarks.

In some areas this species is a frequent host of the brown-headed cowbird (a brood parasite), but this is not known to be a significant threat.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a slow ongoing decline that is close to 10% over 10 years, which is probably close to three generations.

Long-term Trend: Unknown
Long-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 200 years in unknown, but this species appears to have undergone a slow decline over the past several decades. North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a significant survey-wide decline of 0.9% per year for the period 1966-2007; this amount to a decline of 31% over this time period. BBS abundance (average number of individuals per route) declined from mostly 48-52 (late 1960s to mid-1970s) to 34-37 in 2000-2007. Decline during 1980-2007 averaged 1% per year.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Breeding range extends from central British Columbia, northernl Alberta, central Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, western Ontario, northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, and southern Ontario south to northwestern Baja California, southern California, northwestern Sonora, central Arizona, Mexican highlands (to Jalisco, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Nuevo León, and western Tamaulipas), west-central Texas, southeastern Kansas, northwestern Missouri, central Illinois, northern Indiana, northwestern Ohio, and extreme northwestern New York (Davis and Lanyon 2008).

Winter range extends primarily from southern British Columbia, central Idaho, central Utah, central Colorado, southern South Dakota, southern Wisconsin, and northern Indiana south to southern Baja California, Michoacán, the state of México, Veracruz, and U.S. Gulf Coast east to northwestern (Davis and Lanyon 2008).

Introduced and established in Hawaii (Kauai) (AOU 1998, Davis and Lanyon 2008).

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 AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NM, NN, NV, OH, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY
Canada AB, BC, MB, ON, SK

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IN Allen (18003), Benton (18007), Boone (18011), Huntington (18069), La Porte (18091), Lagrange (18087), Newton (18111), Noble (18113), Porter (18127), Pulaski (18131), Starke (18149), Tippecanoe (18157), Wabash (18169), Whitley (18183)
MI Berrien (26021), Hillsdale (26059), Ontonagon (26131), Sanilac (26151), Wayne (26163)
OH Ottawa (39123), Sandusky (39143), Seneca (39147), Stark (39151), Wyandot (39175)
WI Adams (55001), Barron (55005), Bayfield (55007), Brown (55009), Dane (55025), Door (55029), Douglas (55031), Dunn (55033), Eau Claire (55035), Green (55045), Iowa (55049), Kenosha (55059), Kewaunee (55061), La Crosse (55063), Lafayette (55065), Manitowoc (55071), Monroe (55081), Ozaukee (55089), Polk (55095), Portage (55097), Racine (55101), Sauk (55111), Vernon (55123)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 St. Louis (04010201)+, Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Ontonagon (04020102)+, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Lower Fox (04030204)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Pike-Root (04040002)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Birch-Willow (04080104)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Upper Maumee (04100005)+, Blanchard (04100008)+, Cedar-Portage (04100010)+, Sandusky (04100011)+
05 Tuscarawas (05040001)+, Upper Wabash (05120101)+, Salamonie (05120102)+, Eel (05120104)+, Middle Wabash-Deer (05120105)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Sugar (05120110)+
07 Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Eau Claire (07050006)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+*, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Sugar (07090004)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird (meadowlark).
Reproduction Comments: In the north (Manitoba), nests are initiated in late April-June (mainly first half of May). Clutch size is three to seven (usually five). Incubation, by female, lasts 13-15 days. Nestlings are tended by both parents, leave nest in about 12 days, fed by parents for two more weeks.
Ecology Comments: This species occurs in flocks of up to 10-75 birds in winter.

Predators include: hawks, crows, skunks, weasels, raccoons, and coyotes.

This species is regarded as an intolerant host of the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) in some areas and is known to eject the eggs of this parasitic species (Hergenrader 1962). Brood parasitism rates of more than 40 percent, however, have been recorded (Davis 1994; Klute 1994; Koford et al., in press), although other studies have recorded lower parasitism rates (Hergenrader 1962, Friedmann 1963, Bent 1958, Maher 1973, Hill 1976). In Manitoba, a relatively high brood parasitism rate of 44 percent on 65 nests was recorded (Davis 1994; Davis and Sealy 2000). Within native grasslands in North Dakota, frequency of brood parasitism on 294 nests was 47 percent; within Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and dense nesting cover (DNC) grasslands, the frequency of brood parasitism on 26 nests was 19 percent (Koford et al., in press). Within annually burned and moderately grazed tallgrass pastures in Kansas, the brood parasitism rate for 6 nests was 83 percent (Klute 1994).

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: This species is partially migratory in the northern parts of the breeding range (Terres 1980).

Home range size has been estimated at 4-13 hectares (Bent 1958). In Colorado, mean territory size of 17 mated males was 1.24 hectares, 0.32 hectares in 7 unmated males (Aweida 1995). Estimates of male territory size are 3-13 hectares within tallgrass prairie (Kendeigh 1941, Lanyon 1956, Laubach 1984), 2-7 hectares within short- and mixed-grass prairies (Wiens 1970, 1971; Schaeff and Picman 1988), 2 hectares in tame pastures in Wisconsin (Wiens 1969), and 3 hectares in alfalfa fields and surrounding edges in Iowa (Frawley and Best 1991). In idle shrubsteppe and shrubsteppe pasture, the estimated territory sizes for males were 2.2 hectares and 2.3 hectares, respectively (Wiens 1971). Breeding home range size is essentially same as territory size (Lanyon 1957).

Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes grasslands, savannas, cultivated fields, and pastures, in lowland and mountain valleys, foothills, and open mountains (Subtropical and Temperate zones) (AOU 1998), nesting at elevations as high as 3,110 meters in Colorado (Kingery 1998). Female builds nest on dry ground. Nest is a large domed structure of woven grasses and ground vegetation.

Grassland habitat range from shrubsteppe and shortgrass prairie to mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie (Bent 1958, Maher 1974, Stewart 1975, Salt and Salt 1976, Dale 1983, Laubach 1984, Bock and Bock 1987, Renken and Dinsmore 1987, Lanyon 1994, Bock et al. 1995). In the Great Plains, this species uses a wide range of vegetation heights and densities, although it avoids extremely sparse or tall cover (Dale 1983, Patterson 1994, Patterson and Best 1996), preferring high forb and grass cover, low to moderate litter cover, and little or no woody cover (Sample 1989, Kimmel et al. 1992, Anstey et al. 1995, Hull et al. 1996, Madden 1996). In shrubsteppe and desert grasslands, it prefers mesic areas; low shrub cover and density; patchiness in vegetative structure and in heights of forbs and shrubs; and high coverage of grass, forb, and litter (Lanyon 1962, Rotenberry and Wiens 1980, Wiens and Rotenberry 1981, Wiens et al. 1987, McAdoo et al. 1989, Knick and Rotenberry 1995). In general, open, treeless areas are most suitable (Salt and Salt 1976, Sample 1989, Johnson 1997), although a few shrubs may be used as song perches (Knick and Rotenberry 1995).

Suitable habitats are found in idle native and idle tame grasslands (including fields of planted cover, such as Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] fields, Permanent Cover Program [PCP] fields, and dense nesting cover [DNC]), native and tame pastures and hayland (Graber and Graber 1963; Giezentanner 1970; Maher 1973, 1974; Stewart 1975; Salt and Salt 1976; Johnsgard 1979, 1980; Ducey and Miller 1980; Kantrud 1981; Kantrud and Kologiski 1982; Faanes 1983; Laubach 1984; Renken and Dinsmore 1987; Frawley and Best 1991; Dhol et al. 1994; Hartley 1994; Klute 1994; Anstey et al. 1995; Berthelsen and Smith 1995; Bock et al. 1995; Faanes and Lingle 1995; King and Savidge 1995; Prescott et al. 1995; Skeel et al. 1995; Sutter 1996; Delisle and Savidge 1997; Klute et al. 1997; Prescott 1997; Davis and Duncan 1999). Road rights-of-way, field edges, cropland, retired cropland, wet meadows, pine (PINUS) foothills, mountain meadows, orchards, windbreaks, riparian areas, and to a limited extent, wet areas on shortgrass prairie and sagebrush (Artemisia)-dominated plains also are used (Hergenrader 1962, Bent 1958, Strong 1971, Stewart 1975, Salt and Salt 1976, Johnsgard 1979, Ducey and Miller 1980, Stauffer and Best 1980, Faanes 1983, Basore et al. 1986, Cable et al. 1992, Camp and Best 1993, Hartley 1994, Lanyon 1994, Faanes and Lingle 1995, Prescott 1997).

Within mixed-grass areas in North Dakota, abundance was positively associated with percent grass cover, litter depth, and density of low-growing shrubs (western snowberry [Symphoricarpos occidentalis] and silverberry [Eleagnus commutata]; Schneider 1998). In mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota, density was positively correlated with maximum and average vegetation heights, and negatively correlated with shrub coverage (George and McEwen 1991). When vegetation variables were grouped and analyzed in combination, western meadowlark density was positively correlated with vertical density of vegetation and grass cover, and negatively correlated with vertical heterogeneity (diversity of vegetation) and litter cover.

In riparian areas in Iowa, density was positively associated with grass cover and the cover of all life forms combined (life forms were defined as grass-like vegetation, forbs, shrubs, deciduous and evergreen trees, and vines; Best et al. 1981). Density was negatively associated with sapling and tree richness, the horizontal patchiness of trees, and forb cover.

In crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) pastures in Saskatchewan, abundance was positively correlated with litter depth and the number of plant contacts from 0 to 10 centimeters from the ground (Sutter and Brigham 1998). Numbers were higher in areas with high percent grass and sedge cover and high maximum vegetation height than in areas with high litter depth and number of plant contacts more than 10 centimeters tall. In mixed-grass pastures, density was negatively correlated with maximum vegetation height and the number of plant contacts less than 10 centimeters. Numbers were higher in areas with high percent grass and sedge cover and high maximum vegetation height than in areas with high litter depth and number of plant contacts more than 10 centimeters tall. In Nebraska, western meadowlarks were equally abundant in idle fields planted to native grasses and in idle fields planted to tame grasses (Delisle and Savidge 1997). In Saskatchewan, they occurred with equal frequency in native pastures and tame pastures (Anstey et al. 1995, Sutter 1996, Davis and Duncan 1999). In Manitoba and Alberta, however, they preferred native grasses to tame grasses (Wilson and Belcher 1989, Dhol et al. 1994, Prescott and Murphy 1996).

Nests were found in grassed waterways planted to smooth brome (Bromus inermis) in Iowa rowcrop fields (Bryan and Best 1991). Occasionally nest occur in no-till cropland (Basore et al. 1986). In Iowa, western meadowlarks preferred untilled fields of corn and soybeans rather than tilled fields (Basore et al. 1986). Untilled fields were idle in the fall and spring and contained year-round crop residue. Specifically, they preferred nesting in fields where corn was planted into sod residue over fields where corn or soybeans were planted into corn residue (Basore et al. 1986). In wheat-stubble fields, the tightly woven nest often protected eggs from rolling out during tillage with undercutter blades (Rodgers 1983).

In South Dakota mixed-grass prairies, densities were higher in large grassland patches (> 50 hectares) than smaller ones (Bakker et al. 2002).

Adult Food Habits: Granivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Granivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet varies seasonally and includes small invertebrates (beetles, cutworms, caterpillars, grasshoppers, spiders, sow bugs, snails, etc.), grain, and seeds. (Terres 1980). Meadowlarks usually forage on the ground.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 24 centimeters
Weight: 106 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Keys to management include providing a variety of grassland types and heights, sparse woody cover, and high forb and grass cover. Avoid disturbance (burning, mowing, grazing, tilling, and chemical spraying) during the breeding season (Messmer 1985, Frawley 1989, Lanyon 1994, Patterson 1994, Patterson and Best 1996, Dale et al. 1997). Spray weeds on a spot-by-spot basis, and delay spraying until after the peak breeding season (Patterson 1994, Patterson and Best 1996, Delisle and Savidge 1997).

Protect large, native grassland areas and wet meadows from conversion to agricultural production; management of native grasslands can be accomplished through burning, mowing, and grazing (Kantrud 1981, Faanes and Lingle 1995, Prescott and Murphy 1996). Continue the Conservation Reserve Program to preserve nesting habitat in the Great Plains (Bock et al. 1993, Klute 1994, Patterson 1994, Patterson and Best 1996).

Provide large blocks of grassland to reduce brood parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds (MOLOTHRUS ATER) and to reduce nest depredation (Johnson and Temple 1990, Klute 1994, Davis and Sealy in press).

Place any trails near forest or grassland edges to limit the fragmentation of large blocks of habitat (Miller et al. 1998).

Treat (burn, graze, or mow) portions of large areas on a rotational schedule to provide a mosaic of successional stages (Renken and Dinsmore 1987, Madden 1996, Prescott and Murphy 1996, Dale et al. 1997, Johnson 1997). Treat small, isolated areas as part of a larger mosaic, ensuring a variety of successional stages (Renken and Dinsmore 1987, Madden 1996, Johnson 1997).

In mixed-grass prairie, conduct prescribed burns at varying intervals of time (2-3 years, 4-7 years, or 8-10 years) to provide a mosaic of successional stages (Madden 1996). In tallgrass prairie, burn Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields every 3-5 years to reduce dense vegetation (King and Savidge 1995).

Burn or mow road rights-of-way in blocks on a 3-5 years rotational basis to maintain vegetation quality (Camp and Best 1993).

Control encroachment of woody vegetation (Faanes and Lingle 1995, Prescott and Murphy 1996). In order to increase nest productivity in tallgrass prairie fragments, remove woody vegetation to reduce edges and burn at least every 3 years (Johnson and Temple 1990).

Mow hayfields in late summer (after 15 July) on a 3-5 year rotational basis to maintain grass quality and improve habitat for the following year (Dale et al. 1997). Mowing of CRP fields should not be done more than every 3-5 years; should be done in late summer, and should be followed by raking to reduce and loosen litter (Hays and Farmer 1990).

On CRP fields that have been seeded to tallgrass species, use grazing to improve the breeding habitat by reducing vegetation height, and by increasing canopy and forb coverage and invertebrate biomass (Klute 1994). Within shortgrass prairie, protect dry areas from grazing, and graze wet areas to increase species diversity and patchiness (Ryder 1980).

Graze tame pastures in the spring to allow native pastures to recover from grazing (Prescott and Wagner 1996). Increase the amount of public rangeland from which livestock are excluded, especially in the National Grasslands (Bock et al. 1993).

To avoid destroying nests and nestlings, undercut wheat stubble in the spring instead of using surface tillage (Rodgers 1983). In wheat-stubble fields, the tightly woven nest of Western Meadowlarks often protected eggs from rolling out during tillage with undercutter blades.

Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Herkert et al. (1993) suggested that Western Meadowlarks were moderately sensitive to habitat fragmentation. In Nebraska, the minimum area used was 5 hectares (Helzer 1996). In Idaho shrubsteppe, no relationship was found between occupancy of an area and patch size (Knick and Rotenberry 1995). However, in mixed-grass grasslands of South Dakota, density was greater in large (>50 hectare) patches than in smaller ones (Bakker et al. 2002). The probability of encountering nests was highest on large fragments near forest edges; however, nest productivity was highest for nests far from forest edges in areas 1 year postburn (Johnson and Temple 1986). In Saskatchewan, cowbird brood parasitism rates for Western Meadowlarks were negatively associated with area; 700-1600 hectares would be required to reduce brood parasitism by 50 percent (SWCC 1997). In Minnesota tallgrass prairie, nest depredation and brood parasitism decreased farther from woody edges, and nest depredation rates were lower on large (130-486 hectares) than on small (16-32 hectares) grasslands (Johnson and Temple 1990).
Management Requirements: BURNING: Tallgrass prairie management to maximize nest productivity should provide large (more than 130 hectares), regularly burned prairies with no nearby wooded edges (Johnson and Temple 1990). In Saskatchewan, population initially was adversely impacted by an October prescribed fire, but densities in burned and unburned areas were comparable by the third year (Pylypec 1991). Densities are low immediately following burning, but increase a few years postburn, probably in response to recovery of vegetation and absence of woody vegetation (Johnson 1997). Densities declined by 5 year postburn. In the northern Great Plains, densities in prairie generally declined 1-2 year postburn, but peaked 2-4 year postburn (Forde et al. 1984, Pylypec 1991). However, in northern North Dakota, density peaked 1-3 years postburn (Madden 1996). In one Saskatchewan field, densities on a 3 year postburn were comparable to unburned areas (Pylypec 1991). In northern North Dakota, were absent from unburned, native mixed-grass areas, but were present in areas subjected to repeated (e.g., every 3 years) burning; prairies in which the last burn was more than 80 years ago did not attract meadowlarks (Madden 1996). In South Dakota, use of native pastures burned in the spring increased during June and July to the extent that abundance was significantly higher in burned than in unburned prairie in July, and abundance was significantly higher in July than June in the burned prairie (Huber and Steuter 1984). Within Idaho shrubsteppe, densities were higher 1-3 years postburn than preburn; densities leveled off about 4 years postburn (Petersen and Best 1987). In Montana, abundance was higher in burned than in unburned shrubsteppe (Bock and Bock 1987). Within burned areas, occupied sites contained significantly less grass and herbaceous cover than was available in the burned areas as a whole. Numbers in Wyoming shrubsteppe were significantly higher in untreated (i.e., unburned and not sprayed with herbicides) shrubsteppe than in burned shrubsteppe; no differences were detected between sprayed and burned areas or between sprayed and untreated areas (Kerley and Anderson 1995). Untreated areas contained higher shrub density, higher percent shrub cover, and taller shrubs than treated areas.

MOWING: On native grasslands in North Dakota, density was highest in hayland mowed the previous year compared to grasslands under light, moderate, or heavy grazing (Kantrud 1981). In Saskatchewan, were consistently found in annually mowed hayfields, and occasionally were found in periodically mowed (mowed some years, idled during other years) fields, but were most abundant in idle native grasslands (Dale et al. 1997). In Iowa alfalfa fields, density did not differ between unmowed fields and fields mowed in early June and again in mid-July, but territories were not entirely within alfalfa fields (Frawley and Best 1991). Nested in both first and second alfalfa crops; nest success was low due mainly to depredation (Frawley 1989). Nests in Nebraska hayfields were unsuccessful because of disturbance caused by mowing (Ducey and Miller 1980). Emergency haying (haying due to severe drought) of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields in the Midwest resulted in an increase in the herbaceous canopy cover and an increase in the proportion of grasses composing the herbaceous canopy in the following year (Hays and Farmer 1990); these vegetative changes were favored by Eastern Meadowlarks (STURNELLA MAGNA) and Western Meadowlarks.

GRAZING: In Nebraska, were more abundant in pastures grazed by cattle than in a pasture grazed by American bison (BISON BISON) and burned (Griebel et al. 1998). Usually respond positively to light to moderate grazing and negatively to heavy grazing (Giezentanner 1970, Kantrud and Kologiski 1982, Bock et al. 1993), although they also may exhibit no response to grazing (Karasiuk et al. 1977, Renken 1983, Messmer 1990). In North Dakota, preferred grazed fields over Dense Nesting Cover (DNC), but showed no response to grazing intensities or to short-duration (involved a system of pastures rotated through a grazing schedule of about 1 week grazed and 1 month ungrazed, repeated throughout the season), twice-over rotation (involved grazing a number of pastures twice per season, with about a 2-month rest in between grazing), or season-long (involved leaving cattle on the same pasture all season) grazing systems (Renken 1983; Messmer 1985, 1990). In mixed-grass prairie in South Dakota, were more abundant in ungrazed areas than grazed areas (Wiens 1973). In Alberta, frequencies of occurrence did not differ significantly between four grazing treatments: early season tame (grazed from late April to mid-June), early season native (grazed in early summer), deferred-grazed native (grazed after 15 July), and continuously grazed native (Dale and McKeating 1996, Prescott and Wagner 1996). Western Meadowlarks in Saskatchewan were equally abundant in grazed and ungrazed areas (Dale 1984). However, in another Saskatchewan study, density was three times higher in ungrazed than grazed grassland, although the species was common in both (Maher 1973, 1974). In Alberta, nested in both idle and grazed areas and tolerated any intensity of grazing (from light to heavy grazing), especially if some shrubs remained; they were abundant on mowed and cultivated areas as well (Owens and Myres 1973). In Alberta aspen parkland, abundance was greater in idle mixed-grass prairie than in continuously grazed prairie, although were common in both (Prescott et al. 1995). In shortgrass pasture of Colorado, nested in lightly to moderately summer- or winter-grazed shortgrass pastures, heavily winter-grazed pastures, and avoided heavily summer-grazed pastures (Giezentanner 1970, Porter and Ryder 1974, Wiens 1973, Ryder 1980). In Oklahoma, meadowlarks (Eastern and Western Meadowlarks combined) nested more frequently in moderately grazed tallgrass pasture than in undisturbed prairie (Smith 1940). Within shortgrass pastures of Arizona, Western Meadowlarks were absent from heavily grazed pastures where sheep had unlimited grazing access; they were common in moderately grazed pastures where sheep were kept at carrying capacity and where erosion by floodwater was controlled (Monson 1941). In Idaho, nested in low numbers in ungrazed areas of big sagebrush (ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA) or crested wheatgrass, and did not nest in grazed areas of these habitats (Reynolds and Trost 1980). In Saskatchewan, were common in lightly grazed crested wheatgrass (Sutter and Brigham 1998).

CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP): Nest density within native or tame CRP fields in Texas did not differ by cover type (blue grama [BOUTELOUA GRACILIS]/sideoats grama [BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA], blue grama/Kleingrass [PANICUM COLORATUM], and blue grama/Turkestan bluestem [ANDROPOGON ISCHAEMUM]) (Berthelsen and Smith 1995). In Iowa, were abundant in CRP planted to tame grasses and legumes; abundance in CRP was positively correlated with vertical patchiness and negatively correlated with vertical vegetation cover (Patterson 1994, Patterson and Best 1996). Nested in CRP, but not in rowcrops (Patterson 1994). In Nebraska, there was no difference in Western Meadowlark abundance between agricultural landscapes with 20 percent CRP land and landscapes with less than 5 percent CRP, or between areas dominated by warm- or cool-season grasses (King and Savidge 1995, Delisle and Savidge 1997). In Kansas, meadowlarks (Eastern and Western Meadowlarks combined) were more abundant in moderately grazed, annually burned tallgrass prairie than in native, annually burned CRP, possibly because invertebrate prey was more common in the grazed areas (Klute 1994). Six nests were found in pastures, and none in CRP (Klute et al. 1997). Were not common within Kansas native CRP, but the highest abundances occurred in fields with a high (more than 60 percent) frequency of occurrence of forbs (Hull et al. 1996).

DENSE NESTING COVER (DNC): Density in North Dakota was higher in grazed native prairie than in DNC planted to alfalfa and wheatgrass (AGROPYRON SPP.); they also were found in formerly grazed fields that had been idle for 1 year (Renken 1983, Renken and Dinsmore 1987). Density was negatively correlated with vegetation height and forb cover (Renken 1983). In Saskatchewan, were more common in idle native grasslands than in wheat or DNC (both native and tame) (Hartley 1994). In Manitoba, were more abundant in idle native grasslands than native DNC (Dhol et al. 1994).

PERMANENT COVER PROGRAM (PCP): In southern Canada, occurred more frequently in PCP grasslands than in cropland (McMaster and Davis 1998).

PESTICIDES: The effects of grasshopper control methods (malathion, sevin-4-oil, carbaryl bait, and Nosema locustae bait, a biological control agent) on Western Meadowlark density were evaluated in Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (George et al. 1995). Density declined 10 and 21 days post-treatment (all treatments combined), probably due to a reduction in insect prey. Mortality of eight Eastern and Western Meadowlarks due to insecticides was reported in Oklahoma (Griffin 1959).

DISTURBANCE: In a study examining the influence of recreational trails on the density of songbirds, Western Meadowlarks were significantly more abundant along control transects than along recreational trails (Miller et al. 1998). Abundance increased with increasing distance from trails.

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: 23Mar2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Management Information Edition Date: 15Jul1999
Management Information Edition Author: DECHANT, J.A., M.L. SONDREAL, D.H. JOHNSON, L.D. IGL, A.L. ZIMMERMAN, AND B.R. EULISS; REVISIONS BY G. HAMMERSON, M. KOENEN, AND D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Parts of this abstract were originally researched and written by staff of the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and published as Dechant et al. (1999). Additional support for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Initiative, through challenge grant number 97-270 to The Nature Conservancy, Wings of the Americas Program. Matching funds for this grant were donated by Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Mar2009
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
  • 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). 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.

  • Anstey, D.A., S.K. Davis, D.C. Duncan, and M. Skeel. 1995. Distribution and habitat requirements of eight grassland songbird species in southern Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation, Regina, Saskatchewan. 11 pp.

  • Austen, M.J.W., M.D. Cadman and R.D. James. 1994. Ontario Birds at Risk: Status and Conservation Needs. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, and Long Point Bird Observatory, Port Rowan, Ontario. 165 pp.

  • Aweida, M.K. 1995. Repertoires, territory size and mate attraction in Western Meadowlarks. Condor 97:1080-1083.

  • Bakker, K. K., D. E. Naugle, and K. F. Higgins. 2002. Incorporating landscape attributes into models for migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16:1638-1646.

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

  • Banks, R. C., and M. R. Browning. 1995. Comments on the status of revived old names for some North American birds. Auk 112:633-648.

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

  • Basore, N.S., L.B. Best, and J.D. Wooley, Jr. 1986. Bird nesting in Iowa no-tillage and tilled cropland. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:10-28.

  • Bent, A.C. 1958. Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, tanagers, and their allies. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 211. Washington, DC.

  • Berry, R. D. and P. E. Brown. 1995. Natural history and reproductive behavior of the California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus). Bat Res. News 36(4):49-50.

  • Best, L.B., D.F. Stauffer, A.R. Geier, K.L. Varland, J.P. Vogler, R.B. Dahlgren, and R.Q. Landers. 1981. Effects of habitat alterations on riparian plant and animal communities in Iowa. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/26. 55 pp.

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

  • Blankespoor, G.W. 1980. Prairie restoration: effects on nongame birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:667-672.

  • Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, and B.C. Bennett. 1995. The avifauna of remnant tallgrass prairie near Boulder, Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 27:147-157.

  • Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on Neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 296-309 in D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel, editors. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-229.

  • Bock, C.E., and J.E. Bock. 1987. Avian habitat occupancy following fire in a Montana shrubsteppe. Prairie Naturalist 19:153-158.

  • Bryan, G.G., and L.B. Best. 1991. Bird abundance and species richness in grassed waterways in Iowa rowcrop fields. American Midland Naturalist 126:90-102.

  • Cable, T.T., R.L. Schroeder, V. Brack, Jr., and P.S. Cook. 1992. Summer bird use of Kansas windbreaks. Prairie Naturalist 24:175-184.

  • Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner (eds.) 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario. 617 pp.

  • Camp, M., and L.B. Best. 1993. Bird abundance and species richness in roadsides adjacent to Iowa rowcrop fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:315-325.

  • Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, A. C. Stewart, and M. C. E. McNall. 2001. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 4. Passerines: wood-warblers through Old World sparrows. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 739 pages.

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

  • Dale, B. C. 1983. Habitat relationships of seven species of passerine birds at Last Mountain Lake, Saskatchewan. M.S. Thesis. University of Regina, Saskatchewan. 119 pp.

  • Dale, B. C. 1984. Birds of grazed and ungrazed grasslands in Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 42:102-105.

  • Dale, B. C., P. A. Martin, and P. S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management regimes on grassland songbirds in Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:616-626.

  • Dale, B.C., and G. McKeating. 1996. Finding common ground-the nongame evaluation of the North American waterfowl management plan in Canada. Pages 258-265 in J.T. Ratti, editor. Proceedings of the seventh International Waterfowl Symposium. Memphis, TN.

  • Dancey, Helen E. 1990. Western Meadowlarks Nest in Indiana. 68 Ind. Aud. Q. 118-126.

  • Davis, S. K., and S. G. Sealy. 2000. Cowbird parasitism and nest predation in fragmented grasslands of southwestern Manitoba. Pages 220-228 in Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts. (Smith, J.N.M., T. L. Cook, S. I. Rothstein, S. K. Robinson, and S. G. Sealy, editors) University of Texas Press, Austin.

  • Davis, S. K., and W. E. Lanyon. 2008. Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: .

  • Davis, S.K. 1994. Cowbird parasitism, predation and host selection in fragmented grasslands of southwestern Manitoba. M.S. thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 77 pp.

  • Davis, S.K., and D.C. Duncan. 1999. Grassland songbird occurrence in native and crested wheatgrass pastures of southern Saskatchewan. Studies in Avian Biology 19:211-218.

  • Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, A.L. Zimmerman, and B.R. Euliss. 1999. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Western Meadowlark. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 30 pp.

  • Delisle, J.M., and J.A. Savidge. 1997. Avian use and vegetation characteristics of conservation reserve program fields. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:318-325.

  • Dhol, S., J. Horton, and R.E. Jones. 1994. 1994 non-waterfowl evaluation on Manitoba's North American Waterfowl Management Program. Unpublished report. Wildlife Branch, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 12 pp.

  • Ducey, J., and L. Miller. 1980. Birds of an agricultural community. Nebraska Bird Review 48:58-68.

  • 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.

  • Eagar, D.C. and Hatcher, R.M. (editors). 1980. Tennessee's Rare Wildlife - Volume 1: The Vertebrates.

  • Faanes, C. 1983. Breeding birds of wooded draws in western North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 15:173-187.

  • Faanes, C.A., and G.R. Lingle. 1995. Breeding birds of the Platte River Valley of Nebraska. Online. Available: http://www.npwrc.org/resource/distr/birds/platte/platte.htm.

  • Forde, J.E., N.F. Sloan, and D.A. Shown. 1984. Grassland habitat management using prescribed burning in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 16:97-110.

  • Frawley, B.J. 1989. The dynamics of nongame bird breeding ecology in Iowa alfalfa fields. M.S. thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 94 pp.

  • Frawley, B.J., and L.B. Best. 1991. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and species composition in alfalfa fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135-142.

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

  • George, T.L., L.C. McEwen, and B.E. Peterson. 1995. Effects of grasshopper control programs on rangeland breeding bird populations. Journal of Range Management 48:336-342.

  • George, T.L., and L.C. McEwen. 1991. Relationships between bird density, vegetation characteristics, and grasshopper density in mixed-grass prairie of western North Dakota. Pages 465-475 in D.R. McCullough and R.H. Barrett, editors. Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier Science Publishers LTD, Essex, England.

  • Giezentanner, J. B. 1970b. Avian distribution and population fluctuations on the shortgrass prairie of north central Colorado. U.S. Internat. Biol. Prog, Grassland Biome Tech. Report 62. 95 pp.

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

  • Graber, R.R., and J.W. Graber. 1963. A comparative study of bird populations in Illinois, 1906-1909 and 1956-1958. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 28:383-528.

  • Griebel, R.L., S.L. Winter, and A.A. Steuter. 1998. Grassland birds and habitat structure in sandhills prairie management using cattle or bison plus fire. Great Plains Research 8:255-268.

  • Griffin, D.N. 1959. The poisoning of meadowlarks with insecticides. Wilson Bulletin 71:193.

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

  • Hartley, M.J. 1994. Passerine abundance and productivity indices in grasslands managed for waterfowl nesting cover in Saskatchewan, Canada. M.S. thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 42 pp.

  • Haw, James. 1994. Summer Observations of Endangered Bird Species.

  • Hays, R.L., and A.H. Farmer. 1990. Effects of the CRP on wildlife habitat: emergency haying in the Midwest and pine plantings in the Southeast. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 55:30-39.

  • Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland birds. M.S. thesis. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. 65 pp.

  • Hergenrader, G.L. 1962. The incidence of nest parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) on roadside nesting birds in Nebraska. Auk 79:85-88.

  • Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen, and J.E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat establishment, enhancement and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage, Natural Heritage Technical Publication 1, Springfield, IL. 20 pp.

  • Hill, R.A. 1976. Host-parasite relationships of the Brown-headed Cowbird in a prairie habitat of west-central Kansas. Wilson Bulletin 88:555-565.

  • 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.

  • Huber, G.E., and A.A. Steuter. 1984. Vegetation profile and grassland bird response to spring burning. Prairie Naturalist 16(2):55-61.

  • Hull, S.D., R.J. Robel, and K.E. Kemp. 1996. Summer avian abundance, invertebrate biomass, and forbs in Kansas CRP. Prairie Naturalist 28:1-12.

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

  • Johnsgard, P.A. 1980. A preliminary list of the birds of Nebraska and adjacent plains states. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 156 pp.

  • Johnson, D.H. 1997. Effects of fire on bird populations in mixed-grass prairie. Pages 181-206 in F.L. Knopf and F.B. Samson, editors. Ecology and conservation of Great Plains vertebrates. Springer-Verlag, New York.

  • Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1986. Assessing habitat quality for birds nesting in fragmented tallgrass prairies. Pages 245-249 in J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph, editors. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

  • Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:106-111.

  • Kantrud, H. A. 1981. Grazing intensity effects on the breeding avifauna of North Dakota native grasslands. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:404-417.

  • Kantrud, H.A., and R.L. Kologiski. 1982. Effects of soils and grazing on breeding birds of uncultivated upland g rasslands of the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildl. Res. Rep. 15. 33 pp.

  • Karasiuk, D., H. Vriend, J.G. Stelfox, and J.R. McGillis. 1977. Avifauna: study results from Suffield, 1976. Pages 33-44 in J.G. Stelfox, editor. Effects of livestock grazing on mixed prairie range and wildlife within PFRA pastures, Suffield Military Reserve.

  • Kendeigh, S.C. 1941. Birds of a prairie community. Condor 43:165-174.

  • Kerley, L.L., and S.H. Anderson. 1995. Songbird responses to sagebrush removal in a high elevation sagebrush steppe ecosystem. Prairie Naturalist 27:129-146.

  • Kimmel, R.O., A.H. Berner, R.J. Welsh, B.S. Haroldson, and S.B. Malchow. 1992. Population responses of Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix), Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and meadowlarks (Sturnella spp.) to farm programs in Minnesota. Gibier Faune Sauvage 9:797-806.

  • King, J.W., and J.A. Savidge. 1995. Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on wildlife in southeast Nebraska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:377-385.

  • Kingery, H. E., editor. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 636 pp.

  • Klute, D.S. 1994. Avian community structure, reproductive success, vegetative structure, and food availability in burned Conservation Reserve Program fields and grazed pastures in northeastern Kansas. M.S. thesis. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 168 pp.

  • Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1995. Landscape characteristics of fragmented shrubsteppe habitats and breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology 9:1059-1071.

  • Koford, R.R., B.S. Bowen, J.T. Lokemoen, and A.D. Kruse. 2000. Cowbird parasitism in grassland and cropland in the northern Great Plains. Chapter 27 in: J.N.M. Smith, T. Cook, S.K. Robinson, S.I. Rothstein, and S.G. Sealy, editors. The ecology and management of cowbirds, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

  • LaRue, C.T. 1994. Birds of northern Black Mesa, Navajo County, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 54(1):1-63.

  • Lanyon, W. E. 1957. The comparative biology of the meadowlarks (STURNELLA) in Wisconsin. Nuttall. 66 pp.

  • Lanyon, W.E. 1956. Territory in the meadowlarks, genus STURNELLA. Ibis 98:485-489.

  • Lanyon, W.E. 1962. Species limits and distribution of meadowlarks of the desert grassland. Auk 79:183-207.

  • Lanyon, W.E. 1994. Western Meadowlark. The Birds of North America. Vol. 3, No. 104. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Lanyon, Wesley E. 1994. Western Meadowlark; The Birds of North America. Vol. 3, No. 104. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Laubach, R. 1984. Breeding birds of Sheeder Prairie Preserve, west-central Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 91:153-163.

  • 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.

  • Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and bird-habitat relationships on prescribe-burned, mixed grass prairie in North Dakota. M.S. thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 153 pp.

  • Maher, W.J. 1973. Matador Project: Birds I. Population dynamics. Canadian Committee for the International Biological Programme, Matador Project, Technical Report 34. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 56 pp.

  • Maher, W.J. 1974. Matador Project: Birds II. Avifauna of the Matador area. Canadian Committee for the International Biological Pragramme, Matador Project, Technical Report 58. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 31 pp.

  • McAdoo, J.K., W.S. Longland, and R.A. Evans. 1989. Nongame bird community responses to sagebrush invasion of crested wheatgrass seedings. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:494-502.

  • McMaster, D.G., and S.K. Davis. 1998. Non-game evaluation of the Permanent Cover Program. Unpublished report. Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation, Regina, Saskatchewan. 75+ pp.

  • Messmer, T.A. 1985. Effects of specialized grazing systems on upland nesting birds in southcentral North Dakota. M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 112 pp.

  • Messmer, T.A. 1990. Influence of grazing treatments on nongame birds and vegetation structure in south central North Dakota. Ph.D. dissertation. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 164 pp.

  • Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Owens, R. A., and M. T. Myres. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds of an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51:697-713.

  • 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.

  • Patterson, M.P. 1994. Bird species abundance, composition, and vegetation characteristics, and bird productivity in Conservation Reserve Program land in central Iowa. M.S. thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 54 pp.

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1987. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 2: Passerines. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. xi + 387 pp.

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

  • Petersen, K.L., and L.B. Best. 1987a. Effects of prescribed burning on nongame birds in a sagebrush community. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:317-329.

  • 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.

  • Porter, D.K., and R.A. Ryder. 1974. Avian density and productivity studies and analyses on the Pawnee Site in 1972. U.S. International Biological Program, Grassland Biome Technical Report 252. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 77 pp.

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

  • Prescott, D.R.C. 1997. Avian communities and NAWMP habitat priorities in the northern Prairie biome of Alberta. Land Stewardship Centre of Canada, NAWMP-029. St. Albert, Alberta. 41 pp.

  • Prescott, D.R.C., A.J. Murphy, and E. Ewaschuk. 1995. An avian community approach to determining biodiversity values of NAWMP habitats in the aspen parkland of Alberta. Alberta NAWMP Centre. NAWMP-012. Edmonton, Alberta. 58 pp.

  • Prescott, D.R.C., and A.J. Murphy. 1996. Habitat associations of grassland birds on native and tame pastures of the Aspen Parkland of Alberta. Alberta Centre. NAWMP-021. Edmonton, Alberta. 36 pp.

  • Prescott, D.R.C., and G.M. Wagner. 1996. Avian responses to implementation of a complementary/rotational grazing system by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in southern Alberta: the Medicine Wheel Project. Alberta North American Waterfowl Management Plan Centre. NAWMP-018. Edmonton, Alberta. 24 pp.

  • Pylypec, B. 1991. Impacts of fire on bird populations in a fescue prairie. Can. Field-Nat. 105:346-349.

  • Reeves, T. and A. Nelson. 1996. Birds of Morgan Lake: a guide to common species. Arizona Public Service, Four Corners Power Plant. 25 p.

  • Renken, R. B. 1983. Breeding bird communities and bird-habitat associations on North Dakota waterfowl production areas of three habitat types. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 90 pp.

  • Renken, R. B., and J. J. Dinsmore. 1987. Nongame bird communities on managed grasslands in North Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:551-557.

  • Reynolds, T.D., and C.H. Trost. 1980. The response of native vertebrate populations to crested wheatgrass planting and grazing by sheep. Journal of Range Management 33:122-125.

  • Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Online. Available:

  • Rodgers, R.D. 1983. Reducing wildlife losses to tillage in fallow wheat fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:31-38.

  • Rotenberry, J.T., and J.A. Wiens. 1980a. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228-1250.

  • Ryder, R.A. 1980. Effects of grazing on bird habitats. Pages 51-66 in R.M. DeGraff and N.G. Tilghman, editors. Workshop proceedings: management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-86.

  • Salt, W.R., and J.R. Salt. 1976. The Birds of Alberta. Hurtig Publishers, Edmonton, Alberta. 498 pp.

  • Sample, D.W. 1989. Grassland birds in southern Wisconsin: habitat preference, population trends, and response to land use changes. M.S. thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 588 pp.

  • Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation (SWCC). 1997. Grassland bird conservation through Saskatchewan's native prairie stewardship program. Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation, Regina, Saskatchewan. 25 pp.

  • 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.

  • Schaeff, C., and J. Picman. 1988. Destruction of eggs by Western Meadowlarks. Condor 90:935-937.

  • Schneider, N.A. 1998. Passerine use of grasslands managed with two grazing regimes on the Missouri Coteau in North Dakota. M.S thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 94 pp.

  • Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 391 pp.

  • Skeel, M. A., D. C. Duncan, and S. K. Davis. 1995. Abundance and distribution of Baird's sparrows in Saskatchewan in 1994. [Unpublished report]. 13 pp. Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation, Saskatchewan, Canada.

  • Smith, C.C. 1940. The effect of overgrazing and erosion upon the biota of the mixed-grass prairie of Oklahoma. Ecology 21:381-397.

  • Stauffer, D.F., and L.B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:1-15.

  • Stewart, R. E. 1975. Breeding Birds of North Dakota. Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies, Fargo ND.

  • Stokes, D. W., and L. Q. Stokes. 1996. Stokes field guide to birds: western region. Little, Brown & Company Limited, Boston.

  • Strong, M.A. 1971. Avian productivity on the shortgrass prairie of northcentral Colorado. M.S. thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 70 pp.

  • Sutter, G.C. and R.M. Brigham. 1998. Avifaunal and habitat changes resulting from conversion of native prairie to crested wheatgrass: patterns at songbird community and species levels. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:869-875.

  • Sutton, P. E. 1996. A mark and recapture study of the Florida sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi and a comparison of sand skink sampling methods. Masters thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa.

  • 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.

  • Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships among grassland birds. Ornithological Monographs No. 8:1-93.

  • Wiens, J.A. 1970. Avian populations and patterns of habitat occupancy at the Pawnee site, 1968-1969. U.S. International Biological Program, Grassland Biome Technical Report 63. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 57 pp.

  • Wiens, J.A. 1971. Avian ecology and distribution in the comprehensive network, 1970. U.S. International Biological Program, Grassland Biome Technical Report 77. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 49 pp.

  • Wiens, J.A. 1973. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecological Monographs 43:237-270.

  • Wiens, J.A., J.T. Rotenberry, and B. Van Horne. 1987. Habitat occupancy patterns of North American shrubsteppe birds: the effect of spatial scale. Oikos 48:132-147.

  • Wiens, J.A., and J.T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21-41.

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

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

  • Wilson, S. D., and J. W. Belcher. 1989. Plant and bird communities of native prairie and introduced Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. Conservation Biology 3:39-44.

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.