Setophaga citrina - (Boddaert, 1783)
Hooded Warbler
Other English Common Names: hooded warbler
Synonym(s): Wilsonia citrina (Boddaert, 1783)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Wilsonia citrina (Boddaert, 1783) (TSN 178972)
French Common Names: paruline à capuchon
Spanish Common Names: Chipe Encapuchado
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105404
Element Code: ABPBX16010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Parulidae Setophaga
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Wilsonia citrina
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly placed in the genus Wilsonia. Phylogenetic analyses of sequences of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that all species formerly placed in Dendroica, one species formerly placed in Wilsonia (citrina), and two species formerly placed in Parula (americana and pitiayumi) form a clade with the single species traditionally placed in Setophaga (ruticilla). The generic name Setophaga has priority for this clade (AOU 2011).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Dec1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range, increasing trend; locally threatened by habitat loss and degradation.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4B,NNRM (25Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S5B), Arizona (S2M), Arkansas (S4B), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (S4B), Delaware (S1B), District of Columbia (S3S4N), Florida (SNRB), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S3S4), Indiana (S3B), Iowa (S1B,S2N), Kansas (S1B), Kentucky (S5B), Louisiana (S5B), Maryland (S4S5B), Massachusetts (SXB,S2N), Michigan (S3), Minnesota (S3B), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (SNRN), New Jersey (S3B), New Mexico (S4N), New York (S5B), North Carolina (S5B), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S2B), Pennsylvania (S4B), Rhode Island (S3B), South Carolina (S4?B), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S5B), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5B), Wisconsin (S2S3B)
Canada Ontario (S4B)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: T (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (04May2012)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: In Canada, the range and abundance of this forest-nesting species have increased substantially since the species was last assessed. The species has also experienced a significant long-term increase in abundance in the core of its range in the United States, so there is an outside source for rescue. However, habitat degradation at breeding sites and habitat loss and degradation at migration stopover sites and on the wintering grounds are potential threats.

Status history: Designated Threatened in April 1994. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2000. Status re-examined and designated Not at Risk in May 2012.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: extreme southeastern Nebraska (rarely) east to southern Michigan, southern Ontario, and southern New England; south to eastern Texas, Gulf Coast, and northern Florida peninsula; and west to eastern Kansas and eastern Oklahoma (AOU 1983). NON-BREEDING: lowlands from central Veracruz and southern Oaxaca south, including Yucatan Peninsula, through Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras; rarer on Pacific slope than on Atlantic, and rare as far south as Panama. Irregular in West Indies, most noticeably during migration (uncommon in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) (Raffaele 1983). Rare in northern Colombia, northern Venezuela, Trinidad, Netherlands Antilles (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: See Page and Cadman (1994 COSEWIC report) for status in Canada.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats include habitat loss and degradation in temperate and tropical regions (e.g., conversion of diverse forests to plantations, forest fragmentation) and in some areas, parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER). On Delmarva Peninsula, river channelization and associated effects on floodplain forests is suspected as a cause of decline (Heckscher, pers. obs.).

Short-term Trend: Increase of >10%
Short-term Trend Comments: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a non-significant population increase of 0.4% per year from 1966-1996 (Sauer et al. 1997). Trend is significantly positive (2.1% per year) in eastern North America, non-significantly negative in central North America.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: extreme southeastern Nebraska (rarely) east to southern Michigan, southern Ontario, and southern New England; south to eastern Texas, Gulf Coast, and northern Florida peninsula; and west to eastern Kansas and eastern Oklahoma (AOU 1983). NON-BREEDING: lowlands from central Veracruz and southern Oaxaca south, including Yucatan Peninsula, through Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras; rarer on Pacific slope than on Atlantic, and rare as far south as Panama. Irregular in West Indies, most noticeably during migration (uncommon in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) (Raffaele 1983). Rare in northern Colombia, northern Venezuela, Trinidad, Netherlands Antilles (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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)
DE Kent (10001), New Castle (10003), Sussex (10005)
IA Allamakee (19005)*, Boone (19015)*, Clayton (19043)*, Fayette (19065), Lee (19111)
ID Bingham (16011), Butte (16023), Jefferson (16051)
IN Allen (18003), Bartholomew (18005), Boone (18011), Brown (18013), Crawford (18025), Dubois (18037), Floyd (18043), Greene (18055), Harrison (18061), Hendricks (18063), Huntington (18069), Jackson (18071), Jefferson (18077), Jennings (18079), Johnson (18081), La Porte (18091), Lagrange (18087), Lawrence (18093), Marion (18097), Marshall (18099), Martin (18101), Monroe (18105), Montgomery (18107), Morgan (18109)*, Noble (18113), Orange (18117), Perry (18123), Porter (18127), Pulaski (18131), Putnam (18133), Scott (18143), St. Joseph (18141), Wabash (18169), Washington (18175), Wayne (18177)
KS Jefferson (20087)
MI Allegan (26005), Barry (26015), Berrien (26021), Calhoun (26025), Cass (26027), Hillsdale (26059), Ionia (26067), Jackson (26075), Kalamazoo (26077), Kent (26081), Lake (26085), Lapeer (26087), Livingston (26093), Montcalm (26117), Muskegon (26121), Oakland (26125), Oceana (26127), Ottawa (26139), St. Clair (26147), St. Joseph (26149), Tuscola (26157), Van Buren (26159), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MN Anoka (27003), Chisago (27025), Clearwater (27029)*, Dakota (27037), Fillmore (27045), Hennepin (27053), Isanti (27059), Morrison (27097), Otter Tail (27111)*, Scott (27139), Washington (27163), Winona (27169)
MO Clark (29045), Crawford (29055), Lewis (29111), Platte (29165), Scotland (29199)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Bergen (34003), Burlington (34005), Camden (34007), Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Hunterdon (34019), Middlesex (34023), Monmouth (34025), Morris (34027), Ocean (34029), Passaic (34031), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
OK Le Flore (40079), McCurtain (40089)
WI Burnett (55013), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Door (55029), Dunn (55033), Florence (55037), Grant (55043), Green (55045), Iowa (55049), Jackson (55053), Jefferson (55055), Juneau (55057), La Crosse (55063), Manitowoc (55071), Marinette (55075), Monroe (55081), Pepin (55091), Richland (55103), Rock (55105), Sauk (55111), Sheboygan (55117), Trempealeau (55121), Vernon (55123), Walworth (55127), Washington (55131), Waukesha (55133)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Lower Delaware (02040202)+, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+
04 Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Menominee (04030108)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Milwaukee (04040003)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Thornapple (04050007)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+, Flint (04080204)+, Cass (04080205)+, St. Clair (04090001)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, St. Marys (04100004)+
05 Whitewater (05080003)+, Upper Wabash (05120101)+, Salamonie (05120102)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Sugar (05120110)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Eel (05120203)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+
07 Mississippi Headwaters (07010101)+*, Elk-Nokasippi (07010104)+, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Rum (07010207)+, Pomme De Terre (07020002)+*, Chippewa (07020005)+*, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Trempealeau (07040005)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Root (07040008)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Upper Rock (07090001)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Sugar (07090004)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+*, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+, North Fabius (07110002)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+, Meramec (07140102)+
10 Independence-Sugar (10240011)+, Delaware (10270103)+
11 Mountain Fork (11140108)+
17 Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Big Lost (17040218)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small bird (wood warbler).
Reproduction Comments: In most areas, nesting occurs mainly from mid- to late May through July. In Ohio, most clutches are completed from mid-May to mid-June (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). Clutch size three to four (rarely five). Incubation, by the female, lasts 12 days. Young are tended by both parents, leave nest in 8-9 days, fly 2-3 days later, remain with adults for several weeks. Sexually mature usually in one year.
Ecology Comments: Breeding territory size generally is about 0.5-0.75 ha. Males and females also maintain separate winter territories. Commonly returns to same winter territory in successive years (Powell and Rappole 1986, Rappole and Warner 1980); often joins mixed flocks within territory (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Breeding density may range up to 22 pairs per 40 ha.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: In fall, migrates over Gulf of Mexico (east to Greater Antilles). Departure from nesting areas occurs mainly from late July to late September. Begins to arrive in southern Mexico in mid-August, abundant there by late September. Arrival on the wintering grounds extends through late October or early November. In spring follows a more westerly route over the western Gulf and coastal plain of Mexico and Texas. Arrives in breeding areas generally from March or early April through mid-May. Recorded in South America October-April (Ridgely and Tudor 1989).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Hardwood
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: nests in understory of deciduous forest, especially along streams and ravine edges, and thickets in riverine forests (AOU 1983). Inhabits both young and mature forests but is most abundant in the latter. A dense shrub layer and scant ground cover are important. In North Carolina, common in mountain ravines with dense growth of mountain laurel (KALMIA LATIFOLIA) and rhododendron (RHODODENDRON spp.) and in bottomland swamps with dense pepperbush (CLETHRA ALNIFOLIA) and giant cane (ARUNDINARIA GIGANTEA) (LeGrand, pers. comm.). Generally favors large tracts of uninterrupted forest, but sometimes nests in forest patches as small as 5 ha, probably where these are close to larger forested areas. Nest placed in sapling or shrub in dense deciduous undergrowth, usually between 0.3 - 1.5 m. Individuals often return to the same area to nest in successive years (males are more likely to do so than females).

NON-BREEDING: undergrowth of various wooded habitats, scrubby areas, and thickets (AOU 1983). On winter range males occupy more mature forests than do females (Powell and Rappole 1986, Lynch et al. 1985); males use closed canopy forests, females use shrub or field habitats (Morton 1990). Older birds occupy higher quality habitat (Stutchbury 1994).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats wide variety of insects and spiders; gleans and flycatches in undergrowth, rarely moves more than 4.5 m above ground when foraging (Terres 1980, Powell and Rappole 1986). On breeding grounds, females seem to glean insects near ground while males hawk or sally to ground from elevated perch (Lynch et al. 1985). In winter in Mexico, foraged in open to fairly dense situations, 0-17 m above ground (average 2.7 m); most often hawked and sallied for flying insects.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 13 centimeters
Weight: 11 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Preservation of large tracts of contiguous forest or riparian bottomland forests with mature forest buffers are of primary importance. Preserve design should include large tracts to provide both the temporal and spatial variation in forest structure necessary for long-term persistence. Limited forest thinning or localized clearings can improve habitat if some large trees and dense saplings are not removed. Clearings should be small to minimize the possible increase in parasitism and predation often associated with forest edges. Effect of thinning and localized cuts on annual reproductive success has not been investigated. Site specific information should be collected prior to implementing management strategies. More research on effective management and monitoring protocol in tropical regions is needed. Monitoring management areas and preserves by use of point counts or transects seems most likely to be effective and is recommended to quantify success of management practices.
Restoration Potential: Potential for successful restoration will be greatest at sites occurring in proximity to extant populations. Increasing size of contiguous forests, expanding forest buffers, and promoting dense understory, should increase chances for successful population restoration.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Large contiguous forests will provide the greatest probability of maintaining long-term viable populations. Robbins (1979) suggested that 30 ha was the minimum area needed to sustain viable populations. However, this may be a low estimate for some geographical regions. For example, in Illinois not detected in forests < 600 ha (Blake and Karr 1984) and in Wisconsin not believed to occupy forests < 200 ha (Mossman, pers. comm.). Selection of riparian forests with mature forest buffers, as opposed to those without, may be important in designing preserves (e.g., Sargent et al. 1997). Robbins et al. (1989) found that the percent of forest within 2 km of sites was a significant predictor of occurrence and is probably important in maintaining populations within a given area.

Site specific information seems important. For example, New Jersey birds once thought to be nesting in cedar swamps found to be associated with hardwood forests on swamp edges (Wander 1981) and in Delaware found to be uncommon at site where previously believed to be common (Heckscher, pers. obs.).

Management Requirements: Notable declines in disturbed and successional habitats in general have been observed. However, forest management practices noted as beneficial or tolerable include localized disturbances that result in an increased shrub layer density such as selective logging, small clearcuts, and thinning of trees. These practices will be beneficial only when they increase the overall heterogeneity of large forest stands.

Robbins et al. (1989) found that dense foliage between 0.3 and 1 m is an important component, and a successful predictor, of occupied sites. Has been observed in logged areas as early as 3 years after cutting when numerous trees > 7 cm dbh are left uncut (Bushman and Therres 1988). Similarly, Robinson and Robinson (1999) reported higher numbers in forest openings from "perforation" practices in large forests in Illinois; numbers peaked at 4 or 5 years after cutting. However, these management practices should be implemented with caution because increased parasitism and predation rates may also be associated with forest openings. In Wisconsin, characteristics of forest openings occupied include size < 10 m wide and hardwood saplings/seedlings 1.5-4 m with some canopy cover (Mossman, pers. comm.). Occupied forest openings in Wisconsin created by selective logging 5 - 20 years earlier, varied in size from 0.03 ha to 1 ha with density of 200-420 saplings per 0.01 ha (Brittingham and Temple 1980). In the same forest, similar openings in dry or xeric areas remained unoccupied (Mossman and Lange 1982). In Delaware, observed occupying forests 3 to 4 years after severe southern pine bark beetle (DENDROCTONUS FRONTALIS) outbreak resulted in development of dense understory (Heckscher, pers. obs.).

Systematic removal of adult cowbirds from concentrated populations has reduced cowbird parasitism but has not lead to significant increases in productivity (Evans Ogden and Stutchbury 1994). Nest predation, not parasitism, is widely considered the greatest contributor to low population productivity.

Large-scale management guidelines suggested include maintenance of large areas of contiguous forest (Robbins et al. 1989). Sargent et al. (1997) suggested that maintenance of riparian forests (> 50 m wide) is essential to conservation in southeastern North America. Mature pine forests may be important in buffering riparian forests and thus effectively increasing the productivity in these ecosystems (Sargent et al. 1997).

Monitoring Requirements: Techniques proven effective for elusive forest birds should be used (i.e., point counts and transects relying on song and call identification). Specific methods should be researched to suit needs of local objectives.
Management Research Needs: A better understanding of the response to forest thinning is needed and how thinning compares with that of forest perforation (see Robinson and Robinson 1999), especially with regard to annual productivity. The effect of size and shape of localized cuts on reproductive success should be determined prior to widespread use as a management tool. To gain a better understanding of effective preserve design, better understanding of the factors influencing recruitment, seems important. Understanding of natal dispersal and yearling habitat choice are needed (Evans Ogden and Stutchbury 1994) and should lead to improved chance for effective habitat restoration. The role of complex social interaction in habitat selection is largely unknown; small forests may not provide this important need (Evans Ogden and Stutchbury 1994).
Biological Research Needs: Habitat associations during migratory periods are largely unknown. Although relatively well studied on wintering grounds (Stutchbury 1994), needs additional research on effects of tropical deforestation.
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
Management Information Edition Date: 06May1999
Management Information Edition Author: HECKSCHER, C.M.; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN
Management Information Acknowledgments: Thanks to H. LeGrand and M. Mossman for providing unpublished information used in this report.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 03May1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). Chesser, R.T., R.C. Banks, F.K. Barker, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, Jr., J.D. Rising, D.F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 128(3):600-613.

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

  • Anonymous. 1957. Hooded Warbler. The Cardinal 26: 10-11.

  • 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.

  • Austen, M.J.W., M.D. Cadman, and R.D. James. 1994. Ontario birds at risk: status and conservation needs. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory. 165 p.

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

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

  • Baillie, J.L. 1962. Fourteen additional Ontario breeding birds. Ontario Field Biologist, 16:1-15.

  • Baillile, J.L. 1925. The Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) in Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 39: 150-151.

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

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

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

  • Bisson, I.A. and B.J.M. Stutchbury. 2000. Nesting success and nest-site selection by a neotropical migrant in a fragmented landscape. Can. J. Zool. 78:858-863.

  • Bisson, I.A., and B.J.M. Stutchbury. 1999. Productivity and Nest Site Characteristics for Hooded Warblers and Acadian Flycatchers in a Fragmented Landscape. Unpublished report for Endangered Species Recovery Fund, World Wildlife Fund Canada. 27 pp.

  • Blake, J.G., and J.R. Karr. 1984. Species composition of bird communities and the conservation benefit of large versus small forests. Biological Conservation 30:173-187.

  • Brittingham, M.C., and S.A. Temple. 1980. Hooded warblers nesting in the Baraboo Hills, Sauk County, Wisconsin. Passenger Pigeon 42:128-130.

  • Brooman, R.C. 1954. Birds of Elgin County, Ontario. Gilbert Press, St. Thomas. 41 pp.

  • Bull, John. 1974. Birds of New York State. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 655 pp.

  • Bushman, E. S., and G. D. Therres. 1988. Habitat management guidelines for forest interior breeding birds of coastal Maryland. Maryland Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Tech. Publ. 88-1. 50 pp.

  • Bushman, E. S., and G. D. Therres. 1988. Habitat management guidelines for forest interior breeding birds of coastal Maryland. Maryland Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Tech. Publ. 88-1. 50 pp.

  • CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION. 1986. A GUIDE TO THE CONSERVATION OF FOREST INTERIOR DWELLING BIRDS IN THE CRITICAL AREA. GUIDANCE PAPER NO. 1. STATE OF MARYLAND. 13 PP.

  • COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Hooded Warbler Setophaga citrina in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 39 pp.

  • 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.

  • Chesser, R. T., R. C. Banks, F. K. Barker, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A, W., Kratter, I, J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising. D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 128:600-613.

  • Cook, F.S. 1953. Summer and Migrant Birds of Lambton County, Ontario. The Cardinal 10: 6-20.

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

  • Evans Ogden, L. J., and B. J. Stutchbury. 1994. Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrine). Number 110 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

  • Evans Ogden, L.J., and B.J. Stutchbury. 1994. Hooded Warbler (WILSONIA CITRINA). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 110. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.

  • Fall, B. A. 1985. First Minnesota breeding record of the Hooded Warbler. The Loon 57:9-11.

  • Frazer, Carolyn. 1989. An Investigation of Bird-Habitat Relationships in Hoosier National Forest, Indiana. Unpublished. 45 pp.

  • Friesen, L., and M. Stabb. 2001. Conserve Ontario's Carolinian Forests, Preserve Endangered Songbirds: Acadian Flycatchers and Hooded Warblers. Fact Sheet produced by the Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warbler Recovery Team. 8 pp.

  • Gartshore, M. 1991. Hooded Warblers: A Sweet Refrain in Southern Woods. Seasons - Summer 1991: 44-45.

  • Gartshore, M.E. 1988. A summary of the breeding status of Hooded Warblers in Ontario. Ontario Birds, 6:84-99.

  • Gartshore, M.E. and D. Agro. 1994. Return rates of Hooded Warblers in the South Walsingham Forest (1988-93). LPBO Newsletter 26(1): 8-9.

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

  • Griscom, L., and A. Sprunt, Jr. 1979. The warblers of America. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York. 302 pp.

  • Hagan, J. M., III, and D. W. Johnston, editors. 1992. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp.

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

  • Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds' nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.

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

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

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

  • Heagy, A., D. Martin and J. McCracken. 1997. Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warbler recovery activities: 1997 field surveys in southwestern Ontario. A final report to Endangered Species Recovery Fund, World Wildlife Fund, Toronto, Ontario.. 19 pp.

  • Heagy, A., D. Martin, and J. McCracken. 1997. Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warbler Recovery Activities: 1997 Field Surveys of Southwestern Ontario. A Final Report to Endangered Species Recovery Fund, World Wildlife Canada.. Long Point Bird Observatory. 19+appendices pp.

  • Heckscher, C.M. and D.W. Mehlman. 1999. Species Management Abstract for Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina). The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Unpaginated.

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

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

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

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

  • JOHNSGARD,P.A.1979.BIRDS OF THE GREAT PLAINS,BREEDING SPECIES AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION. UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PRESS. LINCOLN.

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

  • James, R.D. 2000. Update Status Report on Hooded Warbler, Wilsonia citrina, Paruline a capuchon, in Canada. Unpublished report prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 9 pp.

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

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

  • Keller, Charles E. 1992. The Birds of Greater Indianapolis and Adjacent Areas. 70 Ind. Aud. Q. 1-5.

  • 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.

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

  • Martin, D. and R. Snyder. 1999. 1999 Surveys of Acadian Flycatchers and Hooded Warblers in Ontario, West of Haldimond-Norfolk R.M.. Unpublished report for Bird Studies Canada. 39 pp.

  • McCracken, J., D. Martin, I. Bisson, M. Gartshore, and R. Knapton. 1998. 1998 Surveys of Acadian Flycatchers and Hooded Warblers in Ontario. Bird Studies Canada. 18 pp. + maps and appendices.

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

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

  • Morden, J.A. and W.E. Saunders. 1882. List of the birds of western Ontario. The Can. Sportsman and Naturalist 2(11):183-187, 192-194.

  • Morton, E. S. 1990. Habitat segregation by sex in the hooded warbler: experiments on proximate causation and discussion of its evolution. Am. Nat. 135:319-333.

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

  • Mossman, M.J., and K.I. Lange. 1982. Breeding birds of the Baraboo Hills, Wisconsin: Their history, distribution and ecology. Department of Natural Resources and Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, Madison, WI.

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

  • NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. . Accessed 5 January 2011.

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

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

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

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

  • Ogden, L.J. Evans. 1994. Hooded Warbler; The Birds of North America. Vol. 3, No. 110. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Ontario Birds at Risk. n.d. Bioclimatic mapping of VTE Carolinian forest birds. OBAR Newsletter, Vol. 3(1): 9-11.

  • Page, A.M. and M.D. Cadman. 1993. Status Report on the Hooded Warbler, Wilsonia citrina, in Canada. DRAFT. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa. 32 pp.

  • Page, A.M. and M.D. Cadman. 1994. Status report on the Hooded Warbler WILSONIA CITRINA in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 36 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1998. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution Volume 2: Passerines (First Revision - Part B: Thrushes to Warblers). Ontario Birds 16(1): 11-25.

  • Peterjohn, B.G., and D.L. Rice. 1991. Ohio breeding bird atlas. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Columbus, Ohio. 416 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Powell, G. V. N., and J. H. Rappole. 1986. The hooded warbler. Pages 827-853 in Di Silvestro, R. L., editor. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986. National Audubon Soc., N.Y.

  • RENEW. 2000. Annual Report No. 10. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife. 16 pp.

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

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

  • Rappole, J. H., and D. W. Warner. 1980. Ecological aspects of migrant bird behavior in Veracruz, Mexico. Pages 353-393 in A. Keast and E.S. Morton, editors. Migrant birds in the neotropics: ecology, distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

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

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

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

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

  • Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effect of forest fragmentation on bird populations. Pages 198-212 in R.M. DeGraff and K.E. Evans, editors. Management of north central and northeastern forests for nongame birds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-51.

  • Robinson, W.D., and S.K. Robinson. 1999. Effects of selective logging on forest bird populations in a fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 13(1):58-66.

  • Sargent, R.A., J.C. Kilgo, B.R. Chapman, and K.V. Miller. 1997. Nesting success of Kentucky and Hooded Warblers in bottomland forests of South Carolina. Wilson Bulletin 109(2):233-238.

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

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

  • See SERO listing

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

  • Stiles, F. G. and A. F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 511 pp.

  • Stutchbury, B.J. 1994. Competition for winter territories in a neotropical migrant: the role of age, sex and color. The Auk 111(1):63-69.

  • TORDOFF,H.B.1956.CHECK-LIST OF THE BIRDS OF KANSAS. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS,MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.LAWRENCE.

  • TURCOTTE, W. BIRDS OF MISSISSIPPI (DRAFT OF BOOK; IN PREPARATION FOR PUBLICATION AS OF 1997)

  • 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.

  • Wander, W. 1981. Breeding birds of southern New Jersey cedar swamps. Occasional Paper 138. Records of New Jersey Birds 6(4):51-65.

  • Weeks, A.R. 1958. A nesting of the Hooded Warbler. Federation of Ontario Naturalists Bulletin No. 80: 7-9.

  • Whittam, B., and J. McCracken. 1999. Productivity and Habitat Selection of Hooded Warblers in Southern Ontario. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. Port Rowan, Ontario. 47 pp.

  • 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.

  • Zammit, A.E., and D.A. Sutherland. 2000. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form for Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina). Unpublished report prepared by Natural Heritage Information Centre for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 7 pp + 4 appendices.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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