Tringa solitaria - Wilson, 1813
Solitary Sandpiper
Other Common Names: Maçarico-Solitário
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Tringa solitaria Wilson, 1813 (TSN 176615)
French Common Names: chevalier solitaire
Spanish Common Names: Playero Solitario, Pitotoy Solitario
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105827
Element Code: ABNNF01070
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Shorebirds
Image 7716

© Larry Master

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Charadriiformes Scolopacidae Tringa
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: Tringa solitaria
Taxonomic Comments: The solitary sandpiper is the nearctic counterpart to the palearctic green sandpiper (Tringa ocrophus). Two subspecies are recognized: Tringa solitaria solitaria (breeds east of eastern British Columbia) and T. s. cinnamomea (breeds in Alaska and western Canada) (Moskoff 1995). The two subspecies have been found together on neotropical wintering grounds (Moskoff 1995).

Recent mtDNA studies by Hebert et al. (2004) identified a deep divergence within the species which could result in splitting the species in two; further taxonomic investigation is required.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large nesting range in North America; population size is imprecisely known but apparently relatively small for a widespread shorebird; some evidence indicates declining abundance, but better information on trend and threats is needed.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4B,N5N (19Mar1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5M (29Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNRM), Alaska (S4B), Arizona (S3M), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Colorado (S4N), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (S3N), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNRN), Idaho (S1M), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (S3M), Iowa (S5N), Kansas (S3N), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (S3S4N), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (S4N), Michigan (SNRN), Minnesota (SNRB), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Navajo Nation (SNA), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (S4N), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (S4N), New Mexico (S4N), New York (SNRN), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (S5N), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S5N), Texas (S5), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (S3S4N), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (S4N), Wyoming (S4N)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5B), Labrador (S4B,SUM), Manitoba (S4B), New Brunswick (S2B,S5M), Newfoundland Island (SNRM), Northwest Territories (SUB), Nova Scotia (SUB,S3S4M), Nunavut (SUB,SUM), Ontario (S4B), Prince Edward Island (SUM), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5B,S4M), Yukon Territory (S4B)

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 and south-coastal Alaska, northern Yukon, Mackenzie, northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, and northern and central Ontario east through central Quebec to central and southern Labrador, and south to northwestern and central British Columbia, central Alberta, central Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, and northern Minnesota; probably west-central Oregon (AOU 1983). During the nonbreeding season, the range extends from Baja California, Gulf Coast, southeastern Georgia, Florida, and Bahamas south through Middle America and South America to Peru, south-central Argentina, and Uruguay (accidental in Hawaii) (AOU 1983, Moskoff 1995).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Estimate based on population size of 100,000 individuals. The 20,000 square kilometer estimate would have 5 birds per square kilometer

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of breeding occurrences (subpopulations). Its breeding ground is northern Canada, whic his relatively undeveloped or undisturbed at the present time.

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Population has been estimated at 25,000 individuals, but precision is poor (range 25,000 to 150,000; Morrison et al. 2001, Sinclair et al. 2004). Northwestern race, T. s. cinnamomea, estimated at only 4,000 individuals (Brown et al. 2001); if accurate, T. s. cinnamomea is among the rarest of North American shorebird taxa (McCaffery and Harwood 2004). Morrison, et. al. (2006) estimated the global population at 100,000 individuals.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Estimate

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Assessment of threats is speculative because species-specific research has been difficult due to remote breeding grounds, low densities, and the solitary nature of the species (McCaffery and Harwood 2004). Potential threats include logging of boreal forests and tropical woodland habitats, and wetland loss as a result of drying and human development (Moskoff 1995, McCaffery and Harwood 2004).

Short-term Trend: Unknown
Short-term Trend Comments: Few robust data on trends are available, but recent analyses suggest downward trends in all data sets with sufficient information to evaluate such trends (e.g., Breeding Bird Survey [BBS] in Alaska and Canada, and migrant monitoring in Ontario and Quebec; Sauer et al. 2005). BBS data from Canada show a non-significant annual rate of decline of -6.0% between 1966 and 2004 (P < 0.14, n = 19 routes; Sauer et al. 2005). However, the BBS is not an ideal survey method for this species. Point estimates of trends for migrant birds in both Ontario and Quebec between the late 1970s and the late 1990s are also negative, but neither approaches significance (Aubry and Cotter 2001, Ross et al. 2001).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species has undergone a large and statistically significant decrease over the last 40 years in North America, with an estimated 91.3% decline over the last 40 years (Birdlife International, 2014)

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Has not suffered from hunting because of solitary nature and hasn't lost much breeding habitat yet. Too dispersed on wintering grounds to be significantly affected (Moskoff, 2011).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Breeding ground in the northern latitudes represent a key requirement that may be threatened long-term with climate change.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Loss of habitat due to development or climate change, and changes in primary productivity of boreal forest wetlands, need to be evaluated with respect to their effects on Solitary Sandpipers (ADFG 2005)

Protection Needs: No significant needs at this point in time.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Breeding range extends from central and south-coastal Alaska, northern Yukon, Mackenzie, northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, and northern and central Ontario east through central Quebec to central and southern Labrador, and south to northwestern and central British Columbia, central Alberta, central Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, and northern Minnesota; probably west-central Oregon (AOU 1983). During the nonbreeding season, the range extends from Baja California, Gulf Coast, southeastern Georgia, Florida, and Bahamas south through Middle America and South America to Peru, south-central Argentina, and Uruguay (accidental in Hawaii) (AOU 1983, Moskoff 1995).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

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

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Anchorage (02020), Bethel (CA) (02050), Denali (02068), Dillingham (CA) (02070), Fairbanks North Star (02090), Kenai Peninsula (02122), Matanuska-Susitna (02170), Nome (CA) (02180), Northwest Arctic (02188), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (CA) (02232), Southeast Fairbanks (CA) (02240), Valdez-Cordova (CA) (02261), Wade Hampton (CA) (02270), Yukon-Koyukuk (CA) (02290)
ID Ada (16001), Adams (16003), Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Benewah (16009), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Camas (16025), Canyon (16027), Caribou (16029), Cassia (16031), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Fremont (16043), Idaho (16049), Jefferson (16051), Kootenai (16055), Latah (16057), Lincoln (16063), Madison (16065), Minidoka (16067), Nez Perce (16069), Owyhee (16073), Power (16077), Shoshone (16079), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085), Washington (16087)
IN Greene (18055)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Lower White (05120202)+
16 Bear Lake (16010201)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, South Fork Coeur D'alene (17010302)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, Hangman (17010306)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Willow (17040205)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Little Lost (17040217)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Camas (17040220)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, C. J. Idaho (17050101)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Lochsa (17060303)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308)+
19 Chilkat-Skagway Rivers (19010303)+, Upper Copper River (19020101)+, Middle Copper River (19020102)+, Chitina River (19020103)+, Lower Copper River (19020104)+, Lower Kenai Peninsula (19020301)+, Upper Kenai Peninsula (19020302)+, Anchorage (19020401)+, Matansuka (19020402)+, Upper Susitna River (19020501)+, Chulitna River (19020502)+, Yentna River (19020504)+, Lower Susitna River (19020505)+, Cook Inlet (19020800)+, Lower Nushagak River (19030303)+, Aniak (19030501)+, Kuskokwim Delta (19030502)+, Fortymile River (19040104)+, Sheenjek River (19040203)+, Black River (19040204)+, Porcupine Flats (19040205)+, Grass River (19040206)+, Eagle To Circle (19040401)+, Birch-Beaver Creeks (19040402)+, Yukon Flats (19040403)+, Nebesna-Chisana Rivers (19040501)+, Tok (19040502)+, Delta River (19040504)+, Salcha River (19040505)+, Chena River (19040506)+, Tanana River (19040507)+, Nenana River (19040508)+, Tolovana River (19040509)+, Lower Tanana River (19040511)+, Upper Koyukuk River (19040601)+, South Fork Koyukuk River (19040602)+, Kanuti River (19040604)+, Allakaket River (19040605)+, Kateel River (19040609)+, Nowitna River (19040702)+, Ramparts to Ruby (19040704)+, Galena (19040705)+, Anvik River (19040801)+, Lower Innoko River (19040803)+, Anvik to Pilot Station (19040804)+, Yukon Delta (19040805)+, Unalakleet (19050102)+, Norton Bay (19050103)+, Nome (19050104)+, Upper Kobuk River (19050302)+, Middle Kobuk River (19050303)+, Upper Noatak River (19050401)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small wading bird.
Reproduction Comments: Breeding begins late May to early June (Harrison 1978). Usually 4 eggs. Nestlings precocial.
Ecology Comments: Nonbreeding: usually seen singly or in small loose groups (never flocks).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Begins migrating northward in March; migrates through U.S. April-May. Southward migration from breeding areas begins in early July. Migrates through Costa Rica mainly August-early October and mid-March to early May (Stiles and Skutch 1989). Arrives in northern South America in July or early August, departs by early April (Hilty and Brown 1986).
Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland, Tidal flat/shore
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, TEMPORARY POOL
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Nests on taiga. Nests in trees in abandoned passerine nests near muskeg and woodland ponds or pools. Also reported as nesting on ground in areas above treeline in Brooks Range, Alaska (see Johnson and Herter 1989).

NON-BREEDING: freshwater ponds, stream edges, temporary pools, flooded ditches and fields, more commonly in wooded regions, less frequently on mudflats and open marshes (AOU 1983); favors areas where vegetation extends to water's edge (Stiles and Skutch 1989).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Wades through shallow water catching aquatic insects (dragonfly nymphs, water boatmen, water scavenger beetles, etc.) small crustaceans, small frogs, and worms. Also snatches insects (dragonflies, grasshoppers, etc) in mid-air.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 22 centimeters
Weight: 51 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: The degree of dependence on nests constructed by arboreal passerines should be assessed, and the possible indirect impacts of declining Rusty Blackbird populations (and hence, reduction in nest availability) evaluated. Actual and potential threats to the population need to be identified (McCaffery and Harwood 2004).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Shorebirds

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Feeding Area, Breeding Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding, or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.
Mapping Guidance: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas of nesting adults and broods. Because separations are based on nesting areas, the foraging areas of different occurrences may overlap if nesting birds are traveling to distant places to feed.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance pertains specifically to nesting areas, not to locations of dispersed foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap of more than 5 km are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Roost, Foraging concentration area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat (minimum can be reduced in the case of rarer species). Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 15Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Roost, Winter Feeding Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering flocks (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat. Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; set at 5 kilometers to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging or roosting birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.
Date: 25Mar2004
Author: S. Cannings
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 18Jul2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Gotthardt, T. A., A. Jansen, and G. Hammerson
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 15Feb1990
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 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Aubry, Y. and R. Cotter. 2001. Using trend information to develop the Quebec Shorebird Conservation Plan. Bird Trends 8: 21.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Castro, I. and A. Phillips. 1996. A guide to the birds of the Galapagos Islands. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

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

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The Birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottowa, Canada. 595 pp.

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

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

  • Hebert, P.D.N., M.Y. Stoeckle, T.S. Zemlak, and C.M. Francis. 2004. Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. PLOS Biology 2:1657-1663, issue e312. Available online at: www.plosbiology.org. Accessed 15Feb2005.

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Manitoba Avian Research Committee. 2003. The Birds of Manitoba. Manitoba Naturalists Society, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 504 pp.

  • Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2019. Manitoba Bird Rank Review by Ken De Smet and Christian Artuso.

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

  • McCaffery, B.J. and C.H. Harwood. 2004. Species at risk: Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria), summary of ecology, abundance, and population trends in North America. Unpublished poster presented at the 10th Alaska Bird Conference, Anchorage, AK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Moskoff, W. 1995. Solitary Sandpiper; The Birds of North America. Vol. 4, No. 156. American Ornithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Moskoff, W. 1995. Solitary Sandpiper; The Birds of North America. Vol. 4, No. 156. American Orinithologists' Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

  • Moskoff, W. 2011. Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/156/doi:10.2173/bna.156.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ross, R.K., J. Pedlar, and R.I.G. Morrison. 2001c. Trends in shorebird populations migrating through southern Ontario. Bird Trends 8 (Winter): 25-25.

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

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005b. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • See SERO listing

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

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

  • Sinclair, P., Y. Aubry, J. Bart, V. Johnston, R. Lanctot, B. McCaffery, K. Ross, P. Smith, and L. Tibbitts. 2004. Boreal shorebirds: an assessment of conservation status and potential for population monitoring. Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (PRISM) Boreal Committee: Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

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

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

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

  • Tringa solitaria/Solitary Sandpiper. 2006. Copyright Andy Teucher.

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

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

  • van Gils, J. and P. Wiersma. 1996. Family Scolopacidae (sandpipers, snipes and phalaropes). Pages 489-533 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and J. Sargatal (Eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 3. Lynx Editions, Barcelona, Spain.

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.