Tyto furcata

(Temminck, 1827)

American Barn Owl

G5Secure Found in 47 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.1341768
Element CodeABNSA01030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
CITESAppendix II
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderStrigiformes
FamilyTytonidae
GenusTyto
COSEWICE,T
Synonyms
Tyto alba(Scopoli, 1769)
Other Common Names
Effraie des clochers (FR) Lechuza de Campanario, Buho (ES) Suindara (PT)
Concept Reference
American Ornithological Society (AOS). Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, B. E. Hernández-Baños, R. A. Jiménez, O. Johnson, A. W. Kratter, N. A. Mason, P. C. Rasmussen, and J. V. Remsen, Jr. 2024. Sixty-fifth Supplement to the American Ornithological Society’s Check-list of North American Birds. Ornithology 141:1-21.
Taxonomic Comments
Formerly considered conspecific with T. alba (Scopoli, 1769) [Western Barn Owl] and T. javanica (Gmelin, 1788) [Eastern Barn Owl], but separated based on a unique male display vocalization for this species complex in T. furcata (Robb and The Sound Approach 2015, Marti et al. 2020); there are also genetic (Aliabadian et al. 2016, Uva et al. 2018) and morphological differences (Ridgway 1914). Extralimital species T. alba and T. javanica are separated from each other based on morphological differences, deep genetic divergence, and paraphyly of these species, if considered conspecific, with respect to T. furcata (Aliabadian et al. 2016, Uva et al. 2018). Tyto furcata and the closely related T. glaucops are regarded as species because they occur sympatrically on Hispaniola with no known hybridization (AOS 2024).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2016-04-10
Change Date1996-11-27
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences> 300
Range Extent Comments
RESIDENT: In the Americas from southern Canada and the northern U.S. south to southern South America, Greater Antilles (except Puerto Rico), and Lesser Antilles (AOU 1983, Marti 1992). Variable occurrence within this range, with low densities at northern periphery (Marti 1992). Populations in northern North America are partially migratory. Introduced (1958 and later) in Hawaii; now on all main islands (AOU 1983). Subspecies pratincola (Hawaii and to Lord Howe Island) is now presumed extirpated.
Occurrences Comments
This species is widespread and known from a large number of occurrences.
Threat Impact Comments
Habitat Loss and Degradation: Population declines in the upper midwestern U.S. have been attributed mainly to commercial development of farmland, reduction in dairy and sheep industry, conversion to intensive row-crop farming, and decline in the number of farms and old farm structures, resulting in a loss of nest sites and important high-quality foraging habitat (Colvin et al. 1984, Colvin 1985, Rosenburg 1986, Ehresman et al. 1989, Gubanyi 1989). Loss of farmland to development and the intensification of agricultural practices on remaining farmlands have substantially reduced the quantity and quality of dense grass habitats in agricultural areas (Honer 1963, Shrub 1970, Colvin 1985, Rosenburg 1986). Colvin (1985) reported an approximately 53% decline in hayfield acreage in Ohio between 1921-1980 and identified a significant correlation between a population decline in Ohio and the replacement of grass-associated agriculture by row crops. In Virginia, the acreage of pasture, grass hayfield, and idle areas was reduced 55% between 1945-78 and the quality of pasture declined because of increased grazing pressure (Rosenburg 1986). In many intensively-farmed areas, dense grass habitats are present only in small fields that are patchily distributed; such fields would apparently provide a limited foraging resource (Rosenburg 1986). The reduced quality and quantity of dense grass habitats has substantially reduced prey availability in some areas. Prey availability has been shown to be closely associated with owl productivity (Ault 1971, Otteni et al. 1972, Colvin 1984, Gubanyi 1989). This association is so close that one year of poor meadow vole abundance can result in a rapid population decline while one year of substantial meadow vole abundance can result in rapid population recovery (B. Colvin, pers. comm.).

Nest site availability: The availability of secure nest sites is an important limiting factor in some areas (Marti et al. 1979, Schulz and Yasuda 1985, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986, Gubanyi 1989). Tree cavity sites may be limited in availability (Rosenburg 1986), they are ephemeral (Colvin et al. 1984, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986), and relatively insecure (Colvin et al. 1984). Competition for this resource may also be a factor; Colvin (1984) documented usurpation of nest cavities by wood ducks (AIX SPONSA) and raccoons (PROCYON LOTOR). Secure nest sites within human-made structures are limited in availability (Schulz 1986; C. Rosenburg, unpubl. data). In addition, the gradual deterioration and disappearance of old-style barns, silos, and water tanks plus the screening of entrances to prevent rock dove (COLUMBA LIVIA) access has eliminated many previously productive nest sites (Honer 1963, Heintzelman 1966, Schulz and Yasuda 1985, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986, Parker and Castrale 1990). Areas that support abundant foraging habitat may lack an adequate supply of secure and stable nest sites in close proximity to foraging habitat. Kirkpatrick and Colvin (1986) suggested that salmonellosis may limit survival and reproduction at times when stresses, such as severe weather and poor prey availability, are acting. This stress dependent impact may be true for other diseases and parasites as well (Honer 1963, Kirkpatrick and Colvin 1989). Weather is the most important factor influencing annual productivity in southwestern New Jersey (B. Colvin, pers. comm.). Moist weather conditions enhance dense grass habitats and thereby enhance vole populations, which results in higher productivity. Exceedingly dry conditions have a negative impact on vole populations and result in poor productivity (Colvin and Hegdal 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989). Starvation of chicks, the single most important mortality factor (B. Colvin, pers. comm.), is widespread during exceedingly dry conditions. Throughout the Northeast, the owl is susceptible to starvation and exposure during extended periods of extreme cold and deep snow cover. Winter weather mortality has been documented in Wisconsin (Errington 1931), Illinois (Speirs 1940), Ohio (Stewart 1952), Massachusetts (Keith 1964), Utah (Marti and Wagner 1985), and Virginia (C. Rosenburg, unpubl. data). Marti and Wagner (1985) reported that some winter weather mortality appears to occur every winter in northern Utah and that such mortality is widespread and consequential in some years. They found 77 dead owls after severe weather during the winter of 1981-82, and a 40% decline in breeding attempts occurred the following summer. Keith (1964) documented winter weather mortality of more than ten owls during the winter of 1960-61 and the subsequent lack of nesting during the following three breeding seasons at Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Barn owls did not nest at Martha's Vineyard again until 1973 (Brett 1987).

Pesticides: Secondary poisoning from rodenticides has been considered to be a potential hazard because of the importance of rodents in the diet and the fairly widespread use of rodenticides in agricultural areas. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that the consumption of rats or mice poisoned with bromadiolone or brodifacoum rodenticides can cause lethal hemorrhaging and that consumption of rats poisoned with difencoum rodenticide can cause sublethal hemorrhaging (Mendenhall and Pank 1980; Newton et al., in press). These studies demonstrated that the owl is especially sensitive to the anticoagulant brodifacoum. Secondary poisoning from rodenticides has been documented in the U.S. (Schulz 1986; L. Soucy, pers. comm.) and Great Britain (Newton et al., in press). The potential for poisoning appears to be greatest in marginal habitat areas such as intensively farmed sites (Rosenburg 1986). However, there appears to be no appreciable impact to populations from rodenticide poisoning (Colvin 1984; Hegdal and Blaskiewicz 1984; Newton et al., in press). Organophosphate insecticides have been shown to be potentially hazardous. Laboratory experiments conducted by Hill and Mendenhall (1980) demonstrated that owls which consumed famphur-poisoned prey exhibit secondary poisoning in the form of significant cholinesterase inhibition. Mass mortality of wild raptors, including 22 barn owls, occurred after azodrin was improperly used to kill voles in Israel (Mendelssohn and Paz 1977). Rodents contaminated with organophosphate and carbamate insecticides are present in agricultural fields (Montz 1988). These rodents are potentially hazardous to raptors because birds in general are extremely sensitive to anti-cholinesterase compounds (Brealey et al. 1980). It is unlikely that organophosphate or carbamate insecticides have impacted populations since these pesticides are not targeted for foraging habitats or prey species (B. Colvin, pers. comm.). However, no field studies have examined cholinesterase levels of owls in agricultural areas where these pesticides are widely used. Further investigation may be warranted (L. Brewer, pers. comm.). The owl is sensitive to contamination from organochlorine insecticides. Laboratory studies by Mendenhall et al. (1983) found that it is very sensitive to eggshell thinning by DDE and that dieldrin can cause adult mortality. These insecticides were found in concentrations that may have been detrimental to reproduction in 15% of the barn owls in the lower Potomac River, Maryland in the early 1970s (Klaas et al. 1978). Extensive feeding on passerine birds by this portion of the population is believed to have caused the elevated organochlorine levels; the majority of the population preyed chiefly on mammals and remained relatively uncontaminated. In Great Britain, poisoning from organochlorine pesticides was an important cause of mortality during the years 1963-77 when these chemicals were used extensively (Newton and Wyllie, in press). Organochlorine insecticide residues have been found in barn owls and their eggs collected in Florida (Johnston 1978), Oregon (Henny et al. 1984), and Virginia (Gwynn 1987). Acute effects from organochlorine insecticides are unlikely, though, since raptors which feed chiefly upon small mammals are not highly susceptible to organochlorine insecticide poisoning (Henny 1972) and since few potentially harmful organochlorine insecticides are in use in the U.S. today (Newton 1979; S. Wiemeyer, pers. comm.).

OTHER FACTORS: A number of other mortality factors have been identified. Collision with vehicles has been reported as an important mortality factor (Glue 1971; Smith and Marti 1976; Keran 1981; Schulz 1986; Newton and Wyllie, in press). Drowning of young as they attempt to fledge from offshore duck blinds appears to be acting as a population sink in coastal Maryland and possibly other areas where substantial numbers nest in these structures (G. Therres, pers. comm.). Other mortality factors include electrocution, entrapment in buildings, shootings, and entanglement in farm or industrial machinery (Glue 1971; Smith et al. 1974; Smith and Marti 1976; Keran 1981; Colvin 1984; Hegdal and Blaskiewicz 1984; Lerg 1984; Schulz and Yasuda 1985; Schulz 1986; Ehresman et al. 1989; Newton and Wyllie, in press; C. Rosenburg, unpubl. data). The degree to which these latter four factors limit numbers appears to be low. PREDATION: May limit numbers in some areas. Raccoons and black rat snakes (ELAPHE OBSOLETA) prey on eggs and nestlings (Ehresman 1984; B. Colvin, pers. comm.; C. Rosenburg, unpubl. data), and great horned owls (BUBO VIRGINIANUS) prey on juveniles and adults (Rudolph 1978, Knight and Jackman 1984, Lerg 1984, Rosenburg 1986, Millsap and Millsap 1987, Ehresman et al. 1989) and may inhibit barn owl activity because of their dominance (Rudolph 1978). Information concerning predation rates on eggs, nestlings, juveniles, and adults is limited and further investigation is warranted (Hands et al. 1989).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

ADULTS: body length 30-37 cm, wingspread 104-120 cm (Colvin 1984, Marti 1990). Upper plumage golden-brown with varying amounts of gray. Breast and belly color ranges from white to buff and is sparsely to heavily speckled with small black spots. Head lacks ear tufts and has relatively small dark eyes and a distinctive heart-shaped facial disk which ranges in color from white to buff.

Sexes differ in size and plumage. Females are larger and heavier (569 g vs. 475 g), darker, and more heavily speckled than males (Bloom 1978, Colvin 1984). Variability of these characteristics makes it difficult to objectively determine the sex of some individuals. Linear discriminant functions which use weight and color measurements can be used for determining sex (Colvin 1984).

JUVENILES: resemble adults. Males younger than one year may have buff coloration on the breast (whereas adult males almost always lack such coloration) but are not as heavily speckled as females (Bloom 1978). Molt patterns provide a means of distinguishing adults from juveniles and for accurately aging individuals through 36 months (Bloom 1978).

VOCALIZATIONS: Fifteen vocal and two nonvocal sounds were described by Bunn et al. (1982). B. Colvin (pers. comm.) described the five most frequently heard vocalizations: 1) the "contact call" is a drawn-out screech frequently given in flight when approaching a nest site from a distance; 2) the "alarm call" is an intense screech made in response to human or other disturbance which is typically given at a nest site and only after chicks have hatched; 3) "squeaking/ticking calls" are rapid, high-pitched notes which are associated with pair bond maintenance or distress situations; these calls are commonly produced during courtship, incubation, and first evening flights after chicks have hatched; 4) "snoring" is a greatly varying hiss which is repeated persistently by juveniles in and out of the nest; this call is used for food begging and may be heard at nest sites from sunset to sunrise; and 5) the "defensive hiss" is a very loud and prolonged hiss typically produced by nestlings when disturbed.

Habitat

BREEDING: Fields of dense grass. Open and partly open country (grassland, marsh, lightly grazed pasture, hayfields) in a wide variety of situations, often around human habitation (AOU 1983). Nests in buildings (church steeples, attics, platforms in silos and barns, wooden water tanks, duckblinds), caves, crevices on cliffs, burrows, and hollow trees, rarely in trees with dense foliage (AOU 1983). Caves, cliff crevices, and cut bank burrows are commonly used in the western U.S., rarely in the east. Uses nest boxes (Marti and Wagner 1985). Reproductive success generally is higher in a properly placed and maintained nest box than in a natural nest cavity.

FORAGING HABITAT: Dense grass fields are the chief foraging habitat, including saltmarsh, wet meadows, lightly grazed pastures, grass hayfields, and recently abandoned agricultural fields (Colvin 1980, 1984, 1985; Rosenburg 1986; Gubanyi 1989). Radiotelemetry studies indicate that these habitats are actively selected (Colvin 1984, Rosenburg 1986, Gubanyi 1989). Furthermore, the quantity and quality of dense grass habitats are significantly correlated with nest activity (Colvin and Hegdal 1988).

Other habitats occasionally used include alfalfa/grass (Colvin 1984), small grain (Ault 1971, Rosenburg 1986), fencelines, and roadsides (Ault 1971, Byrd 1982). In an intensively farmed area in eastern Virginia where grass availability was very low, foraged in small grain, a five-year-old clearcut, barnyards, and a pine (PINUS spp.) plantation used as a blackbird roost (Rosenburg 1986). Cultivated habitats in general are of little importance because of low prey populations and/or dense protective cover (Colvin 1984, Rosenburg 1986).

NESTING HABITAT: This is a cavity-nesting bird which uses natural as well as human-created cavities. Tree cavities are the principal nest site used in most areas of the Northeast (Colvin et al. 1984); those most frequently used are silver maple (Acer saccarinum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and white oak (Quercus alba) (Colvin et al. 1984, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986). Although cut bank burrows and cliff recesses are frequently used in the western U.S. (Otteni et al. 1972, Martin 1973, Rudolph 1978, Millsap and Millsap 1987, Gubanyi 1989), only a few cases of the use of such sites have been reported in the Northeast. R. Ferren (pers. comm.) described nest holes in the steep bluffs on the north and south ends of Block Island, Rhode Island. Recesses in a clay embankment along the Patuxent River in Maryland supported a breeding pair during the late 1980s (S. Smith, pers. comm.). Exposed barrels in a cut bank along the Rappahannock River of eastern Virginia supported approximately 15 nesting pairs in the late 1970s (S. Doggett, pers. comm.). A wide variety of human-made "cavities" are used as nest sites. Large platforms within barns and silos, tunnels dug into silage in roofed or topless silos, cavities among hay bales stored inside barns, barn cupola shelves, wooden water tanks, and offshore duckblinds are frequently used; feed bins, church steeples and belfries, platforms within commercial and industrial buildings (e.g., warehouses, grain elevators, mills, factories), attics of abandoned or occupied houses, ledges within chimneys, platforms beneath bridges, and World War II cement watch towers are occasionally used (Stotts 1958, Scott 1959, Reese 1972, Klaas et al. 1978, Soucy 1979, Bunn et al. 1982, Hegdal and Blaskiewicz 1984, Colvin 1984, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986, Matteson and Petersen 1988, Parker and Castrale 1990). In addition, nest boxes are readily used (Otteni et al. 1972, Marti et al. 1979, Soucy 1980, Ziesemer 1980, Colvin et al. 1984, Cook 1985, Schulz 1986, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986, Bendel and Therres 1988, Parker and Castrale 1990).

NON-BREEDING: In winter often roosts in dense conifers; also roosts in nest boxes if available (Marti and Wagner 1985).

Ecology

Individuals range over large areas; mean home range size (based on the minimum home range method (Mohr and Stumpf 1966)) has been reported as 355 ha in southern Texas (Byrd 1982), 757 ha and 921 ha in southwestern New Jersey (Colvin 1984, Hegdal and Blaskiewicz 1984), 414 ha in eastern Virginia (Rosenburg 1986), 850 ha in Virginia (Byrd and Johnston 1991), and 198 ha in western Nebraska (Gubanyi 1989). As much as 5.6 km may be traveled between a nest site and foraging areas, although distances within 1.6 km are more usual (Colvin 1984, Hegdal and Blaskiewicz 1984, Rosenburg 1986). Overlap of individual home ranges is common, particularly where nest sites and prey are abundant. (Smith et al. 1974, Colvin 1984, Rosenburg 1986).

Young disperse widely from natal area, commonly more than 80 km, up to hundreds or 1900 km documented; wide dispersal facilitates colonization of new areas. Hatching-year barn owls have been recovered great distances from natal areas (commonly > 80 km and as much as 1800 km) (Stewart 1952; Soucy 1980, 1985). Although juveniles have been recovered from essentially every compass direction from their natal area, most had traveled in a southerly direction (Stewart 1952). Juveniles in the northern U.S. migrate south but return to nest somewhere within 320 km of their natal sites (Stewart 1952). Most individuals banded as nestlings and later found breeding did so at distances of about 50 km from their natal areas (Marti 1990). Cases of dispersal > 320 km have also been documented. An individual banded as a nestling in southwestern Iowa was recovered as a breeding adult 419 km to the east (Ehresman et al. 1989). A nestling banded in central New Jersey was found nesting in Ohio (B. Colvin, pers. comm.). Extensive banding of nestlings and capture of adults in southwest New Jersey reveals that only a small percentage of nestlings banded within the study area enter the adult population there: 5% of 181 nestlings banded in 1988 were found in the adult population in 1989 (Colvin and Hegdal 1989). Although they may return to breed relatively close to their natal area, individuals frequently become established great distances away. Very successful at colonizing new areas because of this broad dispersal behavior.

Susceptible to starvation during prolonged low temperatures and snow cover (Marti and Wagner 1985). In Utah, most adults survived only 1 breeding season (Marti 1989). Disease, parasites, and predation are natural factors that may in part limit populations. Appears to be resistant to many diseases that infect other raptors (Schulz 1986). In California, diseases documented include tuberculosis, aspergillosis, and trichomoniasis (Schulz 1986). Toxoplasmosis and eastern equine encephalitis have been detected in New Jersey, although no impact to the birds was apparent (Colvin and Hegdal 1986, 1987). Salmonellosis has been recorded in Pennsylvania (Locke and Newman 1970) and New Jersey (Kirkpatrick and Colvin 1986). Kirkpatrick and Colvin (1986) found SALMONELLA-positive nestlings at five of the 25 New Jersey nest sites examined, and reported that all infected young apparently fledged.

Dipteran ectoparasites and lice have been found on owls (Schulz 1986, Kirkpatrick and Colvin 1989). The endoparasites Trypanosoma, Capillaria, and Porrocaecum have been identified from the feces of New Jersey owls (Colvin and Hegdal 1986).

NON-BREEDING: solitary or in pairs.

Reproduction

Nests in late winter, spring, and/or early summer in most of North America. Breeds throughout year in Texas. Nests with eggs or young have been found in the northeastern U.S. during every month of the year (Poole 1930; Bent 1938; Scott 1950; Stewart 1952; C. Rosenburg, unpubl. data), but peak egg laying occurs during mid-April (Colvin 1984, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986). Second clutches are typically laid between June and September (Wallace 1948, Keith 1964, Reese 1972, Soucy 1979). As many three broods per year; some California birds attempt two broods per year; one brood per year in most of the range. Clutch size ranges between one to 13 eggs (Bent 1938, Parker and Castrale 1990) with the mean clutch size ranging between four to six eggs (Otteni et al. 1972, Reese 1972, Smith et al. 1974). Clutch size depends on condition; increases with food supply and after mild winters in some areas. Eggs are usually laid two days apart and hatch asynchronously since incubation starts after the laying of the first egg (Wallace 1948, Smith et al. 1974). Incubation by female, 21-24 days for single egg, 29-34 days for full clutch (Smith et al. 1974, Marshall et al. 1986). The peak of hatching in the Northeast occurs in mid-May (Colvin 1984; Byrd and Rosenburg 1986; S. Smith, pers. comm.). Female broods and feeds young, male brings food. Young reportedly fly at 50-55 days in England; young fledge at 8-10 weeks in U.S. (Pickwell 1948, Reese 1972, Smith et al. 1974). Peak fledging occurs in mid to late July (Colvin 1984, Byrd and Rosenburg 1986). Juveniles may remain in the vicinity of the nest site for several weeks before dispersing (Otteni et al. 1972, Smith et al. 1974, Marti 1990). Male may care for fledged young as female begins second clutch. In northern Utah, 71% of all nesting attempts yielded at least one fledgling; reproductive success and productivity were reduced following winters with particularly low temperatures and long periods of deep snow cover (Marti 1994). Breeding density depends on availability of nest sites and on food supply. See Marti (1989) for information on breeding phenology in different areas.

Matures and breeds within its first year (Stewart 1952, Maestrelli 1973, Marti 1990) and sometimes as early as seven months of age (B. Colvin, pers. comm.). It is typically monogamous, but Colvin and Hegdal (1989) reported that as many as 10% of the adult males in their New Jersey study area may be polygynous.
Terrestrial Habitats
SavannaGrassland/herbaceousCliffCropland/hedgerowSuburban/orchardUrban/edificarian
Palustrine Habitats
HERBACEOUS WETLANDRiparian
Other Nations (2)
CanadaN3
ProvinceRankNative
British ColumbiaS3Yes
QuebecSNAYes
OntarioS1Yes
United StatesNNR
ProvinceRankNative
ArizonaS5Yes
New MexicoS4B,S4NYes
WyomingS2Yes
IllinoisS3Yes
NebraskaS3Yes
ConnecticutS1Yes
North CarolinaSNRYes
OhioS2Yes
MarylandS2BYes
IdahoS4Yes
KentuckyS3Yes
TexasS5BYes
West VirginiaS2B,S2NYes
UtahS3Yes
TennesseeS3Yes
DelawareS2Yes
AlabamaS3Yes
ColoradoS4BYes
IndianaS2Yes
WashingtonS4Yes
FloridaS4Yes
CaliforniaSNRYes
New JerseyS2B,S3NYes
IowaS1BYes
KansasS3Yes
LouisianaS5Yes
South DakotaS3BYes
New YorkS1Yes
Rhode IslandS1B,S1NYes
District of ColumbiaS1Yes
ArkansasS2B,S3NYes
MissouriS3Yes
GeorgiaSUYes
NevadaS4Yes
MichiganS1Yes
PennsylvaniaS2B,S3NYes
OklahomaS3Yes
Navajo NationS3BYes
OregonS4Yes
MassachusettsS2B,S2NYes
South CarolinaS3Yes
MontanaS5Yes
MississippiS3Yes
VermontS1BYes
VirginiaS3B,S3NYes
Roadless Areas (47)
Arizona (4)
AreaForestAcres
Catalina St. Pk. Roadless AreaCoronado National Forest951
GoldfieldTonto National Forest15,257
Middle Dragoon RoadlessCoronado National Forest10,543
Middle Romero WSRCoronado National Forest60
California (30)
AreaForestAcres
Black ButteLos Padres National Forest5,116
CalienteCleveland National Forest5,953
Chalk PeakLos Padres National Forest7,472
ChannellSequoia National Forest45,429
ChicoSequoia National Forest39,836
Dry LakesLos Padres National Forest17,043
Eagle PeakCleveland National Forest6,481
Fish CanyonAngeles National Forest29,886
Fox MountainLos Padres National Forest52,072
Hixon FlatSan Bernardino National Forest8,095
KellySix Rivers National Forest5,195
La BreaLos Padres National Forest14,031
Lpoor CanyonLos Padres National Forest13,762
Magic MountainAngeles National Forest15,542
Malduce BuckhornLos Padres National Forest14,177
MatilijaLos Padres National Forest5,218
MosesSequoia National Forest22,077
Mt. HoffmanModoc National Forest9,780
NordhoffLos Padres National Forest12,031
Oat Mtn.Sequoia National Forest12,223
PaiuteInyo National Forest58,712
Salt CreekAngeles National Forest11,022
San DimasAngeles National Forest7,160
Sawmill - BadlandsLos Padres National Forest51,362
Sespe - FrazierLos Padres National Forest106,910
Sespe - FrazierAngeles National Forest4,254
Tepusquet PeakLos Padres National Forest5,821
TequepisLos Padres National Forest9,080
Timbered CraterLassen National Forest4,096
TuleAngeles National Forest9,861
Nevada (2)
AreaForestAcres
Jobs Peak (NV)Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest1,342
Pearl PeakHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest71,405
New Mexico (2)
AreaForestAcres
Gila BoxGila National Forest23,759
Peloncillo (NM)Coronado National Forest43,339
Oregon (2)
AreaForestAcres
HellholeUmatilla National Forest65,679
TenmileSiuslaw National Forest10,818
Utah (4)
AreaForestAcres
418029Uinta National Forest15,673
HogsbackWasatch-Cache National Forest7,936
South FrancisWasatch-Cache National Forest3,374
WellsvilleWasatch-Cache National Forest1,717
Wyoming (3)
AreaForestAcres
Gannett Hills - Spring CreekBridger-Teton National Forest45,462
Salt River RangeBridger-Teton National Forest235,661
South Wyoming RangeBridger-Teton National Forest85,776
References (22)
  1. American Ornithological Society (AOS). Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, B. E. Hernández-Baños, R. A. Jiménez, O. Johnson, A. W. Kratter, N. A. Mason, P. C. Rasmussen, and J. V. Remsen, Jr. 2024. Sixty-fifth Supplement to the American Ornithological Society’s Check-list of North American Birds. Ornithology 141:1-21.
  2. 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 <i>The Auk</i>]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
  3. BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
  4. 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.
  5. Castro, I. and A. Phillips. 1996. A guide to the birds of the Galapagos Islands. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  6. Delgado-V., C. A. and E. J. F. Cataño-B. 2004. Diet of the Barn Owl (Tyto alba) in the lowlands of Antioquia, Colombia. Ornitologia Neotropical 15:413-416.
  7. Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  8. Leveau, L. M., P. Teta, R. Bogdaschewski, and U. F. Pardiñas. 2006. Feeding habits of the Barn Owl (<i>Tyto alba</i>) along a longitudinal-latitudinal gradient in central Argentina. Ornitología Neotropical 17:353-362.
  9. Marti, C. D., A. F. Poole, L. R. Bevier, M.D. Bruce, D. A. Christie, G. M. Kirwan, J. S. Marks, and P. Pyle. 2024. American Barn Owl (<i>Tyto furcata</i>), version 1.1. In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, B. K. Keeney, and M. G. Smith, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.brnowl.01.1
  10. Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1970. A guide to the birds of South America. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Livingston Pub. Co., Wynnewood, PA. 470 pp.
  11. Motta-Júnior, J. C. and S. A. Talamoni. 1996. Biomassa de presas consumidas por Tyto alba (Strigiformes: Tytonidae) durante a estação reprodutiva no Distrito Federal. Ararajuba 4 (1).
  12. Pardiñas, U. F. J. and S. Cirignoli. 2003. Bibliografía comentada sobre los análisis de egagrópilas de aves rapaces en Argentina. Ornitologia Neotropical 13:31-59.
  13. 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.
  14. Peterson, R.T. 1980b. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
  15. Peterson, R.T. 1990b. A field guide to western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
  16. 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.
  17. Ridgely, R. S. 2002. Distribution maps of South American birds. Unpublished.
  18. Sahores, M. and A. Trejo. 2004. Diet shift of Barn Owls (Tyto alba) after natural fires in Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Raptor Research 38:174-177.
  19. Scheibler, D. R. and A. U. Christoff. 2004. Small mammals in the diet of Barn Owls (Tyto alba) in agroecosystems of southern Brazil. Ornitologia Neotropical 15:65-70.
  20. Teta, P. and J. R. Contreras. 2003. Primeros antecedentes de la dieta de la Lechuza de Campanario (Tyto alba) en el departamento Ñeembucú (Paraguay). Hornero 18:57-59.
  21. Trejo, A. and V. Ojeda. 2004. Diet of Barn Owls (Tyto alba) in forested habitats of northwestern Argentine Patagonia. Ornitologia Neotropical 15:307-312.
  22. Zook, J. L. 2002. Distribution maps of the birds of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Unpublished.