Sternula antillarum

Lesson, 1847

Least Tern

G4Apparently Secure Found in 9 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
PS:LE,DLESA Status
Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). © Dorian Anderson; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Dorian Anderson; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). © Will Sweet; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Will Sweet; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). © Christopher Lindsey; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Christopher Lindsey; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). © Kyle Tansley; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Kyle Tansley; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). © Matt Felperin; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Matt Felperin; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). © Nathaniel Sharp; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Nathaniel Sharp; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101508
Element CodeABNNM08100
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderCharadriiformes
FamilyLaridae
GenusSternula
USESAPS:LE,DL
Synonyms
Sterna albifrons antillarum(Lesson, 1847)Sterna antillarum(Lesson, 1847)
Other Common Names
Charrán Mínimo, Gaviotín Chico Boreal (ES) least tern (EN) Petite Sterne (FR) Trinta-Réis-Miúdo (PT)
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/.
Taxonomic Comments
Formerly (AOU 1983, 1998) included in the genus Sterna but separated on the basis of genetic data that correspond to plumage patterns (Bridge et al. 2005) (AOU 2006). The American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) recognizes three subspecies: S. a. browni from California, the Eastern, S. a. antillarum, and the Interior, S. a. athalassos (AOU 1957).

Often has been considered conspecific with Old World S. albifrons (AOU 1983). Appears to constitute a superspecies with S. albifrons, S. superciliaris, S. lorata, and S. saundersi (AOU 1998). Massey (1976) evaluated morphological, vocal, and behavioral characteristics and concluded that nominal subspecies antillarum and browni are indistinguishable. Thompson et al. (1992) examined morphological and electrophoretic variation and found little evidence of differentiation among populations of the nominal subspecies antillarum, athalassos, and browni; they recommended that the subspecific taxonomy of the S. antillarum complex be reassessed. Johnson et al. (1998) used a quantitative colorimetry analysis to study variation among antillarum, athalassos, and browni and found differences significant enough to warrant the validity of the taxa and their importance as entities for conservation.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2016-04-10
Change Date1996-11-27
Edition Date1995-02-22
Edition AuthorsWhittaker, J. C., & G. Hammerson
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank Reasons
Widely distributed, but numbers are reduced and/or declining in some areas. Nesting colonies are sensitive to disturbance.
Range Extent Comments
BREEDING: Pacific coast, central California to southern Baja California and Chiapas (Garcia and Ceballos 1995); since 1970, most nesting has occurred from Santa Barbara to San Diego County, California. Interior U.S.: locally along the Colorado, Red, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi river systems; formerly more widespread and common; has been eliminated from much of former habitat; now breeds locally in this region, north to Montana and North Dakota, east to southwestern Indiana, central Kentucky, and western Tennessee, west to eastern Colorado. Atlantic-Gulf coast: Maine south to Florida and west to Tamaulipas, coast of Yucatan Peninsula, and in West Indies (Bahamas [Sprunt 1984], Greater and Lesser Antilles [van Halewyn and Norton 1984]); islands off coast of Belize, Honduras, and Venezuela; and Bermuda (Thompson 1995, AOU 1998). About 2/3 of world population breeds in the southeastern U.S.; largest colony is at Gulfport, Mississippi (Clapp and Buckley 1984). NON-BREEDING: regularly along Pacific coast from southern Mexico to Peru and eastern coasts of Mexico, Central America, and South America to Brazil and northern Argentina (Thompson et al. 1997, AOU 1998). May remain in wintering areas during first year (Thompson et al. 1995). Casual in Hawaii (Whitman 1988).
Occurrences Comments
Widely distributed, but difficult to estimate because nesting habitat is ephemeral and nesting sites may change location from year to year.
Threat Impact Comments
Populations were decreased greatly by formerly extensive plume hunting. Current major problems are human use and development of nesting habitat and predation on adults, eggs, and young by birds and mammals (see Burger and Gochfeld 1990). Some habitat is lost due to encroachment of vegetation, but this may be offset by habitat created when storm overwash removes vegetation from portions of barrier beaches or creates overwash fans of sandy/gravelly substrate. Storms during spring tides sometimes wash out nests. Replacement of gravel-covered roofs by plastic-covered roofs, together with increasing human use of beaches, may seriously limit the availability of productive nesting sites in the southeastern U.S. (Gore and Kinnison 1991). Birds and mammals prey on eggs and young, and ants may prey on young in pipped eggs and on newly hatched young (Moseley 1976). Ghost crabs (OCYPODE QUADRATA) may be important predators of eggs and chicks in South Carolina (Blus and Prouty 1979). Other predators in various regions include coyote (CANIS LATRANS), red fox (VULPES VULPES), mink, weasels, raccoon (PROCYON LOTOR), striped skunk (MEPHITIS MEPHITIS), opossum (DIDELPHIS VIRGINIANA), domestic cats and dogs, feral hogs (SUS SCROFA), Norway rat, black rat, various gulls, night-herons, American kestrel (FALCO SPARVERIUS), northern harrier (CIRCUS CYANEUS) red-shouldered hawk (BUTEO LINEATUS), fish crow (CORVUS OSSIFRAGUS), and grackles (Whitman 1988, Burger and Gochfeld 1990, Thompson et al. 1997). In New Jersey, Burger (1984) found that mainland colonies with over 80 birds suffer more from predators than colonies with fewer than 80 birds, perhaps because the former are large enough to make their presence known to predators. Larger colonies may incur greater losses to predation than do smaller colonies because the former are more stable and hence known to predators (Burger 1984). On two South Carolina barrier islands, harsh weather was the primary cause of unsuccessful nesting (Cowgill 1989). Bird banding, photography, and other activities that cause young to scatter or keep adults away from nests for substantial periods of time may result in increased mortality (Zickefoose 1985). Wayward young may be attacked by nonparental adults. Exposed eggs or young may succumb to overheating and be subject to increased predation. Potential threats include chemical spills and pesticide or heavy metal pollution. Decline of interior nesting populations has been coincident with human modification of river flow (e.g., reduction of spring floods by dams) and bank stabilization and channelization, resulting in reduced availability of bare island/sandbar nesting habitat; loss of aquatic habitat diversity and resulting changes in fish species composition and abundance also may have contributed to the reduced tern population (Figg 1993). Desalination projects may reduce shallow water fish populations and thus decrease tern food resources (Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984). In arid regions, irrigation may be a threat by lowering water levels/flows and reducing river areas when terns are breeding (Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984). Grazing cattle may trampled eggs (Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984). Heavy rains and other severe weather have resulted in significant nesting losses along the Cimarron River in Kansas and on salt plains in Oklahoma (Grover and Knopf 1982). Colonies reduced by severe weather may incur increased predation (Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984). Interior populations nest mainly on riverine sandbars or salt flats that become exposed during periods of low water (Hardy 1957). As a result of vegetational succession and/or erosion, preferred nesting habitat typically is ephemeral. Hardy (1957) implied that breeding in riverine situations depends on the presence of sandbars, favorable water levels during nesting season, and sufficient food. Nests are usually located at higher elevations and away from the water. Water levels determine the size of sand bars and the extent of nesting areas (USFWS 1990). Dams above colonies generally lower habitat quality by eliminating the spring floods that are necessary for alluvium deposition and the scouring of vegetation. Ducey (1982) reported successful breeding at two privately-owned sand and gravel companies along the Platte River in Nebraska. As old breeding sites became unsuitable due to vegetation encroachment, the terns simply moved to more recently created sand deposits. See also Ziewitz et al. (1992) for information on nesting habitat in the Platte River in Nebraska. Populations in Kansas have nested on oil well sites (Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

The smallest North American tern (length 21-24 cm); breeding adult is mainly gray above, with a black cap and nape, white forehead, black line running from the crown through the eye to the base of the bill, orange-yellow bill often with a dark tip, white or grayish underparts, short deeply forked tail, and yellow-orange legs and feet; a black wedge on the outer primaries is conspicuous in flight (NGS 1983). Adult in winter plumage has a dingy cap, dark nape, a black line through the eye, a dark bill, and yellowish feet and legs (NGS 1983, Peterson 1990). Juvenile is pinkish-buff above, with brownish U-shaped marks on the back; crown is dusky; dark bar is present on the front part of the folded wing. First-summer birds resemble adults but retain the dark bar on the wing and have a dark bill and dark feet and legs, dusky primaries, a dark nape, and a black line through the eye (NGS 1983, Forbush 1927, Farand 1983).

VOCALIZATIONS: a shrill "zreep" and a harsh "kip, kip, kip."

EGGS: pale or olive buff with dark purplish-brown or blue-gray speckles and streaks. Seventeen eggs from Illinois averaged 31.2 X 23.8 mm (Hardy 1957).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Differs from other sympatric terns in being much smaller (averages 23 cm long vs. 37 cm in common tern [STERNA HIRUNDO]). No other sympatric tern has, in breeding plumage, a combination of a white forehead, yellowish legs, and pale gray mantle. In winter plumage, differs from winter Forster's tern (STERNA FORSTERI) in being much smaller, differs from winter black tern (CHLIDONIAS NIGER) in having yellowish feet and legs (dark in the black tern).

Habitat

BREEDING: Seacoasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons, lakes, and rivers (AOU 1983). Rests and loafs on sandy beaches, mudflats, and salt-pond dikes (Stiles and Skutch 1989). In California, may roost at night on sandy beaches away from nesting areas for several weeks before nesting. Nests usually in shallow depression on level ground on sandy or gravelly beaches and banks of rivers or lakes, typically in areas with sparse or no vegetation (usually less than 20% vegetation cover, often 10% or less; Bent 1921, Craig 1971, Jernigan et al. 1978, Thompson and Slack 1982, Faanes 1983, Gochfeld 1983, USFWS 1990); also on dredge spoils; on mainland or on barrier island beaches; and on flat gravel-covered rooftops of buildings (especially in the southeastern U.S.) or other similarly barren artificial sites (AOU 1983). Good nesting areas tend to be well beyond the high tide mark, have shell particles/stones/debris for egg camouflage (Burger and Gochfeld 1990), be out of the way of off-road vehicles and public recreation areas, not subject to unusual predation pressure, and adjacent to plentiful sources of small fishes. Colonies on small islands usually experience less mammalian predation (Burger 1984). Good roof-top sites provide some shade for chicks.

Adults do not require cover during the breeding season, but chicks may use sparse vegetation and debris for shade and protection (Hardy 1957, Blodgett 1978). Parents may lead chicks toward the periphery of the colony into more heavily vegetated areas (Akers 1975), where the young utilize debris and vegetation for cover (Hardy 1957). In coastal areas, beach grass (AMMOPHILA BREVILIGULATA) is the commonly associated vegetation. Along river systems, willow (SALIX spp.) is the common vegetation adjacent to sites (Sidle, pers. comm.). On Oklahoma salt flats, almost 60% of the nests were within 5 cm of debris (Grover and Knopf 1982).

Interior populations nest mainly on riverine sandbars or salt flats that become exposed during periods of low water (Hardy 1957). As a result of vegetational succession and/or erosion, preferred nesting habitat typically is ephemeral. Hardy (1957) implied that breeding in riverine situations depends on the presence of sandbars, favorable water levels during nesting season, and sufficient food. Nests are usually located at higher elevations and away from the water. Water levels determine the size of sand bars and the extent of nesting areas (USFWS 1990). Dams above colonies generally lower habitat quality by eliminating the spring floods that are necessary for alluvium deposition and the scouring of vegetation. Ducey (1982) reported successful breeding at two privately-owned sand and gravel companies along the Platte River in Nebraska. As old breeding sites became unsuitable due to vegetation encroachment, the terns simply moved to more recently created sand deposits. See also Ziewitz et al. (1992) for information on nesting habitat in the Platte River in Nebraska. Populations in Kansas have nested on oil well sites (Schulenberg and Ptacek 1984).

Since least terns always nest near water, they are vulnerable to flood inundation and seem to seek high ground. In coastal Texas, Thompson and Slack (1982) documented that the densest nesting area in 67% of the colonies was above the midpoint of available elevations. Gochfeld (1983) found that terns on Long Island avoid beaches that have less than 32.8 feet (10 m) of width beyond the hightide mark. Interior least tern nests on salt plains in Oklahoma were located an average of 110.5 m away from the nearest water (Grover and Knopf 1982). However, nests on the Platte River in Nebraska, were located at an average of 18.9 m away from the nearest river channel on sand bars that averaged 58.9 m wide (Faanes 1983).

NON-BREEDING: flocks have been found at sea, often far from land, in southeastern Caribbean and adjacent Atlantic off Guianas (van Halewyn and Norton 1984).

Ecology

In California, usually nests in same area in successive years; tends to return to natal site to nest (Atwood and Massey 1988). On Long Island, New York, tends to nest in same area in successive years if physical conditions are conducive to nesting (MacLean et al. 1991).

NON-BREEDING: usually singly or in small loose groups; in larger flocks when migrating. Foraging may occur singly, in pairs, or in small flocks (Erwin 1978).

Reproduction

Courtship behavior includes chases, vocalizations, and sometimes presentation of a fish to the female by the male. Lays eggs mostly in May-June (July-August nests probably are renests). Renesting may occur after egg loss associated with heavy rains and/or flooding (Jernigan et al. 1978, Blus and Prouty 1979). Clutch size usually is 2-3 (most often 2 in California, New York, and Mississippi), rarely up to 4-5 (Hardy 1957, Swickard 1974, Houde 1977, Hays 1980, Faanes 1983). Incubation usually lasts 20-25 days (also reported as 21-22 days), by both sexes but mostly by female. Hatching success varies greatly and is affected by factors such as weather, tides, predation, and human disturbance; may be high under optimal conditions. Young are tended by both parents, leave nest after a few days, brooded for several days, fly at about 3-4 weeks, dependent for a few weeks more. Reproductive success rarely exceeds one chick per pair (Kress et al. 1983). First breeds generally when about one year old, sometimes not until two years old (Massey and Atwood 1981). Maximum known natural longevity 21 years (Massey and Atwood 1978, Clapp et al. 1982). In recent years, colonies generally have included not more than 20 pairs, sometimes up to about 75 pairs (Ehrlich et al. 1992), rarely up to several hundred pairs. Colony may be divided into subcolonies (Massey 1974).
Terrestrial Habitats
Sand/dune
Palustrine Habitats
Riparian
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN4B
ProvinceRankNative
MaineS1BYes
South DakotaS3BYes
New HampshireS1BYes
MississippiS3BYes
MontanaS2BYes
GeorgiaS2Yes
AlabamaS2B,S4NYes
OhioSNAYes
VirginiaS2BYes
ArizonaS2MYes
IllinoisS2Yes
IowaS1Yes
ArkansasS2Yes
New MexicoS1B,S4NYes
DelawareS1BYes
ConnecticutS2BYes
MarylandS2BYes
KansasS1BYes
MassachusettsS2BYes
TennesseeS2BYes
NebraskaSNRYes
ColoradoS1BYes
Rhode IslandS2B,S2NYes
CaliforniaSNRYes
IndianaS1BYes
North DakotaS1Yes
KentuckyS1Yes
LouisianaS4BYes
FloridaS3Yes
South CarolinaS2BYes
MissouriS2Yes
TexasS2BYes
New YorkS3BYes
North CarolinaS3BYes
OklahomaS2BYes
New JerseyS1B,S1NYes
Roadless Areas (9)
Arkansas (2)
AreaForestAcres
Bear MountainOuachita National Forest1,910
Little BlakelyOuachita National Forest3,342
California (1)
AreaForestAcres
TequepisLos Padres National Forest9,080
Illinois (2)
AreaForestAcres
Clear SpringsShawnee National Forest11
Ripple HollowShawnee National Forest3,788
North Carolina (3)
AreaForestAcres
Catfish Lake NorthCroatan National Forest11,299
Pocosin AdditionCroatan National Forest286
Pond Pine BCroatan National Forest2,961
South Carolina (1)
AreaForestAcres
Wambaw ExtFrancis Marion National Forest527
References (125)
  1. Akers, J. W. 1975. The least tern in Virginia: breeding biology and population distribution. M.S. thesis, William and Mary College, Williamsburg. 77 pp.
  2. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1957. The AOU check-list of North American birds, 5th ed. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 691 pp.
  3. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
  4. 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/.
  5. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2006. Forty-seventh supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 123(3):1926-936.
  6. Arbuckle, J. 1983. [Least tern and piping plover....]. Maine Audubon Society. 35 pp.
  7. Arbuckle, J. 1984. Least tern and piping plover protection project report. Maine Audubon Society. 26 pp.
  8. Atwood, J. L., and B. W. Massey. 1988. Site fidelity of least terns in California. Condor 90:389-394.
  9. Baird, P. 1976. Comparative ecology of California and Ring-billed Gulls (<i>Larus californicus</i> and <i>L. delawarensis</i>.)Ph.D. dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula.
  10. Baird, P. A. 1977. Feeding ecology of ring-billed and California gulls (<i>Larus delawarensis</i> and <i>L. californicus</i>). Pacific Seabird Bulletin 4:16-17.
  11. Bent, A.C. 1921. Life histories of North American gulls and terns. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 113. Washington, D.C.
  12. BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
  13. Blodgett, B. 1978. The effects of off-road vehicles on least terns and other shore birds. Univ. Massachusetts - Natl. Park Service Report 26:1-79.
  14. Blus, L. J., and R. M. Prouty. 1979. Organochlorine pollutants and population status of least terns in South Carolina. Wilson Bull. 91:62-71.
  15. 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.
  16. Bridge, E. S., A. W. Jones, and A. J. Baker. 2005. A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35:459-469.
  17. Buckley, P. A., and F. G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonial nesting waterbirds. North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service. 54 pp.
  18. Buckley, P. A., and F. G. Buckley. 1984. Seabirds of the north and middle Atlantic coast of the United States: their status and conservation. Pages 101-133 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.
  19. Bull, J. 1974. Birds of New York state. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Reprint, 1985 (with Supplement, Federation of New York Bird Clubs, 1976), Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.
  20. Burger, J. 1984. Colony stability in least terns. Condor 86:61-67.
  21. Burger, J. 1988. Social attraction in nesting least terns: effects of numbers, spacing, and pair bonds. Condor 90:575-582.
  22. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1990. Nest site selection in least terns (<i>Sterna antillarum</i>) in New Jersey and New York. Colonial Waterbirds 13:31-40.
  23. Burroughs, J. R. 1966. A study of the breeding biology of least terns on Nantucket Island. M.S. thesis, Univ. Massachusetts. 87 pp.
  24. Byrd, M. A., and D. W. Johnston. 1991. Birds. Pages 477-537 in K. Terwilliger, coordinator. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publ. Co., Blacksburg, Virginia.
  25. California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). 1990. 1989 annual report on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. 188 pp.
  26. Campbell, L. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life History and Management. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Endangered Resources Branch, Austin, Texas. ix + 129 pp.
  27. Carvacho, A., et al. 1989. <i>Sterna antillarum browni</i> en el Golfo de California: observaciones sobre una colonia reproductora en una zona vulnerable al impacto turistico. Southwestern Naturalist 34:124-130.
  28. Clapp, R. B., and P. A. Buckley. 1984. Status and conservation of seabirds in the southeastern United States. Pages 135-155 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.
  29. Clapp, R. B., M. K. Klimkiewicz, and J. H. Kennard. 1982. Longevity records of North American birds: Gaviidae through Alcidae. J. Field Ornithol. 53:81-124.
  30. Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water birds of California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 399 pp.
  31. Cowgill, R. W. 1989. Nesting success of least terns on two South Carolina barrier islands in relation to human disturbance. Chat 53:81-87.
  32. Craig, A. M. 1971. Survey of California least tern nesting sites. California Dept. Fish and Game, Project W54R-4. 55 pp.
  33. Czaplewski, M. M. 1989. Least terns at Lake McConaughy. Nebraska Bird Rev. 57:95-96.
  34. Dorr, D. K. 1976. Least tern, <i>Sterna albifrons</i>, nesting habitat in Maine and its relevance to the Critical Areas Program. Maine Critical Areas Program, Planning Report No. 11.21 pp.
  35. Downing, R. L. 1980. Survey of interior least tern nesting populations. Am. Birds 34:209-211.
  36. Draheim, H. M., M. P. Miller, P. Baird, and S. M. Haig. 2010. Subspecific status and population genetic structure of least terns (<i>Sternula antillarum</i>) inferred by mitochondrial DNA control-region sequences and microsatellite DNA. The Auk 127(4):807-819.
  37. Ducey, J. 1982. The 1982 least tern and piping plover breeding season on the lower Platte River, Nebraska. Nebraska Bird Rev. 50:68-72.
  38. Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.
  39. Engstrom, R. T., G. S. Butcher, and J. D. Lowe. 1990. Population trends in the least tern (<i>Sterna antillarum</i>) from Maine to Virginia: 1975-1986. Pages 130-138 in J. R. Sauer and S. Droege, editors. Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation of avian population trends. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 90(1)). 166 pp.
  40. Erwin, R. M. 1978a. Population and colony site dynamics in selected Massachusetts seabirds. Proc. 1977 Conf. Colonial Waterbirds Group 1:19-25.
  41. Erwin, R. M. 1978b. Coloniality in terns: the role of social feeding. Condor 80:211-5.
  42. Faanes, C. A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in central Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 15:145-154.
  43. Farrand, J., editor. 1983. Audubon Society master guide to birding. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 3 vols., 1244 pp.
  44. Figg, D. E. 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report, July 1992-June 1993. 75 pp.
  45. Fisk, E. J. 1975. Least tern: beleaguered, opportunistic, and root nesting. American Birds 29(1):15-16.
  46. Forbush, E. H. 1925-1929. Birds of Massachusetts and other New England states. 3 vols. Massachusetts Dept. Agric., Boston.
  47. Forbush, E. H. 1927. Birds of Massachusetts and other New England States. Part 2: Land birds from bob-whites to Grackles. Massachusetts Department of Agriculture, Boston, Massachusetts. 461 pp.
  48. Garcia, A., and G. Ceballos. 1995. Reproduction and breeding success of California Least Terns in Jalisco, Mexico. Condor 97:1084-1087.
  49. Gochfeld, M. 1983. Colony site selection by least terns: physical attributes of sites. Colonial Waterbirds 6:205-213.
  50. Gore, J. A. 1991. Distribution and abundance of nesting least terns and black skimmers in northwest Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 19(3):65-96.
  51. Gore, J. A., and M. J. Kinnison. 1991. Hatching success in roof and ground colonies of least terns. Condor 93:759-762.
  52. Grover, P. B., and F. L. Knopf. 1982. Habitat requirements and breeding success of charadriiform birds nesting at Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma. J. Field Ornithol. 53:139-148.
  53. Haddon, P. C., and R. C. Knight. 1983. A guide to little tern conservation. Royal Soc. Protection of Birds. 114 pp.
  54. 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.
  55. Hardy, J. W. 1957. The least tern in the Mississippi Valley. Publ. Mus. Michigan State Univ., Biol. Ser. 1:1-60.
  56. Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.
  57. Hays, M. B. 1980. Breeding biology of the least tern, <i>Sterna albifrons</i>, on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi. M.S. thesis, Mississippi State Univ. 69 pp.
  58. Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.
  59. Hill, L. A., and L. G. Talent. 1990. Effects of capture, handling, banding, and radio-marking on breeding least terns and snowy plovers. J. Field Ornithology 61:310-319.
  60. Houde, P. 1977. Low productivity of terns on Hicks Island, 1975. Proc. Linn. Soc. 73:49-57.
  61. Hovis, J. A., and M. S. Robson. 1989. Breeding status and distribution of the least tern in the Florida Keys. Florida Field Nat. 17:61-66.
  62. Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  63. Jenks, J. N. 1980. Chick shelters decrease avian predators in least tern colonies on Nantucket Island, MA. Field Ornithol. 53:58-60.
  64. Jernigan, L., et al. 1978. Nesting habitats and breeding populations of the least tern colonies in North Carolina. Univ. North Carolina Sea Grant Publ. 39 pp.
  65. Johnson, N.K., J.V. Remsen, Jr., and C. Cicero. 1998. Refined colorimetry validates endangered subspecies of the Least Tern. The Condor 100:18-26.
  66. Kirsch, E.M., and J.G. Sidle. 1994. Status of the interior population of least terns (Strena antillarum). Unpublished draft, submitted to the journal of Wildlife Management.
  67. Kirsch, E.M. National Biological Survey. LaCrosse, WI
  68. Kotliar, N. B. 1984. Colony site selection and abandonment by least terns in New Jersey. M.S. thesis, Rutgers Univ.
  69. Kotliar, N. B., and J. Burger. 1984. The use of decoys to attract least terns (<i>Sterna antillarum</i>) to abandoned colony sites in New Jersey. Colonial Waterbirds 7:134-138.
  70. Kress, S. W., E. H. Weinstein, and I. C. T. Nisbet. 1983. The status of tern populations in the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Colonial Waterbirds 6:84-106.
  71. Litwin, S. 1983. Long Island least tern and piping plover survey. Seatuck Research Program, Cornell Univ. and New York Dept. Environ. Conservation. 35 pp.
  72. MacLean, D. C., et al. 1991. Nesting biology, habitat use, and inter-colony movements of the least tern (<i>Sterna antillarum</i>) on Long Island, N.Y. The Seatuck Research Program in cooperation with the New York State Dept. of Environ. Conserv. 70 pp.
  73. Massey, B. W. 1971. A breeding study of the California least tern. California Dept. Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Administrative Report, pp. 71-79.
  74. Massey, B. W. 1974. Breeding biology of the California least tern. Proc. Linn. Soc. New York 72:1-24.
  75. Massey, B. W. 1976. Vocal differences between American least terns and the European little tern. Auk 93:760-773.
  76. Massey, B. W. 1981. A least tern makes a right turn. Nat. Hist. 90:61-72.
  77. Massey, B. W., and J. L. Atwood. 1978. Plumages of the least tern. Bird-banding 49:360-371.
  78. Massey, B. W., and J. L. Atwood. 1981. Second-wave nesting of the California least tern: age composition and reproductive success. Auk 98:596-605.
  79. Massey, B. W., K. Keane, and C. Boardman. 1988. Adverse effects of radio transmitters on the behavior of nesting least terns. Condor 90:945-947.
  80. Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.
  81. Minsky, D. 1980. Preventing fox predation at a least tern colony with an electric fence. J. Field Ornithology 51(2):17-18.
  82. Minsky, D. 1981. The terns of Cape Cod. The Associaiton for the Preservation of Cape Cod, Informational Bull. No. 9. 34 pp.
  83. Moseley, L. J. 1976. Behavior and communication in the least tern. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. North Carolina. 164 pp.
  84. Muñoz del Viejo, A. and X. Vega. 2002. Efectos de disturbios en la reproducción del Charrancito Americano (Sterna antillarum) en ecosistemas costeros de Sinaloa, Noroeste de México. Ornitologia Neotropical 13:235-245.
  85. National Geographic Society (NGS). 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.
  86. 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.
  87. Peterson, R. T. 1990b. A field guide to western birds. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 432 pp.
  88. 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.
  89. 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.
  90. Ridgely, R. S. 2002. Distribution maps of South American birds. Unpublished.
  91. Ridgely, R. S. and J. A. Gwynne, Jr. 1989. A Guide to the Birds of Panama. 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.
  92. Ridgely, R. S. and P. J. Greenfield. 2001. The birds of Ecuador: Status, distribution, and taxonomy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.
  93. Ridgway, R. 1919. The birds of North and Middle America. Part VIII. U.S. National Museum Bull. 50.
  94. Rothweiler, R. A. 1960. Food habits, movements, and nesting of gulls, Freezout Lake, Teton County, Montana. Montana Fish and Game Department, Helena. Paper No. 494. 26pp.
  95. 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.
  96. Schulenberg, J., and M. Ptacek. 1984. Status of the interior least tern in Kansas. Am. Birds 38:975-981.
  97. Sibley, C.G., and B.L. Monroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. xxiv + 1111 pp.
  98. Sibley, D. A. 2000a. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  99. Soots, R. F., and M. Landin. 1978. Development and management of avian habitat on dredged material islands. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta. Tech. Rep. 96 pp.
  100. Spendelow, J. A. and S. R. Patton. 1988. National Atlas of Coastal Waterbird Colonies in the Contiguous United States: 1976-1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(5). x + 326 pp.
  101. Sprunt, A., IV. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds of the Bahama Islands. Pages 157-168 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2.
  102. 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.
  103. Swickard, D. K. 1974. An evaluation of two least tern nesting sites. California Fish and Game 60:88-90.
  104. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  105. Thompson, B.C. and R.D. Slack. 1982. Physical aspects of colony selection by least terns on the Texas coast. Colonial Waterbirds 5:161-168.
  106. Thompson, B. C., et al. 1992. Subspecific status of least tern populations in Texas: North American implications. Wilson Bull. 104:244-262.
  107. Thompson, B. C., J. A. Jackson, J. Burger, L. A. Hill, E. M. Kirsch, and J. L. Atwood. 1997. Least Tern (<i>Sterna antillarum</i>). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 290. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 32 pp.
  108. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. California least tern recovery plan. 58 pp.
  109. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United States-- California least tern. FWS/OBS-80/01.20. 8 pp.
  110. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Glf of Mexico. Part III. Charadriiformes. Pages 599-635.
  111. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Interior least tern proposed as Endangered. Federal Register XX:22444-22447.
  112. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 63 pp.
  113. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  114. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Recovery plan for the interior population of the least tern (<i>Sterna antillarum</i>). USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 90 pp.
  115. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final rule. Federal Register 86(8):2564-2581.
  116. van Halewyn, R., and R. L. Norton. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Caribbean. Pages 169-222 in Croxall et al., eds. Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 2
  117. Van Rossem, A. J. 1933. Terns as destroyers of birds' eggs. Condor 35:49-51.
  118. Whitman, P. L. 1988. Biology and conservation of the endangered interior least tern: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(3). 22 pp.
  119. Whittier, J. B., D. M. Leslie Jr, and R. A. Van Den Bussche. 2006. Genetic variation among subspecies of Least Tern (Sterna antillarum): implications for conservation. Waterbirds 29(2):176-184.
  120. Wilbur, S. R. 1974. The literature of the California least tern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. 175 pp.
  121. Williams, S. New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM
  122. Wolk, R. G. 1954. Some preliminary observations on the reproductive behavior of the least tern.
  123. Zickefoose, J. 1985. Least tern/piping plover recovery program. Final report to The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter. 22 pp.
  124. Ziewitz, J. W., J. G. Sidle, and J. J. Dinan. 1992. Habitat conservation for nesting least terns and piping plovers on the Platte River, Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 24(1):1-20.
  125. Zook, J. L. 2002. Distribution maps of the birds of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Unpublished.