Limnothlypis swainsonii

(Audubon, 1834)

Swainson's Warbler

G4Apparently Secure Found in 14 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
LowThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103514
Element CodeABPBX09010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations, but breeds in a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderPasseriformes
FamilyParulidae
GenusLimnothlypis
Other Common Names
Chipe Corona Café (ES) Paruline de Swainson (FR) Swainson's warbler (EN)
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/.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2016-04-09
Change Date1996-12-03
Edition Date2015-08-06
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G., and Florida Natural Areas Inventory
Threat ImpactLow
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Rank Reasons
Breeds in southeastern United States, winters in West Indies, Mexico, and neighboring regions; rare and local in breeding range; still occupies much of historical range extent, though a large percentage of habitat has been lost or unfavorably altered; much lowland hardwood habitat is privately owned and subject to harvest or conversion to pine plantations; apparently sensitive to habitat fragmentation, successional stage, and probably the spatial arrangement of habitat blocks, thus requiring sensitive planning wherever wet lowland forest harvest continues; preference for successional habitat increases chances of surviving despite timber harvest; locally, harassment by birdwatchers is a problem; better information is needed on impact of winter habitat alteration; apparently relatively stable, but trend is uncertain and difficult to determine; probably undersampled throughout range because of difficult access to habitat; present in several large protected areas;
Range Extent Comments
Breeding range extends locally from east-central and mid-coastal Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, southern Missouri, and Arkansas to southwestern and eastern Kentucky, western and eastern Tennessee, and Alabama, and farther east to West Virginia, western Virginia, the Dismal Swamp area of southeastern Virginia, and South Carolina, and south to the Panhandle region of western Florida and the Gulf Coast (Anich et al. 2010); mostly in the Coastal Plain but also the southern Appalachians (AOU 1983, Brown and Dickson 1994). This species winters regularly in the Bahamas, Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and as far east (rarely) as Anguilla, and on the mainland in the Yucatán Peninsula (including Guatemala and Belize) and also to the west, but distribution from the Yucatán Peninsula to Veracruz is poorly understood; casual and accidental records elsewhere (see Anich et al. 2010).

Birdlife International (website, 2015) estimated the breeding distribution size (EOO, Extent of Occurrence) to be 261,000 square kilometers, but it is much larger than that.
Occurrences Comments
The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria, but this species has been detected in a large number of sites in recent years (e.g., see eBird web site).
Threat Impact Comments
Threats include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from agricultural development, urbanization, extensive timber harvest (though species breeds in some young managed forests), flooding of bottomlands by reservoirs, alteration of natural flooding regimes, channelization of rivers, construction of levee systems, and surface mining, and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Byrd and Johnston 1991, Anich et al. 2010, Benson et al. 2010). Habitat fragmentation may lead to increased levels of predation and cowbird parasitism. Migrating individuals sometimes collide with towers and other tall structures (see Anich et al. 2010), but the population impact of this may be relatively minor. Locally, birdwatchers' excessive use of taped calls to attract birds can be harmful, but this is unlikely to have significant range-wide population impact. Better information is needed on the impact of habitat alteration in the nonbreeding range.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

BREEDING: Rich, damp, deciduous floodplain and swamp forests; requires areas with deep shade from both canopy and understory cover (Meanley 1971, Bushman and Therres 1988). On the coastal plain, occurs in the shadiest parts of the forest, with dense upper canopy, lower canopy and shrubs, and little herbaceous cover. The shrub stratum is often nearly monospecific stands of giant cane (ARUNDINARIA GIGANTEA) in floodplain forest; sweet pepperbush or fetterbush in swamps at the northern end of range such as the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia and Pocomoke Swamp in Maryland and Virginia and headwater swamps of the Atlantic Coastal Plain; or scrub palmetto in bottomlands. Graves' (2001) data suggested "a preference for early successional forest in the current landscape or disturbance gaps in primeval forest." In the mountains, moist lower slopes of mountain ravines at elevations to 900 m are preferred, and a shrub layer of rhododendron is most common (Bent 1953, Meanley 1971, Hooper and Hamel 1979). Individuals were found primarily in sawtimber and to a lesser extent in pole stands of second-growth cove forests in the Southern Appalachians (Hooper 1978). Although often reported to inhabit canebrakes in the literature, it is clearly not exclusively a cane species; structure of the habitat - both overstory and dense shrub understory canopies characteristic of successional forests - is apparently of primary importance, and a variety of shrubs will do (Graves 2001).

There are few quantified descriptions of habitat. Graves (2001) found that territories in Great Dismal Swamp were characterized by extensive understory thickets (median of 36,220 small woody stems and cane culms per hectare), frequent greebriar tangles, deep shade at ground level and an abundance of leaf litter overlying moist organic soils. These sites occurred most frequently in relatively well-drained tracts of broad-leaf forest that had suffered extensive canopy damage and windthrow (Graves 2001). Meanley (1971) noted that as of 1968 there were still some sections in the Ocmulgee floodplain forest (near Macon, Georgia) "where canebrakes, nearly uninterrupted, covered 1-sq mile areas." He recorded densities of cane poles of about 50,000 per ha, averaging five m high, and some reaching to 10 m. In Monkey John Swamp in South Carolina, Meanley recorded 90% canopy coverage ("density"). The scrub palmetto understory averaged about one m in height, with about 20,000 plants per ha.

Eddleman et al. (1980) provide another quantified look at habitat characteristics in southern Illinois in the Shawnee National Forest. Some of their conclusions differ from those of Meanley. Eddleman et al. (1980) found that the species composition of overstory varied widely among territories and concluded that it had little effect on habitat selection. However, a substantial majority of the birds in their study nested in soft-mixed hardwoods (25 of 36). While the majority of singing males in their study were in forest with overstory trees over 20 yr old, they were found in habitats ranging from late successional old fields with dense shrubs and surrounded by mature forest, to late successional forest. Figures on the frequency of territories falling in each stage were not given. Meanley (1971) noted a few cases where they were found in what he deemed to be marginal habitat (mostly drier areas). He attributed these cases to areas where the warblers were locally common, and the population "spilled over" from optimum to marginal habitats. This is a possible explanation for the discovery of this warbler in unlikely habitat such as late-successional old fields.

In the Eddleman et al. (1980) study, individuals were never found in habitat with trees less than 7.6 m tall. Canopy coverage was always greater than 55%, and usually greater than 75%. Shrub stems (mostly cane) averaged over 26,000 stems/ha in their study, compared to nearly twice that in a study by Meanley (1966) in Georgia. These Illinois birds were only found in sites where soils were alluvial silts and clays. Male territories were limited to forest tracts at least 350 ha in size, and birds were always found within 200 m of water.

Eddleman et al. (1980) concluded that younger cane stands are needed, that cane needs openings to regenerate and that logging can be used to create openings to manage canebrake habitat. These conclusions have not been corroborated by follow- up studies. And apparently, no further studies characterizing habitat in other locations have been published. Results of timber cuts in warbler habitat in the Shawnee and South Carolina are described under Management Requirements.

While most accounts agree that this ground-foraging bird prefers areas with little to no live ground cover, accounts of the midstory of the forest vary. Burger (pers. comm.) reports that they are found in cane stands within forests with good overstory, and no midstory, while Meanley (1971) reported three layers to the forest canopy. Nests in understory canes, shrubs, vine tangles, and similar sites, 0.5-3 m above ground, typically within about 200 m of open water, near the edge of a cane stand rather than in the densest part (see Bushman and Therres 1988). In Missouri, all of 29 territories and 16 nests that were found were in stands of cane (Figg 1993).

This species can be difficult to locate and breeding may occur sparsely throughout areas of suitable habitat previously thought to be unoccupied (e.g. in Maryland, McCann and Heckscher, pers. obs. 1998).

NON-BREEDING: In winter probably occurs in undergrowth of mature forest. It has been suggested that the loss of cane habitat in Cuba has been detrimental to wintering populations (Morse 1989). While this may be true, the birds also occur in upland forest with moderate leaf litter in Peninsula de Zapata, Cuba (Hamel, pers. comm.).

Ecology

POPULATION DENSITY: Little quantitative information on population density has been published, and most has apparently been records of remarkably high densities, so that virtually nothing is known about average densities. Meanley (1971) reported the highest densities recorded in a 2.8 ha tract cane stand in Georgia (1.8 singing males per hectare in 1963). This population declined to 0.4 males per hectare in 1968. In the scrub palmetto habitat of Bayou Boeuf Swamp, Louisiana, density was 0.25 territorial males per ha (Meanley 1971). In 1991, Graves (1992) recorded about 0.17 singing males per ha at Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel of the Atchafalaya River, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Dickson (1977) reported a density of 0.25 males per ha in an oak-gum stand in Louisiana. Density is also reflected by transect counts. Meanley (1971) reported that on one 0.8 km transect he counted eight territorial males (10 per km) in the Dismal Swamp, Virginia. It is not clear whether this transect was representative or exceptional, but on another 5.2 km transect in the Dismal Swamp, he found only eight territorial males in sweet pepperbush-greenbrier undergrowth (1.5 per km). Near Macon, Georgia he reported 19 singing males along a 5.2 km transect through Bond Swamp (3.6 per km).

Density is expected to vary inversely with territory size. Predictably, territory size varies with quality and continuity of habitat. Meanley (1971) summarized the literature on known territory size. Territories ranged from as little as 0.12 ha in the canebrake habitat of the Ocmulgee River bottom in Georgia, to nearly two ha in the Dismal Swamp of Virginia. The average size of a total of 87 territories in giant cane patches near Macon, Georgia was about 0.4 ha. Graves (1992) observed that territories are exceptionally large in relation to most other wood warblers, and males defend their territories for a long period of the year (early April to early July and sometimes later).

POPULATION ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE: The males tend to return to the same territory in successive years. Meanley (1971) reported one instance of a male found in the same territory for five seasons, and another for three successive years.

The southern Appalachian population was not discovered until the 1930s (Bent 1953). This population is generally thought to be a new extension of the range from the coastal plain population. Morse (1989) cites "the apparent rapid increase of the species in the Appalachians" as well as the fact that the warbler is "vocally conspicuous" to support this claim. Morse (1989) suggests that the supposed habitat expansion into the mountains is one reason this warbler has recovered while Bachman's warbler, thought to be a strict canebrake specialist, has not. Wintering warblers are divided into two fairly discrete populations; those that normally winter in the West Indies, and those that normally winter on the Yucatan Peninsula. However, birds from each population have been reported wintering in the other location at times. This may allow occasional formation of new wintering populations (Lack and Lack 1972, Morse 1989). It may also allow one subpopulation to serve as a refugium for the other when one area suffers a population decline. This flexibility in wintering habitat choice may be another reason why this warbler has survived while Bachman's warbler (VERMIVORA BACHMANII), which winters only in the West Indies, has continued to decline (Morse 1989).

Reproduction

Eggs are laid late April or May through July. Clutches have been reported ranging from two to five eggs, but usually number three, with four rare and five very rare (Bent 1953). Whether or not two clutches per season is ordinary is controversial. Meanley (1971) reported observing birds laying two clutches. Clawson and Thomas (no date) doubted that they routinely attempt second broods, based on comparisons with closely related species. Incubation by female is 13 to 15 days, and young remain in the nest 10 to 12 days and accompany parents for two to three weeks more (Meanley 1971, Clawson and Thomas, no date)

Reproductive success was low at nests observed by Meanley (1971) in coastal plain habitat. He reported that only three of 16 nests (which he was "reasonably sure" he had not disturbed) were successful. Cowbird parasitization was the cause of at least three failures. Common grackles (QUISCALUS QUISCULA) and blue jays (CYANOCITTA CRISTATA) also robbed nests. Snake predation was also documented. Meanley concluded (1971) that "In the Coastal Plain part of its range the Swainson's Warbler would probably have a difficult time maintaining its present population level."

One instance of apparent polygyny with aggregated nest placement was recently reported in the literature (Graves 1992). Knowledge of how common such behavior is would be useful in estimating population size from singing male counts.
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - HardwoodForest - ConiferForest - MixedWoodland - HardwoodWoodland - ConiferWoodland - MixedShrubland/chaparral
Palustrine Habitats
FORESTED WETLANDRiparian
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN4B
ProvinceRankNative
TexasS3BYes
IllinoisS1Yes
MississippiS3BYes
KentuckyS3BYes
MarylandS1BYes
TennesseeS3Yes
AlabamaS4BYes
North CarolinaS4BYes
LouisianaS4BYes
GeorgiaS3Yes
West VirginiaS3BYes
South CarolinaS4Yes
FloridaS3BYes
New JerseySNRMYes
VirginiaS2BYes
MissouriS2Yes
ArkansasS3BYes
OklahomaS1BYes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentNegligible (<1%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureNegligible (<1%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3 - Energy production & miningNegligible (<1%)High (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsNegligible or <1% pop. decline
5 - Biological resource useNegligible (<1%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6 - Human intrusions & disturbanceNegligible or <1% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesRestricted - smallModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionUnknownNegligible or <1% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
10 - Geological eventsNegligible (<1%)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)UnknownHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (14)
Georgia (1)
AreaForestAcres
Sarah's CreekChattahoochee National Forest6,888
North Carolina (8)
AreaForestAcres
Bald MountainPisgah National Forest11,085
Catfish Lake NorthCroatan National Forest11,299
Harper CreekPisgah National Forest7,325
Jarrett CreekPisgah National Forest7,485
Lost CovePisgah National Forest5,944
Mackey MountainPisgah National Forest5,934
Slide HollowPisgah National Forest193
Wilson CreekPisgah National Forest4,863
Tennessee (3)
AreaForestAcres
Bald MountainCherokee National Forest11,743
London Bridge BranchCherokee National Forest3,387
Slide HollowCherokee National Forest4,057
Virginia (2)
AreaForestAcres
Beaver Dam CreekJefferson National Forest1,135
New London Bridge BranchJefferson National Forest844
References (56)
  1. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
  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. Anich, N. M., T. J. Benson, J. D. Brown, C. Roa, J. C. Bednarz, R. E. Brown and J. G. Dickson. 2010. Swainson's warbler (<i>Limnothlypis swainsonii</i>). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/126
  4. Balda, R. P., and G. C. Bateman. 1971. Flocking and annual cycle of the piñon jay, <i>Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus</i>. Condor 73:287-302.
  5. Benson, T. J., N. M. Anich, J. D. Brown, and J. C. Bednarz. 2010. Habitat and landscape effects on brood parasitism, nest survival, and fledgling production in Swainson's warblers. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(1):81-93.
  6. Bent, A. C. 1953. Life histories of North American wood warblers. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 203. Washington, D.C.
  7. BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
  8. 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/
  9. Brown, R.E., and J.G. Dickson. 1994. Swainson's Warbler (LIMNOTHLYPIS SWAINSONII). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 126. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 20 pp.
  10. Bushman, E. S., and G. D. Therres. 1988. Habitat management guidelines for forest interior breeding birds of coastal Maryland. Maryland Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Tech. Publ. 88-1. 50 pp.
  11. 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.
  12. Carter, M., C. Hunter, D. Pashley, and D. Petit. 1998. The Watch List. Bird Conservation, Summer 1998:10.
  13. Carter, M., G. Fenwick, C. Hunter, D. Pashley, D. Petit, J. Price, and J. Trapp. 1996. Watchlist 1996: For the future. Field Notes 50(3):238-240.
  14. Clawson, R. L., and B. Thomas. No date. Habitat selection and breeding status of Swainson's warblers in Missouri. Project Number W-13-R-47 (1993). Draft of research proposal.
  15. Dickson, J. G. 1978. Forest bird communities of the bottomland hardwoods. pages 66-75 in R. M. DeGraff (editor). management of southern forests for nongame birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-14.
  16. Eddleman, W. R., K. E. Evans, and W. H. Elder. 1980. Habitat characteristics and management of Swainson's warbler in southern Illinois. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:228-33.
  17. Figg, D. E. 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report, July 1992-June 1993. 75 pp.
  18. Graves, G. R. 1992. A case of aggregated nest placement and probable polygyny in the Swainson's Warbler. Wilson Bulletin 104:370-3.
  19. Graves, G. R. 2001. Factors governing the distribution of Swainson's Warbler along a hydrological gradient in Great Dismal Swamp. Auk 118:650-664.
  20. Griscom, L., and A. Sprunt, Jr. 1979. The warblers of America. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York. 302 pp.
  21. 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.
  22. Hamel, P. B. 1980. Guidelines for management of wood warblers (Parulidae) on the Francis Marion National Forest. Final Report to U.S. Forest Service Supervisor's Office, Columbia, South Carolina. Unpublished.
  23. Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.
  24. Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds' nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.
  25. Harrison, H.H. 1984. Wood warblers' world. Simon and Schuster, New York. 335 pp.
  26. 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.
  27. Hilty, S. J., J. A. Gwynne, and G. Tudor. 2003. The birds of Venezuela, 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  28. Hooper, R. G. 1978. Cove forests: bird communities and management options. Pages 90-7 in R. M. DeGraaf (editor). Management of southern forests for nongame birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-14. Southeastern Forest Experimental Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 176 pp.
  29. Hooper, R. G. and P. B. Hamel. 1979. Swainson's warbler in South Carolina. Pages 178-82 in D. M. Forsythe and W. B. Ezell, Jr. (editors). Proceed. First. S. Carolina End. Sp. Symposium. S. C. Wildl. and Man. Res. Dept.
  30. Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's Blackbird. Ecology 49:682-694.
  31. Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  32. Ligon, J. D. 1971. Late summer-autumnal breeding of the piñon jay in New Mexico. Condor 73:147-153.
  33. McCann, J. M. and C. M. Heckscher. 1998. Field trips to survey for Swainson's Warblers in Pocomoke watershed. Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Smyrna, Delaware.
  34. Meanley, B. 1966. Some observations on habitats of Swainson's warbler. Living Bird 5:151-65.
  35. Meanley, B. 1971. Natural history of the Swainson's warbler. U.S. Dept. of Int., Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, North Am. Fauna No. 69. vi + 90 pp.
  36. Moore, W. S., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1989. The use of banding recovery data to estimate dispersal rates and gene flow in avian species: case studies in the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle. Condor 91:242-253.
  37. Morse, D. H. 1989. American warblers: an ecological and behavioral perspective. Harvard University Press. 384 pp.
  38. National Audubon Society. 2014. View all Species. Website accessible at http://birds.audubon.org/species. Accessed on various dates in 2014.
  39. NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: various dates, 2014 ).
  40. Nutt, L.M. 1998. Letter of correspondence to C. M. Heckscher regarding the occurrence of the Swainson's Warbler in Virginia's Appalachian mountains.
  41. 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.
  42. Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2013. Population Estimates Database, version 2013. Available at http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates. Accessed in 2014 and 2018.
  43. Partners in Flight Science Committee (PIF). 2013. Population Estimates Database, version 2013. Available at http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates.
  44. Peterjohn, B. G., J. R. Sauer, and W. A. Link. 1994. The 1992 and 1993 summary of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Populations 2:46-61.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. Robbins, C. 1996. Personal communication regarding a recapture of a Swainson's Warbler in Chiapas, Mexico.
  48. Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrak, and P. H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Resource Publ. 157. iii + 196 pp.
  49. 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.
  50. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/.
  51. Sibley, D. A. 2000a. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  52. Tarvin, K. A., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay (<i>Cyanocitta cristata</i>). No. 469 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.
  53. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  54. Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding brown-headed cowbirds in the midwestern United States. Auk 111:979-990.
  55. Williams, L. 1952b. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird. Condor 54:3-47.
  56. Willson, M. F. 1966. Breeding ecology of the Yellow-headed Blackbird. Ecological Monographs 36:51-77.