Aphelocoma coerulescens
(Bosc, 1795)
Florida Scrub Jay
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
VulnerableIUCN
HighThreat Impact
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103378
Element CodeABPAV06010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNVulnerable
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderPasseriformes
FamilyCorvidae
GenusAphelocoma
Other Common Names
Florida scrub-jay (EN) Geai à gorge blanche (FR)
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 regarded as conspecific with A. californica (Western Scrub-Jay) and A. insularis (Island Scrub-Jay); these species split from A. coerulescens in AOU (1995). Phillips (1986) treated the Scrub Jay, A. coerulescens as three species: A. insularis, A. californica, and A. floridana; the latter a replacement name for coerulescens that is, however, unavailable under a ruling by the ICZN). Sibley and Monroe (1990), citing differences in morphology, behavior, and vocalizations, also recognized three species, A. coerulescens (Florida Jay), A. californica (Scrub Jay), and A. insularis (Santa Cruz Jay).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2025-02-10
Change Date2025-02-10
Edition Date2025-02-10
Edition AuthorsNeSmith, C.C. (2025); Jackson, D.R. and S.G. Cannings (1993)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of OccurrencesUnknown
Rank Reasons
Restricted to Florida; population has declined by 90%. Many occurrences have been extirpated, and more will disappear as land development continues; most birds occur on federal lands with management problems (other priorities).
Range Extent Comments
An estimate of 75,908 sq. km. was made from a minimally drawn polygon encompassing the general range outlined by eBird reports Mar-Jul 2014-2018 (eBird 2018), map in Birdlife International (2017), and Boughton and Bowman (2011) . A resident restricted mostly to scrub ridges of central peninsular Florida, U.S., with a few scattered occurrences on Gulf and Atlantic coastal ridges. Has been extirpated from Alachua, Broward, Clay, Miami-Dade, Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and St. Johns counties. Currently many populations are small and isolated.
Occurrences Comments
Populations separated >12 kilometers should be considered as isolated (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996). Forty-two metapopulations separated by >12 kilometers were identified by Stith et al. (1996).
Threat Impact Comments
There are two major threats to the Florida scrub-jay: lack of effective management through prescribed fire and habitat loss from development, ranching, and roads (Boughton and Bowman 2011). Fire suppression and the consequent ecological succession that renders scrub habitat unsuitable (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b) is a continuing problem on private as well as public managed areas. Increased habitat fragmentation caused by road building continues to confound the ability to effectively conduct prescribed burns. Unfortunately, road construction is apparently receiving more lenient review than in the past (T. Gilbert, FFWCC, pers. comm. 2018) . Other threats include domestic cats, human disturbance of habitat, and highway mortality and competition from an expanding Blue Jay population could be a problem in some areas (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b).
Ecology & Habitat
Description
A crestless jay with a blue head, thin white eyebrow line, blue wings, long blue tail, whitish throat bordered by a streaked blue-gray breast band, and a bluish-gray back; juveniles are grayish above, with blue on the wings and tail (NGS 1983, Peterson 1990).
Diagnostic Characteristics
Differs from most western U.S. scrub jays in having a pale blue or whitish forehead (rather than uniform blue from forehead to crown) and a paler back (Ridgway 1904).
Habitat
Oak scrub on white, drained sand, in open areas without a dense canopy. Palmetto, sand pine and rosemary may co-occur. Includes scrub with no canopy, sand pine scrub, scrubby flatwoods, and coastal scrub. Fire-suppressed scrubs with dense, tall understory or encroaching pine canopies provide poor habitat. Rarely in areas with greater than 50% canopy cover that is taller than 3 m.
Ecology
Sedentary; groups of related birds defend year-round territories, which grows as family group enlarges; ultimately a male establishes a separate breeding territory in part of the enlarged area. Mean and median territory size 9 hectares (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Dispersal limited; 80% within 1.7 kilometers, 85% within 3.5 kilometers, negligible beyond 12 kilometers (Stith et al. 1996).
Diurnal snakes and birds evidently are the most important nest predators, with nocturnal mammals relatively less important (Schaub et al. 1992).
Diurnal snakes and birds evidently are the most important nest predators, with nocturnal mammals relatively less important (Schaub et al. 1992).
Reproduction
Cooperative breeding system; young may remain in natal territory as helpers at older birds' nests for up to several years. Helpers' enhancement of survival of fledglings and breeders may be related to predator detection, not to extra food provided (McGowan and Woolfenden 1990). First-year birds have bred successfully.
Terrestrial Habitats
Shrubland/chaparralSuburban/orchard
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
| Province | Rank | Native |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | S2 | Yes |
Threat Assessments
| Threat | Scope | Severity | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - Residential & commercial development | Restricted (11-30%) | Extreme - serious | High (continuing) |
| 1.1 - Housing & urban areas | Restricted (11-30%) | Extreme - serious | High (continuing) |
| 1.2 - Commercial & industrial areas | Restricted (11-30%) | Extreme - serious | High (continuing) |
| 2 - Agriculture & aquaculture | Small (1-10%) | Serious - slight | Moderate - low |
| 2.3 - Livestock farming & ranching | Restricted (11-30%) | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 4 - Transportation & service corridors | Small (1-10%) | Serious - slight | Moderate - low |
| 4.1 - Roads & railroads | Restricted (11-30%) | Serious - moderate | High - moderate |
| 7 - Natural system modifications | Large (31-70%) | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 7.1 - Fire & fire suppression | Large (31-70%) | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases | Pervasive - restricted | Slight or 1-10% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases | Pervasive - restricted | Slight or 1-10% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 8.2 - Problematic native species/diseases | Large - small | Slight or 1-10% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
Roadless Areas (6)
Florida (6)
| Area | Forest | Acres |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Springs Creek | Ocala National Forest | 2,954 |
| Alexander Springs Creek | Ocala National Forest | 2,954 |
| Alexander Springs Creek | Ocala National Forest | 2,954 |
| Farles Prairie | Ocala National Forest | 1,901 |
| Farles Prairie | Ocala National Forest | 1,901 |
| Farles Prairie | Ocala National Forest | 1,901 |
References (27)
- 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/.
- Banks, R. C., and M. R. Browning. 1995. Comments on the status of revived old names for some North American birds. Auk 112:633-648.
- Barg, J. J., and R. L. Mumme. 1994. Parental recognition of juvenile begging calls in the Florida scrub jay. Auk 111:459-464.
- Breininger, D. R. 1989. A new population estimate for the Florida scrub jay on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. Florida Field Naturalist 17:25-31.
- Breininger, D. R., and P. A. Schmalzer. 1990. Effects of fire and disturbance on plants and birds in a Florida oak/palmetto scrub community. American Midland Naturalist 123:64-74.
- Brown, J. L., and S.-H. Li. 1995. Phylogeny of social behavior in APHELOCOMA jays: a role for hybridization? Auk 112:464-472.
- 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.
- Fitzpatrick, J.W., G.E. Woolfenden, and M.T. Kopeny. 1991. Ecology and development-related habitat requirements of the Florida scrub jay (<i>Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens</i>). Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 8. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
- Greenberg, C. H., L. D. Harris, and D. G. Neary. 1995. A comparison of bird communities in burned and salvage-logged, clear-cut, and forested Florida sand pine scrub. Wilson Bulletin 107:40-54.
- 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.
- McGowan, K. J., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1990. Contributions to fledgling feeding in the Florida scrub jay. J. Animal Ecology 59:691-707.
- Morrison, S., and S. Shattler. 1994. Fire management of Florida scrub jay territories. 16 unnumbered pages.
- Mumme, R. L. 1992. Do helpers increase reproductive success? An experimental analysis in the Florida scrub jay. Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology 31:319-328.
- National Geographic Society (NGS). 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.
- Peterson, A. T. 1991. Gene flow in scrub jays: frequency and direction of movement. Condor 93:926-934.
- Peterson, A. T. 1992. Phylogeny and rates of molecular evolution in the APHELOCOMA jays (Corvidae). Auk 109:133-147.
- Peterson, R. T. 1990b. A field guide to western birds. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 432 pp.
- Phillips, A. R. 1986. The known birds of North and Middle America: distribution and variations, migrations, changes, hybrids, etc. Part I, Hirundinidae to Mimidae, Certhiidae. Published by the author, Denver, Colorado. lxi + 259 pp.
- Ridgway, R. 1904. The birds of North and Middle America. Part III. U.S. National Museum Bull. 50.
- Schaub, R., R. L. Mumme, and G. E. Woolfenden. 1992. Predation on the eggs and nestlings of Florida scrub jays. Auk 109:585-593.
- 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.
- Stith, B. M., J. W. Fitzpatrick, G. E. Woolfenden, and B. Pranty. 1996. Classification and conservation of metapopulations: a case study of the Florida scrub jay. Pages 187- 215 IN D. R. McCullough, editor. Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 3 June 1987. Threatened status for the Florida scrub jay. Federal Register 52:20715-20719.
- Woolfenden, G. E., and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1984. The Florida scrub jay, demography of a cooperative breeding bird. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 406 pp.
- Woolfenden, G. E., and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1990. Florida scrub jays: a synopsis after 18 years of study. Pages 239-266 in P. B. Stacey and W. D. Koenig, editors. Cooperative breeding in birds. Cambridge Univ. Press.
- Woolfenden, G. E., and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Florida Scrub-Jay (APHELOCOMA COERULESCENS). In A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). The birds of North America, no. 228. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 28 pp.