Centronyx henslowii

(Audubon, 1829)

Henslow's Sparrow

G4Apparently Secure Found in 16 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Near threatenedIUCN
Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii). © Ryan Sanderson; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Ryan Sanderson; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii). © Adam Brandemihl; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Adam Brandemihl; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii). © Ezra J. Campanelli; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Ezra J. Campanelli; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii). © Dorian Anderson; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Dorian Anderson; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii). © Patrick Addy; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Patrick Addy; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii). © Manny Salas; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library.
© Manny Salas; Cornell Lab of Ornithology | Macaulay Library
Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100620
Element CodeABPBXA0030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNNear threatened
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderPasseriformes
FamilyPasserellidae
GenusCentronyx
Synonyms
Ammodramus henslowii(Audubon, 1829)Passerculus henslowii(Audubon, 1829)
Other Common Names
Bruant de Henslow (FR) Henslow's sparrow (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/.
Taxonomic Comments
Centronyx was formerly (AOU 1983, 1998) considered congeneric with Ammodramus, but genetic data (Klicka and Spellman 2007, DaCosta et al. 2009, Klicka et al. 2014, Barker et al. 2015, Bryson et al. 2016) indicate that Ammodramus as previously constituted was polyphyletic and that these species are not true Ammodramus (AOU 2018). Has been placed in the genus Passerculus, but this is not accepted by AviList, as recognition of a broad Passerculus (subsuming Centronyx, Melospiza and Xenospiza) is considered too heterogeneous and unnecessarily disruptive to generic stability among New World sparrows (AviList 2025).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2016-04-06
Change Date1996-12-04
Edition Date2014-09-15
Edition AuthorsJennings, R., J.C. Whittaker, and G. Hammerson. REVISIONS BY M. KOENEN AND D.W. MEHLMAN, 2008. Revisions by C. C. NeSmith, 2014.
Range Extent20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank Reasons
Has a spotty distribution, and has experienced population and range reductions due to habitat alteration. Requires a successionally transitory habitat, particularly in the eastern portion of its range. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. list Henslow's Sparrow as Near Threatened.
Range Extent Comments
BREEDING: locally from southeastern South Dakota (at least formerly), across the Great Lakes region of the eastern U.S. (southeastern Minnesota, north-central Wisconsin, northern Michigan) and to New England (where now extirpated in most areas) and New York, south to central Kansas, northeastern Oklahoma, southwestern and central Missouri, southern Illinois, northern Kentucky, central West Virginia, eastern Virginia, and northern Tennessee, central and eastern North Carolina; formerly in eastern Texas. Casual observations in southern Canada (southern Ontario, southern Quebec) but no confirmed breeding records for more than 20 years (COSEWIC). Currently most abundant in the western portion of the Great Lakes Plain and in Minnesota (Smith 1992). Breeding range extent estimated at 652,000 sq. km. (BirdLife International 2014) and 1,091,323 sq. km. (PIF Science Committee 2013; http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates ). NONBREEDING: mainly southeastern United States; coastal states from South Carolina south to Florida, west to Texas, casually north to Illinois, Indiana, New England, and Nova Scotia (Smith 1992, AOU 1998). Wintering range extent is similar in size to breeding range extent.
Occurrences Comments
An estimate given the population size estimate and range extent.
Threat Impact Comments
HABITAT LOSS: Decline apparently is related to loss of habitat due to encroaching urbanization, successional change to shrubland or forest, and use for row-crop agriculture. Habitat is ephemeral and also often not available due to heavy human use (not allowed to lie idle; Robbins et al. 1986). The disjunct population in eastern Texas (subspecies HOUSTONENSIS, may not be valid) is extinct, presumably due to urban growth and industrial development (Ehrlich et al. 1992). The main threat is most likely the loss of breeding habitat as agricultural grasslands are developed or abandoned and revert to shrublands and forests (Smith 1992). In the Midwest a switch in agriculture methods from hay production and grazing to intensive production of specialized crops (soybeans, corn, etc.) has been a major factor in habitat loss (Illinois Natural History Survey 1983). In the East, increasing urbanization and encroachment of woody species have been major factors. HABITAT FRAGMENTATION: Fragmentation of suitable habitat into small widely scattered plots is another serious threat. Rarely encountered on grassland fragments less than 100 hectares (Herkert 1994). Normal annual population fluctuations can be more dramatic on smaller preserves, reducing local populations to levels where random events could lead to local extirpation. Conflicts may occur between timing of nesting and cutting of hay (Bollinger 1988). Highly productive hayfields may attract sparrows (as well as other grassland species) to establish territories and start nesting early in the breeding season. When the hayfields are then cut, the losses of nests, eggs and nestlings may lead to a decline in local productivity, creating the "sink" effect described for birds in agricultural landscapes (Best 1986, Temple 1990). Fleckenstein (pers. comm.) mentioned that high stocking rates of cattle (probably greater than 10 head per 20 acres) drive out the sparrow. Fire and grazing management with short-term rotations can be too frequent to allow for sufficient litter buildup and a high density of standing dead vegetation (Fleckenstein, pers. comm.; Herkert 1994; Skinner 1975). Nest predation by snakes and small mammals likely.
Ecology & Habitat

Description

ADULTS: Characterized by large flat head, large gray bill, and short tail. The head, nape, and most of the central crown stripe are olive-colored, with the wings extensively dark chestnut. The breast is finely streaked. When flushed, the bird flies low and jerkily, with a twisting motion of the tail. Otherwise, it is shy and secretive, with its presence most often revealed by its song (Peterson 1980, National Geographic Society 1987). The sexes have similar appearances. A cloacal protuberance (male) and brood patch (female) are reliable indicators of sex for living birds in the hand during the period from May through September (Pyle et al. 1987).

JUVENILES: Juveniles are clay-colored above and streaked on the head and back with black. Below, a faint yellow with tinges of buff on the chin and throat. The sides of the throat are typically unstreaked although occasional streaking may occur (Roberts 1949).

EGGS: The eggs are approximately 18.3 x 14.4 mm in size (Graber 1968) and are white with spots or blotches of brown, mostly at the larger end.

NESTS: Nests can be either open or domed and they are located from 0-50 cm above the litter (Hyde 1939, Robins 1971, Flanigan 1975). Those nests that are off the ground are attached to grass or forb stalks. Hyde (1939) describes a "typical" domed nest in southern Michigan as being located at the base of a clump of grass with dead grass from the clump forming an arched roof over the nest. The single entrance is located at an oblique angle on the side of the nest. Occasionally a nest is placed in a depression in the ground (Johnsgard 1979), but most are at least two cm above the substrate. The nest is loosely woven with dead grass and lined with finer grasses and hair.

VOCALIZATIONS: The song is distinctive and diagnostic: a short, quiet "see-lick," accented on the second syllable (Peterson 1980, National Geographic Society 1987). Sometimes sings on quiet nights, Given this bird's secretive nature, an ability to identify its song is essential for reliable census and survey work.

Diagnostic Characteristics

The striped, olive-colored head and reddish wings together are diagnostic.

Habitat

BREEDING: Open fields and meadows with grass interspersed with weeds or shrubby vegetation, especially in damp or low-lying areas, adjacent to salt marsh in some areas. Uses unmowed hayfields (abandoned if cut). Found in a variety of habitats that contain tall, dense grass and herbaceous vegetation (Smith 1968, 1992). Hyde (1939) describes a variety of preferred habitats: upland weedy hayfields or pastures without shrubs, wet meadows, drier areas of saltmarshes, grassy fields, and sedgy hillsides with recently planted pine seedlings (PINUS spp.). Graber (1968) found that their habitat was usually quite dense from 30-61 cm off the ground and reported them to be "adapted" to unmowed hayfields. In New York, Peterson (1983) found them in large, ungrazed fields, often on hilltops, with a variety of moisture regimes and no woody invasion. They are not typically associated with grazed areas (Peterson 1983, Zimmerman 1988), although they can survive quite well in pastures that are only lightly (Skinner 1975) or moderately (Smith and Smith 1990) grazed.

Wiens (1969), in his three year study, found four territories in the first and third years and none in the second year. He found that territories had a low percent cover of forbs, dense vegetation, a high effective vegetation height, little bare ground or low vegetation, and no trees, posts, or fence lines.

In eastern part of range, are reported in "...moist upland meadows not under the plow, grown up to clumps of ferns, tall meadow rue (THALICTRUM spp.), and scattered shrubbery" in Vermont (Kibbe and Laughlin 1985); "...in small swales, meadows or other moist grassy lands...in fields of heavy timothy or clover" in Massachusetts (Forbush 1929); and "...in grassy fields and meadows with scattered bushes and herbaceous plants, both in wet and dry situations" in New York (Bull 1974). In addition to the above types of habitats, occurrences have been reported in wet meadows vegetated by sedges (CAREX spp.), rushes (SCIRPUS spp.) and grasses, in fields of seedling pines, and in drier upland portions of saltmarshes in the Northeast (Craig 1979).

Along the Atlantic Coast, the birds probably nested on the edges of saltmarshes before the arrival of Europeans (Hyde 1939, Craig 1979). In West Virginia, Hall (1983) reports that Henslow's sparrows "...prefer fields with growths of orchard grass [DACTYLIS GLOMERATA] or a rank weedy growth." Birds in Maryland have occurred chiefly in broomsedge (CAREX SCOPARIA) fields and weedy sedge meadows, and occasionally in hayfields (Stewart and Robbins 1958). Near Louisville, Kentucky, "...exclusively in or near fields largely or wholly composed of the orchard grass much raised locally as a crop, and has preferred the crop fields to patches of untended grass" (Mengel 1965). In Kentucky, Mengel (1965) noted that the sparrow often occurred in association with sedge wrens (CISTOTHORUS PLATENSIS) and in dry, upland sites that were in marked contrast to the marshy, meadow habitats considered typical habitat by Hyde (1939).

In the Midwest and Great Plains regions, formerly bred in tallgrass prairie interspersed with forbs and shrubs. Where tallgrass prairie persists, J. Zimmerman (pers. comm.) reports that they still use it for nesting habitat in Kansas and Missouri. At present, typical breeding habitat includes neglected grassy fields, pastures and meadows with scattered shrubby vegetation, or hayfields with dense cover, usually in damp or low-lying areas (Whitney et al. 1978, Johnsgard 1979, AOU 1983). Bajema et al. (2001) document extensive use of grasslands on reclaimed coal mines in southwestern Indiana, and estimated a density of 0.16 males per hectare, suggesting an overall population of 'a few thousand' in the mine grasslands of southwestern Indiana.

In a brome grass/alfalfa/red clover hayfield in southwestern Michigan, they bred in areas with an intermediate moisture range, a continuous cover of grasses and sedges about 0.8 m high, occasional shrubs, mostly less than 0.9 m high, and accumulated litter (no data on litter depth or percent coverage) (Robins 1971).

Fall and Eliason (1982) located a nest in Hennepin County, Minnesota, at the top of a knoll in an old field. Timothy comprised about 80% of the biomass of the 0.5 m-high vegetation. Except for a few shrubs approximately 0.5 m-high, there was no woody vegetation within 100 m, the vegetation covered about 75% of the soil surface, and there was a complete litter layer up to five cm deep.

Wiens (1969) compared the vegetation structure at nests with the vegetation in unoccupied areas in Fitchburg, Wisconsin. Occupied areas had significantly lower coverage and density of forbs, especially broad-leaved types, and the forb height was significantly greater (occupied average height = 27 cm). In occupied areas, the vertical vegetation density was higher and the litter was deeper and covered a higher percentage of the soil surface (average depth = 4.3 cm, 93% coverage).

Nest is well-hidden in grass, either at base of grass tuft (usually) or to 40 cm up in stems of growing herbage.

NON-BREEDING: In migration and winter also occurs in grassy areas adjacent to pine woods or second-growth woods. No detailed descriptions or studies of the habitat requirements of the winter range are available.

Ecology

PREDATORS: Potentially important predators include mammals, snakes, and birds of prey. A thirteen-lined ground squirrel (CITELLUS TRIDECEMLINEATUS) was observed taking a young sparrow from its nest in southern Michigan (Robins 1971). Hyde (1939) evicted a blue racer (COLUBER CONSTRICTOR) from a nest in Michigan. Remains have been found in the stomachs of northern harriers (CIRCUS CYANEUS) and sharp-shinned hawks (ACCIPITER STRIATUS) (Hyde 1939, Graber 1968). Skunks (MEPHITIS spp.), weasels (MUSTELA spp.), and raccoons (PROCYON spp.) also may prey on nests, especially those occurring in isolated fragments of suitable habitat.

PARASITISM: There have been very few reports of nests being parasitized by the brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) (Hyde 1939, Robins 1971). Considered an infrequent host for the brown-headed cowbird with a total of 11 instances of brood parasitism from Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Maryland (Friedmann 1963). Since nests are very difficult to find, the available data probably are insufficient to support any final conclusions regarding the frequency or intensity of cowbird brood parasitism and its potential effects on populations.

Territory boundaries not well-defined (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Have been reported to nest in loose "colonies" with contiguous territories (Hyde 1939, Wiens 1969, Johnsgard 1979), although Robins (1971) found that most of the territories in his southwestern Michigan study area were separated by buffer zones where no breeding sparrows occurred. The average size of a territory ranges from 0.3 ha in southwestern Michigan (Robins 1971) to 0.6 ha near Madison, Wisconsin (Wiens 1969). Territory size has been reported to increase through the summer (Robins 1971, Johnsgard 1979), although this may reflect movements of adults in response to the wanderings of recently fledged young that still require parental care. Robins (1971) found that the average territory size was smallest and the population density highest in areas with the tallest and densest vegetation.

Conclusions regarding territory size and management strategies based on published information about territory size need to be interpreted with caution, since it is well known that territory size in many songbirds is closely related to the availability of food. When food is easily available, territory size tends to be smaller than when food is scarce. Likewise, although it is widely reported in the literature that Henslow's sparrows are colonial, it does not appear that they are more colonial than other sparrows. The fact that larger numbers tend to occur in more suitable habitat does not necessarily imply that this bird is colonial in the true sense of the word as it usually is applied to herons, gulls, terns, or colonially nesting swallows. The "clumping" may be a secondary effect of the clumped nature of suitable habitat in most situations.

No specific data are available on site fidelity but several authors have commented that local populations tend to be unstable from year to year (Hyde 1939, Wiens 1969, Robins 1971). On the other hand, birds are reported to have bred consistently in some undisturbed, protected areas, like Hayden Prairie in Iowa (Ennis 1959) and Goose Lake Prairie in Illinois (Birkenholz 1983).

Reproduction

Two broods of young per breeding season (Hyde 1939), perhaps three (Robins 1971), are raised. The female does most or all of the nest-building, taking five to six days to complete the process. Clutch size is from three to five eggs. First clutches are normally completed by 20-30 May in the central part of the range (Hyde 1939, Graber 1968). Second nests are initiated in July and August with some extending into September (Robins 1971). Only the female incubates the eggs and broods the young. The incubation period lasts about 11 days and the young stay in the nest nine to ten days. Females make most of the feeding trips during the first four or five days of the nestling period and about 50% of the trips during the latter half (Robins 1971). Young are tended by both parents, leave nest at 9-10 days.

Of the 11 nests found in a southern Michigan brome hayfield, six (54.5%) produced at least one young (Robins 1971). Only one of the 11 nests (9.1%) successfully raised all of the young. Seventeen young were produced from a total of 46 eggs (37.0%).
Terrestrial Habitats
Grassland/herbaceous
Other Nations (2)
United StatesN3B,N4N
ProvinceRankNative
VermontS1BYes
ConnecticutSHB,SHNYes
OklahomaS2Yes
MarylandS2BYes
AlabamaS2NYes
New JerseyS1B,S1NYes
LouisianaS3NYes
West VirginiaS1BYes
IllinoisS2Yes
MichiganS3Yes
VirginiaS1BYes
South CarolinaS1NYes
District of ColumbiaS2NYes
GeorgiaS2Yes
New YorkS3BYes
MassachusettsS1Yes
DelawareS1B,S1NYes
IndianaS3BYes
North CarolinaS1B,S1NYes
South DakotaS1BYes
MississippiS2NYes
IowaS3B,S2NYes
ArkansasS1B,S2NYes
OhioS4Yes
KansasS3BYes
FloridaS3NYes
Rhode IslandSXYes
PennsylvaniaS3B,S2MYes
WisconsinS2BYes
MissouriS3Yes
TexasS2N,SXBYes
KentuckyS3BYes
New HampshireSHBYes
MinnesotaS1BYes
NebraskaS1Yes
TennesseeS1BYes
CanadaN1B
ProvinceRankNative
OntarioS1BYes
QuebecS1BYes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge - smallModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge - smallModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquaculturePervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsPervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.2 - Wood & pulp plantationsLarge - smallSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranchingUnknownUnknownHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.1 - Fire & fire suppressionPervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useSmall (1-10%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionUnknownUnknownHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsUnknownUnknownHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (16)
Florida (1)
AreaForestAcres
SavannahApalachicola National Forest1,927
Illinois (5)
AreaForestAcres
Bay CreekShawnee National Forest120
Burden FallsShawnee National Forest485
Burke BranchShawnee National Forest6,231
Eagle CreekShawnee National Forest38
Ripple HollowShawnee National Forest3,788
Indiana (1)
AreaForestAcres
Mogan RidgeHoosier National Forest8,435
North Carolina (3)
AreaForestAcres
Catfish Lake NorthCroatan National Forest11,299
Pocosin AdditionCroatan National Forest286
South Mills RiverPisgah National Forest8,588
Tennessee (1)
AreaForestAcres
Slide HollowCherokee National Forest4,057
Virginia (1)
AreaForestAcres
Shawvers Run AdditionJefferson National Forest1,927
West Virginia (4)
AreaForestAcres
Canaan LoopMonongahela National Forest7,867
Dolly Sods Roaring PlainMonongahela National Forest13,392
Dry ForkMonongahela National Forest657
Mcgowan MountainMonongahela National Forest10,504
References (101)
  1. American Ornithological Society (AOS). Chesser, R.T., K.J. Burns, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, Jr., D.F. Stotz, B.M. Winger, and K. Winker. 2018. Fifty-ninth Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 135:798–813.
  2. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
  3. 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/.
  4. Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithol. 7:1-57.
  5. Austen, M.J.W., and M.D. Cadman. 1993. Updated status report on the Henslow's Sparrow AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario. 26 pp.
  6. AviList Core Team. 2025. AviList: The Global Avian Checklist, v2025. https://doi.org/10.2173/avilist.v2025
  7. Bajema, R. A., T. L. DeVault, P. E. Scott, and S. L. Lima. 2001. Reclaimed coal mine grasslands and their significance for Henslow's Sparrows in the American Midwest. Auk 118:422-431.
  8. Balda, R. P., and G. C. Bateman. 1971. Flocking and annual cycle of the piñon jay, <i>Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus</i>. Condor 73:287-302.
  9. Bent, A.C., et al. 1968. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. Part Two. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 237. (reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY).
  10. Best, L.B. 1986. Conservation tillage: ecological traps for nesting birds? Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14:308-317.
  11. Bier, C. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory-West. The Nature Conservancy. Pittsburgh, PA
  12. 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/
  13. Birkenholz, D.E. 1983. Population trends of some birds at Goose Lake Prairie. Illinois Audubon Bulletin 204:37-42.
  14. Bollinger, E.K. 1988. Breeding dispersion and reproductive success of bobolinks in an agricultural landscape. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 189 pp.
  15. Bowles, M. L., editor. 1981. Endangered and threatened vertebrate animals and vascular plants of Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation. 214 pp.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Carter, M., C. Hunter, D. Pashley, and D. Petit. 1998. The Watch List. Bird Conservation, Summer 1998:10.
  19. 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.
  20. Clawson, R.L. 1991. Henslow's Sparrow habitat, site fidelity, and reproduction in Missouri. Final Report. Federal Aid Project Number W-13-R-45, Study Number 18, Job Number 1. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 16 pp.
  21. Craig, R.J. 1979. The rare vertebrates of Connecticut. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, CT. 169 pp.
  22. del Hoyo, J., N. J. Collar, D. A. Christie, A. Elliott, L. D. C. Fishpool, P. Boesman, and G. M. Kirwan. 2016. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 2: Passerines. Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.
  23. Eddleman, W.R. 1974. The effects of burning and grazing on bird populations in native prairie in the Kansas Flint Hills. Unpublished report, National Science Foundation-Undergraduate Research Program. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 33 pp.
  24. 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.
  25. Ennis, J. H. 1959. Some notes on the Hayden Prairie, with special reference to Henslow's sparrow. Iowa Bird Life 29:82-5.
  26. Fall, B. A., and R. D. Eliason. 1982. Henslow's sparrow nest, Hennepin County. Loon 54:192.
  27. Figg, D. E. 1991. Missouri Department of Conservation Annual Nongame and Endangered Species Report July 1990 - June 1991. ii + 35 pp.
  28. Flanigan, A. B. 1975. Banding of nestling Henslow's sparrows. Inland Bird-Banding News 47:136-9.
  29. Fleckenstein, J. Data Handler. Iowa Natural Areas Inventory. Bureau of Preserves and Ecological Services. Department of Natural Resources. Des Moines, IA. Personal communication.
  30. Forbush, E. H. 1925-1929. Birds of Massachusetts and other New England states. 3 vols. Massachusetts Dept. Agric., Boston.
  31. Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic Cowbird. Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
  32. GM Sutton Avian Research Center (GMSARC). 1999. Henslow Sparrow in Oklahoma. Online. Available: http://www.suttoncenter.org/dist.html.
  33. Graber, J. W. 1968. PASSERBERBULUS HENSLOWII HENSLOWII. Pages 779-88 in Bent, A. C. Life Histories of North American Cardinals, Grosbeaks, Buntings, Towhees, Finches, Sparrows, and Allies. Part 2. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 237:603-1248.
  34. Hall, G.A. 1983. West Virginia birds: distribution and ecology. Spec. Publ. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 7, Pittsburgh. 180 pp.
  35. Hands, H. M., R. D. Drobney, and M. R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the Henslow's sparrow in the northcentral United States. Missouri Coop. Fish Wildl. Res. Unit Rep. 12 pp.
  36. Hanson, L.G. 1994. The Henslow's Sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) of Minnesota: population status and breeding habitat analysis. M.S. thesis. Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI. 29 pp.
  37. Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.
  38. Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds' nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.
  39. Herkert, J.R. 1994a. Breeding bird communities of Midwest prairie fragments: the effects of prescribed burning and habitat-area. Natural Areas Journal 14:128-135.
  40. Herkert, J.R. 1994b. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4(3):461-471.
  41. Herkert, J. R. 1994c. Status and habitat selection of the Henslow's sparrow in Illinois. Wilson Bull. 106:35-45.
  42. Herkert, J.R. 1997. Population trends of the Henslow's Sparrow in relation to the conservation reserve program in Illinois, 1975-1995. Journal of Field Ornithology 68(2):235-244.
  43. Herkert, J.R. 1998. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Henslow's Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 14 pp.
  44. 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.
  45. Herkert, J.R. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. Illinois Natural Heritage Division. Dept of Conservation. Springfield, IL
  46. Herkert, J.R., P.D. Vickery and D.E. Kroodsma. 2002. Henslow's Sparrow (<i>Ammodramus henslowii</i>). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/
  47. Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen, and J.E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat establishment, enhancement and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage, Natural Heritage Technical Publication 1, Springfield, IL. 20 pp.
  48. Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's Blackbird. Ecology 49:682-694.
  49. Hyde, A. S. 1939. The life history of Henslow's sparrow, <i>Passerherbulus henslowii</i> (Audubon). University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Misc. Pub. No. 41. 72. pp.
  50. Illinois Natural History Survey. 1983. The declining grassland birds. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Rep. 227:1-2.
  51. Johnsgard, P. A. 1979. Birds of the Great Plains: breeding species and their distribution. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 539 pp.
  52. Kibbe, D.P., and S.B. Laughlin. 1985. Henslow's sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII). Pages 404-405 in S.B. Laughlin and D.P. Kibbe (editors). The atlas of breeding birds of Vermont. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire. 456 pp.
  53. Knapton, R.W. 1984. Status report on the Henslow's Sparrow AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario. 77 pp.
  54. Ligon, J. D. 1971. Late summer-autumnal breeding of the piñon jay in New Mexico. Condor 73:147-153.
  55. Mazur, R. 1996. Implication of field management for Henslow's Sparrow habitat at Saratoga National Historic Park, New York. M.S. thesis. University of New York, Syracuse, NY. 33 pp.
  56. Melde, P.B., and R.R. Koford. 1996. Henslow's Sparrow nesting observations, habitat associations and history in Iowa. Iowa Bird Life 66:117-122.
  57. Mengel, R.M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. American Ornithologists' Union, Ornithological Monographs No. 3, Washington, D.C. 581 pp.
  58. 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.
  59. National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field guide to the birds of North America. Second edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
  60. National Geographic Society (NGS). 1999. Field guide to the birds of North America. Third edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 480 pp.
  61. 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 ).
  62. O'Connor, R. J. 1981. Habitat correlates of bird distribution in British census plots. Studies in Avian Biology No. 6:533-537.
  63. Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2013. Population Estimates Database, version 2013. Available at http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates. Accessed in 2014 and 2018.
  64. Peterson, A. 1983. Observations on habitat selection by Henslow's sparrow in Broome County, New York. Kingbird 33:155-164.
  65. Peterson, R. T. 1980a. A Field Guide to the Birds East of the Rockies. Houghton Mifflin Company. 383 pp.
  66. Pruitt, L. 1996. Henslow's Sparrow status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, IN.
  67. Pyle, P.S., N.G. Howell, R.P. Yunick, and D.F. DeSante. 1987. Identification guide to North American passerines. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California. 273 pp.
  68. 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.
  69. Roberts, T.S. 1949. Manual for the identification of the birds of Minnesota and neighboring states. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 738 pp.
  70. Robins, J. D. 1971a. A study of Henslow's sparrow in Michigan. The Wilson Bulletin 83:39-48.
  71. Robins, J. D. 1971b. Differential niche utilization in a grassland sparrow. Ecology 52:1065-70.
  72. Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds: An analysis of Christmas Bird Count data. University of Chicago Press. 336 pp.
  73. Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the conservation of nongame birds. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 45:245-51.
  74. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997a. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.3. Online. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.
  75. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 1999. The North American Breeding Bird Survey: Results and Analysis 1966 - 1998. Version 98.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. December 3-last update. Online. Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.
  76. 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/.
  77. Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1 U.S.G.S. Biological Resource Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.
  78. Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr. 2013. The North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966-2011: Summary Analysis and Species Accounts. North American Fauna 79: 1–32. doi:10.3996/nafa.79.0001
  79. Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, editors. 1992. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400 pp.
  80. Skinner, R.M. 1975. Grassland use patterns and prairie bird populations in Missouri. Pages 171-180 in M.K. Wali, editor. Prairie: a multiple view. University of North Dakota Press, Grand Forks, ND. 433 pp.
  81. Skinner, R.M. 1982. Vegetation structure and bird habitat selection on Missouri prairies. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 108 pp.
  82. Skinner, R.M., T.S. Baskett, and M.D. Blendon. 1984. Bird habitat on Missouri prairies. Terrestrial Series 14. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 37 pp.
  83. Smith, C. R. 1992. Henslow's sparrow, AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII. Pages 315-330 in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400 pp.
  84. Smith, D.J., and C.R. Smith. 1990. Summer bird species diversity and the use of pastures by summer birds of the Finger Lakes National Forest. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Forest Serv., Green Mountain Natl. Forest, Final Proj. Rep. P.O. No. 40-1681-9-0470, Middlebury, VT. 55pp.
  85. Smith, D. J., and C. R. Smith. 1992. Henslow's sparrow and grasshopper sparrow: a comparison of habitat use in Finger Lakes National Forest, New York. Bird Observer 20(4):187-194.
  86. Smith, R. L. 1963. Some ecological notes on the grasshopper sparrow. The Wilson Bulletin 75:159-65.
  87. Smith, W. P. 1968g. Eastern Henslow's sparrow. Pages 776-778 in O. L. Austin, Jr. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, bunting, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. Part Two. U.S. National Museum Bulletin No. 237.
  88. Stewart, R. E., and C. S. Robbins. 1958. Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. North American Fauna No. 62. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
  89. 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.
  90. Temple, S.A. 1990. Sources and sinks for regional bird populations. Passenger Pigeon 52:35-37.
  91. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  92. Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding brown-headed cowbirds in the midwestern United States. Auk 111:979-990.
  93. 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.
  94. Whitney, N. R., B. E. Harrell, B. K. Harris, N. Holden, J. W. Johnson, B. H. Rose and P. F. Springer. 1978. The birds of South Dakota. South Dakota Ornithologists Union, Vermillion, South Dakota. 311 pp.
  95. Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships among grassland birds. Ornithological Monographs No. 8:1-93.
  96. Williams, L. 1952b. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird. Condor 54:3-47.
  97. Willson, M. F. 1966. Breeding ecology of the Yellow-headed Blackbird. Ecological Monographs 36:51-77.
  98. Zimmerman, J.L. 1987a. Final report: breeding season distribution and habitat selection of the Henslow's Sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) in Kansas. Unpublished report to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.
  99. Zimmerman, J.L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow's Sparrow (AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII) in Kansas. Wilson Bulletin 100(1):17-24.
  100. Zimmerman, J.L. Division of Biology. Manhattan, KS
  101. Zink, R. M., and J. C. Avise. 1990. Patterns of mitochondrial DNA and allozyme evolution in the avian genus AMMODRAMUS. Syst. Zool. 39:148-161.