SK

361

.U54

no.82-

10.22

FWS/OBS-82/10.22

July 1982

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS: VEERY

by

Patrick J. Sousa

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Drake Creekside Building 1

2625 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Western Energy and Land Use Team

Office of Biological Services

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC 20240
This report should be cited as:

Sousa, P. J. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Veery. U.S. Dept.

Int., Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-82/10.22. 12 pp.
PREFACE

This document is part of the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model Series

(FWS/OBS-82/10), which provides habitat information useful for impact assessment and habitat management. Several types of habitat information are

provided. The Habitat Use Information Section is largely constrained to those

data that can be used to derive quantitative relationships between key environmental variables and habitat suitability. The habitat use information provides

the foundation for HSI models that follow. In addition, this same information

may be useful in the development of other models more appropriate to specific

assessment or evaluation needs.

The HSI Model Section documents a habitat model and information pertinent

to its application. The model synthesizes the habitat use information into a

framework appropriate for field application and is scaled to produce an index

value between 0.0 (unsuitable habitat) and 1.0 (optimum habitat). The application information includes descriptions of the geographic ranges and seasonal

application of the model, its current verification status, and a listing of

model variables with recommended measurement techniques for each variable.

In essence, the model presented herein is a hypothesis of species-habitat

relationships and not a statement of proven cause and effect relationships.

Results of model performance tests, when available, are referenced. However,

models that have demonstrated reliability in specific situations may prove

unreliable in others. For this reason, feedback is encouraged from users of

this model concerning improvements and other suggestions that may increase the

utility and effectiveness of this habitat-based approach to fish and wildlife

planning. Please send suggestions to:

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2625 Redwing Road

Ft. Collins, CO 80526

iii
CONTENTS

PREFACE iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v

HABITAT USE INFORMATION 1

Genera 1 1

Food 1

Water 1

Cover 1

Reproduct ion 3

I nterspersion 3

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODEL 3

Model Applicability 3

Model Description................................................. 4

Model Relationships............................................... 6

Application of the Model.......................................... 9

SOURCES OF OTHER MODELS 10

REFERENCES 11

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Robert Bertin and Dr. Barry Noon provided valuable critiques of earlier

drafts of an HSI model for the veery. Their comments and suggestions added

significantly to the quality of this HSI model, and their contributions are

gratefully acknowledged. The cover of this document was illustrated by

Jennifer Shoemaker. Word processing was provided by Carolyn Gulzow and

Dora Ibarra.

v
VEERY (Catharus fuscescens)

HABITAT USE INFORMATION

General

The veery (Catharus fuscescens) is an inhabitant of damp forests throughout much of its range (Dilger 1956; Morse 1971; Stewart 1975; Bertin 1977).

Veeries also inhabit shrub thickets, at least in the New England area (Morse

1971; Bertin, pers. comm.).

Food

The diet of the veery is approximately 60% insects and 40% fruit (McAtee

1926, cited by Tyler 1949). Nestlings are fed insects (Day 1953). Veeries

feed primarily on insects during the breeding season and on fruits in late

summer and fall (Bertin, pers. comm.). Vegetative items may account for

two-thirds of the autumn diet (Martin et al. 1961). Veeries forage primarily

on the forest floor (Tyler 1949; Dilger 1956; Bertin 1975), but also feed by

flycatching and by gleaning insects from foliage (Noon 1977). In Connecticut,

76% of the prey items were obtained by ground foraging, 22% by foraging on

vegetation, and 2% by flycatching (Bertin 1975).

Water

Veeri es in mature woodl ands in Connecticut tended to select sites with

the wettest ground for territories (Bertin 1977). Veery territories were also

generally located near running water, possibly as a result of drinking and

bathing requirements (Bertin 1975).

Cover

Cover requirements reported in the literature generally apply to the

breeding season. It is assumed that cover needs for the breeding season are

the same as cover needs throughout the summer.

Veeri es occur in deci duous, mixed, and evergreen forests (Di 1ger 1956;

Morse 1971; Temple et al. 1979). Optimal cover in New York was provided by

moist bottomland forests with a lush herbaceous canopy (Dilger 1956). Veeries

inhabit moist or floodplain deciduous forests with a shrub understory in North

Dakota (Stewart 1975) and are characteristic of damp deciduous forests in

Maine (Morse 1971). The veery also breeds in wooded riparian habitats of the

Great Plains (Tubbs 1980).

1
There was no apparent relationship between the ratio of coniferous to

deciduous trees and veery densities in mixed hardwood-coniferous forests in

the Northcentral and Northeastern United States (studies summarized by Temple

et al. 1979). The utilization of forest types by the veery may be influenced

by the presence of other thrushes (Noon 1977). In a study involving both a

northeastern (Vermont) and southeastern (Tennessee) study site, Noon (1977:128)

reported that the veery in the Northeast II ••• is confined to purely deciduous

forests while along southeastern mountains, it exploits these as well as mixed

and totally con iferous forests. The 1atter habi tat categori es are primarily

utilized by ustulatus [~. ustulatus, Swainson's thrush] in the northeast. II

Disturbed forests in New York supported greater densities of veeries than

did undi sturbed forests, apparently because they had a denser understory

(Dilger 1956). In northern hardwood forests, veeries were recorded in 77% of

30 breeding bird censuses conducted in disturbed and successional habitats,

but in only 18% of 40 censuses conducted in mature undisturbed habitats (Noon

et al. 1979). Densities of veeries increased in response to greater logging

intensity in a northern hardwood forest in New York (Webb et al. 1977). The

density of veery populations in Wisconsin is expected to increase when the

abundance of aspen (Populus tremuloides) or the understory density increases

(Temple et al. 1979). An opening of the forest canopy, with increased herbaceous and/or shrub growth resulting from increased light penetration, can be

expected to result in increased numbers of veeries (Bertin 1975).

The major habitat factors influencing the presence of veeries in

Connecticut were moisture regime and, to a lesser degree, herbaceous and woody

cover 0.2 to 3.0 m (0.6 to 10 ft) tall (Bertin 1975). These two factors

accounted for 78.4~C:; and 38.2%, respectively, of the variability in habitat

occupancy (Bertin 1977). Moisture regime was apparently more important than

herbaceous cover or distance to running water in habitat selection in mature

woodl ands, even though most terri tori es were cl ustered around streams. The

reason that veeries prefer moist conditions is unclear, although Bertin

(1975:105) suggests that it II ••• may be either a proximate factor in habitat

selection or directly related to some important factor such as foraging

behavior or mtcr-oc l imat.e ." In a comparative study of the breeding habitats of

veeries and wood thrushes (Hylocichla mustelina) in Connecticut, veeries were

more abundant than wood thrushes in early successional woodland, which had a

denser shrub layer than mature woodland, in dense shrub thickets, and in

cooler and moister sites (Bertin 1975, 1977). Noon (pers. comm.) believes

that shrub cover is the key proximal variable used for habitat selection by

veeries. Veeries in Connecticut preferred areas with greater shrub cover than

did wood thrushes although the reason for the preference is unclear (Bertin

1975). Shrub cover in veery territories in mature woodlands averaged 40.2%

(Bertin 1977), with veeries apparently selecting habitats with the highest

shrub density available (Bertin 1975). Over 60% of areas with shrub densities

of 60-70% were occupied by veeries. Both veeries and wood thrushes inhabit

northeastern deciduous forests, but veeries occur in open or disturbed areas

of deciduous forests where the density of deciduous shrubs is significantly

higher than in the surrounding forest (Noon 1977,1981). Veeries reached

their greatest densities in wet areas with dense ground cover and understory.

2
Reproduction

Veeries generally nest on or near the ground (Tyler 1949; Noon 1977).

Nests in New Hampshire were built on the ground, between stems of saplings. on

stumps, and in shrubs (Day 1953). Four veery nests in Connecticut were located

on the ground, or in grass tussocks, in dense cover (Be r t in, pers. comm.).

The majority of 138 nests located in Maine were in stands of red maple (Acer

rubrum) (36~0) and alder (Alnus spp.) (240

0) (Norse 1971). --

Most singing perches used by males are from 2 to 8 m (6.6 to 26.2 ft)

above ground (Bertin 1977).

Interspersion

Veery territories range in size from about 0.1 hectare (0.25 acr-e ) to

several hectares (Bertin 1975). The average size of 61 veery t err i t or i e s in

Ontario was 0.27 ± 0.24 ha (0.67 ± 0.59 acre); the range wa s from 0.04 to

1.1 ha (0.1 to 2.7 acres) (Martin 1960).

The highest reported density of veeries was 20 territorial males per

20 ha (50 acres) of ash-basswood (Fraxinus-Tiiia) habitat in New Yo r k (Van

Velzen 1975,1977, cited by Samson 1979). Alsop (1970) reported a density of

33 males per 40 ha (100 acres) in virgin spruce-fir (Picea-Abies) forests in

North Carolina. Based on a summary of previous censuse~c~79) reported

an increase in veery densities with an increase in age of aspen-birch

(Populus-Betula) forests, an early stage of forest succession.

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODEL

Model Applicability

Geographic area. This HSI model was developed for use within the breeding

range of the veery.

Season. This HSI model was developed to evaluate quality of spring and

summer habitat for veeries. It may be used to evaluate migratory or winter

habitat if it is assumed that year-round habitat needs are similar to habitat

needs during the breeding season.

Cover types. This model is intended to evaluate veery habitat in the

following cover types (terminology follows that of U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1981): Evergreen Forest (EF); Evergreen Forested \vetland (EFW);

Deciduous Forest (OF); Deciduous Forested Wetland (DFW); Deciduous Shrubland

(OS); and Deciduous Scrub/Shrub Wetland (DSW).

Minimum habitat area. Minimum habitat area is defined as the minimum

amount of contiguous habitat that is required before an area will be occupied

by a species. Information on the minimum habitat area for the veery was not

reported in the literature, but reported territories ranged from 0.04 to

1.1 ha (0.1 to 2.7 acres). It is assumed that if less than 0.04 ha (0.1 acre)

of habitat is available, the HSI will be 0.0.

3
Verification level. Earlier drafts of an HSI model for the veery were

reviewed by Drs. Robert Bertin and Barry R. Noon. Their review comments have

been incorporated into this model.

Model Description

Overvi ew. The veery can sat isfy all of its habi tat requi rements withi n

anyone of the cover types listed above. In this model, cover and reproductive

needs are assumed to be satisfied by the same set of habitat characteristics.

Water is assumed to be an important factor in veery habi tat qua1i ty , but is

considered in this model as part of the cover and reproductive component. It

is further assumed that food requirements will never be more limiting than

cover and reproductive requirements.

In order to evaluate cover and reproductive suitability, it is necessary

to characterize the habitat in terms of the needs of the veery. The following

section identifies important habitat variables, describes suitability levels

of the variables, and describes the relationships between variables. The

relationship between habitat variables, life requisites, and cover types used

in this model and an HSI value for the veery is shown in Figure 1.

Habitat vari ab1e

Percent of area flooded

Percent deciduous shrub

crown cover

Average height of

deciduous shrubs

Percent herbaceous

canopy cover

Average height of

herbaceous canopy

Life

requisite

Cover/

Reproduct ion ---{

Cover types

Evergreen Forested

Wetland

Deciduous Forested

Wetland

Deciduous Scrub/

Shrub Wetland

)----- HSI

Soil moisture regime

Percent deciduous shrub

crown cover

Average height of

deciduous shrubs

Percent herbaceous

canopy cover

Average height of

herbaceous canopy

Cover/ ---{ Evergreen Forest }- Reproduction Deciduous Forest HSI

Deciduous Shrubland

Figure 1. Relationship of habitat variables, life requisites, and cover

types in the veery HSI model.

4
Cover/Reproducti on component. Suitable cover and reproduction habitat

for veeries is provided by moist forest or shrub cover types with abundant

deciduous shrub thickets and/or herbaceous vegetation.

Damp or floodplain forests and shrublands apparently provide optimal

conditions for veeries. Wetlands, by definition, have moist to saturated

soils. However, wetlands that are completely flooded during the spring and

summer will not have any ground surface available for foraging and nest sites.

The value of wetland cover types that are partially flooded during spring and

summer depends on the amount of available ground surface. The value of nonwetland cover types to veeries depends on soil moisture conditions during the

spring and summer. Cover types with moist or saturated soils provide optimum

conditions for veeries. Cover types with dry soils do not support high

densities of veeries, probably because of the lack of dense vegetation ..

The key vegetative component of veery habitat is the structure of the

shrub stratum. Suitable shrub cover is assumed to be a function of shrub

density, height, and distribution. It is assumed in this model that distribution of shrubs wi 11 be adequate at any shrub density and that the shrub

component of the habitat may be eva 1uated by con s i deri ng shrub den s i ty and

height only. The evaluation of shrub cover considers deciduous shrubs only,

since there is little data in the literature that indicates that veeries will

use evergreen shrubs. Deci duous shrub crown cover of greater than 70~~ is

assumed to provide optimal conditions, while areas with less than 20% shrub

crown cover will probably not provide suitable shrub cover for veeries (Bertin,

pers. comm.). Shrub height of 1.5 to 3.0 m (5 to 10 ft) is considered to

provide an optimal combination of low cover and unrestricted mobility. Woody

vegetation less than 0.5 m (1.5 ft) tall is assumed to be unsuitable for use

by veeries. Shrubs or regenerating deciduous trees that are 5 m (16.4 ft)

tall are assumed to have only one-half the value of optimal conditions due to

a reduction in low cover.

The suitability of herbaceous cover is a function of both height and

density. Areas with either an abundance of short herbaceous vegetation or a

small amount of tall herbaceous vegetation provide veeries with very litte

concealment. Optimal conditions are assumed to exist if the herbaceous canopy

cover is greater than 90% (Bertin, pers. comm.) and the average herbaceous

canopy height is greater than 30 em (12 inches). Densities of herbaceous

vegetation that are less than 30% will not provide adequate concealment

(Bert in, pers. comm). The sui tabi 1i ty of herbaceous vegetation for veery

cover and reproductive needs is assumed to approach zero as vegetation height

decreases.

The cover and reproductive va 1ue of a 11 cover types in whi ch veeri es

occur is a function of vegetation and moisture conditions. Vegetation is, in

turn, a function of the height and density of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation.

The height and density of shrubs are considered to be compensatory; i.e., a

low suitability for one variable may be partially offset by a high suitability

for the other. However, the variable with the lowest suitability should have

the greatest impact on the final estimate of the value of shrubs to the cover

and reproduction needs of the veery. A similar relationship is assumed to

5
exist between the height and density of herbaceous vegetation. Shrub cover is

considered to be the key vegetative factor in habitat selection, and optimum

conditions may exist in the absence of herbaceous vegetation (Noon, pers.

comm.). Herbaceous vegetation may add to the overall quality of the habitat

but is con si dered to be capable of provi di ng only one-half of the habitat

suitability that can be provided by shrubs.

The major factor determining habitat suitability for veeries in nonwetland

cover types wi th sui tab 1e vegetation is soi 1 moi sture. In nonwet1and cover

types with suitable soil moisture, the major factor will be vegetative cover.

Since both soil moisture suitability and vegetative cover may, in different

situations, determine overall habitat suitability in nonwetland cover types,

the feature with the lowest suitability will determine the overall suitability

of the cover type for veeries.

In wetland cover types, an estimate of the area that is flooded represents

the area that is unavailable for use by veeries. The value of the vegetation

as cover (determined from samples on nonflooded sites) should be reduced in

direct proportion to the amount of the cover type that is flooded.

Model Relationships

Suitability Index (SI) graphs for habitat variables. This

tains suitability index graphs that illustrate the habitat

described in the previous section.

section conrelationships

Cover

EFW,DFW,

DSW

Variable

Percent of the cover

type flooded (average

spring/early summer

cond ition s) .

6

1.0

Q)

x 0.8 -a

s::

.......

>, 0.6

+-'

..0

'r- 0.4 co

+-'

'r- 0.2 Vl

0.0

a 25 50

%

75 100
IEF ,OF, V2 Soil moisture regime 1.0

OS (average spring/early

summer conditions). 0.8

"0

t:

A) Soils typically ......

>, 0.6 moist to saturated +-l

(e. g. , floodplain 'rforest) . :0 0.4

It:' B) Soils moderately +-l

'r- dry to moist (e.g" 0.2

upland forest

occurring in 0.0 shaded ravines).

C) Soil s typically

dry (e , g. , upland

forest).

A B C

Vl Percent deciduous shrub 1.0

crown cover.

0.8

"0

t:

......

>, 0.6

+-l

'r0.4 ..c

It:'

+-l

.; 0.2 U')

0.0 -vD

a 25 50 75 100

%

V4 Average height of 1.0

deciduous shrubs.

0.8

"0

t:

...... 0.6

>,

+-l

'r0.4 ..c

It:'

+-l

.; 0.2 U')

0.0 ~.

a 1 2 3 4 5 (m)

a 3.3 6.6 9.8 13.1 16.4 (ft)

7

EF,EFW,

OF,OFW,

OS,OSW

EF,EFW,

OF,OFW,

OS,OSW
EF,EFW, Vs Percent herbaceous 1.0

DF,DFW, canopy cover (late ) D5,D5W spring/early summer x 0.8 '":J

conditions). OJ \J' "'0

I:: I ....... 0.6 \)

>,

+> \" ......

...... 0.4 ..0 -\-\~ to

+>

......

:::::l 0.2 (/)

0.0

0 25 50 75 100

%

EF,EFW, V6 Average height of 1.0

DF,DFW, herbaceous canopy

D5,D5W (late spring/early x 0.8

summer conditions). OJ

"'0

I::

.......

>, ":? 0.6 +> \ ......

..0

...... 0.4 ~\ to -\- +>

......

:::::l 0.2 (/)

0.0

0 10 20 30 40 (em)

0 4 8 12 16 (in)

Equations. In order to obtain a cover/reproduction value for the veery,

the 51 values for the appropriate variables must be combined through the use

of equations. A discussion and explanation of the assumed relationships

between variables was included under Model Description, and the specific

equations in this model were chosen to mimic the perceived biological relationships as closely as possible. The suggested equation for obtaining a cover/

reproduction value for veeries in we~larld__cqver types (EFW, DFW, D5W) is as

follows:-

8
In nonwetland CQyer types (EF, OF, OS), the suggested equation is the lowest

of the following:

Note that the vegetative structure portion of the above equations, [(V3 x

V4)1/2 + 0.5(Vs x V6)1I2 J, may exceed 1.0. In those cases where a

greater than 1.0 is obtained, the value should be considered to equal 1.0.

score

HSI determination. Cover/Reproduction was the only life requisite considered in this model, and the HSI will equal the Cover/Reproduction value.

Application of the Model

Definitions of variables and suggested field measurement techniques (Hays

et al. 1981) are provided in Figure 2.

Variable (Definition)

Percent of the cover

type flooded (average

spring/early summer

condit ions).

Soil moisture regime

(the moisture condition

of the soil at the

ground surface during

average spring/early

summer conditions.

Categorized as:

A - Moist to saturated

B - Moderately dry to moist

C - Dry)

Cover types

EFW,DFW,DSW

EF,DF,DS

Suggested technique

On-site inspection

during spring/early

summer.

On-site inspection

during spring/early

summer.

Figure 2. Definitions of variables and suggested measurement techniques.

9
Variable (Definition)

Percent deciduous

shrub crown cover

(the percent of the

ground surface that

is shaded by a vertical

projection of the crowns

of deciduous shrubs).

Average height of

deciduous. shrubs (the

average vertical distance

from the ground to the

highest point of all

woody plants 5m

[16.4 ft] tall).

Percent herbaceous

canopy cover (late

spring/early summer

conditions) (the

percent of the ground

surface that is shaded

by a vertical projection

of the crowns of all

nonwoody vegetation).

Average height of herbaceous canopy (late spring/

early summer conditions)

(the average vertical

distance from the ground

surface to the dominant

height stratum of the

herbaceous vegetative

canopy).

Cover types

EF,EFW,DF,DFW,

DS,DSW

EF,EFW,DF,DFW,

DS,DSW

EF, EFW, OF, DFW,

DS,DSW

EF,EFW,DF,DFW,

DS,DSW

Suggested t~chnigue

Line intercept, quadrat.

Line intercept, graduated

rod.

Line intercept, quadrat.

Line intercept, graduated

rod

Figure 2. (concluded).

SOURCES OF OTHER MODELS

No other habitat models for the veery were located in the literature.

10
REFERENCES

Alsop, F. J., III. 1970. A census of a breeding bird population in a virgin

spruce-fir forest on Mt. Guyot, Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Migrant 41(3):49-55.

Back, G. N. 1979. Avian communities and management guidelines of the aspenbirch forest. Pages 67-79 in R. M. DeGraaf and K. E. Evans, compilers.

Proc. of the workshop: Management of north centra 1 and northeastern

forests for nongame birds. U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep.

NC-51.

Bertin, R. I. 1975. Factors influencing the distribution of the wood thrush

and veery in western Connecticut woodland. M. S. Thesis, Univ. Connecticut, Storrs. 138 pp.

1977. Breeding habitats of the wood thrush and veery.

Condor 79:303-311.

Personal communication (letters dated 21 May 1980 and

26 August 1981). Dept. Zoology, Miami Univ., Oxford, OH.

Day, K. C. 1953. Home life of the veery. Bird-Banding 24:100-106.

Dilger, W. C. 1956. Adaptive modifications and ecological isolating mechanisms in the thrush genera Catharus and Hylocichla. Wilson Bull. 68(3):

170-199.

Hays, R. L., C. Summers, and W. Seitz. 1981. Estimating wildlife habitat

variables. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-81/47. 111 pp.

Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson.

plants: A gui de to wil dl ife food habits.

500 pp.

1961. American wildl ife and

Dover Publ. Inc., New York.

Martin, N. D. 1960. An analysis of bird populations in relation to forest

succession in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Ecology 41(1):126-140.

McAtee, W. L. 1926. The relation of birds to woodlots in New York State.

Roosevelt Wild-life Bull. 4:7-152. Cited by Tyler 1949.

Morse, D. H. 1971. Effects of the arrival of a new species upon habitat

utilization by two forest thrushes in Maine. Wilson Bull. 83(1):57-65.

Noon, B. R. 1977. The ecology of an avian ground-foraging guild in eastern

montane forests. Ph.D. Diss., State Univ. N.Y., Albany. 178 pp.

1981. The di stri buti on of an avi an guil d along a temperate

elevational gradient: the importance and expression of competition.

Ecol. Monogr. 51(1):105-124.

11
Personal communication (letter dated 3 May 1982). Dept.

Wildl. Manage., Humboldt St. Univ., Arcata, CA.

Noon, B. R., V. P. Bingman, and J. P. Noon. 1979. The effects of changes in

habitat on northern hardwood forest bird communities. Pages 33-48 in

R. M. DeGraaf and K. E. Evans, compilers. Proc. of the workshop: Management of north centra 1 and northeastern forests for nongame bi rds. U. S.

Dept. Agric., For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-51.

Samson, F. B. 1979. Lowland hardwood bird communities. Pages 49-66 in

R. M. DeGraaf and K. E. Evans, compilers. Proc. of the workshop: Management of north central and northeastern forests for nongame bi rds. U.S.

Dept. Agric., For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-51.

Stewart, R. E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. Tri-College Center for

Environ. Studies, Fargo, NO. 295 pp.

Temple, S. A., M. J. Mossman, and B. Ambuel. 1979. The ecology

of avian communities in mixed hardwood-coniferous forests.

in R. M. DeGraaf and K. E. Evans, compilers. Proc. of

Management of north central and northeastern forests for

U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-51.

and management

Pages 132-153

the workshop:

nongame bi rds.

Tubbs, A. A. 1980. Riparian bird communities of the Great Plains. Pages

419-433 in R. M. DeGraaf and N. G. Tilghman, compilers. Workshop proc.:

Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. U.S.

Dept. Agric., For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86.

Tyler, W. M. 1949. Veery. Pages 217-232 in A. C. Bent.

North American thrushes, kinglets, and-their allies.

Bull. 196.

Life histories of

U. S. Natl. Mus.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards for the development of

Habitat Suitability Index models. ESM 103. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl.

Serv., Div. Ecol. Servo n.p.

Van Velzen, W. T. 1975. Thirty-ninth breeding bird census. Am. Birds

30:1080-1131. Cited by Samson 1979.

1977. Fortieth breeding bird census. Am. Birds 31:24-93.

Cited by Samson 1979.

Webb, W. L., D. F. Behrend, and B. Saisorn. 1977. Effect of logging on

songbird populations in a northern hardwood forest. Wildl. Monogr. 55.

35 pp.

12
50272·' I'll

REPORT ~~MENTATION i·1·- F WSi oBS·- 82/ 1O.22

i 3. Reclllient'. Acl: ....on No.

I

I 5. RellOrt Oate

i Julv 1982

7. Autllor(.)

Patrick J. Sousa

4. Title 11'112 Subtitle

I Habitat Suitability Index Models: Veery a.

~----------- ----------------------1 L .......... 0 ........'_ ..... No,

9. ,..rtonnin_ O..anizatjon Name 11'112 Add,..••

12. SllOn.onn_ Orpnizatlon Name 11'112 Address

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Drake Creekside Building 1

2625 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Western Energy and Land Use Team

Office of Biological Services

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washinaton. D.C. 20240

I 10. F»rajec:tlTaak/Woril Unit No.

111. CGntraet(C) or Grant(Gl No.

10&.

15. SUlllllementary Not..

-18. Abstract (Umit 200 words)

Habitat preferences and species characteristics of the veery (Catharus fuscesens)

are described in this publication. It is one of a series of Habitat Suitability

Index (HSI) models and was developed through an analysis of available scientific

data on the habitat requirements of the veery. Habitat use information is presented

in a review of the literature, followed by the development of an HSI model. The

model is presented in three formats: graphic; word; and mathematical. Suitability

index graphs quantify the species-habitat relationship. These data are synthesized

into a model designed to provide information for use in impact assessment and habitat

management.

17. Cocument Analysis I. Oescrilltors

Animal behavior

Birds

Wildlife

Habi ts

Mathematical models

C. Identtfiers/~en.e:nded Terms

Habitat Suitability Index

Veery

Catharus fuscesens

Habitat use

Species-habitat relationships

Impact assessment

Habitat management

22. Price

21. NO. of Pa_n

ii + \I +12pp

19. Security Class (Thi. Reoort)

20. Security Class (ThiS Pale)

UNCLASSIFIED

L1NCLASS'[ EI ED

18. Availability Statement

RELEASE UNLIMITED

c. CeSAT! Field/Groull

• U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982-0-580-664/406

(See ANSI-Z39.13l ~.e InstructIons Ort Rey.". OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)

(Formerty NTIS-35l

a.llartment of Commerce
_.7
,.the .. princI~ CIIIIMMtIDn Dlpl.-.wtfII ... tlibIlity far .,..III., __ puIIIk TldII....

,.....1M eur lIN anct .......-. fIIII_ wIIIlIIIt;

.......".,. tlIWinInInlI cuItwaI ot_ '..'fbI.......

and PftIl'IdI.. for fIf , '"" _ .. _ eur ....., mlnerlllN'"'''' tD....". tNt 1..,..IIIIl. 1ft ................. eJ .. out ".. Ollllrtmlllt "'III •• ,. IndIM In IIIlIWftI...., U.s. .....nlllnltiM