United States

Department of Neotropical Migratory Birds of

Agriculture

Forest Service the Kisatchie National Forest,

Southern Forest Louisiana:

Experiment Station

New Orleans, Abstracts for

Louisiana

General Technical Report Selected Species and

so-115

June 1995 Management Considerations

Robert X. Barry, Bernard R. Parresol, and Margaret S. Devall
SUMMARY

An e xtensive re view of th e lite rature on 13 spe cies of neotropical

m igratory birds (NTMB) th at b reed on th e U.S. De partm ent of

Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Kisatch ie National Forest (KNF), in

Louisiana, w as th e basis for th is publication. Th ese spe cies w e re

sele cted because th ey are k now n to b reed on th e KNF and re present a cross section of th e various taxa of NTMB th at e xist in th e

forest. Included for e ach of th e spe cies are sections on distribution, biology, h abitats, and density. Also discussed are population

trends for th e sele cted species and forest m anagemen t practices

th at m ay influence distribution and abundance of NTMB. In addition, som e are as of research th at are suggested by th is revie w

and th at w ould h e lp fill gaps in th e present state of k now ledge for

th e sele cted birds are identified.

ACK NO WLEDGM ENTS

Th e auth ors th ank David Pash ley of th e Louisiana Nature Conservancy for

providing inform ation on th e b reeding neotropical m igratory birds of th e U.S.

Departm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Kisatch ie National Forest, from

w h ich th e spe cies w e re sele cted for abstracting. Spe cial th ank s are e xtended

to Gary Leste r and Bill Ve rm illion of th e Louisiana De partm ent of W ildlife

and Fish e ries’ Natural H e ritage Program for contributing survey data on b reeding birds, from wh ich State w ide distributions of th e abstracted species w e re

dete rm ined. Th ank s also to artist Lisa L. Barbe for th e fine color illustrations.

Finally, appre ciation goes to USDA Forest Se rvice pe rsonnel Jim Dick son, Rich ard Conne r, M arq W ebb , Alan W illiam son, and Jack H ill and to USDI Fish

and W ildlife Se rvice b iologist W illiam “Ch uck ” H unte r for revie w ing th e m anuscript and m ak ing valuable com m ents and suggestions. Th is research w as supported by Forest Se rvice funding for biodive rsity rese arch and forest

m anagemen t research .
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

KISATCH IE NATIONAL FOREST ................................ 1

ABrie fH istory .............................................. . 1

Organization ............................................... . 2

NEOTROPICAL M IGRATORY BIRDS OF TH E KISATCH IE NATIONAL

FOREST AND ABSTRACTS FOR SELECTED SPECIES

M ississippi Kite ............................................ 6

Broad-w inged H aw k ....................................... . 10

Yellow -Billed Cu ck oo.. ..................................... . 14

Chuck-Will's_Widow ......................................... 18

Acadian Flycatch e r ........................................ . 22

W oodTh rush ............................................. . 26

Yellow -Th roated Vire o ....................................... 30

Red-eyedvire o ............................................ . 34

American Redstart ......................................... . 38

W orm -eating W arble r. ....................................... 42

Sw ainson’s W arble r ......................................... 46

Louisiana W ate rth rush ..................................... . 50

Kentuck y W arble r ......................................... . 54

POPULATION TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

EFFECTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON AVIFAUNA. . 58

SUGGESTED FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION NEEDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

LITERA TURE CITED........................................... 6 1

APPENDICES

APPENDIXA ............................................... . 67

APPENDIXB ............................................... . 68

APPENDIXC ............................................... . 69

APPENDIXD ............................................... . 70

Cove r art: Red-eyed vire o (Vireo oliuaceus)

i
_-

/
Abstracts

Ne otropical M igratory Birds of th e

Kisatch ie National Fore st, Louisiana:

for Se le cted Spe cie s and Managem ent Conside rations

Robe rt X. Barry, Be rnard R. Parresol, and Margare t S. De vall

INTRODUCTION

Recently, analyses of data on breeding-bird populations h ave indicated th at populations of neotropical

m igratory birds (NTMB) h ave e xpe rienced declines in

m any are as of North Am e rica (Robbins and oth e rs

19 86). Th e cum ulative e ffe cts of forest fragm entation

on th e b reed ing grounds, tropical deforestation in w inte ring are as, and oth e r h abitat ch anges h ave been

advanced as prim ary factors responsible for th ese declines. Th e U.S. De partm ent of Agriculture, Forest

Se rvice, h as been identified as a le ad agency in th e

National Fish and W ildlife Foundation’s Ne otropical

M igratory Bird Conservation Program , prim arily because th e National Forest System provides th e largest am ount of b reeding h abitat for forest-dw e lling

neotropical m igrants under a single ow ne rsh ip. In

support of th e Foundation’s program and th e Forest

Se rvice ’s role, th is re port w as pre pared to synth esize

available inform ation and identify life h istory and

oth e r factors useful in m anaging NTMB, w ith a specific focus on som e spe cies th at b reed on th e U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Kisatch ie

National Forest (KNF), located in Louisiana. For a

com preh ensive ove rview of th e conservation program ,

analyses of population trends, and factors responsible

for de clines, th e re ade r is encouraged to e xam ine th e

re cent re port by Finch (19 9 1).

In th e inte rest of reducing re pe titious citation, scientific nam es of plants m entioned in th e te xt are given

in appendix A. Density estim ates of e ach bird spe cies

h ave been standardized to th e num be r of pairs pe r

square k ilom e te r because of th e dive rse nature of th e

units presented in th e lite rature. Th ough som e of th ese

density estim ates m ay se e m e xtreme ly h igh , it sh ould

be noted th at som e of th em h ave been conve rted from

te rritory sizes and often apply only to sm all study are as but, noneth e less, are re lative.

Population trends, e ffe cts of forest m anagemen t

practices, and research and inform ation needs suggested

by gaps in th e available lite rature are provided follow -

ing spe cies accounts. Also included is an index of re fe rences cited for e ach spe cies (appendix B) th at sh ould be

cross-re fe renced to th e lite rature cited section.

Alth ough th e auth ors atte m pted to obtain as m uch

lite rature as possible on each spe cies, m any sources

w e re undoubtedly ove rlook ed due to th e w ide ly scatte red nature of ornith ological lite rature. Furth e r,

sources of inform ation contained in ongoing research

and in unpublish ed accounts such as th eses and dissertations go large ly untapped. Th e distribution m aps

in th is re port for occurrence w ith in Louisiana w e re

com piled from survey data on b reed ing b irds provided

by th e Louisiana De partm ent of W ildlife and Fish e ries’ Natural H e ritage Program and are by no m e ans

com ple te. Th e m aps do, h ow e ve r, give th e re ade r a

gene ral ide a of th e distribution of spe cies. Appendix C

provides a re fe rence m ap for th e Louisiana Parish es

listed in th e te xt.

KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST

A Brief History

Follow ing th e w idespre ad cut-and-burn logging ope rations in th e e arly 19 00’s, purch ases of cutove r lands

by th e Fede ral Gove rnm ent began in 19 29 w ith th e

Catah oula and Kisatch ie purch ase units. In 19 30, th e

Kisatch ie w as proclaim ed a national forest by th e Se cre tary ofAgriculture for adm inistrative purposes. Acquisitions in 19 34 and 19 35 quadrupled th e forest siz e,

and in 19 36 President Frank lin D. Rooseve lt designated all lands in th e Catah oula, Evan ge line,

Kisatch ie, and Ve rnon divisions as th e Kisatch ie National Forest. By 19 44, th e forest w as com posed of

som e 215,038 h a. Furth e r purch ases from tim be r com -

panies, sm all landow ne rs, and oth e r sm all spe cial

purch ases along w ith transfe rs from th e U.S. Arm y

and oth e r e xch anges b rough t th e total in 19 85 up to

241,9 14 h a.

Robe rt X. Barry is a w ildlife biologist for th e U.S. Air Force, Luke AFB, AZ 85309 ; Be rnard R. Parresol is a m ath e m atical statistician, and

Margare t S. De vall is an ecologist at th e Institute for Quantitative Studies, U.S. De partm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, South e rn

Forest Expe rim ent Station, New O rle ans, LA 70113.

1
VERIVON ffD

Figure l.- Location of th e six ranger districts of th e Kisatch ie National Fore st, Louisiana (RD=Ranger District). Parish nam e s

are given in sm all type.

Organiz ation

Th e KNF is com posed of six districts situated m ainly

in central Louisiana (fig. 1). Th e entire forest is divided into 24 m anagemen t are as to facilitate planning

and m anagemen t of th e dive rse resources (table 1).

Th e proje cted tim be r sales for 19 9 1-9 5 from th e loyear tim be r sale program in th e Final Land and Resource M anagemen t Plan: Kisatch ie National Forest

(USDA FS 19 85) ave rage about 148.7 m illion board

fe e t (Scribne r C) annually for all districts com bined

(table 2). Actual sale leve ls h ave been reduced conside rably, h ow e ve r, for seve ral re asons, including a new

policy for prote cting th e endange red red-cock aded

w oodpe ck e r (Picoides borealis).

Forest types found on th e KNF are sum m arized by

district in table 3 and illustrated in figure 2. Th e vari2

ous forest types h ave been sim plified by being com -

b ined into th ree cate gories, w h ich sh ould be m ore usefu l for th e m anagemen t of NTMB. Alth ough

pine-dom inated stands and sh rub-scrub and old-fie ld

h abitat types are im portant to som e NTMB, m ost of

th e spe cies of conce rn re ly prim arily on h ardw ood and

m ixed pine-h ardw ood stands. Of particular note is

th at, ove rall, only about 20 pe rcent (40,289 h a) of th e

total forest com position is com posed of h ardw ood and

m ixed pine-h ardw ood stands. In re ality, th e available

are a of suitable h abitat is probably m uch less due to

th e constant m odification of stand age structures by

h arvest ope rations.

M anagemen t indicator spe cies (MIS) in th e Final

Land and Resource M anagemen t Plan: Kisatch ie National Forest (USDA FS 19 85) (fig. 3) we re sele cted

from a com ple te listing of th e k now n ve rteb rates on
th e KNF. Spe cies used as MIS w e re ch osen because

th ey are pe rm anent residents th at depend on forested

h abitats. By guiding m anagemen t practices to provide

for th e h om e range and h abitat requiremen ts of e ach

M IS, th e m aintenance of h abitat structure can presum ably be assured, w h ich bene fits oth e r spe cies associated w ith th at nich e.

In re ality, h ow e ve r, th ese spe cies (w ith th e e xce ption of th e red-cock aded w oodpe ck e r) are h abitat gene ralists th at respond to m anagemen t practices at th e

stand leve l. Many oth e r spe cies h ave spe cific needs at

th e landscape leve l. Alth ough th e traditional, stand

leve l approach to w ildlife m anagemen t is ch anging,

w h at is needed for e ffe ctive m anagemen t for NTMB

is th e addition of an ecosystem and biodive rsity laye r

to th e m anagemen t decisionm ak ing process.

In th e follow ing pages, an atte m pt h as been m ade to

sum m arize th e available lite rature and identify biological ch aracte ristics, population trends, and m anagemen t

practices for 13 spe cies of NTM B th at are k now n to breed

on th e KNF. Th e spe cies for w h ich abstracts w e re com -

piled w e re ch osen because th ey (1) are k now n to w inte r

alm ost e xclusive ly in th e neotropics, (2) are sum m e r residents th at b reed on th e KNF, and (3) re present a cross

section of th e NTMB taxa th at are k now n to e xist on th e

KNF. Accounts are presented in taxonom ic order follow -

ing th e ch e ck list of th e Am e rican Ornith ologists Union.

Each abstract contains sections on distribution, biology, h abitats, and te rritory siz e /density. Data presented in each account sh ould be useful in constructing

h abitat suitability index m odels. Th e length of e ach

abstract gene rally re fle cts th e am ount of inform ation

Table l.- Sum m ary of th e 24 m anagem e nt areas on th e Kisatch ie National Fore st, Louisiana*

M gm t.

no.

Description of m anage m ent are a H e ctare s+

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Nonproductive land cl.4 m %a/yr

Palustris Expe rim ental Forest

Research natural are as

Kisatch ie H ills W ilde rness Area

Not ph ysically suited for tim be r production

Deve loped re cre ation are as

Stuart Seed Orch ard

Ft. Polk and Pe ason Ridge m ilitary use are as

England AFB bom bing and gunne ry range

England AFB bom bing range safe ty fan

Gene ral forest are a/grazing

Gene ral forest are a/no grazing

Kisatch ie soils

Breezy H illiW W II artille ry range-no entry

Breezy H ill/W W II artille ry range /grazing

Breezy H ill/W W II artille ry range /no grazing

Scen ic are as

Adm inistrative sites

Red-cock aded w oodpeck e r

Colonies

Recruitm ent stands

Aquatic and riparian are as

Aquatic

Riparian

National W ild and Scen ic Rive r Study Are a

Nonforest

Cultural resource sites

National w ildlife prese rves

2,297

2,9 17

884

3,521

2,724

1,058

166

15,627

356

2,128

55,567

131,200

6,365

346

4,619

2,368

45

47

1,152

1,565

1,862

(28,540)

(1,543)

5,100

(223)

(30,130)

Total 241,9 14

* Inform ation from th e Final Land and Resource M anage m ent Plan: Kisatch ie National Forest

(USDA FS 19 85).

t H e ctarages in parenth eses are not added to total because th ey are ph ysically located w ith in

oth e r m anage m ent are as.
available for a given spe cies; th e re fore, inte rested ornith ologists are encouraged to pursue research on th ose

spe cies for w h ich little publish ed lite rature is available.

Th e spe cies list of NTMB for KNF contains 118 species in 9 orders, all but 10 of w h ich are land birds (appendix D). Of th e 108 land birds, 57 (53 pe rcent) are

transient or w inte r visitors and 51(47 pe rcent) are pe rm anent or sum m e r residents. Th e largest order of NTM B

is Passeriform es (88 spe cies), and th e oth e r m ain order

re presented is Falconiform es (9 spe cies). Am ong th e 88

spe cies of passe rines, th e largest groups are th e w arble rs (33 spe cies) follow e d by th e flycatch e rs (12 spe cies),

vire os (7 spe cies), and th rush es (6 spe cies). Th e dive rse

avifauna of th e KNF inh abits a w ide varie ty of nich es

w ith in th e th ree m ain forest types (pine, h ardw ood, and

m ixed pine-h ardw ood). Many of th ese b irds inh ab it bottom land or upland h ardw ood forests, and th e oth e rs inh ab it pine or m ixed pine-h ardw ood stands. Som e spe cies

pre fe r open s tands, and oth e rs m ay occur in

forest-inte rior situations, forest-fie ld edges, w ooded

sw am ps, or riparian areas. Th is gre at dive rsity dem ands

th at m anage rs possess a k now ledge of th e biological ch aracte ristics and attributes of th e spe cies th at inh ab it th e

forest. To th is end, th e auth ors h ave begun th e task of

com piling th at inform ation in th e accounts th at follow .

Table 2.- Sum m ary of projected tim ber sales on th e Kisatch ie

National Fore st, Louisiana, 19 9 1-9 5*

Range r

district 19 9 1 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 Total

Catah ou la

Evange line

Kisa tch i e

W inn .

V e r n o n

C a n e y

Tot a l

R e vised +

-------- Million board fe et-Scribner C --------

36.59 35.88 35.34 33.9 0 33.57 175.28

21.84 21.66 21.67 21.40 22.20 108.77

19 .60 19 .00 19 .30 20.18 21.00 9 9 .08

51.20 51.50 51.80 52.80 53.58 260.88

10.9 1 10.60 10.40 10.32 10.27 52.50

10.01 7.9 3 8.17 10.20 10.64 46.9 5

150.15 146.57 146.68 148.80 151.26 743.46

113.00 9 7.00 87.00 87.00 87.00 471.00

* From appendix B in th e Final Land and Resource M anagem ent Plan: Kisatch ie National Forest (USDA FS 19 85).

t W ebb , T.M. 19 9 3. [Ve rbal com m unication]. April 13. Located

at: U.S. De partm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Kisatch ie National Forest, Pineville, LA 71361. Re asons for reduced sale le ve ls

are (1) new red-cock aded w oodpeck e r policy, (2) losses sustained

during south e rn pine beetle e pidem ic of 19 85-86, (3) am endm ents

to th e land m anage m ent plan conce rning m anage m ent of national

w ildlife m anage m ent prese rves (tw o on th e forest), (4) stre am side

m anage m ent z one coordination, and (5) listing of th e Louisiana

pe arlsh e ll m ussel as an endange red species. Th is m ussel m ay be downlisted to th re atened because new colonies h ave re cently been found.

16,972 ha

23,317 ha

Mixed 8%

Hardwood 12%

Figure 2.-Approxim ate proportions of th ree general forest types found on th e Kisatch ie National

Fore st, Louisiana.
Table 3.- Total area of th ree forest types on each ranger d istrict of th e Kisatch ie

National Fore st, Louisiana*

Range r

district Pine H ardw ood

Mixed pineh ardw ood

Total

-------- H ectares (perce nt) --------

Catah oula 35,814 (78.3) 5,439 (11.9 ) 4,478 (9 .8) 45,731

Evange line 24,244 (78.0) 4,660 (15.0) 2,183 (7.0) 31,087

Kisatch ie 24,119 (77.3) 3,707 (11.9 ) 3,357 (10.8) 31,183

W inn 53,267 (84.0) 5,036 (7.9 ) 5,119 (8.1) 63,422

Ve rnon 13,169 (79 .5) 2,182 (13.2) 1,214 (7.3) 16,565

Caney 7,803 (72.8) 2,29 3 (21.4) 621 (5.8) 10,717

Total 158,416 (79 .7) 23,317 (11.7) 16,9 72 (8.6) 19 8,705

* H e ctarages are current as of 7/15/9 1; data from U.S. De partm ent of

Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Kisatch ie National Forest, Pineville, LA 71361.

AGE OF TREES (Years)

YELLOU PINE

LONGLEAF

UPLAND HARDWOOD

BOTTOMLAND HARDUOOD

Figure 3.-M anage m ent indicator species by forest type and stand age. Redraw n from Final Land and Resource Managem e nt Plan: Kisatch ie

National Fore st (USDA FS 19 85).

5
M ississippi Kite (Ictinia m is sis sippiensis)

6
Figure 4.-Distribution of th e Mississippi k ite (sh aded areas) in th e United State s.

.:::::::::::::>::: .:::::::::: ::::::::::y:::: .:,, ........ ..

;ijijjj;: ..;yg

Figure 5.-Louisiana parish es (sh aded are as) in w h ich th e Mississippi k ite h as

been recorded as breeding.

7
Distribution

Th e current distribution of th e M ississippi k ite in

th e United States is given in figure 4. In Louisiana,

Low e ry (19 74) re ported counts of 50-plus k ites along

the Atch afalaya Basin, th e Bonnet Carre Spillw ay near

New O rle ans, and H igh w ay 19 0 just w e st of Port Allen.

On th e KNF, M ississippi k ites h ave been obse rved on

th e Catah oula District by H am ilton and Leste r (19 87),

but not on th e Ve rnon District, by H am ilton and

Yurk unas (19 87) or on th e Kisatch ie District by Tuck e r

(19 80). Biologists of th e Louisiana Natural H e ritage

Program h ave re ported occurrences of M ississippi

k ites as sh ow n in figure 5.

Biology

Th e M ississippi k ite, a fairly com m on sum m e r residen t of Louisiana, arrives in th e State du rin g

m id-April to late April from its w inte ring grounds in

th e neotropics (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82, Low e ry 19 74)

and is m ost com m on along th e batture are as adjacent

to th e M ississippi Rive r and oth e r large stre am s. Bent

(19 37) re ported th at th e prey ite m s of th is raptor include locusts, cicadas, toads, m ice, liz ards, and frogs.

Sk inner (19 62) obse rved k ites capturing M ay beetles

(Ph yllph uga spp.), th e Carolina locust (Dissoste rra

carolina), and undete rm ined species of grassh oppe rs

and dragonflies. Sim ilarly, Glinsk i and Oh m art (19 83)

re ported th at th e principal prey of k ites in Arizona

w as cicadas. Alth ough Bent and Sk inner agreed th at

th e m ajority of foraging activity occurred during fligh t,

Glinsk i and Oh m art noted th at m ost prey captures by

k ites in Arizona w e re accom plish ed by h aw k ing from

a stationary pe rch .

Th e b reed ing season e xtends from M ay th rough July,

w ith th e pe ak pe riod in early June (H am e l and oth e rs

19 82). Pair form ation is th ough t to occur during th e

late w inte ring or m igration periods, and m ost adult

k ites atte m pt to nest (Glinsk i and Oh m art 19 83). A

platform nest of stick s and grasses is usually constructed h igh in th e crotch of a loblolly pine, swee tgum ,

or cottonw ood tre e, and a single clutch of one to th re e

(usually tw o) plain w h ite e ggs is laid (Bent 19 37).

Reproductive success of k ites in Arizona h as been estim ated to be 0.60 fledgling pe r nesting atte m pt

(Glinsk i and Oh m art 19 83). Alth ough m ost adult k ites

atte m pt to nest, th ese auth ors found th at 44 pe rcent

of all nesting failures occurred during courtsh ip and

nest building, 40 pe rcent during incubation, and 16

pe rcent during th e nestling stage. Th ough e ggsh e ll

th inning due to pesticide contam ination h as posed

proble m s to th e re productive success of oth e r raptors,

Park e r (19 76) found th at th e am ount of th inning in

M ississippi k ite e ggs in Kansas, Ok lah om a, and Te xas

w as m inim al and unlik e ly to affe ct re gional re productive success.

Young k ites re ach m aturity at approxim ate ly 2 ye ars

of age, alth ough th ey are capable of b reed ing at 1 ye ar

(Park e r and Ogden 19 79 ). W h e re suitable nesting

h abitat is lim ited, th ese raptors m ay nest colonially

(Park e r 19 74, Park e r and Ogden 19 79 , Sk inner 19 62).

Th is ph enom enon is m ost notable in th e south e rn

Gre at Plains w h e re M ississippi k ites m ak e e xtensive

use of w indbre ak s planted to prote ct agricultural crops

(Love and oth e rs 19 85, Park e r 19 74, Sk inner 19 62).

Park e r and Ports (19 82) h ave also docum ented th e

presence of yearling h e lpe rs at nests of k ites in Ok lah om a and Kansas. Th is strate gy m ay im prove nesting success and possibly benefit h e lpe rs as w e ll. Most

M ississippi k ites depart Louisiana by m id-Se ptembe r,

alth ough a few h ave been seen during th e fall m onth s

(Low e ry 19 74).

H abitats

As m entioned previously, th is raptor is m ost com -

m only found along th e riparian zones and batture are as of m ajor rive rs. In th e re lative ly xe ric Gre at Basin,

central Ariz ona, and New Me xico, k ites are found m ost

closely associated w ith riparian zones and w indbre ak s

(Allan and Sim e 19 43, Glinsk i and Oh m art 19 83,

Park e r 19 74, Park e r and Ogden 19 79 ). Riparian are as are usually dom inated by cottonw oods, and w indb re ak s are com posed of cotton w oods, oak s, black

locust, e aste rn redcedar, e lm s, and green ash (Allan

and Sine 19 43, Glinsk i and Oh m art 19 83, Love and

oth e rs 19 85).

In w e ste rn Tennessee, Kalla and Alsop (19 83) reported th at 74 pe rcent of 162 sigh tings of k ites occurred ove r w ooded areas w ith in th e M ississippi Rive r

floodplain, 15 pe rcent ove r w ooded areas outside th e

floodplain, and th e re m aining 11 pe rcent ove r nonw ooded areas. Alth ough M ississippi k ites require large

trees for nesting, th ey do forage ove r open country, espe cially in a h e avily fragm ented landscape such as th at

found along th e M ississippi alluvial plain. Th is raptor

w ill also nest and forage in urban settings such as th e

cities of Baton Rouge and New O rle ans in Louisiana.

Te rritory Siz e /Density

Alth ough no data h ave been publish ed on th e size

of th e h om e ranges of th e k ite, Kalla and Alsop (19 83)

re ported th at th e sm allest w ooded area w h e re k ites

w e re sigh ted w as 75 h a and th at th e ave rage w as approxim ate ly 400 h a. Allan and Sim e (19 43) re ported

sigh ting 169 k ites during 552 km of trave ling in th e

Te xas panh andle. Th ey also estim ated, based on th eir

e xpe rience, th at a pair of k ites occupies about 5 k m 2

in suitable h abitat.

8

Broad-W inged H awk (Buteo platypterus)

10
Figure 6.-Distribution of th e broad-w inged h awk (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern Canad a.

TRANSIENT

Figure 7.-Louisiana parishes in w h ich th e broad-w inged h awk h as been recorded

as breeding or transient.

11
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e b road-w inged h awk (fig. 6)

is restricted to forested are as of th e Easte rn United

States and th e bore al forests of Canada. Data for Louisiana are sk e tch y at best (fig. 7), but th is raptor h as

been re ported as a breeding b ird on th e Catah oula and

Ve rnon Districts of th e KNF (H am ilton and Leste r

19 87. H am ilton and Yurk unas 19 87).

Biology

Th is locally com m on to uncom m on raptor arrives

from m id-March to m id-April and resides in th e

h e avily forested portions of th e State (H am e l and oth -

e rs 19 82, Low e ry 19 74). Broad-w ings are m ost num e rous in Louisiana during fall m igration (Se ptembe r

th rough Octobe r) w h en large aggre gations, en route to

Central and South Am e rica, pass th rough th e south -

w e st portion of th e State (Kerlinge r and Gauth re aux

19 85).

Broad-w ings are gene rally sit-and-w ait predators

but w ill also spot prey from soaring fligh t (H am e l and

oth e rs 19 82). Apparently, th e diets of b road-w ings are

dependent upon ge ograph ic location. Th e various auth ors cited in Sh e rrod (19 78) re ported w ide ly diffe rent proportions of th e m ajor taxonom ic groups in th e

die ts of b road-w ings at diffe rent locations. For instance, proportions of m am m als ranged from 6.9 to

62.0 pe rcent and inve rteb rates ranged from 2.0 to 77.8

pe rcent of th e diet. In Albe rta, Canada, Rusch and

Doe rr (19 72) found th at m am m als com prised 72 pe rcent and 53 pe rcent and birds com prised 24 pe rcent

and 25 pe rcent of th e diets of th e b road-w inged h aw k

during 19 66 and 19 68, res pe ctive ly. M osh e r and

M atray (19 74) re ported th at m am m als w e re th e m ost

frequent prey ite m s (46.1 pe rcent) in th e diets of

b road-w ings in New York , follow e d by am ph ibians

(27.9 pe rcent), birds (21.0 pe rcent), and re ptiles (5.7

pe rcent).] Janik and Mosh e r (19 82) also found th at

m am m als w e re pre fe rred ite m s in th e diets of

b road-w inged h aw k s in Maryland. Food ite m s of

b road-w ings in Kansas (Fitch 19 74), in order of im -

portance, w e re re ptiles and am ph ibians, m am m als,

birds, and insects.

Th e b reed ing s e ason gene rally e xtends from

m id-April to m id-June, w ith th e pe ak pe riod e xtending from e arly to m id-May (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82).

Courtsh ip and pair form ation occur in early spring,

and both se xes participate in nest construction

(Matray 19 74). Th e sh allow platform nest is usually

1 Pe rcentages do not add to 100 in Mosh e r and Matray (19 74)

due to ave raging of 2 ye ars of data.

placed in th e first m ain crotch of a h ardw ood tree ave raging 26 to 54 cm in diam e te r at b re ast h eigh t

(d.b.h .) (Keran 19 78, M atray 19 74). Nest h eigh ts reported by M atray (19 74), Rosenfie ld (19 84), and Titus

and Mosh e r (19 81) ave raged 13.3, 8.2, and 13.4 m ,

respe ctive ly. Keran (19 78) m e asured stand densities

around 10 nest sites in Minnesota and found an ave rage stand density of 504 trees pe r h e ctare, and Titus

and Mosh e r (19 81) found m ost nest sites in stands

th at w e re ne arly h alf as dense w ith 278 trees pe r h e ctare. Rosenfie ld (19 84) re ported th e m inim um distance

between active nests as 1.5 k m . Furth e r, Titus and

M osh e r (19 81) re ported th at b road-w inged h aw k s

tended to place nests closer to w ate r and forest openings th an oth e r w oodland h aw k s.

Egg laying gene rally coincides w ith re foliation of

trees (Matray 19 74), and ave rage clutch size is 2.4 e ggs

pe r nest (Rosenfie ld 19 84, Rusch and Doe rr 19 72). Th e

incubation period is at le ast 28 days; during th is tim e

th e fe m ale is prim arily responsible for incubation

w h ile th e m ale does m ost of th e h unting for food

(Matray 19 74). Rosenfie ld (19 84) re ported a nesting

success of 79 pe rcent, w ith an ave rage of 1.5 young

fledged for e ach of 70 active nests in W isconsin. Rusch

and Doe rr (19 72) re ported th at 83 pe rcent of 12 young

from 5 nests in Albe rta, Canada, survived to fledging.

M atray (19 74) re ported loo-pe rcent survival for 4

week s for nine nestlings in New York . In Maryland,

Janik and Mosh e r (19 82) found th at young w e re successfully produced in 86 percent of 36 nests, w ith an

ave rage of 1.7 young pe r active nest.

H abitats

Th ough m ost of th e follow ing inform ation on h abitats m ay not be applicable to b road-w ings nesting in

Louisiana, th e paucity of inform ation on th is spe cies

in th e State seem s to justify th e inclusion of data from

oth e r parts of its range. It is lik e ly th at th e m ost e xtensive and m ature h ardw ood and m ixed pine-h ardw ood stands could h old broad-w ings. Conve rsely, if a

stand h arbors broad-w ings, it is probably safe to assum e th at such a stand is of h igh enough quality for

oth e r NTMB as w e ll. Th us, th e b road-w ing sh ould be

th ough t of as a good indicator of a h e alth y h ardw ood

forest e cosyste m .

Rosenfie ld (19 84) found m ost b road-w ing nests in

tremb ling aspen (51 pe rcent) and w h ite b irch (29 pe rcent) in W isconsin. M atray (19 74) re ported th at m ost

(86 pe rcent) of th e nests w e re in yellow birch trees in

New York . In Maryland, Titus and Mosh e r (19 81)

found 79 pe rcent of all nests in oak s and 50 pe rcent of

th ose in w h ite oak s. Burns (19 11) re ported Am e rican

ch estnut as th e m ost frequent nesting tree in th e

North e aste rn United States. Keran (19 78) re ported

12
th at nests in Minnesota and W isconsin w e re found in

aspen (21 pe rcent) and oak (41 pe rcent).

Dom inant tree spe cies found on Rosenfie ld’s (19 84)

study are a in W isconsin w e re tremb ling aspen , w h ite

birch , balsam fir, and black ash . Rusch and Doe rr’s

(19 72) study are a in Albe rta, Canada, w as aspen-dom inated deciduous forest. M atray’s New York study are a

w as m ainly h ardw ood (60 pe rcent) dom inated by sugar

m aple, Am e rican beech , and yellow birch , w ith th e

re m ainde r in red spruce and easte rn h e m lock (20 pe rcent) and m arsh es, sw am ps, and oth e r forest types

(20 pe rcent).

In Kansas, Fitch ’s (19 74) study are a in th e north -

w e ste rn part of th e State w as m ore xe ric th an th e previous study sites. Dom inant w oodland species w e re

h oneylocust and Osage-orange , w ith th ick e ts of

rough le af dogw ood, plum s, sum acs, and crabapples;

e lm s, h ick ories, and oak s dom inated th e m esic sites.

Titus and Mosh e r (19 81) and Janik and Mosh e r (19 82)

studied w oodland raptors in tw o M aryland forests, One

are a w as com posed of w h ite oak , red oak , and h ick ories, w ith an understory of flow e ring dogw ood, Th e

oth e r Maryland are a w as dom inated by red oak , red

and sugar m aples, h ick ories, black and yellow b irch es,

Am e rican beech , Am e rican bassw ood, and easte rn

h e m lock .

Te rritory Siz e /De nsity

Te rritory sizes of raptors are undeniably influenced

by m any factors, including th e availability of suitable

nest sites and th e abundance of pre fe rred prey species. To m e e t all of th eir needs during th e b reeding

season, raptors require large tracts of land. Th e re fore,

investigators studying b road-w inged h aw k s h ave reported w ide ly varying estim ates of b reeding densities

(table 4), wh ich ave rage one pair pe r 11.5 k m 2.

Table 4.- Te rr.tory size e stim ates for broad-w inged h aw k s by

local ion

State or

province

Te rritory

size Refe rence

k m 2 ipair

N ew Y ork 2.3 Matray 19 74

W isconsin 2.4 Rosenfie ld 19 84

Maryland 8.9 Janik and Mosh e r 19 82

Albe rta, Canada 9 .0 Rusch and Doe rr 19 72

Maryland 14 .6 Titus and Mosh e r 19 81

W isconsin/Minnesota 32.0 Ke ran 19 78

13
Ye llow -Billed Cuck oo (Coccyzus am e ricanus)

14
Figure B.-Distribution of th e yellow -billed cuck oo (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern Canad a.

Figure 9 .-Louisiana parishes in w h ich th e yellow -billed cuck oo h as been recorded

as breeding or transient.

15
Distribution H abitats

Th e yellow -billed cuck oo is one of th e m ost w idespre ad of th e neotropical m igrants th at occur on th e

KNF (fig. 8). Alth ough it occurs as far w e st as th e central valley of California, it is considered m onotypic

(Bank s 19 88). Biologists of th e Louisiana Natural

H e ritage Program h ave re corded th e presence of b reeding cuck oos in th e parish es m ark ed in figure 9 . Furth e r, yellow -billed cuck oos h ave been re corded as

b reed ing birds on th e Catah oula, Ve rn on , and

Kisatch ie Districts of th e KNF by H am ilton and Leste r

(19 87), H am ilton and Yurk unas (19 87), and Tuck e r

(19 80), respe ctive ly.

Biology

Th is com m on sum m e r resident of Louisiana arrives

in th e State in late M arch to late April (Low e ry 19 74).

Th e yellow -billed cuck oo is k now n to forage m ostly on

cate rpillars (Le pidopte ra), notably th e e aste rn tent

cate rpillar (MaZ acosom a am e ricana) (H am ilton and

H am ilton 19 65, Low e ry 19 74, Nolan and Th om pson

19 75). Also of im portance in th e diet are pe riodical

(Magicicad a spp.) and annual (Tibicen. spp.) cicadas

(Nolan and Th om pson 19 75). Th e foraging m ode of th is

b ird h as been described by Nolan and Th om pson (19 75)

as h aw k lik e or w aiting m otionless for prey to reve al

itself.

Th e re is strong evidence th at th e tim ing of yellow -

billed cuck oo b reeding activities coincides closely w ith

th e occurre n ce of pe ak s in local food abundance

( H am ilton and H am ilton 1 9 65, Nolan an d

Th om pson 19 75). More ove r, th e data of Fleisch e r and

oth e rs (19 85) suggest th at cuck oos incre ase clutch siz e

in response to an e ruption of pe riodical cicadas. Th e

b reeding season extends from m id-April to m id-Se ptembe r, w ith th e pe ak pe riod e xtending from e arly

June to e arly July (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82). Both

adults participate in construction of th e rath e r flim sy

platform nest of tw igs and le aves on th e fork of a h oriz ontal b ranch 4 to 10 m above th e ground (H am ilton

and H am ilton 19 65, Low e ry 19 74, Potte r 19 80).

Incubation of th e tw o to six unm ark ed bluish -green

e ggs begins w ith th e first e gg laid, lasts 9 to 11 days,

and is sh ared by both adults. Potte r (19 80) re ported a

g-day incubation period in North Carolina, and

H am ilton and H am ilton (19 65) re ported lo- to 11-day

pe riods in Ariz ona. Alth ough estim ates of nesting and

fledging success are lack ing in m ost of th e available

lite rature, Potte r (19 80) found th at young cuck oos

le ave th e nest at 7 or 8 days of age. Ye llow -billed cuck -

oos gene rally depart Louisiana by e arly Octobe r but

h ave been k now n to le ave as late as th e m iddle of

Novembe r (Low e ry 19 74).

Th e yellow -billed cuck oo gene rally favors dense

th ick e ts near w ate rcourses, second-grow th w oodlands,

open w oods, and riparian are as at low e levations.

M any of th e publish ed studies specifically addressing

th e yellow -billed cuck oo w e re conducted in California

(Gaines 19 74, Jay 19 11, Sh e lton 19 11), wh e re th is bird

occurs prim arily in are as of riparian ve ge tation com -

posed of w e ste rn cottonw ood and w illow s. H am ilton

and H am ilton (19 65) and Rosenbe rg and oth e rs (19 82)

found cuck oos in sim ilar h abitats in Ariz ona. Gaines

(19 74) re ported th at cuck oos w e re found in riparian

are as th at w e re at le ast 100 m w ide and 300 m long.

In Indiana, Nolan (19 63) studied th e nesting success

of b reeding birds in a de ciduous scrub h abitat and

found cuck oos nesting in Am e rican elm and h aw th orn

scrub types. Preble (19 57) obse rved cuck oos nesting

in redcedars on Gibraltar Island, in Oh io, and Potte r

(19 80) re ported on th e nesting of yellow -billed cuck -

oos in a red oak in North Carolina.

Conne r and oth e rs (19 79 ) found cuck oos in w e ste rn

Virginia, w h e re th e dom inant tree spe cies w e re pitch

pine, ch estnut oak , Table M ountain pine, red oak ,

w h ite pine, w h ite oak , and red m aple. Dick son (19 78b)

found cuck oos in a Louisiana bottom land h ardw ood

forest com posed of w ate r oak , swee tgum , h ack be rry,

ch e rrybark oak , sw am p ch estnut oak , green ash , and

Am e rican elm . Dick son and oth e rs (19 80) also found

cuck oos to occur m ost com m only in oak -gum -cypress,

loblolly-sh ortle af pine , and oak -pine forest types

th rough out th e South e ast. Joh nston and Odum (19 56)

and Evans (19 78) found cuck oos to be m ost abundant

in oak -h ick ory clim ax forests and m ature (loo-ye arold) pine stands. Meyers and Joh nson (19 78) re ported

th e h igh est densities of cuck oos in 25-plus-year-old

loblolly-sh ortle af pine , m ixed pine-h ardw ood, and

m ature h ardw ood stands. Te m ple and oth e rs (19 79 )

also found th at cuck oos occur in deciduous, m ixed, and

conife rous forest types in W isconsin.

In Tennessee, Anderson and Sh ugart (19 74) found

th at, of 28 h abitat variables exam ined, th e presence

of yellow -billed cuck oos w as significantly re lated only

to th e num be r of saplings on th e plot. Blak e and Karr

(19 87) found th at cuck oo abundance w as significantly

corre lated to w oodlot are a, tree density, and am ount

of sh rub ve ge tation in Indiana. Robbins and oth e rs

(19 89 ) e xam ined 15 environm ental variables and

found th at 5 w e re significant predictors of yellow -billed

cuck oo re lative abundance in th e M iddle Atlantic

States. Th ese five we re: (1) num be r of tree spe cies in

a 0.04-h a are a around th e sam ple point and (2) are a

of forest (both of w h ich w e re positive ly corre lated w ith

re lative abundance ) and (3) pe rcentage of forest w ith in

2 km of th e sam ple point, (4) slope, and (5) canopy

cove r by conife rous trees (th ese last th ree we re inve rsely corre lated w ith re lative abundance ). Th ese

16
auth ors also predicted a probability of occurrence of

sligh tly m ore th an 50 pe rcent in a forest of 100 h a.

Te rritory Siz e /Density

As previously m entioned, nesting of yellow -billed

cuck oos m ay be influenced by th e abundance of local

food sources; th is m ay also influence th e size of local

cuck oo populations (H am ilton and H am ilton 19 65).

Th e variation in th e abundance of local food sources

m ay se rve to e xplain th e w ide range of densities across

th e range of th is bird (table 5). Ave raging th e estim ates in th e table yields a density of 20 pairs pe r

square k ilom e te r.

Table 5.- Density estim ates for yellow -billed cuck oos by location

State or

re gion

Density Refe rence

Louisiana

South e aste rn States 3

Illinois 5

Indiana 8

South e aste rn States 13

Louisiana 21

Ge orgia 23

East Te xas 53

Louisiana/e ast Te xas 55

Pairs ik m 2

2 H am ilton and Yurk unas

19 87

Sh ugart and oth e rs 19 78

Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

Nolan 19 63

Meye rs and Joh nson 19 78

Dick son 19 78a

Joh nston and Odum 19 56

W h iting and Fle e t 19 87

Dick son 19 78b

17
Ch uck -Will’s=W idow (Caprim ulgus carolinensis)

18
Figure lo.-Distrib ution ofth e ch uck -w ill’s _ w id ow (sh aded areas) in th e United State s.

BREEDING

TRANSIEN T

Figure ll.- Louisianaparish es in w h ich th e ch uck -w ill’s _ w id ow h as been recorded

as breeding or transient.

19
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e ch uck -w ill’s-w idow in th e

United States is given in figure 10. In Louisiana, th is

caprim ulgid (also re fe rred to as a goatsuck e r or nigh tjar) h as been located on breeding-bird surveys in th e

parish es sh ow n in figure 11 by biologists of th e Natural H e ritage Program . Know ledge of th e distribution

of th is bird is probably less com ple te th an th at of any

of th e diurnal spe cies because m ost b reed ing-bird studies do not include nigh t surveys. On th e K NF,

H am ilton and Leste r (19 87) and H am ilton and

Yurk unas (19 87) noted th e presence of th is bird on

th e Catah oula and Ve rnon Districts.

Biology

Th e largest goatsuck e r in th e United States, th e

ch uck -w ills-w idow arrives in num be rs in th e first part

of April (Low e ry 19 74). Lik e oth e r nigh tjars, th e food

of th is spe cies consists alm ost entire ly of insects caugh t

in fligh t. Th e auth ors w e re not able to locate any re fe rences re garding th e range of b reeding dates for th is

bird. Th e nest, h ow e ve r, is usually a sh allow cup

form ed in le af litte r or pine needles. Incubation of th e

tw o pink ish -w h ite e ggs, w h ich are m arbled or spotted

w ith b row n, lasts about 20 days (H oyt 19 53, W est and

oth e rs 19 60). Low e ry (19 74) presum ed th at m ost of

th ese b irds le ave th e State by th e m iddle of Octobe r,

alth ough once calling activity ce ases, it is difficult to

dete rm ine w h e th e r th ey are present or not. Be cause

so little w ork on th e life h istory of th is nocturnal bird

h as been conducted, aspe cts of nest-site sele ction and

re productive success are virtually nonexistent.

H abitats

Low e ry (19 74) stated th at th e ch uck -w ill’s_w idow is

th e com m on goatsuck e r of th e w ooded upland portions

of th e State, pre fe rring m esic, m ixed pine-oak h abitats. Menge l and Jen k inson (19 71) studied th e vocaliz ations of th is bird in north e aste rn Kansas but did

not provide any description of th e ve ge tational ch aracte ristics of th e are a. Coope r (19 81) look ed at re lative abundances of caprim ulgids in Ge orgia (based on

call counts) and found th at th e re w as no significant

diffe rence in th e counts of ch uck -w ill’s_w idow s am ong

suburban, pasture, and forest h abitats. Again, no descriptions of ve ge tational ch aracte ristics w e re provided. H ow e ve r, in com parison to th e wh ip-poor-w ill

(Cuprimulgus uociferus), th e ch uck -w ill’s_w idow prefe rs m ore open h ab itats. H arpe r (19 38) intim ated th at

h abitat pre fe rences for th e purposes of roosting, singing, and nesting w e re islands and rive rbank s in th e

Ok e fenok ee Sw am p in south e rn Georgia and north -

e rn Florida.

W h iting and Fle e t (19 87) found few ch uck -w ill’sw idow s in pole and saw tim be r stands of loblolly-sh ortle af pines in east Te xas, and H am ilton and Yurk unas

(19 87) re ported th is bird as occurring in longle af-slash

pine forests in Ve rnon Parish , Louisiana. Joh nston and

Odum (19 56) found th is bird in 25 to lOO-year-old

pine and in m ature oak -h ick ory clim ax forests in th e

Piedm ont of Ge orgia. In th e Oz ark H igh lands of Ark ansas, Sh ugart and Jam es (19 73) re ported th e presence of th e ch uck -w ill’s_w idow in forests dom inated

by black , post, and w h ite oak s, but Sh ugart and oth -

e rs (19 78) re ported th e pre fe rred h abitat to be m ixed

conife rous-deciduous forests.

Te rritory Siz e /De nsity

Menge l and Jen k inson (19 71) stated th at th eir data

on population density w ould be publish ed elsew h e re,

but th e auth ors of th is re port could not locate th at

re fe rence, alth ough Menge l and oth e rs (19 72) discussed th e function of w ing clapping in te rritorial beh avior. Th ough th e actual size of th e te rritory occupied

by th is spe cies is unk now n, Coope r’s (19 81) call counts,

conducted at 20 stations along approxim ate ly 16 k m

of roads near Ath ens, Ge orgia, do provide som e basis

for estim ating density. On 18 nigh ts from April th rough

July 19 75, counts ave raged about 16 birds ove r th e 20

stations or 1 bird pe r k ilom e te r.

20

Acadian Flycatch e r (Em pid onax vire scens)

22
Figure 12.-Distribution of th e Acad ian fZ ycatch er (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern Canad a.

Figure 13.-Louisiana parish es (sh aded areas) in w h ich th e Acad ian flycatch er

h as been recorded as breeding.

23
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e Acadian flycatch e r in th e

United States is given in figure 12. Th is is th e only

spe cies of Em pid onax flycatch e r found breeding in

Louisiana, and it occurs in m oist deciduous w oodlands

and sm all riparian zones th rough out th e State (fig.

13). H am ilton and Leste r (19 87), H am ilton and

Yurk unas (19 87), and Tuck e r (19 80) re corded th is flycatch e r on census routes on th e Catah oula, Ve rnon,

and Kisatch ie Districts of th e KNF, respe ctive ly.

Biology

Th e Acadian flycatch e r is a com m on sum m e r resident th rough out its range and arrives in Louisiana

from e arly April to e arly May (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82,

Low e ry 19 74). As th e nam e im plies, th is bird forages

on airborne insects (prim arily h ym enopte rans) (Bent

19 42). Maurer and W h itm ore (19 81) found th at

flycatch ing (also called h aw k ing) and h ove ring accounted for ove r 9 0 pe rcent of all th e foraging m aneuve rs utilized by Acadian flycatch e rs, re gardless of

forest type (young vs. m ature ). Th ese auth ors also

re ported th at foraging h eigh t w as re lated to forest

type, w ith m e an h eigh ts of 5.2 m in young forests and

8.1 m in m ature forests.

Th e b reeding season of th e Acadian flycatch e r e xtends from late April to late June, w ith th e pe ak period e xtending from late M ay to m id-June (H am e l and

oth e rs 19 82). Th e rath e r flim sy nest of tw igs and cobwebs lined w ith fine grasses is usually placed near th e

end of a long swee ping b ranch in a h oriz ontal fork 1 to 4

m above th e ground (Low e ry 19 74, W alk insh aw 19 66).

Th e fe m ale alone incubates th e clutch of tw o to four

finely spotted, w h itish e ggs for 13 to 15 days, afte r

w h ich fle d gin g tak es a sim ilar pe riod of tim e

(W alk insh aw 19 66). Most pairs in W alk insh aw ’s (19 66)

M ich igan study atte m pted to raise tw o b roods. Eggs

h atch ed in 72.7 pe rcent and young birds fledged in

64.5 pe rcent of th e 121 nests obse rved; h ow e ve r, som e

of th ese nests w e re parasitized by cow b irds (Moloth rus

ater). In th e sam e study, e ggs h atch ed in 80.2 pe rcent

and young birds fledged in 70.8 pe rce n t of th e

unparasitized nests. Follow ing b reed ing activity,

Acadian flycatch e rs depart Louisiana by th e m iddle

of Octobe r (Low e ry 19 74).

H abitats

Th e Acadian flycatch e r can be found in m oist bottom land h ardw ood forests th rough out its range and

pre fe rs h abitats w ith m ature trees, closed canopies,

and open understories for foraging. In Mich igan,

W alk insh aw (19 66) found th ese flycatch e rs in bottom -

land h ab itat com posed ch ie fly of m aples, e aste rn h e m -

lock , oak s, and Am e rican beech . H espen h eide (19 71)

located th is bird in h ardw ood, m ixed pine-h ardw ood,

or pine stands undergrow n w ith h ardw oods in North

Carolina, Virginia, Oh io, and W isconsin. Mature red

oak s w e re th e dom inant trees in Newm an’s (19 58)

study in Oh io. Th e study are as of M aure r and

W h itm ore (19 81) w e re dom inated by red oak , sw am p

ch estnut oak , and m aples. W h iting and Fle e t (19 87)

found th e Acadian flycatch e r in loblolly-sh ortle af pine

saw tim be r and m ixed stands in east Te xas. In south

central Louisiana, Dick son (19 7813) found Acadian flycatch e rs on th e Th istle w aite W ildlife M anagemen t

Are a, w h ich w as dom inated by w ate r oak , swee tgum ,

and h ack be rry.

Blak e and Karr (19 87) found th at abundance of

Acadian flycatch e rs w as significantly corre lated to

w oodlot are a. Conne r andAdk isson (19 75), Conne r and

oth e rs (19 79 ), and Evans (19 78) found th is flycatch e r

to be re lative ly m ore abundant in pole tim be r and

m ature h ardw oods th an in younge r stands. Dick son

and oth e rs (19 80) found th e Acadian flycatch e r to be

m ost abundant in m ature oak -gum -cypress and oak -

pine stands th rough out th e South e ast. H oope r (19 78)

re ported th at th is bird nests at m edium densities in

second-grow th saw tim be r and at low densities in virgin h e m lock and h ardw oods of cove forests in th e Appalach ians. Joh nston and Odum (19 56) found Acadian

flycatch e rs associated w ith only oak -h ick ory clim ax

forests in Ge orgia. Meye rs and Joh nson (19 78) reported th at th e h igh est densities w e re in m ature h ardw oods and th at th e low e st densities w e re in m ixed

and 35-plus-year-old pine stands. Robbins and oth e rs

24
(19 89 ) found th at th e probability of dete cting Acadian

flycatch e rs at a given random point in a forest w as

m axim um (58 pe rcent) in forests of m ore th an 3,000 h a.

Table 6.- Density estim ates for Acad ian flycatch ers by location

State or

re gion

Density Refe rence

Te rritory Siz e /De nsity

Ave rage estim ates of population density gle aned

from th e lite rature are presented in table 6. Tuck e r’s

(19 80) estim ate on th e Bayou Boeuf Research Natural Are a of th e Kisatch ie District and th at of H am ilton

and Yurk unas (19 87) on th e Ve rnon District are th e

only density estim ates available for th e KNF. Alth ough

th e ave rage density from table 6 is about 44 pairs pe r

square k ilom e te r, th e actual num be r of pairs is probably considerably low e r due to th e pre fe rence of th is

bird for m oist forest types.

Louisiana

Ge orgia 13

Illinois 20

Louisiana 23

South e aste rn States 23

South e aste rn States 25

Ark ansas 35

East Te xas 60

Louisiana 60

Mich igan 83

Louisiana/e ast Te xas 142

Pairs / k m 2

2 H am ilton and Yurk unas

19 87

Joh nston and Odum 19 56

Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

Dick son 19 78a

Sh ugart and oth e rs 19 78

Meye rs and Joh nson 19 78

Sh ugart and Jam es 19 73

W h iting and Fle e t 19 87

Tuck e r 19 80

W alk insh aw 19 66

Dick son 19 78b

25
W ood Th rush (H yZ ocich Z a m uste lina)

26
Figu re 14.-Distribution of th e w ood th rush (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern Canad a.

BREEDING

TRANSIENT

Figu re E-Louisiana parish es in w h ich th e w ood th rush h as been recorded as

breeding or transient.

27
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e w ood th rush in th e United

States is given in figure 14. Th is bird is found in all

portions of Louisiana e xce pt th e coastal are as (Low e r-y

19 74). Biologists of th e Louisiana Natural H e ritage

Program h ave re corded th is th rush in th e parish es

sh ow n in figure 15. On th e KNF, H am ilton and Leste r

(19 87), H am ilton and Yurk unas (19 87), and Tuck e r

(19 80) re corded th is bird on study are as on th e

Catah oula, Ve rnon, and Kisatch ie Districts, respective ly,

Biology

Th is com m on sum m e r resident of deciduous, m ixed

pine-h ardw ood, and residential are as arrives in th e

State by th e last week of M arch (Low e ry 19 74). Th e

w ood th rush forages m ainly on th e forest floor, tak ing

insects, w orm s, be rries, and oth e r sm all fruits. H olm es

and Robinson (19 88) found th at m ost (9 2 pe rcent) of

th e w ood th rush ’s foraging activity is done w ith in 0.2

m of th e ground by probing beneath th e le af litte r.

Th e m ost com m only tak en food ite m s and th e pe rcentage of th e diet th at e ach com prises w e re beetles (Cole opte ra), 38 pe rcent; flies (Dipte ra), 18 pe rcent; and

ants (H ym enopte ra), 17 pe rcent.

Th e b reed ing season e xtends from late April to e arly

August, w ith a pe ak pe riod e xtending from m id-May

to e arly June (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82). Th e nest is

constructed of stick s plaste red toge th e r w ith m ud and

is usually placed 1.5 to 5.0 m above th e ground in

sh rubs or on open b ranch es of understory trees (H am e l

and oth e rs 19 82, Jam es and oth e rs 19 84, Low e ry

19 74). Th e th ree to five green ish -blue, unspotted eggs,

w h ich are sim ilar to th ose of th e Am e rican robin

(!lh-dus migratorius) , require about 14 days of incubation, and th e young fledge afte r an additional 2

week s (Dilge r 19 56, Low e r-y 19 74).

H abitats

Utilizing data from b reeding-bird surveys, Dilge r

(19 56) gene ralized th e h abitat pre fe rence of th e w ood

th rush as being strongly associated w ith undisturbed,

m oist deciduous w oodlands. Dilge r also asserted th at

w ood th rush es are m ost abundant in edge situations

and th at abundant sapling grow th is associated w ith

optim um conditions for th is spe cies. Morse (19 71)

found th is th rush in pine, h ardw ood, and m ixed h abitats in Maine. In h is study of b reeding h abitats in

w e ste rn Connecticut, Be rtin (19 77) found th at w ood

th rush te rritories w e re cluste red along stre am s and

in w e t places dom inated by sugar m aple, w h ite ash ,

red oak , and ch estnut oak . Be rtin also found w ood

th rush es, th ough fewe r, in m ature low land forests of

e aste rn h e m lock , w h ite pine, and red m aple. Paul and

Roth (19 83) found h igh densities of th is bird in oak -

swee tgum -tuliptree forests in Delaw are.

Jam es and oth e rs (19 84) ch aracte rized w ood th rush

h abitats as m esic deciduous forests dom inated by

w h ite oak , red oak , sugar m aple, yellow birch , Am e rican beech , tuliptre e, and swee tgum . More ove r, th ey

re ported values for pe rcentage of ground cove r (39 to

71 pe rcent), pe rcentage of canopy cove r (81 to 9 8 pe rcent), and ave rage canopy h eigh t (16 to 26 m ) for w ood

th rush te rritories. Blak e and H oppes (19 81) captured

significantly m ore w ood th rush es in forest inte riors

th an in tree-fall gaps. Robb ins and oth e rs (19 89 ) found

th at th e w ood th rush occurs w ith m axim um probability (80 pe rcent) in forest tracts of at le ast 500 h a.

Te rritory Siz e /Density

Densities of w ood th rush es are h igh ly variable, declining from th e North e ast tow ard th e Gulf of Me xico

(Jam es and oth e rs 19 84). Th is gene rality seem s to be

borne out by th e data in table 7. Th e low e st densities

w e re obse rved in Louisiana (Dick son 19 78a, 19 78b),

and th e h igh est density w as obse rved in a Delaw are

w oodlot (Paul and Roth 19 83). Alth ough th e apparent

trend in th e data re m ains to be ve rified, th e ave rage

density ove r th e entire range (e xcluding Paul and Roth

19 83) is about 22 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r. Be cause

th e w ood th rush pre fe rs m oist sites, th e actual density is e xpe cted to be m uch low e r.

Table 7.- Density estim ates for w ood th rush es by location

State or

re gion

R e fe re n ce

Louisiana

Louisiana

South e aste rn States

Illinois

Ark ansas

Range w ide

Ge orgia

Tennessee/

North Carolina

Delaw are

Pairs /k m 2

6

7

13

15

25

27

38

44

200

Dick son 19 78b

Dick son 19 78a

Meye rs and Joh nson 19 78

Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

H olm es and Sh e rry 19 88

Jam es and oth e rs 19 84

Joh nston and Odum 19 56

W ilcove 19 88

Paul and Roth 19 83

28

Ye llow -Th roated Vire o (Vireo flavifron s)

30
Figure 16.-Distribution ofth e yellow -th roated vireo (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern Canad a.

TRANSIENT

Figure 17.-Louisiana parish es in w h ich th e yellow -th roated uireo h as been recorded as breeding or transient.

31
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e yellow -th roated vire o in th e

United States is given in figure 16. According to

Low e ry (19 74), th is vire o is found th rough out Louisiana north of th e coastal m arsh es. Biologists conducting b reeding-bird surveys for th e Louisiana Natural

H e ritage Program h ave re corded th e yellow -th roated

vire o in th e parish es m ark ed in figure 17. H am ilton

and Leste r (19 87), H am ilton andyurk unas (19 87), and

Tuck e r (19 80) found th is vire o on th e Catah oula, Ve rnon,

and Kisatch ie Districts of th e KNF, respe ctive ly.

Biology

Th is com m on sum m e r resident arrives in Louisiana

during th e first or second week of M arch from its w inte rin g are as in th e ne otropics (Low e ry 19 74).

W illiam son (19 71) found th at th is vire o gle aned

arth ropods from tw igs and branch es less th an 7.5 cm

in diam e te r. In addition, Jam es (19 76) found th at

y e llow -th roated vire os gle aned prey from d e ad

b ranch es in th e central portion of trees. H am e l and

oth e rs (19 82) re ported th at th is vire o forages in h ardw oods at h eigh ts gene rally above 6 m and is rare ly

seen at h eigh ts below 5 m .

Th e b reeding season of th e yellow -th roated vire o

e xtends from late April to m id-July, w ith th e pe ak

pe riod e xtending from m id-May to e arly June (H am e l

and oth e rs 19 82). Th e nest is usually suspended from

th e joint of a fork ed tw ig. W illiam son (19 71) re ported

an ave rage nest h eigh t of 8.7 m (range of 3 to 18 m )

for 36 nests in Maryland, and Jam es (19 76) re ported

an ave rage h eigh t of 13.4 m (range of 9 to 15 m ) for 10

nests in Ontario, Canada. Th e usual clutch size is four

e ggs, but th e range is th ree to five e ggs. Data are not

available on nesting success or survival of young.

H abitats

Th e yellow -th roated vire o can be found in a w ide

varie ty of h ardw ood and m ixed pine-h ardw ood forest

types th rough out its range. It is gene rally associated

w ith m ature, m oist deciduous forests and pre fe rs

w oodlands w ith partially open canopies. In Ontario,

Canada, th e study are a used by Jam es (19 76) w as

dom inated by sugar m aple, Am e rican elm , red oak ,

balsam poplar, tremb ling aspen , and w h ite b irch .

A m bue l a nd Te m p le ( 1 9 8 3 ) r e ported th e

yellow -th roated vire o in forests dom inated by w h ite

oak , red oak , sugar m aple, and bassw ood in W isconsin. W illiam son’s (19 71) study are a in Maryland w as

dom inated by beech , w h ite oak , red m aple, h ick ories,

and swee tgum . Joh nston and Odum (19 56) found th is

vire o in 60-plus-year-old pine and oak -h ick ory clim ax

forests in Ge orgia, and Dick son (19 78b) re corded th is

bird in bottom land h ardw oods dom inated by w ate r

oak , swee tgum , h ack be rry, ch e rrybark oak , green ash ,

and Am e rican elm in Louisiana.

Te rritory Siz e /Density

W illiam son (19 71) stated th at yellow -th roated vire os

gene rally h ave large r te rritories th an oth e r congene rics. Ste w art and Robbins (19 58) and W illiam son

(19 71), both w ork ing in Maryland, re port densities of

25 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r (table 8). Th is com pares

w ith th e low e r end of re ported density estim ates for

red-eyed vire os (table 9 ). Th e ave rage density (from

table 8) is 15 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r.

Table 8.- Density estim ates for yellow -th roated vireos by location

State or

re gion

Illinois

South e aste rn States

Louisiana

South e aste rn States

Ge orgia

Louisiana/e ast Te xas

Maryland

Maryland

Density Refe rence

Pairs /k m 2

5 Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

8 Sh ugart and oth e rs 19 78

9 Dick son 19 78a

13 Meye rs and Joh nson 19 78

13 Joh nston and Odum 19 56

22 Dick son 19 7813

25 Ste w art and Robbins 19 58

25 W illiam son 19 71

32

R e d-Eyed Vire o (Vireo olivaceus)

34
Figure M-Distribution of th e red-eyed vireo (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern Canad a.

Bz4 BREEDING

TRANSIENT

Figure 19 .-Louisiana parish es in w h ich th e red-eyed vireo h as been recorded as

breeding or transient.

35
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e red-eyed vire o in th e United

States is given in figure 18. Low e r-y (19 74) re ported

th at th is vire o can be found virtually eve ryw h e re in

th e h ardw ood se ctions of th e State . Alth ough

b reeding-bird surveys conducted by biologists of th e

Louisiana Natural H e ritage Program h ave re corded

th is bird in m any of th e parish es w ith in th e State (fig.

19 ), th e red-eyed vire o can probably be found in forests and w oodlots th rough out th e en tire State .

H am ilton and Leste r (19 87), H am ilton and Yurk unas

(19 87), and Tuck e r (19 80) found th is vire o on th e

Catah oula, Ve rnon, and Kisatch ie Districts of th e KNF,

res pe ctive ly.

Of 78 red-eyed vire o nests obse rved by South e rn

(19 58), 19 w e re dese rted due to cow bird parasitism ,

11 w e re destroyed by natural causes, and 48 w e re successful in producing vire os and/or cow birds. Based on

th e num be r of e ggs laid in 32 nests th at produced vire o

young, South e rn re ported a nesting success for

red-eyed vire os of 87.49 pe rcent; h ow e ve r, 8 of th ese

nests produced 1 to 3 (total of 10) cow birds as w e ll.

For 21 unparasitized nests, th is sam e auth or re ported

a nesting success of 79 .33 pe rcent. Law rence (19 53)

noted th at red-eyed vire os fledged young from 60 pe rcent of 9 8 e ggs in 30 nests h aving a h atch ing success

of 76 pe rcent. Fall departure of red-eyed vire os from

Louisiana and th e rest of th e South e ast varies from

e arly to late Octobe r (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82, Low e ry

19 74).

Biology

H abitats

Th e red-eyed vire o, an abundant sum m e r resident

of Louisiana, arrives in th e State during th e last h alf

of M arch (Low e ry 19 74). Th e m ajority of prey ite m s

in th e diet of th is bird are insects, prim arily le pidopte rans gle aned from h ardw ood le aves; h ow e ve r, som e

plant m ate rial (be rries) m ay be tak en (Bent 19 50,

Jam es 19 76, R obins on 19 81, South e rn 19 58,

W illiam son 19 71). Maurer and W h itm ore (19 81), w ork -

ing in th e Fe rnow Expe rim ental Forest, in W est Virginia, found th at th ese vire os used h ove ring and

gle aning about equally w h ile foraging m ainly on th e

oute r pe rim e te r of a tre e. Rob inson and H olm es (19 82),

h ow e ve r, obse rved red-eyed vire os using h ove ring

about tw ice as m uch as gle aning in th e H ubbard Brook

Expe rim ental Forest in New H am psh ire. Th ey give

th e follow ing pe rcentages for th e five prey-capturing

m aneuve rs of th is vire o: h ove r (56.6), gle an (29 .9 ),

h ang (7.1), flush -ch ase (1.9 ), and h awk (4.5).

Th e pe ak of b reeding activity occurs from late M ay

to m id-June, and th e nesting season e xtends from e arly

M ay to late July (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82). Th e fe m ale

bears sole responsibility for constructing th e intricate ly w oven pensile nest, w h ich is typically suspended

from a sm all fork in a low e r b ranch of a sm all tre e

(South e rn 19 58). Nest h eigh ts gene rally ave rage about

5.3 m ; h ow e ve r, m e an nest h eigh ts h ave been re ported

as ranging from 2.3 m (South e rn 19 58) in Mich igan to

10.7 m (Robinson 19 81) in New H am psh ire. Th e

red-eyed vire o lays a single clutch of tw o to four w h ite

e ggs h aving a few tiny black spots, and th e 13-day

incubation period begins only afte r th e last e gg h as

been laid (South e rn 19 58). Both sexes sh are in th e

incubation of e ggs and care of nestlings, w h ich fledge

at approxim ate ly 10 to 13 days of age.

Th e red-eyed vire o is gene rally k now n to inh abit

upland and rive r-bottom deciduous and m ixed w oods,

w ooded cle arings, and suburban areas. Blak e and

H oppes (19 81) captured significantly m ore red-eyed

vire os in tree-fall gaps th an in th e forest inte rior, w h ich

suggests an affinity for th ese open ings. Conne r and

oth e rs (19 83) found th at th e distribution of red-eyed

vire os w as positive ly corre lated w ith th e num be r of

tree spe cies, pe rcentage of sm all h ardw oods (5 to 16

cm in d.b.h .), pe rcentage of canopy closure, and ve ge tation h eigh t, but w as negative ly corre lated w ith th e

pe rcentage of sm all pines. South e rn (19 58) described

th e h abitat of h is study are a in Mich igan as dom inated by aspen and red m aple. Rob inson’s (19 81) study

are a in New H am psh ire w as dom inated by sugar

m aple, Am e rican beech , and yellow b irch , and th e principal study are a of W illiam son (19 71) w as dom inated

by Am e rican bee ch and w h ite oak . In contrast, Conne r

and oth e rs (19 83) and W h iting and Fle e t (19 87) reported finding vire os in loblolly-sh ortle af pine stands

in east Te xas.

On th e Catah oula District of th e KNF, H am ilton and

Leste r (19 87) found th e red-eyed vire o to be am ong

th e 10 m ost abundant b reeding birds in th e loblollysh ortle af pine-upland h ardw ood forests of central

Louisiana. H ardw oods present on th eir study are as

included south e rn red oak , post oak , h ick ories,

swee tgum , and red m aple. Am ong th e understory

plants re ported w e re yellow jessam ine, black be rry, and

w axm yrtle. H am ilton and Yurk unas (19 87) found

vire os on th e Ve rnon District in th e longle af-slash pine

h abitat of w e st-central Louisiana. In addition to th e

dom inant h ab itat descriptors, loblolly pine, swee tgum ,

36
red oak , and red m aple we re am ong th e trees present

on th e study are a. Unde rstory taxa we re sim ilar to

th ose on th e Catah oula District. Tuck e r’s (19 80) study

are a in th e Bayou Boeuf Research Natural Are a of th e

Kisatch ie District w as ch ie fly bottom land h ardw oods.

Te rritory Siz e /De nsity

Densities of red-eyed vire os ranged from a low of 13

pairs pe r square k ilom e te r (Dick son 19 7813) to a h igh

of 323 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r (Rice 19 78) (table

9 ). Robbins and oth e rs (19 89 ) re ported a gre ate r th an

go-pe rcent probability of dete cting red-eyed vire os

from any random ly establish ed obse rvation point in

w ooded lots of at le ast 1 k m 2 in size. Alth ough th e

density estim ates of red-eyed vire os in Louisiana are

dram atically low e r th an th ose in oth e r ge ograph ic locations, definitive me asuremen ts of densities h ave not

been conducted. Th e ave rage density of 118 pairs pe r

square k ilom e te r (from table 9 ) is th e h igh est ave rage

density am ong th e 13 spe cies ch osen for re view in th is

re port.

Table 9.-Density estimates for red-eyed vireos by location

State, re gion,

or province

Louisiana

Illinois

Louisiana

W isconsin

Tennessee/

North Carolina

South e aste rn States

Ark ansas

Ge orgia

Ontario, Canada

New H am psh ire

Ontario, Canada

Mich igan

Mich igan

Maryland

Mich igan

Ontario, Canada

* In South e rn (19 58).

Density Refe rence

Pairs I km2

13 Dick son 19 78a

20 Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

25 Tuck e r 19 80

29 Am buel and Te m ple 19 83

59 W ilcove 19 88

62 Sh ugart and oth e rs 19 78

67 Sh ugart and Jam es 19 73

106 Joh nston and Odum 19 56

130 Kandeigh 19 47

131 Robinson 19 81

141 Law rence 19 53

145 South e rn 19 58

145 ProIitt 19 46*

188 W illiam son 19 71

312 Nesslinge r 19 49 *

323 Rice 19 78

37
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e red-eyed vire o in th e United

States is given in figure 18. Low e ry (19 74) re ported

th at th is vire o can be found virtually eve ryw h e re in

th e h ardw ood se ctions of th e State . Alth ough

b reeding-bird surveys conducted by biologists of th e

Louisiana Natural H e ritage Program h ave re corded

th is bird in m any of th e parish es w ith in th e State (fig.

19 ), th e red-eyed vire o can probably be found in forests and w oodlots th rough out th e en tire State .

H am ilton and Leste r (19 87), H am ilton and Yurk unas

(19 87), and Tuck e r (19 80) found th is vire o on th e

Catah oula, Ve rnon, and Kisatch ie Districts of th e KNF,

res pe ctive ly.

Of 78 red-eyed vire o nests obse rved by South e rn

(19 58), 19 w e re dese rted due to cow bird parasitism ,

11 w e re destroyed by natural causes, and 48 w e re successful in producing vire os and/or cow birds. Based on

th e num be r of e ggs laid in 32 nests th at produced vire o

young, South e rn re ported a nesting success for

red-eyed vire os of 87.49 pe rcent; h ow e ve r, 8 of th ese

nests produced 1 to 3 (total of 10) cow birds as w e ll.

For 21 unparasitized nests, th is sam e auth or re ported

a nesting success of 79 .33 pe rcent. Law rence (19 53)

noted th at red-eyed vire os fledged young from 60 pe rcent of 9 8 e ggs in 30 nests h aving a h atch ing success

of 76 pe rcent. Fall departure of red-eyed vire os from

Louisiana and th e rest of th e South e ast varies from

e arly to late Octobe r (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82, Low e ry

19 74).

Biology

H abitats

Th e red-eyed vire o, an abundant sum m e r resident

of Louisiana, arrives in th e State during th e last h alf

of M arch (Low e ry 19 74). Th e m ajority of prey ite m s

in th e diet of th is bird are insects, prim arily le pidopte rans gle aned from h ardw ood le aves; h ow e ve r, som e

plant m ate rial (be rries) m ay be tak en (Bent 19 50,

Jam es 19 76, R obins on 19 81, South e rn 19 58,

W illiam son 19 71). Maurer and W h itm ore (19 81), w ork -

ing in th e Fe rnow Expe rim ental Forest, in W est Virginia, found th at th ese vire os used h ove ring and

gle aning about equally w h ile foraging m ainly on th e

oute r pe rim e te r of a tre e. Rob inson and H olm es (19 82),

h ow e ve r, obse rved red-eyed vire os using h ove ring

about tw ice as m uch as gle aning in th e H ubbard Brook

Expe rim ental Forest in New H am psh ire. Th ey give

th e follow ing pe rcentages for th e five prey-capturing

m aneuve rs of th is vire o: h ove r (56.6), gle an (29 .9 ),

h ang (7.1), flush -ch ase (1.9 ), and h awk (4.5).

Th e pe ak of b reeding activity occurs from late M ay

to m id-June, and th e nesting season e xtends from e arly

M ay to late July (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82). Th e fe m ale

bears sole responsibility for constructing th e intricate ly w oven pensile nest, w h ich is typically suspended

from a sm all fork in a low e r b ranch of a sm all tre e

(South e rn 19 58). Nest h eigh ts gene rally ave rage about

5.3 m ; h ow e ve r, m e an nest h eigh ts h ave been re ported

as ranging from 2.3 m (South e rn 19 58) in Mich igan to

10.7 m (Robinson 19 81) in New H am psh ire. Th e

red-eyed vire o lays a single clutch of tw o to four w h ite

e ggs h aving a few tiny black spots, and th e 13-day

incubation period begins only afte r th e last e gg h as

been laid (South e rn 19 58). Both sexes sh are in th e

incubation of e ggs and care of nestlings, w h ich fledge

at approxim ate ly 10 to 13 days of age.

Th e red-eyed vire o is gene rally k now n to inh abit

upland and rive r-bottom deciduous and m ixed w oods,

w ooded cle arings, and suburban areas. Blak e and

H oppes (19 81) captured significantly m ore red-eyed

vire os in tree-fall gaps th an in th e forest inte rior, w h ich

suggests an affinity for th ese open ings. Conne r and

oth e rs (19 83) found th at th e distribution of red-eyed

vire os w as positive ly corre lated w ith th e num be r of

tree spe cies, pe rcentage of sm all h ardw oods (5 to 16

cm in d.b.h .), pe rcentage of canopy closure, and ve ge tation h eigh t, but w as negative ly corre lated w ith th e

pe rcentage of sm all pines. South e rn (19 58) described

th e h abitat of h is study are a in Mich igan as dom inated by aspen and red m aple. Rob inson’s (19 81) study

are a in New H am psh ire w as dom inated by sugar

m aple, Am e rican beech , and yellow b irch , and th e principal study are a of W illiam son (19 71) w as dom inated

by Am e rican bee ch and w h ite oak . In contrast, Conne r

and oth e rs (19 83) and W h iting and Fle e t (19 87) reported finding vire os in loblolly-sh ortle af pine stands

in east Te xas.

On th e Catah oula District of th e KNF, H am ilton and

Leste r (19 87) found th e red-eyed vire o to be am ong

th e 10 m ost abundant b reeding birds in th e loblollysh ortle af pine-upland h ardw ood forests of central

Louisiana. H ardw oods present on th eir study are as

included south e rn red oak , post oak , h ick ories,

swee tgum , and red m aple. Am ong th e understory

plants re ported w e re yellow jessam ine, black be rry, and

w axm yrtle. H am ilton and Yurk unas (19 87) found

vire os on th e Ve rnon District in th e longle af-slash pine

h abitat of w e st-central Louisiana. In addition to th e

dom inant h ab itat descriptors, loblolly pine, swee tgum ,

36
BREED ING

Figure 20.-Distribution of th e Am erican redstart (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern Canad a.

Figure 2 l.-Louisiana parish es in w h ich th e Am erican redstart h as been recorded

as breeding or transient.

39
Am e rican Redstart (Setoph aga ruticilla)

38
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e Am e rican redstart in th e

United States is given in figure 20. Low e ry (19 74) reported localized b reeding populations of redstarts in

Louisiana in th e Pe arl Rive r Sw am p opposite

Bogalusa, in dee p m agn olia ravines ne ar St.

Francisville, and near M inden. Th e south e rnm ost

b reeding re cord w as from near Donaldsonville in Assum ption Parish . Redstarts h ave also been re corded

as occurring fairly re gularly during w inte r in Orle ans,

Plaquem ines, and Cam e ron Parish es. Biologists of th e

Louisiana Natural H e ritage Program h ave re ported

redstarts as breeding birds in th e parish es m ark ed in

figure 21.

Biology

Th e Am e rican redstart is a com m on to locally abundant m igrant but is only a localized b reede r in Louisiana (Low e r-y 19 74). Th is atypical w ood w arble r arrives

in th e spring from e arly to late April (H am e l and oth -

e rs 19 82). Th e redstart forages prim arily on arth ropods in th e m idstory of th e forest canopy, usually at

h eigh ts of 3 to 9 m ; h ow e ve r, m uch unlik e oth e r w arble rs, th e redstart forages by h ove ring and flycatch ing

(h aw k ing) as w e ll as by gle aning (Fick en and Fick en

19 67, M aure r and W h itm ore 19 81, Robinson and

H olm es 19 82). In New York , Fick en and Fick en observed th at flycatch ing m ak es up ove r 80 pe rcent of

th e foraging patte rns before th e le aves are out in May,

th en h ove ring and gle aning becom e m ore prevalent

as th e season progresses. In W est Virginia, M aure r

and W h itm ore describe foraging beh avior in young

forests as m ade up of 54.9 pe rcent h ove ring, 7.0 pe rcent gle aning, and 38.0 pe rcent h aw k ing. For m ature

forests th ey found foraging beh avior com prised of 34.0

pe rcent h ove ring, 10.6 pe rcent gle aning, and 55.3 pe rcent h aw k ing. In New H am psh ire, Robinson and

H olm es (using a sligh tly diffe rent sch eme ) re port foraging beh avior as com posed of 53.1 pe rcent h ove ring,

22.8 pe rcent gle aning, 0.4 pe rcent h anging, 17.4 pe rcent flush -ch ase, and 6.3 pe rcent h aw k ing.

Th e redstart’s breeding season is from e arly May to

late June, w ith th e pe ak pe riod e xtending from late

M ay to e arly June (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82). Th e fem ale be ars sole responsibility for constructing th e nest

of bark , grasses, and fe ath e rs in a th ree- to

four-pronged crotch of a sapling 1.0 to 10.7 m above

th e forest floor (Fick en 19 64). Th e m ale, h ow e ve r,

sh ares in incubating th e clutch of th ree to five

grayish -w h ite or bluish -w h ite e ggs during th e 12- to

13-day incubation period. M ost juven ile m ale redstarts

atte m pt to secure te rritories and breed; virtually all

adult m ales b reed. Th ough data on nesting success is

sk e tch y, Bak e r (19 44) re ported th at 14 (87.5 pe rcent)

of 16 nestling redstarts survived at le ast to fledging

age (8 to 9 days). Follow ing th e nosting season, redstarts re m ain in Louisiana until th e end of Octobe r.

H abitats

Sh e rry (19 79 ) and Sh e rry and H olm es (19 88) found

th at Am e rican redstarts in New H am psh ire inh abited

second-grow th h ardw ood stands dom inated by Am e rican beech , sugar m aple, and yellow birch . Th e prefe rred h abitat at Douglas Lak e, in Mich igan, w as

second-grow th sugar m aple (Bak e r 19 44), and H ow e

(19 74), also in Mich igan, found redstarts in an alder

and aspen sw am p w e st of Bak e r’s (19 44) study are a.

Fick en (19 62) identified h e r New York study are a as

m oist deciduous w oodland w ith ple n ty of second

grow th . Fick en and Fick en (19 67) re ported th at all

redstarts found on th eir New York study are a w e re

associated w ith m ature and second-grow th deciduous

forests w ith few conife rs.

Dick son (19 78a) found ve ry few Am e rican redstarts

in oak -gum fore s ts of e ast Te xas. M aure r and

W h itm ore (19 81) studied th e influence of ve ge tation

structure on th e foraging of five b ird spe cies, including th e redstart, in a W est Virginia forest dom inated

by red oak , ch estnut oak , red and sugar m aples, black

ch e rry, Am e rican beech , and tuliptre e. Noon and oth -

e rs (19 79 ) re ported th e dom inant tree spe cies in north -

e rn deciduous com m unities as sugar m aple, beech ,

bassw ood, yellow birch , and red m aple. Te m ple and

oth e rs (19 79 ) found th at redstarts ranged ove r de ciduous, m ixed, and conife rous forest types in th e North

Central and North e aste rn United States. Dom inant

spe cies on th e study are as of Titte rington and oth e rs

(19 79 ) in Maine w e re spruce, balsam fir, ye llow birch ,

pape r birch , red m aple, and Am e rican beech .

40
Te rritory Siz e /De nsity Table lo.- Density estim ates for Am erican redstarts by location

W h e re h abitat fe atures are optim um for redstarts,

b reeding densities can be quite h igh . Fick en and

Fick en (19 67) re ported a te rritory size of 0.30 h a pe r

pair on th eir study are a in New York , and th e estim ates of Sturm (19 45) ave raged 0.08 h a pe r pair in

Oh io. Th e low e st density re ported in th e lite rature w as

one pair pe r 25 h a (four pairs pe r square k ilom e te r)

(Dick son 19 78a). Alth ough th e density of redstarts can

be quite h igh depending on local conditions, densities

in Louisiana are probably m uch low e r and m ore local

th an th ose re ported for m ore north e rly populations

(table 10). Th is diffe rence is because Louisiana is on

th e pe riph e ry of th e redstart’s spatial distribution (fig.

20). Th e ave rage density of th e Am e rican redstart in

th e United States is 103 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r

(e xcluding Sturm 19 45).

State or re gion Density

East Te xas

Illinois

South e aste rn States

Ark ansas

Maine

Pairs / k m 2

4

15

24

35

36

New York 92

New H am psh ire 120

New York 137

New H am psh ire 140

Mich igan 202

New York 329

Oh io 1,176

R e fe re n ce

Dick son 19 7813

Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

Sh ugart and oth e rs 19 78

Sh ugart and Jam es 19 73

Titte rington and oth e rs

19 79

Ficken 19 62

Sh e rry 19 79

H ick e y 19 40

H olm es and Sh e rry 19 88

H owe 19 74

Ficken and Ficken 19 67

Sturm 19 45

41
W orm -Eating W arble r (H elm ith eros verm ivoru s)

42
Figu re 22.-Distribution of th e w orm -eating w arbler (sh aded are as ) in th e United States.

Figu re 23.-Louisiana parish es (sh aded areas) in w h ich th e w orm -eating w arbler h as been recorded as breeding.

43
Distribution

Th e w orm -eating w arble r b reeds th rough out a large

portion of th e Easte rn United States (fig. 22). Low e ry

(19 74) re ported th at th e only breeding re cords of th is

bird for Louisiana w e re from th e St. Francisville are a

in W est Fe liciana Parish . Data from th e Louisiana

Natural H e ritage Program on th e occurrence of th is

w arble r is lack ing at th is tim e (fig. 23). H ow e ve r,

H am ilton and Leste r (19 87) did find th is bird on th e

Catah oula District of th e KNF, and Dr. R. B. H am ilton

2

found th is w arble r in Livingston Parish .

Biology

Th is rath e r uncom m on and extreme ly local b reeding bird arrives in th e State as e arly as m id-March

(Low e ry 19 74). Th is w arble r is k now n to vary its foraging tactics between b reeding and nonbreeding seasons from live- to dead-le af search ing, respe ctive ly

(Greenbe rg 19 87a, 19 8713). On Greenbe rg’s (19 8713)

study are a in Maryland, w orm -eating w arble rs

gle aned arth ropods (Le pidopte ra, Cole opte ra, and

H om opte ra) m ostly from th e le aves of oak s but sh ifted

foraging locations to understory sh rubs as th e sum -

m e r progressed.

Th e b reeding season of th is ground-nesting w arble r

e xtends from m id-May to late June, w ith th e pe ak

pe riod e xtending from late M ay to e arly June (H am e l

and oth e rs 19 82). According to Burns (19 05), th e nest

is constructed of w e ll-rotted le aves and is lined w ith

m oss; it is placed on th e ground at th e foot of a sm all

sh rub in a drift of dead le aves. Incubation of th e four

or five e ggs is pe rform ed by th e fe m ale alone. Estim ates of h atch ing success or survival of young are not

available. Low e ry (19 74) subm its th at fall m igrants

pass th rough th e State until th e end of Octobe r.

H abitats

Burns (19 05) described th e h aunts of th is bird as

w ooded h ill slopes in second-grow th tim be r. Sim ilarly,

2 Pe rsonal com m unication w ith R. B. H am ilton, 26 August 19 9 1,

Sch ool of Forestry, W ildlife, and Fish e ries, Louisiana State Unive rsity, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.

Low e r-y (19 74) described th e are a near St. Francisville,

Louisiana, as deep& lied, w e ll-sh aded beech -m agnolia w oods. H am e l and oth e rs (19 82) described th e prim ary b reeding h abitat of th is w arble r in th e Coastal

Plain as bottom land h ardw oods w ith a rich understory

of b roadle af eve rgreen sh rubs and saplings. Conne r

and Adk isson (19 75) found th e w orm -eating w arble r

in 7- and 12-year-old cle ar-cuts com posed of m ixed oak s,

h ick ories, and red m aple in south w este rn Virginia, but

not in m ature stands. Dick son and oth e rs (19 80), h ow -

eve r, re ported th is w arble r as present in young, inte rm ediate, and m ature stands th rough out th e South e ast.

H oope r (19 78) found th is w arble r to be associated w ith

virgin h ardw ood and second-grow th saw tim be r in cove

forests of th e Appalach ians, and Noon and oth e rs

(19 79 ) found a sim ilar re lationsh ip in north e rn h ardw ood forests. Robbins and oth e rs (19 89 ) found th at

th e probability of dete cting th is bird at a random point

in a forest w as m axim ized at 36 pe rcent for an are a of

3,000-plus h a.

Te rritory Siz e /Density

Th e low e st density re ported in th e lite rature (7 pairs

pe r square k ilom e te r) w as th at of Grabe r and Grabe r

(19 63) in Illinois, but Greenbe rg (19 87b) re ported a

density as h igh as 100 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r in

M aryland (table 11). Th e gre at disparity between th ese

estim ates is probably re lated to th e am ount of suitable h abitat in th e respe ctive locations. Be cause th e

w orm -eating w arble r is k now n to pre fe r forested are as w ith deep-gullied te rrain, h abitat is probably th e

m ost lim iting factor to th e distribution and abundance

of th is w arble r on th e KNF.

Table ll.- Density estim ates for w orm -eating w arblers by location

State or re gion Density R e fe re n ce

Illinois

South e aste rn States

Tennessee

Ark ansas

Maryland

Pairs /k m 2

7 Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

15 Sh ugart and oth e rs 19 78

17 W ilcove 19 88

35 Sh ugart and Jam es 19 73

100 Greenbe rg 19 87b

44

Sw ainson’s W arble r (Lim noth lypis sw ain sonii)

46
Figure 24.-Distribution of th e Sw ainson’s w arbler (sh aded areas) in th e United State s.

TRANSIENT

Figure 25.-Louisiana parish es in w h ich th e Sw ainson’s w arbler h as been re.

corded as breeding or transient.

47
Distribution

Th e distribution of Sw ainson’s w arble r in th e Un ited

States is given in figure 24. In Louisiana, th is w arble r w as found nesting in Rapides Parish (Meanley

19 66,19 7l) and w as obse rved in Cam e ron Parish during m igration (Low e ry 19 74). Research e rs in breeding-bird surveys h ave also noted th e presen ce of

Sw ainson’s w arble rs in oth e r parish es th rough out th e

State (fig. 25). Sw ainson’s w arble rs h ave been found

on th e Catah oula District of th e KNF by H am ilton

and Leste r (19 87) but not on th e Ve rnon District

(H am ilton and Yurk unas 19 87) or th e Kisatch ie District (Tuck e r 19 80).

Biology

Th e Sw ainson’s w arble r, an uncom m on sum m e r resident of w ooded sw am ps and caneb rak es in th e South -

e aste rn United States, arrives in Louisiana by th e end

of M arch (Low e ry 19 74). Th is bird forages on th e

ground beneath le aves and oth e r deb ris to find m ost

of th e im portant inve rteb rate prey ite m s, such as spiders, ground beetles, crick e ts, ants, and th eir larvae

or pupae (Meanley 19 45, 19 66,19 7l).

Th e b reeding season of Sw ainson’s w arble r e xtends

from e arly May to e arly July, w ith a pe ak pe riod e xtending from m id-May to m id-June (H am e l and oth -

e rs 19 82). Th e nests are large, bulk y structures placed

0.6 to 3.0 m above th e ground in dense tangles of canes,

b riars, th ick bush es, or palm e ttos in or near a sw am py

are a (Bent 19 53, Low e ry 19 74, Me anley 19 71). Th e

usual com plemen t of th ree or four e ggs are variable

in color: plain w h ite w ith a bluish , green ish , or pink -

ish tinge. Th e incubation period re ported by Meanley

(19 71) ranged from 13 to 15 days, and th e young

fledged afte r about 10 days. Th e fall departure of

Sw ainson’s w arble r from Louisiana ranges from late

Se ptembe r to e arly Octobe r (Low e ry 19 74).

m e tto in th e Low e r Coastal Plain. Oth e r h abitats

m entioned by Meanley (19 66, 19 71) include pine land

galls, cypress bays, and dry w oods near sw am p edges

th at contain a scatte ring of canes. Morse (19 89 ) stated

th at Sw ainson’s w arble rs tend to settle in clum ped

te rritories in th e m idst of large e xpanses of unoccupied but favorable h abitat.

W righ t and H arpe r (19 13) described th e predom inantly pondcypress and/or black gum h abitat of th e

Sw ainson’s w arble r in th e Ok e fenok ee Sw am p in Ge orgia. In addition to th e forested w e tland h abitats described above, th e Sw ainson’s w arble r is k now n to be

a locally com m on breeding bird in at le ast tw o m ajor

plant com m unities on th e Alle gh eny Plate au. Th e

re ade r is encouraged to e xam ine th e sum m ary of

Me anley (19 66, 19 71) or consult Brook s and Le gg

(19 42) and Sim s and DeGarm o (19 48) for a description of th ese h abitats.

Te rritory Siz e /De nsity

Norris (19 63) gives density estim ates of 5 pairs and

10 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r in broadle af deciduous

and floodplain forests, respe ctive ly, in South Carolina

(table 12). Meanley (19 66) re ported a density of 25

pairs pe r square k ilom e te r in a swee tgum -w ate r oak

forest in Rapides Parish , Louisiana, and 1 pair pe r

0.7 h a of caneb rak e (143 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r)

in Ge orgia. Me anley (19 71) provided a com preh ensive

look at te rritory sizes re ported in th e lite rature along

w ith th e associated ve ge tative ch aracte ristics. An estim ate of th e possible m axim um population of th e

Sw ainson’s w arble r for th e KNF cannot be m ade w ith -

out k now ing th e e xtent of are a occupied by forests

h aving th e ne cessary understory ve ge tation; i.e., caneb rak es and scrub palm e ttos.

Table 12.-Density e stim ates for Sw ainson’s w arblers by location

H abitats State or re gion Density Refe rence

Th e h abitat of th e Sw ainson’s w arble r h as been described by Meanley (19 66, 19 71) as rive r floodplain

forests dom inated by a h ack be rry-sw am p ch estnut

oak -elm association on th e Uppe r Coastal Plain, or a

laure l oak -swee tgum -h ack be rry association on th e

Low e r Coastal Plain. M idstory spe cies included

boxe lder and ash and also saplings of th e dom inant

spe cies. Undergrow th w as typically 100 pe rcent giant

caneb rak e in th e Uppe r Coastal Plain or scrub palSouth Carolina

Deciduous forest

South Carolina

Floodplain forest

Louisiana

Louisiana

South e aste rn States

Ge orgia

Pairs Jkmz

5

10

10

25

65

143

Norris 19 63

Norris 19 63

Dick son 19 78a

Meanley 19 66

Meanley 19 71

Meanley 19 66

48
,

_-
Louisiana W ate rth rush (Seiurus m otacilla)

5 0
Figure 26.-Distribution of th e Louisiana w aterth rush (sh aded areas) in th e United States and south ern

Canada.

BREEDING

TRANSIENT

Figure 27.-Louisiana parish es in w h ich th e Louisiana w aterth rush h as been

recorded as breeding or transient.

51
Distribution H abitats

Th e distribution of th e Louisiana w ate rth rush in

th e United States is given in figure 26. In Louisiana,

th is bird h as been re ported as a breeding bird in th e

parish es m ark ed in figure 27. H am ilton and Leste r

(19 87), H am ilton and Yurk unas (19 87), and Tuck e r

(19 80) did not re port th e presence of th e Louisiana

w ate rth rush on th e Catah oula, Ve rnon, or Kisatch ie

Districts of th e KNF, respe ctive ly.

Biology

Th e Louisiana w ate rth rush is a locally com m on

sum m e r resident in th e north e rn part of th e State th at

arrives in m id-March (Low e ry 19 74). Th is w arble r forages prim arily on insects associated w ith aquatic environm ents, and Craig (19 84) found th e follow ing taxa

to be im portant to th e diet of th e Louisiana w ate rth rush : caddisflies (Trich opte ra), m ayflies (Eph eme ropte ra), flies (Dipte ra), and te rm ites (Isopte ra). In

addition, Eaton (19 58) noted th at stoneflies (Ple copte ra) and caddisflies w e re im portant com ponents of

th e Louisiana w ate rth rush ’s die t.

Th e b reeding season of th e Louisiana w ate rth rush

e xtends from m id-April to e arly June, w ith th e pe ak

pe riod e xtending from late April to m id-May (H am e l

and oth e rs 19 82). Both sexes participate in th e construction of th e bulk y nest com posed of dead le aves,

stick s, fine grasses, and rootle ts plaste red toge th e r

w ith m ud (Eaton 19 58, Low e ry 19 74). Nests are usually placed near th e bank s of w oodland stre am s under an ove rh anging bank , and Eaton (19 58) re ported

th at m ost nests in h is New York study are a w e re built

0.5 to 4.0 m above th e glen floor on an east-facing slope.

Low e ry (19 74) stated th at th e Louisiana w ate rth rush

lays a clutch of four to six finely spe ck led w h ite e ggs;

h ow e ve r, Eaton (19 58) re ported a m e an clutch size of

5.8 e ggs for 16 Louisiana w ate rth rush nests in New

York . Eaton also found th at, follow ing th e 14-day incubation period and 9 - to lo-day nestling stage, Louisiana w ate rth rush pairs fledged young from 70 pe rcent

of all e ggs laid. Th e young m ay be attended by adults

for up to 25 days afte r fledging (Eaton 19 58), and

south w ard m igration begins as early as July 1 (Low e ry

19 74).

Th e Louisiana w ate rth rush favors bottom land forests usually in close proxim ity to rapidly m oving

stre am s. Eaton (19 58) studied th e life h istory of th e

Louisiana w ate rth rush in 10 glens along th e e ast sh ore

of Cayuga Lak e, near Ith aca, New York , and described

th e ve ge tation as com posed of oak s w ith an understory of e ricace ous plants. Alth ough a bette r description of th e ve ge tation is lack ing in th is study, Eaton

did note th e presence of sw ift-m oving stre am s in th e

glens. In Boston H ollow , Connecticut, Craig (19 84,

19 85, 19 87) described th e h abitat of th e Louisiana

w ate rth rush as m esic, m ature deciduous forests dom inated by yellow birch , sugar m aple, and red m aple in

are as w ith fast-m oving stre am s. Eliason and Fall (19 89 )

found Louisiana w ate rth rush es in ste e p-sided valleys

w ith pe rm anent, sw iftly flow ing stre am s in W ash ington

County, M innesota, w h e re ve ge tation w as dom inated by

m esic deciduous forests of sugar m aple and bassw ood.

Conne r and oth e rs (19 79 ) found Louisiana w ate rth rush es only in m ature forest stands in south w este rn Virginia. Sim ilarly, Dick son and oth e rs (19 80)

found th is w arble r to be re lative ly m ore abundant in

m ature th an in young or inte rm ediate forests th rough -

out th e South e ast. H oope r (19 78) found th is w ate rth rush on ly in se cond-grow th saw tim b e r in

Appalach ian cove forests. Robbins and oth e rs (19 89 )

found a m axim um probability of occurrence of 25 pe rcent in forest tracts of 3,000-plus h a.

Te rritory Siz e /Density

Eaton (19 58) described th e te rritory as long and

narrow and occupying approxim ate ly 400 m along th e

course of a fast-flow ing stre am . Craig (19 84) re ported

th at th e te rritory size of th e Louisiana w ate rth rush

ave raged 0.67 h a (149 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r). It

is difficult to spe culate on th e actual density of Louisiana w ate rth rush es on th e KNF because of th eir affinity for nesting near stre am s. M ost stre am s in

Louisiana are gene rally slow m oving, h ow e ve r, w h ich

is contradictory to th e nature of nesting h abitats reported by Eaton (19 58) and Craig (19 84). But th e re

are approxim ate ly 400 km of pe renn ial stre am s on th e

KNF; th e re fore, th e potential e xists for it to support a

substantial b reeding population.

52
I
c

Kentuck y W arble r (Oporornis form osus)

54
Figure 28.-Distrib ution of th e Kentuck y w arbler (sh aded are as) in th e United State s.

BREEDING

TRANSIENT

Figure 29 .-Louisianaparish es in w h ich th e Kentuck y w arbler h as been recorded

as breeding or transient.

55
Distribution

Th e distribution of th e Kentuck y w arble r in th e

United States is given in figure 28. A com m on breeding bird of dense e aste rn h ardw ood forests, th is

ground-dw e lling w arble r h as been re corded as a breeding bird by biologists of th e Louisiana Natural H e ritage Program in th e parish es sh ow n in figure 29 . Based

on th e num be r of obse rvations of b reeding birds,

H am ilton and Leste r (19 87) found th is w arble r to be

one of th e 20 m ost com m on birds on th e Catah oula

District. Tuck e r (19 80) found th e Kentuck y w arble r

on th e Bayou Boeuf Research Natural Are a of th e

Kisatch ie District, but H am ilton andyurk unas (19 87)

did not re cord th e presence of th is bird on th e Ve rnon

District.

Biology

Th e Kentuck y w arble r arrives in th e State during

m id-March (Low e r-y 19 74). To th e auth ors’k now ledge,

th e re h ave been no publish ed studies of th e life h istory of th is bird. H ow e ve r, som e inform ation can be

found in oth e r publications conce rned w ith bird com -

m unities. Lik e m any oth e r w arble rs, th e Kentuck y

w arble r forages by gle aning arth ropods from low -le ve l

ve ge tation, gene rally below 7 m (Dick son and Noble

19 78, Evans 19 78).

Th e b reeding season extends from e arly May to

m id-July, w ith a pe ak pe riod th at e xtends from late

M ay to e arly June (H am e l and oth e rs 19 82). Nests

are placed on or near th e ground, are com posed of

le aves and rootle ts lined w ith grasses, and are located

near a stre am , m arsh , or dam p low land (De Garis

19 36). Th e fe m ale is ch ie fly responsible for incubation of th e four to six grayish -w h ite or ash y-colored

e ggs fle ck ed w ith various sh ades of b row n (De Garis

19 36). Of th e six nests obse rved by De Garis, th e incubation period w as 12 to 13 days, and th e nestling

stage w as 8.5 to 10.0 days. In 4 of th e nests, 17 of 19

e ggs (89 pe rcent) h atch ed, and in 4 nests young birds

fledged. Th e Kentuck y w arble r le aves Louisiana in

Octobe r for its w inte ring are as in Central and South

Am e rica (Low e ry 19 74).

H abitats

Th e Kentuck y w arble r is gene rally found in m ature

h ardw ood forests w ith open ove rstories and sm all

unde rstory plants (Ande rson and Sh ugart 19 74).

Dom inant trees on th eir Tennessee study are a w e re

pines, tuliptre e, oak s, and h ick ories. In south w este rn

Virginia, Conne r and Adk isson (19 75) found th is w arble r in cle arcuts m ore th an 7 years old in an oak -

h ick ory-m aple forest. Also in Virginia, Tsipoura and

M orton (19 88) studied song-type distribution in a

population of Kentuck y w arble rs in a forest dom inated

by tuliptre e, oak s, and black locust. Joh nston and

Odum (19 56) re ported th at th e Kentuck y w arble r occurred only in m ature oak -h ick ory clim ax forests in

Ge orgia.

Dick son and oth e rs (19 80) re ported th at th e Kentuck y w arble r occurred in young, inte rm ediate, and

m ature pine, h ardw ood, and m ixed stands th rough -

out th e South e ast. Noon and oth e rs (19 79 ) found th at

th is bird w as re corded equally on censuses in m ature

and successional h ab itats. Meyers and Joh nson (19 78)

re ported th e presence of th is w arble r in pine, h ardw ood, and m ixed stands; h ow e ve r, th ese h ab itats w e re

m ature stands. Robbins and oth e rs (19 89 ) found th at

significant predictors of re lative abundance for th is

w arble r w e re canopy h eigh t, forest are a, m oisture gradient, and low -leve l foliage density. In addition, th ese

research e rs found th at th e m axim um probability of

dete ction w as 29 pe rcent in forest tracts of at le ast

3,000 h a.

Te rritory Siz e /Density

Th e Kentuck y w arble r, alth ough k now n to be a fairly

com m on bird, occurs at re lative ly low densities

th rough out its range (table 13). Densities re ported in

th e table m ay not be re presentative of actual densities because none of th e estim ates are from te rritory

m apping studies; rath e r, th ey are from b reeding-bird

surveys or line transects. Th e me an of th e densities presented in table 13 is 16.4 pairs pe r square k ilom e te r.

Table 13.-Density e stim ates for Kentuck y w arblers by location

State or re gion Density Refe rence

Louisiana

Louisiana

Ge orgia

South e aste rn States

South e aste rn States

Tennessee/

North Carolina

Illinois

Ark ansas

Pairs /k m 2

12

13

13

13

18 W ilcove 19 88

20 Grabe r and Grabe r 19 63

35 Sh ugart and Jam es 19 73

Dick son 19 78a

Dick son 19 781,

Joh nston and Odum 19 56

Meye rs and Joh nson 19 78

Sh ugart and oth e rs 19 78

56
PO PULATION TRENDS

M ost long-te rm population studies h ave been conducted in m ore north e rly latitudes, notably th e North -

e aste rn and Middle Atlantic States. W h e th e r data for

th ese are as re fle ct th e state of population ch anges for

birds across th eir b reeding ranges re m ains to be investigated; h ow e ve r, annual b reeding-bird surveys

seem to indicate th at population declines are w idespre ad. H ill and H agan (19 9 1) analyzed 53 ye ars of

spring-m igration data for m igrants in easte rn Massach usetts and concluded th at ove rall population trends

are negative. During 19 82283, W ilcove (19 88) re pe ated

b reeding-bird censuses th at h ad been conducted in

19 47-48 and found th at neotropical m igrant populations of th e Gre at Sm ok y Mountains did not sh ow any

significant ch anges.

Th e re are tw o b road ph ysiograph ic are as w ith in

w h ich Louisiana falls: th e Uppe r Coastal Plain (UCP)

and Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAP). Alth ough th e

KNF lies w ith in th e UCP, both are as are considered

for th e sak e of incre ased applicability. According to

survey data on th e 13 b reeding birds th at are abstracted h e rein, Louisiana populations of 9 spe cies

eith e r re m ained stable or incre ased from 19 66 th rough

19 89 , w h ile 4 spe cies sh ow e d nonsignificant decre ases

(table 14). Th ree spe cies (Am e rican redstart, w orm -

e ating w arble r, and Sw ainson’s w arble r) h ave sh ow n

significant population incre ases in th e M AP, but in

th e UCP, population trends for th e first tw o spe cies

w e re negative. Th ough it is unk now n w h at factors are

responsible for th e incre ases in th e latte r tw o spe cies,

th e A m e rican reds tart is k n ow n to i n h ab i t

second-grow th forests and successional h abitats and

probably benefits from tim be r h arvesting th at occurred

a de cade ago (Fick en and Fick en 19 67, Titte rington

and oth e rs 19 79 , W ebb and oth e rs 19 77).

A subset of th e data for 19 80-89 (table 15) sh ow s

som e sim ilarities to and diffe rences from th e entire

data se t. Th e th ree spe cies m entioned above sh ow a

significant incre ase in population in Louisiana for

19 66-89 and for 19 80-89 . Th e w orm -eating w arble r

declined during both pe riods, w h ile Sw ainson’s w arble r incre ased during both pe riods in th e UCP. Am e rican redstart populations h ave decre ased in th e UCP

ove r th e 24-ye ar pe riod of re cord but h ave incre ased

sligh tly during th e last decade . In addition , th e

Acadian flycatch e r sh ow e d an incre ase during th e last

decade in both ph ysiograph ic are as. Th e w ood th rush

decre ased significantly in th e UCP and MAP during

both tim e pe riods.

Th e population trend for th e M ississippi k ite sh ow e d

a nonsignificant decre ase in Louisiana and th e UCP

and a significant decre ase in th e M AP ove r th e 19 66-89

pe riod; h ow e ve r, th e trend from 19 80 to 19 89 sh ow e d

a nonsignificant incre ase in Louisiana and th e UCP

and a nonsignificant decre ase in th e M AP. Park e r and

Table 14.-Population trends during 19 66-89 for 13 neotropical

m igratory birds th at breed on th e Kisatch ie National

Fore st, Louisiana*

Spe cies Louisiana ucp+ MA P +

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ fiend’___._.._

Mississippi k ite

Broad-w inged h aw k

Yellow -billed cuck oo

Ch uck -w ill’s_w idow

Acadian flycatch e r

W ood th rush

Yellow -th roated vire o

Red-eyed vire o

Am e rican redstart

W orm -eating w arble r

Sw ainson’s w arble r

Louisiana w ate rth rush

Kentuck y w arble r

- - 1

+ +

_

1

1

L

+

_

-

+

+

-

+

1

+

-

1

7

-

1‘

t

t

t

+

* Data from Louisiana breeding-bird survey routes; com piled

by U.S. Fish and W ildlife Se rvice, Office of Migratory Bird

Manage m ent, Laure l, MD (Courtesy of Sam Droe ge ).

+ UCP, Uppe r Coastal Plain; MAP, Mississippi Alluvial Plain.

+ ‘?, significant incre ase; 1, significant decre ase; + ,

nonsignicant incre ase; -, nonsignificant decre ase; o, no net

ch ange .

Table 15.-Population trends during 19 80-89 for 13 neotropical

m igratory birds th at breed on th e Kisatch ie National

Fore st, Louisiana*

Spe cies Louisiana ucp+ MAP+

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fiendi ________

Mississippi k ite

Broad-w inged h aw k

Yellow -billed cuck oo

Ch uck -w ill’s_w idow

Acadian flycatch e r

W ood th rush

Yellow -th roated vire o

Red-eyed vire o

Am e rican redstart

W orm -eating w arble r

Sw ainson’s w arble r

Louisiana w ate rth rush

Kentuck y w arble r

-r

+

+

+

I

+

1

_

I

NA

+

NA

NA

t

NA

NA

+

* Data from Louisiana breeding-bird survey routes; com piled

by U.S. Fish and W ildlife Se rvice, Office of Migratory Bird

Manage m ent, Laure l, MD (Courtesy of Sam Droe ge ).

+ UCP, Uppe r Coastal Plain; MAP, Mississippi Alluvial Plain.

+ ‘?, significant incre ase; L, significant decre ase; + ,

nonsignicant incre ase; -, nonsignificant decre ase; o, no net

ch ange ; NA, not available.

57
Ogden (19 79 ) re ported th at th is raptor is not only incre asing in abundance th rough out its range but h as

also e xpanded its range in re cent tim es, w h ich m ay

account for th e obse rved incre ase. Broad-w inged h aw k

populations, on th e oth e r h and, h ave sh ow n incre asing trends for th e ove rall 24-ye ar pe riod 19 66-89 but

decre asing trends for th e subset pe riod 19 80-89 . Th is is

just th e opposite of w h at h as been occurring w ith M ississippi k ite populations. Be cause th e re h as not been a

definitive survey and inventory of k ite or b roadw inged

h awk populations across th e State, and due to th e nature of b reed ing-bird survey m e th ods, conclusions about

th ese tw o populations sh ould be m ade w ith rese rvation.

Alth ough th e m ain focus of th is re port is on th e previously m entioned group of 13 spe cies, seve ral species listed in appendix C are w orth y of m ention h e re

because th eir range w ide population trends ove r th e

pe riod 19 66-89 w e re significantly negative. Th e e aste rn k ingbird (Z $runnus tyrannus), ce rule an w arble r

(Dendroica cerulea), proth onotary w arble r (Protonotaria citrea), and orch ard oriole (Icterus spurius) are

gene rally k now n to be com m on sum m e r residents in

Louisiana and th rough out th eir range. Not only h ave

population trends for th ese passe rines declined ove r

th eir entire range during th is pe riod, but declines h ave

been apparent for Louisiana as w e ll. H ow e ve r, during

th e pe riod 19 80-89 , th e declines w e re not statistically

significant.3

Th e re asons for th e decline of th ese and oth e r species m ay be difficult to asce rtain because th e re is usually no com m on th re ad to follow . For instance, th e

e aste rn k ingbird and orch ard oriole pre fe r fairly open

h abitats w ith scatte red h ardw oods and nest w ith in

th e canopy, but th e ce rule an w arble r pre fe rs m ature

h ardw ood stands w ith an open understory, and th e

proth onotary w arble r nests in cavities ove r w ate r in

w ooded sw am ps. Alth ough inclusion of abstracts on th ese

spe cies w ould m ost ce rtainly be h e lpful to research e rs

inte rested in studies to dete rm ine th e causes for th ese

declines, com pilation of th e data for th e 13 spe cies abstracted h e re h as been a m ajor undertak ing given th e

tim e and resources available. H ope fully, oth e r research -

e rs w ill com pile abstracts and furth e r investigate th e

re m aining spe cies of neotropical m igratory birds.

EFFECTS OF FOREST M ANAGEM ENT

PRACTICES O N AVIFAUNA

Th e m ultiple-use conce pt of forest m anagemen t provides for sound conservation program s for soil, w ate r,

tim be r, w ilderness, w ildlife, grazing, and outdoor re cre ation. Th e Ch ie f of th e Forest Se rvice announced in

3 Data from Louisiana breeding-bird survey routes; com piled by

U.S. Fish and W ildlife Se rvice, Office of Migratory Bird Managem ent, Laure l, MD (Courtesy of Sam Droe ge ).

a le tte r

4 and in testim ony before Congress5 th at th e

Forest Se rvice w ill use an ecological approach , k now n

as e cosystem m anagemen t, to ach ieve m ultiple-use

m anagemen t of th e 77.3 m illion h a of National Forest

System lands. Th e Ch ie f e m ph asized th at e cosyste m

m anagemen t w ill be based on solid scientific inform ation, supported by professional judgm ent and expe rience. Som e scientific inform ation is exam ined h e re

th at m ay be useful in deve loping an ecosyste m s m anagemen t strate gy w ith re fe rence to avifauna.

Be cause any species of w ildlife is undeniably a product of its h abitat and th e juxtaposition of th ese h abitats w ith th e edaph ic fe atures in w h ich th ey occur,

alte ration of th e m osaic of h abitat types on a forest

w ill produce ch anges in th e associated fauna. Th e follow ing discussion sum m arizes som e of th e publish ed

studies on th e e ffe cts of silvicultural practices on th e

avifauna of forest e cosyste m s. Th is h as dire ct bearing

on m anagemen t considerations for th e KNF.

On th e KNF, revised proje cted tim be r sales total

about 471 m illion board fe e t (Scribne r C) from 19 9 1

th rough 19 9 5 (table 2). Tw o b road cate gories of tim -

be r stand m anagemen t dete rm ine th e w ay in w h ich

forest ve ge tation ch anges-even-aged and uneven-aged

m anagemen t. Under even-aged m anagemen t, th e

m ain te ch niques are sh e lte rw ood, seed tre e , and

cle arcutting. Even-aged m anagemen t favors early seral stages and is m ost suitable for producing m onotypic stands of tim be r. In a seed tree or sh e lte rw ood

cut, all standing tim be r is not re m oved as in cle arcutting, but th ese te ch niques produce essentially th e

sam e conditions. Uneven-aged m anagemen t is basically accom plish ed th rough sele ctive re m oval of single

trees or groups of trees w ith as little disturbance to

th e surrounding tim be r as possible. Under th is type

of m anagemen t, all seral stages are m aintained at all

tim es, but th is te ch nique is used alm ost e xclusive ly

on re lative ly sm all private h oldings.

Succession of bird com m unities gene rally follow s

forest succession from e arly seral stages, produced

th rough even-aged m anagemen t, tow ard clim ax com -

m unities (Craw ford and oth e rs 19 81, Dick son and oth -

e rs 19 84, H odorff and oth e rs 19 88, Joh nston and

Odum 19 56, Meye rs and Joh nson 19 78, Noon and oth -

e rs 19 79 ). Cle arcutting follow e d by site-pre paration

4 Robe rtson, F. Dale. 19 9 2. Le tte r dated June 4 to Regional Foreste rs and Station Directors about Ecosyste m Manage m ent of th e

National Forests and Grasslands. On file w ith : U.S. De partm ent

of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Auditors Building, 201 14th Stre e t

S.W . at Independence Ave. S.W ., W ash ington, DC 20250.

5 Robe rtson, F. Dale. 19 9 2. State m ent on June 16 by Ch ie f of th e

Forest Se rvice be fore th e Subcom m ittee on Forests, Fam ily Farm s,

and Energy Com m ittee on Agriculture, U.S. H ouse of Representatives, conce rning H .R. 19 69 , cle arcutting, and ecosyste m m anagemen t. On file w ith : U.S. De partmen t OfAgriculture, Forest Se rvice,

Auditors Building, 20114th Stre e t SW . at Independence Ave. S.W .,

W ash ington, DC 20250.

58
burning can elim inate h abitats for m ost birds for only

a sh ort pe riod of tim e (W ood and Niles 19 78).

Forest-inte rior birds, such as th ose discussed h e re,

m ay be excluded for m any years w h ile th e stand regene rates; h ow e ve r, m ost of th ese spe cies do not m ak e

e xtensive use of pine-dom inated stands. Conne r and

Adk isson (19 75) found th at afte r 1 ye ar, a re gene ration stand in a m ixed oak w oodland in south w este rn

Virginia h ad th e low e st dive rsity of b reeding birds

am ong six stands in late r successional stages. Th ese

auth ors also found th at spe cies dive rsity w as h igh est

in th e re gene ration stand 7 years afte r cutting, and

th at forest-inte rior birds (w ood th rush es) w e re first

re corded in a regene ration stand 12 ye ars afte r cutting. Sim ilarly, Conne r and oth e rs (19 79 ) found th at

spe cies dive rsity incre ased along th e continuum of

re gene ration stands 3 to 30 ye ars afte r cutting but

decre ased in m ature stands. Four of th e spe cies exam ined in th ese abstracts (ye llow -billed cuck oo,

Acadian flycatch e r, red-eyed vire o, and Louisiana

w ate rth rush ) occurred only in stands 30 years or m ore

afte r cutting, but th e w ood th rush w as found in regene ration stands as soon as 10 ye ars afte r cutting.

Even-aged m anagemen t is not w ith out bene fit to at

le ast som e spe cies. For instance, Am e rican redstarts

respond favorably to disturbed h abitats (Titte rington

and oth e rs 19 79 , W ebb and oth e rs 19 77), and species

th at pre fe r open , m ature pine stands w ould benefit.

Seed tree and sh e lte rw ood cuts m ay not be favorable

for m ost forest-inte rior bird spe cies; h ow e ve r, th ese

ch anges w ill be bene ficial for a diffe rent set of com -

m unity dom inants and provide bette r foraging opportunities for spe cies such as raptors (Noon and oth e rs

19 79 ). Th om pson and oth e rs (19 9 2), h ow e ve r, found

som e of th e forest-inte rior spe cies to be m ore abundant in sapling or pole- to saw tim be r-sized stands th at

h ad previously been cle arcut th an in stands w ith no

re cent h arvest. Th ose auth ors h ypoth esized th at species such as th e Kentuck y and w orm -eating w arble rs

w e re k eying on th e h igh density of th e w oody ste m s

present, even th ough th e ove rstory w as not m ature.

Th e abundance, num be r, and dive rsity of spe cies

w e re found to be h igh est in inte rior-edge h abitats on

th e border of cle arcuts (Stre lk e and Dick son 19 80),

w h ich indicates th at som e am ount of cle arcutting bene fits at le ast som e b irds. Th ough th is m ay be true on

a landscape leve l, th e sam e m ay not h old true at th e

stand leve l. If th e re is a large tract of re lative ly contiguous forest beh ind a particular edge, th ese benefits

m ay be re alized; h ow e ve r, in a h igh ly fragm ented landscape, m any edges incre ase th e potential for nest predation and parasitism .

Under uneven-aged m anagemen t, h igh densities of

forest-inte rior birds are favored due to im proved ve rtical dive rsity of th e forest canopy, w h ich provides a

gre ate r varie ty of foraging situations; h ow e ve r, species dive rsity is reduced due to reduced h oriz ontal dive rsity (Te m ple and oth e rs 19 79 ). H oriz ontal dive rsity of forest ve ge tation can be im proved, w ith a resultant incre ase in spe cies dive rsity, th rough crow n

and sele ction th inning, w h ich stim ulates understory

grow th (W ood and Niles 19 78). Most uneven-aged

m anagemen t is practiced on sm all private h oldings,

w h ich m ak e up approxim ate ly 59 pe rcent of th e forest land base in Louisiana (Vissage and oth e rs 19 9 2).

Th e e ffe cts of forest m anagemen t on th is m ajor portion of th e land base sh ould be beneficial to th e b ird

populations discussed in th is publication. In th e future, m ore private and com m e rcial forest landow ne rs

sh ould be encouraged to m anage th eir tim be r in th is

m anne r.

Prescribed fire is a com m on tool of m anagemen t th at

is used for a varie ty of purposes, including site pre paration, fuel reduction, and h ardw ood control prim arily in pine types. In som e forest types (e.g., longle af

pine ), fire is essential to th e ph enology of forest deve lopm ent. Th e influence of a fuel-reduction fire on th e

structure of ve ge tation is gene rally sh ort lived and

can dram atically im prove th e vigor and quality of

fire-adapted species, espe cially th ose in th e unde rstory.

Th is sh ould benefit NTMB w ith an affinity for e arly

successional h abitats, such as th e prairie w arble r

(Dendroica d iscolor) and indigo bunting (Passerina

cyanea). Joh nson and Landers (19 82) found th at densities of b reeding birds w e re h igh e r in burned th an

unburned slash pine flatw oods in Ge orgia, and Bock

and Bock (19 83) found th at populations of b reeding

birds eith e r incre ased or re m ained th e sam e follow -

ing prescribed burning in ponderosa pine stands in

Colorado.

Fire is th e prim ary factor th at m aintains a forest in

an early seral stage of succession. Fire suppression

results in a ch ange from a h e rbace ous or fire-adapted

com m unity to a com m unity of prim arily w oody ve ge tation, w h ich th en progresses naturally tow ard th e

particular clim ax ve ge tation of th e site (Joh nson and

Landers 19 82, W ood and Niles 19 78). Alth ough th is

ch ange w ill pre clude avian spe cies th at pre fe r m ore

open h abitats, forest spe cies th at pre fe r th e clim ax

ve ge tational com m unity w ill be favored.

Stre am side m anagemen t z ones (SM Z ) provide trave l

corridors and possibly lim ited h abitat for som e species associated w ith m ature forests (Dick son and

H untley 19 85). In addition, nesting and foraging sites

are provided, and h abitat dive rsity and edge are created w h en th ese forest buffe rs are le ft during tim be r

h arvesting. Gates and Giffen (19 9 1) found th at NTMB

tend to concentrate at forest-stre am e cotones, sim ilar

to th e w ay th at m any species concentrate at forest-fie ld

edges. Th e re fore, th ese linear h abitat patch es are

im portant to NTMB in areas under intensive tim be r

m anagemen t. Th ough th e e ffe ct of edge are as m ay be

bene ficial to som e degre e, spe cies nesting near th ese

edges m ay also be subje cted to unusual am ounts of

59
predation and/or nest parasitism . Th us, by le aving

SM Z th at are too sm all, th e ch ance of nests being destroyed or parasitized incre ases, and if SM Z are th e

only h abitat patch es re m aining in an extensive

cle arcut, an ecological sink or trap is cre ated w ith potentially disastrous results for b reeding NTMB.

SUGGESTED FOREST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES

It is encouraging th at populations of th e 13 se le cted

NTMB are stable or incre asing in som e parts of Louisiana. H ow e ve r, in gene ral, populations of NTMB h ave

been declining in m uch of North Am e rica, so som e

ch anges to current m anagemen t practices are suggested th at m ay be beneficial to NTMB.

Alth ough m any NTMB inh abit stands dom inated

by pines, only 20 pe rcent of th e KNF is com posed of

h ardw ood and m ixed pine-h ardw ood forests, w h ich are

th e m ost suitable h abitats for th e m ajority of NTMB

of conce rn. Of th e 13 se le cted species, 12 inh ab it h ardw ood forests and 5 utilize m ixed forests as w e ll. It is

obvious th at m anagemen t of th is portion of th e forests w ill h ave th e m ost e ffe ct on NTMB. Acquisition

of h ardw ood forests or an incre ase in th e pe rcentage

of h ardw ood and/or m ixed forests w ould benefit th ese

NTMB. It is encouraging to k now th at in th e land

m anagemen t plan for th e KNF (USDA FS 19 85) th e re

is a stated desire to incre ase h ardw ood acre age by 74

pe rcent (see pages II-15 and B-17). Th e auth ors support th is goal and encourage e xpansion of it.

Traditionally, forest m anagemen t in th e United

States h as favored species th at pre fe r th e forest edges

rath e r th an species th at pre fe r th e forest inte rior. Th e

w arble rs, th rush es, and vire os (46 of th e NTMB of th e

KNF) are usually forest-inte rior spe cies. Re ve rsing th e

current trend by m anaging to decre ase th e am ount of

forest edges w ould incre ase th e am ount of suitable

h abitats for th ese NTMB and w ould reduce th e risk of

cre ating a situation in w h ich th ese b irds m igh t fall

into th e e cological sink . Pe rh aps m oving aw ay from

th e use of h abitat gene ralists as m anagemen t indicators and concentrating m anagemen t m ore on a landscape le ve l th an on a stand le ve l, as pre viously stated,

w ould benefit NTMB and oth e r nongam e spe cies.

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION NEEDS

Alth ough th e distribution of NTMB th rough out

Louisiana is gene rally sh ow n in th e pre ceding m aps,

th e re are large gaps in th e data. For instance, data on

th e occurrence of NTMB species for th is re port w e re

available for only th ree of th e six forest districts

(H am ilton and Leste r 19 87, H am ilton and Yurk unas

19 87, Tuck e r 19 80). Th e data supplied by H am ilton

and Yurk unas and by Tuck e r are lim ited to a spe cific

h abitat type or to a re lative ly sm all are a. To obtain a

bette r k now ledge of th e distribution of NTMB on th e

forest, it m ay be w ise to establish survey routes for

both b reed ing and w inte ring b irds on each district and

to stratify th e districts by h abitat type.

M ost of th e studies conce rning th e life h istories of

NTMB h ave been conducted in th e north e rn part of

th e country and th e M iddle Atlantic States. Basic data

on th e life h istory of e ach of th e 13 spe cies abstracted

h e re is lack ing for Louisiana and th e South in gene ral

and for som e spe cies altoge th e r. To date, th e auth ors

h ave found little inform ation on h abitat sele ction, te rritory siz e , or productivity of th e Ken tuck y and

w orm -eating w arble rs. It also appe ars th at no inform ation h as been publish ed on th e life h istory of th e

fairly com m on Kentuck y w arble r. Th e w orm -eating

w arble r h as been studied in depth in re lation to foraging tactics (Greenbe rg 19 87a, 19 87b), but, as stated

above, th e sam e inform ation lack ing for th e Kentuck y

w arble r is lack ing for th is spe cies as w e ll. Sim ilarly,

th ese data are conspicuously absent for com m on

neotropical m igrants such as th e yellow -billed cuck oo

and yellow -th roated vire o. In contrast, spe cies such

as th e b road-w inged h aw k , Acadian flycatch e r,

red-eyed vire o, and Am e rican redstart h ave been quite

th orough ly studied ove r m uch of th eir range.

M ost of th e lite rature on th e M ississippi k ite com es

from th e Gre at Plains re gion, even th ough th is raptor

often b reeds in close proxim ity to or w ith in urban are as of Louisiana, such as Baton Rouge and New O rle ans. Broad-w inged h aw k s, w h ich pass in large

num be rs th rough th e south w este rn part of th e State

during fall m igration, h ave not been studied in Louisiana during th e b reeding season. Proje cts conce rning th e distribution , e cology, h om e ran ge , and

productivity of M ississippi k ites and/or b road-w inged

h aw k s on th e KNF or th rough out th e State could be

accom plish ed in th e tim e pe riod allotted for m ost

graduate program s, w ith possible State and Fede ral

sources of funding.

Be cause th e b reeding distribution of th e Louisiana

w ate rth rush h as been described as restricted to are as

w ith fast-m oving stre am s (Craig 19 84, 19 85, 19 87;

Eaton 19 58), a research e r could identify and survey

m any such locations w ith re lative e ase, espe cially if

th e scope we re restricted to th e KNF. Anoth e r bird

w h ose distribution is ch ie fly restricted by h abitat fe atures is th e Sw ainson’s w arble r. Locating and surveying h abitats w ith scrub palm e tto or giant caneb rak e

understories could also be a re asonably sim ple task .

New te ch nologies in re m ote sensing and ge ograph ic

inform ation syste m s (GIS) sh ould be of bene fit in such

undertak ings. During an investigation of th ese tw o

birds, data could be gath e red on oth e r spe cies th at

60
inh abit m oist deciduous w oodlands, such as th e

Acadian flycatch e r and w ood th rush .

Little to noth ing is k now n about th e h abitat sele ction and productivity of th e ch uck -w ill’s_ w idow

th rough out its range. Most data th at h ave been publish ed on h abitat sele ction w e re colle cted on th e basis

of call counts, w h ich reve al little about actual h abitat

sele ction. For instance, if h abitat sele ction of north -

e rn m ock ingbirds (Mim u s polyglottos) w e re dete rm ined on th e basis of call counts, one m igh t be led to

belie ve th at pre fe rred h ab itats w e re rooftops and te levision antennas. M any questions, such as te rritory siz e

and productivity, could be answ e red about th e

ch uck -w ill’s_w idow by using radio te leme try.

Currently, a coordinated effort by Fede ral, State,

and private agencies and organizations is underw ay

th at uses sate llite im age ry to h e lp identify critical stopove r are as and m igration routes of nongam e birds.

Basic m onitoring studies sh ould be initiated on all

National Forest System lands to give research e rs a

bette r unde rstanding of th e seasonal m ovemen ts of

NTMB. For instance, M oore and oth e rs (19 9 0) found

th at som e ne otropical m igrants utilized barrie r islands

in th e Gulf of Me xico as stopove r are as during spring.

Oth e r are as along th e gulf coast, such as th e DeSoto

National Forest and th e Atch afalaya Rive r Basin, m ay

be im portant as stopove r are as, w h e re NTMB can replen ish th eir endogenous rese rves before continuing

th eir north w ard journey, as w e ll as se rving as trave l

corridors. Given th e fragm ented nature of th e forests

in south e rn Louisiana, th e KNF m ay be functionally

sim ilar to an island and, correspondingly, e xtreme ly

im portant as a spring and fall staging are a for a significant proportion of th e continent’s NTMB population.

W ith th e incre asing conce rn about population declines of NTMB, it is curious th at basic data, as described previously, is seve re ly lack ing for som e of th e

m ore com m on species. Th is current e ffort w as restricted to an indepth lite rature re view of only 13 species; h ow e ve r, re productive data is lack ing or absent

for 9 of th ese spe cies. Alth ough som e sources of data,

publish ed and unpublish ed, w e re ce rtainly ove rlook ed,

it is apparent th at m ost of th e abstracted birds h ave

not been th e spe cies of focus in th e Gulf States. Th e

fore going discussion le ads to som e questions about th e

state of ornith ological investigation by professional

and aspiring research e rs.

Given th e advanced state of scientific endeavor in

avian research in such disciplines as beh avioral and

com m unity ecology, w h y h ave m any of th e basic biological attributes of individual spe cies, such as nesting success and te rritory siz e, been ove rlook ed? Even

w ith th e om nipresent constraints on budge ts and pe rsonnel, and w ith th e research m andates of agencies

and institutions, th e re m ust be som e room for th e opportunity to conduct th ese k inds of basic studies. Are

th e re too few inte rested acade m icians or students in

th e Nation’s colle ges and land grant unive rsities? If

th e answ e r to th is question is no, th en th e proble m

m ay be th at it is not gene rally k now n th at th is seve re

lack of basic biological inform ation exists. In actuality, h ow e ve r, m ost m ajor le arning institutions are

m oving furth e r and furth e r aw ay from encouraging

students to understand and colle ct data on basic life

h istory. M ost of th e unive rsity m useum s and departm ents of biology, e cology, e tc., are stressing th e ore tical and m ole cular program s at th e e xpense of program s

w ith e m pirical and organism al e m ph ases.

M aybe th e basic biological inform ation exists and

th e auth ors h ave failed to locate it. Pe rh aps; but if

th ese critical pie ces of data on life h istory do not e xist, th en investigators and oth e rs obviously cannot

build predictive m odels of population structure or deve lop sound m anagemen t practices to ensure th e continued existence of viable populations. If th is critical

inform ation e xists but is inaccessible to m ost research -

e rs, w ays m ust be found to re ctify th e situation.

If th e pre ceding discussion in th is section sounds

lik e strong criticism of ce rtain types of research e fforts or offends th e re ade r, th is w as not th e intention.

It is m e re ly to point out, in a frank m anne r, th e fact

th at research e rs h ave tended to m ak e quantum le aps

in conducting research and h ave ove rlook ed som e im -

portant basic studies. H ope fully, th is discussion w ill

prom pt research e rs to re evaluate e xisting program s

and strive to identify and fill th ese ve ry im portant

gaps.

LITERATURE CITED

Lite rature citations are num be red for e asy re fe rral

in appendix B.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Allan, Ph illip F.; Sim e, Palm e r R. 19 43. Distribution and abundance of th e M ississippi k ite in th e

Te xas panh andle. Condor. 45: 110-112.

Am buel, Bruce ; Te m ple, Stanley A. 19 83. Are adependent ch anges in th e b ird com m unities and

ve ge tation of south e rn W isconsin forests. Ecology.

64(5): 1057-1068.

Anderson, Stanley H .; Sh ugart, H e rm an H ., Jr.

19 74. H abitat sele ction of b reeding birds in an

e ast Tennessee deciduous forest. Ecology. 55:

828-837.

Bak e r, Be rnard W . 19 44. Nesting of th e Am e rican redstart. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 56(2): 83-9 0.

Bank s, Rich ard C. 19 88. Ge ograph ic variation in

th e yellow -billed cuck oo. Condor. 9 0: 473-477.

Bent, Arth ur C. 19 37. Life h istories of North

Am e rican b irds of prey National Museum Bull. 167.

W ash ington, DC: Sm ith sonian Institute. 409 p.

61
7. Bent, Arth ur C. 19 42. Life h istories of North

Am e rican flycatch e rs, lark s, sw allow s, and th eir

allies. National Museum Bull. 179 . W ash ington,

DC: Sm ith sonian Institute. 555 p.

8. Bent, Arth ur C. 19 50. Life h istories of North

Am e rican w agtails, sh rik es, vire os, and th eir allies. National Museum Bull. 19 7. W ash ington,

DC: Sm ith sonian Institute. 411 p.

9 . Bent, Arth ur C. 19 53. Life h istories of North Am e rican w ood w arble rs. National Museum Bull. 203.

W ash ington, DC: Sm ith sonian Institute. 734 p.

10. Be rtin, Robe rt I. 19 77. Breeding h abitats of th e

w ood th rush and ve e r-y. Condor. 79 : 303-311.

11. Blak e, Joh n G.; H oppes, W illiam G. 19 81. Influence

of resource abundance on use of tree-fall gaps by

b irds in an isolated w oodlot. Auk . 103: 328-340.

12. Blak e, Joh n G.; Karr, Jam es R. 19 87. Breeding

birds of isolated w oodlots: are a and h abitat re lationsh ips. Ecology. 68(6): 1724-1734.

13. Bock , Carl E.; Bock , Jane H . 19 83. Responses of

birds and de e r m ice to prescribed burning in ponderosa pine. Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t.

47(3): 836-840.

14. Bond, Rich ard R. 19 57. Ecological distribution of

b reeding birds in th e upland forests of south e rn

W isconsin. Ecological M onograph s. 27(4): 351-384.

15. Brandt, Alfred E. 19 47. Th e re aring of a cow bird

by Acadian flycatch e rs. Th e W ilson Bulle tin.

59 (2): 79 -82.

16. Brook s, M aurice ; Le gg, W illiam C. 19 42. Sw ainson’s w arble r in Nich olas County, W est Virginia.

Auk . 59 : 76-86.

17. Burns, Frank L. 19 05. Th e w orm -eating w arble r.

Bird Lore. 7: 137-139 .

18. Burns, Frank L. 19 11. Am onograph of th e b roadw inged h awk (Buteoplatypterus). Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 23: 139 -320.

19 . Conne r, Rich ard N.; Adk isson, Curtis S. 19 75. Effe cts of cle arcutting on th e dive rsity of b reeding

birds. Journal of Forestry. 73( 12): 781-785.

20. Conne r, Rich ard N.; Dick son, Jam es G.; Lock e,

Brian A.; Se ge lquist, Ch arles A. 19 83. Ve ge tation

ch aracte ristics im portant to com m on songbirds in

e ast Te xas. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 9 5(3): 349 -361.

21. Conne r, Rich ard N.; Via, Je rry W .; Prath e r, Irvine

D. 19 79 . Effe cts of pine-oak cle arcutting on w inte r and breeding birds in south w este rn Virginia.

Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 9 1(2): 301-316.

22. Coope r, Robe rt J. 19 81. Relative abundance of

Ge orgia caprim ulgids based on call-counts. Th e

W ilson Bulle tin. 9 3(3): 363-371.

23. Craig, Robe rt J. 19 84. Com parative foraging e cology of Louisiana and north e rn w ate r-th rush es. Th e

W ilson Bulle tin. 9 6(2): 173-183.

24. Craig, Robe rt J. 19 85. Com parative h abitat use

of Louisiana and north e rn w ate rth rush es. Th e

W ilson Bulle tin. 9 7: 347-355.

25. Craig, Robe rt J. 19 87. Dive rgent prey sele ction

in tw o spe cies of w ate rth rush es (Seiurus). Auk .

104: 180-187.

26. Craw ford, H .S.; H oope r, R.G.; Titte rington, R.W .

19 81. Songbird population response to silvicultural practices in central Appalach ian h ardw oods.

Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t. 45(3): 680-69 2.

27. Craw ford, Robe rt L. 19 89 . Anoth e r consideration

of yellow -billed cuck oo casualties at a Tennessee

TV tow e r. M igrant. 60(3): 72-73.

28. De Garis, Ch arles F. 19 36. Notes on six nests of

th e Kentuck y w arble r (Oporornis formoms). Auk .

53: 418-428.

29 . Dick son, Jam es G. 19 78a. Forest bird com m unities of th e bottom land h ardw oods. In: DeGraaf,

Rich ard M ., te ch . ed. Proceed ings of th e w ork sh op

on m anagemen t of south e rn forests for nongam e

birds; 19 78 January 24-26; Atlanta, GA. Gen .

Te ch . Re p. SE-14.Ash eville, NC: U.S. De partm ent

OfAgriculture, Forest Se rvice, South e aste rn Forest Expe rim ent Station: 66-73.

30. Dick son, Jam es G. 19 78b . Se asonal bird populations in a south central Louisiana bottom land

h ardw ood forest. Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t.

42(4): 875-883.

31. Dick s on , Jam es G.; Conne r, Rich ard N.;

W illiam son, J. H ow ard. 19 80. Re lative abundance

of b reeding birds in forest stands in th e South -

e ast. South e rn Journal of Applied Forestry 4(4):

174-179 .

32. Dick s on , Jam es G.; Conne r, Rich ard N.;

W illiam son, J. H ow ard. 19 84. Bird ch anges in a

young pine plantation in east Te xas. South e rn

Journal ofApplied Forestry. 8(l): 47-51.

33. Dick son, Jam es G.; H untley, Jim m y C. 19 85.

Stre am side m anagemen t z ones and w ildlife in th e

South e rn Coastal Plain. In: Proceedings of th e

North Am e rican riparian confe rence ; 19 85 April

16-18; Tucson, AZ . Tucson, AZ : Unive rsity of Tucson: 263-264.

34. Dick son, Jam es G.; Noble, Robe rt E. 19 78. Ve rtical distribution of birds in a Louisiana bottom -

land h ardw ood forest. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 9 0( 1):

19 -29 .

35. Dilge r, W illiam C. 19 56. Adaptive m odifications

and ecological isolating m e ch anism s in th e th rush

gene ra Catharus and Hylocichla. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 68(3): 171-19 9 .

36. Eaton, Ste ph en W . 19 58. A life h istory study of

th e Louisiana w ate rth rush . Th e W ilson Bulle tin.

70(3): 211-236.

37. Eliason, Bonita C.; Fall, Bruce A. 19 89 . Louisiana w ate r-th rush es in W ash ington County: results

of th e 19 88 M innesota County biological survey

w ork . Loon. 61: 34-37.

38. Evans, Keith E. 19 78. Oak -pine and oak -h ick ory

forest b ird com m unities and m anagemen t options.

62
39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49 .

50.

51.

52.

53.

In: DeGraaf, Rich ard M ., te ch . ed. Proceedings of

th e w ork sh op on m anagemen t of south e rn forests

for nongam e birds; 19 78 January 24-26; Atlanta,

GA. Gen . Te ch . Rep. SE-14. Ash eville, NC: U.S.

De partm ent ofAgriculture, Forest Se rvice, South -

e aste rn Forest Expe rim ent Station: 76-89 .

Fick en , M illicent S. 19 62. Agonistic beh avior and

te rritory in th e Am e rican redstart. Auk . 79 :

607-632.

Fick en , M illicent S. 19 64. Nest-site sele ction in

th e Am e rican redstart. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 76(2):

189 -19 0.

Fick en , M illicent S.; Fick en , Robe rt W . 19 62. Th e

com parative e th ology of th e w ood w arble rs: a revie w . Living Bird. 1: 103-121 .

Fick en , M illicent S.; Fick en , Robe rt W . 19 67. Agespe cific diffe rences in th e b reeding beh avior and

e cology of th e Am e rican redstart. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 79 (2): 188-19 9 .

Finch , Deborah M . 19 9 1. Population ecology, h ab itat requiremen ts, and conservation of neotropical

m igratory birds. Gen . Te ch . Rep. RM-205. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. De partm ent ofAgriculture, Forest Se rvice, Rock y Mountain Forest and Range

Expe rim ent Station. 26 p.

Fitch , H en ry S. 19 74. Obse rvations on th e food

and nesting of th e b road-w inged h awk (Buteo

platypterus) in north e aste rn Kansas. Condor. 76:

331-333.

Fleisch e r, Robe rt C.; Murph y, M ich ae l T.; H unt,

Law rence E. 19 85.Clutch size incre ase and intraspe cific b rood parasitism in th e yellow -billed

cuck oo. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 9 7(l): 125-127.

Gaines, David. 19 74. Review of th e status of th e

yellow -billed cuck oo in California: Sacram ento

Valley populations. Condor. 76: 204-209 .

Gates, J. Edw ard; Giffen , Neil R. 19 9 1. Ne otropical m igrant birds and edge e ffe cts at a foreststre am e coton e. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 103(2):

204-217.

Glinsk i, Rich ard L.; Oh m art, Robe rt D. 19 83.

Breeding e cology of th e M ississippi k ite in Ariz ona. Condor. 85: 200-207.

Grabe r, Rich ard R.; Grabe r, Je an W . 19 63. Acom -

parative study of bird populations in Illinois,

19 06619 09 and 19 56-19 58. Illinois Natural H istory Survey Bulle tin. 28(3): 383-528.

Greenbe rg, Russell. 19 87a. Deve lopm ent of dead

le af foraging in a tropical m igrant w arble r. Ecology. 68(l): 130-141.

Greenbe rg, Russell. 19 8713. Se asonal foraging specializ ation in th e w orm -eating w arble r. Condor.

89 : 158-168.

Grock i, Darlene R.J.; Joh nston, David W . 19 74.

Ch lorinated h ydrocarbon pesticides in North

Am e rican cuck oos. Auk . 9 1: 186-188 .

H am e l, Paul B.; Le Grand, H arry E., Jr.; Lennartz,

M ich ae l R.; Gauth re aux, Sidney A., Jr. 19 82. Birdh abitat re lationsh ips on south e aste rn forest

lands. Gen . Te ch . Re p. SE-22. Ash e ville, NC: U.S.

De partm ent ofAgriculture, Forest Se rvice, South -

e aste rn Forest Expe rim ent Station. 417 p.

54. H am ilton, Robe rt B.; Leste r, Gary D. 19 87. Bird

h abitat use and its m e asuremen t on th e

Catah oula District of Kisatch ie National Forest.

In: Pe arson, H en ry A.; Sm eins, Fred E.; Th ill,

Ronald E., cam ps. Ecological, ph ysical, and socioe conom ic re lationsh ips w ith in south e rn national

forests: Proceedings of th e south e rn evaluation

proje ct w ork sh op; 19 87 M ay 26-27; Long Be ach ,

M S. Gen . Te ch . Rep. SO-68. New O rle ans, LA:

U.S. De partm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice,

South e rn Forest Expe rim ent Station: 9 2-102.

55. H am ilton, Robe rt B.; Yurk unas, Vincent G. 19 87.

Avian use of h abitats in th e longle af-slash pine

forests of Louisiana. In : Pe arson , H e n ry A.;

Sm eins, Fred E.; Th ill, Ronald E., cam ps. Ecological, ph ysical, and socioe conom ic re lationsh ips

w ith in south e rn national forests: Proceedings of

th e south e rn evaluation proje ct w ork sh op; 19 87

M ay 26-27; Long Be ach , M S. Gen . Te ch . Re p. SO68. New O rle ans, LA: U.S. De partm ent ofAgriculture, Forest Se rvice, South e rn Forest Expe rim ent

Station: 125-137.

56. H am ilton, W illiam J. III; H am ilton, M arian E.

19 65. Breeding ch aracte ristics of yellow -billed

cuck oos in Ariz ona. In: Proceedings of th e California Acade m y of Science. 32( 14): 405-432.

57. H arpe r, Francis. 19 38. Th e ch uck -w ill’s_w idow in

th e Ok e finok e e re gion. Oriole. 3(2): 9 -14.

58. H espen h eide, H en ry A. 19 71. Flycatch e r h abitat

sele ction in th e e aste rn deciduous forest. Auk . 88:

61-74.

59 . H ick ey, Joseph J. 19 40. Te rritorial aspe cts of th e

Am e rican redstart. Auk . 57: 255-256.

60. H ill, Norm an I?; H agan, Joh n M., III. 19 9 1. Population trends of som e north e aste rn North Am e rican landbirds: a h alf-century of data. Th e W ilson

Bulle tin. 103(2): 165-338.

61. H odorff, Robe rt A.; Sie g, Carolyn H ull; Linder,

Raym ond L. 19 88. W ildlife response to stand

structure of deciduous w oodlands. Journal of

W ildlife M anagemen t. 52(4): 667-673.

62. H olm es, Rich ard T.; Rob inson, Scott K. 19 88. Spatial patte rns, foraging tactics, and diets of groundforaging b irds in a north e rn h ardw oods forest. Th e

W ilson Bulle tin. lOO(3): 377-39 4.

63. H olm es, Rich ard T.; Sh e rry, Th om as W . 19 88. Assessing population trends of New H am psh ire forest birds: local vs. re gional patte rns. Auk . 105:

756-768.

64. H oope r, Robe rt G. 19 78. Cove forests: bird com -

m unities and m anagemen t options. In: De Graaf,

Rich ard M ., te ch . ed. Proceed ings of th e w ork sh op

63
on m anagemen t of south e rn forests for nongam e

birds; 19 78 January 24-26; Atlanta, GA. Gen .

Te ch . Re p. SE-14. Ash e ville, NC: U.S. De partm ent

of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, South e aste rn Forest Expe rim ent Station: 9 0-9 7.

65. H ow e , H en ry F. 19 74. Age-specific diffe rences in

h abitat sele ction by th e Am e rican redstart. Auk .

9 1: 161-162.

66. H oyt, Sally F. 19 53. Incubation and nesting beh avior of th e ch uck -w ill’s_w idow . Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 65(3): 204-205.

67. Jam es, Francis C.; Joh nston, Rich ard F.; W arne r,

Noe l 0.; [and oth e rs]. 19 84. T h e

Grinnellian nich e of th e w ood th rush . Am e rican

Naturalist. 124(l): 17-47.

68. Jam es, Ross D. 19 76. Foraging beh avior and h ab itat sele ction of th ree spe cies of vire os in south e rn

Ontario. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 88(l): 62-75.

69 . Janik , Cynth iaA.; M osh e r, Jam es A. 19 82. Breeding b iology of raptors in th e central Appalach ians.

Raptor Research . 16( 1): 18-24.

70. Jay, Antonin. 19 11. Nesting of th e California

cuck oo in Los Ange les County, California. Condor. 13: 69 -73.

71. Joh nson, A. Sydney; Landers, J. Larry. 19 82.

H abitat re lationsh ips of sum m e r resident birds

in slash pine flatw oods. Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t. 46( 2): 4 16-428.

72. Joh nston, David W .; Odum , Eugene l? 19 56. Breeding b ird populations in re lation to plant succession

on th e Piedm ont of Ge orgia. Ecology. 37( 1): 50-62.

73. Kalla, Pe te r I.; Alsop, Fred J., III. 19 83. Th e distribution, h abitat pre fe rence, and status of th e

M ississippi k ite in Tennessee. Am e rican Birds.

37(2): 146-149 .

74. Kandeigh , S.C. 19 47. Bird population studies in

th e conife rous forest biom e during a spruce budw orm outb re ak . Ontario De partm ent of Lands

and Forests, Biological Bulle tin. 1: l-100.

75. Ke ran, Doug. 19 78. Nest site sele ction by th e

b road-w inged h awk in north central M innesota

and W isconsin. Raptor Research . 12(1/2): 15-20.

76. Ke rlinge r, Paul; Gauth re aux, Sidney A., Jr. 19 85.

Se asonal tim ing, ge ograph ic distribution, and

fligh t beh avior of b road-w inged h aw k s during

spring m igration in south Te xas: a radar and visual study. Auk . 102: 735-743.

77. Law rence, Louise de Kiriline. 19 53. Nesting life

and beh avior of th e red-eyed vire o. Canadian

Fie ld Naturalist. 67: 47-87.

78. Love, Diane; Grzybow sk i, Jos e ph A.; Knopf, Fritz

L. 19 85. Influence of various land uses on w indb re ak sele ction by nesting M ississippi k ites. Th e

W ilson Bulle tin. 9 7(4): 561-565 .

79 . Low e ry, Ge orge H . 19 74. Louisiana birds. 3rd ed.

Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Unive rsity Press.

651 p.

80. M atray, Paul F. 19 74. Broad-w inged h awk nesting and ecology. Auk . 9 1: 307-324.

81. M aure r, BrianA.; Wh itm ore, Robe rt C. 19 81. Foraging of five b ird spe cies in tw o forests w ith diffe rent ve ge tation structure. Th e W ilson Bulle tin.

9 3(4): 478-49 0.

82. M e anley, Brook e. 19 45. Notes on Sw ainson’s w arble r in central Ge orgia. Auk . 62: 39 5-401.

83. Me anley, Brook e. 19 66. Som e obse rvations on

h abitats of th e Sw ainson’s w arble r. Living Bird.

5: 151-165.

84. Me anley, Brook e. 19 71. Natural h istory of th e

Sw ainson’s w arble r. North Am e rican Fauna 69 .

W ash ington, DC: U.S. De partm ent of th e Inte rior,

Fish and W ildlife Se rvice, Bure au of Sport Fish -

e ries and W ildlife. 9 0 p.

85. Menge l, Robe rt M .; Jen k inson, M arion Anne.

19 71. Vocaliz ations of th e ch uck -w ill’s_w idow and

som e re lated beh avior. Living Bird. 10: 171-184.

86. Menge l, Robe rt M .; Sh arpe, Roge r S.; W oolfenden,

Glen E. 19 72. W ing clapping in te rritorial and

courtsh ip beh avior of th e ch uck -w ill’s_w idow . Auk .

89 : 440-444.

87. Meye rs, Joseph M .; Joh nson, SydneyA. 19 78. Bird

com m unities associated w ith succession and m anagemen t of loblolly-sh ortle af pine forests. In:

DeGraaf, Rich ard M ., te ch . ed. Proceedings of th e

w ork sh op on m anagemen t of south e rn forests for

nongam e b irds; 19 78 January 24-26; Atlanta, GA.

Gen . Te ch . Rep. SE-14. Ash eville, NC: U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, South -

e aste rn Forest Expe rim ent Station: 50-65.

88. M oore, Frank R.; Ke rlinge r, Paul; Sim ons, Ted R.

19 9 0. Stopove r on a gulf coast barrie r island by

spring trans-gulf m igrants. Th e W ilson Bulle tin.

102(3): 487-500.

89 . Morse, Douglas H . 19 71. Effe cts of th e arrival of

a new spe cies upon h abitat utiliz ation by tw o forest th rush es in Maine. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 83( 1):

57-65.

9 0. M orse, Douglas H . 19 89 . Am e rican w arble rs: an

e cological and beh avioral pe rspe ctive. Cam b ridge,

MA: H arvard Unive rsity Press. 406 p.

9 1. M osh e r, Jam es A.; M atray, Paul F. 19 74. Size dim orph ism : a factor in ene rgy savings for b roadw inged h aw k s. Auk . 9 1: 325-341.

9 2. Murph y, M ich ae l T. 19 83. Nest success and nesting h ab its of e aste rn k ingb irds and oth e r flycatch -

e rs. Condor. 85: 208-219 .

9 3. Newm an , Donald L. 19 58. A nesting of th e

Acadian flycatch e r. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 70(2):

130-144.

9 4. Nolan, Val, Jr. 19 63. Re productive success of b irds

in a de ciduous scrub h abitat. Ecology. 44(2):

305-3 13.

9 5. Nolan, Val, Jr.; Th om pson, Ch arles F. 19 75. Th e

occurrence and significance of anom alous re pro64
96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109 .

ductive activities in tw o North Am e rican nonparasitic cuck oos Coccyzus spp. Ibis. 117: 49 6-

503.

Noon, Barry R.; Bingm an, Ve rne r I?; Noon, J.

Paige. 19 79 . Th e e ffe cts of ch anges in h abitat

on north e rn h ardw ood forest bird com m unities.

In: De Graaf, Rich ard M .; Evans, Keith E., cam ps.

Proceedings of th e w ork sh op on m anagemen t of

north ce n tral and north e aste rn forests for

nongam e birds; 19 79 January 23-25; M inneapolis, MN. Gen. Te ch . Rep. NC-51. St. Paul, MN:

U.S. De partm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice,

North Central Forest Expe rim ent Station: 3348.

Norris, R.A. 19 63. Birds of th e AEC Savannah

Rive r plant are a. Ch arleston, SC: Ch arleston

Museum . 78 p.

Park e r, Jam es W . 19 74. Th e b reeding biology of

th e M ississippi k ite in th e Gre at Plains.

Law rence, KS: Unive rsity of Kansas. 207 p.

Ph .D. disse rtation.

Park e r, Jam es W . 19 76. Pesticides and eggsh e ll

th inning in th e M ississippi k ite. Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t. 40(2): 243-248.

Park e r, Jam es W .; Ogden, Joh n C. 19 79 . Th e recent h istory and status of th e M ississippi k ite.

Am e rican Birds. 33(2): 119 -129 .

Park e r, Jam es W .; Ports, M ark . 19 82. H e lping

at th e nest by yearling M ississippi k ites. Raptor Research . 16(l): 14-17.

Paul, Joh n T., Jr.; Roth , Roland R. 19 83. Accuracy of a ve rsion of th e spot-m apping census

m e th od. Journal of Fie ld Ornith ology. 54( 1): 42-

49 .

Potte r, Eloise F. 19 80. Notes on nesting yellow -

billed cuck oos. Journal of Fie ld Ornith ology.

51(l): 17-29 .

Preble, Norm an A. 19 57. Nesting h abits of th e

yellow -billed cuck oo. Am e rican Midland Naturalist. 57(2): 474-482.

Radford, Albe rt E.; Ah les, H arry E.; Be ll, C.

Ritch ie. 19 68. M anual of th e vascular flora of

th e Carolinas. Ch ape l H ill, NC: Unive rsity of

North Carolina Press. 1,183 p.

Rappole, Joh n H .; M orton, Eugene S. 19 82. Effe cts of h ab itat alte ration on a tropical avian forest com m unity. Ornith ological M onograph s. 36:

1013-1021.

Rice, Jak e. 19 78. Ecological re lationsh ips of tw o

inte rspe cifically te rritorial vire os. Ecology. 59 (3):

526-538.

Robb ins, Ch andle r S.; Bystrak , Danny; Geissle r,

Paul H . 19 86. Th e b reeding bird survey: its first

fifteen years, 19 65-19 79 . Resour. Publ. 157.

W ash ington, DC: U.S. De partm ent of th e Interior, Fish and W ildlife Se rvice. 150 p.

Robbins, Ch andle r S.; Daw son , De anna K.;

Dow e ll, Barbara A. 19 89 .H abitat are a require110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119 .

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

m ents of b reeding forest birds of th e M iddle Atlantic States. W ildl. Monogr. 103. W ash ington,

DC: Th e W ildlife Socie ty. 34 p. Supplemen t to

Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t. 53(3): 19 89

July.

Rob inson, Scott K. 19 81. Ecological re lations and

social inte ractions of Ph ilade lph ia and red-eyed

vire os. Condor. 83: 16-26.

Robinson, Scott K.; H olm es, Rich ard T. 19 82.

Foraging beh avior of forest birds: th e re lationsh ips am ong search tactics, die t, and h abitat

structure. Ecology. 63(6): 19 18-19 31.

Rosenbe rg, Kenne th V.; Oh m art, Robe rt D.;

Anderson, Be rtin W . 19 82. Com m unity organiz ation of riparian breeding birds: response to an

annual resource pe ak . Auk . 9 9 : 260-274.

Rosenfie ld, Robe rt N. 19 84. Nesting biology of

b road-w inged h aw k s in W isconsin. Raptor Research . 18(l): 6-9 .

Rusch , Donald H .; Doe rr, Ph illip D. 19 72. Broadw inged h awk nesting and food h abits. Auk . 89 :

139 -145.

Sch oene r, Th om as W . 19 68. Sizes of feeding te rritories am ong birds. Ecology. 49 (l): 1233141.

Sh e lton, Alfred C. 19 11. Nesting of th e California cuck oo. Condor. 13: 19 -22.

Sh e rrod, Ste ve K. 19 78. Die ts of North Am e rican

Falconiform es. Raptor Research . 12(3/4): 49 -151.

Sh e rry, Th om as W . 19 79 . Com pe titive inte ractions and adaptive strate gies of Am e rican redstarts and le ast flycatch e rs in a north e rn

h ardw oods forest. Auk . 9 6: 265-283.

Sh e rry, Th om as W .; H olm es, Rich ard T. 19 88.

H abitat sele ction by breeding Am e rican redstarts in response to a dom inant com pe titor, th e

le ast flycatch e r. Auk . 105: 350-364.

Sh ugart, H e rm an H en ry; Jam es, Douglas. 19 73.

Ecological succession of b reed ing b ird populations

in north w este rn Ark ansas. Auk . 9 0: 62-77.

Sh ugart, H .H .; Sm ith , T.M.; Kitch ings, J.T.;

Kroodsm a, R.L. 19 78. Th e re lationsh ip of

nongam e birds to south e rn forest types and successional stages. In: De Graaf, Rich ard M ., te ch .

ed. Proceed ings of th e w ork sh op on m anagemen t

of south e rn forests for nongam e birds; 19 78

January 24-26; Atlanta, GA. Gen . Te ch . Re p. SE14. Ash eville, NC: U.S. De partm ent of Agriculture , Fore s t Se rvice , South e aste rn Fore s t

Expe rim ent Station: 5-16.

Sim s, E.; DeGarm o, W illiam R. 19 48. A study of

Sw ainson’s w arble r in W est Virginia. Redstart.

16: l-8.

Sk inner, Robe rt W . 19 62. Feeding h abits of th e

M ississippi k ite. Auk . 79 : 273-274.

South e rn, W illiam E. 19 58. Nesting of th e redeyed vire o in th e Douglas Lak e re gion, M ich igan. Jack -Pine W arble r. 36: 103-130, 185-207.

65
125. Ste w art, R.E.; Robbins, C.S. 19 58. Th e b irds of

M aryland and th e District of Colum bia. NAF62. W ash ington, DC: U.S. De partm ent of th e Inte rior, Fish and W ildlife Se rvice, Bure au of Sport

Fish e ries and W ildlife. 401 p.

126. Stre lk e, W illiam K.; Dick son, Jam es G. 19 80. Effe ct of forest cle ar-cut edge on breeding birds in

e ast Te xas. Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t.

44(3): 559 -567.

127. Sturm , Louis. 19 45. A study of th e nesting

activities of th e Am e rican redstart. Auk . 62:

189 -206.

128. Te m ple , Stanley A.; M ossm an, M ich ae l J.;

Am buel, Bruce. 19 79 . Th e e cology and m anagem ent of avian com m unities in m ixed h ardw oodconife rous forests. In: DeGraaf, Rich ard M .;

Evans, Keith E., cam ps. Proceed ings ofth e w ork -

sh op on m anagemen t of north central and north -

e aste rn forests for nongam e b irds; 19 79 January

23-25; M inneapolis, MN. Gen. Te ch . Rep. NC51. St. Paul, MN: U.S. De partm ent ofAgriculture , Forest Se rvice , North Ce n tral Forest

Expe rim ent Station: 132-153.

129 . Th om pson , Fran k R.; Dijak , W illiam D.;

Kulow ie c, Th om as G.; H am ilton, David A. 19 9 2.

Breed ing b ird populations in Missouri Ozark forests w ith and w ith out cle arcutting. Journal of

W ildlife M anagemen t. 56( 1): 23-40.

130. Titte rington, R.W .; Craw ford, H .S.; Burgason,

B.N. 19 79 . Songbird responses to com m e rcial

cle ar-cutting in Maine spruce-fir forests. Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t. 43(3): 602-609 .

131. Titus, Kim be rly; M osh e r, Jam es A. 19 81. Nestsite h abitat sele cted by w oodland h aw k s in th e

central Appalach ians. Auk . 9 8: 270-281.

132. Tsipoura, Ne llie ; M orton, Eugene S. 19 88. Songtype distribution in a population of Kentuck y

w arble rs. Th e W ilson Bulle tin. 100(l): 9 -16.

133. Tuck e r, Sandra S. 19 80. An ecological assessm ent of Bayou Boeuf Research Natural Are a,

Rapides Parish , Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State Unive rsity. 168 p. M .S. th esis.

134. U.S. De partm ent ofagriculture , Forest Se rvice.

19 85. Final land and resource m anagemen t plan:

Kisatch ie National Forest. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, South -

e rn Region. 256 p. [+ appendices, figs., m aps].

135. Vissage, Joh n S.; M ille r, Patrick E.; H artsell, Andrew J. 19 9 2. Forest statistics for Louisiana Par136.

137.

138.

139 .

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

ish es-19 9 1. Resour. Bull. SO-168. New O rle ans,

LA: U.S. De partm ent ofAgriculture, Forest Se rvice, South e rn Forest Expe rim ent Station. 65 p.

W alk insh aw , Law rence H . 19 66. Studies of th e

Acadian flycatch e r in Mich igan. Bird-Banding.

37(4): 227-257.

W ebb , W illiam L.; Beh rend, Donald F.; Saisorn,

Boonruang. 19 77. Effe ct of logging on songbird

populations in a north e rn h ardw ood forest.

W ildl. Monogr. 55. W ash ington, DC: Th e W ildlife Socie ty. 35 p. Supplemen t to Journal of W ildlife M anagemen t. 41(3): 19 77 July.

W est, E.M .; Com stock , Rock ; Elson, Joh n. 19 60.

W h ip-poor-w ill and ch uck -w ill’s_w idow census.

M igrant. 31: 56-58.

W h iting, R. Montague; Fle e t, Robe rt R. 19 87.

Bird and sm all m am m al com m unities of loblollysh ortle af pine stands in east Te xas. In: Pe arson,

H en ry A.; Sm eins, Fred E.; Th ill, Ronald E.,

cam ps. Ecological, ph ysical, and socioe conom ic

re lationsh ips w ith in south e rn national forests:

Proceedings of th e south e rn evaluation proje ct

w ork sh op; 19 87 M ay 26-27; Long Be ach , M S.

Gen . Te ch . Rep. SO-68. New O rle ans, LA: U.S.

Departm e n t of Agriculture , Forest Se rvice ,

South e rn Forest Expe rim ent Station: 49 -66.

W ilcove, David S. 19 88. Ch anges in th e avifauna

of th e Gre at Sm ok y Mountains: 19 47-19 83. Th e

W ilson Bulle tin. lOO(2): 256-271.

W illiam son, Penelope. 19 71. Feeding e cology of

th e red-eyed vire o (uireo olivaceus) and associated foliage-gle aning birds. Ecological M onograph s. 41(2): 129 -152.

W ink e r, Kevin; Rappole, Joh n H .; Ram os, M ario

A. 19 9 0. Population dynam ics of th e w ood th rush

in south e rn Ve racruz , M e xico. Condor. 9 2:

444460.

W ood, Gene W .; Niles, Law rence J. 19 78. Effe cts

of m anagemen t practices on nongam e b ird h ab itat in longle af-slash pine forests. In: De Graaf,

Rich ard M ., te ch . ed. Proceedings of th e w ork -

sh op on m anagemen t of south e rn forests for

nongam e birds; 19 78 January 24-26; Atlanta,

GA. Gen . Te ch . Rep. SE-14. Ash eville, NC: U.S.

Departm e n t of Agriculture , Forest Se rvice ,

South e aste rn Forest Expe rim ent Station: 4049 .

W righ t, A.H .; H arpe r, F. 19 13. A biological reconnaissance of Ok e finok e e Sw am p: th e b irds.

Auk . 30: 477-505.

66
Appendix A

List of com m on and scientific nam es of plants and trees m entioned in th e te xt*

Alder

Ash

Ash , black

Ash , green

Ash , w h ite

Aspen , bigtooth

Aspen , tremb ling

Bassw ood

Bassw ood, Am e rican

Be e ch , Am e rican

Birch , black (ch e rry)

Birch , w h ite (pape r)

Birch , yellow

Black be rry

Black gum

Boxe lder

Caneb rak e, giant

Ch e rry, black

Ch estnut, Am e rican

Cottonw ood, black

Cottonw ood, e aste rn

Cottonw ood, w e ste rn

Crabapple

Cypress

Dogw ood, flow e ring

Dogw ood, rough le af

Elderbe rry

Elm , Am e rican

Fir, balsam

H ack be rry

H aw th orn

H e m lock , e aste rn

H ick ories

H oneylocust

Locust, black

M agnolia

M aple

M aple, red

M aple, sugar

Alnus rugosa

Fraxinus spp.

Fraxinus nigra

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Fraxinus am ericana

Populus gran d identata

Populus trem uloides

Tilia spp.

Tilia am ericana

Fagus gran d ifolia

Betula le nta

Betula papyrifera

Betula allegh aniensis

Rubus spp.

Nyssa sylvatica

Acer negundo

Arundinaria gigantea

Prunus serotina

Castanea dentata

Populus h eteroph ylla

Populus deltoides

Populus frem ontii

Malus ioensis

Taxod ium spp.

Cornus florid a

Cornus d rum m on d ii

Sam bucus glauca

Ulm u s am ericana

Abies balsam ea

Celtis laevigata

Crataegus spp.

Tsuga canadensis

Carya spp.

Gle d itsia triacanth os

Robinia pseudoacacia

Magnolia spp.

Acer spp.

Acer rubrum

Acer sacch arum

Mulbe rry

Oak

Oak , black

Oak , ch e rrybark

Oak , ch estnut

Oak , laure l

Oak , post

Oak , red

Oak , south e rn red

Oak , sw am p ch estnut

Oak , w ate r

Oak , w h ite

Osage-orange

Pin e

Pine, loblolly

Pine, longle af

Pine, pitch

Pine, sh ortle af

Pine, slash

Pine, Table M ountain

Pine, Virginia

Pine, w h ite

Plum

Poplar, balsam

Pondcypress

Redcedar

Sassafras

Scrub palm e tto

Spruce, red

Sum ac

Swee tgum

Tuliptre e

W alnut

W axm yrtle

W ild ch e rry

W illow

Yellow jessam ine

*Scientific nom enclature is m ainly from Radford and oth e rs (19 68).

Morus m icroph ylla

Quercus spp.

Quercus velutina

Quercus falcata var.

pagod aefolia

Quercus prinus

Quercus laurifolia

Quercus stellata

Quercus rubra

Quercus falcata

Quercus m ich auxii

Quercus nigra

Quercus alba

Maclura pom ifera

Pinus spp.

Pinus taed a

Pinus palustris

Pinus rigid a

Pinus ech inata

Pinus elliottii

Pinus pungens

Pinus virginiana

Pinus strobus

Prunus am ericana

Populus balsam ifera

Taxod ium d istich um var.

nutans

Juniperus virginiana

Sassafras albidum

Sabal m inor

Picea rubens

Rh us glabra

Liquid am bar styraciflua

Liriodend ron tulipifera

Juglans m ajor

Myrica cerifera

Prunus serotina

Salix spp.

Gels em ium s em pervirens

67
Appendix B

Cross-re fe rence index for 13 se le cted species of neotropical m igratory birds (num be rs correspond to lite rature

cited section)

M ississippi k ite

1 6 48 53 54 73 78 79 9 7 9 8 9 9 100 101 108 117 123

Broad-w inged h aw k

6 18 44 53 54 55 64 69 75 76 79 80 87 9196 108 113 114 117 121 128 131 137 139

Ye llow -billed cuck oo

3 5 12 14 20 27 29 30 3138 45 46 49 52 53 54 55 56 60 70 7172 79 87 88 9 4 9 5 9 6 103 104 108 109 112 116 121126

128 133 139

Ch uck -w ill’s_w idow

2253545557667279 8586108120121138139

Acadian flycatch e r

2 3 7 12 14 15 19 20 29 30 3138 47 49 53 54 55 58 64 71 72 79 8187 9 2 9 3 108 109 120 121 128 129 136 137 139

140 141

W ood th rush

231011121419 202629 303135384749 535455626367717279 878889 102106108109 121128129

133 137 139 140 142

Ye llow -th roated vire o

28142930313849535455646872798796108121125128133139141

Red -e yed vire o

238 11121419202126293031474953545560636871 72777981878896107108109110111115120

121124128129130133137139140141

Am e rican redstart

249 11142630313940414249535960636571798196106108111115118119120121 127128130133

137139141

W orm -e ating w arble r

91719313849505153647996106108109120121129139140

Sw ainson’s w arble r

91629303138415354647982838490108121122133139144

Louisiana w ate rth rush

92023242531363738414953647996106108109121128139

Kentuck y w arble r

391219282930313438414953547279879096106108109120129132133139140

68
Appendix C

M ap of Louisiana Parish es

69
Appendix D

Population trends, spe cies abundance, seasonal status, and h abitats of 118 neotropical m igratory birds of th e Kisatch ie National Forest, Louisiana

Orde r

Com m on nam e

Ciconiiform es

W ood stork

Falconiform es

Turk ey vulture

Osprey

Am e rican sw allow -tailed k ite

M ississippi k ite

Sh arp-sh inned h aw k

Coope r’s h aw k

Broad-w inged h aw k

Am e rican k estre l

Pe re grine falcon

Ch aradriiform es

Lesser golden plove r

Solitary sandpipe r

Se m ipalm ated sandpipe r

W h ite-rum ped sandpipe r

Baird’s sandpipe r

Pe ctoral sandpipe r

Buff-bre asted sandpipe r

W ilson’s ph alarope

Black te rn

Cuculiform es

Black -billed cuck oo

Yellow -billed cuck oo

Strigiform es

Burrow ing ow l

Caprim ulgiform es

Com m on nigh th aw k

Ch uck -w ill’s_ w idow

W h ip-poor-w ill

Apodiform es

Ch im ney sw ift

Ruby-th roated h um m ingbird

Black -ch inned h um m ingbird

Rufous h um m ingbird

Piciform es

Yellow -bellied sapsuck e r

Population

trend Spe cies Se asonal

19 66-89 ”

abundance+ statu&

.

r+-++++

0

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

+

-

0

0

+

-

+

0

.

.

1

.

C

UC

;t

UC

UC

UC

C

R

R

UC

.

.

.

.

.

;:

U C

C

.

C

C

U C

C

C

.

.

A

P

P

T

SR

SR

W R

P

SR

P

T

T

T

T

W R

T

W R

T

T

T

T

SR

T

SR

SR

T

SR

SR

T

T

W R

H abitat&

W

FO

LW

LOW

FOS

H O

H OS

H M P

FO

.

F

LSW

FLW

FLW

FLW

FLW

FLW

FLW

FLW

H MOP

H MOPS

F

F

H MOP

H MOP

FOU

H MOPU

OS

FH M P

H M P

70
Pass

e riform es

Olive-sided flycatche r

Easte rn w ood pewee

Yellow -bellied flycatche r

Acadian flycatche r

Alder flycatche r

W illow flycatche r

Le ast flycatche r

Ham m ond’s flycatche r

Easte rn phoebe

Great crested flycatche r

Easte rn k ingbird

Scissor-tailed flycatche r

Purple m artin

Tree sw allow

N. rough-w inged sw allow

Bank sw allow

Cliff sw allow

Barn sw allow

House w ren

Rubycrow ned 

k ingle t

Blue-gray gnatcatche r

Ve e ry

Graych e ek ed th rush

Sw ainson’s th rush

He rm it th rush

W ood th rush

Am e rican robin

Gray catbird

Am e rican (w ate r) pipi

t

Cedar w axw ing

W hite-eyed vireo

Be lls vireo

Solitary vireo

Yellow -th roated vireo

W arbling vireo

Philade lph ia vireo

Red-eyed vireo

Bach man’s w arble r

Bluew inged w arble r

Goldenw inged w arble r

Tennessee w arble r

Nash ville w arble r

Northe rn parula

Yellow w arble r

Ch estnut-sided w arble r

M agnolia w arble r

Black-th roated blue w arble r

He rm it w arble r

Black-th roated green w arble r

Black burnian w arble r

Yellow -th roated w arble r

Pine w arble r

Prairie w arble r

Palm w arble r

Bay-bre asted w arble r

Ce rulean w arble r

-.++__

;:-_0++._0L.0r00+I

;:

UCC

;t

UC

;:CC

UCACCRCCUCACCCCCCCUCUCCCCUCCU CUCCRUCUCUCRCCCC.;:UCCAUC;C.

T

H MOP

SR

H M OPU

T

H MOPW

SRH

T

HLO W

T

ow

T

ou

T

MP

W R

FO

SR

H OU

SRFOU

SR

F

SRFOSU

T

LSW

SR

FOS

T

FOS

SR FLSU

W

SR FLSU

W

W R

H MOPU

W R

H MOP

P

HO

T

HSW

T

H M OP

T

HMP

W R

H MOPS

SR

H

P

FH MOP

SR

ou

W R

F

W RH MOU

SRFH

A

OS

W R

HMP

SR

H MOPS

SR

H M OPSU

T

H M OPSU

SRH OU

A

H MOPW

T

ow

T

H M OPW

T

H MOP

T

H MOPW

SR

H MOPW

T

FOU

T

HO

T

H MOP

T

H MOP

T

HMP

T

H MOP

T

H MOP

SRHM PSW

P

HMP

SRHMP

W R

H MOPW

T

HMP

SRHMP

71
SR H M P

SR H MOP

SR H W

SR H

SR H W

T H M P

T H M PSW

SR H SW

SR H O W

T H O W

P FW

SR H S

T H SW

SR FO

SR H MOPSU

T H MOP

T H O

T FOS

SR FH O

SR FOS

SR F

P MOU

W R FO

T F

W R FW

W R F

W R FOSW

T FO W

P FLSW

P FO

SR 0

T H OSU

*?, significant incre ase ; J, significant decre ase ; + , nonsignicant incre ase ; -, nonsignificant decre ase ; o, no net ch ange. Missing values ( l ) re fle ct insufficient or lack of available

data.

+ A, abundant; C, com m on; R. rare ; UC, uncom m on. Missing values (0) re fle ct insufficient

or lack of available data.

* P, pe rm anent; SR, sum m e r resident; T, transient; W R, w inte r resident.

5 F, fie ld, pasture, m e adow ; H , h ardw ood deciduous forest; L, lak es, rese rvoirs; M , m ixed

pine-h ardw ood forest; 0, open w oodland, forest edge ; P, pine /conife rous forest; S, stre am s,

rive rs, riparian; U, urban, residential, park ; W , fresh w ate r w e tland, m arsh . Missing values

(0) re fle ct insufficient or lack of available data.

Black and w h ite w arble r

Am e rican redstart

Proth onotary w arble r

W orm -eating w arble r

Sw ainson’s w arble r

Ovenb ird

North e rn w ate rth rush

Louisiana w ate rth rush

Kentuck y w arble r

M ourning w arble r

Com m on yellow th roat

H ooded w arble r

Canada w arble r

Yellow -bre asted ch at

Sum m e r tanage r

Scarle t tanage r

Rose-bre asted grosbeak

Blue grosbeak

Indigo bunting

Painted bunting

Dick cissel

Ch ipping sparrow

Vespe r sparrow

Lark bunting

Savannah sparrow

Grassh oppe r sparrow

Lincoln’s sparrow

Bobolink

Red-w inged black bird

Brow n-h e aded cow bird

Orch ard oriole

North e rn oriole

r

C

C

t

C

UC

T R

+ UC

+ UC

+ UC

+ C

+

- ;:

+ C

- UC

+ C

+ C

+ UC

f

C

C

-

- ;:

- C

i

C

UC

1 E:

1

+ ;c

- R

_ C

i

C

C

- C

72


Barry, Rob e rt X.; Parresol, Be rnard R.; Devall, M argare t S. 19 9 5.

Ne otropical m igratory birds of th e Kisatch ie National Forest, Louisiana:

abstracts for sele cted species and m anagemen t considerations. Gen .

Te ch . Rep. SO-115. New O rle ans, LA: U.S. De partm ent of Agriculture,

Forest Se rvice, South e rn Forest Expe rim ent Station. 72 p.

Available lite rature on 13 spe cies of neotropical m igrants th at b reed on

th e Kisatch ie National Forest is reviewe d. Population trends, forest

m anagemen t practices, and research needs are discussed.

K e yw ords: Biology, density, distribution, forest m anagemen t practices,

h abitats, population trends, research needs.

Th e Un ited States Departm ent ofAgriculture (USDA) proh ib its discrim ination

in its program s on th e basis of race, color, national origin, sex, re ligion, age,

disability, political belie fs and m arital or fam ilial status. (Not all proh ibited

bases apply to all program s.) Pe rsons w ith disabilities w h o require alte rnative

m e ans for com m unication of program inform ation (b raille , large print,

audiotape, e tc.) sh ould contact th e USDA Office of Com m unications at (202)

720-5881 (voice ) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD).

To file a com plaint, w rite th e Se cre tary of Agriculture, U.S. De partm ent of

Agriculture , W ash ington , D.C. 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice ) or

(202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal e m ploym ent opportunity em ployer.
United States

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Forest

Experiment Station

701 Loyola Ave., Rm. T-1 0210

New Orleans, LA 70113-l 920

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

\