Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia Noveboracensis) Christopher N

Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis) Christopher N. Hull

Ohio. May, 2009 © Robert Epstein

This large, brown, thrush-like warbler sings its (Click to view a comparison of Atlas I to II) loud, clear, ringing song in northern bogs and swamps from northwestern Alaska to In New York, Eaton (1988) found that Northern Newfoundland, north to the treeline, and south Waterthrushes were found wherever forested to northern Washington, Montana, the central wetlands exceeded 8 ha (19.8 a) in size. Canadian Prairie Provinces, northern Minnesota Territories are rectangular, and range 0.47-1.5 and Wisconsin, Michigan, northeastern Ohio, ha in size (Eaton 1995). Pennsylvania, the Virginias, and New England

(AOU 1983, Eaton 1995, McLaren 2007). It winters in western, southern, and eastern Distribution Given its distribution across the boreal forests Mexico, Central America, northern South and wetlands of North America, its broad America, the West Indies and extreme southern acceptance of essentially every type of Florida (AOU 1983, Eaton 1995). coniferous and deciduous wetland habitat, and

the profusion of such habitats throughout The Northern Waterthrush breeds in northern presettlement Michigan (Albert and Comer forested wetlands, adapting to wetland types 2008), it is likely that the Northern Waterthrush across its range. While specifically adapted, originally occurred throughout the UP and NLP, morphologically and behaviorally, for life in and probably to some extent south of the tension boreal, lentic, (still-water) systems, it will zone, especially in the relict bog habitats of the occasionally use slow-moving lotic (flowing- southeastern LP. Unfortunately, the statewide water) systems, and essentially every type of deforestation brought about by lumbering and coniferous, deciduous, and open shrub wetland settlement preceded ornithologists’ ability to habitat which occurs across its vast range (Bent reliably identify this species (Sager 1839, Gibbs 1953, AOU 1983, Craig 1984, Craig 1985, 1879, Cook 1893, Ridgway 1902, Barrows Craig 1987, Eaton 1988, Eaton 1995, Peterjohn 1912, Wood 1951, Zimmerman and Van Tyne and Rice 1991, Pitcher 1998, Howe 2006, 1959, Brewer 1991), thus eliminating the McLaren 2007, McGowan 2008). Throughout possibility of documenting its presettlement its breeding range, and regardless of wetland distribution. Brewer (1991) considered it one of type, the two most important habitat the "northern withdrawals" which retreated requirements are dense cover near ground level, northward as deforestation advanced. It then combined with the presence of water (Eaton returned as the forests regrew. Therefore, rather 1995). than what might have been perceived as a

© 2011 Kalamazoo Nature Center Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis) Christopher N. Hull southward "range extension", the Northern find nests, only 16 blocks had confirmations. Waterthrush most likely reoccupied its Using figures adjusted for differences in Atlas presettlement range. Though much wetland effort between the two surveys, MBBA II habitat was degraded or lost, the species' large recorded the Northern Waterthrush in 19.7% ecological amplitude has allowed it to make use more blocks statewide than MBBA I, although of a wide variety of remaining habitats, and this trend was not uniform throughout the state. reclaim a semblance of its original range. In the UP, the species' representation increased 16%, and in the NLP, it increased 18.6%. In the By 1991, MBBA I found the Northern SLP, however, it decreased 6.4%. Waterthrush in clumped distributions throughout the UP and NLP; slightly into the BBS data show no conclusive trends. Twenty- western SLP; and throughout the Thumb (Hull four Michigan routes (down slightly from 25 in 1991). MBBA II found a similar distribution, MBBA I) and 70 in FWS Region 3 recorded the although somewhat less clumped in the UP and species. While the Region 3 BBS trend analysis NLP, and extending farther south into the for 1983-2007 (Sauer et al. 2008) shows a slight southwestern LP and with a scattered decrease in birds per route, the trend was not distribution in the central LP, extending to the statistically significant, due to overall low bottom of the state. MBBA II population abundance and small sample size. concentrations largely occurred in townships which had shown them in MBBA I. The net decline in number of blocks reporting Northern Waterthrush in the SLP occurred Breeding Biology despite the recording of a substantial number of Northern Waterthrushes arrive in spring as early new blocks in which it had not been reported in as 18 April (Kelley 1983), but more typically MBBA I. The species' decline in the most during the first half of May in the SLP and after populous, developed, and fastest-growing region mid-May in the UP (Wood 1951). Preferred of the state (the SLP), contrasted with its nest sites include cavities in upturned tree root increase elsewhere, suggests that development systems or banks; or alongside fern clumps. and its impacts are the cause. The fact that a The nest is usually covered from above by scattered distribution of new blocks for the growth. Clutch sizes range from one to five, species is in the central SLP, outside of the with a mean of four (Eaton 1995). Eaton (1995) larger population centers of the eastern and found dramatically lower rates of cowbird western SLP, may tend to support this. The parasitism for the Northern Waterthrush than for impacts of development most likely to threaten the Louisiana, to which he attributed the this species are wetland loss and loss of forest situation of nests in wooded swamps with thick cover. The fact that the Northern Waterthrush's understory, hidden from above and the overall rate of decline in the SLP since MBBA I is low occurrence of much of the species' breeding relative to that of its close relative, the range (in New York) outside that of the Louisiana, during this same time period can cowbird. probably be attributed to its greater ecological amplitude. Specifically, the Northern Abundance and Population Trends Waterthrush accepts any type of wooded or (Click to view trends from the BBS) even partially open wetland habitat, while the The Northern Waterthrush was recorded in 560 Louisiana's requirements are more specific (Hull blocks statewide in MBBA II, up from the 2011). Nevertheless, even with the Northern MBBA I total of 498 blocks. Consistent with Waterthrush's adaptability, habitat degradation this species' reputation for having difficult-to-

© 2011 Kalamazoo Nature Center Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis) Christopher N. Hull and destruction appear to have brought about a range, declines due to loss of critical winter small net decline in the SLP. habitat may not be detected until serious momentum is reached. Therefore, protection of Atlas data from surrounding states and the species' wintering habitat and monitoring of provinces tell a similar story. In New York, breeding populations are both critical. Ohio, and Indiana (all states with low numbers of the species), populations appear to be Literature Citations showing no significant changes (McGowan 2008, Peterjohn and Rice 1991, Pitcher 1991). American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 2010. The In Wisconsin, a steady decline has occurred United States Watchlist of Birds of since 1980 (Howe 2006). In Ontario, Conservation Concern, 2007. Website, populations appear to be stable-to-increasing in American Bird Conservancy. less-developed regions, and declining or gone . development (McLaren 2007). Albert, D.A., and P.J. Comer. 2008. Atlas of early Michigan's forests, grasslands, and Conservation Needs wetlands, an interpretation of the 1810-1856 The Northern Waterthrush is not a species of General Land Office Surveys. Michigan concern. It is not listed on the U.S. Watchlist of State University Press. East Lansing. MI. Birds of Conservation Concern (ABC 2010, American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check- NAS 2010); and the IUCN Red List classifies it List of North American Birds, 5th Edition. as a Species of Least Concern (IUCN 2010). American Ornithologists’ Union, Reed (1992) gave the species the lowest ranking Washington, D.C. for conservation priorities, based upon its wide American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check- breeding and wintering ranges; and, in List of North American Birds, 6th Edition. Michigan, the species is not listed as a species American Ornithologists’ Union, of concern. Washington, D.C. Baird, S.F., T.M. Brewer, and R. Ridgway. Much of the Northern Waterthrush's breeding 1875. A History of North American Birds (3 range lies in remote regions where threat from volumes). Little, Brown, and Co. Boston, human activity is not immediate. However in MA. Michigan, human population and its impacts are Barrows, W.B. 1912. Michigan Bird Life. denser. Threats include forest and wetland Special Bulletin. Michigan Agricultural degradation and loss, including stream College. East Lansing, MI. “improvements” and toxic contaminant Bent, A.C. 1953. Life Histories of North exposure via forest pest eradication and American Wood Warblers. U.S. National mosquito abatement programs (Eaton 1995; C. Museum Bulletin No. 203. Hull, pers. obs.). For the species to survive in Brewer, R. 1991. Original avifauna and Michigan, it must be protected from these postsettlement changes. In Brewer, R., G. threats. However, the most immediate and A. McPeek, and R. J. Adams, Jr. (eds.). powerful threat to the species may be on the 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of winter range, where mangrove swamp and other Michigan. Michigan State University Press. tropical forests which form critical habitat for East Lansing, MI. the species are being destroyed at a rapid rate Cook, A.J. 1893. Birds of Michigan, 2nd (Eaton 1995). Because of the vast remoteness Edition. Bulletin 94. Michigan Agricultural of much of the Northern Waterthrush's breeding Experiment Station. East Lansing, MI.

Craig, R.J. 1984. Comparative foraging ecology Cranbrook Institute of Science. Bloomfield of Louisiana and Northern Waterthrushes. Hills, MI. Wilson Bulletin 96: 173-183. Kelley, A.H. 1983. Birds of S. E. Michigan and Craig, R.J. 1985. Comparative habitat use by S.W. Ontario--notes on the years 1975-1981. Louisiana and Northern Waterthrushes. Jack-Pine Warbler 61: 3-12. Wilson Bulletin 97: 347-355. McGowan, K.J. 2008. Northern Waterthrush. In Craig, R.J. 1987. Divergent prey selection in McGowan, K.J., and K. Corwin (eds.). 2008. two species of waterthrushes. Auk 104: 180- The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York 187. State. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. Eaton, S. W. 1988. Northern Waterthrush. In McLaren, P.L. 2007. Louisiana Waterthrush. In Andrle, R.F., and J.R. Carroll (eds.). 1988. Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. State. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Eaton, S.W. 1995. Northern Waterthrush 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, (Seiurus noveboracensis). In The Birds of Environment Canada, Ontario Field North America, No. 151 (A. Poole and F. Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc. Resources, and Ontario Nature. Toronto, Philadelphia, PA. Ontario. Gibbs, M. 1879. Annotated list of the birds of National Audubon Society (NAS). 2010. The Michigan. Bulletin of the U. S. Geological 2007 Audubon Watchlist. Website, and Geographical Survey of the National Audubon Society. Territories 5:481-497. . (Seiurus noveboracensis) In Cutright, N.J., B.R. Harriman, and R.W. Howe. 2006. Atlas Payne, R.B. 1983. A Distributional Checklist of of the Breeding Birds of Wisconsin. the Birds of Michigan. University of Wisconsin Society for Ornithology. Michigan Museum of Zoology Waukesha, WI. Miscellaneous Publication No. 164. Ann Hull, C.N. 1991. Northern Waterthrush. In Arbor, MI. Brewer, R., G.A. McPeek, and R. J. Adams, Peterjohn, B.G., and D.L. Rice. 1991. The Ohio Jr. (eds.). 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds Breeding Bird Atlas. Ohio Department of of Michigan. Michigan State University Natural Resources. Columbus, OH. Press. East Lansing, MI. Pitcher, E.B. 1998. Northern Waterthrush. In Hull, C. 2011. Louisiana Waterthrush. In Castrale, J.S., E.M. Hopkins, and C.E. Chartier, A.T., J.J. Baldy, and J.M. Keller. 1998. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Brenneman (eds.). 2011. The Second Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas, 2002-2008. Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Version 1.0. Kalamazoo Nature Center. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Kalamazoo, MI. Program. Indianapolis, IN. conservation priorities for Neotropical and IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened migrant birds based on relative susceptibility Species. Version 2010.1. Online at: to extinction. In Hagen III, J.M., and D.W. . Johnston (eds.). 1992. Ecology and Kelley, A.H. 1978. Birds of Southeastern Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Michigan and Southwestern Ontario.

Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Ridgway. R. 1902. The Birds of North and Middle America. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 50, pt. 2. Sager, A. 1839. Report of Doctor Abraham Sager, zoologist of Geological Survey. House Documents of the State of Michigan: 410-421. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, MD. Wood, N.A. 1951. The Birds of Michigan. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publication No. 75. Ann Arbor, MI. Zimmerman, D.A., and J. Van Tyne. 1959. A Distributional Checklist of the Birds of Michigan. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Occasional Paper No. 608. Ann Arbor, MI.