sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mississippi, Mississippi kite

DISTEIBUTION, IDENTIFICATION

hascontributed to our interpretationsof The recent history and status publishedaccounts of populations. We often experienceddifficulty reach- of the Kite ing firm conclusionsabout the pastcon- ditions of kite populations because rangeand abundancein the 19thcentury were poorly documented; the few early "With few exceptions,records... suggestthat kite accounts were usually written with few numbershave beenstable or increasing... specifics.From the early 1900s on, the published data for the Great Locally, recentpopulation expansions improvedconsiderably, that for the East haveoften seemed explosive." and Southeast less so. In preparing breeding range maps, we decided to include areas (e.g., in , Ken- James W. Parker and John C. Ogden tucky, )for one or the other map, where nestingwas unconfirmedby the finding of a nest if other evidence of breedingseemed to us convincing.Par- ECREASEIN POPULATION sizeor incorporatethe latest observations.Cor- ticularly, repeated sightings of contraction of range characterize respondence with many experienced kites well into the breeding season the recent historiesof many North Amer- field workers has added greatly to our (especiallyin more than one year) was ican falconiform . However, the analyses, and our personal familiarity sometimesconsidered adequate evidence White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) has with the MississippiKite in the Great for nestingbecause study of breeding recently shown a dramatic recoveryand Plains(Parker) or the southeast(Ogden) populations showed that virtually all expansion (Eisenmann, 1971; many reportsin AmericanBirds), and popula- tions of some other raptors have also stabilized or begun to recover in areas wherepublic sentiment toward predators has warmed, and where habitat destruc- tion has not beensevere (Murphy et aL, 1975). The MississippiKite ([ctinia mis- sissippiensis)has not escapedthe adverse effects of coexistence with man. Here we summarize historical and recent charac- teristics of Mississippi Kite populations and discussreasons for changesin its distribution and population size. A reviewof this kite's history and status is warranted especially because its responsesto human presencehave not been spatially or geographically con- stant, and unlike most other raptors, it has benefited considerablyfrom human activity in parts of its range, and now seems to be reoccupying its former range.

METHODS

E HAVEREVIEWED and critically assessed the scattered but con- siderable literature describing Missis- sippi Kite populations.American Birds has been an invaluable source of infor- mation reporting recent population dynamics. In fact, noteworthyrecords of distributional and numerical changesin populationshave been published with such rapidity that temptation has often been strong to wait an extra month to MississippiKite. Photo/R. AustinR.N.A.S./P.R.

Volume 33, Number 2 119 attempt to nest during the repro- Indiana and Kites were most com- have wandered to or migrated through ductive season and that they often mon in the vicinity of inland, riparian (or wintered?)in southern . remain near their nest sitesafter repro- forests in the lowlands, less common ORTHE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY of ductive failure (Parker, 1974). Thus, our immediatelyalong the coast,and nearly Mississippiand ,Brewer maps are liberal estimationsof the past non-existentin hill countryabove the fall (1856), Ganier (1902) and McIlhenny and presentbreeding ranges. line. Bendire(1892) gave no exactbreed- (1943) substantiated large numbers of ing locationsfor kites anywhereeast of kites before 1900, and the latter two AILEY(1925) and SPRUNT and Cham- the MississippiValley, but he reported noted their abundancein adjacentopen berlain (1949) implied that persons nestsalso in non-riparian,pineland loca- land, hill land and swamp country. In not looking specificallyfor nestingMis- tions. southeastern , kites were com- sissippiKites would not be likely to find It is likely that kites bred along the mon (pre-19007) (Baerg, 1931). them. This is often true today. The Mis- Black, Santee and Pee Dee Rivers in Although only a few early recordsexist sissippiKite is a large which often northeastern (Sprunt for or , kites must forms conspicuous flocks and which and Chamberlain, 1949), but they were have bred in these states near the Mis- nests colonially. Often, however, kites rare in (Smithwick 1897, sissippiRiver (Pindar, 1925; Rhoades, feed at a distance from their nests and Pearsonet al., 1942).Wayne (1906, 1910) 1895). Kites were numerous in south- rapidly exit and reenter the nestingarea 120 I10 I00 90 80 70 (Skinner, 1962; J. W. Parker, G. Bart- mcki,per& obs.). They alsoperch incon- spicuouslyfor hoursat a time in solitary or communal roosts (Sutton, 1939). Con- sequently, many observersmay have failed to recognizethat large concentra- tions, including nestingcolonies, can be hard to detect. For example, at a large Great Plains breeding colonymore than 100 kites were seen with binoculars above a two-mile-longexpanse of trees where only about 20 were visible (some barely) without binoculars, and there were days when none of the resident nesters could be found (Parker, 1974). 0 200 600 Scole in Kilomelers Kites can be harder to detect by casual observation in the forested Southeast. In sum, a little time spentassessing Missis- i•o I00 90 80 sippi Kite populationsmay leave a mis- Fig. 1. Stippled areas indicate countiesin which the MississippiKite has apparently nestedat leading impression, and we have given sometime since1940, and in whichnesting probably occurs now, at leaston an intermittentbasts considerationto how workers may have Questionmarks indicate areas wherenesting is uncertain,but probable, or wherenesting is most misinterpretedtheir numbers. likely to occur in the near future. The heavy dashed lines indicate the in the central and southernGreat Plains where shelterbelt planting was most extensive and successful(Zon, 1935)

THE EAST said they existed in considerable num- eastern to St. Louis (Widmann, bers near Charleston, along the Savan- 1907) and southern (Cooke, nah River to the west, and on the Suwan- 1888; Cory, 1909; Nelson, 1877; Ridg- URESTIMATES OFTHE CHANGES in nee River in Florida. Other early way, 1881). Widmann's (1907) mention breedingrange of MississippiKites accountsindicate that kites were widely of numerous kites in the Springfield, in the southeasterncoastal and distributedin other regionsof the south- Missouri region in the 1880sis the only MississippiValley are shownin Figures eastern coastal plain (Bailey, 1883; early recordwest of the MississippiVal- 1 and 2. Our interpretation of kite range Howell, 1932; Golsan and Holt, 1914), ley in Missouri or Arkansas. In Loui- prior to major reductionsis based on a although abundance within this region siana, however, kites were reported liberal use of 19th century kite reports, varied considerably. We must assume through much of the state (Mcllhenny, to compensatefor declinesthat were in that MississippiKites historicallywere 1943; Oberholser, 1938). progressthroughout that century.Rec- generallycommon in suitablehabitat in To the northeast, Mississippi Kites ords from about 1900 to 1940 were used southern , northern Florida, once summered near the Wabash River to show the eastern population when southern and southern Missis- in Knox County, Indiana (Butler, 1897; range and numberswere lowest,and rec- sippi where reports are missing, prob- Chansler,1912), and althoughWheaton ords since 1950 to show the extent of ably becauseof the scarcityof 19th cen- (1882) made no mention of them, their recovery. tury ornithologistsin this region. It is bones (probably several hundred years The 1800s.-- MississippiKites once doubtful that kites often bred south of old) were found in Jackson County, occurredgenerally throughout the coas- northern Florida although there is one , about 30 miles north of the Ohio tal plain from South Carolina south- questionablenesting record from the River (Wetmore, 1932). Farther north in ward, with the exceptionof central and Caloosahatchee River in sbuth Florida the MississippiValley, Bailey (1918) and southernFlorida, and in the Mississippi (Howell, 1932). However, based on old Anderson (1907) reported a few for River Valley north and west at least to reportsin Howell, someindividuals may southeastern Iowa.

120 AmericanBirds, March 1979 THE DECLINE DURING THE healthy kite populations survivedin a Mississippi(Lowery and Newman,1953; EARL Y 1900s few locales,mainly the MississippiRiver Newman, 1956; Stewart, 1964), and swampsin Mississippiand Louisiana Louisiana (Lowery, 1955; R. Kennedy, T THEEARLY 20TH CENTURY produced (Lowery, 1955; Oberholser,1938; Vai- 1974, pers. comm.; Stewart, 1976). numerous reports of declines by den, 1939), and perhapscoastal South These reports show kites increasingIn M•ssissippiKites from mostregions of Carolina (Dingle, 1934; Sprunt and numbersalong larger riversin all states the MississippiValley and the south- Chamberlain, 1949). between South Carolina and Louisiana, easternstates, with the expecteduneven- and more frequentoccurrences of kites nessin both ratesand timing of reported ISSISSIPPIKITES were almost non- at non-riparian sites.An example of the declines that comes where varied factors existentin the central Mississippi latter is Tallahassee, Florida where kites influenced the declines and field observ- Valley between1910 and the early 1950s, commonly are seen over residential erswere thinly scattered.Generally sum- or at least their presencewas scarcely neighborhoods,shopping centers and marized, however,it appearsthat kites documented.During this 40-yearperiod, golf courses (Ogden, pers. ob.). First were largely extirpated from regions kites were unreported in western Ten- nestingrecords from Columbus,Georgia where breeding densities were low, nesseenorth of Memphis, and were of in 1959 (Chamberlain, 1959) in Suwan- includingmost non-riparian sites, along only casual occurrence in western Ken- nee County, Florida (Stevenson,1964), the smaller drainage systems,and in tucky (Carpenter,1937; Mengel, 1965). and Jackson,Mississippi in 1964 (Stew- peripheral parts of the range; numbers They had beencommon in southernIlli- art, 1964), and at Gainesville, Florida In were reducedalong the major river sys- nois as late as the 1870s, but had essen- 1971(Ogden, 1971) must represent reoc- tems.Burleigh (1958) reported that kites tially disappearedin both Illinois and cupation of long-abandoned, former were scarce in southern Georgia, and southern Indiana by 1910 (Chansler, range, rather than a range extension. Murphey (1937) considered kites 1912; Cahn and Hyde, 1929; Ridgway, High counts of Mississippi Kites have "greatlydiminished" along the middle 1889). Kites were occasionallyseen in included40 during near Cam- SavannahRiver Valley. However,obser- southern Missouri during this period den, South Carolina (Chamberlain, vationsby Tompkins (1949) suggested (Bennett, 1932), but here too they were 1961), 36 in GadsdenCounty, Florida in that healthy populations still existed apparentlyquite rare. 1961 (Robertson, 1961), 64 at Rosedale, alongareas of the SavannahRiver. Kites were •ncommon in northern Florida Mississippiduring (Stew- RECOVER Y DURING THE SECOND art, 1%4), 73 in the AtchafalayaBasin, (Weston, 1925; Williams, 1904), and HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY almost non-existent in the central and Louisiana during August 1956 (New- man, 1956), and counts of 100 in July southernFlorida peninsula(Howell, DECOVERY OF EASTERN MISSISSIPPI 1962 and again in August1967 alongthe 1932;Sprunt, 1954). •., KITEShas been widely recognized MississippiRiver in Louisiana(Stewart, 1962, 1967). A POSSIBLERANGE EXTENSION has occurred along the Atlantic coast, where reports of kites north of South Carolina have become more frequent duringthe 1970s.Mississippi Kites have summered in eastern North Carolina (LeGrand and Lynch, 1973; Teulings, 1975; LeGrand, 1976), and likely are nesting.Single kites were also present for severalweeks during 1976 in (Buckleyet al., 1976),and at CapeCod, (Finch, 1976). There is additional indication that kites may occasionallyuse peninsular Florida as a migration route, and may J uo ,oo •o •o j sometimeswinter in the . Fig, 2. Countiesin which the MississippiKite nestedor probablynested before 1900 (outlined Single kites were near Tallahassee in areas),between 1900 and 1940 (stippledareas), or both (rectangularor irregularblack areas). December 1953 (Stevenson, 1954), at Black circlesindicate areas where recordsonly generally document the presenceof kites in the Lake Beulah, Mississippiin December nestingseason before 1900, and black triangle•indicate similar documentation for 1900-1940. 1959 (James,1960), and in Polk County, Kites were reported to be rare in the and fairly well documented. Local Florida in 1965 (Hendricksonet coastalplain of Alabama(Howell, 1924), numerical increasesand reoccupationof al., 1965). Migration in the peninsulais and so reduced in southern Louisiana rangemay have begun during the 1940s, suggested by Ogden's south Florida that they had become rare in regions but certainly was eyident during the observationsof three immaturesin Sep- away from the MississippiRiver (Bailey 1950s in South Carolina (Chamberlain, tember 1%5, and one adult in May 1966 and Wright, 1931; McIlhenny, 1943). 1961; Parnell, 1965), Georgia (J. F. Den- in EvergladesNational Park, and other Baerg (1931) indicated a decline in ton, in litt.), Florida (Stevenson,1954, observationsin late fall and early spring southeastern Arkansas before 1931, and 1959, 1964, 1966; Stewart, 1965; Wes- near or south of Gainesville(Kale, 1975, later he (Baerg, 1951) consideredkites ton, 1965; Ogden, 1971, 1976; Kale, 1977). rare in the state. Observationsby a few 1976), Alabama (Newman, 1958a• In Arkansas, kites were well on the field workers, however, suggested Imhof, 1962; R. W. Skinner, in litt.), road to recovery by the early 1950s

Volume 33, Number 2 121 (Meanley and Neff, 1953) and have One can •ly say that since about its tributaries. althoughhe (Goss, 1886} becomeregular or locally common along 1950 range expansionsin some areas earlier wrote that kites were rare in the the Arkansas and White Rivers up to have been remarkable, and numbers state. He (Goss.1885} reported a nest in Pulaski and Monroe counties. and in all have increased in many areas. witness northeasternKansas (Woodson County), counties along the northern Florida and southern and east- and there is a 1906 nesting record for (Stewart. 1967; D. James, F. James,pers. ern Arkansas. Although no published DouglasCounty (Long. 1934. 1940}doc- comm.). Kites expandednorth of Mem- recordssho• kites nestlugnow along the umentedby two adults.two eggs. and the phis to Reelfoot Lake in northwestern MississippiRiver north of Baton Rouge nest. all displayedat Baker University, Teunessee between 1952 and the early to the Arkansas border or throughout Baldwin City, . However. these 1960s{Lowrey and Newman, 1952: New- much of southernMississippi and Geor- and Wetmore's {1909) observations of man. 1957. 1958b: B. B. Cofl•y, pers. gia. it is likely that kites might no• be i•11migrants in DouglasCounty are the comm. }. to eastern Missouri and extreme ti•und in theseareas as well as along the only records IBr northeastern Kansas. an western Kentucky by the mid-1%0s or large rivers in central and southern area repeatedly mentioned by many later {E. and M. Cypert. pers. comm.: Missouri. sources (including the A.O.U. Check- Graber, 1%2: Petersen. 1%4. 1%5, list. 1957}as part of thenormal breeding 1968: Kleen. 1976a. 1977). and were THE WEST range. appearing in southernIllinois and Indi- Members of the Sitgreaveexpedition ana in the late 1950s and I%0s {Nolan. ESCRIPTIONSOF GREATPLAINS (probably including Woodhouse}found 1957; Mumford. I%1: Peterson. 1%3). populationsof the MississippiKite MississippiKites exceedinglyabundant Two reports from JetlErsonCounty. Ken- provide a relatively continuous and on the Arkansas River and its tributaries tucky (Carpenter. 1937. 1955) suggest unambiguousrecord of population in northern (Brewer. 1856: that rare nestings may occur farther dynamics.According to Bendire (1892) see Tomer. 1974. for an account of this northeastalong the . kites were much more abundant in the and other early western expeditions.) west than elsewhere(see Fig. 2). Now. Thus. it seemslikely that simultaneous ATE SPRINGAND SUMMERthe southern Great Plains can be consid- nesting occurred in adjacent south- SIGHTINGS of one or two kites near ered a strongholdof the species(Fig. 1) western Kansas. Nice (1931) noted the (Peterson. 1967; Kleen. 1973. suggestingthat it is better adapted to early abundance of kites in northern 1974).a Juneobservation of one or pos- riparian habitatsin plainsand savanna Oklahoma and suppliedone pre-1900 sibly two birds in Grundy County. Mis- regionsthan to the woodedeast. record for Murray County in the south. souri (Kleen. 197S). and sightingsin Shortlyafter 1900 kites nestingalong (Soulen, 1971: Janssen. 1977). THE L,4 TE 1800s branchesof the ArkansasRiver provided 0anssen. 1975). central Indi- many eggs for collectors (Short. 1904. ana (Kleen. 197S), western Illinois 190S; Love, 1911), which suggeststhat (Kleen. 1976b; 1977). New Jersey(Scott HnEEARLIESTsouth-central AUTHORITATIVE and southwestern report these populations were large prior to and Cutler, 1961). (Scott Kansas suggested that where sizable 1900. There are no accounts to show how and Cutler, 1974), and even Ontario riparian woodland occurred. so did common the specieswas elsewherein (Goodwin.1977) are amongrecords sug- kites. Goss (1887. 1891) described them Oklahoma before Iq00, but the forests gesting that range expansionwill con- as common on the Medicine River and along the Cimarron. Red, Canadian, and tinue. and that isolated pairs may now nest far to the north and east. We reiteratethat our summaryof pop- ulation fluctuationsduring the past IS0 yearsis not entirelyconclusive. Although many pre-lq00 accounts describe seem- ingly large populationsof Mississippi Kites. declinesbegan before Iq00 and reached their greatest extents between 1910 and 1940. However. documentation before Iq00 is thin and often contradic- tory for many areas. so that major declinesin abundanceand rangeshrink- age cannot always be substantiated. Accounts between Iq00 and 1940 showed kites presentin most of the areas where they exist today and in a few places wherethey do not now nest(e.g.. south- ern Missouri). Increased attention to MississippiKite populationshas been encouraged recently by seasonal sum- maries in American Birds. possibly resulting in the late discoveryof some small but old populations. Certainly, more attention is now paid to those previouslyknown. MississippiKite inflight. A!l photos/J.Parker.

122 AmericanBirds, March 1979 Washita Riverswere probably populated not likely the case because. since 1950, and southuard at least to Tom Green to some extent. kites have bred in most Kansas counties and Callahan counties (Allen and Sime. Gault wrote Bendire (1892) that Mis- south and several north of the Arkansas 1943; Brandt. 1940: Jackson. 1945: sissippiKites were abundant in the Red River (Ely. 1971; Graber and Graber. Oberholser. 1974; Stevenson. 1942: River region of Texas. especially in 1951; Johnston. 1964: Rising and Kil- Thompson, 1952;Williams, 1974. Bowie County near the Oklahoma and gore. 1964; Rolfs. 1973: Seibel. 1971: 1975a:WolfE, 1967;J. W. Parker,pers. Arkansas borders, and Brewer (1856) Tordoff: 1953; J. W. Parker. pers. ohs.). ohs. ). saidthat. accordingto membersof Cap- Nesting has not reoccurred in north- tain Sitgreave'sZuni River expedition. eastern Kansas. but a kite was recently they were exceedinglyabundant in east- documented at St. Joseph. Missouri HF STORYIS DIFFFRFNTonlyfor ern Texas. !n 1912 kites were common (Kleen. 1976b). extreme . Strecker nestersin the Texas panhandle(Streck- Western Oklahoma has apparently (1935) did not find kitcs in Bowie er. 1912). which suggeststheir presence had a healthy kite population since ini- County, and there is only one recent there before 1900. However, Gault's tial settlement of the Great Plains by record (brccding seemslikely) for that "Red River region"may not haveincluded white men. Sutton (1939) found many region(Williams, 1973). This i• the only the entire river course from extreme east- kites in the northwest. and since then Texas area where a population decline ern Texasto thepanhandle, and McCaule.v kites have nested throughout western aftcr 1900 seems to have been substan- (1877) did not see kites in the area near Oklahoma and in many central. north- tial. Strecker (1912)and Simmons (1925) the source of the Red River in the south- central and eastern counties (Sutton. listedkites breedingnear Houstonand central portionof the panhandle.A few 1969: field notes filed at the Stovall Austin. However.we can find only one nestings were known from near San Museum. Univ. of Oklahoma; J. W. Par- nestingreport after 1900 for southeast- Antonio. Austin. ,and possibly ker. pers. obs.). The only suggestionof a ern Texas east of and San Anto- even San Angelo (Beckham. 1887: major decline in numbers (Nice. 1931) nio. the Lakc Jackson area in Brazoria Cooke, 1888; Singley. 1892; Strecker. was fbr the region near the Arkansas County (Wcbster, 1975), but kites have 1912). River where kites had earlier been abun- also recently summered in Polk and Fort dant. Bend counties (Williams, 1974)where THE 1900s Since1900, kites havenested widely in breedingis likely. north-centralTexas, including the east- There are no verified nestingrecords ern half of the panhandle. Strecker for . However, kites were seen W•tHer FEW1900 suggestEXCEPTIONS. that kiterecords num- (1912) mentionedthem for the panhan- repeatedly in late May. 1944 in Adams bershave been stable or increasing.and dle and elsewhere in the state. and More County (Haeker. 1944) and near Omaha that nestinghas beenwidespread in the and Strecker (1929) included kites in late May, 1965(Cortelyou. 1965), May Great Plains since the turn of the cen- among the most characteristicbirds of and June, 1975 (Williams, 1975b;pers. tury. Locally. recent population expan- the in the region of Wilbarger comm. fi'om A. Saunders, Chief Natural- sionshave often seemed explosive. Long County. From 1940 to the present. nest- ist, Fontenelle Forest Nature Center). (1940) continuedto list MississippiKites ing kiteshave been numerous in the east- and 1977 (Williams, 1977). rare in Kansas except in Barber and ern half of the panhandle. and have To the westand southwestMississippi counties. However, this was appeared eastward into Denton County Kitesare colonizingareas not within the recognizedoriginal range of the species. Bailey and Niedrach (1965) listed only two occurrences from . both before1900, and neitherverified nesting. Elsewhere in the southwest. kites were unknown until recently,except for one doubtful recordfor (Bailey, 1928; Hubbard, 1970). A colony of six kite nestswas observed in 1971 along the ArkansasRiver in La Junta, Otero County, Colorado (Cran- son. 1972). This was the first record of breeding for the state. and the colony was also active in 1972, 1973. and 1974 (W. Anderson.pers. comm.; Kingery. 1974). Judgingfrom sightingsof kites near La Junta prior to 1971 (Cranson. 1972), kites have been breeding there. and perhaps elsewherenear La Junta. sinceat least 1968. Nestingpopulations havemore recentlybeen reported on the Cimarron River in Baca County, and kites have been observed in Prowers. Larimer. and Morgan counties (Cran- son,pers. comm.: Kingery. 1974, 1975). It is possiblethat recent breeding in

Volume33 Number2 123 southeastern Colorado demonstrates NGENERAL. REPORTS forthe Southern UMMARIZINGFORWESTERN POPULA- recolonization of an area where kites Great Plains in American Birds TIONS.there is evidence of no past have been repeated. but irregular. began documentingmore frequent and region-wide decline of the sort that nestersfor a longtime. widespread observationof Mississippi apparentlyoccurred in the East. Popula- Observationsof Mississippi Kites in Kites in 1953 when increases were noted tions on the Arkansas River in northern New Mexico began in 1950. and there is for Halstead, Kansas and Amarillo and Oklahoma were apparently reduced evidenceof nestingin at least nine coun- Midland, Texas(Baumgartner, 1953). In early in the 20th century,and, although ties throughout the state, as well as in 1956 nestingwas first discoveredin Still- kites now nest there, they have not fully nearby El Paso County. Texas (Ligon, water, Oklahoma (Baumgartner,1956), recoveredif early reports of their abun- 1961; Hubbard, 1970, pers. comm.: and a pair was seen in E! Paso, Texas dance are accurate. Kites have appar- Williams, 1977). In nearby trans-Pecos (Monson. 1956). In 1964 it was reported ently become scarcer in central and east Texas kites now nest near Balmorhea in that a marked increase in numbers had Texas, but near Austin, Reeves County (Ohlendorf and Board, occurred near Vernon, Texas since 1952 Houston, and have prob- 1972). This is about 90 miles southwest (Williams,1964). After 1965,reports accu- ably comeabout by the disappearanceof of Odessa in Midland County, the near- mulated rapidly from points throughout a relativelysmall number of kites on the est Texas region where kites have nested the Great Plains and farther west. periphery of the normal range. We are previously.The most westerlypublished inclined to believethat the only regional nestingrecords are from where Wolfe (1967) correctlysuggested cau- changeshave been gradual and contin- Levy {1971) observed as many as eight tious interpretationof reports in Amer- ual increasein numbersbeginning about kites in Pinal County along the San ican Birds in making comparisonswith 1950, or shortly before, and continuing earlier estimates of abundance. He noted Pedro River in 1971, and Yavapai expansionof the rangeboundary. that increasein the reportednumber of County where a breeding bird was first kites was at least partly owing to the taken in 1970 along the Verde River FACTORS AFFECTING POPUœA- greatly increased number of observers, (Carothers and Johnson, 1976; see also TIONS OF MISSISSIPPI KITES Witzeman et al., 1976). In summer and thismay be the case,for example,in Wilbarger County,Texas. Cautious con- 1977, R. Ohmart and R. Glinski (per& sideration of these accounts is also indir- HEFACTORS THAT CONTROL thedis- comm.) observed what seem to be tributionsof MississippiKites differ ectly indicated by the seasonalsummary from the Great Plains to the wooded increasingpopulations along the Verde for the nestingseason in the Southern and San Pedro Rivers. There is a pos- Great Plains Region in 1972 {Williams, East. In the latter region kites typically sibility that low densitypopulations have 1972). It was reported that urban kite nestin riparian situations;nesting in the always. or intermittently, existed in the populationsin the Texaspanhandle sup- uplands has less often been reported. riparian areasof the Southwest. posedlyremained stable while rural pop- Thus, distribution is mainly along the As yet there are no nestingrecords for ulations declined. In that summer, major river systems.In much of the southernCalifornia: onlyscattered sight- observationsby Parker (1974) of nesting Great Plains nesting in riparian sites ings of one or two individuals in the coloniesjust southeastof the panhandle must also have been the original situa- widely-separatedInyo, Santa Barbara. and in southwestern Oklahoma showed tion for mostkites because of Contra Costa, and Humbolt counties reducednesting success. Consequently. scarcity of trees. Today nesting in the (Small. 1974; McCaskie, 1976: Stallcup adults were less active than usual near plains is more commonin "unnatural" and Winter, 1975; Winter and Erickson, the nest sites. This often conveyed the situations.These include mesquite thick- 1976). Breeding records would not be false impressionthat they were fewer in ets and especiallyin tree plantingssuch unlikely in the near future for southern number than in past years, but this was as shelterbelts {windbreaks), farm wood- . not the case. lots, and lawn trees in towns. The result

Adult kite incubating. Youngjust freshb, out of egg.

124 American Birds, March 1979 Adult at nestwith young. Nest with two downyyoung. is a more uniform regional distribution and decreases in numbers, the western aging. All 178 of the Mississippi Kite of nestingkites in the Great Plains. populationsare easierto understand. eggs from 13 museums examined by or The breedingrange of the Mississippi Direct persecutionof MississippiKites for Parker (1976) were collectedat a very Kite now appears disjunct. A hiatus by shootingwas undoubtedly widespread few localities.At least 76 clutchesof eggs extendsthrough easternKansas, eastern in the past. but the westernpopulations were taken in Woods County. Oklahoma Oklahoma, eastern Texas, much of Mis- certainly suffered much less than the (the vicinity of the Salt Fork of the souri, and northwestern Arkansas. These easternbecause the former were exposed Arkansas River) between 1903 and 1912; areasmight not alwayshave been devoid later to human populationswhich were most between 1908 and 1910. Another 11 of kites, but there are few old records to also of comparativelow density.In par- clutches were taken in Llano County, suggestotherwise. However, there is no ticular, much of Oklahoma remained Texas in 1917-1918. In both cases col- evidencethat the two populationsform "Indian " until about 1890, lecting was heavy where kite numbers separategene pools. In fact, pair forma- and was the last of the central plains apparentlydeclined thereafter. tion apparently takes place during the states to undergo settlement (Hatton. Agricultural practices, defined late winteringor migration period (Sut- 1935). Wolfe (1967) described a case of broadly, seem to be primarily respon- ton, 1939) when kites from all areas pre- mass shooting of adult kites in Texas, sible for the major changes in Great sumablymingle to someextent. It is an but Parker's experience in the Great Plains populations of the Mississippi interesting,but highly unlikely, possibil- Plains suggeststhat, while shooting has Kite. A brief historical review of the ity that a portion of the easternpopula- not entirely ceased. it is now a minor original vegetationof the Great Plains tion migratesnorth via the Florida pen- problem. Rather. public sentiment is from Aikman (1935), Bruner (1931), insula. If this were so, some degree of often neutral or positive. For example, Cook (1908), Hatton (1935), Price and geneticisolation of the two populations efforts by Parker to census the entire Gunter (1943), Rice and Penfound would be more likely. nestingkite populationof Meade. Kan- (1959). Rising (1970). Shorl (1965). and sas in 1977 met with enthusiasticsup- Widman and Penfound (1960) is useful POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF POP- port by the citizenry. In the East exten- and follows here. In the mixed and short ULA TION DECLINES IN EARL Y sive shootingwas undoubtedlyeffective grassprairie of southwesternand south- 1900s in reducing kite numbers in many local central Kansas and parts of Oklahoma areas. Mengel (per& comm.) sug- and Texas trees were generally absent gestedthe possibilitythat shootingpres- except for narrow riparian forestsalong ECLINESINPOPULATION SIZEor dis- surein the easternpopulations may have large rivers and small groups of trees appearance from portions of the increasedgreatly in the years following near intermittent streambeds or the like. original range cannot be attributed the Civil War, when emancipatedslaves Gallery forestswere often discontinuous. entirely to any one factor. Various began to acquire firearms and. in com- as is often the casetoday alongrivers like authors have speculated that shooting pany with disadvantagedwhites, to use the Cimarron. Much of central Okla- (Mengel, 1965; Wolfe, 1967),egg collect- them against "varmints" or to procure homa and north-centralTexas was orig- ing (Sutton.1939), or alterationof forag- food. This period synchronizeswith the inally savanna. and shinnery oak ing habitat (Mengel, 1965). have played hypothesizedearly period of population ((•uercus spp.) prairie (intermixed major roles. No doubt all of thesehave declines in the East. grassesand shrub )was encountered been important locally, but the regional by early explorersin westernOklahoma importanceof all but shootingis doubt- GG-COLLECTINGRANKS far below and was probably also present in the ful. It is easierto identify factorsrespon- shootingin importanceas a causeof adjacent Texas panhandle. There were sible for populationincreases and wid- reducednumbers, but at least in specific tall and mixed grass in parts of ening distribution. For both increases Great Plains areas may have been dam- the Texas panhandle, the northern

Volume 33, Number 2 125 Texas countiesimmediately to the east, tance of these tree plantings to Missis- and that the frequencyw•th which kites and parts of southwestern Oklahoma. sippi Kites has been noted (Wdhams, now take small b•rds, including Chff More xeric growth,such as mesquite 1967), but their positiveimpact on kite Swallows(Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), (Prosopisjulifiora) and shinneryoak, populationshas not been adequately mayhave increased with widespreadtree was presentonly on poorer and dryer stressed.Often, kites seemto prefer tree plantingand the building of highway sites,but mesquitewas not found north plantingsto nearby,more natural ripar- bridgesand otherstructures which pro- of central Texas. All of thesetypes of ian growth, and it is clear that Missis- vide nestingsites for small birds. Con- woodyvegetation are usedby kites. sippi Kites are presentnow at hundreds, sequently,kite populationsmay now be The originalwestern riparian forests if not thousands,of nestingsites in the less susceptibleto short-term fluctua- were usually removed(Hatton, 193S;see Great Plains where they could not have tions in insect abundancethan pre- referencesin Short, 196S),and we may nested before the establishment of tree viously. suppose that kite populations were plantingsand the spreadof mesquite. MississippiKite populationsin the sometimesdisturbed or displacedas a The nests themselves are decidedly heartof their GreatPlains range do not result;but howwidely the forestsdisap- grouped in colonies,but the distribution now seemto be food limited during the peared, and the kites with them, is of thesecolonial populations seems to be nestingperiod (Parker, 1974, unpubl unclear.Riparian forests were still pres- random where nestinghabitat is abun- data). One might expectan increasing ent along the Medicine Lodge River in dant. population to escape food limitation, south-centralKansas during the 1800s, In the forestedEast lureberingcould especiallyif foodresources have increased (Goss,1891) and were probably equally have disruptednesting, but more likely at winteringgrounds. But in thisrespect, commonalong other major and subsid- hashad a net positiveeffect by providing the MississippiKite is difficult to inter- Iary river courses.The introduction and additional cultivatedareas where forag- pret. A brief consideration of the kite's spreadof salt cedar (Tamarix galllea), ing opportunitiesare improvedfor kites. life historypattern is importantif weare which displacedelm-oak forestsin the Wayne (1906) observedhundreds of Mis- to understandthe responseof its popula- flood plain of the Canadian River in sissippi and Swallow-tailed kites (Ela- tionsto (probably)increased food and an ClevelandCounty, Oklahoma (Hefiey, noidesforficatus) attracted by massive increasein nestinghabitat. 1937),also alteredvegetation structure numbers of grasshoppersnear the edge alongrivers farther west.The decreasein of a on the Suwannee River, kites in northeastern and north-central and Murphey (1937) similarly noted E ISENMANN(1971) NOTED that White- Oklahoma after 1900 (Nice, 1931) can kites attracted to enormous numbers of tailed and Mississippikites are in reasonablybe attributed at least pal'- grasshoppersin the fields in the Savan- someways similarly endowed for rapid tlally to tree removal. nah River Valley. In northwesternFlor- population recovery; both are colonial, ida, Monroe (Weston, 1%S) noted a both travel widely, their reproductive close association between distribution of capabilitiesseem little affectedby pes- POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS OF Mississippi Kites and locations of ticides (see Parker, 1976 for the RECENT POPULATION INCREASES numerousmilitary airfields. Mississippi Kite), and they are both capable of breedingwhen one-yearold OWEVER.THE PRIMARY EFFECT of However, the two speciesdiffer in three white settlement in the Great T IS CONJECTURAL.but likely, that important ways: Plainshas been a vastincrease in woody Great Plains kite populations also 1) The habitat changesbenefiting the vegetation.In the tall and mixed grass now benefit from an increase in insects, two speciesare different. The White- plains of north Texas and southwestern mainly orthopterans,which may some- tailed Kite apparentlyhas profitedfrom Oklahoma human activities associated times comprise their entire diet or at an increased food resource. The Missm- with farming and cattle raising have leastrepresent an importantcomponent sippi Kite has probably benefited from causedthe expansionof mesquiteand its (Fitch, 1963).Branson (1942) and Rivnay this, but also from increasednesting advance north and east (Cook, 1908: (1964)documented a positivecorrelation habitat. Brandt, 1940: Price and Gunter, 1943: between increased insect numbers and 2) Major causes of mortality, male Bogush,19S0). Tree planting near farm agricultural practices, primarily over- replacement,etc., of the migratory Mis- buildings was encouragedby govern- grazingand irrigation, in plains regions, sissippi Kite could be quite different mental action beginning in the mid- and Shotwell (1938) summarized the •¾e- from thoseof the non-migratoryWhite- 1800s, and the Prairie States Forestry quent grasshopperoutbreaks that have tailed Kite. Little is known of the Mis- occurred since 1900. ProJect(begun in 1934) resultedin most sissippi Kite on its wintering grounds of the shelterbeltswhich exist today The food resourcesof the Mississippi althoughwinter and migratorymortahty (Stockier and Williams, 1949). Abun- Kite in the Great Plains(and possibly the is obviouslyimportant in determining dant shelterbeltswere plantedwithin a East)may have recently changed in other the size of the nesting population 100-mile-wide area extending from ways.Kites in many plainsbreeding col- (Parker, 1974). to north-central Texas, oniesare more versatilepredators than 3) In one clutch White-tailed Kites which fortuitously included the heart of was indicated by Fitch (1963), Brown usuallylay twice(or more)the numberof thepast and present nesting range of the and Amadon (1968), and others because eggslaid by MississippiKites which lay a MississippiKite (Fig. 1). Today in Kan- they capturea varietyof ,and relativelysmall and unusuallyconstant sas, Oklahoma, parts of Texas, and far- sometimes scavenge as well (Parker, clutch of two (Parker, 1974). Two broods ther west, shelterbelts and other tree unpubl.data). It is interestingto specu- are often reared in one seasonby the plantings stand as thousandsof islands late that their scavengingmay be a former species (Brown and Amadon, of nesting habitat which were non- recent development prompted by the 1968),but the MississippiKite is almost existentprior to settlement.The impor- availability of road-killed vertebrates, alwayssingle-brooded, although it is not

126 AmericanBirds, March 1979 definitely known if a rare, renestlng other potential nesters(there 1s no evi- kites fi-om Guatemala (Parker, 1977) female could lay more than two eggsin dencethat this happensby aggressive and Honduras (Parker, unpubl. data) one reproductiveseason. behavior) could usually result in the reflect shooting and possibly trapping The last point is important. The low excludedbirds using abundant nearby, However,various forms of human "pred- reproductivepotential of the Mississippi and identical, habitat. Second, the social ation" predictablyhave had onlya minor Kite suggestsit has evolved a so-called behaviorof kites during the non-breed- impact on kites, judging fi-om the fact K-strategy,meaning that, accordingto ing seasons,especially their ways of that recent kite expansionshave been prevailinginterpretation, it shouldhave forming spring migratory flocks and synchronous with human population evolutionarilydeveloped its low produc- breeding pairs, could lead to many year- explosionsin Central and South Amer- tivity in the face of food limitation (see lings and possiblytwo-year-old birds ica, or at least coincident with already- Planka, 1970 for a tabulation of the clas- being recruited into breeding popula- enlargedhuman populations.It is con- sicalcorrelates of K-selection).Such spe- tionsfar from thosewhere they were pro- ceivable,and perhapslikely, that forest ciesare generallyill-suited to population duced. Thus, it is unlikely that range removaland agriculturalexpansion have recoveries (Botkin and Miller, 1974). expansionnear a particular colony or increasedforaging habitat and prey pop- One would not expecta specieswith a local area can be linked directly or sim- ulations, as we assert has occurred in low reproductiverate to be independent plisticallyto populationpressure in that North America, but further speculation of food limitation, yet this seems to be colonyor particular area. It is possible is presentlyunjustified. the case with the kite. At least two that kites have sometimesexpanded THE FUTURE explanationsare possible:1) past food their rangeby travel alongriver systems, limitation has been relaxed by cultural but it is equally likely that spring changes that have increased prey weatherpatterns and fortuitouswander- resources:thi• has increasedproductiv- ing have as often introduced flocks to populationHEREISNO APPARENTincreases REASONshould whynot continue in both the East and West. Cer- ity and the increasing population has suitable,extra-limital nesting areas. The capitalizedon the greater availabilityof apparentpresent surplus of kites means tainly, nestinghabitat is not saturatedin nestinghabitat; and 2) the kite has not that a larger number of birds without the East, and in the western areas suit- been food-limited, but has evolved a low previousnesting experience(one- and able, unused shelterbelts and other wooded areas are abundant in the inter- reproductiverate in responseto other possiblysome two-year-olds) is available reasonsfor its low nestingsuccess (Par- to remain in their areas and to readily ior of the range and on much of the establish new colonies. ker, 1974),and its populationis expand- rangeperiphery. It would seemthat food lng owing primarily to the effects of availability is more critical than nesting NON-BREEDING SEA SONS increasing nesting habitat. Presently, habitat and that different kite popula- neither of these hypothesescan be tions might be expectedto depend on excluded; either or both may prove to COLOGICALCIRCUMSTANCES during different diets, for example insectsalone explain the present condition of kite migration and on the wintering versus insects plus vertebrates. In areas populations. grounds could affect significantly the where kites might be forced to rely on dynamicsof MississippiKite breeding small or fluctuating prey populations, populations,as conditionsin the non- especiallywhere they might dependpri- entlyORWHATEVER are more MississippiREASON.thereKites appar- sur- breeding seasons have apparentlyencour- marily on insects,we shouldexpect their vivingto reproducenow than there used agedthe expansionof White-tailedKite populationsto fluctuateconsiderably as to be. Althoughit may now be impos- populations (Eisenmann, 1971). How- a natural course of events. sible to explain fully the proximate ever, the little information (Parker, 1977) One possiblemajor sourceof disturb- mechanism for range expansion, any on MississippiKites other than during ance for westernnesting colonies is the hypothesesoffered must be consistent the breedingseason warrants only spec- loss of shelterbelt nest sites. Poor land with the followingpoints. First, nowhere ulation on how the migratory and winter managementcan causethe lossof shel- does nestinghabitat appear now to be ecology of the speciesmight affect its terbelts and similar woodlots (Olson and hmiting; exclusion by nesting kites of summerdynamics. Banding recoveries of Stoeckler, 1935), and one can easily find

Bull.Nutt. Orn. Club 18:J7-43. ßBailey, H. H. 1925. land. Branson,F. A. 1942.A preliminaryreport on The Birds of Florida. The Williams and Wilkins the insectorders found in variousgrassland habitats LITERATURE CITED Co., .ß Bailey, A.M. and R. J. Niedrach. in the vicinity of Hays, Kansas. Trans. Ks. Acad 1965. Birds of Colorado, 2 vols. Mus. Nat. Sci. 45:189-194. ß Brewer, Thomas M. 1856. North Alkman, J. M. 1935. Native vegetationof the shelter- His., Denver. ß Bailey, A.M. and E.G. Wright. American Oology, part I -- Raptors and Fisstros- belt region.In Possibilitiesof shelterbeltplantings 193l. Birds of southern Louisiana. Wilson Bulletin tres. Smithsoniancontributions to knowledge,Met- in the plainsregion. U.S. ForestService Spec. Bull. ß '13:202.ß Baumgartner,F. M. 1953. SouthernGreat calf & Co., Cambridge. ß Brown, L. and D. Ama- Allen, Philip F. and P. R. Sime. 1943.Distribution Plains Region. Audubon Field Notes [hereafter, don.1968. Eagles, Hawks and Falcons of the World and abundanceof the MississippiKite in the Texas A.F.N.] 7:315-316. __ 1956. A.F.N. 10:392- McGraw-Hill, . ß Brunet, W. E. 1931 The panhandle.Condor 45 (3):110-112.ß A.O.U. 1957. 394. * Beckham, C. W. 1887. Observations on the vegetation of Oklahoma. Ecol. Monographs l 99- Check-list of North American Birds (5th edition). birds of southwestern Texas. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 188. ß Buckley,P. A., R. O. Paxtonand D. A. Cut- Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore. ß Anderson, R. M. 633-6%. ß Bendire, Charles. 1892. Life Histories of ler. 1976. Hudson- Region. American 1907.The birdsof Iowa. Proc.Davenport Academy North American Birds. U.S. Government Printing Birds [hereafterA.B.] 30:932-938.ß Burleigh,T D of Sciences11:125-147. ß Baerg,W. J. 1931.Birds of Office, , D.C. ß Bennett, R. 1932. 1958. GeorgiaBirds. Univ. of Okla. Press,Norman Arkansas.Univ. ArkansasColl. Agric. Bull. __ Check-list of the Birds of Missouri. U. of Mo. stud- ß Butler, A. W. 1897. The Birds of Indiana. 22nd 195l. Birds of Arkansas (Revised). Univ. Arkansas ies,a quarterlyof research,7:3-81. ß Bogusch,E. R. Ann. Rept., Ind., Dept. Geol. & Nat. Resourcesß Coll Agric. Bull. ß Bailey, B. H. 1918. Raptorial 1950.A bibliographyon mesquite.Texas Jour. Sci. Cahn, A. R. and A. S. Hyde. 1929. EasternBirds of Birdsof Iowa.Iowa Geol.Surv. Bull. No. 6. ß Bailey, 2:528-538. ß Botkin, D. B., and R. S. Miller. 1974. Little Egypt. WilsonBull. 41:31-38. ß Carothers,S FlorenceM. 1928.Birds of New Mexico. N.M. Dept. Mortality rates and survivalof birds. Amer. Natur. W., and R. R. Johnson.1976. The MississippiKite of Game and Fish, Santa Fe. ß Bailey, H. B. 1883. 108:181-192. ß Brandt, Herbert. 1940. Texas Bird in Arizona: A second record. Condor 78:114-115 ß Memoranda of a collectionof eggsfrom Georgia. Adventures. The Bird Research Foundation, Cleve- Carpenter,F. S. 1937.Recent records of the Missis-

Volume33, Number 2 127 many presently-usedwoodlots experienc- ing a rapid tree die-off. The lossof aging shelterbelt trees has contributed to a reproductionin the Merlin (Falco colum- barius) population in Saskatchewan (Fox, 1971), and the same cause could eventually affect kite populations. Also occurring now in many Great Plains areas. in a dubious effort to increase crop production, is the intentional removal of shelterbelts. This practice was examined in a report by (1977) who plainly demonstratedthat there are a few good reasonsto remove shelterbelts,that there are severalprob- Plumage of able or certain agricultural benefitsfrom immature their presence,and that benefitsto game Mississippi Kite, out and non-gamewildlife are recognizable. Although the removalof large numbers of shelterbelts would undoubtedly dis- turb kite nesting colonies. numerous riparian, urban and other residential woodlotsshould remain in many areasto providealternate nest sites. Kite nesting colonieseasily tolerate extensivehuman activity; kites will even remain at a site after some tree cutting has taken place there, and may relocate en masse to nearby habitat (Parker. 1974). Thus. in regions with abundant nesting habitat, occasional disturbance of a colony should have only minor effects on kite numbers or productivity. However, in areaslike central Arizona, where nesting ,4CKNOWLEDGEMENTS James, F. James, H. Jeter, C. E. Ken- habitat is ve•y localized and where con- nedy, R. S. Kennedy,C. F. Marshall, R. cern has already been expressedfor the M. Mengel, V. Montgomery.R. Ohmart. Bureau of Reclamation's Central Ari- E AREVERY GRATEFUL to the W. M. Pulich, W. B. Robertson, Jr., A. zona Project (Witzeman et at, 1976), many personswho provided use- Saunders, R. W. Skinner, G. M. Sutton. habitat disturbance may have a drastic ful information for our analysis and and M. G. Vaiden. The North American and long-termimpact on the Mississippi obviouslyspared no time or effort to give Nest Record Card Program supplied Kite population in an entire region. In us the benefit of their experience.They nestingrecords, and J. B. Cope. R. M. general, however,the future of the spe- include W. Anderson, G. Barmicki, B. Mengel. R. S. Hoffmann and Eugene cies looks bright throughout most of its B. Coffey,B. Cranson.E. and M. Cypert, Eisenmanncommented helpfully on the expandingrange. J. F. Denton. R. Glinski. T. Imhof. D. manuscript. sippi Kite. Kent. Warbler 13:2%30. __ 1955. easternMaritime Region.A.B. 30:926-930.ß Fitch. reviewof early tree-plantingactivities in the Plains MississippiKite at Louisville.Kent. Warbler31:70. HenryS. 1963.Observations on the MississippiKite region.In Possibilitiesof shelterbeltplantings in the ß Chamberlain, B. R. 1959. Southern Ariantic Coast in southwestern Kansas. Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Plainsregion. U.S. ForestSet. Spec.Bull. ß Hefiey, Region.A.F.N. 13:424-426.__ 1961. Southern Nat. Hist. 12:503-519. ß Fox. G. H. 1971. Recent H. M. 1937. Ecologicalstudies on the Canadian Atlantic CoastRegion. A.F.N. 15:309402. ß Cban- changesin the reproductivesuccess of the Pigeon River in Co., Okla. Ecol. seler, E. J. 1912. Mississippiand Swallow-tailed Hawk. J. WiMl. Manage. 35:122-128. ß Ganjer. A. Monog. 7:345-402. ß Hendrickson,O., D. B. Heinz- Kites in Knox County,Ind. Auk 29:239. * Cook, O. F. 1902. The MississippiKite ( mississippien- man, and G. M. Heinzman..1965. MississippiKite F. 1908. Changesof vegetationon the southTexas sis).Osprey 1:85-90. ß Golsan,L. S. and E.G. Holt. (Ictinia mississippiensis)seen in Polk County. prairies. U.S. Dept. Agric., Bureau Plant Indust. 1914.Birds of Autauguaand MontgomeryCounties, Florida Natur. 38:60. ß Howell, A. H. 1924. Birds of Circular No. 14:1-7. ß Cooke, W. W. 1888. Report Alabama. Auk 31:212-235. ß Goodwin, C. E. 1977. Alabama, Montgomery.__ 1932. Florida Bird on bird migration in the MississippiValley. U.S. Ontario Region. A.B. 31:993-996. ß Goss, N. S. Life. Florida Dept. of Game and Fish and Bur. of Dept. Agric.,Div. of Econ.Ornithology, Bull. No. 2. 1885.Observations.on Elanoides.forficatus and Icti- Biol. Survey,U.S. Dept. of Agric. Coward-McCann, ß Cortelyou, R. G. 1965. Mississippi Kite seen in nia subcaerulea in Kansas. Auk 2:19-21. __ 1886. Inc., New York. ß Hubbard, J.P. 1970. Check-list of Fontenelle Forest. Nebr. Bird Review 33:49. ß Cory, A RevisedCatalogue to the Birdsof Kansas.Kansas the Birds of New Mexico. New Mexico Oroith. Soc. C. B. 1909. The birds of Illinois and Wisconsin. PublishingHouse, Topeka. __ 1887.Ictinia mis- Publ., No. 3. McLeodPrinting Co., Albuquerque.ß Field Mu& Nat. Hist.. Zool. Ser. 9:1-764. ß Cranson, ss•st)9piensisand Aegialitis nivosa nesting in Imhof, T. A. 1962. Alabama Birds. U. of Alabama BabetteF. 1972. MississippiKite nestingin Col- southerncentral Kansas.Bull. Washburn College Press.Tuscaloosa. ß Jackson,A. S. 1945. Mississippi orado.Colo. Field Ornith. 11:5-10.ß Dingle, E. V. Laborato.rvNat. Hist. 2:25-26. 1891.History of Kite. Texas Game & Fish 3:6-7. 26. James F. C. 1934. Notes on the kites of South Carolina. Auk 51: the Birdsof Kansas.Geo. W. Crane& Co.. Topeka. 1960.Central SouthernRegion. A.F.N_ 14:314-318, 515. ß Eisenmann,E. 1971. Rangeexpansion and ß Graber.R. 1962. MiddlewesternPrairie Region. ß Janssen,R. B. 1975. WesternGreat LakesRegion. populationincrease in Northand MiddleAmerica of A.F.N. 16:478-480. ß Graber, R. and J.. Graber. A.B. 29:854-858. 1977. Western Great Lakes the White-tailed Kite [Elanus leucurus). A.B. 25: 1951. Notes of the birds of southwestern Kansas. Region.A.B. 31:1003-1006. ß Johnston,R. F. 1964. 529-536. ß Ely, C. A. 1971. A historyand distribu- Trans. Ks. Acad. Sci. 54:145-174. ß Hacker, F. W. The breedingbirds of Kansas.Univ. KansasPubl. tional list of Ellis County, Kansas,birds. Ft. Hays 1944.Occurrence of the MississippiKite in Adams Mns. Nat. Hist. 12:575-655. ß Kale, H. W. 1975. Studies. No. 9:1-115. ß Finch, D. W. 1976. North- Co. Neb. Bird Rev. 12:8. ß Hatton, J. H. 1935. A Florida Region.A.B. 29:839-843. 1976. A.B.

128 American Birds, March 1979 30:945-948. 1977. A.B. 31:988-992. ß Kennedy, ical changesin south Texas, with considerationof shelterbelts, no shelter for the Great Plains. Co,.•. R. 1974. Central SouthernRegion. A.B. 28:911-912. probable causes.Proc. and Trans. Tex /Icad. Sci. News 42:10-13. ß Smithwick..I.W.P. ]897. Orni- ß Kingcry,H. E. 1974. Mountain West Region.A.B. 26:138-156. ß Rhoades, S. N. 1895. Contributions to thologyof NorthCarolina. N. Car. Agric.Exp. Sta- 28:929-933. __ 1975. A .B. 29:885-890. ß Kleen, V. the zoologyof Tennessee.no. 2. Birds. Proc.Acad. tion, Bull. No. 144. ß Sou]en. T. K. 1971. Western M. 1973. MiddlewesternPrairie Region.A.B. 27: Nat. Sci.. .ß Rice. E. L. and W. T. Pen- Great LakesRegion. A.F.N. 25:61-64.ß Sprunt.A.. 874-878. __ 1974. A.B. 28: 807-810. __ 1975. found.19,59. The uplandforests of Oklahoma.Ecol- .Ir. 1954. Florida Bird Life. Coward-McCann. Inc.. A.B. 29:978-982._ 1976a. A.B. 30:961-965. ogy 40:543-608.ß Ridgway.R. 1881. A catalogueof New York. Sprunt. A.. ,Ir.. and E. Chamberlain. 1976b. A.B. 30:846-850. __ 1977. A.B. 31:1006- the birds of Illinois Ill. State Lab. Nat. Hist.. Bull. 1949. South Carolina Bird Life. Contrib. from 1010. ß LeGrand, H. E. 1976. Southern Atlantic No. 4. 1889. The ornithologyof IIfinois.Pt. I. Charleston Mus. No. II. U. of S. Carolina Press. Coast Region.A.B 30:942-945.ß LeGrand, H. E., DescriptiveCatalogue. H. H. Rokker.Springfield. ß Columbia.ß Stallcup.R. and ,l. Winter. 1975.Mid- Jr. and I. M. Lynch. 1973. MississippiKites in Rising,J. D. 1970. Morphologicalvariation and evo- dle PacificCoast Region. A.B. 30:118-125.ß Steven- northeastern North Carolina. Chat 37:105-106. ß lution in some North American Orioles. •rst. Zool. son,H. M. 19S4.Florida Region. A.F.N. 8: .140-342. Levy,S. H. 1971.The MississippiKite in Arizona. __ 1959. A.F.N. 13: 426-429. __ 1964. A.F.N. Condor 73:476. ß Ligon, I. S. 1961. New Mexico 18:503-505. 1966. A.F.N. 20:561-565. ß Steven- Birds and Where to Find Them. Univ. New Mexico son. 1. O. 1942. Birds of the central panhandleof Press,Albuquerque. ß Long, W. S. 1934. Birds of Texas. Co,dor 44:108-115. ß Stewart, 1. R. 1962. Kansas.Unpubl. masteftsthesis, Univ. Kansas. Central SouthernRegion. A.F.N. 16:480-486.__. __ 1940. Check-list of Kansas birds. Trans. Ks. 1964. A.F.N. 18:512-515. __ 196S. A.F.N. 19: Acad. Sci. 43:433-456. ß Love, G. 191 I. The Missis- 552-554.__ 1967. A.F.N. 21: 578-S81.__ 1976. sippiKite. Oologist 28:48-49. ß Lowery.G. H. 1955. A.B. 30:965-968. ß Stoeckler. 1. H. and R. A. Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State Univ. Press. Williams. 1949. Windbreaks and shelterbelts. U.S. University, La. ß Lowery, G. H. and R. I. Newman. Dept. Agric. Yearbook. ß Strecker. 1. K. lr.. 1Ol2. 1952.Central SouthernRegion. A.F.N. 6: 285-286. The Birdsof Texas.an annotatedchecklist. Bt(vb,r __ 1953. Central SouthernRegion. A.F.N. 7:276- Univ. Bull. 15:1-69. __ 1. K. 1935. Notes on the 279. ß McCaskie, G. 1976. Southern Pacific Coast birds of Bowie County. Texas. Bt(vb•r Unit'. Bull. Region.A.B. 30:886-894.ß McCauley,C. A. H. 38:44.ß Sutton,G. M. 1939.The MississippiKite in 1877. Noteson the ornithologyof the region about Spring. Condor 41:41-53._ 1969. Oklahoma the source of the Red River of Texas. Bull. U.S. Birds.Univ &Okla. Press.Norman. ß Teulings.R. Geol. Geog. Surv. 3:655-695.ß McIIhenny, E. A. P. 1975. SouthernAtlantic CoastRegion. A.B. 29: 1943. Major changesin the bird life of southern 957-960.ß Thompson.W. L. 19S2.Summer birds of Louisiana during sixty years. Auk 60:541-549. ß the Canadian "Breaks" in Hutchinson Co., Texas. MeanIcy, B. and I. A. Neff. 1953, Bird notesfrom Texas J*mr. *?l'Sci.4:220-229. ß Tomer, 1. S. 1974. the Grand Prairie of Arkansas. Wilson Bull. 65:200. The ornithologicalwork of S. W. Woodhousein ß Mengel. R. M. 1965. The Birds of Kentucky. .Bull. Okla. OcttHe.Soc. 7:17-54. ß A.O.U. Monogr. No. 3. ß Mortson,G. 1956. South- Tompkins.I. R. 1949. The MississippiKite along westRegion. A.F.N. 10:401-402.ß More, R. L. and the SavannahRiver in Georgiaand SouthCarolina. I. K. Strecker. 1929. The summerbirds of Wilbarger /Ittl• 66:82. ß Tordoff, H. B. 1953. Distributional County,Texas. Contrib.Baylor Univ. Mus. 20:3-16. records of birds in eastern Kansas. Trct,s. Ktttts. ß Mumford, R. 1961. MiddlewesternPrairie Region. /Icad. Sci. 56:435-437.ß U.S. Dept. of Interior Geol. A.F.N. 15:471-472.ß Murphey,E. E. 1937.Observa- Survey. 1970. The National Atlas of the U.S.A. ß tionson the bird life of the middle SavannahValley, Vaiden. M. G. 1939. Additional notes on the Missis- 1890-1937. Contrib. Charleston Mus.. 9. Charleston sippi Kite. ß Wayne. A. T. lrg)6. A contributionto Mus.. Charleston.ß Murphy. 1- R.. C. M. White. the ornithologyof S. Carolina. chiefly the coast and B. E. Hartell (eds.)1975. Population status of region.Auk 23:56-57.__ 1910.Bi?•ls of South raptors. Raptor Research Report. No. 3. Raptor Carolina. Contributions from the Charleston Research Foundation. Vermillion. . ß Museum. Charleston. ß Webster, F. S. 1975. South Nelson. E. W. 1877. Notes on birds observed in Texas Region.A.B. 29:1002-1006.ß Weston.F. M. southernIllinois. betweenluly 17 and Sept.4. 187,5. 1925. PensacolaRegion. Bird-J[ore23:261. __ Bull. Essex Inst. 9:32-65. ß Newman, R. 1. 1956. 1965. A surveyof the birdlife of northwesternFlor- Central Southern Region. A.F.N. 10:381-390. ida. Bull. qf Tall Timbers Res. Station 5:1-147. ß 1957. A.F.N. 11:409-413. __ 1958a. A.F.N. 12: Wetmore, A. 1909. Fall notes from eastern Kansas. 36-39. __ 1958b. A.F.N. 12:358-362. ß Nice, M. Condor 11: 154-164. __ 1932. The former occur- M. 1931. The Birds &Oklahoma. (Revi•d ed.) Pub- renceof the MississippiKite in Ohio. Wil,sot!Bull. licationsof the U. Okla. Vol. 3. BiologicalSurvey, 44:118.Wheaton, J. M. 1882.Report on the birdsof No. 1, Norman. ß Nolan, V. 1957. Middlewestern Ohio. ReportsOhio Geol. Surv..No. 4 (Zoology).ß Prairie Region.A .F.N. 11:348-350.ß Oberholser.H. Widmann,O. 1907. A preliminarycatalog of the C. 1938.The Bird Life of Louisiana.U.S. Dept. of Kite in full adult plumage. birds of Missouri. Tratts. Acad. Sci.. St. •oais 17: I- Agric., Bull. 28. .__ 1974. The bird 288. ß Widman, V. E. and W. T. Penfound. 1960. A life of Texas. Univ. Texas Press, Austin, Vol. I. ß 19:315-351.ß Rising.J. D. and D. L. Kilgore. 1964. preliminary study of the shinneryin Oklahoma. Ogden.1. C. 1971.Florida Region. A.F.N. 2,5:846- Notes on birds from southwestern Kansas. Bull. Southt•'estern Natur. $:117-122. ß Williams. F. 851. __ 1976. Florida Region.A.B. 30:945-948.ß Kans. Ornith. Soc. 15:23-25.ß Rivnay,E. 1964.The 1964. SouthernGreat Plains Region.A.F.N. 18: Ohlendorf.H. M- and V. Board. IC/72.Nesting rec- influence of man on insect ecology in arid zones. 519-520. 1967. A.F.N. 21: . __¾972. ords for two speciesof birds in trans-PecosTexas. Ann. Rev. Ent. 9:41-62. ß Robertson, W. B., Jr. and A.B. 26:872-875. 1973. A.B. 27:886-890.__ Soatht•,estern Nat. 17:95-112. ß Olson, D. S. and 1. D. R. Paulson. 1961. Florida Region.A.F.N. 15: 1974. A.B. 28:918-919. __ 1975a. A.B. 29:999- H. Stoeckler.1935. The proposedtree , 461-464.ß Rolfs,M. E 1973.Mississippi Kites nest 1002. __ 1975b. A.B. 29:870-874. __ I Q77. A.B. their establishmentand management.In Possibil- at Hays. Kansas, Summerof 1972. Bull. Ks Ornith. 31:1016-1020.ß Williams. R. W. 1904. A prelim- ities of shelterbelt plantings in the Plains Region, Soc. 24:9-1 I. ß ScotL F. R. and D. A. Cutler. 1961. inary list of the birds of Leon County,Florida. Ask U.S. Forest Sec. Spec. Bull. ß Parker, 1. W. 1974. Middle Atlantic Coast Region.A.F.N. 15:396-399. 21:447-462. ß Winter, J. and D. Erickson. 1976. The breedingbiology of the MississippiKite in the __ 1974. Middle Atlantic Coast Region. A.B. Middle Pacific Coast Region.A.B. 31:216-221.ß Great Plains.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.Univ. 28:784-788.ß Seibel,D. 1971. The MississippiKite Witzeman, J., J.P. Hubbard, and K. Kaufman. Kansas.__ 1976. Pesticidesand eggshellthinning (Ictinia misslssippiensis).Bull. Kans. Ornith. Soc. 1976. SouthwestRegion. A.B. 30:•5-990. ß Wolfe. in the MississippiKite. J. Wildl. Management.40: 22:6-7. ß Short, E. H. 1904. Breedingof the Missis- L. R. 1967. The MississippiKite in Texas. Bull. 243-248. __ 1977. Second record of the Missis- sippi Kite. Oologist22:37-39. 1905. A spotted Texas. Orn. Soc. 1:2-3, 12-13. ß Zon. R. 1935. What sippiKite in Guatemala.Auk 94:168-169.ß Parnell, eggof the MississippiKite. Oologist22:188. ß Short, the study discloses. In Possibilities of shelterbelt 1. F. 196,5.Southern Atlantic Coast Region. A.F.N. L L.. Jr. 1965. Hybridization in the flickers (Colap- plantingsin the PlainsRegion. U.S. ForestSet. Bull. 19:533-534. ß Pearson,T. G.. C- S. BrimIcy, and H. tes) of North America. Bttll. Aregr. Mus. Nat. Hist. H. BrimIcy. 1942. Birds of North Carolina. N. Car- 129:309-428. ß Shotwell. R. L. 1938. Speciesand olina Dept. Agric., Raleigh. ß Peterson,P. 1963. distribution of grasshoppersresponsible for recent -- Department of Biology and Envi- MiddlewesternPrairie Region.A.F.N. 17: 407-409. outbreaks. J. Econ. Entomol. 31:602-610. ß Sim- ronmental Resources Center, State __ 1964. A.F.N. 18:$11-$12. __ 1965. A.F.N. mons,G. F. 1925. Birdsof the AustinRegion. Univ. 19:$$1-$$2. __ 1967. A.F.N. 21:$77-$78. __ of Texas Press,Austin. ß SingIcy,J. A. 1892. Con- UniversityCollege, Fredonia, NY 14063 1968. A.F.N. 22:$31-$33. ßPianka. E. 1970. On tributions to the natural history of Texas. Geol. (Parker}, and Research Department, r- and K-selection. Aregr. Natur. 106:$92-$97. ß Surveyof Texas,4th Ann. Rept. ß Skinner,R. W. National Audubon Society. 115 Indian Pindar. L. O. 1925. Birds of Fulton County, Ken- 1962. Feedinghabits of the MississippiKite. Auk tacky. Wilson Bull. 37:77-88. ß Price, W. A. and G. 79:273-274. ß Small, A. 1974. The birds of Califor- Mound Trail, Tavernier, FL 33070 Gunter. 1943.Certain recent geological and biolog- nia. Winchester Press, N.Y. ß Smith, L 1977. No (Ogden).

Volume 33, Number 2 129