DISTEIBUTION, IDENTIFICATION hascontributed to our interpretationsof The recent history and status publishedaccounts of kite populations. We often experienceddifficulty reach- of the Mississippi 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 Plains 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 Indiana, Ken- James W. Parker and John C. Ogden tucky, Texas)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 adult 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 birds. 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 adults attempt to nest during the repro- Indiana and Iowa 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 Florida. 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 Louisiana,Brewer maps are liberal estimationsof the past non-existentin hill country abovethe 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 Arkansas, 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 bird which often northeastern South Carolina (Sprunt for Tennessee or Kentucky, 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 North Carolina (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 nesting area 120 I10 I00 90 80 70 (Skinner, 1962; J. W. Parker, G. Bart- mcki,per& obs.). They alsoperch incon- spicuouslyfor hours at 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 area 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 Missouri to St. Louis (Widmann, bers near Charleston, along the Savan- 1907) and southern Illinois (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 plain 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 Georgia, northern Florida, once summered near the Wabash River to show the eastern population when southern Alabama 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 Ohio, 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