2014
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
SOUTHEASTERN
NATURALIST
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
13(4):770–801
Breeding Bird Community of a Suburban Habitat Island:
Historic Bethabara Park, Winston-Salem, NC
Katherine K. Thorington1,2,* and Kimberly B. Brand3
Abstract - Habitat islands, corridors, and patches within the urban–rural mosaic provide
important resources for migratory and resident species and may be crucial for breeding success and survival. In suburban areas, corridor width and patch size are strongly correlated
with community composition. We assessed the breeding bird community in the Historic
Bethabara Park Complex (HBPC) by territory mapping during April–July 2009 and 2010.
HBPC is a 77-ha habitat island in Winston-Salem (Forsyth County), NC. We detected 109
bird species in HBPC, including 60 for which we documented at least 1 breeding territory in
either year. Each year we found territories of 58 species; 57 species were the same between
years. The majority of birds encountered in this study nest in the canopy, in shrubs, or in
cavities. The breeding community was roughly split between migrants (32) and residents
(34) and included 3 exotic species. We documented territories for 10 woodland interior
specialists including Hylocichla mustelina (Wood Thrush), Seiurus aurocapilla (Ovenbird),
and Piranga olivacea (Scarlet Tanager). Two of these observed bird species—Wood Thrush
and Sitta pusilla (Brown-headed Nuthatch)—are designated as US birds of conservation
concern by Partners in Flight (PIF). Eight of the species we documented are considered by
PIF to be species of conservation concern in the Piedmont Region during the breeding season and and 3 of these are common species in steep decline: Chaetura pelagica (Chimney
Swift), Megaceryle alcyon
Colaptes auratus (Northern Flicker).
HBPC is historically and currently species-rich and has a community composition similar
to that seen in other NC Piedmont studies. We recommend periodic monitoring as the local
landscape and climate change. Further research is needed to determine to what degree the
park complex functions as an oasis or population sink for the bird community, especially for
forest-interior obligates, Neotropical migrants, and species of concern.
Introduction
Like much of the eastern US, North Carolina has experienced rapid increases in
population and urbanized land use (Brown et al. 2005, City–County Planning Board
2012). Urbanization causes disturbances to native biotic communities, including
changes in landscape connectivity, increases in invasive plant-cover density, invasive plant-species richness, and homogenization of the bird community (Blair and
Johnson 2008, Mason et al. 2007, McKinney 2006, Olden et al. 2006, Rudnick et
al. 2012). Habitat loss is one of the major causes of species decline, especially for
forest-interior birds and Neotropical migrants (Sauer and Link 2011). Bird-species
richness initially increases in response to a minimal level of human disturbance, then
1
Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, PO Box 7325, Winston-Salem, NC 27109.
Current address - Department of Biology, McDaniel College, 2 College Hill, Westminster,
MD 21157. 3Audubon Society of Forsyth County, 2170 Faculty Drive, Winston-Salem, NC
27106. Corresponding author - katherine.thorington@gmail.com.
2
Manuscript Editor: Frank Moore
770
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
decreases with denser urbanization (Beissinger and Osborne 1982, Donnelly and
Marzluff 2006, Minor and Urban 2010, Tratalos et al. 2007). Higher housing density
results in changes in the dominant foraging and habitat guilds, leading to an increase
in invasive and granivorous species richness (Mason et al. 2007, Minor and Urban
2010). Suburban woodlots, especially those with connectivity to other greenspace,
may become species rich and therefore be important for maintaining biodiversity
(Lumpkin et al. 2012, Rudnick et al. 2012, Tratalos et al. 2007). There is an ongoing
need for urban habitat-island baseline data (Donnelly and Marzluff 2006, Lumpkin
et al. 2012, Marzluff 2001, Minor and Urban 2010). As urban greenspace islands become the predominant available habitat, it is important to know how the composition
of the breeding bird community changes over time (Donnelly and Marzluff 2006).
Historic Bethabara Park (HBP) in Winston-Salem, NC, is a site on the North
Carolina Birding Trail (North Carolina Birding Trail 2008) and is used extensively
for hiking, running, seasonal festivals, and birding. The modern bird community is
well documented in a county checklist (ASFC 2007), a birding guide (Disher 2010),
and on eBird (eBird 2013, Sullivan et al. 2009). Using the Audubon watch list
(Butcher et al. 2007, National Audubon Society 2007), and Partners in Flight (PIF
2013a, Panjabi et al. 2012), we gathered information on the conservation status of
bird species detected.
Historical data and notes from naturalists are often used to inform research on
community composition and climate change (Bryce et al. 2002; Ellwood et al. 2010,
2013). The land around and within the park has been noted for its biological diversity
since Moravian settlement in the 1750s (Fries 1922, 1925), and modern studies have
focused on historical botanical data (Browne and LaVoie 2004, Bynum 1996). In
1762, the botanist J. Bartram described the richness of plant species on the hillside
below God’s Acre (the Moravian graveyard in Bethabara) as “a great treasure-house”
ha [98,985 ac] in present-day Forsyth County, including Bethabara and WinstonSalem) start with the surveyor C.G. Reuter’s notes and the Moravian diaries, which
document several bird species that are now very rare (Caprimulgus vociferous
[Whip-poor-will] and Colinus virginianus [Northern Bobwhite]), extirpated from
Forsyth County (Bonasa umbellus [Ruffed Grouse]), or extinct (Ectopistes migratorius [Passenger Pigeon]) (Davis 2000, Fries 1925). Although these records,
especially Reuter’s bird surveys, were not systematic because he focused on fauna
suggest a diverse and potentially rich avifauna (Fries 1925).
The detailed land-use knowledge and the availability of historical and countylevel records make the Historic Bethabara Park Complex an ideal location to
address the effects of anthropogenic change on the breeding bird community.
Territory-mapping methods are a good way to collect a detailed snapshot of the bird
community at a particular site (Bibby et al. 2000). Data generated from mapping
monitoring to elucidate patterns associated with habitat and climate change over
the coming decades (La Sorte and Boecklen 2005). To that end, our goals were
771
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
to 1) conduct a study to provide 21st-century baseline breeding-bird data from
HBPC that will facilitate documentation of future changes associated with local
human land-use, invasive species, climate change, and habitat-island source-sink
dynamics; and 2) present a replicable model for the use of territory mapping in
citizen-science monitoring by Audubon chapters or bird clubs. We expected the
bird community at the HBPC to be similar to those documented by other Piedmont
area studies (Mason et al. 2007, Minor and Urban 2010).
Field-site Description
The Historic Bethabara Park Complex (HBPC; 30°09'N, 80°18'W) is comprised
of Historic Bethabara Park, Bethabara City Park, and several privately owned
parcels where public access is allowed. HBPC’s 74 ha include a large wetland (5.3
ha), vernal pools (2.5 ha), 2 creeks (2.6 ha), woodlands (30 ha hardwood, 16.2
ha Pinus
We used ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, Redlands, CA) to measure habitat areas. Due to the
nature of park and property edges, our census covered 77 ha. The additional 3 ha
are suburban edges of the park complex. The 2 main creeks that run though the
riparian woodlands were straightened and deepened by dredging in the 1930s and
1940s, and are heavily eroded urban/suburban streams (Bridle 1996). Upland areas
are variably aged second-growth forest, resulting in patches of river bluff forest,
Quercus (oak)–Carya (hickory) forest, successional Pinus (pine) stands, and mixed
successional patches. Along the creeks, alluvial forest and basic mesic forest are the
primary plant communities (for detailed community descriptions see Spira 2011).
Figure 1. Habitat composition of the Historic Bethabara Park Complex in which the census
was conducted.
772
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
Ligustrum spp. (privet), but native shrubs—Corylus americana Walter (American
Hazelnut), Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume (Northern Spicebush), Asimina triloba (L.)
Dunal (Common Pawpaw), and Alnus serrulata (Aiton) Willd. (Tag Alder) —per(K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand, pers. observ.).
Since European settlement, the Bethabara wetland has consisted of wetlands,
bottomland wet forest, and farmland. The current pond and marsh area formed
in the early 1990s as a result of construction activities by humans and Castor
canadensis Kuhl (Beaver) (Bridle 1996). Today it consists of 2–3 ha of seasonally
Scirpus sp. (bulrush) and Typha
latifolia L. (Common Cattail) marsh with encroaching woody vegetation. A few
snags remain from the bottomland forest that grew after farm abandonment (due to
increased wetness) after 1941 (Tennant 2007). Much of the open water is covered
annually by exotic Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn. (Sacred Lotus). The landscape around
the Park is primarily suburban residential. Building density and usage measures
were generated in ArcGIS 10.1 using publicly available data from the City of
Winston-Salem (http://www.cityofws.org/Home/GIS/Articles/GIS). Using imagery
from Google Earth (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA), the 2005 structure data
layer from the City of Winston-Salem was updated to include new structures built
within 1 km of the park from 2005 to 2010. Building density (mean ± st dev) is 3 ±
0.05 structures per 1 ha within a 1-km radius of the park (total area = 8.4 km2; 65%
single-family homes [SFH], 16% apartment complexes [AC], and 12% business
and industry [BI]). Within a 5-km radius of the park, average structure-density is
2.6 ± 0.43 structure/ha (total area = 102.3 km2; SFH 69%, 6% AC, and 15% BI).
Methods
Field methods
Twelve birders from the Audubon Society of Forsyth County conducted territory
mapping following methods from Bibby et al. (2000). Each had a minimum of 10
years experience identifying birds (average for all 12 was 25 years, the most experienced had 45 years), and the two with the least experience have advanced biology
degrees and formal ornithological research training. In April 2009, these individuals spent an average of 15 days a month birding when not involved in this work.
into 5 census areas ranging from 12 to 21 ha each (Fig. 2). Observers canvassed
census areas on foot, passing within 50 m of every point inside the park complex
and as close as practical to the perimeter. Use of the 14.5-km trail system brought
observers within 25 m of 53 ha—69% of the total census area—and within 50 m of
71 ha—92% of the census area (Fig. 2). In the few spots of HBPC where trails did
not pass within at least 50 m of each other or the census-area boundary, observers
walked off-trail except in those parts of the wetland that would have required walking in water. Each census visit started at a different location to avoid time biases. A
773
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
pair of observers shared responsibility for visiting each area 10 times between 12
April and 4 July, with each observer visiting the area 4–6 times. Observers were the
same between years, except 3 in 2009 and 2 in 2010 who performed surveys in one
year only. Both K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand performed surveys for >1 census
area in both years.
Census-area visits occurred approximately 7 days apart. The visit week averaged 7.2 d (range = 3–17) in 2009 and 7 d (range = 3–11) in 2010. Observation
sessions lasted an average of 2 h and 35 min ± 44 min. Observers conducted sessions primarily between sunrise and 11:00 h, and each session began within 1.5 h
after sunrise. Three evening surveys, 1 in 2009 and 2 in 2010, occurred between
17:00 h and sunset. No census visits were performed during rain, heavy fog, or
wind greater than Beaufort scale 5 (small trees in motion). Observers recorded all
birds detected—using standard codes for species, sex, age, behavior, and movearchived species-count data on eBird (eBird 2013). The eBird observer is listed
as HBP/ASFC BBC20092010 for all lists. Project lists are personal locations.
or crepuscular species such as owls. We examined data from additional surveys
winter (25 January–15 March) evening surveys were conducted to detect Scolopax
Figure 2. Breeding bird census areas in HBPC showing the park trail system, roads, and
creeks. Census work was conducted primarily from the trails because 92% of habitat within
trail surveying was conducted as part of a census visit. Census areas were measured to the
nearest hectare.
774
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
minor (American Woodcock). In 2009, 6 observers used location data from census
observation-sessions to guide nest-searching activities for a pilot study of Wood
Thrush nesting success.
Territory analysis
We assessed observations of each species for the entire study season in each year
to determine the number of territories (Bibby et al. 2000). If a species was detected
requirement for a territory was at least 3 detections. A single observation of a nest
sulted the Birds of North America Online species accounts (Poole 2005) for known
cluster. For highly detectable common species such as Cardinalis cardinalis (Northern Cardinal), we looked for a continuous temporal spread of observations across the
season and viewed territories with only 3 detections skeptically. For colonial, semicolonial, and non-territorial species, we determined the number of breeding pairs/
groups via a group-cluster count analysis where the second highest count-number
of breeding males, in sexually dimorphic species, or the second highest number of
by et al. 2000). We required the presence of a potential suitable nesting site within a
reasonable distance of the observed cluster, i.e., chimneys for Chimney Swifts, in order to recognize a territory. We treated edge territories in the same manner as internal
territories (not as half, as in Bibby et al. 2000) because our goal was to determine spe-
Analyses and statistics
and habitat preference; Ehrlich et al. 1988, Mason et al. 2007, Minor and Urban
2010, Poole 2005). To test whether the number of species detected in each habitat
guild was similar to the availability of habitat we used a chi-squared statistic.
PIF continental combined scores (CCS) and regional concern scores-breeding
(RCS-b) were collected from the PIF online species-assessment database (PIF
2013a, Panjabi et al. 2012) for the observed bird community to quantify the number of concern and watch-list species (higher scores) and to provide comparisons
with other regional studies. Regional scores are for the Piedmont, bird conservation region 29 (BCR29; PIF 2013b). We calculated territory densities for species
considered of concern at either the regional or national level or both.
Interpretation of historical records
In addition to the published bird-population records from the 20th and 21st century
(ASFC 2007, Disher 2010), K.K. Thorington examined both the original documents
and English translations of 1764 Wachau or Dobbs Parish, attributed to Christian
Gottlieb Reuter (Fries 1925), and Reuter’s Booklet for the Land Register about
775
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
Wachovia, 1760 (Huber 1953); the Fries (1925, 1922) translations of the Moravian
diaries were also examined. The Wachovia Tract (Wachau or Dobbs Parish) was
40,058 ha (98,985 ac) that encompassed what is now the City of Winston-Salem,
including HBPC. To create a minimum estimate of 18th-century species richness,
we compared bird names and notes from these documents to modern bird descripNational Geographic 2002, Peterson 2002, Sibley 2000). This minimum estimate
is a count of distinct species with categories such as ducks counted as a single species, and thus undercounts the species richness observed during the 18th century.
We determined an expanded estimated range by counting present-day species in
those categories, using the bird assemblage now present in Forsyth County to provide a proxy for species richness (numbers, not identity) in the 18th century, with
the exclusion of known introductions (e.g., Sturnus vulgaris [European Starling];
Cabe 1993) or range expansions (e.g., Molothrush ater [Brown-headed Cowbird];
Lowther 1993). The low end of this expanded estimated range includes species in
Reuter’s categories that are now common. The high end of the range includes irruptive species and those seen routinely but not annually, such as Sitta canadensis
(Red-breasted Nuthatch).
Results
We detected 109 species of birds in the Historic Bethabara Park Complex: 101
in 2009 and 95 in 2010 (Appendix 1). In 2009, observers recorded 6464 bird observations resulting in an average 646 ± 94 detected birds per visit week, or 8 ± 1
birds per ha in HBPC. In 2010, observers recorded 6665 birds, average 667 ± 123
birds per visit week or 9 ± 2 birds per ha. Of the 109 species detected, 87 were
documented Forsyth County breeders and represent 81% of the 107 known and historical Forsyth County breeders (ASFC 2007, Disher 2010). The other 22 species
detected were a combination of winter residents and passing Neotropical migrants.
Fifty-nine of the known breeding species (ASFC 2007, Disher 2010) had at least 1
breeding territory in either year, with Archilochus colubris (Ruby-throated Hummingbird; 2010 only) and Icterus spurious (Orchard Oriole; 2009 only) the only
species not to have at least 1 territory documented in each year (Appendix 1).
Observations for Setophaga caerulescens (Black-throated Blue Warbler) met territory criteria for 2 territories in 2009; however, with no breeding records in the
county, and taking into account the proximity to known mountain breeding grounds
(Holmes et al. 2005) and the seasonal timing (birds were only present on area visits
26 April–21 May 2009), we do not consider it a breeder.
We found 544 territories of 58 species in 2009 and 618 territories of 58 species
in 2010. Eighteen species had fewer territories (total of 40 less) in 2010 than in
2009, 24 species had more territories (total of 114 more), and 18 species had the
same number of territories between years. Half of the additional territories came
from 4 highly detectable common species: Northern Cardinal (20 more territories),
Turdus migratorius (American Robin; 17); Poecile carolinensis (Carolina Chickadee; 11 more territories); and Thryothorus ludovicianus (Carolina Wren; 9 more
776
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
territories). Territory-number reductions were more evenly spread between the 18
species: 8 species had 1 less territory and 8 had 2–4 fewer territories. Geothlypis
trichas (Common Yellowthroat) had the largest reduction in territory numbers (8
less) between years.
The nesting-guilds of HBPC breeders were cavity (33% of species), canopy
(28%), shrub (30%), ground (12%), and other (0.1%); species nesting in multiple
types were counted at each location. During our census, we found a total of 62 nests
of 23 species—2009: 34 nests, 16 species; 2010: 28 nests, 16 species. We observed
. Foraging strategies
were dominated by breeding season insectivores (67%; Appendix 1). Breeding
birds were roughly split between Neotropical migrants (37%) and resident species
(56%) with a few short-distance migrants (17%) and 3 exotic species (Appendix
2
= 7.1, P
df = 5; Table 1).
Of the 87 Forsyth County breeders observed, the 78 land birds had an average
PIF CCS of 8 (range = 5–14; Appendix 1; for details of scoring criteria see Carter
et al. 2000, Nuttle et al. 2003, Panjabi et al. 2012). The average CCS for the 51
HBPC breeding land birds was 8.9 (range = 5–14). PIF scores are not available
for the 9 non-land birds observed breeding in HBPC. Of the species we observed,
Brown-Headed Nuthatch (CCS 13) and Wood Thrush (CCS 14) had the highest PIF
CCS and were the only species listed on the continental PIF watch lists (PIF 2013a).
The lists were revised in 2012, and Brown-headed Nuthatch is listed multiple ways
(PIF2013a, b).
At the regional level, the mean PIF RCS-b was 12.8 (range = 8–17). For the 51
breeding land-bird species that had territories in HBPC, the mean RCS-b was 10.9
(range = 8–17). Ten of these species were of regional concern—Chimney Swift,
Belted Kingfisher, Northern Flicker, Dryocopus pileatus (Pileated Woodpecker),
Contopus virens (Eastern Wood Pewee), Tyrannus tyrannus (Eastern Kingbird),
Hirundo rustica (Barn Swallow), Brown-Headed Nuthatch, Wood Thrush, and
Pipilo erythrophthalmus (Eastern Towhee)—and 2 species—Chimney Swift,
Table 1. Habitat guilds of known Forsyth County breeding birds recorded in Historic Bethabara Park
scape proportions. % of species does not include Black-throated Blue Warbler; Urban guild habitat
represents paved and building area within HBPC.
Guild
Edge
Interior
Open
Water
Urban
Generalist
% of species with
documented territories
in park (n)
Habitat type %
of park landscape (ha)
# species detected
in park
55% (40.9)
17% (12.3)
14% (10.2)
11% (7.8)
4% (2.8)
N/A
32
18
6
9
3
19
40% (24)
17% (10)
5% (3)
10% (6)
3% (2)
25% (15)
97
100% (60)
Total
777
2014
Vol. 13, No. 4
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Northern Flicker—are common birds in steep decline (Table 2; PIF 2013b) An
additional 5 species—Aix sponsa (Wood Duck), American Woodcock, Carolina
Wren, Dendroica pinus (Pine Warbler), and Passerina cyanea (Indigo Bunting)—
are considered high priority in the BCR29 region (Table 2; ACJV 2013).
We documented breeding territories of 10 woodland interior-specialist species
in HBPC (Appendix 1). Of these species, we found nests for Accipiter cooperii
(Cooper’s Hawk), Buteo lineatus (Red-shouldered Hawk), Strix varia (Barred
Owl), Pileated Woodpecker, and Wood Thrush. Observers detected at least one
in 2009, but no Red-shouldered Hawk chicks were observed in 2010. Because overIn the 2009 Wood Thrush pilot study, we found 9 nests and 21 territories; 2.8
territories per 10 ha. Nests were located in a variety of plant species: 1 in privet, 3
in Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (American Beech), 1 in Ulmus americana L. (American Elm), 2 in Acer sp. (maple), 1 in Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Russian Olive),
Table 2. Density (territories/10 ha) of Partners in Flight (PIF) national and regional concern species and US–Canada stewardship (USC) species maintaining breeding season territories in HBPC
(ACJV 2013; PIF 2013a, b); *indicates watch list species. MTD = mean territory density for
HBPC 2009–2010 (# territorries/10 ha).
Species
MTD
Type (ha available)
Wood Duck
American Woodcock
0.14
0.27
Chimney Swift
1.10
Wetland/riparian woods
Damp woods/open/early
successional
Open near humans
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
0.34
0.14
Eastern Wood Pewee
Eastern Kingbird
Barn Swallow
Brown-headed Nuthatch*
Territories/
10 ha
PIF
status
BCR29 status
2.7
1.1
N/A
N/A
High priority
High priority
1.0
Regional
High priority
1.5
1.7
Regional
Regional
Moderate
Not listed
0.14
0.14
0.54
0.68
Forest edge open woods
Late-successional forest;
needs snags
Wooded edges/generalist
Open with scattered trees
Open generalist
Pine stands (16.2 ha)
0.1
2.7
2.9
3.1
High
Moderate
Not listed
Highest
Carolina Wren
Wood Thrush*
6.15
2.60
Shrub generalist
Damp woods (29 ha)
7.6
6.7 A
Pine Warbler
Eastern Towhee
Indigo Bunting
0.74
5.47
0.61
Pine stands (16.2 ha)
Edge generalist
Shrubby successional
3.4
6.3
4.4
Regional
Regional
Regional
National
Regional
UCS
National
Regional
UCS
Regional
UCS
A
778
High
High
High
High
High
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
and 1 in Fraxinus sp. (ash), at heights ranging from 1.5 m to 10 m. In 2010 when
territories/10 ha. These territories were concentrated in low-lying riparian areas
(HBPC east side sites: territory densities were 2.4 territories/10 ha in upland
areas and 10 territories/10 ha in riparian areas in 2009, and 1.4 territories/10 ha upland and 7.7 territories/10 ha riparian in 2010; HBPC west-side sites: territory
densities were1.5 territories/10 ha upland and 1.3 territories/10 ha riparian in 2009,
and 0 territories/10 ha upland and 3.1 territories/10 ha riparian in 2010; Fig. 3).
The Brown-headed Nuthatch is a regional species of highest concern for the
Piedmont BCR29 (ACJV 2013). Territories were concentrated in habitats with access to pine stands with a territory density for the whole park of 0.5 per 10 ha in
2009 and 0.8 per 10 ha in 2010 (Fig. 4). In pine habitat only, the density was 2.4
per 10 ha in 2009 and 3 per 10 ha in 2010.
The lead author’s examination of the historical records shows that Reuter recorded 36 bird categories in his 1764 Wachau or Dobbs Parish list (Fries 1925). A
close reading of the translated records produced a conservative minimum recordedspecies richness in 1760 and 1764 of 38 (Appendix 2; counting the heron and owl
Figure 3. Approximate locations for the activity center of Wood Thrush territories observed
in 2009 (Squares) and 2010 (Circles). Territory locations show similar habitat-usage patterns in both years. Nest = yes indicates a nest was found. Nest = no indicates that we did
associated with a detected territory. Note that within the higher density of territories on the
east side of HBPC, the wooded, wet lowland areas are more densely used than upland areas.
In 2009, we found 5 territories with nests (out of the 8 found) located in the vernal pool
behind the historic village (arrow); of these, 2 nests were active simultaneously during visit
week 5, and 3 other nests were active visit week 8.
779
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
categories as 2 species), of which 24 are individual species and 14 are species
Passenger Pigeon has gone extinct, Ruffed Grouse has been extirpated from the
county (ASFC 2007) and North Carolina, and Meleagris gallopavo (Wild Turkey)
populations were drastically reduced—possibly extirpated from Forsyth County—
and successfully reintroduced (Disher 2010, Eaton 1992). The count of present-day
species in Reuter’s categories produced an extrapolated estimate of 63–114 species,
including 26–52 breeders (Appendix 2).
Discussion
The diversity of the bird community within Historic Bethabara Park and the
surrounding landscape makes it a particularly rich place. Of the 109 species detected in the park, 87 were known Forsyth County breeders and 60 had breeding
territories. Of the 39 Neotropical migrants observed, 22 established breeding territories. Other studies of North Carolina Piedmont habitat islands and greenways
generally observed similar breeding bird-community composition, but fewer bird
species overall than our study, despite their larger study sampling areas and greater
number of study sites. In part, this is likely due to study design and focus; using
point counts, Mason et al. (2007) reported 53 breeding species of which 16 were
Neotropical migrants. Similarly, Minor and Urban (2010) recorded 19 Neotropical
Figure 4. Approximate locations for the activity center of Brown-headed Nuthatch territories. In 2009, 50% of territories were in pine stands; in 2010, 83% were in pine stands. Nest
780
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
migrants out of 54 breeding species. They observed a total of 69 species compared
to our total of 109. In 272 point-count locations, they observed 4 PIF watch list
species: Brown-Headed Nuthatch, Wood Thrush, Mniotilta varia (Prothonotary
Warbler), and Geothlypis formosa (Kentucky Warbler). PIF CCS scores ranged
from 5 to 15 in the triangle region of NC (Minor and Urban 2010), compared to
our 5–14 range. Mason et al. (2007) did not use PIF scores to categorize their bird
assemblage; however, they observed 3 watch list species: Brown-Headed Nuthatch,
Wood Thrush, and Prothonotary Warbler. Both Prothonotary and Kentucky Warblers have been seen in HBPC during migration (eBird 2013), but were not detected
during our census. Both Triangle area studies began a month later than our study, in
mid-May, so smaller numbers of Neotropical migrants are not surprising. Insectivorous species dominated the counts recorded in all 3 studies. Our study detected the
largest number of carnivores because we found hawk and owl nests, which are more
likely to be found during multiple-hour census visits than during 8- or 10-minute
point-count surveys.
Territory mapping differs from point counts, distance sampling, and breeding
bird survey methods in that it requires the observer to travel throughout the census
and unfamiliar songs and calls is encouraged; these methods allow more time for
detailed observations of courtship, breeding, and other behaviors. Territory-mapping methods, as used in our study, are less sensitive to space-related variability
issues (MacKenzie et al. 2002) than point counts and line transects because the
entire area of interest was covered by the census. Gottschalk and Huettmann (2011)
suggested that the 50-m distance recommended by Bibby et al. (2000) is too wide a
Windy conditions and anthropogenic background noise reduce song and calldetection probabilities and observer accuracy at distances beyond 40 m (Simons et
al. 2007). In our study, although we followed Bibby’s (2000) 50-m rule, in practice
we passed within 25 m of 69% and 30 m of 82% (63 ha) of the census area because
of the extensive trail network and open space. Working within 25–30 m allowed
for increased detection of elusive species. For most species, our territory-mapping
methods were also less sensitive to non-detection and over-detection errors than
other methods because the measure of abundance is the seasonal territory rather
than the count statistics (birds detected on one visit; MacKenzie et al. 2003). This
difference is likely to be especially important in urban and suburban habitat islands
because the duration and repetition of census visits increases detection for all species despite anthropogenic noise (Gottschalk and Huettmann 2011, Simons et al.
2007). In any study, there will be some gap between birds present (availability) and
birds actually detected (detectability; Simons et al. 2007).
territory not found on our census visits. American Woodcock also may breed in the
park; however, their territorial displays occur between late January and mid-March
in this part of NC (Keppie and Whiting 1994), a period outside of our sampling
781
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
ritories in 2010 and 1 territory in 2011, which increases the total number of known
park breeders to 60 (Appendix 1). Additional surveys conducted for Ovenbirds, another low-detectability/low-density species, resulted in the same territory number
(1) as the 2009 census data, so these additional surveys for that species were not
continued in 2010 and were excluded from the territory analyses. Because Forsyth
County breeding records exist for Ovenbirds, we counted them as breeders. Coccyzus americanus (Yellow-billed Cuckoo) may also be an off-season breeder for
which additional surveys in July would be helpful; however the oddities of their
breeding system (Hughes 1999) may make territory mapping a poor choice for this
species. Wild Turkey populations are on the rise (Butcher and Niven 2007, Disher
2010), and regular reports on the Forsythbirds listserve and eBird of Wild Turkeys
with young suggest that they nest near or in the park. Because home-range size is
highly variable (300–24,590 ha), territory mapping within a 77-ha area is unlikely
to adequately capture the status of the Wild Turkey (Eaton 1992).
The four species that gained large numbers of territories between years are common and highly detectable; thus, over-detection may have occurred. For example,
the apparent Northern Cardinal territory increase may have been caused when
Northern Cardinal breeding-territory density is close to 1.1 territories/ha compared
to the range in the literature of 0.21–2.6 territories/ha (Halkin and Linville 1999).
Increases in observer quality have been documented in the North American Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 1994), but because our total bird observation numbers
are similar between years and our observers were experienced before the study,
observer experience was likely a minor issue.
Housing density has been shown to affect breeding bird densities positively
and negatively and to increase predation pressure on birds (Lumpkin et al. 2012,
Thorington and Bowman 2003, Tratalos et al. 2007). Bird communities show
discontinuity of vegetation, as they do to housing density, with changes in species composition, distribution, and behavior (Barber et al. 2010, Minor and Urban
2010). Landscape structure, in terms of road density and proportion of edge habitat
of the entire landscape, may be more important than proximity to an edge for a particular edge-species territory (Minor and Urban 2010), but bird responses to habitat
features are scale-dependent (Donnelly and Marzluff 2006, McCaffrey and Mannan
2012, Thorington and Bowman 2003). Responses to disturbance are different in
suburban and urban habitat islands than at the county or state scale. The WinstonSalem/Forsyth County area is growing and becoming more urbanized; between
1980 and 2010, the Winston-Salem population increased 75 percent, and population
density there dropped from 3.3 to 2.7 people per acre. Low-density residential development continues, and the population is expected to grow by 34 percent between
2010 and 2030 (City-County Planning Board 2012). As this occurs, changes in birdcommunity composition may be an indicator of the health of the remaining habitat.
782
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
However, these changes will not provide a measure of habitat quality for any one
species (Matthew 2007). HBPC is located within a suburban (3 houses/ha) residential area of Winston-Salem. The relatively small area of non-edge habitat in HBPC
obligate species. Forest-corridor width and patch size are strongly correlated with
the species richness of forest-interior birds; a crucial minimum forest width of
300 m has been demonstrated in the Triangle area of NC (Mason et al. 2007). Additionally, species such as Empidonax virescens (Acadian Flycatcher), Ovenbird,
and Wood Thrush are generally missing from riparian habitats that are <95 m wide
(Peak and Thompson 2006). The largest contiguous forest patch in HBPC is 27 ha
and contains 6 km of trails (Fig. 2), and the width of undisrupted forested habitat
averages considerably less than 300 m; nonetheless, we documented territories for
4 interior-forest breeding species. Future monitoring should assess whether these
are successful breeding populations producing offspring or whether they represent
population sinks with low or nonexistent reproductive success.
Wood Thrushes are Neotropical migrants of both continental and regional
conservation concern. Territory density was similar between the two study years,
but the population will likely face increasing pressure as building density and
hard-surface area around the park increase. The Wood Thrush may be responding
to habitat patch-size shape and adjacent patch type within the park. During this
study, observed densities were much higher on the east side of the park than on
the west side (Fig. 3). In the east side of the park, Wood Thrush territory density
in riparian woods (10 territories/10 ha) was similar to the higher extreme of densities previously reported (Evans et al. 2011); however in one 2.8-ha patch, territory
density was much higher in both years (9 territories in 2009, equivalent of 32.7
territories/10 ha; 4 territories in 2010, 14.5/10 ha). Five of the 9 nests found in the
2009 pilot study were situated within this patch. Each nest appeared to belong to an
individual territory. Two nests were active simultaneously during visit weeks 4–5,
and 3 others were active simultaneously during visit-week 8. Stem tallies in 0.2-ha
(½-ac) sample plots showed that the overstory is mostly Platanus occidentalis L.
(American Sycamore; 51%), Liriodendron tulipifera L. (Tulip Poplar; 36%), and
Acer rubrum L. (Red Maple; 13%). The shrub understory here was predominantly
exotic invasive plants (privet, 85%;
Thunb.
13%]). The sandy substrate is regularly inundated with storm water that causes sigbeech/maple/oak/ hickory forest is uphill to the west. On the west side of the park,
there is a similar riparian privet patch (3 ha; overstory consisting of 40% American
Sycamore, 29% Tulip Poplar, 26% Red Maple; 49% understory privet, and 46%
only 1 in 2010. This western patch is adjacent to suburban housing rather than
hardwood forest, suggesting that patch context may be important in understanding
Wood Thrush use of invasive-dominated understory habitat. The concentration of
the Wood Thrush population in the eastern low-lying riparian edge-interior woods
is of concern because the area is vulnerable to disturbance from activities on the
783
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
greenway, and erosion from storm-water runoff. We recommend continued assessment of this high-concern species within HBPC and Forsyth County. Monitoring of
Wood Thrush breeding demography is labor intensive and proved overly ambitious
in conjunction with territory mapping.
Brown-headed Nuthatch is an open pine-woods specialist (Cox et al. 2012,
Withgott and Smith 1998) and Piedmont BCR29 PIF highest priority species
(ACJV 2013, PIF 2013a) With 4 territories in 2009 and 6 in 2010, this small population should be monitored to determine if it is stable. All observed territories were
within 125 m of a pine (Pinus sp.) stand and included one or more pines. However,
3 of the 4 known nest locations—those on the wetlands—were in snags standing
in permanent water. With common dispersal distances ranging 150–300 m (Cox
and Slater 2007), movements of the species to other parks and habitat patches in
Winston-Salem may be limited.
In addition to the Wood Thrush and Brown-headed Nuthatch, we observed 13
PIF/BCR29 concern species with breeding territories in HBPC. Of those, 8 speBarn Swallow, Carolina Wren, Eastern Towhee, and Indigo Bunting—had territory
densities within published ranges in preferred habitat (Brown and Brown 1999,
Bull and Jackson 2011, Greenlaw 1996, Haggerty and Morton 1995, Hepp and
Bellrose 1995, Kelly et al. 2009, Murphy 1996, Payne 2006). The Chimney Swift
and Northern Flicker are common birds in steep decline, and the Northern Flicker
had a territory density in HBPC on the low end of the species average (Cink and
Collins 2002, PIF 2013b, Wiebe and Moore 2008). Three species—American
Woodcock, Eastern Wood Pewee, and Pine Warbler—have lower than expected
territory density in HBPC (Keppie and Whiting 1994, McCarty 1996, Rodewald
et al. 1999). Wood Duck and American Woodcock are not scored by PIF because
they are not land birds, however, the BCR29 local committee considers them high
priority (ACJV 2013). Carolina Wren, Pine Warbler, and Indigo Bunting are US/
Canada stewardship species, listed as concern species because they are important
indicators of community health (Panjabi et al. 2012, PIF 2013b).
Like the present, the second half of the 18th century when the Moravians settled
in North Carolina, was a time of landscape change and loss of biodiversity (Davis
2000). Reuter’s documented 36 categories of birds (Fries 1925, 1922) suggest that
a diverse bird community was present and provides a context in which to interpret
the contemporary bird assemblage. Our expanded species-richness range has limitations in that it is based on non-systematic surveys and uses the present-day bird
assemblage as a proxy to extrapolate species richness in the 18th century. That
said, it is interesting to note that our extrapolation (63 to 114 species) is similar
to our present-day breeding season total (109 species). Both counts represent approximately ½ of current Forsyth County species richness (257; Disher 2010). The
similarity between postulated historical and current systematically measured spelocal species richness. Alternatively, contemporary Forsyth County and HBPC
species richness may be momentarily greater due to the initial increases of species
784
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
numbers commonly seen with exurban and suburban development (Lumpkin et al.
2012, Mason et al. 2007, Minor and Urban 2010, Rudnick et al. 2012, Tratalos et
al. 2007). Continued work on the Moravian documents with translations focused
on biological questions could further inform contemporary studies. It is likely that
un-translated descriptions of birds, especially game species such as ducks, exist in
the early diaries. Any notations of Wood Thrushes would be particularly interesting; based on historical data from Cambridge, MA, Ellwood et al. (2010) noted that
Wood Thrush was the only species to arrive later in warmer years. The temperature
dependency of Wood Thrush arrival dates is a pattern to follow in future monitoring
of Wood Thrush populations.
Our goal of creating a replicable citizen-science model for periodic locationspecific monitoring was successful. Our results provide a robust comparison for
future repetitions of the census. Audubon Christmas (http://birds.audubon.org/
christmas-bird-count) and spring bird-counts published in The Chat (http://www.
carolinabirdclub.org/chat/) have traced the species assemblage though the 20th
century. These modern citizen-science efforts provide a coarse-resolution measure of bird occurrence and abundance useful for analysis at the county, state,
and continent level (Bibby 2000, Dickinson et al. 2012). Territory mapping, as
used in this study, provides a detailed snapshot with fine spatial resolution. For
example, we found an average of 19.5 Wood Thrush territories per season, suggesting 36–42 Wood Thrushes in HBPC each spring, whereas eBird high-count
data for 2009 and 2010 suggest a maximum of 11 birds. With ongoing rapid
urbanization and climate change, more comprehensive systematic surveys and
location-specific monitoring are needed.
As a direct result of this study, Forsyth Audubon members have powerful information for future conservation efforts at Historic Bethabara Park. In particular, the
territory maps for concern species will provide a valuable tool as Forsyth Audubon
members advocate for bird-friendly management practices throughout the county.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Audubon Society of Forsyth County for funding and to its members who ably performed the surveys: C. Cunningham, P. Dickinson, D. Disher, S. Disher, J.
Haire, M. Hopkins, T. Maness, C. McCleary, R. Morris, and J. Reiskind. We thank the Wood
Thrush team: N. Colvin, D. Demarest, C. Gearhart, and B. Gearhart. Additional thanks go
to B. Gearhart for help with vegetation surveys. We thank R. Arend and S. Setaro for help
with the German language, especially in identifying modern spellings and bird species
names from 18th-century High German. Thanks to C. Weevil and staff at Tanglewood Park
for access to ArcGIS 9.3 and associated technology. Thanks to R. Bowman, P. Dickinson, L.
Gould, R. Morris, C. Thorington, P. Weigl, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on previous versions of this manuscript.
Literature Cited
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV). 2013. Bird conservation regions. Available online at
www.acjv.org/bird_conservation_regions.htm. Accessed 31 October 2013.
785
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
Audubon Society of Forsyth County (ASFC). 2007. Field Checklist of avian species. Audubon Society of Forsyth County, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC.
Badyaev, A.V., V. Belloni, and G.E. Hill. 2012. House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus).
Number 46, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu. proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu /bna/species/046 doi:10.2173/bna.46. Accessed 15 June 2013.
Barber, J.R., K.R. Crooks, and K.M Fristrup. 2010. The costs of chronic noise exposure for
terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:180–189.
Beissinger, S.R., and D.R. Osborne. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community
organization. Condor 84:75–83.
Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess, D.A. Hill, and S.H. Mustoe (Eds.). 2000. Territory mapping
methods. Pp. 42–64, In Bird Census Techniques (2nd Edition). Academic Press, New
York, NY. 302 pp.
Blair, R.B., and E.M. Johnson. 2008. Suburban habitats and their role for birds in the
urban-rural habitat network: Points of local invasion and extinction? Landscape Ecology
23:1157–1169.
Bridle, K. 1996. Draft site survey of the Bethabara Wetland. Letter from Piedmont Land
Conservancy. Historic Bethabara Park Archives, Winston-Salem, NC.
Brown, C.R., and M.B. Brown. 1999. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). Number 452, In
A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu. proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu /bna/
species/452 doi:10.2173/bna.452. Accessed 3 May 2013.
Brown, D.G., K.M. Johnson, T.R. Loveland, and D.M. Theobald. 2005. Rural land-use trends
in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological Applications 15:1851–1863.
Browne, R.A., and J. LaVoie. 2004. Arboreal species richness in piedmont North Carolina
1764–1996. Castanea 69(sp2):206–210.
Bryce, S.A., R.M. Hughes, and P.R. Kaufmann. 2002. Development of a bird integrity
index: Using bird assemblages as indicators of riparian condition. Environmental Management 30:294–310.
Bull, E.L., and J.A. Jackson. 2011. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Number
148, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.
edu/bna/species/148 doi:10.2173/bna.148. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Butcher, G.S., and D.K. Niven. 2007. Combining data from the Christmas bird count and
the breeding bird survey to determine the continental status and trends of North America
Birds. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. Available online at http://web4.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/cbid/content/Report.pdf. Accessed 26 December 2012.
Butcher, G.S., D.K. Niven, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, and K.V. Rosenberg. 2007. The
2007 watch list for United States Birds. National Audubon Society, New York, NY.
Available online at http://birds.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/watchlist2007-technicalreport.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Bynum, F.A.L. 1996. Old World gardens in the New World: The gardens of the Moravian Settlement of Bethabara in North Carolina. 1753–72. Journal of Garden History
16(2):70–86.
Cabe, P.R. 1993. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Number 48, In A. Poole (Ed.). The
Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/
species/048 doi:10.2173/bna.48. Accessed 23 March 2013.
786
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
Carter, M.F., W.C. Hunter, D.N. Pashley, and K.V. Rosenberg. 2000. Conservation report:
Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight
Approach. The Auk 117:541–548.
Chester, R.T., R.C. Banks, F.K. Barker, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette,
P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, J.D. Rising, D.F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2012. Fifty-third
supplement to the American Ornithologists Union check-list of North American Birds.
The Auk 292(3):573–588.
Cink, C.L., and C.T. Collins. 2002. Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica). Number 646, In
A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/
species/646 doi:10.2173/bna.646. Accessed 22 March 2013.
City-County Planning Board. 2012. Chapter 2, Updated Trends. Pp. 12–21, In The Legacy
2030 Update, Forsyth County and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, adopted August
2012. http://www.cityofws.org/Assets/CityOfWS//Documents/Planning/Legacy_Update/Chapter%202%20Draft%2010.01.12.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2013.
Cox, J.A., and G.L. Slater. 2007. Cooperative breeding in the Brown-headed Nuthatch.
Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:1–8.
Cox, J.A., L.C. Scopel, and M.R. Klostermann. 2012. Brown-headed Nuthatch occupancy
in central Florida and its relationship to forest type, forest structure, and the presence of
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. Condor 114:622–628.
Davis, C.S. 2000. Moravians in Europe and America 1415–1865: Hidden Seed and Harvest.
Wachovia Historical Society, Winston-Salem, NC. 74 pp.
Dickinson, J.L., J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R.L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips, and K.
Purcell. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and
public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:291–297.
Disher, D.K. 2010. Birding Guide to Forsyth County, North Carolina. Annotated Checklist
with Historic Sightings, Birding Basics, and Birding Locations. 1st Edition. Audubon
Society of Forsyth County, Winston-Salem, NC. 100 pp.
Donnelly, R., and J. Marzluff. 2006. Relative importance of habitat quantity, structure, and
spatial pattern to birds in urbanizing environments. Urban Ecosystems 9:99–117.
Eaton, S.W. 1992. Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Number 22, In A. Poole (Ed.).
The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available
online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/species/022
doi:10.2173/bna.22. Accessed 23 May 2013.
eBird. 2013. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. eBird, Ithaca,
NY. Available online at http://www.ebird.org. Accessed 3 March 2013.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide
to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York,
NY. 785 pp.
Ellwood, E.R., R.B. Primack, and M.L. Talmadge. 2010. Effects of climate change on spring
arrival times of birds in Thoreau’s Concord from 1851 to 2007. Condor 112:754–762.
Ellwood, E.R., S.A. Temple, R.B. Primack, N.L. Bradley, and C.C. Davis. 2013. RecordEvans, M., E. Gow, R.R. Roth, M.S. Johnson, and T.J. Underwood. 2011. Wood Thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina). Number 236, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America
Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.
cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/species/246 doi:10.2173/bna.246. Accessed 2 May 2013.
787
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
Fries, A.L. (Ed.). 1922. Records of the Moravians in North Carolina, Volume 1. NC Historical Commission, Edwards and Broughton Printing Company State Printers, Raleigh,
NC. P. 43.
Fries, A.L. (Ed.). 1925. 1764 Wachau or Dobbs Parish. Records of the Moravians in North
Carolina, Volume 2. NC Historical Commission, Edwards and Broughton Printing Company State Printers, Raleigh, NC. Pp. 557–578.
Gottschalk, T.K., and F. Huettmann. 2011. Comparison of distance-sampling and territory-mapping methods for birds in four different habitats. Journal of Ornithology
152:421–429.
Greenlaw, J.S. 1996. Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). Number 262, In A. Poole
(Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/
species/262 doi:10.2173/bna.262. Accessed 3 March 2013.
Haggerty, T.M., and E.S. Morton. 1995. Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Number 188, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.
umd.edu/bna/species/188 doi:10.2173/bna.188. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Halkin, S.L., and S.U. Linville. 1999. Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Number
440, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.
edu/bna/species/440 doi:10.2173/bna.440. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Hepp, G.R., and F.C. Bellrose. 1995. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa). Number 169, In A. Poole
(Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/
species/169 doi:10.2173/bna.169. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Holmes, R.T., N.L. Rodenhouse, and T.S. Sillett. 2005. Black-throated Blue Warbler
(Setophaga caerulescens). Number 87, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America
Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.
cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/species/087 doi:10.2173/bna.87. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Huber, E. 1953. Reuter’s booklet for the land register about Wachovia 1760. Unpublished
translation for Old Salem, Inc. 1952–53. Historic Bethabara Park Archives. Historic
Bethabara Park Winston-Salem, NC.
Hughes, J.M. 1999. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Number 418, In A.
Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca,
NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/418/articles/introduction. Accessed 22 May 2013.
Jonsson, L. 1992. Birds of Europe: With North Africa and the Middle East. D. Christie
(Translator). Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 559 pp.
Megaceryle alcyon).
Number 84, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/species/084 doi:10.2173/bna.84. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Keppie, D.M., and R.M. Whiting, Jr. 1994. American Woodcock (Scolopax minor). Number
100, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.
edu/bna/species/100 doi:10.2173/bna.100. Accessed 22 May 2013.
788
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
Kleewein, A. 2011. Herkunft und Bedeutung des Wortes Kiebitz –Lautmalerische avifaunistische Bezeichnung oder gaunersprachliches Jargon? Kultur Land Menschen
1–2:22–23.
La Sorte, F.A., and W.J. Boecklen. 2005. Temporal turnover of common species in avian
assemblages in North America. Journal of Biogeography 32:1151–1160.
Lowther, P.E. 1993. Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). Number 47, In A. Poole
(Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/
species/047 doi:10.2173/bna.47. Accessed 23 May 2013.
Lumpkin, H.A., S.M. Pearson, and M.G. Turner. 2012. Effects of climate and exurban development on nest predation and predator presence in the southern Appalachian Mountains (USA). Conservation Biology 26:679–688.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S. Droege, J.A. Royle, and C.A. Langtimm.
2003. Estimating site-occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.
Ecology 83:2248–2255.
Marzluff, J.M. 2001. Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. Pp. 19–48, In J.M.
Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R.E. Donnelly (Eds.). Avian Conservation and Ecology in an
Urbanizing World. Kluwer Academic, New York, NY. 331 pp.
Mason, J., C. Moorman, G. Hess, and K. Sinclair. 2007. Designing suburban greenways to
provide habitat for forest-breeding birds. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:153–164.
Matthew, J.D. 2007. Measuring habitat quality: A review. The Condor 109(3):489–504.
features in urban residential areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 105:274–280.
McCarty, J.P. 1996. Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens). Number 245, In A. Poole
(Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/
species/245 doi:10.2173/bna.245. Accessed 23 May 2013.
McKinney, M.L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation 127:247–260.
Minor, E.S., and D.L. Urban. 2010. Forest-bird communities across a gradient of human
development. Urban Ecosystems 13:51–71.
Mountfort, G.P., A.D. Hollum, and R.T. Peterson. 1993. A Field Guide to the Birds of BritMurphy, M.T. 1996. Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus). Number 253, In A. Poole (Ed.).
The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available
online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/species/253
doi:10.2173/bna.253. Accessed 22 March 2013.
National Audubon Society. 2007. Audubon’s Watch List 2007 in taxonomic order by geographic region. Available online at http://birds.audubon.org/2007-audubon-watchlist.
Accessed 3 March 2013.
National Geographic. 2002. National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds Of North America, 4th Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 480 pages.
North Carolina Birding Trail. 2008. The North Carolina Birding Trail: Piedmont Trail
Guide. UNC Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 172 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2008a. State and federally listed endangered and threatened wildlife species of North Carolina. Available online at www.ncwildlife.org. Accessed July 2008.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2008b. Protected wildlife species of North
Carolina. Available online at www.ncwildlife.org. Last Accessed 20 July 2013.
789
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
Nuttle, T., A. Leidolf, and L.W. Burger, Jr. 2003. Assessing conservation value of bird communities with Partners in Flight-based ranks. The Auk 120:541–549.
enization associated with human population geography in North America. Biological
Conservation 127:261–271.
Panjabi, A.O., P.J. Blancher, R. Dettmers, and K.V. Rosenberg. Version 2012. Partners in
Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Available online at
http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2012.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2013.
Partners in Flight (PIF). 2013a. Partners in Flight: US PIF Continental (US and Canada)
watch list species research and monitoring needs. Available online at www.partnersinPartners in Flight (PIF). 2013b. Partners in Flight Databases. Available online at http://
rmbo.org/pifdb/ Accessed 23 July 2013.
Payne, R.B. 2006. Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea). Number 4, In A. Poole (Ed.). The
Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available
online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/bna/species/004
doi:10.2173/bna.4. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Peak, R.G., and F.R. Thompson. 2006. Factors affecting avian-species richness and density
in riparian areas. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:173–179.
Peterson, R.T. 2002. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America, Fifth
Poole, A. (Ed.). 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.
umd.edu/BNA/. Accessed 23 July 2013.
Rodewald, P.G., J.H. Withgott, and K.G. Smith. 1999. Pine Warbler (Setophaga pinus).
Number 438, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.
researchport.umd.edu/bna/species/438 doi:10.2173/bna.438. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Rudnick, D.A., S.J. Ryan, P. Beier, S.A. Cushman, F. Dieffenbach, C.W. Epps, L.R. Gerber,
J. Hartter, J.S. Jenness, J. Kintsch, A.M. Merenlender , R.M. Perkl, D.V. Preziosi, and
S.C. Trombulak. 2012. The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing
conservation and restoration priorities. Issues in Ecology 16:1–20.
Sauer, J.R., and W.A. Link. 2011. Analysis of the North American breeding bird survey using hierarchical models. The Auk 128:87–98.
Sauer, J.R., B.G. Peterjohn, and W.A. Link. 1994. Observer differences in the North American breeding bird survey. The Auk 111:50–62.
Sibley D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society. Chanticleer Press,
Inc., New York, NY. 543 pp.
Simons, T.R., M.W. Alldredge, K.H. Pollock, and J.M. Wettroth. 2007. Experimental analysis of the auditory-detection process on avian point counts. The Auk 124:986–999.
and Piedmont. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 523 pp.
Sullivan, B.L., C.L. Wood, M.J. Iliff, R.E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling. 2009. eBird: A
citizen-based bird-observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation 142:2282–2292.
Tennant, B. 2007. Wetlands history interview with E. Kutcher. April 30. Historic
Bethabara Park archives. Historic Bethabara Park, Winston-Salem, NC.
790
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
human-housing density in suburban habitats. Ecography 26:188–196.
Tratalos, J., R.A. Fuller, K.L. Evans, R.G. Davies, S.E. Newson, J.J.D. Greenwood, and
K.J. Gaston. 2007. Bird densities are associated with household densities. Global
Change Biology 13:1685–1695.
Wiebe, K.L., and W.S. Moore. 2008. Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus). Number 166, In
A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca,
NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/
bna/species/166a doi:10.2173/bna.166. Accessed 22 March 2013.
Withgott, J.H., and K.G. Smith. 1998. Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla). Number
349, In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-um.researchport.umd.
edu/bna/species/349 doi:10.2173/bna.349. Accessed 22 March 2013.
791
Branta canadensis (L.)
Aix sponsa (L.)
Anas platyrhynchos L.
Anas discors L.
Meleagris gallopavo L.A
Ardea herodias L.B
Butorides virescens (L.)
Accipiter cooperii (Bonaparte)C
Buteo lineatus (Gmelin)
Buteo jamaicensis (Gmelin)
Charadrius vociferous L.
Actitis macularius (L.)
Scolopax minor GmelinD
Columba livia Gmelin
Zenaida macroura (L.)
Coccyzus americanus (L.)
Bubo virginianus (Gmelin)
Strix varia Barton
Chaetura pelagica (L.)
Archilochus colubris (L.)
Megaceryle alcyon (L.)
Melanerpes carolinus (L.)
3
1
1
0
0
0
1
1 (1)
2 (1)
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
1 (1)
6
0
1
15 (1)
4
1
1
0
0
0
1 (1)
1 (1)
1 (1)
1
0
0
2
0
11
0
0
1E
10
1
1
20 (2)
O
O
O
O
G/O
C
C
C
C
C
I
I
I/C
G
G
I
C
C
I
N
C
I
G
V
G
G
G
C
G/S
C
C
C
G
G
I
HS
S
S
C
V
V/HS
C
V
V
R
R/S
R
N
R
S/N
N
S
R
S/R
S
S/N
S/R
R/E
R
N
R
R
N
N
R
R
W
W
W
W
I
W
W
I
I
G
O
W
E
U
E
G
G
I
E
E
W
G
7
8
8
6
6
5
12
6
7
12
8
11
8
10
12
12
9
11
11
14**
9
13
16**
11
15**
12
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
792
22 Red-bellied Woodpecker
1 Canada Goose
2 Wood Duck
3 Mallard
4 Blue-winged Teal
5 Wild Turkey
6 Great Blue Heron
7 Green Heron
8 Cooper’s Hawk
9 Red-shouldered Hawk
10 Red-tailed Hawk
11 Killdeer
12 Spotted Sandpiper
13 American Woodcock
14 Rock Pigeon
15 Mourning Dove
16 Yellow-billed Cuckoo
17 Great Horned Owl
18 Barred Owl
19 Chimney Swift
20 Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Observed HBPC
breeding territories
species (CSS scores above 14, or 13 in special cases) (PIF 2013a). RCS-b = regional concern score, breeding (PIF 2013b). ** = species of regional concern
Appendix 1. Number of territories (with number of nests found in parenthesis), guild memberships, and conservation-priority scores for 87 known Forsyth
County breeding bird species detected in the Historic Bethabara Park Complex during the 2009 and 2010 breeding seasons. Guild codes were compiled
I = insectivore,
N = nectivore, O = omnivore, C = carnivore, G = granivore; Nesting: C = canopy, V = cavity, G = ground, S = shrub, HS = human structure, P = brood
parasite; Migratory: E = exotic, N = Neotropical, R = resident, S = short distance; Habitat: E = edge, I = forest interior, U = urban, W = water, O = open
2014
Vol. 13, No. 4
23 Downy Woodpecker
24 Hairy Woodpecker
25 Northern Flicker
26 Pileated Woodpecker
27 Eastern Wood-pewee
28 Acadian Flycatcher
29 Eastern Phoebe
30 Great Crested Flycatcher
31 Eastern Kingbird
32 White-eyed Vireo
33 Yellow-throated Vireo
34 Blue-headed Vireo
35 Warbling Vireo
36 Red-eyed Vireo
37 Blue Jay
38 American Crow
39 Fish Crow
40 Common Raven
41 Northern Rough-winged Swallow
42 Purple Martin
43 Tree Swallow
44 Barn Swallow
45 Carolina Chickadee
46 Tufted Titmouse
47 White-breasted Nuthatch
48 Brown-headed Nuthatch
49 Carolina Wren
50 House Wren
51 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
52 Eastern Bluebird
53 Wood Thrush
Picoides pubescens (L.)
Picoides villosus (L.)
Colaptes auratus (L.)
Dryocopus pileatus (L.)
Contopus virens (L.)
Empidonax virescens (Vieillot)
Sayornis phoebe (Latham)
Myiarchus crinitus (L.)
Tyrannus tyrannus (L.)
Vireo griseus (Boddaert)
Vieillot
Vireo solitarius (A. Wilson)
Vireo gilvus (Vieillot)
Vireo olivaceus (L.)
Cyanocitta cristata (L.)
Corvus brachyrhynchos C.L. Brehm
Corvus ossifragus A. Wilson
Corvus corax L.
Stelgidopteryx serripennis (Audubon)F
Progne subis (L.)
Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot)
Hirundo rustica L.
Poecile carolinensis (Audubon)
Baeolophus bicolor (L.)
Sitta carolinensis Latham
Sitta pusilla Latham
Thryothorus ludovicianus (Latham)
Troglodytes aedon Vieillot
Polioptila caerulea (L.)
Sialia sialis (L.)
Hylocichla mustelina (Gmelin)
9 (3)
1
2 (1)
1
1
3
4
5
1
5
0
0
0
30
10 (1)
9
3
0
2
0
2 (1)
3
19
21
7
4 (2)
41
12 (5)
21
4
21 (7)G
12
2
3
1 (1)
1
3
4
7
1
5
0
0
0
36
8
6
2
0
3
0
1 (1)
5
30 (1)
23 (2)
9
6 (2)
50 (1)
12 (4)
17
4 (3)
18(1)
Observed HBPC
breeding territories
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
O
O
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
V
V
V
C
C
HS
V
S
S
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C/cliff
G
V
V
HS
V
V
V
V
V
V
C
V
S
R
R
R
R
N
N
S/R
N
N
S
N
S/N
N
N
R
R
S
R
N
N
N
N
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
R
N
G
I
E
I
G
I
E
G
O
E
E
I
I
G
E
G
E
G
O
E
E
O
G
G
G
G
G
E
G
E
I
8
7
10
7
10
11
8
8
10
8
9
7
8
5
8
6
10
6
9
8
8
8
10
8
6
13*
7
5
7
7
14*
12
12
15**
15**
15**
15
11
10
15**
11
14
9
8
9
13
11
11
9
10
13
8
15**
15
12
10
16**
12
8
10
11
17**
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
793
Vol. 13, No. 4
54 American Robin
55 Gray Catbird
56 Northern Mockingbird
57 Brown Thrasher
58 European Starling
59 Cedar Waxwing
60 Northern Parula
61 Yellow Warbler
62 Black-throated Blue Warbler
63 Yellow-throated Warbler
64 Pine Warbler
65 Black-and-white Warbler
66 American Redstart
67 Ovenbird
68 Louisiana Waterthrush
69 Common Yellowthroat
70 Hooded Warbler
71 Yellow-breasted Chat
72 Eastern Towhee
73 Chipping Sparrow
74 Field Sparrow
75 Grasshopper Sparrow
76 Song Sparrow
77 Scarlet Tanager
78 Northern Cardinal
79 Blue Grosbeak
80 Indigo Bunting
81 Red-winged Blackbird
82 Common Grackle
83 Brown-headed Cowbird
84 Orchard Oriole
Turdus migratorius L.
Dumetella carolinensis (L.)
Mimus polyglottos (L.)
Toxostoma rufum (L.)
Sturnus vulgaris L.
Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot
Parula americana (L.)
Dendroica petechia (L.)
Setophaga caerulescens (Gmelin)H
Dendroica dominica (L.)
Setophaga pinus (Wilson)
Mniotilta varia (L.)
Setophaga ruticilla (L.)
Seiurus aurocapilla (L.)
Parkesia motacilla (Vieillot)
Geothlypis trichas (L.)
Wilsonia citrina (Boddaert)
Icteria virens (L.)
Pipilo erythrophthalmus (L.)
Spizella passerina (Bechstein)
Spizella pusilla (A. Wilson)
Ammodramus savannarum (Gmelin)
Melospiza melodia (A. Wilson)
Piranga olivacea (Gmelin)
Cardinalis cardinalis (L.)
Passerina caerulea (L.)
Passerina cyanea (L.)
Agelaius phoeniceus (L.)
Quiscalus quiscula (L.)
Molothrus ater (Boddaert)
Icterus spurius (L.)
57 (2)
9
5
8 (1)
9 (1)
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
13
0
0
39
0
0
0
7
3
69 (5)
0
5
2
11
7
1
74 (3)
6
4
6
8(2)
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
42
0
0
0
9
3
89 (2)
0
4
8
19
4
0
Observed HBPC
breeding territories
I
I
I
O
O
Fruit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
O
I
C
S
S
S
V
C
C
S/C
S
C
C
G
S
G
G
G
S
S
S
C
S
G
S
C
S
S
S
G/S (reeds)
S
P
S/C
R
N
R
R
R/E
S
N
N
N
N
R
N
N
N
N
S/N
N
N
R
R
R/S
N
R
N
R
N
N
S/N
R
R
N
E
E
E
E
U
E
G
E
I
I
I
I
G
I
I
E
I
E
E
E
O
O
E
I
G
E
E
W
E
E
E
5
8
8
11
7
6
9
6
10
10
7
10
10
9
12
9
11
9
11
8
12
12
8
11
5
8
9
8
8
7
9
10
11
12
14
12
8
12
8
12
14
13
9
11
9
14
10
12
12
16**
9
17**
15**
9
13
10
14
13
11
13
9
11
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
794
Vol. 13, No. 4
May breed in park; under-detected?
Icterus galbula (L.)
Carpodacus mexicanus (Statius Muller)
Spinus tristis (L.)
0
3
5
0
1
4
I
O
I
C
S
S
N
R/E
R
E
U
E
10
6
6
13
8
10
H
G
D
efforts in 2009.
Not a Forsyth County Breeder but did meet territory criteria for 2 territories in 2009.
Cooper’s Hawk was listed as a species of special concern in North Carolina until 2008 (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2008a, b).
Offseason census data AMWC surveys were conducted in 2010 and 2011. One territory was observed in 2011.
E
Fledglings observed 2010.
F
Nest in a crevice or burrow.
C
B
A
85 Baltimore Oriole
86 House Finch
Observed HBPC
breeding territories
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
795
Vol. 13, No. 4
796
Wild Turkey, Meleagris gallopavoA
Ruffed Grouse, Bonasa umbellus (L.)C
Northern Bobwhite, Colinus virginianus (L.)C
Mallard, Anas platyrhynchosB
Wood Duck, Aix sponsaB
Bucephala albeola (L.)
Blue-winged Teal, Anas discors
Canada Goose, Branta canadensisB
Current names
Turkey Buzzard
Turkey Vulture, Cathartes aura (L.)
1
1
1
0
1
Resident, does not breed in county (Disher 2010). Coragyps atratus
(Bechstein) (Black Vulture) also common.
Resident; breed on Yadkin River along Forsyth County border;
breeding in not documented, but is probable.
Forsyth County Transitory; some show up for a few days each year.
Extirpated non-resident, ID from Davis (2000).
Not resident in HBPC. Breeds in county. ID from Davis (2000).
species occur with annual frequency in the county (Disher 2010).
Other geese are occasionally present in winter.
Count Notes
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Great Egret, Ardea alba L.
Heron (blue, white)
Great Blue Heron, Ardea herodias
Pheasant
Partridge
Category
resident bird species not recorded from HBPC are excluded for brevity. Count = the contemporary Forsyth County richness for each category regardless of
breeding status (ASFC 2007, Disher 2010, eBird 2013). We used this count and an expanded version to extrapolate the potential historical richness range
Appendix 2. C.G. Reuter’s 36 categories of birds listed in 1764 Wachau or Dobbs Parish–attributed to Christian Gottlieb Reuter (CGR; Fries 1925), and
Reuter’s Booklet for the Land Register about Wachovia, 1760 (Huber [1953] unpublished translation for Old Salem, Inc). Category is the English name or
phrase used by CGR and his translators. Current name is from the AOU checklist (http://checklist.aou.org/; Chester et al. 2012). Names are of the modern
bird that is most likely to be the bird(s) on Reuter’s list. Superscripts: AForsyth County breeders, BHBPC breeders, and Cbirds for which we have high con-
2014
Vol. 13, No. 4
Northern Harrier, Circus cyaneus (L.)
Sharp-shinned Hawk, Accipiter striatus Vieillot
Cooper’s Hawk, Accipiter cooperiiB
Red-shouldered Hawk, Buteo lineatusB
Broad-winged Hawk, Buteo platypterus (Vieillot)A
Red-tailed Hawk, Buteo jamaicensisB
Current names
797
Mourning Dove, Zenaida macrouraB
Honey Bird
Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Archilochus colubrisB
Whip-poor-will, Caprimulgus vociferous A. WilsonC
1
0
Summer resident.
Rare historic breeder in county (Disher 2010).
Screech Owl displaced by Barred spring 2006 (K.K. Thorington,
pers. observ.).
Barn Owl (Tyto alba [Scopoli]) has not been seen in Forsyth County
since the 1980s (Disher 2010). With the opening up of land for fam
ing in the 18th centuryit may have occurred.
2012 HBPC breeding record. Nest may have been in the
neighborhood adjacent to HBPC. Fledglings in the park prior to and
during May count (5/5/2012).In HBPC, Barred Owls nested and
Mourning Dove is resident.
The Northern Lapwing is a European species; CGR is probably
referring to oneof the common sandpipers. A number of shorebirds
use the park; none are breeders in the park. Gibitzen is a High
German word with the modern spelling being Kiebitz (Kleewein
2011).This term was not translated in Fries (1925). Here the
assumption is a count of 1 because only one species is indicated by
CGR’s text but which of the listed possibilities or if it is something
else is less clear.
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Whip-poor-will
2
Barred Owl, Strix variaB
Eastern Screech-Owl, Megascops asio (L.)A
1
1
1
6
Count Notes
Great Horned Owl, Bubo virginianusB
Owl (Uhu) “… also smaller kinds”
Turtle Dove
Gibitzen (Kiebitz)
Northern Lapwing, Vanellus vanellusC
Possibilities:
Killdeer, Charadrius vociferusA
Spotted Sandpiper, Actitis maculariusA
Solitary Sandpiper, Tringa solitaria A. Wilson
Least Sandpiper, Calidris minutilla (Vieillot)
Hawk (Kite)
Category
2014
Vol. 13, No. 4
Current names
Crows and Rooks
None found breeding in HPBC during study. All are uncommon to
rare in county.
798
American Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos
Fish Crow, Corvus ossifragusB
Common Raven, Corvus coraxA
Blue Jay, Cyanocitta cristata **not mentioned by CGR.
since the 1760s.
Baird and S.F. Baird)
Acadian Flycatcher, Empidonax virescensB
Willow Flycatcher, Empidonax traillii (Audubon)
Least Flycatcher, Empidonax minimus (Baird)
Eastern Phoebe, Sayornis phoebeB
Great Crested Flycatcher, Myiarchus crinitusB
Eastern Kingbird, Tyrannus tyrannus
B
have 5 species that breed in the county, the other 4 species incidental
to rare, not being seen every year. This is a category in which habitat
Olive-sided Flycatcher, Contopus cooperii (Swainson)
Eastern Wood-Pewee, Contopus virensA
3
1
Falcons and small birds of prey
American Kestrel, Falco sparverius L.A
Merlin, Falco columbarius L.
Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus Tunstall
Resident closest in plumage and size to EU Black Woodpecker.
Of the 6 smaller species in the county now it is unclear which CGR
intended.
1
Count Notes
Green Woodpecker and Red Woodpecker
6
Red-headed Woodpecker, Melanerpes erythrocephalus (L.)A
Red-bellied Woodpecker, Melanerpes carolinusB
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Sphyrapicus varius (L.)
Downy Woodpecker, Picoides pubescensB
Hairy Woodpecker, Picoides villosusB
Northern Flicker, Colaptes auratusB
Black Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatusB
Category
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Vol. 13, No. 4
799
Thrasher
Brown Thrasher, Toxostoma longirosaB
Mockingbird, Mimus polyglottosB
Eastern Bluebird, Sialia sialis
Veery, Catharus fuscescens (Stephens)
Gray-cheeked Thrush, Catharus minimus (Lafresnaye)
Swainson’s Thrush, Catharus ustulatus (Nuttall)
Hermit Thrush, Catharus guttatus (Pallas)
Wood Thrush, Hylocichla mustelina
American Robin, Turdus migratorius
House Wren, Troglodytes aedonB
Winter Wren, Troglodytes hiemalis (Vieillot)
Carolina Wren, Thryothorus ludovicianusB
Tufted Titmouse, Baeolophus bicolorB
Red-breasted Nuthatch, Sitta canadensis L.
White-breasted Nuthatch, Sitta carolinensisB
Brown-headed Nuthatch, Sitta pusillaB
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
Translation states “thrushes … male is blood-red”, is most likely the
American Robin; however, Wood Thrush or transient spotted thrushes
are possibilities as they look more like European thrushes. The low
count here is 1 because there is no indication that CGR is talking
about more than one species. The high end of the count is 7.
House Wrens breed regularly in park bluebird boxes.
Winter Wrens are here in winter.
Carolina Wrens are resident all year.
Red-breasted Nuthatch is common during winter irruptions.
Cliff Swallow is uncommon.
Count Notes
Northern Rough-winged Swallow, Stelgidopteryx serripennisB
Purple Martin, Progne subisA
Tree Swallow, Tachycineta bicolorB
Cliff Swallow, Petrochelidon pyrrhonota (Vieillot)*
Barn Swallow, Hirundo rusticaB
Current names
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Mocking Bird
Thrush
Wren
Titmouse
Nut Hatch
Swallow
Category
2014
Vol. 13, No. 4
800
Passenger Pigeons, Ectopistes migratorius (L.)C
Pine Siskin, Carduelis pinus (A. Wilson)
Purple Finch, Haemorhous purpureus (Gmelin)
Spinus tristisB
Eastern Towhee, Pipilo erythrophthalmusB
Chipping Sparrow, Spizella passerinaA
Field Sparrow, Spizella pusillaA
Grasshopper Sparrow, Ammodramus savannarumA
Fox Sparrow, Passerella iliaca (Merrem)
Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodiaB
Swamp Sparrow, Melospiza georgiana (Latham)
White-throated Sparrow, Zonotrichia albicollis (Gmelin)
Dark-eyed Junco, Junco hyemalis (L.)
European Starling, Sturnus vulgarisB
Red-winged Blackbird, Agelaius phoeniceusB
Rusty Blackbird, Euphagus carolinus (Statius Muller)
Common Grackle, Quiscalus quisculaB
Gray Catbird, Dumetella carolinensisB
Current names
?
0
0
9
1
1
No Translation. “Wasser” translates as water; a possible modern
spelling of “Hinkel” translates as chicken or handle, so Fulica
americana Gmelin (American Coot), or a bittern?
Extinct.
Rare winter bird in Forsyth County
irruptive species.
Haemorhous mexicanus (House Finch;
introduced to eastern US in 1939 [Badyaev et al. 2012]) most
This list includes the breeding and common winter sparrows; an
additional 3 species are seen almost annually and others occur with
less than annual frequency.
European Starlings occur in the park and county now, but they were
not successfully introduced in the United States until 1890 in New
York City, NY (Cabe 1993). CGR is probably referring to one of our
native blackbirds. The Brown-headed Cowbird a more recent arrival
(Lowther 1993).
Count Notes
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
Wasser Hinckel
Wild Pigeons
Siskin
Sparrows
Starlings
Catbird
Category
2014
Vol. 13, No. 4
?
?
Red Heads
Wagtail
None occur in this area now. Perhaps a Waterthrush? Parkesia
motacilla (LouisianaWaterthrush)* and Parkesia noveboracensis
(Gmelin) (Northern Waterthrush) are annual migrants. Anthus
rubescens (Tunstall) (American Pipit) is another possibility.
CGR “Larger than (thrushes); are black and white, do much harm to
the corn.”
No Translation. CGR “do not sing well but have red heads”.
Count Notes
?
Current names
Rinschelen
Category
2014
Southeastern Naturalist
K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand
801
Vol. 13, No. 4