Kentucky warbler

The Kentucky warbler (Geothlypis formosa) is a small species of New World warbler. It is a sluggish and heavy warbler with a short tail, preferring to spend most of its time on or near the ground, except when singing.

Description
Adult Kentucky warblers are mostly an olive-green in color on their back and nape, and a brilliant yellow below from their throat to their belly. They have a small tinge of black on their crown, and a large black mask with a yellow pattern that runs from the beak and encircles the eyes, resembling a pair of spectacles. Female Kentucky warblers have slightly less black on the sides of their head, and immature birds may have almost no black at all.

Measurements:


 * Length: 5.1 in (13 cm)
 * Weight: 0.5-0.5 oz (13-14 g)
 * Wingspan: 7.9-8.7 in (20-22 cm)

Range
The Kentucky warbler is a scarce bird with a large range, frequenting moist deciduous forests. It is migratory, spending summer in the central and eastern United States, often ranging as far north as Wisconsin to Pennsylvania. Come fall and winter the Kentucky warbler will migrate back to the Yucatán Peninsula and the many islands of the Caribbean, flying non-stop across the Gulf of Mexico. In 2007, the Kentucky warbler was seen as far west as Farmington, New Mexico.

Nesting
Kentucky warblers nest on the ground hidden at the base of a shrub or in a patch of weeds in an area of ample vegetation. The female will lay between 3 and 6 eggs, which are white or cream-colored and speckled with brown. Incubation is done by the female only, and lasts for about 12 days. The young Kentucky warblers usually leave the nest about 10 days after hatching.

Books

 * McDonald, M. V. 1998. Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus). In The Birds of North America, No. 324 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Thesis

 * Baker MD. Ph.D. (2000). Habitat influences on nongame bird nest success in a managed and fragmented southern pine forest. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, United States, Louisiana.
 * Barrow WC, Jr. Ph.D. (1990). Ecology of small insectivorous birds in a bottomland hardwood forest. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, United States, Louisiana.
 * Godard RD. Ph.D. (1991). Individual recognition by migratory songbirds. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States, North Carolina.
 * Kilgo JC. Ph.D. (1996). Breeding bird use of hardwood habitats in the upper coastal plain of South Carolina. University of Georgia, United States, Georgia.
 * Peyman Dove LD. Ph.D. (2000). Landscape metrics to assess habitat suitability for conservation bird species in the southeastern United States. Mississippi State University, United States, Mississippi.
 * Prather JW. Ph.D. (2000). Ecology and analysis of die-switching by migratory birds: The use of fruits as a food resource during migration. University of Arkansas, United States, Arkansas.
 * Ramos Olmos MA. Ph.D. (1983). SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF BIRD POPULATIONS AT A NEOTROPICAL STUDY SITE IN SOUTHERN VERACRUZ, MEXICO. University of Minnesota, United States, Minnesota.
 * Sargent RA, Jr. Ph.D. (1996). The nesting ecology of songbirds in the fragmented landscape of South Carolina. University of Georgia, United States, Georgia.

Articles
-->
 * Blake JG. (2005). Effects of prescribed burning on distribution and abundance of birds in a closed-canopy oak-dominated forest, Missouri, USA. Biological Conservation. vol 121, no 4. pp. 519–531.
 * Brazier FH. (1989). Kentucky Warbler Singing in Regina Saskatchewan Canada. Blue Jay. vol 47, no 3.
 * Coates-Estrada R & Estrada A. (1989). Avian Attendance and Foraging at Army Ant Swarms in the Tropical Rain Forest of Los Tuxtlas Veracruz Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology. vol 5, no 3. pp. 281–292.
 * Conway CJ, Powell GVN & Nichols JD. (1995). OVERWINTER SURVIVAL OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS IN EARLY-SUCCESSIONAL AND MATURE TROPICAL FORESTS. Conservation Biology. vol 9, no 4. pp. 855–864.
 * Dickson JG & Noble RE. (1978). Vertical Distribution of Birds in a Louisiana USA Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Wilson Bulletin. vol 90, no 1. pp. 19–30.
 * Donovan TM & Flather CH. (2002). Relationships among North American songbird trends, habitat fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecological Applications. vol 12, no 2. pp. 364–374.
 * Gibbs JP & Faaborg J. (1990). ESTIMATING THE VIABILITY OF OVENBIRD AND KENTUCKY WARBLER POPULATIONS IN FOREST FRAGMENTS. Conservation Biology. vol 4, no 2. pp. 193–196.
 * Gibbs JP & Wenny DG. (1993). Song output as a population estimator: Effect of male pairing status. Journal of Field Ornithology. vol 64, no 3. pp. 316–322.
 * Godard R & Wiley RH. (1995). INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION OF SONG REPERTOIRES IN 2 WOOD WARBLERS. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. vol 37, no 2. pp. 119–123.
 * Gram WK, Porneluzi PA, Clawson RL, Faaborg J & Richter SC. (2003). Effects of experimental forest management on density and nesting success of bird species in Missouri Ozark Forests. Conservation Biology. vol 17, no 5. pp. 1324–1337.
 * Heltzel JM & Leberg PL. (2006). Effects of selective logging on breeding bird communities in bottomland hardwood forests in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management. vol 70, no 5. pp. 1416–1424.
 * Kilgo JC, Sargent RA, Miller KV & Chapman BR. (1996). Nest sites of Kentucky Warblers in bottomland hardwoods of South Carolina. Journal of Field Ornithology. vol 67, no 2. pp. 300–306.
 * McCracken JD. (1988). An Enigmatic Case for the Breeding of the Kentucky Warbler in Canada. Ontario Birds. vol 6, no 3. pp. 101–105.
 * McShea WJ, McDonald MV, Morton ES, Meier R & Rappole JH. (1995). Long-term trends in habitat selection by Kentucky Warblers. Auk. vol 112, no 2. pp. 375–381.
 * Morse SF & Robinson SK. (1999). Nesting success of a neotropical migrant in a multiple-use, forested landscape. Conservation Biology. vol 13, no 2. pp. 327–337.
 * Morton ES & Young K. (1986). A PREVIOUSLY UNDESCRIBED METHOD OF SONG MATCHING IN A SPECIES WITH A SINGLE SONG TYPE, THE KENTUCKY WARBLER (OPORORNIS-FORMOSUS). Ethology. vol 73, no 4. pp. 334–342.
 * Mulvihill RS, Parkes KC, Leberman RC & Wood DS. (1992). EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A DIETARY BASIS FOR ORANGE-TIPPED RECTRICES IN THE CEDAR WAXWING. Journal of Field Ornithology. vol 63, no 2. pp. 212–216.
 * Parker TH, Stansberry BM, Becker CD & Gipson PS. (2003). Do melanin- or carotenoid-pigmented plumage ornaments signal condition and predict pairing success in the Kentucky Warbler?. Condor. vol 105, no 4. pp. 663–671.
 * Patten MA & Marantz CA. (1996). Implications of vagrant southeastern vireos and warblers in California. Auk. vol 113, no 4. pp. 911–923.
 * Peak RG & Thompson FR. (2006). Factors affecting avian species richness and density in riparian areas. Journal of Wildlife Management. vol 70, no 1. pp. 173–179.
 * Peak RG, Thompson FR & Shaffer TL. (2004). Factors affecting songbird nest survival in Riparian forests in a midwestern agricultural landscape. Auk. vol 121, no 3. pp. 726–737.
 * Quay WB. (1985). Sperm Release in Migrating Wood-Warblers Parulinae Nesting at Higher Latitudes. Wilson Bulletin. vol 97, no 3. pp. 283–295.
 * Robinson SK & Robinson WD. (2001). Avian nesting success in a selectively harvested north temperate deciduous forest. Conservation Biology. vol 15, no 6. pp. 1763–1771.
 * Sargent RA, Kilgo JC, Chapman BR & Miller KV. (1997). Nesting success of Kentucky and Hooded Warblers in bottomland forests of South Carolina. Wilson Bulletin. vol 109, no 2. pp. 233–238.
 * Sheppard JM. (1996). Nestling Kentucky Warblers and Cowbird attacked by Brown-headed Cowbird. Journal of Field Ornithology. vol 67, no 3. pp. 384–386.
 * Tsipoura N & Morton ES. (1988). Song-Type Distribution in a Population of Kentucky Warblers. Wilson Bulletin. vol 100, no 1. pp. 9–16.
 * Wenny DG, Clawson RL, Faaborg J & Sheriff SL. (1993). Population density, habitat selection and minimum area requirements of three forest-interior warblers in central Missouri. Condor. vol 95, no 4. pp. 968–979.
 * Wiley RH & Godard R. (1996). Ranging of conspecific songs by Kentucky warblers and its implications for interactions of territorial males. Behaviour. vol 133, pp. 81–102.