Species

Justification
This species qualifies as Vulnerable because the remaining population could be small and declining, as previously estimated. Recent data, however, suggest that the population size is now above the threshold for Vulnerable and that population trends have reversed, and should this be confirmed the species may warrant downlisting in the future.

Taxonomic source(s)
AOU. 1998. Check-list of North American birds. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
Sibley, C. G.; Monroe, B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.

Identification
22 cm. Rather small black-and-white woodpecker with longish bill. Above black barred white. Below white with black spots or streaks on flanks. Black crown, nape and moustachial stripe border white cheeks and side of neck. Male has a few tiny red feathers (usually hidden) on the side of crown. Juvenile duller black with variable extent of red on center of forehead, juvenile female with flecks of white on forehead, especially near the bill. Similar spp. Hairy Woodpecker P. villosus usually lacks "ladder-backed" appearance and white cheek patch. Voice Drumming infrequent and not loud. Distinctive shrrit call most commonly heard, also a rattle and wide range of social twittering and chortles. Hints Active nest and roost-trees have distinctive sap flows from small, shallow holes excavated above and below the cavity.

Distribution and population
This species was originally distributed throughout south-east USA, but in 1999 it was limited to c.30 isolated populations (the largest in South Carolina and Florida), totalling c.4,700 groups or c.11,000 individuals and occupying just 4,000 km² (Jackson 1994, Guynn 1997, J. A. Jackson in litt. 1999). Between 1980 and 1990, it declined by at least 23%, with 50% of groups in just six populations (James 1995). However, the most recent data suggest that the population may be larger than previously estimated and may now be stable or increasing (Department of Defense/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in litt. 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008, W. McDearman in litt. 2010).

Population justification
Guynn (1997), Jackson (1994) and J. A. Jackson (in litt. 1999) estimated the population to number 10,000-11,000 individuals, suggesting the number of mature individuals may fall below 10,000. Although more recent data suggests that the population may now be well above 10,000 mature individuals (Department of Defense and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in litt. 2006), a figure of 9,000-11,000 mature individuals is precautionarily retained.

Trend justification
This species has undergone a large and statistically significant decrease over the last 40 years in North America (-70.2% decline over 40 years, equating to a -26.1% decline per decade; data from Breeding Bird Survey and/or Christmas Bird Count [Butcher and Niven 2007]), and James (1995) calculated a 23% decline in the number of known sites (clusters of trees with signs of activity) between the early 1980s and 1990. However, some sub-populations are stable or increasing as a result of intensive management (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008, W. McDearman in litt. 2010), and the overall population trend may now be increasing. Until the situation is clarified, an on-going decline of 20-29% is precautionarily retained.

Ecology
It inhabits fire-sustained open pine-forest, dominated in half of its range by longleaf pine Pinus palustris and elsewhere by shortleaf P. echinata, slash P. elliotti, or loblolly P. taeda pines (J. A. Jackson in litt. 1999). It is a cooperative breeder, with each group requiring at least 80 ha of habitat. Nests are in cavities of living old-growth trees (100+ years old) and eggs are laid from late April to early June (Winkler et al. 1995). Foraging habitat preferences differ between the sexes and females are negatively influenced by the loss of old-growth trees (Jackson 2000). One study showed that adults were heavier, and both adults and nestlings apparently sourced more food in shortleaf and loblolly pine habitats than in longleaf pine forest (Schaefer et al. 2004).

Threats
Long-term clearance and economic management of habitat has reduced the viability of all populations. The excessive cutting of old-growth forests is reported to be still taking place in some areas (J. A. Jackson in litt. 2012). Fragmentation has isolated nest-sites, making abandonment or group extirpation increasingly likely (Thomlinson 1995). Inbreeding depression has been highlighted as a potentially serious problem in small and isolated populations (Schiegg et al. 2006). Exempting landowners from the Endangered Species Act has resulted in rapid declines on private land (J. A. Jackson in litt. 1999). Translocating birds to federal lands may swamp locally adapted gene pools (J. A. Jackson in litt. 1999). Southern pine beetle Dendroctonus frontalis infests cavities and kills nesting trees (Conner and Rudolph 1995) (although they have a positive effect on woodpecker foraging both as a food item, and by creating arthropod rich dead-wood habitat [Schaefer et al. 2004]). Beetle infestations have increased since habitat management for the woodpecker started in 1988, suggesting a possible connection (Conner and Rudolph 1995). Pileated Woodpeckers Dryocopus pileatus damage cavities (Saenz et al. 1998). Fire management (involving regular burning) has aided habitat restoration, but as human populations expand there is increasing pressure to suppress fires.

Conservation actions underway
The emphasis has been on site-specific rather than ecosystem-level management (J. A. Jackson in litt. 1999). Intensive activities include translocating young females from natal sites to groups lacking a female, constructing artificial cavities (Jackson 1994), and fitting restrictor plates to prevent D. pileatus enlarging cavities (Saenz et al. 1998). Habitat is managed (regular burning and understorey clearance) on some federal lands, but not always appropriately (Jackson 1994). In South Carolina the "Safe Harbor" scheme offers financial incentives to private landowners who undertake beneficial management prescriptions (Duncan et al. 2001).

Conservation actions proposed
Monitor populations, especially where managed. Implement ecosystem-level management (James 1995). Provide incentives for landowners to maintain/enhance habitat (Kennedy et al. 1996, Bonnie 1997). Fit restrictor plates only where cavities are scarce (Saenz et al. 1998). Document and monitor translocations (J. A. Jackson in litt. 1999). Replace even-aged forest management with selective or no cutting (J. A. Jackson in litt. 1999). Establish habitat corridors (e.g. along highways) (Jackson 1994).

References
Collar, N. J.; Gonzaga, L. P.; Krabbe, N.; Madroño Nieto, A.; Naranjo, L. G.; Parker, T. A.; Wege, D. C. 1992. Threatened birds of the Americas: the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, U.K.

Jackson, J. A. 1994. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F. (ed.), The birds of North America, No. 85, pp. 1-20. The Academy of Natural Sciences, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC.

Bonnie, R. 1997. Strategies for conservation of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker on private lands. Endangered Species Update 14(7-8): 45-47.

Winkler, H.; Christie, D. A.; Nurney, D. 1995. Woodpeckers: a guide to the woodpeckers, piculets and wrynecks of the world. Pica Press, Robertsbridge, U.K.

Conner, R. N.; Rudolph, D. C. 1995. Losses of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers cavity trees to southern pine beetles. Wilson Bulletin 107: 81-92.

Thomlinson, J. R. 1995. Landscape characteristics associated with active and abandoned Red-cockaded Woodpecker clusters in east Texas. Wilson Bulletin 107: 603-614.

James, F. C. 1995. The status of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in 1990 and the prospect for recovery. In: Kulhary, D.L.; Hooper, R.G.; Costa, R. (ed.), Red-cockaded Woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management, pp. 439-451. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry Publication, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacodgdoches, Texas.

Kennedy, E. T.; Costa, R.; Smathers, W. M. 1996. Economic incentives: new directions for Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat conservation. Journal of Forestry 94: 22-26.

Guynn, D. 1997. Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. Bird Watcher's Digest 20: 60-65.

Saenz, D.; Conner, R. N.; Shackleford, C. E.; Rudolph, D. C. 1998. Pileated Woodpecker damage to Red-cockaded Woodpecker cavity trees in eastern Texas. Wilson Bulletin 110: 362-367.

Jackson, J. A. 2000. Red-cockaded Woodpecker. In: Reading, R.P.; Miller, B. (ed.), Endangered animals: a reference guide to conflicting issues, pp. 241-246. Greenwood Press, London.

Duncan, L.; Andrews, L.; Costa, R.; Lohr, S. 2001. A safe harbor for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Endangered Species Bulletin 26: 16-18.

Schaefer, R. R.; Conner, R.N.; Rudolph, D. G.; Saenz, D. 2004. Red-cockaded Woodpecker nestling provisioning and reproduction in two different pine habitats. Wilson Bulletin 116: 31-40.

Schiegg, K..; Daniels, S.J.; Walters, J. R.; Priddy, J. A.; Pasinelli, G. 2006. Inbreeding in Red-cockaded Woodpeckers: effects of natal dispersal distance and territory location. Biological Conservation 131: 544-552.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Fact Sheet. Available at: #http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/files/rcwoodpecker.pdf.

Further web sources of information
Audubon WatchList

Hear sounds for this species from xeno-canto, the community database of shared bird sounds from around the world.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Revised Recovery Plan

View photos and videos, and hear sounds of this species from the Internet Bird Collection

Text account compilers
Benstead, P., Bird, J., Calvert, R., Isherwood, I., Taylor, J., Wege, D.

Contributors
Jackson, J., McDearman, W.

IUCN Red List evaluators
Butchart, S., Symes, A.

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2013) Species factsheet: Picoides borealis. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 22/05/2013. Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2013) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 22/05/2013.

This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM and BirdLife International (2008) Threatened birds of the world 2008 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.

To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife

To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums.

Additional resources for this species

0