Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
2011 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 10(2):345–356
Population Densities of Painted Buntings in the
Southeastern United States
J. Michael Meyers*
Abstract - The eastern population trend of Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) declined
3.5% annually during the first 30 yrs of the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS, 1966–1996).
Recently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service listed Painted Buntings as a focal species.
Surveys for this focal species for the next 10 yrs (BBS, 1997–2007), however, are too
low (less than 1 bird per 50 stops) for determining trend estimates. Also, to monitor densities
adequately, surveys should account for incomplete detections. I surveyed singing
Painted Buntings from 13 May to 26 June 2003 at 582 point counts (50 randomly selected
transects) within blocks (64 x 64 km) in coastal and river areas from Florida to North
Carolina. I compared densities of Painted Buntings for major habitats. Painted Buntings
were detected at 33.5% of points surveyed for 5 min. Densities varied from 9 singing
males per km2 in young pine plantations to 42 per km2 in maritime shrub. Effective detection
radii for habitats varied from 64 to 90 m and were slightly higher in developed
than in undeveloped habitats. Distance sampling is recommended to determine densities
of Painted Buntings; however, large sample sizes (70–100 detections/habitat type) are
required to monitor Painted Bunting densities in most habitats in the Atlantic coastal
region of the southeastern United States. Special attention should be given to maritime
shrub habitats, which may be important to maintaining the Painted Bunting population
in the southeastern US.
Population trends of Passerina ciris (L.) (Painted Bunting) declined signifi-
cantly at 3.5% annually in the southeastern United States during the first 30 yrs
of the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS, 1966–1996, coastal flatwoods; Sauer et al.
2008). More recent trend estimates (1997–2007), however, are not conclusive
and may indicate either a continual decline or that the population has stabilized
at a lower level. The average survey of Painted Buntings in the coastal flatwoods
declined from approximately 1.9 to 0.8 birds/BBS route from 1966 to 2007. Inconclusive
trends of regional abundance from surveys with less than 1.0 bird/route (low
abundance) indicate data with deficiencies (Sauer et al. 2008). In other words,
Painted Buntings may have become too rare on the BBS for accurate trend estimates
in the southeastern United States, and managers may need other methods
to monitor the population. BBS data did warn us, however, of a rapid population
decline, which led to additional more detailed monitoring by the Working Group
of the Eastern Painted Bunting.
Concern for the eastern and western populations of the Painted Bunting led
the US Fish and Wildlife Service to declare it a focal species (USFWS 2005). At
*US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Warnell School of Forestry
and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2152;
346 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 2
that time, the Working Group of the Eastern Painted Bunting also recommended
creation and expansion of a monitoring program that could provide estimates
of the total population from North Carolina to Florida. Prior to that decision, a
preliminary estimate of Painted Bunting densities was completed in 2003 and is
reported herein. Ninety-five percent of bird monitoring in the past has been done
by index surveys, with no density estimate and with no accounting for incomplete
detections; however, density estimates are preferred in monitoring, especially
those that account for incomplete detections (Buckland et al. 1993, 2001; Farnsworth
et al. 2002; Rosenstock et al. 2002).
The goal of this research was to conduct a preliminary study to estimate and
compare the densities of Painted Buntings (singing males) for the major breeding
habitats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Based on
field work conducted on Sapelo Island, GA during 1996 to 2000, I hypothesized
that maritime shrub habitat would have the highest densities of Painted Bunting
in the southeastern US. I designed a survey using distance sampling (program
DISTANCE 5.0) to estimate densities of eastern Painted Buntings in their
breeding region (see Lowther et al. 1999, Sykes and Holzman 2005) of the southeastern
Atlantic coastline and three major river systems (up to 90 km inland). My
objectives were to randomly survey Painted Buntings in all major habitats within
the four states and determine preliminary population densities and differences
among the major habitats including developed areas.
I surveyed habitat of Painted Buntings in all major breeding habitats including
maritime shrub, maritime oak (adjacent to marsh), shrub-scrub agriculture, open
pine forest (sawtimber) with less than 50% canopy cover, and young pine plantations (1–5
yr old) (Bellis 1995, Lowther et al. 1999). Habitats, except young pine plantations,
also included points in undeveloped as well as developed lands (buildings, homes,
farms, other human facilities, and other human habitats such as mowed grass).
Habitat of shrub-scrub agriculture was classified as developed.
Surveys began in Florida on 13 May and ended in North Carolina on 26 June
2003. Except for the portion in interior South Carolina, I sampled the entire
southeastern Painted Bunting’s breeding range (Sykes and Holzman 2005),
covering areas less than 90 km from the Atlantic coast of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
and South Carolina. I stratified the Atlantic coastline and rivers into blocks
of ≈64 x 64 km within the area, which resulted in the proportion of survey
points as follows: ≈10% NC, ≈38% SC, ≈39% GA, and ≈13% FL. For a morning's
survey, I randomly selected one transect (median = 14 points/transect)
from all transects (center lines in areas of ca 2 km²) for each of the bunting’s
habitats in the block. A total of 50 transects and 582 points was established.
Rarer habitats, such as, maritime oak and open pine forest were sometimes
limited to none or one possible transect in a block, but in most cases three to
six transects were included for random selection for bunting habitats based on
2011 J.M. Meyers 347
examination of topographic maps and aerial photographs. I checked habitat
of the randomly selected transect on the day before the survey. If a selected
transect was determined unsuitable habitat for breeding Painted Buntings (i.e.,
30-yr-old unthinned pine plantations, agriculture crop with no shrubs or grasslands,
or oak woodlands with >100% cover and no understory), I used the next
randomly selected transect for that habitat. I found suitable habitat in the first
(≈90%) or second (≈10%) randomly selected transect.
I used roadside surveys on most private lands in all habitats; however, roads
were secondary and most were unpaved. Painted Buntings used the roads and
roadsides, but roads with heavy traffic and primary roads were not considered
bunting habitat because of wide, mowed rights of way or were unsuitable for
aural sampling because of traffic noise. I surveyed private developed habitat
from roadsides and rights of way. I randomly selected transect direction and
routes (turns) on roads when more than one direction was available. I established
points along transects for distance sampling at intervals no less than 200
m and averaging 355 m (13% were <250 m). Distances between points in young
pine plantations varied considerably (0.4–2.0 km or more) because of the location
of this habitat within the landscape and were not included in the average
I conducted surveys from just before sunrise to 4.5 to 5.0 hrs after sunrise. I
did not survey on rainy or windy days (>4 on the Beaufort Scale). An observer
(n = 2) conducted each transect. Two observers each conducted approximately
half of 582 points on 50 transects. Observers wore camouflage clothing and
moved about the point (≈5–8 m area) slowly and recorded all Painted Buntings
seen or heard. Movement about the point reduced the possibility of missing a
bird nearby and thereby ensured that the probability of detection at the point is
certain or g(0) = 1 (Buckland et al. 1993, 2001). Observations began about 1 to
2 minutes after arrival at the point (Buckland et al. 1993, 2001). Distances from
the point to the first position of a singing bird were recorded to the nearest meter
with a laser rangefinder (±1 m) and paced (at the end of the survey) when <15 m.
I used binoculars (10 x 40 mm) to aid in determining a bunting’s position. I also
mapped the first position (distance and bearing from point) of Painted Buntings
and noted the birds’ movements during each five-minute survey.
I used program DISTANCE 5.0, Release 2 for point-transects to determine
density of Painted Buntings (Thomas et al. 2010). I ran half-normal, uniform, and
hazard-rate models with adjustment (or no adjustment) functions of cosine, simply
polynomial, and hermite polynomial for untruncated and right truncated (>100 m,
≈11% of observations truncated) distance data (global and by habitats). Preliminary
data indicated similar mean detection distances of 60 to 62 m for singing
males in five of seven habitats and 68 m for the remaining two habitats. Adjustment
functions for the models were selected automatically by the program based
348 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 2
on AIC scores using all models and maximum adjustments set to five. I determined
variances for n (number of observed singing males) by the empirical method from
the sample. I tested model fit (P > 0.15) by chi-square goodness-of-fit (GOF). I
removed models with multiple warnings for parameters highly correlated, with
parameters constrained to obtain monotonicity, and with convergence failures.
I entered distance data as transect code (in Region), point number code (in Point-
Transect), and distances in m (in Observations) of program DISTANCE 5.0.
I deleted one outlier distance of 203 m that was 48 m beyond the next maximum
distance and 95 m more than the maximum distance in that habitat. High tide and
sound transmission over water probably caused this outlier.
I also compared EDR differences by observers (n = 2) for the global and
maritime shrub models (truncated distance data >100 m) and found no difference:
global (EDR1 = 57 m, 95% CI: 45 to 72 m, 141 df; EDR2 = 62 m, 95% CI: 52 to
72 m, 73 df) and maritime shrub (EDR1 = 59 m, 95% CI: 40 to 88 m, 38 df; EDR2
= 60 m, 95% CI: 47 to 76 m, 28 df). The observers’ probabilities of detecting a
singing Painted Bunting within a 100-m radius were also similar for the global
model (P1 = 0.32, 95% CI : 0.20–0.52, 110 df; P2 = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28–0.52, 73
df) and for the maritime shrub model (P1 = 0.35, 95% CI : 0.16–0.76, 38 df; P2 =
0.36, 95% CI: 0.22–0.57, 28 df). Therefore, I pooled data for the two observers.
Painted Bunting presence
Painted Buntings were detected on 33.5% of the points (n = 582) during 5-min
surveys in the coastal area of four southeastern states (Table 1). Point counts in
open pine and maritime oak with development (homes, parks, and farm facilities)
were occupied 4% to 13% less by Painted Buntings than in similar habitats without
development. Buntings occupied maritime shrub habitat in developed areas
6% more than in similar undeveloped habitat. Detection rates of Painted Buntings
varied by habitats with the lowest in young pine plantations (12% of points),
highest in maritime shrub with development (48% of points), and ranging from
14% to 42% of points in the remaining six habitats (Table 1). Pine habitat overall
had the lowest detection rate of Painted Buntings.
Table 1. Percent of points occupied by singing male Painted Buntings and detections by habitats,
southeastern Atlantic coastal states, 2003 (n = number of points by habitat, total = 582). Singing
males detected to maximum of 155 m.
Habitat n Occupied (%) Number of detections
Maritime oak 117 30 43
Maritime oak developedA 101 26 28
Open pine (saw timber) 51 27 18
Open pine (saw timber) developedA 7 14 1
Maritime shrub 150 42 75
Maritime shrub developedA 29 48 17
Shrub-scrub agriculture 37 30 12
Young pine plantation 90 12 14
AHuman dwellings or buildings in the area of the survey.
2011 J.M. Meyers 349
Four global models and adjustments (half normal with no adjustments, halfnormal
with simple polynomial, half-normal with hermite polynominal, and
uniform with cosine adjustments) had ΔAICc < 0.50; however, the half-normal
model without adjustment and with 1 parameter ran without any constraints and
with similar densities and low CVs (0.10–0.11) compared to the others. The
half-normal model without adjustment fit the data well for the global detection
function (Fig. 1A). The model showed a good fit by Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s GOF
Figure 1. The detection function and histogram of observed detection distances for the
global model (all data), selected half-normal key with no adjustment (parameters = 1),
and without truncations (A) and with truncation at 100 m (B) from program DISTANCE
for the Painted Bunting in coastal areas of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida (n = 208 detections from 50 point transects and 582 points), 2003. GOF =
350 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 2
Table 2. DISTANCE models’ goodness-of-fit by habitats of Painted Buntings for Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s (K-S) and Cramér-von Mises’s (W 2 and C 2) goodness-
of-fit statistics, southeastern Atlantic coastal states, 2003. All models had good fit (P > 0.15), but most had excellent fit (P > 0.60).
Habitat Model (parameters) K-S P W 2 P C 2 P
Maritime oak Uniform cosine (1) 0.092 0.86 0.046 0.9 < P < 1.0 0.033 0.8 < P < 0.9
Maritime oak developed Uniform cosine (2) 0.102 0.93 0.039 0.9 < P < 1.0 0.023 0.9 < P < 1.0
Open pine (saw timber) Uniform cosine (1) 0.181 0.60 0.077 0.7 < P < 0.8 0.058 0.6 < P < 0.7
Maritime shrub Half-normal simple polynomial (2) 0.059 0.96 0.051 0.8 < P < 0.9 0.034 0.8 < P < 0.9
Shrub-scrub developed Uniform simple polynomial (2) 0.183 0.62 0.139 0.4 < P < 0.5 0.097 0.3 < P < 0.4
Shrub-scrub agriculture Uniform simple polynomial (2) 0.289 0.27 0.217 0.2 < P < 0.3 0.121 0.3 < P < 0.4
Young pine plantation Uniform cosine (1) 0.124 0.98 0.043 0.9 < P < 1.0 0.022 0.9 < P < 1.0
2011 J.M. Meyers 351
statistic (Dn = 0.070, P = 0.27) and Cramér-von Mises’s GOF statistic (W ² =
0.112, 0.5 < P ≤ 0.6; C ² = 0.0.072, 0.5 < P ≤ 0.6). Truncation (>100 m) of distance
data produced an acceptable model (Fig. 1B, note GOF was not as good
as in the untruncated model); however, CI’s for density estimates were larger in
the truncated model (loss of precision) for global data and also in models run by
habitats. Therefore, distance truncation was not used in the models to determine
densities. All DISTANCE models for habitats had Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s GOF
statistics and Cramér-von Mises’s GOF statistic that indicated fair to excellent
fits (Table 2). Hazard-rate models did not perform as well as other models (both
in global and by habitats) in determining Painted Bunting densities.
EDR in DISTANCE 5.0 analysis by habitats indicated that EDR expanded in
developed areas, although only developed and undeveloped habitats (combined
all) were different (Table 3). Probability of observing a singing Painted Bunting
was lower in maritime shrub than in maritime oak, open pine, shrub-scrub
agriculture, and developed shrub-scrub. The probability of observing singing
buntings in combined developed habitat was more than twice that in combined
undeveloped habitat (Table 3). Only the global model and combined undeveloped
habitats had detection sample sizes >100 and CVs (0.10–0.11) for density
estimates considered adequate (CV ≤0.15), although maritime oak, maritime oak
developed, and maritime shrub (75 detections) were reasonably adequate (CV =
Densities of Painted Buntings for distance sampling ranked highest in maritime
shrub (41.8 singing males per km2, CV = 0.25, Fig. 2). Singing buntings
in maritime shrub occurred at much higher densities than those in young pine
plantations and developed maritime oak, which recorded only 9.2 to 12.7 singing
Table 3. Comparisons by habitat of similarity in effective detection radius (EDR) and probability
(P) of observing a singing Painted Bunting within the survey area. Detection data truncated at
>100 m for comparisons among habitats. Models: Ahalf-normal with no adjustment, Buniform with
cosine or simple polynomial adjustment, and Chalf-normal with simple polynomial adjustment in
DISTANCE program, southeastern Atlantic coastal states, 2003.
Habitat (maximum detection, m) EDR (m) (95% CI) CV P (95% CI) CV df
Maritime oak developed (155)B 80 (72–89) 0.05 0.64 (0.51–0.80) 0.11 24
Maritime oak (110)B 60 (48–74) 0.10 0.36 (0.24–0.55) 0.21 37
Open pine (120)B 65 (50–86) 0.13 0.43 (0.25–0.73) 0.25 13
Maritime shrub (137)A 61 (49–76) 0.11 0.37 (0.24–0.58) 0.23 67
Shrub-scrub developed (118)B 91 (71–118) 0.12 0.83 (0.50–1.00) 0.24 15
Shrub-scrub agriculture (115)B 82 (70–95) 0.07 0.67 (0.49–0.90) 0.14 10
Young pine plantation (115)B 77 (67–88) 0.06 0.59 (0.44–0.78) 0.13 11
Developed combined (155)B,D 86 (80–92) 0.03 0.74 (0.65–0.84) 0.07 41
Undeveloped combined (137)C,E 57 (51–64) 0.06 0.33 (0.26–0.40) 0.11 142
Global, all (155)A 70 (65–75) 0.05 0.48 (0.40–0.58) 0.10 185
DCombined maritime oak developed and shrub-scrub developed habitats. Open pine developed
habitat did not have sufficient sample.
ECombined maritime oak, maritime shrub, and open pine habitats.
352 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 2
males per km2 , respectively (CVs = 0.38 and 0.19). Densities in open pine,
shrub-scrub agriculture, developed shrub-scrub, and maritime oak were similar
(15.9–23.2 singing males per km2; CVs = 0.37, 0.34, 0.35, and 0.19, respectively)
and 45% less than in maritime shrub (Fig. 2). I found no strong indications of
differences between developed and undeveloped areas within habitats or for combined
developed and undeveloped habitats (Fig. 2).
The half-normal model for distance sampling illustrated detection distances
declining gradually with a good model fit (Fig. 1). The assumption is most likely
valid that all singing Painted Buntings where detected at 0 distances, (see 0 to
8 m zone, Fig. 1). Actually, 4 singing males were observed in this zone, when
only 2.3 would be expected for the model. One was detected at 0 m and above
the observer, which would be a rare occurrence. A relatively high detection rate
of ca. 0.90 was evident to 43 m, after which detection dropped rapidly to <0.50
A second assumption that buntings were detected prior to any evasive movement
was most likely met. For about half of the point counts, I observed locations
Figure 2. Density estimates (95% CI) of Painted Buntings for distance sampling by
habitats. SSM = maritime shrub, SSdev = shrub-scrub developed, MO = maritime oak,
MOdev = maritime oak developed, SSA = shrub-scrub agriculture, OP = open pine (sawtimber),
YPP = young pine plantations (≤5 yrs old). Undev = combined maritime oak and
maritime shrub. Dev = combined maritime oak developed and shrub-scrub developed
habitats. Dev and Undev habitats are not comparable to other habitats. Only seven points
and one detection occurred in open pine developed habitat.
2011 J.M. Meyers 353
of buntings as I entered the area, then stopped at the center, and waited 1 to 2
minutes to begin the survey. Painted Buntings singing while I entered the survey
area were not observed moving away from the observer; therefore, distance sampling
in a short 5-min period should provide an accurate “instantaneous picture”
of birds around the point (Rosenstock et al. 2002, Scott and Ramsey 1981).
A third assumption that distances were measured accurately was met by using
a laser rangefinder with ±1 m accuracy and also by walking towards measured
singing locations after the survey period to be sure that birds were singing from
that location. Distances <15 m were also measured by pacing at the completion
of the survey. Slowly moving around the point, while observing and listening to
singing buntings also provided better accuracy of location data by listening and
watching from different angles.
Four global DISTANCE models provided similar density estimates (20–23
singing males per km2) overall for Painted Buntings, with ΔAICcs ≤ 0.50. Within
habitats, uniform and half-normal models with cosine or simple polynomial adjustments
provided the best density estimates according to ΔAICc (≤ 0.50), CVs,
and model goodness-to-fit statistics (Table 2).
Program DISTANCE requires 60 to 100 detections in each habitat to obtain a
coefficient of variation (CV ≤ 0.15) that provides a precise density estimate (recommended
by Buckland et al. 1993, 2001; Rosenstock et al. 2002, Thomas et al.
2010). This was met for three density estimates in this study (developed habitats:
n = 46 detections, CV = 0.15; undeveloped habitats combined: n = 137 detections,
CV = 0.12; global – all habitats; n = 207 detections, CV = 0.11); however,
maritime oak and maritime oak developed habitats had reasonable CVs (0.19)
with detections of 43 and 28, respectively (Fig 2A). CVs of density estimates in
all other habitats ranged from 0.27 to 0.38 with detections below (n ≤ 18) what is
recommended for estimates. Maritime shrub was an exception to this pattern (n =
75 detections) with a CV = 0.27, which may be related to variance associated with
extremely high density or, in this case, a lack of data near the inflection point of
detection curve (50–60 m). CIs were less for some habitats with <60 detections,
such as maritime oak when compared to CIs from maritime shrub with 75 detections
(Fig. 2), which means that increasing sampling for more detections may not
reduce CIs in maritime shrub habitat. Obtaining 80 distance samples of Painted
Buntings for young pine plantations would require >500 points surveyed just for
that density estimate alone. For this study, some preliminary density estimates
of Painted Buntings may lack statistical power needed to predict changes in the
population using program DISTANCE. In future surveys, density estimates of
Painted Buntings from program DISTANCE may require ≥200 points or more per
habitat and considerably more for young pine plantations (ca 1800 total points for
this study). As an alternative, points could be surveyed more than once to collect
additional distance samples (Buckland et al. 1993, 2001); however, this approach
would also require more time and funds.
EDR was higher for habitat of developed maritime oak with more open understory
and relatively open canopy (<50%) than for maritime oak. EDR was higher,
as expected, in more open developed habitat compared to undeveloped habitats
354 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 2
(combined). More similarities of EDRs existed than differences, however, indicating
that different habitats for the most part had similar effects on the ability
of the observer to detect singing male Painted Buntings in undeveloped habitats.
Because of this similarity, it may be reasonable, with more testing, to use a standard
70- or 75-m fixed radius for surveys that are at least within 95% CIs for
EDRs for all habitats or the average of all (70 m; Table 3). Different habitat data
could be then compared; however, density data from fixed-radius plots would be
underestimated. Other factors, such as use of highly trained observers (Kepler
and Scott 1981) and camouflage clothing (Gutztwiller and Marcum 1997) may
have also contributed positively to detectability issues.
Multiple surveys of the same area in most habitats would be needed to detect
buntings that may not have been present during one five-minute survey. Painted
Buntings in maritime shrub habitats do not leave territories to forage at distant
sites, so this may be a source of bias for density estimates between this habitat
and others where buntings may be feeding far from territories (see Springborn
and Meyers 2005). Multiple surveys at the same point have been incorporated in
range-wide surveys of eastern Painted Buntings currently underway (Rua Mordecai,
Eastern Painted Bunting Working Group, 2008 pers. comm.).
Few data exist for comparing density estimates of Painted Buntings obtained
in this study. There are, however, home-range data from Sapelo Island, GA, that
indicate densities may be fairly accurate for two habitats herein (Springborn and
Meyers 2005). In a two-year study of radio-tracked male Painted Buntings (n =
23) in open pine and maritime shrub, kernel home ranges averaged 7.0 ha (95%
CI: 4.9–9.1) and 3.1 ha (95 % CI: 2.2–3.9), which converts to approximately 14.3
singing males/km2 (95 % CI: 11.0–20.4, open pine) and 32.3 singing males/km2
(95 % CI: 25.6–45.5, maritime shrub). Both of these densities and CIs overlap
those in distance sampling for open pine (15.9 singing males/km2) and maritime
shrub (41.8 singing males/km2) (Fig. 2).
More sampling of each habitat may produce smaller CIs and CVs for density
estimates of Painted Buntings using distance sampling. At high densities, e.g., in
maritime shrub, sampling may not improve CVs. I recommend that managers of
Painted Buntings use distance sampling with large sample sizes (60–100 detections
per habitat) for long-term studies in the region and on management areas to
determine densities and CIs of this focal species.
Use of roads was the only method that some areas could be surveyed in this
study because of time and funding. One should be aware that surveys next to roads
may not provide a random sample of the breeding habitat for Painted Buntings
because of a road effect. The use of road surveys in a comparison study without
roads to determine any adjustment to density estimates may be helpful; however,
buntings are species of habitat edges and use edges created within the habitat
(clumps of shrubs) and on linear edges (salt marsh and maritime oak). Recently,
the Working Group for the Eastern Painted Bunting learned quickly that conducting
random surveys without using secondary or unpaved roads was not practical
because of time and permission required to collect the data. A comparison of
off road and roadside surveys from the Working Groups’ three-year study may
2011 J.M. Meyers 355
provide density estimates of Painted Bunting that will clarify how roadside surveys
Managers should consider maritime shrub the most important habitat for
Painted Buntings in the southeastern US. Maritime shrub has the highest bunting
densities and also high adult survival (Springborn and Meyers 2005). This
coastal habitat is also prime real estate and it’s unlikely that much of it which
is in private ownership will be maintained without development. Development
may reduce bunting densities in maritime shrub by ca 50% (this study) and may
also reduce survival because of increased predation pressures. Similarly, undeveloped
maritime oak habitat, although 38% less dense than maritime shrub for
Painted Buntings, still supports more buntings than other habitats. Maritime oak
is also under pressure for development in the coastal southeastern US. Development
also reduces Painted Bunting densities by ca 50% in maritime oak. All
other habitats should be considered important for Painted Buntings, although
lower densities (10–15 singing males/km²) make them less likely to be potential
source habitats (Pulliam 1988).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, provided partial funding for this
project. K. Bettinger assisted with field work and managed data. J. Peterson, J. Kubel, and
two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments and suggestions for the manuscript
that improved the final draft. J. Nichols inspired me to conduct this monitoring research.
I thank my colleagues of the Eastern Painted Bunting Working Group for discussions,
which also helped me develop ideas for this monitoring research project. K. Chapman of
the USFWS assisted with administration of the project. Many persons facilitated permits
for surveys at parks, wildlife management areas, and refuges, and their help was important
to completing this project during a period of special care for my terminally ill mother,
Jane Rojahn Meyers.
Bellis, V.J. 1995. Ecology of maritime forests of the southern Atlantic coast: A community
profile. Biological Report 30, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, and J.L. Laake. 1993. Distance Sampling:
Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, J.L. Laake, D.L. Borchers, and L. Thomas.
2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological
Populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 432 pp.
Farnsworth, G.L., K.H. Pollack, J.D. Nichols, T.R. Simons, J.E. Hines, and J.R. Sauer.
2002. A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys.
Gutzwiller, K.J., and H.A. Marcum. 1997. Bird reactions to observer clothing color:
Implications for distance-sampling techniques. Journal of Wildlife Management
Kepler, C.B., and J.M. Scott. 1981. Reducing bird count variability by training observers.
Studies in Avian Biology 6:366–371.
356 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 2
Lowther, P.E., S.M. Lanyon, and C.W. Thompson. 1999. Painted Bunting (Passerina
ciris). In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Ithaca, NY. Online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/398doi:10.2173/
bna.398. Accessed 2 June 2010.
Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist
Rosenstock, S.S., D.R. Anderson, K.M. Giesen, T. Leukering, and M.F. Carter. 2002.
Landbird counting techniques: Current practices and an alternative. Auk 119:46–53.
Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey,
Results and analysis 1966–2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, Laurel, MD. Available online at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/
bbs.html. Accessed 11 February 2009.
Scott, J.M., and F.L. Ramsey. 1981. Length of count period as possible source of bias in
estimating bird densities. Studies in Avian Biology 6:409–413.
Springborn, E.G., and J.M. Meyers. 2005. Home range and survival of breeding Painted
Buntings on Sapelo Island, Georgia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:1432–1439.
Sykes, P.W., Jr., and S. Holzman. 2005. Current range of the eastern population of Painted
Bunting (Passerina ciris) Part I: Breeding. North American Birds 59:4–17.
Thomas, L., S.T. Buckland, E.A. Rexstad, J.L. Laake, S. Strindberg, S.L. Hedley, J.R.B.
Bishop, T.A. Marques, and K.P. Burnham. 2010. Distance software: Design and
analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s focal
species strategy for migratory birds. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/FocalSpecies/
The%20Focal%20Species%20Fact%20Sheet%20and%20Table.pdf. Accessed 11