Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 770 2014 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 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 (Belted Kingfisher), and 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 1Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, PO Box 7325, Winston-Salem, NC 27109. 2Current 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. Manuscript Editor: Frank Moore Southeastern Naturalist 771 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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” (Bynum 1996, Fries 1922). Specific written records of The Wachovia Tract (40,058 ha [98,985 ac] in present-day Forsyth County, including Bethabara and Winston- Salem) 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 and flora that were economically valuable or dangerous to humans, these writings 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 provide information on whether a specific location should be targeted for continued 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 Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 772 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 [pine], 4 ha mixed), and grassy/human-modified areas (13 ha) (Fig. 1). 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. Southeastern Naturalist 773 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 The understory along the creeks is heavily influenced by invasive species such as 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) —persist. HBPC retains a variety of native ephemeral wildflowers and other native herbs (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 fluctuating open water surrounded by a 2–3-ha 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. We accompanied these observers on their first territory-mapping visit to provide on-the-ground training and methods clarification. The 77-ha complex was divided 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 Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 774 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 movement— on a 1:2400 field map generated in ArcGIS 9.3 (ESRI). We transferred observation data from field maps to cumulative species maps for each season and archived species-count data on eBird (eBird 2013). The eBird observer is listed as HBP/ASFC BBC20092010 for all lists. Project lists are personal locations. The first author conducted additional surveys for low-detectability and nocturnal or crepuscular species such as owls. We examined data from additional surveys after compiling species-specific maps for each season. In 2010 and 2011, late 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 the park is ≤50 m from a trail. In locations lacking trail access within 50 m of a point, offtrail surveying was conducted as part of a census visit. Census areas were measured to the nearest hectare. Southeastern Naturalist 775 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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 during ≤8 census visits, the minimum requirement for a territory was 2 detections at least 10 days apart. If a species was detected during ≥9 of the 10 visits, the minimum requirement for a territory was at least 3 detections. A single observation of a nest with eggs or young automatically defined a territory (Bibbey et al. 2000). We consulted the Birds of North America Online species accounts (Poole 2005) for known territory sizes to set the maximum distance between observations defining a territory 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 adults divided by 2 within an observed cluster, defined the number of territories (Bibby 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 species usage of the entire HBPC. Generally, we did not treat observations of fledglings and fly-overs as territory-defining registrations. Analyses and statistics We classified birds according to behavioral guilds (foraging, nesting, migration, 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 Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 776 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 descriptions in European and American field guides (Jonsson 1992, Mountfort et al. 1993, National 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 Southeastern Naturalist 777 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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 fledglings or family groups of 30 species, 23 species per year. 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 1). Breeding species composition reflects available habitat in the park and did not differ from the available habitat (χ 2 = 7.1, P ≥ 0.15, 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 between 12 April and 4 July 2009 and 2010. Guild proportions do not vary significantly from landscape proportions. % of species does not include Black-throated Blue Warbler; Urban guild habitat represents paved and building area within HBPC. % of species with Habitat type % # species detected documented territories Guild of park landscape (ha) in park in park (n) Edge 55% (40.9) 32 40% (24) Interior 17% (12.3) 18 17% (10) Open 14% (10.2) 6 5% (3) Water 11% (7.8) 9 10% (6) Urban 4% (2.8) 3 3% (2) Generalist N/A 19 25% (15) Total 97 100% (60) Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 778 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 fledgling of all these woodland interior specialists except Pileated Woodpecker. In each year, Barred Owls fledged 2 chicks. Red-shouldered Hawks fledged 3 chicks in 2009, but no Red-shouldered Hawk chicks were observed in 2010. Because overall detection of fledglings was low, lack of fledgling observations says little about whether or not a particular pair or species successfully fledged young. In 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). Habitat-specific territory density Territories/ PIF Species MTD Type (ha available) 10 ha status BCR29 status Wood Duck 0.14 Wetland/riparian woods 2.7 N/A High priority American Woodcock 0.27 Damp woods/open/early 1.1 N/A High priority successional Chimney Swift 1.10 Open near humans 1.0 Regional High priority Belted Kingfisher 0.14 Water 1.6 Regional Not listed Northern Flicker 0.34 Forest edge open woods 1.5 Regional Moderate Pileated Woodpecker 0.14 Late-successional forest; 1.7 Regional Not listed needs snags Eastern Wood Pewee 0.14 Wooded edges/generalist 0.1 Regional High Eastern Kingbird 0.14 Open with scattered trees 2.7 Regional Moderate Barn Swallow 0.54 Open generalist 2.9 Regional Not listed Brown-headed Nuthatch* 0.68 Pine stands (16.2 ha) 3.1 National Highest Regional Carolina Wren 6.15 Shrub generalist 7.6 UCS High Wood Thrush* 2.60 Damp woods (29 ha) 6.7A National High Regional Pine Warbler 0.74 Pine stands (16.2 ha) 3.4 UCS High Eastern Towhee 5.47 Edge generalist 6.3 Regional High Indigo Bunting 0.61 Shrubby successional 4.4 UCS High AEast side 13.1 ha ≥ 10 territories/ha. Southeastern Naturalist 779 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 and 1 in Fraxinus sp. (ash), at heights ranging from 1.5 m to 10 m. In 2010 when we were not looking specifically for nests, we found 18 territories and 1 nest; 2.4 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 not find a nest. Nest = Pilot indicates a nest was found during the pilot study but is not 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. Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 780 categories as 2 species), of which 24 are individual species and 14 are species groups. We are confident of the hypothesized identification for 17 species and 14 groups, with only 4 species lacking a hypothesized identification (Appendix 2). The 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 = yes indicates a nest was found. Nest = no indicates that we did not find a nest. Southeastern Naturalist 781 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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 area and accurately record observations on a map. Visual confirmation of familiar 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 spacing, and recommend reducing the spacing but did not give a specific distance. 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). Species detectability and timing of breeding influence these data. In 2010, Carolina Bird Club members found a Ruby-throated Hummingbird nest that signified a 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 Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 782 dates. Offseason surveys in 2010 and 2011 identified 2 American Woodcock territories 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 observers used the field notation for simultaneous conspecific detections more frequently in the second year of the study, allowing for finer resolution of territories. 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 similar responses to urbanization, classified by road density, noise pollution, and 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 Winston- Salem/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. Southeastern Naturalist 783 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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 (12.3 ha) reduces the likelihood of finding successfully breeding woodland-interior 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 less than 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%; Rosa multiflora Thunb. [Multiflora Rose; 13%]). The sandy substrate is regularly inundated with storm water that causes significant disturbance in the herb layer. One of the older forest patches dominated by beech/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% Multiflora Rose), in which we recorded no Wood Thrush territories in 2009 and 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 Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 784 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 species— Wood Duck, Belted Kingfisher, Pileated Woodpecker, Eastern Kingbird, Barn 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 species richness suggests that human modifications to habitat have not greatly reduced local species richness. Alternatively, contemporary Forsyth County and HBPC species richness may be momentarily greater due to the initial increases of species Southeastern Naturalist 785 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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. Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 786 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. Southeastern Naturalist 787 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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. Recordbreaking early flowering in the eastern United States. PLoS ONE 8:1–9. Evans, 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. Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 788 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. Kelly, J.F., E.S. Bridge, and M.J. Hamas. 2009. Belted Kingfisher (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. Southeastern Naturalist 789 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 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. McCaffrey, R.E., and R.W. Mannan. 2012. How scale influences birds’ responses to habitat 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 Britain and Europe, Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Hong K ong, China. 512 pp. Murphy, 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. Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 790 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. Olden, J.D., N.L. Poff, and M.L. McKinney. 2006. Forecasting faunal and floral homogenization 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.partnersinflight. org/watchlistneeds/. Accessed 20 July 2013. Partners 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 Edition. V.M. Peterson (Ed.). Houghton Mifflin, Singapore. 450 pp. 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. Spira, T. 2011. Wildflowers and Plant Communities of the Southern Appalachian Mountains 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. Southeastern Naturalist 791 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 Thorington, K.K., and R. Bowman. 2003. Predation rate on artificial nests increases with 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. Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 792 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 following Ehrlich et al. (1988), Mason et al. (2007), Minor and Urban (2010), and Poole (2005) and are breeding-season specific. Foraging: 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 field, G = generalist. For land birds only: CCS = continental combined score conservation priority score from Partners in Flight (PIF 2013b). * = watch list species (CSS scores above 14, or 13 in special cases) (PIF 2013a). RCS-b = regional concern score, breeding (PIF 2013b). ** = species of regional concern Observed HBPC breeding territories Common name Scientific name 2009 2010 Foraging Nesting Migratory Habitat CCS RCS-b 1 Canada Goose Branta canadensis (L.) 3 4 O G R W - - 2 Wood Duck Aix sponsa (L.) 1 1 O V R/S W - - 3 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos L. 1 1 O G R W - - 4 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors L. 0 0 O G N W - - 5 Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo L.A 0 0 G/O G R I 7 10 6 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias L.B 0 0 C C S/N W - - 7 Green Heron Butorides virescens (L.) 1 1 (1) C G/S N W - - 8 Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii (Bonaparte)C 1 (1) 1 (1) C C S I 8 12 9 Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus (Gmelin) 2 (1) 1 (1) C C R I 8 12 10 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis (Gmelin) 1 1 C C S/R G 6 9 11 Killdeer Charadrius vociferous L. 0 0 I G S O - - 12 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius (L.) 0 0 I G S/N W - - 13 American Woodcock Scolopax minor GmelinD 0 2 I/C I S/R E - - 14 Rock Pigeon Columba livia Gmelin 0 0 G HS R/E U 6 11 15 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura (L.) 7 11 G S R E 5 11 16 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus (L.) 0 0 I S N G 12 14** 17 Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus (Gmelin) 0 0 C C R G 6 9 18 Barred Owl Strix varia Barton 1 (1) 1E C V R I 7 13 19 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica (L.) 6 10 I V/HS N E 12 16** 20 Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris (L.) 0 1 N C N E 8 11 21 Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon (L.) 1 1 C V R W 11 15** 22 Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus (L.) 15 (1) 20 (2) I V R G 8 12 Southeastern Naturalist 793 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 Observed HBPC breeding territories Common name Scientific name 2009 2010 Foraging Nesting Migratory Habitat CCS RCS-b 23 Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens (L.) 9 (3) 12 I V R G 8 12 24 Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus (L.) 1 2 I V R I 7 12 25 Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus (L.) 2 (1) 3 I V R E 10 15** 26 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus (L.) 1 1 (1) I V R I 7 15** 27 Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens (L.) 1 1 I C N G 10 15** 28 Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens (Vieillot) 3 3 I C N I 11 15 29 Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe (Latham) 4 4 I HS S/R E 8 11 30 Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus (L.) 5 7 I V N G 8 10 31 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus (L.) 1 1 I S N O 10 15** 32 White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus (Boddaert) 5 5 I S S E 8 11 33 Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Vieillot 0 0 I C N E 9 14 34 Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius (A. Wilson) 0 0 I C S/N I 7 9 35 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus (Vieillot) 0 0 I C N I 8 8 36 Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus (L.) 30 36 I C N G 5 9 37 Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata (L.) 10 (1) 8 O C R E 8 13 38 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos C.L. Brehm 9 6 O C R G 6 11 39 Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus A. Wilson 3 2 O C S E 10 11 40 Common Raven Corvus corax L. 0 0 O C/cliff R G 6 9 41 Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis (Audubon)F 2 3 I G N O 9 10 42 Purple Martin Progne subis (L.) 0 0 I V N E 8 13 43 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot) 2 (1) 1 (1) I V N E 8 8 44 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica L. 3 5 I HS N O 8 15** 45 Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis (Audubon) 19 30 (1) I V R G 10 15 46 Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor (L.) 21 23 (2) I V R G 8 12 47 White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Latham 7 9 I V R G 6 10 48 Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Latham 4 (2) 6 (2) I V R G 13* 16** 49 Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus (Latham) 41 50 (1) I V R G 7 12 50 House Wren Troglodytes aedon Vieillot 12 (5) 12 (4) I V R E 5 8 51 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea (L.) 21 17 I C S G 7 10 52 Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis (L.) 4 4 (3) I V R E 7 11 53 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina (Gmelin) 21 (7)G 18(1) I S N I 14* 17** Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 794 Observed HBPC breeding territories Common name Scientific name 2009 2010 Foraging Nesting Migratory Habitat CCS RCS-b 54 American Robin Turdus migratorius L. 57 (2) 74 (3) I C R E 5 10 55 Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis (L.) 9 6 I S N E 8 11 56 Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos (L.) 5 4 I S R E 8 12 57 Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum (L.) 8 (1) 6 O S R E 11 14 58 European Starling Sturnus vulgaris L. 9 (1) 8(2) O V R/E U 7 12 59 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot 0 0 Fruit C S E 6 8 60 Northern Parula Parula americana (L.) 2 2 I C N G 9 12 61 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia (L.) 0 0 I S/C N E 6 8 62 Black-throated Blue Warbler Setophaga caerulescens (Gmelin)H 0 0 I S N I 10 12 63 Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica (L.) 0 0 I C N I 10 14 64 Pine Warbler Setophaga pinus (Wilson) 5 6 I C R I 7 13 65 Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia (L.) 0 0 I G N I 10 9 66 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla (L.) 0 0 I S N G 10 11 67 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla (L.) 1 1 I G N I 9 9 68 Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla (Vieillot) 0 0 I G N I 12 14 69 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas (L.) 13 5 I G S/N E 9 10 70 Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina (Boddaert) 0 0 I S N I 11 12 71 Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens (L.) 0 0 I S N E 9 12 72 Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus (L.) 39 42 I S R E 11 16** 73 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina (Bechstein) 0 0 I C R E 8 9 74 Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla (A. Wilson) 0 0 I S R/S O 12 17** 75 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum (Gmelin) 0 0 I G N O 12 15** 76 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia (A. Wilson) 7 9 I S R E 8 9 77 Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea (Gmelin) 3 3 I C N I 11 13 78 Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis (L.) 69 (5) 89 (2) I S R G 5 10 79 Blue Grosbeak Passerina caerulea (L.) 0 0 I S N E 8 14 80 Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea (L.) 5 4 I S N E 9 13 81 Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus (L.) 2 8 I G/S (reeds) S/N W 8 11 82 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula (L.) 11 19 O S R E 8 13 83 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater (Boddaert) 7 4 O P R E 7 9 84 Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius (L.) 1 0 I S/C N E 9 11 Southeastern Naturalist 795 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 Observed HBPC breeding territories Common name Scientific name 2009 2010 Foraging Nesting Migratory Habitat CCS RCS-b 85 Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula (L.) 0 0 I C N E 10 13 86 House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus (Statius Muller) 3 1 O S R/E U 6 8 87 American Goldfinch Spinus tristis (L.) 5 4 I S R E 6 10 AMay breed in park; under-detected? BNot officially FC breeder but they breed on the Yadkin River at the western county boundary approximately 7 mile s from the Park. CCooper’s Hawk was listed as a species of special concern in North Carolina until 2008 (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2008a, b). DOffseason census data AMWC surveys were conducted in 2010 and 2011. One territory was observed in 2011. EFledglings observed 2010. FNest in a crevice or burrow. GIn 2009 due to the pilot project we found a total of 9 nests. Only 7 were observed on census visits. These numbers are influenced by the extra observer efforts in 2009. HNot a Forsyth County Breeder but did meet territory criteria for 2 territories in 2009. Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 796 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 confidence of the contemporary identification that are no longer found in HBPC (they may be rare in the county, extirpated, or extinct). Names of other county 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 to 63–114 species. Extant birds are followed by extinct species then b y unidentified species. Category Current names Count Notes Wild Geese 1 CGR is possibly referring to multiple species but gives no specificity. Canada Goose, Branta canadensisB Other geese are occasionally present in winter. Ducks 4 No specificity. Currently, Mallard and Wood Duck breed in HBPC. Mallard, Anas platyrhynchosB Bufflehead and Blue-winged Teal pass through HPBC. 14 other Wood Duck, Aix sponsaB species occur with annual frequency in the county (Disher 2010). Bufflehead, Bucephala albeola (L.) Blue-winged Teal, Anas discors Partridge 1 Not resident in HBPC. Breeds in county. ID from Davis (2000). Northern Bobwhite, Colinus virginianus (L.)C Pheasant 0 Extirpated non-resident, ID from Davis (2000). Ruffed Grouse, Bonasa umbellus (L.)C Turkey 1 Resident, 1 recent confirmed breeding record (Disher 2010). Wild Turkey, Meleagris gallopavoA Heron (blue, white) Great Blue Heron, Ardea herodias 1 Resident; breed on Yadkin River along Forsyth County border; breeding in not documented, but is probable. Great Egret, Ardea alba L. 1 Forsyth County Transitory; some show up for a few days each year. Turkey Buzzard 1 Resident, does not breed in county (Disher 2010). Coragyps atratus Turkey Vulture, Cathartes aura (L.) (Bechstein) (Black Vulture) also common. Southeastern Naturalist 797 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 Category Current names Count Notes Hawk (Kite) 6 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 Gibitzen (Kiebitz) 1 The Northern Lapwing is a European species; CGR is probably Northern Lapwing, Vanellus vanellusC referring to oneof the common sandpipers. A number of shorebirds Possibilities: use the park; none are breeders in the park. Gibitzen is a High Killdeer, Charadrius vociferusA German word with the modern spelling being Kiebitz (Kleewein Spotted Sandpiper, Actitis maculariusA 2011).This term was not translated in Fries (1925). Here the Solitary Sandpiper, Tringa solitaria A. Wilson assumption is a count of 1 because only one species is indicated by Least Sandpiper, Calidris minutilla (Vieillot) CGR’s text but which of the listed possibilities or if it is something else is less clear. Turtle Dove Mourning Dove, Zenaida macrouraB 1 Mourning Dove is resident. Owl (Uhu) “… also smaller kinds” 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. Great Horned Owl, Bubo virginianusB 1 2012 HBPC breeding record. Nest may have been in the neighborhood adjacent to HBPC. Fledglings in the park prior to and Barred Owl, Strix variaB 2 during May count (5/5/2012).In HBPC, Barred Owls nested and fledged 2 chicks a year 2006–2012 (K.K. Thorington, pers. observ.). Eastern Screech-Owl, Megascops asio (L.)A Screech Owl displaced by Barred spring 2006 (K.K. Thorington, pers. observ.). Whip-poor-will Whip-poor-will, Caprimulgus vociferous A. WilsonC 0 Rare historic breeder in county (Disher 2010). Honey Bird Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Archilochus colubrisB 1 Summer resident. Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 798 Category Current names Count Notes Black Woodpecker 1 Pileated Woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatusB Resident closest in plumage and size to EU Black Woodpecker. Green Woodpecker and Red Woodpecker 6 Of the 6 smaller species in the county now it is unclear which CGR Red-headed Woodpecker, Melanerpes erythrocephalus (L.)A intended. Red-bellied Woodpecker, Melanerpes carolinusB Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Sphyrapicus varius (L.) Downy Woodpecker, Picoides pubescensB Hairy Woodpecker, Picoides villosusB Northern Flicker, Colaptes auratusB Falcons and small birds of prey 1 None found breeding in HPBC during study. All are uncommon to American Kestrel, Falco sparverius L.A rare in county. Merlin, Falco columbarius L. Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus Tunstall Fly-catcher 5 No specificity. CGR note: “small and not good to eat.” Currently we Olive-sided Flycatcher, Contopus cooperii (Swainson) have 5 species that breed in the county, the other 4 species incidental Eastern Wood-Pewee, Contopus virensA to rare, not being seen every year. This is a category in which habitat Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Empidonax flaviventris (W.M. changes have likely altered occurrence and abundance multiple times Baird and S.F. Baird) since the 1760s. 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 Crows and Rooks 3 Blue Jay, Cyanocitta cristata **not mentioned by CGR. American Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchosB Fish Crow, Corvus ossifragusB Common Raven, Corvus coraxA Southeastern Naturalist 799 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 Category Current names Count Notes Swallow 4 Northern Rough-winged Swallow, Stelgidopteryx serripennisB Purple Martin, Progne subisA Tree Swallow, Tachycineta bicolorB Cliff Swallow, Petrochelidon pyrrhonota (Vieillot)* Cliff Swallow is uncommon. Barn Swallow, Hirundo rusticaB Nut Hatch 2 Red-breasted Nuthatch, Sitta canadensis L. Red-breasted Nuthatch is common during winter irruptions. White-breasted Nuthatch, Sitta carolinensisB Brown-headed Nuthatch, Sitta pusillaB Titmouse Tufted Titmouse, Baeolophus bicolorB 1 Wren 2 House Wren, Troglodytes aedonB House Wrens breed regularly in park bluebird boxes. Winter Wren, Troglodytes hiemalis (Vieillot) Winter Wrens are here in winter. Carolina Wren, Thryothorus ludovicianusB Carolina Wrens are resident all year. Thrush 1 Translation states “thrushes … male is blood-red”, is most likely the Eastern Bluebird, Sialia sialis American Robin; however, Wood Thrush or transient spotted thrushes Veery, Catharus fuscescens (Stephens) are possibilities as they look more like European thrushes. The low Gray-cheeked Thrush, Catharus minimus (Lafresnaye) count here is 1 because there is no indication that CGR is talking Swainson’s Thrush, Catharus ustulatus (Nuttall) about more than one species. The high end of the count is 7. Hermit Thrush, Catharus guttatus (Pallas) Wood Thrush, Hylocichla mustelina American Robin, Turdus migratorius Mocking Bird Mockingbird, Mimus polyglottosB 1 Thrasher 1 Brown Thrasher, Toxostoma longirosaB Southeastern Naturalist K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 800 Category Current names Count Notes Catbird 1 Gray Catbird, Dumetella carolinensisB Starlings 1 European Starlings occur in the park and county now, but they were European Starling, Sturnus vulgarisB not successfully introduced in the United States until 1890 in New Red-winged Blackbird, Agelaius phoeniceusB York City, NY (Cabe 1993). CGR is probably referring to one of our Rusty Blackbird, Euphagus carolinus (Statius Muller) native blackbirds. The Brown-headed Cowbird a more recent arrival Common Grackle, Quiscalus quisculaB (Lowther 1993). Sparrows 9 This list includes the breeding and common winter sparrows; an Eastern Towhee, Pipilo erythrophthalmusB additional 3 species are seen almost annually and others occur with Chipping Sparrow, Spizella passerinaA less than annual frequency. 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.) Finches 2 American Goldfinch and Haemorhous mexicanus (House Finch; Purple Finch, Haemorhous purpureus (Gmelin) introduced to eastern US in 1939 [Badyaev et al. 2012]) most American Goldfinch, Spinus tristisB com mon resident finches. This count does not includeirregular irruptive species. Siskin 0 Rare winter bird in Forsyth County Pine Siskin, Carduelis pinus (A. Wilson) Wild Pigeons 0 Extinct. Passenger Pigeons, Ectopistes migratorius (L.)C Wasser Hinckel ? 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? Southeastern Naturalist 801 K.K. Thorington and K.B. Brand 2014 Vol. 13, No. 4 Category Current names Count Notes Rinschelen ? No Translation. CGR “do not sing well but have red heads”. Red Heads ? CGR “Larger than (thrushes); are black and white, do much harm to the corn.” 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.