(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - STORK, WOOD
OTHER COMMON NAMES - STORK, WOOD;IBIS, WOOD;GANNET and POND;GANNET;FLINTHEAD;IRONHEAD;GOURDHEAD
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Birds
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - CHORDATA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - AVES,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - CICONIIFORMES,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - CICONIIDAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - MYCTERIA,
SPECIES AND SSP - AMERICANA,
SCIENTIFIC NAME - MYCTERIA AMERICANA
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Wood Stork
Mycteria americana Linnaeus, 1758
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Birds
PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Aves
ORDER: Ciconiiformes FAMILY: Ciconiidae
The wood stork is one of the largest of the long-legged wading
birds that is native to the United States. It stands about 1.25 m
tall, and soars with a wingspread of between 1.5 and 1.7 m (02,26).
The stork's plumage is entirely white except for glossy black flight
feathers on the wings and a short, black tail. Adult storks have a
blackish, unfeathered head and neck and a dark bill, while immatures
have a dingy colored, feathered head and neck and a yellowish bill.
The stork's bill is long and tapers to a blunt point, and is
relatively massive in comparison with the bill of herons and egrets.
The legs are long and dark, while the feet and toes are pinkish in
color and have shallow webbing between the bases of the toes. The
wood stork is fully described in many standard reference works (02,09,
26,29).
The wood stork is a monotypic species, with no described races or
distinctive subpopulations throughout its total New World range (07,
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
26). The scientific name given here is widely accepted and used in
all literature throughout the species' range. The wood stork is the
only New World member of the genus Mycteria. Three Old World species
of Mycteria are M. ibis, yellow-billed stork, in tropical Africa;
M. cinerea, milky stork; and M. leucocephala, painted stork, in
tropical Asia (11). These three species are structurally and
ecologically similar to the wood stork, but each differs in plumage
color patterns.
The species is also known by the common name wood ibis, and is
known colloquially as gannet, pond gannet, flinthead, ironhead, and
gourdhead.
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
Alabama; Federal Endangered
Alabama; State Listed
Alabama; Unofficially Listed
Florida; Federal Endangered
Florida; Officially Listed
Georgia; Federal Endangered
Georgia; State Recognized
South Carolina; Federal Endangered
South Carolina; State Listed
E: Federal Endangered
Federal Migratory
Non-consumptive recreational
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The U.S. breeding population of the wood stork (Mycteria
americana) has been designated as Endangered pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (50 CFR 17.11; P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat.
884; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1540), as amended. Critical Habitat has not been
designated.
This species is protected by the Lacey Act (P.L. 97-79, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any wild animal
(alive or dead including parts, products, eggs, or offspring):
(1) in interstate or foreign commerce if taken, possessed,
transported or sold in violation of any State law or
regulation, or foreign law; or
(2) if taken or possessed in violation of any U.S. law,
treaty, or regulation or in violation of Indian tribal law.
It is also unlawful to possess any wild animal (alive or dead
including parts, products, eggs, and offspring) within the U.S.
territorial or special maritime jurisdiction (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 7) that is taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any State law or regulation, foreign law, or Indian
tribal law.
The species is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703-711 et seq.) (50 CFR 10.13).
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES:
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
NPS -Responsible for the law enforcement/protection of this
species with applicable State and Federal laws on
public lands under their control. Also responsible
for conservation (Nat. Park System Organic Act - 16
U.S.C. 1, 2-3)/management/recovery on National Park
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
Service lands. Taking, possessing, or disturbing of
federally listed species is prohibited on NPS lands
(36 CFR 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3).
USFS -Responsible for the law enforcement/protection of this
species with applicable State and Federal laws on
public lands under their control. Also responsible
for management/recovery on Forest Service lands. The
Forest Service is responsible for integrating
management, protection, and conservation of federally
listed species into the Forest Planning process (36
CFR 219.19 and 219.20). Management practices that
would cause detrimental changes in water temperature
or composition, water course blockage, or sediment
deposits within 100 feet of the edges of perennial
streams, lakes or other bodies of water are prohibited
(36 CFR 219.27(e)).
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
STATE: Georgia
DESIGNATED STATUS: Recognized Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Department of Natural Resources
STATE STATUTE: GA Game & Fish Code, GA Laws 1977, p.396; GA Code
Annot. Sec. 45-101 et seq, Coop. Agreement.
STATE: Alabama and South Carolina
DESIGNATED STATUS: AL, Nongame
SC, State Nongame Threatened Wildlife
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: AL Dept. of Conserv. & Natural Resources
SC Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept.
STATE STATUTE: AL, Regulation 87-GF-7 (Game and Fish)
SC, Regulations 123-150.2.
TX, 31 TX Admin. Code, Sec. 65.173
(127.70.12.003).
UNOFFICIAL LIST: AL, Endangered. R.H. Mount. 1986.
"Vertebrate animals of Alabama in need of
special attention." AL Agric. Exper. Sta.,
Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL. 124 pp.
STATE: Florida and North Carolina
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: FL Dept. of Natural Resources, also Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
STATE STATUTE: FL, Endangered and Threatened Sp. Act of 1977, FL
Stat. Annot. Sec. 372.072; FL Admin. Code,
Status - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
Rule 39-27.03, July 1983.
NC, 15 NC Admin. Code 10I.0003, Eff. July 28,
1979.
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
None.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
The wood stork serves as an ecological indicator of wetland
health. It also provides pleasure as a natural attraction, being of
great interest to bird watchers and tourists, especially in Florida.
It is the only North American breeding stork.
82/02/16:47 FR 06675/06677 - Notice of review
83/02/28:48 FR 08402/08404 - Proposed rule, list as Endangered
84/02/28:49 FR 07332/07335 - Final rule, listed as Endangered
Status - 3 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - TERRESTRIAL
INLAND AQUATIC
COASTAL
LAND USE -
Cropland and Pasture
Herbaceous Rangeland
Streams and Canals
Lakes
Reservoirs
Bays and Estuaries
Forested Wetland
Nonforested Wetland
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY CODES
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Riverine, intermittent UB4
Riverine, intermittent UB3
Riverine, intermittent UB2
Riverine, intermittent SB4
Riverine, intermittent SB3
Riverine, intermittent SB2
Riverine, intermittent OW0
Riverine, intermittent FL6
Riverine, intermittent FL5
Riverine, intermittent FL4
Riverine, intermittent FL3
Riverine, intermittent FL2
Riverine, intermittent BB2
Riverine, intermittent AB5
Riverine, intermittent AB4
Riverine, intermittent AB3
Riverine, intermittent AB2
Riverine, intermittent AB1
Riverine, lower perennial FL6
Riverine, lower perennial FL5
Riverine, lower perennial FL4
Riverine, lower perennial FL3
Riverine, lower perennial FL2
Riverine, lower perennial 3M4
Riverine, lower perennial EM3
Riverine, lower perennial EM2
Riverine, lower perennial AB5
Riverine, lower perennial AB4
Riverine, lower perennial AB3
Riverine, lower perennial AB2
Riverine, lower perennial AB1
Riverine, tidal OW0
Riverine, tidal FL6
Riverine, tidal FL5
Riverine, tidal FL4
Riverine, tidal FL3
Riverine, tidal FL2
Riverine, tidal EM4
Riverine, tidal EM3
Riverine, tidal EM2
Habitat Associations - 1
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Riverine, tidal AB5
Riverine, tidal AB4
Riverine, tidal AB3
Riverine, tidal AB2
Riverine, tidal AB1
Lacustrine, littoral OW0
Lacustrine, littoral FL6
Lacustrine, littoral FL5
Lacustrine, littoral FL4
Lacustrine, littoral FL3
Lacustrine, littoral FL2
Lacustrine, littoral EM4
Lacustrine, littoral EM3
Lacustrine, littoral AB5
Lacustrine, littoral AB4
Lacustrine, littoral AB3
Lacustrine, littoral AB2
Lacustrine, littoral AB1
Palustrine UB4
Palustrine UB3
Palustrine UB2
Palustrine SS7
Palustrine SS6
Palustrine SS5
Palustrine OW0
Palustrine FO7
Palustrine FO6
Palustrine FO5
Palustrine FL6
Palustrine FL5
Palustrine FL4
Palustrine FL3
Palustrine FL2
Palustrine EM6
Palustrine EM5
Palustrine EM4
Palustrine EM3
Palustrine AB5
Palustrine AB4
Palustrine AB3
Palustrine AB2
Palustrine AB1
Estuarine, intertidal SS3
Estuarine, intertidal SB3
Estuarine, intertidal FO3
Estuarine, intertidal FL4
Estuarine, intertidal FL3
Riverine, intermittent UB4
Riverine, intermittent UB3
Riverine, intermittent UB2
Riverine, intermittent SB4
Riverine, intermittent SB3
Riverine, intermittent SB2
Riverine, intermittent OW0
Riverine, intermittent FL6
Riverine, intermittent FL5
Riverine, intermittent FL4
Riverine, intermittent FL3
Riverine, intermittent FL2
Habitat Associations - 2
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Riverine, intermittent BB2
Riverine, intermittent AB5
Riverine, intermittent AB4
Riverine, intermittent AB3
Riverine, intermittent AB2
Riverine, intermittent AB1
Riverine, lower perennial FL6
Riverine, lower perennial FL5
Riverine, lower perennial FL4
Riverine, lower perennial FL3
Riverine, lower perennial FL2
Riverine, lower perennial 3M4
Riverine, lower perennial EM3
Riverine, lower perennial EM2
Riverine, lower perennial AB5
Riverine, lower perennial AB4
Riverine, lower perennial AB3
Riverine, lower perennial AB2
Riverine, lower perennial AB1
Riverine, tidal OW0
Riverine, tidal FL6
Riverine, tidal FL5
Riverine, tidal FL4
Riverine, tidal FL3
Riverine, tidal FL2
Riverine, tidal EM4
Riverine, tidal EM3
Riverine, tidal EM2
Riverine, tidal AB5
Riverine, tidal AB4
Riverine, tidal AB3
Riverine, tidal AB2
Riverine, tidal AB1
Lacustrine, littoral OW0
Lacustrine, littoral FL6
Lacustrine, littoral FL5
Lacustrine, littoral FL4
Lacustrine, littoral FL3
Lacustrine, littoral FL2
Lacustrine, littoral EM4
Lacustrine, littoral EM3
Lacustrine, littoral AB5
Lacustrine, littoral AB4
Lacustrine, littoral AB3
Lacustrine, littoral AB2
Lacustrine, littoral AB1
Palustrine UB4
Palustrine UB3
Palustrine UB2
Palustrine SS7
Palustrine SS6
Palustrine SS5
Palustrine OW0
Palustrine FO7
Palustrine FO6
Palustrine FO5
Palustrine FL6
Palustrine FL5
Palustrine FL4
Habitat Associations - 3
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Palustrine FL3
Palustrine FL2
Palustrine EM6
Palustrine EM5
Palustrine EM4
Palustrine EM3
Palustrine AB5
Palustrine AB4
Palustrine AB3
Palustrine AB2
Palustrine AB1
Estuarine, intertidal SS3
Estuarine, intertidal SB3
Estuarine, intertidal FO3
Estuarine, intertidal FL4
Estuarine, intertidal FL3
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
The wood stork in the southeastern United States is very much a
bird of permanent and seasonally flooded wetlands. In this region,
the stork is especially associated with non-flowing freshwater sites
(02,09,10,26).
Wood storks almost invariably build their nests in woody
vegetation located in standing water or on islands in large lakes or
estuaries. Storks nest in colonies, with the number of pairs nesting
at one site ranging from as few as 5 or 10 to as many as 1000 or
more. Thus, the size of a colony varies considerably. Nests are
built in medium to tall bald cypress and pond cypress (Taxodium sp.),
mangroves (Rhizophora sp., Laguncularia sp., Avicennia sp.), swamp
hardwoods (for example, black gum, Nyssa aquatica), dead hardwoods
killed by recent flooding, and occasionally in large willows (Salix
sp.) or dense cactus (Opuntia sp.) patches. A temporary, artificial
habitat that storks have used for nesting in recent years is phosphate
settling impoundments at quarrying sites. These may have been adopted
due to loss of more suitable nesting sites (17). The common thread
throughout this varied list of acceptable nest substrates is that all
are located over standing water or are on small islands surrounded by
a broad expanse of water (15,17).
Wood storks feed, to a large extent, on small, freshwater fish,
which usually range in length between 2.0 and 25 cm (10). Because the
stork's specialized grope-feeding technique for capturing fish works
most efficiently where fish densities are high, much foraging occurs
at sites where fish have become concentrated by dropping water levels
(03,10). Characteristically, good feeding sites are those with still
or very slow flowing water at depths of between about 5 and 30 cm.
Since storks locate fish primarily by feel rather than by sight, good
foraging sites can be either clear or muddy, or may contain
appreciable amounts of submerged or emergent vegetation (10). The
only important constraint with vegetation is that it not be so dense
as to interfere with a stork's movements as it makes repeated probes
into the water with its bill.
Small to large flocks of storks may roost at night, and rest
during the day, in tops of large cypress or swamp hardwood trees, on
elevated levees in open marsh, or standing in wet pastures.
Many wetland sites may provide suitable foraging areas, including
drying roadside ditches, isolated tidal pools exposed by dropping
tides, drying depressions in marshes or wooded swamps, edges of farm
ponds, edges or shallows in streams during low water periods, natural
wet grasslands, or seasonal ponds in pastures. Suitable feeding sites
Habitat Associations - 4 are not known to have specific requirements in terms of water quality
or site location, so long as the basic water depth, water stillness
and fish density are appropriate. Some foraging sites may only be
seasonally flooded, and most are only suitable to foraging storks
during periods of the year when fish are concentrated. Thus, falling
water levels may be essential at many locations as a mechanism to
concentrate fish. Conversely, during periods of heavy rainfall, or
whenever water levels are rising, fish densities in many pools may not
be high enough to attract storks.
Although generally unmeasured in any quantitative sense, it
appears that most stork nesting colonies are located in regions with
relatively large numbers of wetland sites within a 60 km radius of the
colony. Storks utilize many different feeding sites during the course
of a nesting season and to nest successfully, they may be required to
nest in regions where the number of feeding site options are high.
The smaller feeding sites may be cleaned out by a number of storks in
only a day, requiring that these birds locate a new feeding site the
next day. It is also important that there be enough diversity in
wetland habitats within range of a colony so that the proper water
depths and fish densities are available at several sites at any time
during the 4 to 5 month nesting cycle. In some regions, this
requirement is met through a complex mosaic of many small pools,
sloughs, ditches, and secondary creeks woven throughout a flat or
low-rolling landscape. In the Everglades and Big Cypress regions of
south Florida, uneven drying rates caused by subtle differences in
marsh depth and the presence of deeper "gator holes" and sloughs,
provide a prolonged period of suitable feeding conditions for storks
(14,21). During early winter, when water levels are still too deep in
interior marshes, storks feed almost exclusively in more coastal
mangrove swamps and tidal pools. As the winter dry season progresses,
storks gradually move further and further inland, essentially
following the drying edge, and concentrating their feeding effort in
many isolated pools where fish are trapped by the dry-down (03,14,21).
Such a condition apparently once provided the ideal feeding habitat
capable of supporting large numbers of wood storks, and is the
explanation for the large nesting colonies that were once
characteristic of southern Florida.
Habitat Associations - 5 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
CARNIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General Arthropods
General Crustaceans
General Amphibia
General Reptilia
General Mammalia
General Fish
General Arthropods
General Crustaceans
General Amphibia
General Reptilia
General Mammalia
General Fish
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G Coastal Features: Vegetated offshore islands
G Terrestrial Features: Depressions
G Snags: Unknown
G Human Association: Farm ponds
G
G Coastal Features: Vegetated offshore islands
G Terrestrial Features: Depressions
G Snags: Unknown
G Human Association: Farm ponds
G
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
Wood storks feed almost entirely on small fish, often to the
exclusion of any other types of prey (26). A sample of 3,198 prey
items collected from storks at feeding sites, and from nestlings, in
Everglades National Park in 1974, was over 99 percent, by number and
by weight, small fish (20,21). Although there were 27 species of fish
in the sample, only a few species made up most of the total. Flagfish
(Jordanella floridae), sailfin mollies (Poecillia latipinna), marsh
killifish (Fundulus confluentus), and the combined species of sunfish
(Centrarchidae sp.) accounted for 83 percent of the individuals and 72
percent of the weight.
A study of wood stork food habits at the northern edge of the
nesting range also showed small fish to be most important (06). Of 67
food samples collected from the Big Duke Swamp, GA, colony in 1984, 63
were fish. Most of the fish (50) were species of sunfish.
The length of the fish caught by storks in the Everglades
National Park study was 1.5 to 22 cm, and at the Big Duke colony in
1984 it was 2.5 to 25.2 cm. The mean length of fish taken from
nestlings in two colonies during the Everglades NP study was 4.1 and
5.4 cm, and for the Big Duke colony, was 9.9 cm. These data, plus
unpublished food samples and nest success data collected from other
Florida colonies during the 1970's (17), suggest that wood storks may
have a higher rate of nesting success (more young per successful nest)
if fish brought to the nestlings tend to average larger in size. The
average number of young per successful nest at the two Everglades NP
colonies in 1974 was 2.0, while at Big Duke in 1984, successful nests
averaged 2.4 young.
Although Kahl (10) thought that younger nestlings were fed
smaller fish than were larger nestlings, the Everglades study showed
no significant difference in the size of fish fed to small versus
large nestlings (21). The Everglades study also showed that foraging
adult storks do not capture fish in proportion to the actual abundance
of each species at the feeding site (20). Selectivity by feeding
adults in the Everglades apparently is a passive action, with the
manner and depth of foraging by the stork, combined with different
behaviors and sizes of fish, determining which species are most often
captured. Certain species of fish that were selected in much greater
proportion than they occurred in these waters were sunfish, marsh
killifish, sailfin mollies, and sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon
variegatus). Conversely, the most abundant fish, the mosquito fish
(Gambusia affinis), was far under represented in the food sample
compared to its abundance. Storks also took a higher percentage of
the larger sizes of all species than were actually present.
Selectivity for larger sizes generally worked for most species for
individuals over 3.5 cm in length.
Storks capture most fish in water 15 to 50 cm deep (10). They
may feed solitarily, but more often in small to large flocks. Fish
are captured by a technique known as grope-feeding (10,13). A bird
wades forward, holding its mandibles open about 7 to 8 cm at the tip,
and with the bill vertically submerged as far as the external nares.
Sometimes, the entire head is immersed for short periods of time.
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
Upon physical contact with prey, the mandibles are snapped rapidly
shut. Detection and capture of prey is directed primarily by tactile
rather than visual cues. Often, especially where aquatic vegetation
is thick, a feeding stork will combine the above technique with
foot-stirring (27). Foot-stirring appears to increase the movement of
fish in the vicinity of the submerged bill, and increases the chance
of contact with prey.
The Everglades and Big Duke studies showed that very small
amounts of other prey than fish are taken for food. In the Everglades
study, freshwater prawns (Palaemonetes paludosus), newts
(Notophthalmus viridescens), and bullfrogs (Rana grylio), made up less
than 1 percent of the food sample (20). Of the 67 prey items
identified from the Big Duke site, 4 were crayfish (Cambaridae sp.),
which represented 2.4 percent by weight of the total sample (06).
Other non-fish foods have been reported, and are summarized in
Palmer (26) and Kahl (10). They include small crabs, young
alligators, snakes, small turtles, insects, small rodents and shrews
and some plant material. Some of these reports are very old (e.g.,
J. Audubon) and are of unknown authenticity.
The amount of food required by wood storks has been reported by
Kahl (10). He estimates that an adult stork requires 420 g of food
per day. The average weight of food items from the Big Duke study was
17.1 g. For fish this size, approximately 30 would be needed to meet
the daily requirement. Weights of fish commonly taken by storks,
however, vary considerably. Eleven small sunfish from a stork food
sample at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in 1978 had an
average weight of 11.7 g, while 18 flagfish in a different sample from
the same colony had an average weight of 1.3 g (17). When fish
available to storks are mainly in the latter size category, a feeding
bird would require 400 fish to meet the daily intake requirement.
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
The wood stork is a non-territorial species. Storks are highly
social, and many pairs of adults may band together to nest in colonies
(02,26). Each pair in a colony defends its immediate nest and
whatever space can be reached by an adult standing on the nest
platform (10,11,12). Undefended nests may be robbed of much nest
material by other adult birds that are nest-building in the vicinity.
Adult storks fly daily from the colony to feeding grounds, most
often within 8 to 60 km of the colony (20,21). Maximum daily flights
from a colony are up to 130 km (21). Feeding sites are frequently
changed, so that the distance and direction that storks travel may
change many times during a single nesting season. Storks may feed
together in flocks at feeding sites, and do not defend feeding sites.
Non-breeding adult storks and immatures are non-territorial as
well. Flocks of non-breeding storks may wander over large
geographical areas, of hundreds of miles, in response to changing
surface water and feeding conditions.
PERIODICITY:
Wood storks in southern Florida initiate nesting in mid-winter,
during the dry season when water levels are dropping and food fish are
concentrated (03,14,21). Storks that nest between central Florida and
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
coastal South Carolina initiate nesting in the spring, apparently to
avoid winter's low temperatures and storms (05,17,18). Storks are
active primarily during the day, although some nocturnal foraging has
been suspected. Flight between roosts or nesting colonies and feeding
grounds occurs primarily between mid-morning and mid-afternoon each
day, when thermals are best developed and long distance soaring is
most easily achieved (10).
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
Wood storks in the southeastern United States are non-migratory,
although they do exhibit fairly regular dispersal patterns (01,26).
Storks that nest in southern Florida in winter and spring abandon the
nesting region in early summer at the initiation of the rainy season,
and return to south Florida during the late fall after the rains end
(14). The timing and distances traveled by these storks vary
considerably from year to year, depending upon the success of the
nesting effort, timing of nesting, the timing and magnitude of the
rainy season in south Florida, and upon the feeding conditions found
to the north as the birds disperse. Storks that nest in the south are
known to disperse to north Florida and along the coastal plain in
Georgia and South Carolina (17). Less commonly, these storks disperse
into Alabama and Mississippi, with the western-most known dispersal by
a known, marked stork from a south Florida colony being the Noxubee
NWR in northeastern Mississippi (17).
Seasonal movements by storks that nest in the more northern
colonies are much less known. Two adult storks from the Big Duke,
Georgia, colony that were carrying radio transmitters wandered as far
south as the central Everglades during the winter. Both returned to
the Big Duke colony for the next breeding season (06). Their movement
south during the fall was unhurried, and appeared to represent a
southward post-breeding dispersal, rather than migration.
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
The wood stork is a large, free-roaming species that covers a
considerable area on both a daily and seasonal basis. Small to large
flocks of storks may roost at night, and rest during the day, in tops
of large cypress or swamp hardwood trees, on elevated levees in open
marsh, or standing in wet pastures. At other times of the day, storks
may soar high over roost or feeding sites, or sail long distances on
spread wings. The species utilizes no special shelter or cover.
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
Wood storks nesting in colonies in the southeastern United States
construct their nests anywhere between ground level and 30 m up in the
tops of virgin bald cypress trees (Taxodium distichum). On coastal
islands or in mangrove forests where woody vegetation may be sparse or
low and dense, stork nests often are located between 0.75 and 5 m
above ground. Nests in these locations are placed on the upper
horizontal branches across the tops of shrubs or small trees, and at
the Pelican Island refuge may be in dense patches of prickly-pear
cactus and occasionally on the ground (02,15,17,26).
In inland pond cypress or hardwood swamps, nests may be between
1.5 and 15 m above ground or over the surface of water. Many nests
Life History - 3 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
may be placed on the short lateral branches that project horizontally
from the main trunks below the canopy of these trees. In swamps of
large bald cypress, most nests are located on the horizontal,
spreading branches at the tops of the trees, at heights of 20 to 30 m.
All nesting colonies are located in woody vegetation that is
flooded at least throughout the nesting season, or are on islands that
are surrounded by broad reaches of open water (15,17). In addition,
colony sites tend to be in areas that are isolated from regular and
direct intrusion by humans or predators (raccoons, etc.) (22).
Courtship displays by adult storks, and perching areas for young
storks as they first leave the nests, are on the horizontal branches
that are immediately adjacent to the nests (12,17). Nests are
constructed of sticks and short branches, often about 10 to 20 mm in
diameter, that are collected by the adult birds from whatever trees
and shrubs are most abundant within a few hundred meters of the
colony. Nests are lined with leafy sprigs that are collected in and
near the colony.
Groups of newly fledged storks often gather in tight flocks,
within 0.5 km of a colony. They may perch for long periods each day
in the tops of trees or tall shrubs near the nesting trees, or on the
ground in open, shallow pools of water (17).
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
A small sample of marked wood storks of known age from south
Florida colonies still showed immature plumage characteristics at 3
years of age (17). Two storks known to be 4 years old appeared to
have full adult plumages and were known to have nested (17). The
nesting season generally begins between early December and February in
extreme southern Florida (as early as late November, historically),
and begins between late February and mid-April in colonies located
between central Florida and South Carolina (05,10,17). Nesting is
completed in south Florida during April and May in most years, and by
July in northern colonies. Storks nest only once per year, although
renesting by some pairs that fail early in their first attempt is
suspected (10).
The full reproductive season runs between 110 and 150 days,
including 12 to 25 days for pre-pairing occurrence in the colonies, 5
to 8 days for pair formation and nest building, 28 to 32 days for
incubation, 50 to 55 days for nestling development, and 15 to 30 days
for post-fledging dependence on the nesting site as a feeding station
for young (10). Wood storks do not form permanent pair bonds, but
form new pairs in the colonies each year (26). Pair formation
includes ritualistic head-tossing and bill-clacking displays by the
males (12). The most frequent clutch size is 3 eggs, although
average clutch size for a colony usually ranges between 2.5 and 3.0
eggs per nest. Both adults share in the incubation (17,26).
PARENTAL CARE:
Both adults of a mated pair of wood storks take an equal role in
the raising of the nestlings (10). The young are covered with a
sparse down, and weigh about 62 g at hatching. The young are brooded
much of the day and at night during the first week, and thereafter
only during rainy or cool periods (night) so long as they remain
Life History - 4 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
mostly downy. Growth is rapid, with 4 week old nestlings being about
one-half grown or larger, and partially feathered on the dorsal
surface. Nestlings are fed between 3 and 12 times per day, about
equally by both parents. One adult usually remains close to the nest
at all times until nestlings are 4 to 5 weeks old, to protect nests
from marauding adults and the nestlings from rain or cold; after 5
weeks the chicks are vigorous enough to protect the nest and
themselves. When the nestlings are older, both adults leave the
colony to feed. When flights to foraging grounds are long, one or
both adults may overnight at the feeding sites (10,17). After 50 to
55 days, nestlings take their first short flights, although they
return to the nest to be fed and to roost until 75 to 90 days of age
(10). The number of young that fledge from successful nests ranges
between 1 and 3, depending upon the overall availability of food
during the full nesting period (05,10,17). There is no evidence that
a family bond is maintained after the young become independent.
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
The United States breeding population of wood storks declined
from an estimated 20,000 breeding pairs in the mid-1930's to
10,000-11,000 pairs in 1959-1960, to 6000 pairs in 1975 and about
5,000 pairs in the period 1980-1985 (16,22,23). The annual rate of
decline through most of the 1970's was close to 4 percent (22,23).
Much of the decline since the 1950's, or earlier, has been due to poor
reproduction, especially in the large south Florida colonies (22,23,
28). For example, stork colonies in the present Everglades National
Park were successful in 6 of 7 years of known record during the
1940's, compared to 2 of 10 years in the 1970's (23). Poor
reproduction has been due to loss and degradation of feeding habitats,
rather than to loss or disturbance at nesting sites.
Almost nothing is known of annual mortality rates or the life
span of wood storks. Survival of young during their first year may
vary considerably between years, as there seems to be a correlation
between the number of marked young storks that are sighted
post-fledging and the overall condition of the feeding habitats
throughout the stork's range (17). This correlation suggests that
mortality may be much higher for first year storks when feeding
grounds are dry or are deeply flooded. Storks potentially have a long
life span, and under favorable conditions are capable of turning out
2 to 3 young annually, per nesting pair.
The number of pairs that nest annually, however, is strongly
influenced by local water level and feeding conditions (19). As much
as one-half of the potential breeding pairs may not breed in years of
high water.
A goal for recovery in the short-term could be to stabilize the
wild population at 5000 to 6000 pairs (to downlist the species), and
for the longer term (to delist the species) is a self-sustaining
population of 10,000 pairs.
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
None.
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
Life History - 5 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
The wood stork is a wide-ranging, mobile species, well adapted to
search for and locate food within a large radius of a nesting colony.
When food becomes scarce at one feeding site, storks quickly scatter
to locate new feeding grounds (03,04,06). The failure of colonies to
be reproductively successful, especially in the well protected south
Florida colonies, strongly suggests that rather massive degradation of
south Florida wetlands has been and is occurring. Nesting success in
the traditionally smaller colonies scattered north from central
Florida has not been as consistently poor as has occurred in the
southern colonies. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest
that the recent steady decline in south Florida colonies is, at least
in part, due to storks abandoning this region, and shifting to
colonies further north to nest. The strongest evidence for this
population shift has been the almost dramatic increase in the number
of storks nesting in Georgia and South Carolina since the mid-1970's.
Total pairs nesting in these 2 states has increased from a possible 90
pairs in 1976 to 600 pairs in 1985 (18). If this build-up includes
many storks that formerly nested in south Florida colonies, then no
way exists at present to determine whether the northern colonies are
producing enough young to remain stable, because of the masking affect
of the relocations.
Life History - 6 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human disturbance of populations
Beneficial Maintaining/Controlling Water Flow
Beneficial Developing/maintaining/protecting wetlands
Beneficial Controlling water levels
Beneficial Maintaining undisturbed/undeveloped areas
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Controlling pollution [thermal, chemical, physical]
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Pesticide Use
Beneficial Restricting Timber Harvest
Adverse Incidental Capturing/Killing
Existing Incidental Capturing/Killing
Adverse Food Supply Reduction
Existing Food Supply Reduction
Adverse Draining wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes
Existing Draining wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes
Adverse Strip mining
Existing Strip mining
Adverse Water Level Stabilization
Existing Water Level Stabilization
Adverse Water Level Fluctuation
Existing Water Level Fluctuation
Adverse Flooding
Existing Flooding
Adverse Groundwater drawdown
Existing Groundwater drawdown
Adverse Irrigating
Existing Irrigating
Adverse Dredging
Existing Dredging
Adverse Fire
Existing Fire
Adverse Harvesting
Existing Harvesting
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human disturbance of populations
Beneficial Maintaining/Controlling Water Flow
Beneficial Developing/maintaining/protecting wetlands
Beneficial Controlling water levels
Beneficial Maintaining undisturbed/undeveloped areas
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Controlling pollution [thermal, chemical, physical]
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Pesticide Use
Beneficial Restricting Timber Harvest
Adverse Incidental Capturing/Killing
Existing Incidental Capturing/Killing
Adverse Food Supply Reduction
Existing Food Supply Reduction
Adverse Draining wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes
Existing Draining wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes
Adverse Strip mining
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Existing Strip mining
Adverse Water Level Stabilization
Existing Water Level Stabilization
Adverse Water Level Fluctuation
Existing Water Level Fluctuation
Adverse Flooding
Existing Flooding
Adverse Groundwater drawdown
Existing Groundwater drawdown
Adverse Irrigating
Existing Irrigating
Adverse Dredging
Existing Dredging
Adverse Fire
Existing Fire
Adverse Harvesting
Existing Harvesting
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
Most wood stork declines in the Twentieth Century in the
southeastern United States have been due to habitat destruction and
alteration (01,16,22,23). Some colony nesting sites have been
destroyed by lumbering, primarily in the large cypress swamps prior to
1960. The major adverse habitat change, however, has been loss of
suitable feeding habitat, especially in southern Florida where the
largest nesting colonies traditionally occurred. Many man-caused
fires in the everglades destroyed the marl and peat soils, and thus
severely reduced the water retention capabilities of these marshes.
These changes, along with extensive drainage and water control
systems that have lowered ground water levels, channelized existing
streams (increasing drainage in uplands), diverted water for
agriculture and flooded some areas, have eliminated much habitat that
was once important as wading bird feeding areas. Of the wetlands that
remain, many have been impounded or otherwise altered so that seasonal
drying and flooding patterns no longer operate as they once did.
Degradation and loss of these feeding habitats has occurred primarily
since the 1930's (01,22,28). The cumulative effect of these changes
has been a long-term reduction in nesting success as adult storks have
increasingly had difficulty obtaining enough food to rear young. In
addition, changes in the hydrological periods due to water management
practices have caused some changes in location and timing of nesting
in south Florida, which have been further detrimental to nesting
success (14). One important consequence of the altered drying rates
in Everglades National Park has been delayed nesting by storks, which
forced birds to unsuccessfully attempt to rear young after the
initiation of the summer rainy season in some years.
An additional habitat factor, primarily in the region between
central Florida and South Carolina, has been an apparent lack of
suitable nesting habitat in recent years (23). Storks traditionally
nested in large cypress swamps in the interior, but these habitats,
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
where they survive intact, increasingly have been too dry during the
spring months to be suitable for stork nesting. Storks have adjusted
to this habitat loss, which has been especially severe in the dryer
years, by nesting in trees in water impoundments (22,23). There has
been no detectable difference in nesting success between colonies
located in impoundments and those in natural habitats. Impoundments,
however, tend to be less stable for long-term nesting, often because
most are managed for other purposes than for use by nesting birds. A
common occurrence in impoundments has been for woody vegetation to
become stressed by severe flooding, with many trees eventually dying
(17).
Although not sought for plumes, storks were taken incidentally
when hunting other waterbirds for their plumage was popular (17).
There is no conclusive evidence that pesticides or other
environmental contaminants have adversely affected wood storks (08,24,
25).
APPROVED PLAN:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the U.S.
Breeding Population of the Wood Stork. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv.,
Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
The U.S. breeding population of the wood stork could be
considered for delisting if a self-sustaining population of 10,000
pairs was obtained, through the securing of adequate feeding and
nesting areas over the species historic range. The goal must be
considered tentative, contingent upon new information learned during
the recovery process.
The wood stork could be considered for reclassification to a
threatened species if 6,000 breeding pairs were secured, and if the
increase was sufficiently well understood so that this population
level could be maintained or increased. Another approach could be to
determine whether the present approximately 5,000 breeding pairs
represent the current carrying capacity for U.S. breeding wood storks.
If so, successful stabilization at this level could be a basis for
considering reclassification to threatened status. As with the goal
for delisting, the reclassification goal is tentative. The breeding
success of the wood stork is completely dependent upon the quantity
and quality of the feeding and nesting areas.
Recovery actions for the wood stork include:
I. Establish secure habitat for the life cycle of the wood stork.
A. Provide adequate feeding habitat for existing rookeries.
1. Determine feeding areas essential to support rookeries
and non-breeding assemblages. Identify water management
necessary to maintain suitable feeding conditions (e.g.,
water levels and water flow). Implement water management
practices favorable to wood stork productivity.
2. Identify other threats to feeding areas and implement
appropriate protective or corrective measures. Potential
threats may include: water drawdown, controlled burning,
vegetation management, backpumping, environmental
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
contaminants, and/or pesticides.
B. Protect wood stork rookeries.
1. Conduct an annual census of U.S. rookeries.
2. Maintain favorable rookery conditions. Protect colonies
from disturbance such as logging. Maintain water levels
(although drawdowns at appropriate intervals may be
necessary). Prevent human disturbance and control
development. Encourage public and private land owners to
provide suitable nesting conditions (cooperative
agreements may be beneficial).
II. Develop models for population dynamics and movements of wood
storks. Monitor post-breeding dispersal and rookery shifts.
Develop life tables. Determine population genetics. Incorporate
results of the above into recovery goals.
III. Develop public awareness of wood stork and wetland problems.
Pamphlets have been produced by the Florida Power and Light Co.,
and the National Audubon Society to describe the stork and its plight.
Several popular articles on the subject have been published in
magazines such as Audubon.
Another planed action (for 1988) by the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service is to hire a full-time (temporary, not
to exceed 5 years) woodstork coordinator.
Management Practices - 4 (DRAFT) - References
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Allen, R.P. 1958. A progress report on the wading bird surveys.
Rept. 1 & 2, Manuscript on file: Natl. Aud. Soc., Tavernier, FL.
02 Bent, A.C. 1926. Life histories of North American marsh birds.
U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 135.
03 Browder, J.A. 1976. Water, wetlands, and wood storks in southwest
Florida. Univ. Fla. Diss., Gainesville, FL. 406 pp.
04 Browder, J.A. 1984. Wood stork feeding areas in southwest
Florida. Fla. Field Nat. 12:81-96.
05 Clark, E.S. 1978. Factors affecting the initiation and success of
nesting in an east-central Florida wood stork colony. Proc. Conf.
Colonial Waterbird Group 1978:178-183.
06 Coulter, M. 1985. Pers. comm. Savannah River Ecolog. Lab.,
Aiken, SC 29801.
07 DeSchauensee, R.M. 1966. The Species of Birds of South America.
Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. Livingston Press, Narberth, PA.
08 Fleming, W.J., J.A. Rodgers, Jr., and C.J. Stafford. 1984.
Contaminants in wood stork eggs and their effects on reproduction,
Florida, 1982. Colonial Waterbirds 7:88-93.
09 Howell, A.H. 1932. Florida Bird Life. Coward-McCann, New York,
NY.
10 Kahl, M.P. 1964. Food ecology of the wood stork (Mycteria
americana) in Florida. Ecol. Monogr. 34:97-117.
11 Kahl, M.P. 1971. Social behavior and taxonomic relationships of
the storks. Living Bird 10:151-170.
12 Kahl, M.P. 1972. Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. Part 3.
The wood-storks (genera Mycteria and Ibis). Ibis 114:15-29.
13 Kahl, M.P. and L.J. Peacock. 1963. The bill-snap reflex: A
feeding mechanism in the American wood stork. Nature 199:505-506.
14 Kushlan, J., J.C. Ogden, and A. Higer. 1975. Relations of
variations of water level and fish availability to wood stork
reproduction in the Everglades, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv.,
Tallahassee, FL. Open-file Report 75-434. 56 pp.
15 Nesbitt, S.A., J.C. Ogden, H.W. Kale II, B.W. Patty, and L.A.
Rowse. 1982. Florida atlas of breeding sites for herons and their
allies: 1976-1978. Off. of Biol. Serv., U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv.,
FWS/OBS-81/49. Washington, D.C. 450 pp.
16 Ogden, J.C. 1983. The abundant, endangered flinthead. Audubon
85:90-101.
17 Ogden, J.C. 1985. Unpubl. field data. South FL Res. Center,
Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL 33030.
18 Ogden, J.C., G.T. Bancroft, and J. Bangma. 1985. Wood stork
colony aerial survey, June 1985. In-house rept., Natl. Aud. Soc.,
Ornithol. Res. Unit, Tavernier, FL 33070.
19 Ogden, J.C., H.W. Kale II, and S.A. Nesbitt. 1980. The influence
of annual variation in rainfall and water levels on nesting by
Florida populations of wading birds. Trans. Linnaean Soc. New
York 9:115-126.
20 Ogden, J.C., J.A. Kushlan, and J.T. Tilamant. 1976. Prey
selectivity by the wood stork. Condor 78:324-330.
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
21 Ogden, J.C., J.A. Kushlan, and J.T. Tilamant. 1978. The food
habits and nesting success of wood storks in Everglades National
Park 1974. USDI, Natl. Park Serv., Nat. Resour. Rept. No. 16,
Washington, D.C. 450 pp.
22 Ogden, J.C. and S.A. Nesbitt. 1979. Recent wood stork population
trends in the United States. Wilson Bull. 91:512-523.
23 Ogden, J.C. and B.W. Patty. 1981. The recent status of the wood
stork in Florida and Georgia. Proc. Nongame and Endangered Wildl.
Symposium, Athens, GA. GA. Dept. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. WL. 5.
24 Ogden, J.C., W. Robertson, Jr., G. Davis, and T. Schmidt. 1974.
Pesticides, polychlorinated biphenols and heavy metals in upper
food chain levels, Everglades National Park and vicinity. Natl.
Technical Infor. Serv., U.S. Dept. Commerce, Washington, D.C.
25 Ohlendorf, H., E. Klass and T. Kaiser. 1978. Organochlorine
residues and eggshell thinning in wood storks and anhingas. Wilson
Bull. 90:608-618.
26 Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 1.
Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.
27 Rand, A.L. 1956. Foot-stirring as a feeding habit of wood ibis
and other birds. Am. Midl. Nat. 55:96-100.
28 Robertson, W.B., Jr. and J.A. Kushlan. 1974. The southern Florida
avifauna. Pages 414-451. IN: Environments of south Florida:
Present and past. P.J. Gleason, ed. Memoir 2, Miami Geol. Soc.
29 Wetmore, A. 1965. The birds of the Republic of Panama. Part 1.
Smithsonian Misc. Collections, Vol. 150. Washington, D.C.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 Anonymous. 1983. Wood stork surveys. 9-13 April 1983 & 7-11 July
1983. In-house rept., Natl. Aud. Soc. Res. Dept., Tavernier, FL.
02 Bent, A.C. 1926. Life histories of North American marsh birds.
U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 135.
03 Burleigh, T.D. 1958. Georgia Birds. Univ. Okla. Press, Norman,
OK.
04 Cone, W.C. and J.V. Hall. 1970. Wood ibis found nesting on
Okefenokee Refuge. Chat 34:14.
05 Dusi, J.L. and R.T. Dusi. 1968. Evidence for the breeding of the
wood stork in Alabama, 1968. Alabama Birds 16:14-16.
06 Hall, G.A. 1979. Appalachian region. American Birds 33:176-178.
07 Hamel, P.B. 1977. The wood stork in South Carolina, a review.
Chat 41:24-26.
08 Howell, A.H. 1932. Florida Bird Life. Coward-McCann, New York,
NY.
09 Imhof, T.A. 1962. Alabama Birds. Dept. Conserv., State of
Alabama. Univ. Ala. Press, Univ. Ala.
10 LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1980. Southern Atlantic Coast region. Am.
Birds 34:885-887.
11 Meyers, J.M. 1984. Wood storks of the Birdsville colony and the
swamps of the Savannah River Plant. Savannah River Ecol. Lab.,
Aiken, SC.
12 Murphy, T.M. May 1985. Pers. comm. SC Wildl. and Marine Resour.
Dept., Green Pond, SC 29446.
References - 2 (DRAFT) - References
Species STORK, WOOD
Species Id ESIS104005
Date 14 MAR 96
13 Oberholser, H.C. 1938. The bird life of Louisiana. Bull. 28,
Louisiana Dept. Conserv., New Orleans, LA.
14 Oberholser, H.C. and E.B. Kincaid, Jr. 1974. The Bird Life of
Texas, Vol.1. Univ. Texas Press, Austin.
15 Odom, R.R. 1978. Wood storks nesting on the Georgia coast.
Oriole 43:1-5.
16 Ogden, J.C. 1985. Unpubl. field data. South FL Res. Center,
Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL 33030.
17 Ogden, J.C., G.T. Bancroft, and J. Bangma. 1985. Wood stork
colony aerial survey. In-house Rept., Natl. Aud. Soc., Ornithol.
Res. Unit, Tavernier, FL 33070.
18 Ogden, J.C. and S.A. Nesbitt. 1979. Recent wood stork population
trends in the United States. Wilson Bull. 91:512-523.
19 Ogden, J.C. and B.W. Patty. 1981. The recent status of the wood
stork in Florida and Georgia. Proc. Nongame and Endangered Wildl.
Symposium, Athens, GA. GA. Dept. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. WL. 5.
20 Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol.1.
Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.
21 Patty, B. 1982. Florida and Georgia wood stork survey. 12-14
April 1982. In-house Rept., Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Dept.,
Tavernier, FL.
22 Patty, B., D. McCrimmon, and A. Sprunt IV. 1984. Wood stork
survey, 10-14 April 1984 and 18-22 June 1984. In-house Rept.,
Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Dept., Tavernier, FL.
23 Patty, B., J.C. Ogden, and D. McCrimmon. 1982. Florida wading
bird survey. 7-10 and 12-16 July 1982. In-house Rept., Natl.
Audubon Soc. Res. Dept., Tavernier, FL.
24 Scott, F.R. 1979. Middle Atlantic Coast region. American Birds
33:163-165.
25 Stoddard, H.L., Sr. 1978. Birds of Grady County, Georgia. Bull.
Tall Timbers Res. Station. No. 21, Tallahassee, FL.
26 Wayne, A.T. 1910. Birds of South Carolina. Contrib. Charleston
Museum. Charleston, SC.
27 Sprunt, A., Jr., and E.B. Chamberlain. 1949. South Carolina Bird
Life. Univ. South Carolina Press, Columbia.
28 Meyers, J.M. May 1985. Pers. comm. Ala. Dept. Conserv.,
Montgomery, AL 36130.
References - 3