Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis): management plan proposed 2026

Official title: Management Plan for the Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis) in Canada 2026 (proposed)

Species at Risk Act
Management Plan Series

Proposed
2026

Preface

The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996)^{Footnote 2} agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada^{Footnote 3}. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29)^{Footnote 4} (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of management plans for listed species of special concern and are required to report on progress within five years after the publication of the final document on the Species at Risk Public Registry.

The Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature and Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency is the competent minister under SARA for the Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies and has prepared this management plan, as per section 65 of SARA. To the extent possible, it has been prepared in cooperation with all relevant jurisdictions, wildlife management boards, Indigenous organizations and others as per section 66(1) of SARA.

Success in the conservation of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this plan and will not be achieved by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Parks Canada Agency, or any other jurisdiction alone. All members of the public are invited to join in supporting and implementing this plan for the benefit of the species and society as a whole. Implementation of this management plan is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations.

Acknowledgments

This management plan was prepared by Audrey Robillard and Pierre-André Bernier, (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service (ECCC-CWS – Quebec Region) and Karolyne Pickett (ECCC-CWS – Ontario region), with the help of Véronique Connelly and Manon Dubé (private consultants).

Other individuals reviewed, commented on, and improved this document, namely Benoît Jobin, Patricia Désilets and Justine Roy (ECCC-CWS – Quebec region), Kevin Hannah (ECCC-CWS – Ontario region) and Alexandra Ramsey (ECCC-CWS – National Capital Region), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, the Parks Canada Agency, and Indigenous organizations.

Matthieu Allard and François Landry (ECCC-CWS – Quebec Region) and Marie‑Claude Archambault (ECCC-CWS – Ontario region) assisted with GIS analyses, maps and figures.

We would like to acknowledge and thank all the organizations and individuals that provided subspecies’ occurrence data across Canada: Bird Studies Canada, Quebec and Ontario Breeding bird atlases, eBird, SOS-POP, Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec (CDPNQ) and the Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC).

Thanks also to the official sponsors of the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Bird Studies Canada, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ontario Field Ornithologists, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) for supplying Atlas data.

Environment and Climate Change Canada would like to acknowledge the contribution of the thousands of volunteers who generously donate their time and expertise to bird monitoring programs throughout North America, as well as the many professional biologists and technicians working for various government agencies and non-government organizations in Canada and the United States who helped to establish, design, run and analyze the Breeding Bird Survey and Breeding Bird Atlas results.

Executive summary

The Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis), is a small, secretive songbird that breeds in open habitats (for example natural grasslands, alvars, hayfields, pastures and abandoned fields). Its breeding range extends northwards to southern Quebec and southern Ontario, west to Wisconsin, and south to northeastern Texas and Georgia. The vast majority of the Canadian population of the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow nests in southern Ontario (99%), while a small number of pairs breed in southern Quebec (Montérégie and Outaouais regions). It migrates to overwinter in the southeastern U.S., Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, possibly as far south as Panama.

The Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies (hereafter Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow) was assessed as Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2013 and listed as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2017. It has experienced persistent, long-term declines. For instance, in Ontario, there is an estimated yearly rate of decline of 3.0% between 1970 and 2021, which is equivalent to an estimated loss of 79% of the population over this period (Smith et al. 2023). Between 2011 and 2021 the decline is estimated to be 5.9% per year, indicating a loss of 46% of the population over this more recent period.

The primary threat to Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is the conversion of grassland^{Footnote 5} to annual row crop monocultures and intensification of agricultural practices leading to more frequent hay cutting during the breeding season. Other threats include the conversion of agricultural land to residential and commercial development, predation by cats, trampling from grazing livestock as well as fragmentation and collisions from roads.

The management objectives for the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow in Canada are to improve its stability and redundancy in its current distribution range in Canada by stopping the population decline within 10 years (by 2036) and maintaining the representation of the subspecies in both Canadian provinces where it occurs (Ontario and Quebec).

Broad strategies to address the threats to the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow include land management, awareness raising, livelihood, economic and moral incentives, conservation designing and planning, legal and policy frameworks, research and monitoring, education and training and institutional development. Conservation measures to implement these general strategies are described in section 6 of this document.

1. COSEWIC* Species assessment information

Date of assessment: November 2013

Common name (population): Grasshopper Sparrow - pratensis subspecies

Scientific name: Ammodramus savannarum pratensis

COSEWIC status: Special Concern

Reason for designation: In Canada, this grassland bird is restricted to southern Ontario and southwestern Quebec. This subspecies has experienced persistent, long‑term declines. It faces several ongoing threats including habitat loss, as pastures and hayfields are converted to row crops, habitat fragmentation, which increases predation rates, and mowing activities that destroy nests.

Canadian occurrence: Ontario, Quebec

COSEWIC status history: Designated Special Concern in November 2013.

* COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)

2. Species status information

The Grasshopper Sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum, is a bird species that occurs in North America (including all countries in Central America and several Caribbean Islands) and in Colombia (BirdLife International 2021). During the breeding season, two of the 12 recognized subspecies of Grasshopper Sparrow are present in Canada: 1) the perpallidus subspecies, hereafter Western Grasshopper Sparrow (A. s. perpallidus), which occurs from south-eastern British Columbia to the Lake of the Woods area of western Ontario, and 2) the pratensis subspecies, hereafter Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow (A. s. pratensis), which breeds in southern Ontario and southern Quebec (Figure 1). This management plan pertains to the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow subspecies (pratensis), though some biological information presented in the document refers to the species as a whole (in which case, the species name ‘Grasshopper Sparrow’ is used).

The Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis), was listed as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2017. In Ontario, the Grasshopper Sparrow has been listed as a species of Special Concern on the Species at Risk in Ontario List under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 2015. In Quebec, the subspecies is listed as Threatened according to the Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species since 2023.

Globally, the conservation status of the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, last reviewed in 2016, has been ranked as Secure (G5T5) by NatureServe (2024). However, the subspecies status in Canada is ranked Imperiled-Vulnerable (N2N3), owing to some uncertainty with respect to its status at the national level (Table 1). Its status in Ontario has not been ranked, and in Quebec, the subspecies has been ranked Imperiled (S2B). For comparison, the statuses at the species level have also been included in Table 1. It is estimated that less than 1% of the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow’s global population occurs in Canada (COSEPAC 2013).

Many Bird Conservation Regions in the U.S. have classified the Grasshopper Sparrow as a Partners in Flight (PIF) Regional Conservation Priority. The Grasshopper Sparrow has been identified as a focal species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through its “Focal Species Strategy for Migratory Birds”. The Grasshopper Sparrow is also a priority species in Bird Conservation Region 13 (Environnement Canada 2013; 2014).

3. Species information

3.1. Species description

The Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is a small (total length 10.8-11.5 cm; mass 14.5‑20 g), secretive songbird with a flat head, a conical beige bill, a short brown tail and an insect-like song, hence its name (Rising and Beadle 1996; Vickery 2020). Adults of both sexes have similar plumage with plain buff-coloured throat and breast, a whitish lower breast, unmarked or faintly marked buff-coloured flanks, and upperparts mottled with rust (Rising and Beadle 1996; Vickery 2020). The pratensis subspecies may be confused with other subspecies of Grasshopper Sparrow, as well as with several other sparrow species including Nelson’s Sparrow (Ammospiza nelsoni), LeConte’s Sparrow (Ammospiza leconteii) and Henslow’s Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii), although it is generally stockier and has a bigger head relative to these other sparrows (Rising and Beadle 1996; Vickery 2020) and generally uses different habitats. There are morphological differences between certain Grasshopper Sparrow subspecies (Rising and Beadle 1996); for example, the Western Grasshopper Sparrow is paler than the pratensis subspecies, with more rusty brown and less dark brown or black on the back, and a slightly smaller bill (Rising and Beadle 1996).

Clutch size is typically 4 to 5 eggs (Peck and James 1987). It takes between 25-30 days from the beginning of nest construction to fledging, including an incubation period of 11‑13 days. Post-fledging care lasts between 4 and 19 days (Smith 1968; Giocomo 2008; Vickery 2020). Across the northern portion of its range, the Grasshopper Sparrow typically raises one (Wiens 1969; Peck and James 1987) or two broods a year (Vickery 2020). In Ontario, the species can sometimes produce two broods (Peck and James 1987). Young are unable to fly when they leave the nest but can run through the vegetation.

For Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, overall nesting success (that is percentage of nests that fledge at least one young) varied from 7% (West Virginia; Wray et al. 1982) to 57% (Pennsylvania; Wray et al. 1982, Hill and Diefenbach 2013; Wood and Ammer 2013). Post-fledging survival of Grasshopper Sparrow was 55% in mixed-grass pastures in Montana and North Dakota (Bernath-Plaisted et al. 2021).

Bernath-Plaisted et al. (2021) reported a high survival rate (74%) of adult Grasshopper Sparrow during the breeding season, noting that it is higher than the range of annual survival rates reported for other grassland bird species (40-60%). The authors suggest that survival during the non-breeding periods (migration and winter) may have greater importance to population growth than breeding season survival; for instance, average winter survival was 66% in Texas (Pérez-Ordoñez et al. 2022) and 32% in northern Mexico (Macías‐Duarte et al. 2017).

3.2. Species population and distribution

3.2.1 Geographical and temporal distribution in Canada

The Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow breeding range extends northwards to southern Quebec and southern Ontario, west to Wisconsin, and south to northeastern Texas and Georgia (Vickery 2020; NatureServe 2024; Figure 1). The subspecies’ extent of occurrence^{Footnote 6} (EOO) in Canada is estimated at 270,500 km², representing roughly 10% of the global breeding range of the subspecies (COSEPAC 2013). The subspecies overwinters in the southeastern U.S., Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, possibly as far south as Panama (Hill and Renfrew 2019; Vickery 2020; NatureServe 2024). Grasshopper Sparrow migration routes are not fully understood. Vickery (2020) suggested that during the fall, Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows migrating south from Canada travel along the east coast of the United States to wintering grounds in the Caribbean, passing through Florida. Hill and Renfrew (2019) discovered that the majority of tracked individuals originating from the northeastern coastal states of Massachusetts and Maryland migrated to wintering grounds in Florida and the Caribbean.

The vast majority of the Canadian population of the pratensis subspecies nests in southern Ontario (99%), while a small number of pairs breed in southern Quebec (Figure 2). In Ontario, Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow densities are highest within an 80 to 100 km wide band located immediately south of the boundary between the Canadian Shield and the Mixedwood Plains ecozones, stretching east to west from the Kingston area to the base of the Bruce Peninsula (Earley 2007). Birds begin arriving on their breeding grounds in mid-April and remain until late August to November (Weir 1989; Savignac et al. 2011, Rousseu and Drolet 2015; Vickery 2020). In Quebec, the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow breeds mainly in the Outaouais region, with a few observations also reported from the Montérégie region (Figure 2). The subspecies is sometimes observed north of its usual distribution (for example near Quebec City; Figure 2) but the probability of breeding in this region is low. The subspecies arrives on its breeding grounds slightly later in Quebec —between early and mid-May— and fall migration stretches from early August to October.

Figure 1. Distribution of the Grasshopper Sparrow at the species level in North America (adapted from Birdlife International 2024). It may be found where suitable habitat exists within the area shown.

Figure 2. Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow observations recorded from 1970 to 2022. Observations were reported from different provincial data repositories (SOS-POP [2023], NHIC, BBS).

3.2.2 Abundance

There are an estimated 33 million Grasshopper Sparrow individuals in North America and 930 000 in Canada (Partners in Flight [PIF] 2024). Species abundance is not uniform across temperate North America; rather, it is locally abundant in certain areas and may be uncommon to rare in other parts of its range (Vickery 2020). The abundance in central U.S. appears to have shifted west between 2007 and 2021 (see Fink et al. 2022).

Analyses of North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS; Smith et al. 2023) data show that Grasshopper Sparrow abundance has undergone a significant range-wide (continental) decline of 3.3% per year (credible limit [CL] -3.66, -3.06) between 1970 to 2021 which represents a loss of 82% in species abundance (all subspecies included). The steepest decline occurred prior to the mid-1980s, but after a slight increase in abundance from 1986-1991, the decline resumed. More recently, BBS trends between 2011-2021 show a short-term decline of 4.65% per year (CL -6.30, -3.53) which represents a loss of 38% in species abundance over this period. The Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow in southern Ontario and Québec, for its part, has declined from 1970 to the mid-1980s, but then rebounded over the next several years before resuming a steady decline, with a cumulative loss in abundance of 74% as of 2022 (ECCC et Oiseau Canada 2024).

In Ontario, BBS data (Smith et al. 2023) indicate a long-term decline in abundance at a yearly rate of 3.0% (CL -4.0, - 2.1) between 1970 and 2021, which is equivalent to an estimated loss of 79% of the population over this period. This analysis also shows a short-term decline of 5.9% (CL -8.3, -3.6) per year between 2011 and 2021, indicating a loss of 46% of the population over this more recent period.

In Quebec, BBS trends are not available because of the low number of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows reported on surveyed routes in Quebec. However, other sources can be used to assess the subspecies abundance and trends. Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow observations were reported in 21 atlas squares (10 km²) distributed in 6 administrative regions during the first Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas (1984‑1989; Hainault 1995), but in only 11 squares in the second Atlas (2010-2014; Jobin 2019). These latest squares are all situated in the administrative regions of Outaouais and Montérégie and are part of the Maple-Bitternut hickory bioclimatic domain (Jobin 2019; eBird 2024).

In 2005, the population of the Grasshopper Sparrow in Canada was estimated to be between 50,200 and 50,400 mature individuals, based on an estimate of 50,000 individuals in Ontario (Blancher and Couturier 2007), and 200-400 in Quebec (Savignac et al. 2011). Based on the population trends presented above, abundance as of 2021 may have declined to about 22,000 mature individuals if long-term decline rates for Ontario (-3.0% per year) for the 2005-2010 period and short-term decline rates for 2011-2021 (-5.9% per year) are applied.

3.3. Needs of the species

Diet

During the summer months, Grasshopper Sparrows feed mostly on insects, with a preference for grasshoppers (order Orthoptera^{Footnote 7}) and butterfly larvae (order Lepidoptera^{Footnote 8}), and also on seeds (Vickery 2020). Of the identifiable prey items provided to nestlings, the most frequent are orthopterans, followed by lepidopteran larvae (Skipper and Kim 2013). Grasshopper Sparrows forage almost exclusively at ground level (Vickery 2020).

In winter, the species changes its diet to feed primarily on seeds (Martin et al. 1951; Vickery 2020). In Northern Mexico, the most abundant components of the species’ diet consist of seeds from the Panicoideae grass sub-family and seeds from the Bouteloua grass genus (Titulaer et al. 2017).

Breeding habitat

Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows usually build a bowl-shaped nest with a side entrance that sits directly on the ground (Patterson and Best 1996), under overhanging grasses that make them very difficult to locate (Slater 2004; Vickery 2020).

Prior to European settlement, the Grasshopper Sparrow predominantly used the native grasslands of the central U.S. and western Canada as nesting habitat, although the species may have also nested in pockets of suitable habitat in southern Ontario and Quebec (Earley 2007; Jobin 2019). Like many other grassland passerines, the species benefited significantly from European settlers’ large-scale deforestation of land for agricultural use in eastern North America, which significantly expanded the Grasshopper Sparrow’s breeding grounds (Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005; Earley 2007; Vickery 2020). The Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow now occurs in managed grasslands, such as pastures and hayfields, with varying plant species richness and composition (Davis and Duncan 1999; Earley 2007; Davis et al. 2016; Davis et al. 2021). Grain, maize and soybean fields have been characterized as low-quality habitats for Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow (Patterson and Best 1996; McGuire and Nocera 2015). The species sometimes uses recently abandoned agricultural sites that are not regularly mowed, grazed or ploughed like former corn or strawberry fields (Corace III et al. 2009; Jobin et al. 2008; Jobin and Falardeau 2010). Other occupied habitats include grassy fields at airports, waterways with lush vegetation, reclaimed mines and coniferous plantations (Best et al. 1995; Cannings 1995; Delisle and Savidge 1997; Galligan et al. 2006; Jobin and Falardeau 2010).

In Ontario, suitable habitat for the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow includes natural grasslands and alvars (Earley 2007). However, because both types of habitats are rare and confined to small and isolated pockets, occupied habitat most often consists of managed hayfields and pastures (Solymàr 2005). McGuire (2014) found that Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow abundance in Northumberland County was much higher in pastures and hay meadows than in shrubby non-cultivated fields. In southwestern Ontario, the subspecies has also been detected in abandoned fields or areas where the organic soil layer has recently been removed for future development (K. Hannah, pers. comm. 2022). In Simcoe County, Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow has been observed in areas being restored for the benefit of Kirtland’s Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii), consisting of native and non-native grasses along with 1- to 2-meter-high red pine (Pinus resinosa) and oak (Quercus spp.) saplings planted at moderately high densities (2000-2200 stems per hectare) with some openings due to tree failure (K. Tuininga, pers. comm. 2022). Abundance, frequency of occurrence or nesting success has not been evaluated in the latter two habitats.

In the Outaouais region of southwestern Quebec, the subspecies nests in hayfields, pastures and abandoned fields generally located on poor sandy soil supporting low and sparse vegetation (Jobin and Falardeau 2010). Occupied breeding sites in this region are generally embedded within a perennial crop-dominated matrix with low shrub density (7.44 shrubs/ha on average) and reduced forest cover (Jobin and Falardeau 2010).

Other structural components of the habitat that appear important to the species are moderate vegetation height (25-50 cm on average) (Patterson and Best 1996; Jobin and Falardeau 2010), relatively low bare soil cover (mean of 17%), relatively large areas of dead and live herbaceous vegetation (Patterson and Best 1996; Jobin and Falardeau 2010) – although the amount of standing dead vegetation is highly variable (Davis 2004; Davis and Duncan 1999; Bernath-Plaisted et al. 2021; Davis et al. 2021) –, as well as a moderately thick litter layer (4 cm) (Wiens 1969; Jobin and Falardeau 2010). Shrub cover has been shown to have a positive effect on Grasshopper Sparrows in some cases (Henderson and Davis 2014; McLaughlin et al. 2014), and a negative effect in others (Davis 2004; Lautenbach et al. 2020).

The Grasshopper Sparrow is an area-sensitive species that generally responds negatively to smaller habitat patches (Johnson and Igl 2001; Balent and Norment 2003; Herkert et al. 2003; Davis 2004; Thogmartin et al. 2006). In Saskatchewan, Western Grasshopper Sparrows did not occur at all in pastures smaller than 15 ha (Davis 2004), and their probability of occurrence reached 100% when patch size reached 45 ha (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). In southern Quebec, fields occupied by Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows averaged 15.9 ha (range from 6 to 37 ha; Jobin and Falardeau 2010). In Ontario, territory size averaged 1.04 ha (range from 0.51 to 2.21 ha; n=10), and home range size averaged 2.69 ha (range from 0.75 to 5.62 ha; n=12; Hannah et al. 2024).

The species also generally avoids edge habitat (Helzer and Jelinski 1999; Shahan et al. 2017; Herse et al. 2018). Nest density and breeding success of the Grasshopper Sparrow generally increase as a function of the distance from forest edges and appears to be higher in the centre of grassland patches (Wiens 1969; Bock et al. 1999; Helzer and Jelinski 1999; Balent and Norment 2003), which could be due to higher predation rates near forest edges (Renfrew and Ribic 2003; Renfrew et al. 2005).

Studies have found a positive association between Grasshopper Sparrow and the proportion of grassland cover in the landscape matrix (for example, Wentworth et al. 2010; Clower 2011; Irvin et al. 2013; Herse et al. 2018; Lockhart and Koper 2018; Keyser et al. 2020). For example, a very small proportion of sites occupied by the species were located within landscapes that comprised less than 50% grassland cover (Herse et al. 2018). Conversely, the species is negatively associated with the proportion of forest cover at the landscape scale (for example Jobin and Falardeau 2010; Keyser et al. 2020; Bracey et al. 2022). According to a 2013 study (Vos and Ribic 2013), the probability of Grasshopper Sparrow fledging at least one young was almost six times less for nests located near trees compared to those located away from these features.

Overwintering habitat

The overwintering habitat of the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is generally similar to its breeding habitat (Gordon 2000; Vickery 2020). In south-central Florida, the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow overwinters in prairie habitat but is more abundant in wet-mesic prairie (dominated by graminoids and forbs, and devoid of woody shrubs) than in dry‑mesic prairie (where shrubs are predominant; Korosy et al. 2013). Probability of occupancy and abundance of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow are also greater in plots where prescribed burns have occurred within three years, possibly due to greater ease of foraging on the ground when there is less vegetation litter (Butler et al. 2009; Korosy et al. 2013). In northern Mexico, Macías-Duarte et al. (2017) documented Grasshopper Sparrows overwintering in areas with 46% grass cover and average grass height of 24 cm, and most often found in locations with average shrub cover and height of 1% and 37 cm, respectively. In Texas, overwintering birds selected locations with warmer than ambient microclimate (Pérez-Ordoñez et al. 2022).

4. Threats

4.1. Threat assessment

The Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow threat assessment was conducted by experts of the subspecies in 2020 and has been slightly modified from the original table to better reflect actual knowledge and estimated impact levels. This assessment is based on the IUCN-CMP (International Union for Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threats classification system (Salafsky et al. 2008). Threats are defined as the proximate activities or processes that have caused, are causing, or may cause in the future the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of the entity being assessed (population, species, community, or ecosystem) in the area of interest (global, national, or subnational). Limiting factors are not considered during this assessment process. For purposes of threat assessment, only present and future threats are considered. Historical threats, indirect or cumulative effects of the threats, or any other relevant information that would provide further insight into the nature of the threats are presented in the Description of Threats section.

4.2. Description of threats

The overall threat impact for this subspecies has been calculated as High.

Each threat has been identified as occurring in Quebec, Ontario and sometimes in the U.S. Most research on the threats affecting the subspecies were done on breeding grounds in the U.S., but threats are assumed to be similar in Canada and on wintering grounds as habitats and human impacts are alike (Ruth 2015).

The primary threat to Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is the conversion of grassland to annual row crop monocultures and intensification of agricultural practices leading to more frequent hay cutting during the breeding season. Other threats include the conversion of agricultural land to residential and commercial development, predation by cats, trampling from grazing livestock as well as fragmentation and collisions from roads. Threats are discussed below in the same order as presented in Table 2.

IUCN-CMP Threat 1 — Residential and commercial development (Impact: Low)

1.1 Housing and urban areas (Impact: Low) and 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas (Impact: Low)

Conversion of hayfields and pastures to residential and commercial land use

The Canadian population of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is mostly reliant on large hayfields and pastures embedded within a landscape of high grassland cover to nest and fledge young successfully (see section 3.3). As such, conversion of hayfields and pastures to residential subdivisions and other large-scale built-up areas removes important nesting habitat for this subspecies.

In Ontario, 29,217 ha of prime agricultural land was lost to non-agricultural use between 2000 and 2017; 75% of this loss was due to large-scale urban boundary expansions which are the precursor to residential and commercial development (Caldwell et al. 2022). The vast majority (83.5%) of prime agricultural land loss occurred in Central Ontario (Caldwell et al. 2022), where densities of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow are highest (that is, in municipalities like Haldimand, Dufferin, Simcoe, Durham, Peterborough, and Northumberland; see map in Earley 2007). It should be noted however that the proportion of this loss that consisted of hayfields and pastures specifically is currently unknown but would benefit from being examined.

In Quebec, urban sprawl is occurring in the south of the province in Montérégie, Montreal and Lower Laurentian regions. Between 1950 and 1997, urban area coverage increased throughout the St. Lawrence Lowlands ecoregion at the expense of annual and perennial crops, forests and old fields (Jobin et al. 2007; Latendresse et al. 2008). Also, more than 97,000 ha of land used for agriculture has been urbanized from 1950 to 2001 in the metropolitan area of Montreal (Ruiz and Domon 2005). In the regions where Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows nest in Quebec, the human population is expected to increase by 16% in Montérégie, and by 13 % in Outaouais between 2021 and 2041 (Institut de la Statistique du Québec 2022). Urban sprawl will continue in the coming years, inevitably leading to changes to current land use and habitat loss.

Conversion of hayfields and pastures to residential and commercial developments could also lead to birds being killed from collisions with building windows. It has been estimated that 25 million birds are killed each year in Canada from collisions with building windows (Machtans et al. 2014). Loss et al. (2014) estimated that as a group, sparrows are at a slightly greater risk of mortality from colliding with windows than other bird groups. Houses account for the overwhelming majority (90%) of total bird-building collision mortalities in Canada, and bird-building collision and mortality rates are higher for rural houses than urban houses (Bayne et al. 2012; Machtans et al. 2014).

IUCN-CMP Threat 2 — Agriculture and aquaculture (Impact: High)

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops (Impact: High)

Conversion of hayfields and pasture to other agricultural land uses

More than 90% of known suitable habitat for Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow in Ontario currently consists of hayfields and pasture (as estimated by K. Pickett, Canadian Wildlife Service [CWS] – Ontario Region). Since the 1950s, the amount of agricultural land under pasture or cultivated for hay has been decreasing markedly while the cultivation of corn and soybean crops has expanded (Joseph and Keddie 1981; Keddie and Wandel 2001; Smith 2015). Between 2011 and 2021, the area seeded in hay in the province decreased by 30%, from 843,950 ha to 593,431 ha (OMAFRA 2022). During the same time period, the area under pasture in Ontario fell by 37%, from 661,080 ha to 415,549 ha (OMAFRA 2022). These decreases amount to a loss of almost 500,000 ha of suitable habitat for the subspecies over the last ten or so years alone. The severity of this change in agricultural land use is ranked ‘Serious’ because hayfields and pasture that are converted to fields of annual row crops such as soybeans and corn provide low quality breeding habitat for the subspecies (see section 3.3).

In Quebec, good quality grassland habitats have almost disappeared in part because of land conversion from pastures and perennial crops to annual row crops (that is agricultural intensification; Ruiz and Domon 2005; Institut de la Statistique du Québec 2008, 2018; Statistics Canada 2022a, b). Specifically, 80% of land cover under pasture was lost between 1951 and 2001 in Quebec (Ruiz and Domon 2005). The intensification of agriculture in southern Quebec is particularly significant in the Montérégie region, where the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow was historically relatively frequent. In this region, the area sown to intensive crops (corn, soybeans and grains) increased in 80% of the regional county municipalities between 1993 and 2001 (Jobin et al. 2007). Satellite imagery analyses performed to identify new Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow potential breeding habitat in Montérégie did find new potential sites where dairy farming prevailed but failed to find any in a sector dominated by annual crops (Jobin et al. 2008).

Hay harvesting and mowing practices

Although hayfields provide nesting habitat for Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, the mowing of the hay can be detrimental to the subspecies in multiple ways. By altering the vegetation structure, mowing can make the habitat less attractive or suitable for nesting by grassland birds, impair their reproductive success through the destruction of nests and young by the machinery used, and increase exposure to predation due to the removal of protective cover (Dale et al. 1997; Perlut 2007; Tews et al. 2013). Machinery may also kill adult grassland birds. This threat has particularly increased since the 1950s, as the intensification and mechanization of agricultural practices led to earlier or more frequent mowing during nesting season (Bollinger et al. 1990; Perlut et al. 2006; Askins et al. 2007).

Tews et al. (2013) estimated that the number of pre-fledging young (eggs and nestlings) killed annually from mechanical farming operations in Canada for five selected bird species ranged from 138,000 to 941,000, depending on the species. From these estimates, Calvert et al. (2013) calculated that, for these five species’ total abundance in Canada, mortality of potential adult breeders ranged from 0.08 to 1.22 %.

2.3 Livestock farming and ranching (Impact: Low)

Some agricultural practices related to livestock production have been shown to negatively affect grassland birds (Sutter and Ritchison 2005; Fuhlendorf et al. 2006; With et al. 2008). For instance, grazing by livestock can lead to trampling of nests, young and adult birds. The trampling rates reported for Grasshopper Sparrows are generally quite low, ranging from 1.5% to 3% (Hovick et al. 2011a,b; Bleho et al. 2014), although one study reported 7 to 12% nest failures due to trampling in Wisconsin (Renfrew et al. 2005). Given the low rates of trampling, the most important negative effect of intensive livestock grazing on Grasshopper Sparrow nesting success is more likely indirect. Grazing reduces the vertical density of nest-concealing vegetation (Davis et al. 2021; Kraus et al. 2022), which may explain why the presence of livestock increases the probability of brood parasitism (see Threat 8.2) and possibly leads to higher depredation rates (Kraus et al. 2022). Insect biomass (and therefore presumably food abundance) was also found to be lower in sites under heavy grazing pressure compared to those that were ungrazed (Sutter and Ritchison 2005).

On the other hand, moderate grazing can have some positive effect on grassland birds’ abundance (Dechant et al. 2002; Rahmig et al. 2009; Ahlering and Merkord 2016). When grazing pressure is such that it creates patches of bare ground and maintains the vegetation at a height and density Grasshopper Sparrows need for foraging (Patterson and Best 1996; Vickery 2020), this activity can be beneficial (Powell 2006, 2008). Grazing can thus participate in creating or maintaining vegetation structure at levels conducive to higher Grasshopper Sparrow abundance (Glass et al. 2020) or positively influence habitat heterogeneity across the landscape (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006; Coppedge et al. 2008). Some positive effects of grazing on the species abundance have also been shown to be delayed (that is the positive effects are observed two years after the grazing) (Wilson et al. 2022).

Consequently, because negative effects of livestock grazing are counterbalanced by some positive effects, this threat is considered to have a low impact.

IUCN-CMP Threat 3 — Energy production and mining (Impact: Negligible)

3.1 Oil and gas drilling (Impact: Unknown)

Petroleum extraction-related infrastructure may have negative effects on grassland birds because of noise made by the operation of pumps and generators, disturbance from human activity and traffic on access roads, and the physical presence of structures that, by creating predator perches and edge effects, can lead to habitat avoidance and/or increased nest predation (see summary in Nenninger and Koper (2018) and references therein). Other studies suggest that negative effects of oil and gas can be attributed more so to the presence of the structures themselves than to associated noise or human disturbance (for example, Bernath-Plaisted and Koper 2016; Des Brisay et al. 2023).

There are over 1,300 active, land-based oil and natural gas wells in southwestern Ontario (MNR 2024). The two municipalities with the most wells, Haldimand County and Lambton County (MNR 2024), overlap with the two areas with the highest densities of Grasshopper Sparrow in the Carolinian Zone (Ecodistrict 7E; Earley 2007).

Some studies found negative impacts of proximity to wells on Grasshopper Sparrow density (Thompson et al. 2015) and abundance (Bogard and Davis 2014) while others found minimal or no effects (Londe et al. 2019; Post van der Burg et al. 2023). Given these mixed results the severity of this threat remains unknown.

IUCN Threat 4 — Transportation and Service Corridors (Impact: Low)

4.1 Road and railroad (Impact: Low)

Between 80-340 million birds in the U.S. (Erickson et al. 2005; Loss et al. 2014) and approximately 194 million birds in Europe (Grilo et al. 2020) are estimated to be killed each year by vehicles. In Canada, Bishop and Brogan (2013) estimated that nearly 4.6 million birds are killed by vehicular collisions every year during the breeding season. There is a high level of uncertainty with this estimate given the multitude of factors that could influence mortality rates such as road type (substrate, number of lanes), traffic volume and speed, weather, and habitat type adjacent to roads, as well those factors that can influence carcass detection (scavenging, delayed mortality from crippling, and observer bias) (Bishop and Brogan 2013). Although up to 65% of documented road-killed birds are passerines (Bishop and Brogan 2013), species-specific mortality rates are not always known. Birds nesting near highway rights-of-way are also vulnerable to direct mortality due to mowing practices (see threat 2.1).

Ground-dwelling or ground-nesting birds are among the birds most often killed from highway-related causes (for example Jacobson 2005). Migratory species may also face greater collision risk as they travel long distances and may be exposed to more road crossing events than nonmigratory species (Harris and Scheck 1991). Moreover, as Grasshopper Sparrows are thought to migrate at low altitude and low speed, they could be particularly prone to collisions (K. Hannah, pers. comm. 2024).

Roads also contribute to disturbance and habitat fragmentation (smaller habitat patches; Jacobson 2005), which are correlated with lower reproductive success for the species (Johnson and Igl 2001; Davis 2004; Vos and Ribic 2013).

4.2 Utility and service lines (Impact: Low)

An estimated 6.8 million birds are killed annually in the U.S. and Canada because of collisions with communication towers (Longcore et al. 2012). The proportion of a population killed by these collisions is not equal across species (Longcore et al. 2013). Despite the fact that passerines account for 97% of total bird mortality, the estimated number of Grasshopper Sparrows killed annually by collisions with communication towers is estimated to represent less than 1% of the global population (Longcore et al. 2013).

Bird mortality estimates from collisions with transmission lines vary greatly depending on the calculation methodology but are estimated to be around 25 million birds (Rioux et al. 2013: 2.5 to 25.6 million; Calvert et al. 2013: 25.6 ± 15.5 million). Rioux et al. (2013) noted that the most commonly reported carcasses consist of waterfowl, grebes, shorebirds and cranes, and that the majority of transmission lines are located in the boreal forest (that is not within the Canadian range of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow).

As for mowing in agricultural settings and road right-of-ways, maintenance and mowing of utility and service lines during breeding season may contribute to the degradation of quality habitats for Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows, disturb nesting or kill eggs, young or adult birds. These linear structures may also contribute to habitat fragmentation.

IUCN-CMP Threat 7 — Natural system modifications (Impact: Unknown)

7.1 Fire and fire suppression (Impact: Unknown)

Wildfire is a natural disturbance regime that allows grassland habitat to persist on the landscape by favouring regeneration of forbs and grasses while suppressing growth of trees and shrubs. Modern-day suppression of wildfires to protect human settlements thus enables shrubs and trees to gradually re-colonize areas where suitable growing conditions for woody plants exist, eventually rendering them unsuitable for species such as the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow (Vickery et al. 2005; Askins et al. 2007).

The effects of fire suppression on Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow’s habitat in Eastern North America are not well understood but are likely more important on its wintering grounds. For example, it has been shown that the odds of occurrence of the subspecies in the dry prairie of southern Florida is six times as high when prescribed burns are conducted in the previous year (Butler et al. 2009) but the responses of Grasshopper Sparrows to fire management regimes vary greatly (Korosy et al. 2013, Powell 2006, 2008, and see reviews in USGS 2002 and Vickery et al. 2020 for further lists of examples). However, the dry prairie habitat of the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow has declined significantly in southern Florida and perhaps elsewhere in the U.S. due to fire suppression activities (Butler et al. 2009).

In Ontario, the proportion of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow breeding habitat subject to this threat (that is, alvars and native grasslands) is at most 10%. The severity of this threat is mitigated by the implementation of grassland habitat stewardship initiatives that include prescribed burns, which have been shown to have positive effects on various Grasshopper Sparrow population metrics (Williams and Boyle 2017; Glass et al. 2020; Herakovich et al. 2021). Prescribed burns also mitigate the negative effect of higher spring precipitation (see threat 11) on Grasshopper Sparrow abundance (Glass et al. 2020). In Quebec, maintaining open habitats with fire is a practice that is very rarely used (for example, Jean and Bouchard 1991).

IUCN-CMP Threat 8 — Invasive and problematic species, genes and diseases (Impact: Low)

8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases (Impact: Low)

Non-native woody plants

In natural habitats such as alvars and ungrazed native prairies, invasive non-native shrubs pose a threat to Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow in the same manner as does encroachment by native woody plants (see threat 7.1). For example, in areas planted with non-native grasslands subsequently left to naturalize in Ohio, Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow density decreased by 75% when non-native shrub cover^{Footnote 9} increased from 0% to 20% (Lautenbach et al. 2020). Conversely, subspecies density increased when woody plant cover was reduced via herbicide application, and more so when followed by mechanical shredding of the standing dead shrubs (Lautenbach et al. 2020). However, shrub removal may not necessarily lead to increased nest survival, in part because of the changes in predator community it may induce (Ellison et al. 2013; Hill and Diefenbach 2013; See also section 8.2). Moreover, the effects of shrubs on Grasshopper Sparrows are uncertain (see section 3.3).

Free-ranging (feral and domestic) cats

As ground-nesters, Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows are vulnerable to predation. Predation by the domesticated cat (Felis catus) is likely the largest source of human‑related mortality of birds in Canada (Blancher 2013; Calvert et al. 2013) and in the U.S. (Loss et al. 2013). An estimated 2-7% of all birds in southern Canada (105 to 348 million birds) are killed by cats annually (Blancher 2013), and an estimated 1.3 to 4.0 billion annually in the U.S. (Loss et al. 2013). In Canada the kill rate by feral cats is higher than either urban or rural pet cats: feral cats accounted for 59% of mortalities despite comprising only 25% of all cats in Canada (Blancher 2013). The number of cats in Canada, including feral cats, is expected to increase in future (Blancher 2013).

The impact of cat predation on birds at the population level is likely unequal across species, due to differences in nesting and other life history traits. The Grasshopper Sparrow was included in a list of 115 bird species potentially more vulnerable to cat predation in Canada because it forages on the ground during the breeding season and has a small body mass (Blancher 2013).

8.2 Problematic native species/diseases (Impact: Unknown)

Fragmentation of habitats may create edges that are associated with increased abundance of generalist nest predators and brood-parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird, which are largely associated with agricultural habitats, and adjoining forests (Thompson III et al. 2002; Llyod et al. 2005).

Predation by native wildlife

Predation by human-subsidized predators^{Footnote 10} is often cited as the leading source of mortality for grassland birds (Martin 1988, 1995; Hovick et al. 2011b; Ribic et al. 2012; Bernath-Plaisted et al. 2021; Kraus et al. 2022). It is also often the leading cause of Grasshopper Sparrow nest failures (for example, 73% in Patterson and Best 1996; 90% in Kraus et al. 2022; 89% in Vos and Ribic 2013). For Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow more specifically, Wood and Ammer (2015) reported that 61% of nest failures in their West Virginia study site was due to predation. Known native predators for Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow include Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (Patterson and Best 1996), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), weasels (Mustela spp.) and snakes (Jobin and Picman 2002; Hovick et al. 2011b; Ribic et al. 2021). However, human activities that favor mesopredators populations do not necessarily lead to an increase in predation rates (Herkert et al. 2003, Chiavacci et al. 2018), and the severity of this threat on the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is currently unknown.

Brood parasitism

Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow nests can be parasitized by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater)^{Footnote 11} but parasitism rates are highly variable across study sites, ranging from 2% (Bernath-Plaisted et al. 2021) to 39% (Williams and Boyle 2019; Kraus et al. 2022). Grasshopper Sparrows do not reject cowbird eggs from their own nests (Peer et al. 2000), and the impact of the nest parasitism on the species’ reproductive success is variable. In some cases, brood parasitism led to smaller clutch sizes (Hovick et al. 2011a) or fewer fledged young (Davis 1994). In other cases, cowbird parasitism did not affect Grasshopper Sparrow daily nest survival (Kraus et al. 2022). Overall, the percentage of nests that fail completely due to brood parasitism tends to be low (for example 2%, Patterson and Best 1996; 4%, Williams and Boyle 2019), or even nil (Wood and Ammer 2015).

Whether brood parasitism rates on Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow nests are above the levels that would have occurred naturally is unknown, but the impact of this threat has likely been decreasing over the last 50 years: between 1970 and 2021, the population of Brown-headed Cowbird that overlaps spatially with the Canadian population of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow declined by 88.5% in Ontario and by 96.9% in Quebec. Between 2011 and 2021, the annual rate of decline for the Brown-headed Cowbird has been 4.2% in Ontario and 5.9% in Quebec (Smith et al. 2023).

IUCN-CMP Threat 9 — Pollution (Impact: Unknown)

9.3 Agriculture and forestry effluents (Impact: Unknown)

Avian communities are impacted by several pollutants including light, noise, air-borne chemicals, heavy metals, radiation, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and plastics (see review in Richard et al. 2021). Given that the vast proportion of the Canadian population of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow occurs on agricultural lands in rural areas —where there is less artificial nighttime light and vehicular traffic, and fewer industrial facilities than near urban centres— agricultural pesticides are the pollutants of highest concern for the subspecies.

Although their level of impact on grassland birds relative to habitat availability has been debated (Mineau and Whiteside 2013; Hill et al. 2014), toxic effects of agricultural pesticides on birds are well documented (see review in Mitra et al. 2021). Because of their neurotoxic properties, agricultural pesticides have both lethal and sublethal (for example, endocrine disruption, altered behaviour) impacts which can lead to reproductive failure and ultimately, population declines in insectivorous and granivorous birds. Pathways to direct exposure include dermal contact as well as ingestion of contaminated food resources (for example, contaminated insects, sown pesticide-coated seeds), and of pesticide granules themselves, which can be mistaken for grit (Mitra et al. 2021). Mineau (2013) estimated that between 0.52 and 2.4 birds per hectare of farmland are directly killed annually by pesticides in Canada.

Pesticide application may also have an indirect impact on birds. It may reduce availability of food resources; for example, a reduction in insect macrofauna abundance was suggested as a possible explanation for the decline in farmland insectivorous birds observed in areas of high concentrations of neonicotinoids (a class of insecticide) (Hallmann et al. 2014). It could also have some impacts on reproductive success and fitness or have carry over effects on later life stages (Garrett et al. 2021, Poisson et al. 2021). Finally, herbicides can have a negative effect by reducing the plant cover available to hide from predators and build nests (Freemark and Boutin 1994).

Inevitably, Grasshopper Sparrows that nest and feed in hayfields and pasture treated with pesticides will be exposed to them. In Ontario, hayfields and pasture are treated with herbicides (predominantly glyphosate), with little to no use of insecticides and fungicides (Farm and Food Care Ontario 2015). As an herbicide, glyphosate will not directly kill Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows or grasshoppers —the birds’ main food item during the nesting season— but may have indirect impacts on the subspecies, for instance if grasshopper biomass decreases as a result of its own food resources (that is green leaves) being reduced by herbicide application. Glyphosate has also been shown to negatively alter intestinal microbial community in birds, which may increase susceptibility to disease (see review article by van Bruggen et al. 2021).

In Quebec, lands that are still occupied by Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows are mostly abandoned fields and hayfields, where pesticides spraying is low or absent.

The lack of specific quantitative studies estimating the level of damage that various pesticides may cause on Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows, explains the “unknown” severity rank in Table 2.

IUCN-CMP Threat 11 — Climate change and severe weather (Impact: Unknown)

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration (Impact: Unknown) and 11.4 Storms and flooding (Impact: Unknown)

In general, it is not clear how climate change will affect grassland birds. In Ontario, species that share a similar breeding range with Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, namely Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), have been assessed as ‘Less Vulnerable’^{Footnote 12} to climate change under the Climate Change Vulnerability Index for the portion of their ranges located in the province’s Great Lakes Basin (Brinker et al. 2018). Vulnerability is lower for these birds because they are readily capable of dispersing over long distances and are not dependent on uncommon geological features or specialized ecological niches (Brinker et al. 2018); these factors also apply to Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow.

Nonetheless, recent climate models for the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes Basin predict, on average, an increase of 7 to 15% in the annual amount of precipitation, and an increase of 2.4 to 5.0 ^°C in annual mean temperature between 2035 and 2094 relative to the period from 1951 to 2005 (Shresta et al. 2022). A significant increase in precipitation is predicted for the months of April and May in particular, and Grasshopper Sparrows’ response to increased spring precipitation has been reported both as positive (Ahlering et al. 2009; Davis et al. 2021) and negative (Glass et al. 2020; Allen et al. 2021). Conversely, the predicted decrease in precipitation during the month of August specifically has the potential to result in soil moisture deficits and consequent water stress conditions for vegetation (Shresta et al. 2022). These potentially opposite effects make it difficult to predict how climate change will affect the Grasshopper Sparrow’s breeding habitat and food resources in southern Ontario.

In Quebec, climate change models also predict more precipitation and higher temperatures, as well as more frequent droughts and heat waves (Warren and Lemmen 2014; Ouranos 2015). The prevalence of storms is likely to increase in the future (Warren and Lemmen 2014) and this may affect Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow during breeding and migration.

Although its distribution within southern Ontario may not significantly contract or expand, the subspecies breeding range boundaries could nevertheless shift spatially in some parts of the continent. For example, the distribution of suitable habitat for Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow in the northeastern U.S. is predicted to shift from the southern portion to the northern portion of the region by 2080 (Wisner 2022). In the Outaouais region of Quebec however, dispersal of the subspecies beyond its current northernmost range boundary will likely be hindered by the presence of the Gatineau Hills, which form the southern edge of the Canadian Shield —a rocky geological area dominated by the boreal forest ecosystem.

5. Management objective

The management objectives for the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow in Canada are to improve its stability^{Footnote 13} and redundance^{Footnote 14} in its current distribution range in Canada by:

• stopping the population decline within 10 years (by 2036), and
• maintaining the representation of the subspecies in both Canadian provinces where it occurs (Ontario and Quebec)

These management objectives address the persistent long-term declines, which was the reason COSEWIC assessed the subspecies as Special Concern in 2013. With respect to the subspecies’ distribution in Quebec, the objective is to maintain its current occurrence in the Montérégie and Outaouais regions of the province. The overall strategy to achieving the management objectives will be reducing the scope and severity of threats over the next 10 years (see section 6). A major factor to meeting the management objectives will be maintaining the existing natural habitats and restoring altered habitats where possible.

6. Broad strategies and conservation measures

6.1. Actions already completed or currently underway

A number of conservation actions have taken place since the last status report (COSEPAC 2013). The following list is not exhaustive but is meant to illustrate the main areas where work is already underway to give context to the broad strategies outlined in section 6.2.

6.2. Broad strategies

The strategy categories presented here were selected from the IUCN-CMP Conservation Actions Classification v 2.0 (IUCN-CMP 2016). For the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, the following eight broad categories were selected (numbers here represent their IUCN-CMP strategy numbers) and are presented in detail in Table 4:

1. Land/water management: Maintaining, restoring, or mitigating stresses by implementing site management actions and applying better management practices.

3. Awareness raising: Providing information to target audiences (for example, landowners, land users and land planners) to raise awareness or change unfavorable behaviours.

5. Livelihood, Economic and Moral Incentives: Developing, promoting or providing more bird-friendly products or practices that substitute for damaging ones and influence attitudes and behavior changes.

6. Conservation designing and planning: Legally or formally establishing or expanding protected areas, designating land uses or conservation areas (other than legally protected areas) and designing and planning for the management of sites.

7. Legal and policy frameworks: Developing and influencing legislation, policies and voluntary standards affecting conservation.

8. Research and monitoring: Collecting, managing, and analyzing data on the subspecies abundance and distribution, improving understanding of habitat preferences/ range of occupied habitat types and threats of unknown impact, improving protocols and methods, and disseminating results.

9. Education and training: Enhancing knowledge, skills and information exchange.

10. Institutional development: Facilitating alliances amongst conservation organizations and providing funds for conservation work.

6.3. Conservation measures

The following table outlines conservation measures and an implementation schedule that, if undertaken, would support achieving the overall management objective.

^a “Priority” reflects the degree to which the measure contributes directly to the conservation of the species or is an essential precursor to a measure that contributes to the conservation of the species. High priority measures are considered those most likely to have an immediate and/or direct influence on attaining the management objective for the species. Medium priority measures may have a less immediate or less direct influence on reaching the management objective but are still important for the management of the population. Low priority conservation measures will likely have an indirect or gradual influence on reaching the management objective but are considered important contributions to the knowledge base and/or public involvement and acceptance of the species.

^b Threats of Negligeable impacts are not included in the table.

6.4. Narrative to support conservation measures and implementation schedule

6.4.1. High priority

For Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows, habitat loss and degradation as well as incidental mortality from hay harvesting machinery, for example, are currently the main threats. Conservation activities that will prevent pastureland, hayfields and grasslands from being converted to other land uses (for example annual crops, residential developments, roads) on the breeding and wintering grounds are the priority to achieve the management objective.

Grassland birds can be retained in Canada not only by identifying and maintaining appropriate habitat at localities where they presently occur, but also by restoring nesting habitat in places where they have disappeared. The implementation of conservation measures should first focus on grassland habitats where the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is currently observed. Most nesting habitats for this subspecies occur on private farmland, in more perennial cultures like hayfields and pastures, so annual crop lands will not be a priority habitat for conservation but could be considered for restoration activities and can be included while promoting for more bird-friendly agricultural practices.

Land use planning and regulations (for example, within the subspecies range, maintaining existing agricultural zoning, amending existing provincial law and regulations in Ontario to reduce the current rate of conversion of agricultural lands to other land-uses or applying the Quebec Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities) can be applied to reduce and mitigate threats from new residential development and road construction projects.

High priority approaches also include the promotion and application of available better management practices (BMPs, see Appendix A for a summary list of the main BMPs for the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow) to reduce habitat degradation and agricultural practices that result in mortality (for example delay of first hay cut, moderating cattle grazing pressure, rotational grazing strategies). Because their habitat can be sustained only through mowing, burning, or other types of vegetation control, the future of grassland birds will depend largely on how much favorable habitat is conserved, and would benefit from favorable habitat being restored or created. The adoption of land management practices that are beneficial to grassland birds, including the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, can be achieved, among other things, through collaboration with land users, by developing conservation agreements with landowners to create or maintain suitable habitat for the subspecies, and by providing technical assistance to farmers and landowners.

Modification of agricultural and land use practices to reduce bird mortality can result in increased costs and lost productivity. To encourage more grassland bird-friendly agricultural practices by ranchers and farmers, the creation and promotion of financial incentives are identified as important management approaches. Conservation and restoration of grasslands may be realized through incentive programs, stewardship and management agreements, conservation easements, and land purchase or donations. Extensive programs, such as ALUS and tax incentives, could also play a large role in conserving and maintaining good quality grassland habitat.

Continuation of annual surveys to monitor the abundance and distribution of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows, as well as surveys to determine the availability and quality of available habitat to identify priority conservation areas will also represent research activities of high priority for the management of the subspecies and for other at-risk species of grassland birds.

6.4.2. Medium priority

To maximize the effectiveness of Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow populations management, measures like acquiring and legally designating grasslands as protected areas in appropriate landscapes, as well as the creation or modification of provincial and municipal policies, should also be considered to preserve and maintain the subspecies' habitat. It will also be important to ensure that all new and existing conservation planning documents (for example, policies, management plans, action plans, or conservation plans) related to land use and management take into account the threats and habitat needs of the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow. These documents could also prioritize and promote multi-species approaches that include other grassland birds, such as the Bobolink and the Eastern Meadowlark, but also other species at risk (for example bats, monarch). Indeed, conservation and management activities targeting any of these species can be mutually beneficial and grouping them together improves conservation efficiency. Coordinating surveys and mitigating threats for all grassland species will also be useful for conservation.

The establishment of government grants to support the restoration and creation of native grassland habitats could also positively impact population management. Implementing agricultural practices that reduce pesticide use or strategies that aim to reduce grazing pressure and promote pasture rotation, in addition to mitigating stress in grasslands (for example, through woody vegetation control), are measures that would be important for managing the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow as well as many other grassland species.

Furthermore, research and monitoring will play important roles in the adaptive management process by ensuring that management practices and conservation programs have the desired outcomes. The impacts of climate change on the subspecies and its habitat as well as the effectiveness of financial incentives and better management practices also warrants research.

Fostering cooperative relationships between organizations and with Indigenous communities, landowners, farmers, pet owners, and or other groups involved will also help in mitigating threats for the subspecies and its habitats. Moreover, as migration and wintering habitats are largely outside of Canada, international partnerships fostering and supporting the efforts of other jurisdictions in filling knowledge gaps, mitigating threats and promoting cross-border conservation will be important.

6.4.3. Low priority

Other measures suggested in Table 4 are considered important but will likely have an indirect or gradual influence on reaching the management objective and are therefore considered lower priority.

The Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow is not a bird that most people are familiar with. The importance of agricultural habitat for certain nesting birds is also not common knowledge. Therefore, communication activities will be important to raise awareness about the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow (for example, its habitat needs, occurrences, and threats) among land managers and agricultural landowners to promote better conservation. Raising awareness about the threat of mortality by domestic and feral cats and promoting best practices for cat management would be beneficial to Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow and many other bird species. Creating a grassland bird-friendly label for farm products would also be beneficial to many grassland species. The subspecies would also benefit from greater sharing of observations through the different data conservation centers and from research to address economic drivers of pasture and hayfield conversion to other types of agricultural use.

7. Measuring progress

The performance indicators presented below provide a way to measure progress towards achieving the management objectives and monitoring the implementation of the management plan.

By 2036 and thereafter,

• the population trend of the Eastern Grasshopper Sparrow in Canada is stable^{Footnote 15}, as measured by the BBS over a 10‑year period
• the current distribution (as per Figure 1) of the species in Ontario and Quebec is maintained

8. References

Ahlering, M.A., D.H. Johnson, and J. Faaborg. 2009. Factors associated with arrival densities of Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) and Baird’s Sparrow (A. bairdii) in the Upper Great Plains. The Auk 126:799-808.

Ahlering, M.A. and C.L. Merkord. 2016. Cattle Grazing and Grassland Birds in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80(4):643 to 654. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.1049

Allen, M.C, J.L. Lockwood, and J. Burger. 2021. Finding clarity in ecological outcomes using empirical integrated social–ecological systems: a case study of agriculture-dependent grassland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 58(3):528-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13776

Askins, R.A., F. Chávez-Ramírez, B.C. Dale, C.A. Haas, J.R. Herkert, F.L. Knopf, and P.D. Vickery. 2007. Conservation of grassland birds in North America: understanding ecological processes in different regions. Ornithological Monographs 61: 1-46.

Audubon New York. 2009. Managing Habitat for Farmland Grassland Birds. https://ny.audubon.org/conservation/managing-habitat-grassland-birds [Accessed November 2024].

Balent, K.L. and C.J. Norment. 2003. Demographic characteristics of a Grasshopper Sparrow population in a highly fragmented landscape in western New York State. Journal of Field Ornithology 74:341 to 348.

Bayne, E.M., C.A. Scobie, M. Rawson-Clark. 2012. Factors influencing the annual risk of bird–window collisions at residential structures in Alberta, Canada. Wildlife Research, 39(7): 583-592. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR1117

Bernath-Plaisted, J., and N. Koper. 2016. physical footprint of oil and gas infrastructure, not anthropogenic noise, reduces nesting success of some grassland songbirds. Biological Conservation 204:434 to 441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.002

Bernath-Plaisted, J.S., A.O. Panjabi, N.A. Guido, K.D. Bell, N. Drilling, E.H. Strasser, S.K. Johnson, and M.D. Correll. 2021. Quantifying multiple breeding vital rates in two declining grassland songbirds. Avian conservation and Ecology 16(1):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01875-160119

Best, L.B., K.E. Freemark, J.J Dinsmore and M. Camp. 1995. Review and Synthesis of Habitat Use by Breeding Birds in Agricultural Landscapes of Iowa. The American Midland Naturalist 134(1).

BirdLife International. 2021. Ammodramus savannarum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T22721144A138486868. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-3.RLTS.T22721144A138486868.en. [Accessed in November 2024].

BirdLife International. 2024. Species factsheet: Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum. https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/grasshopper-sparrow-ammodramus-savannarum on 01/10/2024

Birds’ ecology and conservation Ontario (BECO). 2019. Grassland bird stewardship on farms’ project. https://www.beco-birds.org/portfolio-item/grassland-bird-stewardship-on-farms/

Bishop, C.A. and J.M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202

Blancher, P. and A.R. Couturier. 2007. Population size estimates for Ontario birds, based on point counts, pp. 655-657, in Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp.

Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00557-080203

Bleho, B.I., N. Koper, and C.S. Machtans. 2014. Direct effects of cattle on grassland birds in Canada. Conservation Biology 28(3):724-734. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12259

Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, and B.C. Bennett. 1999. Songbird abundance in grasslands at a suburban interface on the Colorado High Plains. Studies in Avian Biology 19:131 to 136.

Bogard, H.J.K. and S.K. Davis. 2014. Grassland songbirds exhibit variable responses to the proximity and density of natural gas wells. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(3):471 to 482. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.684

Bollinger, E.K., P.B. Bollinger and T.A. Gavin. 1990. Effects of Hay-Cropping on Eastern Populations of the Bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2): 142-150.

Bracey, A.M., K.E. Kovalenko, G. Niemi, R.W. Howe and A.R. Grinde. 2022. Effects of human land use on avian functional and taxonomic diversity within the upland coastal zone of the North American Great Lakes. Avian Conservation and Ecology 17(2): article 6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-02191-170206

Brennan, L.A. and W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2005. North American grassland birds: an unfolding conservation crisis? Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1-13.

Brinker, S.R., M. Garvey and C.D. Jones. 2018. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species in the Ontario Great Lakes basin. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Science and Research Branch, Peterborough, ON. Climate Change Research Report CCRR-48. 85 pp. + appendices.

Butler, A.B., J.A. Martin, W.E. Palmer, and J.P. Carroll. 2009. Winter use of south Florida dry prairie by two declining grassland passerines. The Condor 111(3):511-522. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2009.080080

Cadman, M.D., P.F. Eagles, and F.M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo.

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp.

Caldwell, W., S. Epp, X. Wan, R. Singer, E. Drake, and E.C. Sousa. 2022. Farmland preservation and urban expansion: case study of southern Ontario, Canada. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.777816

Calvert, A.M., C.A. Bishop, R.D. Elliot, E.A. Krebs, T.M. Kydd, C.S. Machtans, and G.J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation Ecology 8, 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211.

Canadian Wildlife Federation (CWF). 2022. Website: https://blog.cwf-fcf.org/index.php/en/best-practices-for-bird-friendly-farming/ [accessed November 2024].

Cannings, R.J. 1995. Status of the Grasshopper Sparrow in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-77.

Chiavacci, S.J., T.J. Benson, and M.P. Ward. 2018. Linking landscape composition to predator-specific nest predation requires examining multiple landscape scales. Journal of Applied Ecology 55:2082-2092.

Clower, K.M. 2011. Effects of rotational grazing on grassland songbirds on U.S. dairy farms. Master’s Thesis, University of Minnesota.

Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). 2016. CMP Direct Threats Classification v 2.0. https://conservationstandards.org/library-item/direct-threats-classification-v2-0/

Coppedge, B.R., S.D. Fuhlendorf, W.C. Harrell and D.M. Engle. 2008. Avian community response to vegetation and structural features in grasslands managed with fire and grazing. Biological Conservation 141(5): 1196-1203.

Corace III, R.G., D.J. Flaspohler and L.M. Shartell. 2009. Geographical patterns in open land cover and hayfield mowing in the Upper Great Lakes region: implications for grassland bird conservation. Landscape Ecol. 24:309 to 323. DOI 10.1007/s10980-008-9306-8

COSEPAC. 2013. Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Bruant sauterelle de la sous‑espèce de l’Est (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis) au Canada. Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada, Ottawa. xi + 40 p. [Also available in English: COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Grasshopper Sparrow pratensis subspecies Ammodramus savannarum pratensis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 36 pp.]

COSEPAC. 2021. Instructions pour la préparation des rapports de situation du COSEPAC. Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada. http://www.cosewic.ca/images/cosewic/pdf/instructions_f.pdf. [Accessed July 12, 2023]. [Also available in English: COSEWIC. 2021. Instructions for the Preparation of COSEWIC status Reports. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Available at: http://www.cosewic.ca/images/cosewic/pdf/instructions_e.pdf]

Couchiching Conservancy, The. 2020. Managing Hay and Pasture to Benefit Grassland Birds: A Preliminary Guide for Garden Landowners. https://couchichingconserv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ManagingHayPastureBooklet.pdf

Dale, B.C., P.A. Martin and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3): 616-626.

Davis, C.A., R.T. Churchwell, S.D. Fuhlendorf, D.M. Engle, and T.J. Hovick. 2016. Effect of pyric herbivory on source–sink dynamics in grassland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 53(4):1004-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12641

Davis, K.P., D.J. Augustine, A.P. Monroe, C.L. Aldridge. 2021. Vegetation characteristics and precipitation jointly influence grassland bird abundance beyond the effects of grazing management. Ornithological Applications 123(4):1‑15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duab041

Davis, S.K. 1994. Cowbird parasitism, predation and host selection in fragmented grassland of southwestern Manitoba. Master’s Thesis, University of Manitoba. 87 pp.

Davis, S.K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland Passerines: Effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in Southern Saskatchewan. Auk, 121(4): 1130-1145.

Davis, S.K. and D.C. Duncan. 1999. Grassland songbird occurrence in native and crested wheatgrass pastures of southern Saskatchewan. Studies in Avian Biology 19:211-218.

Dechant, J.A, M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M.P. Nenneman, and B.R. Euliss. 2002. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Grasshopper Sparrow. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 147. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/147

Delisle, J.M. and J.A. Savidge. 1997. Avian use and vegetation characteristics of Conservation Reserve Program fields. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2).

Des Brisay, P. G., L. D. Burns, K. Ellison, W. G. Anderson, M. Leonard, and N. Koper. 2023. Oil infrastructure has greater impact than noise on stress and habitat selection in three grassland songbirds. Environmental Management 71:393 to 404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01752-2

Earley, C.G. 2007. Grasshopper Sparrow, pp. 550-551, in Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp.

eBird. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed November 2024).

Ellison, K.S., C.A. Ribic, D.W. Sample, M.J. Fawcett, and J.D. Dadismann. 2013. Impacts of tree rows on grassland birds and potential nest predators: a removal experiment. PLoS One 8: e59151. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059151

Environnement et changement climatique Canada (ECCC) et Oiseaux Canada. 2024. L’état des populations d’oiseaux du Canada — Bruant sauterelle. Données accessibles sur le site NatureCounts (Oiseaux Canada). https://naturecounts.ca/nc/socb-epoc/species.jsp?sp=graspa&v=2&switchlang=FR [Also available in English: Environment and Climate Change Canada and Birds Canada. 2024. The State of Canada’s Birds – Grasshopper Sparrow. https://doi.org/10.71842/vhwy-9v26]

Environnement Canada. 2013. Stratégie de conservation des oiseaux pour la région de conservation des oiseaux 13 de la région du Québec: plaine du Saint‑Laurent et des lacs Ontario et Érié. Service canadien de la faune, Environnement Canada, Québec (Québec), 156 p. + annexes. [Also available in English: Environment Canada. 2013. Bird Conservation Strategy for Bird Conservation Region 13 in Quebec Region – Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Quebec, Quebec. 142 pp. + appendices.]

Environnement Canada. 2014. Stratégie de conservation des oiseaux pour la région de conservation des oiseaux 13 de la région de l’Ontario: plaine du Saint‑Laurent et des lacs Ontario et Érié. Service canadien de la faune, Environnement Canada. Ottawa (Ontario). 237 p. + annexes. [Also available in English: Environment Canada. 2014. Bird Conservation Strategy for Bird Conservation Region 13 in Ontario Region: Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 197 pp + appendices.]

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, D.P. Young Jr. 2005. A summary and comparison of bird mortality from anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. In: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191.

Farm and Food Care Ontario. 2015. Survey of pesticide use in Ontario, 2013/2014 –estimates of pesticides used on field crops and fruit and vegetable crops. Farm and Food Care Ontario, Guelph, Ontario. 21 pp.

Fink, D., T. Auer, A. Johnston, M. Strimas-Mackey, S. Ligocki, O. Robinson, W. Hochachka, L. Jaromczyk, A. Rodewald, C. Wood, I. Davies, A. Spencer. 2022. eBird Status and Trends, Data Version: 2021; Released: 2022. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://science.ebird.org/fr/status-and-trends/species/graspa/trends-map

Freemark, K. E. and C. Boutin. 1994. Impacts of agricultural herbicide use on terrestrial wildlife: a review with special reference to Canada. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Headquarters. Technical Report No. 196. 53 pp.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., W. C. Harrell, D. M. Engle, R. G. Hamilton, C. A. Davis, and D. M. Leslie. Jr. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecological Applications 16:1706‑1716.

Galligan, E.W., T.L. DeVault and S.L. Lima. 2006. Nesting success of grassland and savanna birds on reclaimed surface coal mines of the midwestern United States. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 118(4): 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1676/05-086.1

Garrett, D.R., F. Pelletier, D. Garant., and M. Bélisle. 2021. Negative effects of agricultural intensification on the food provisioning rate of a declining aerial insectivore. Ecosphere13(9): e4227. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4227

Gauthier, J. and Y. Aubry (eds). 1995. Les oiseaux nicheurs du Québec: Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Association québécoise des groupes d’ornithologues, Société québécoise de protection des oiseaux, Servicce canadien de la faune, Environnement Canada, Montréal, xviii + 1295 p.

Giocomo, J.J., E.D. Moss, D.A. Buehler and W.G. Minser. 2008. Nesting Biology of Grassland Birds at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120(1): 111-119.

Glass, A.J., A.J. Caven, D. Kim, M.O. Sutton, and N. Arcilla. 2020. Climate change and land management implications for a declining Neotropical migratory songbird breeding in the North American Great Plains. Avian Conservation and Ecology 15(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01515-150104

Gordon, C.E. 2000. Movement patterns of wintering grassland sparrows in Arizona. The Auk 117: 748-759.

Government of Canada. 2020. Species at Risk Policy on Recovery and Survival. Species at Risk Act: Policies and Guidelines Series. Government of Canada, Ottawa. 7 pp.

Grilo, C., E. Koroleva, R. Andrášik, M. Bíl and M. González-Suárez. 2020. Roadkill risk and population vulnerability in European birds and mammals. Front Ecol Environ 18(6):323 to 328. doi:10.1002/fee.2216

Hainault, P. 1995. Bruant sauterelle,. 982-985 dans Gauthier, J. et Y. Aubry. (editeurs). Les oiseaux nicheurs du Québec: Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Association québécoise des groupes d’ornithologues, Société québécoise de protection des oiseaux, Service canadien de la faune, Environnement Canada, région du Québec, Montréal, xviii + 1295 p.

Hallmann, C.A., R.P.B. Foppen, C.A.M. van Turnhout, H. de Kroon, and E. Jongejans. 2014. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341 to 343. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13531

Hannah, K.C., J.E. Put, and D.D. Hope. 2024. Seeing isn’t always believing: visual observations underestimate space use in the eastern Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum pratensis). Avian Conservation and Ecology 19(2):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-02752-190220

Harris, L.D. and J. Scheck. 1991. From implications to applications: the dispersal corridor principle applied to the conservation of biological diversity. Pages 189‑220 in D. A. Saunders, and R. J. Hobbs (eds). Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia.

Helzer, C.J. and D.E. Jelinski. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9(4):1448-1458. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2641409

Henderson, A.E. and S.K. Davis. 2014. Rangeland Health Assessment: A useful tool for linking range management and grassland bird conservation? Rangeland Ecology and Management, 67(1): 88-98. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-12-00140.1

Herakovich, H., N.A. Barber and H.P. Jones. 2021. Assessing the impacts of prescribed fire and bison disturbance on birds using bioacoustic recorders. The American Midland Naturalist 186(2): 245-262. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-186.2.245

Herkert, J.R., D.L. Reinking, D.A. Wiedenfeld, M. Winter, J.L. Zimmerman, W.E. Jensen, E.J. Finck, R.R. Koford, D.H. Wolfe, S.K. Sherrod, M.A. Jenkins, J. Faaborg and S.K. Robinson. 2003. Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest success of breeding birds in the midcontinental United States. Conservation Biology 17(2):587 to 594.

Herse, M.R., K.A. With and W.A. Boyle. 2018. The importance of core habitat for a threatened species in changing landscapes. J Appl Ecol 55: 2241 to 2252. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13234

Hill, J.M., and D.R. Diefenbach. 2013. Experimental removal of woody vegetation does not increase nesting success or fledgling production in two grassland sparrows (Ammodramus) in Pennsylvania. Auk 130:764– 773.

Hill, J.M., J.F. Egan, G.E. Stauffer, and D.R. Diefenbach. 2014. Habitat availability is a more plausible explanation than insecticide acute toxicity for U.S. grassland bird species declines. PLoS ONE 9(5): e98064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098064

Hill, J.M. and R.B. Renfrew. 2019. Migratory patterns and connectivity of two North American grassland bird species. Ecology and Evolution 9(1):680-692. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4795

Hovick, T.J., J.R. Miller, S.J. Dinsmore, D.M. Engle, D.M. Debinski, and S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2011a. Effects of fire and grazing on Grasshopper Sparrow nest survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1):19 to 27. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.243

Hovick, T.J., J.R. Miller, R.R. Koford, D.M. Engle and D.M. Debinski. 2011b. Postfledging Survival of Grasshopper Sparrows in Grasslands Managed with Fire and Grazing. The Condor 113(2): 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2011.100135

Hyde, D. and S. Campbell. 2012. Agricultural Practices That Conserve Grassland Birds. Michigan State University. Publication No. E3190. https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/resources/pdfs/agricultural_practices_that_conserve_grasslands_birds_(e3190).pdf [Accessed November 2024].

Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2008. Superficie révisée des grandes cultures, rendement à l'hectare et production, par région administrative, Québec, 2006. Available at: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/agriculture/grandes-cultures/am110006.htm [accessed June 21, 2019].

Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2018. Superficie des grandes cultures, rendement à l'hectare et production, par région administrative, Québec, 2016. Available at: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/agriculture/grandes-cultures/gc_2016.htm [accessed June 21, 2019].

Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2022. Mise à jour 2022 des perspectives démographiques du Québec et de ses régions, 2021-2066. Direction des statistiques sociodémographiques. Bulletin sociodémographique: 26(4).

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources – Conservation Measure Partnership (IUCN-CMP). 2016. IUCN-CMP Threat and Action Classifications (Version 2.0). https://conservationstandards.org/library-item/threats-and-actions-taxonomies/

Irvin E., K.R. Duren, J.J. Buler, W. Jones, A.T. Gonzon and C.K. Williams. 2013. A Multi-Scale Occupancy Model for the Grasshopper Sparrow in the Mid-Atlantic. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(8):1564 to 1571. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.609.

Jacobson, S.L. 2005. Mitigation measures for highway caused impacts to birds. Pp. 1043 to 1050 in C. J. Ralph, and T. D. Rich (eds). USDA Forest Service general technical report PSWGTR-191, Vol. I and II. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Washington, D.C., U.S.

Jean, M. and A. Bouchard. 1991. Temporal changes in wetland landscapes of a section of the St. Lawrence River, Canada. Environmental Management 15(2): 241-250.

Jobin, B. and J. Picman. 2002. Predation on artificial nests in upland habitats adjacent to freshwater marshes. American Midland Naturalist 147: 305-314.

Jobin, B., C. Latendresse, C. Maisonneuve, A. Sebbane et M. Grenier. 2007. Changements de l’occupation du sol dans le sud du Québec pour la période 1993-2001. Série de rapports techniques nº 483, Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune, région du Québec, Sainte-Foy, Québec. 112 p. et annexes.

Jobin, B., S. Labrecque, M. Grenier, and G. Falardeau. 2008. Object-based classification as an alternative approach to the traditional pixel-based classification to identify potential habitat of the Grasshopper Sparrow. Environmental Management 41:20-31.

Jobin, B. and G. Falardeau. 2010. Habitat associations of Grasshopper Sparrows in Southern Québec. Northeastern Naturalist 17: 135-146.

Jobin, B. 2019. Grasshopper Sparrow,. 484-485 in Second Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Southern Québec (M. Robert, M.-H. Hachey, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier, eds.). Regroupement Québec Oiseaux, Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment and Climate Change Canada) and Bird Studies Canada, Montréal, xxv + 694 p.

Johnson, D.H. and L.D. Igl. 2001. Area requirements of grassland birds: A regional perspective. Auk 118:24 to 34.

Joseph, A. and P. Keddie. 1981. The diffusion of grain corn production through southern Ontario, 1946-1971. Canadian Geographer 25: 333 to 349.

Keddie, P. and J. Wandel. 2001. The “Second Wave”: the expansion of soybeans across southern Ontario, 1951-96. Great Lakes Geographer 8: 15-30.

Keyser, P.D., A.S. West, D.A. Buehler, C.M. Lituma, J.J. Morgan and R.D. Applegate. 2020. Breeding Bird Use of Production Stands of Native Grasses—a Working Lands Conservation Approach. Rangeland Ecology and Management 73: 827 to 837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.04.005

Korosy, M.G., J.S. Reece, and R.F. Noss. 2013. Winter habitat associations of four grassland sparrows in Florida dry prairie. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125(3):502-512. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24638429

Kraus, H.M., W.E. Jensen, G.R. Houseman, M.L. Jameson, M.M. Reichenborn, D. F. Watson, and E.L. Kjaer. 2022. Cattle grazing in CRP grasslands during the nesting season: effects on avian reproduction. The Journal of Wildlife Management 86(2):e22152. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22152

Kyle, J. and R. Reid. 2016. Farming with Grassland Birds: A Guide to Making Your Hay and Pasture Bird Friendly. e Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. http://aldervillesavanna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GrasslandBirdsWorkbook.pdf. [Accessed November 2024].

Lamoureux, S. and C. Dion. 2019. Guide de recommandations – Aménagements et pratiques favorisant la protection des oiseaux champêtres, 2e édition [French only]. QuébecOiseaux, Montréal,198 p.

Latendresse, C., B. Jobin, A. Baril, C. Maisonneuve, C. Boutin et D. Côté. 2008. Dynamique spatiotemporelle des habitats fauniques dans l’écorégion des Basses terres du fleuve Saint-Laurent, 1950-1997. Série de rapports techniques no 494, Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune, région du Québec, Québec, 83 p. et annexes.

Lautenbach, J.M., N. Stricker, M. Ervin, A. Hershner, R. Harris, and C. Smith. 2020. Woody vegetation removal benefits grassland birds on reclaimed surface mines. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 11(1):89 to 98. https://doi.org/10.3996/062019-JFWM-053

Lloyd, P., T.E. Martin, R.L. Redmond, U. Langner and M.M. Hart. 2005. Linking demographic effects of habitat fragmentation across landscapes to continental source–sink dynamics. Ecological Applications 15(5): 1504 to 1514. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1243

Lockhart, J. and N. Koper. 2018. Northern prairie songbirds are more strongly influenced by grassland configuration than grassland amount. Landscape Ecol. 33:1543 to 1558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0681-5

Londe, D. W., S.D. Fuhlendorf, R.D., Elmore, and C.A. Davis. 2019. Landscape heterogeneity influences the response of grassland birds to energy development. Wildlife Biology 1: 1 to 11.https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00523

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D.G. Bert, L.M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S.A. Gauthreaux Jr, M.L. Avery, R.L. Crawford, A.M. Manville II, E.R. Travis and D. Drake. 2012. An estimate of avian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada. PLoS ONE 7(4): e34025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034025

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D.G. Bert, L.M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S.A. Gauthreaux Jr, M.L. Avery, R.L. Crawford, A.M. Manville II, E.R. Travis and D. Drake. 2013. Avian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada: which species, how many, and where? Biological Conservation 158 (2013) 410 to 419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.09.019

Loss, S.R., T. Will and P.P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396. DOI:10.1038/ncomms2380

Loss, S.R., T. Will and P.P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on US roads. J. Wildl. Manag. 78, 763 to 771.

Machtans, C. S., and W. E. Thogmartin. 2014. Understanding the value of imperfect science from national estimates of bird mortality from window collisions. Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:3 to 7.

Macías-Duarte, A., A.O. Panjabi, E.H. Strasser, G.J. Levandoski, I. Ruvalcaba-Ortega, P.F. Doherty, and C.I. Ortega-Rosas. 2017. Winter survival of North American grassland birds is driven by weather and grassland condition in the Chihuahuan Desert. Journal of Field Ornithology. 88(4):374 to 386. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12226

Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.L. Nelson. 1951. American Wildlife and Plants, A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits (reprinted 1961). Dover Publications, New York, NY. 500 p.

Martin, T.E. 1988. Processes organizing open-nesting bird assemblages: competition or nest predation? Evolutionary Ecology 2: 37-50.

Martin, T.E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecological Monographs 65(1): 101-127.

McGuire, S.L. 2014. Habitat use and community structure of grassland birds in southern Ontario agro-ecosystems. Master's Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, ON. viii +120.

McGuire, S.L. and J.J. Nocera. 2015. Heterospecific competition and attraction in grassland bird communities differ with habitat quality. Community Ecology 16(2):206-214. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43966977

McLaughlin, M.E., W.M. Janousek, J.P. McCarty and L.L. Wolfenbarger. 2014. Effects of urbanization on site occupancy and density of grassland birds in tallgrass prairie fragments. J. Field Ornithol. 85(3): 258 to 273. DOI: 10.1111/jofo.12066

Mineau, P. 2013. Avian mortality from pesticides used in agriculture in Canada, p.108‑134 in Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada, Appendix 1. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211

Mineau, P. and M. Whiteside. 2013. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S. grassland bird declines than agricultural intensification. PLoS ONE 8(2):e57457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057457

Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario (MNR). 2024. Ontario GeoHub – Petroleum Well Dataset [web application]. https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/datasets/lio::petroleum-well/explore?filters=eyJXRUxMX1RZUEUiOlsiTmF0dXJhbCBHYXMgV2VsbCIsIk9pbCBXZWxsIl19&location=42.996258%2C-80.952323%2C5.96 [Accessed October 2024].

Mitra, A., S. Chatterjee, M. Sarkar, and D.K. Gupta. 2021. Toxic effects of pesticides on avian fauna. In: Gothandam, K.M., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N., Lichtfouse, E. (eds) Environmental Biotechnology. 3. Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable World, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48973-1_3

National Audubon Society. 2023. The Christmas bird count website. https://www.audubon.org/conservation/science/christmas-bird-count [accessed January 15, 2024].

NatureServe. 2024. NatureServe Explorer [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/. [Accessed October 9, 2024].

Nenninger, H. R., and N. Koper. 2018. Effects of conventional oil wells on grassland songbird abundance are caused by presence of infrastructure, not noise. Biological Conservation 218:124 to 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.014

Ochterski, J. 2006. Hayfield Management and Grassland Bird Conservation. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schuyler County, NY. https://www.rauscherfarm.org/Hayfields-Grassland_Birds.pdf [Accessed November 2024].

OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs). 2022. Ontario field crop area and production estimates by county. Ontario field crop area and production estimates by county - Datasets - Ontario Data Catalogue. https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/ontario-field-crop-area-and-production-estimates-by-county [Accessed March 3, 2023].

Ouranos. 2015. Vers l’adaptation. Synthèse des connaissances sur les changements climatiques au Québec. Partie 1: Évolution climatique au Québec. Édition 2015. Montréal, Québec: Ouranos, 114 p.

Partners in Flight (PIF). 2024. Population Estimates Database, version 3.1. Available at: https://pif.birdconservancy.org/population-estimate-database-scores/. [Accessed October 2024].

Patterson, M.P. and L.B. Best. 1996. Bird abundance and nesting success in Iowa CRP fields: the importance of vegetation structure and composition. The American Midland Naturalist 135(1):153-167. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2426881

Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1987. Breeding birds of Ontario: nidiology and distribution.. 2: Passerines, Part C: Tanagers to Old World Sparrows. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Pp. 113-114.

Peer, B.D., S.K. Robinson and J.R. Herkert. 2000. Egg rejection by cowbird hosts in grasslands. The Auk 117(4):892-901. https://doi.org/10.2307/4089628

Pérez-Ordoñez, D.J., M. Titulaer, M.D. Correll, E.H. Strasser, F. Baeza-Tarin, R.L. Martin, and L.A. Harveson. 2022. The role of temperature and microclimate in the survival of wintering grassland birds. Avian Conservation and Ecology 17: 1.

Perlut, N.G., A.M. Strong, T.M. Donovan and N.J. Buckley. 2006. Grassland songbirds in a dynamic management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. Ecological Applications 16(6): 2235 to 2247.

Perlut, N.G. 2007. Effects of hayfield management on grassland songbirds: behavioral responses and population processes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. 138 p.

Poisson, M.-C., D.R. Garrett, A. Sigouin, M. Bélisle, D. Garant, L. Haroune, J.‑P. Bellenger, and F. Pelletier. 2021. Assessing pesticides exposure effects on the reproductive performance of a declining aerial insectivore. Ecological Applications 31(7):e02415. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2415

Post van der Burg, M., C. Otto, and G. MacDonald. 2023. Trending against the grain: bird population responses to expanding energy portfolios in the US Northern Great Plains. Ecological Applications, e2904. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2904

Powell, A.F.L.A. 2006. Effects of prescribed burns and bison (Bos bison) grazing on breeding bird abundances in tallgrass prairie. The Auk, 123(1): 183-197.

Powell, A.F.L.A. 2008. Responses of breeding birds in tallgrass prairie to fire and cattle grazing. J. Field Ornithol. 79(1):41 to 52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1557-9263.2008.00144.x

Rahmig, C.J., W.E. Jensen, and K.A. With. 2009. Grassland bird responses to land management in the largest remaining tallgrass prairie. Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No. 2, 420 to 432.

Renfrew, R.B. and C.A. Ribic. 2003. Grassland passerine nest predators near pasture edges identified on videotape. The Auk 120(2): 371 to 383.

Renfrew, R.B., C.A. Ribic, and J.L. Nack. 2005. Edge avoidance by nesting grassland birds: A futile strategy in a fragmented landscape. The Auk 122(2): 618-636. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4090451

Ribic, C.A., M. Guzy, T. Anderson, D. Sample and J. Nack. 2012. Bird Productivity and Nest Predation in Agricultural Grasslands. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 257. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/257

Ribic, C.A., D.J. Rugg, K. Ellison, N. Koper, and P.J. Pietz. 2021. Diel patterns of predation and fledging at nests of four species of grassland songbirds. Ecology and Evolution 11(11):6913 to 6926. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7541

Richard, F.-J., I. Southern, M. Gigauri, G. Bellini, O. Rojas, and A. Runde. 2021. Warning on nine pollutants and their effects on avian communities. Global Ecology and Conservation 32:e01898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01898

Rioux, S., J.P.L Savard and A.A. Gerick. 2013. Avian mortalities due to transmission line collisions: a review of current estimates and field methods with an emphasis on applications to the Canadian electric network. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 7. http://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art7/

Rising, J.D. and D.D. and Beadle. 1996. A guide to the identification and natural history of the sparrows of the United States and Canada. Academic Press. Toronto, 362 p.

Robert, M., M.-H. Hachey, D. Lepage et A.R. Couturier (dir.). 2019. Deuxième atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, Service canadien de la faune (Environnement et Changement climatique Canada) et Études d’Oiseaux Canada, Montréal, xxv + 694 p. https://www.atlas-oiseaux.qc.ca/telechargement_fr.jsp

Rousseu, F. and B. Drolet. 2015. Prediction of the nesting phenology of birds in Canada. In: J. Hussell and D. Lepage. 2015. Bird Nesting Calendar Query Tool. Project NestWatch. Bird Studies Canada / Études d’Oiseaux Canada, URL: https://www.naturecounts.ca/apps/rnest/index.jsp?lang=EN Accessed [2020-08-28].

Ruiz, J. et G. Domon 2005. Les paysages de l’agriculture en mutation. In: Poullaouec‑Gonidec, P., Domon, G. et S. Paquette (Éds.). Paysages en perspective. Presses de l’université de Montréal, série « Paysages », Montréal, pp. 47-97.

Ruth J.M. 2015. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado. 109 pp.

Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S.H.M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L.L. Master, S. O’connor and D. Wilkie. 2008. A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation Biology 22(4): 897-911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x

Savignac, C., B. Jobin and G. Falardeau. 2011. Status of the Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) in Quebec. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec Region. Technical Report Series Number 518, vii + 39 p. + appendix.

Shahan, J.L., B.J. Goodwin, and B.C. Rundquist. 2017. Grassland songbird occurrence on remnant prairie patches is primarily determined by landscape characteristics. Landscape Ecology 32:971 to 988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0500-4

Shresta, N.K., F. Seglenieks, A.G.T. Temgoua and A. Dehghan. 2022. The Impacts of Climate Change on Land Hydroclimatology of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. Frontiers in Water 4: 801134. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.801134

Skipper, B.R. and D.H. Kim. 2013. Provisioning rate, dietary composition, and prey selection of breeding Bobolink and Grasshopper Sparrows. Western North American Naturalist 73:35 to 40.

Slater, G.L. 2004. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf

Smith, R.L. 1968. Ammodramus savannarum (Gmelin) Grasshopper Sparrow. In Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows and allies. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, New York. Pp. 725-745.

Smith, P.G.R. 2015. Long-Term Temporal Trends in Agri-Environment and Agricultural Land Use in Ontario, Canada: Transformation, Transition and Significance. Journal of Geography and Geology 7(2). DOI:10.5539/jgg.v7n2p32

Smith, A.C., M-A.R. Hudson, V.I. Aponte, English, W.B., and C.M. Francis. 2023. North American Breeding Bird Survey - Canadian Trends Website, Data-version 2021. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3.

Solymàr, B. 2005. A Stewardship Guide to Grasslands in Southern Ontario: An Introduction for Farmers and Rural Landowners. Ontario Barn Owl Recovery Project. https://www.bsc-eoc.org/library/BNOWgrasslandsguide.pdf

SOS-POP. 2023. Banque de données sur les espèces en péril du Québec. Issue du programme de Suivi de l’occupation des stations de nidification des populations d’oiseaux en péril du Québec (SOS-POP). Regroupement Québec Oiseaux and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Québec Region.

Statistics Canada. 2022a. Table 32-10-0153-01, Total area of farms and use of farmland, historical data. Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210015301 [accessed January 15, 2024].

Statistics Canada. 2022b. Table 32-10-0421-01, Christmas trees. Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210042101 [accessed January 15, 2024].

Sutter, B. and G. Ritchison. 2005. Effects of grazing on vegetation structure, prey availability, and reproductive success of Grasshopper Sparrows. Journal of Field Ornithology 76:345-351. https://doi.org/10.1648/0273-8570-76.4.345

Tews, J., D.G. Bert, and P. Mineau. 2013. Estimated mortality of selected migratory bird species from mowing and other mechanical operations in Canadian agriculture. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00559-080208

Thogmartin, W.E., M.G. Knutson, and J.R. Sauer. 2006. Predicting regional abundance of rare grassland birds with a hierarchical spatial count model. Condor 108:25‑46.

Thompson, S. J., D.H. Johnson, N.D. Niemuth, and C.A. Ribic. 2015. Avoidance of unconventional oil wells and roads exacerbates habitat loss for grassland birds in the North American Great Plains. Biological Conservation 192: 82 to 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.040

Thompson III, F.R., T.M. Donovan, R.M. DeGraaf, J. Faaborg and S.K. Robinson. 2002. A multi-scale perspective of the effects of forest fragmentation on birds in eastern forests. Studies in Avian Biology 25:8 to 19.

Titulaer, M., A. Melgoza-Castillo, A.O. Panjabi, A. Sanchez-Flores, J.H. Martínez-Guerrero, A. Macías-Duarte and J.A. Fernandez. 2017. Molecular analysis of stomach contents reveals important grass seeds in the winter diet of Baird’s and Grasshopper sparrows, two declining grassland bird species. PLoS ONE 12 (12).

Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA). 2023. https://www.upa.qc.ca/en/citoyen

Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) Montérégie. 2023. Connaître pour mieux protéger: 12 espèces en péril sur notre territoire. https://monteregie.upa.qc.ca/fileadmin/monteregie/Especes-peril.pdf

Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) Outaouais-Laurentides. 2023. Connaître pour mieux protéger: 13 espèces en péril sur notre territoire. https://alus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Outaouais_Especes-en-peril_Outaouais_VFinal.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA‑NRCS). 2010. Management considerations for grassland birds in northeastern haylands and pasturelands. Wildlife Insight 88. Washington, DC.

U.S. Geological survey (USGS). 2002. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Grasshopper Sparrow (N. P. W. R. Center, Editor). U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota, USA.

van Bruggen, A.H.C., M.R. Finckh, M. He, C.J. Ritsema, P. Harkes, D. Knuth, and V. Geissen. 2021. Indirect effects of the herbicide glyphosate on plant, animal and human health through its effects on microbial communities. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9:763917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.763917

Vickery, P.D., B. Zuckerberg, A.L. Jones, W.G Shriver, and A.P. Weik. 2005. Influence of fire and other anthropogenic practices on grassland and shrubland birds in New England. Studies in Avian Biology No. 30:139 to 146.

Vickery, P. D. 2020. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, U.S https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.graspa.01

Vos, S.M. and C.A. Ribic. 2013. Nesting success of grassland birds in oak barrens and dry prairies in west central Wisconsin. Northeastern Naturalist 20(1):131-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43287099

Warren, F.J. and Lemmen, D.S., editors 2014. Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation; Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 286p.

Weir, R.D. 1989. Birds of the Kingston Region, Kingston Field Naturalist, Quarry Press, Inc., Kingston, Ontario, 608 p.

Wentworth, K.L., Brittingham, M.C., and A.M. Wilson. 2010, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program fields—Benefits for grassland and shrub-scrub species: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 65, no. 1,. 50 to 60.

Wiens, J.A. 1969. An Approach to the Study of Ecological Relationships among Grassland Birds. Ornithological Monographs: 8. pp. 1-93.

Williams, E.J. and W.A. Boyle. 2017. Patterns and correlates of within-season breeding dispersal: A common strategy in a declining grassland songbird. The Auk 135: 1‑14. DOI: 10.1642/AUK-17-69.1

Wilson, B.S., W.E. Jensen, G.R. Houseman, M.L. Jameson, M.M. Reichenborn, D. F. Watson, A.R. Morphew, and E.L. Kjaer. 2022. Cattle grazing in CRP grasslands during the nesting season: effects on avian abundance and diversity. The Journal of Wildlife Management 86(2):e22188. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22188

Wisner, S.A. 2022. Utilizing climate change refugia for climate change adaptation and management in the Northeast. Master’s Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 152 pp. https://doi.org/10.7275/26909852.0 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2/1170

With, K.A., A.W. King, and W.E. Jensen. 2008. Remaining large grasslands may not be sufficient to prevent grassland bird declines. Biological Conservation 141:3152‑3167.

Wood, P.B. and F.K. Ammer. 2013. Grasshopper Sparrow reproductive success and habitat use on reclaimed surface mines varies by age of reclamation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39(3):512 to 520.

Wood, P.B. and F.K. Ammer. 2015. Grasshopper Sparrow reproductive success and habitat use on reclaimed surface mines varies by age of reclamation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39(3):512 to 520. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.563

Wray, T., K.A. Strait, R.C. Whitmore. 1982. Reproductive success of grassland sparrows on a reclaimed surface mine in West Virginia. The Auk 99: 157-164.

Appendix A: Summary list of better management practices recommended for Eastern Grasshopper Sparrows’ conservation on agricultural lands

^{Footnote 16}

1. Maintain grasslands for 4 to 5 consecutive years before recultivating them
2. Delay the first hay cut or keep a few hectares free of mowing until July 15 at the earliest (that is after peak fledging of ground-nesting young), or later if possible
3. Adopt very late (late June) or very early (early May) cultivar mixtures to respectively delay or bring forward the first mowing operation
4. Change the mowing pattern by mowing from the center outwards to allow birds to avoid machinery
5. Increase mowing height (ideally with a height between 100 to 120 mm)
6. Use a scare bar on the front of machinery (ideally from mid-May to mid-July)
7. Limit pesticide use
8. Limit livestock density to less than 2.5 head/ha for continuous grazing and less than 4 head/ha for short-term grazing (4-hour blocks) or rotational grazing
9. Control grazing by rotating pastures
10. Avoid the recultivation of fallow land (habitat much used by wildlife) and carry out work outside the bird breeding season if recultivation is unavoidable
11. Cut or manage wood and shrub to maintain open landscape and avoid encroachment (for example fire, mowing, grazing can help control the encroachment; after mid-July; every 2 to 10 years)
12. Avoid the circulation and storage of machinery in fallow fields during nesting season
13. Delay mowing ditches until after the nesting season