Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna): Recovery strategy [proposed] 2022

Official title: Recovery strategy for the Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) in Canada

Species at Risk Act
Recovery Strategy Series

Proposed

2022

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. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of recovery strategies for listed Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened species and are required to report on progress within five years after the publication of the final document on the SAR Public Registry.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister responsible for Parks Canada Agency is the competent minister under SARA for the Eastern Meadowlark and has prepared this recovery strategy, as per section 37 of SARA. To the extent possible, it has been prepared in cooperation with the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as per section 39(1) of SARA.

Success in the recovery of these species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this strategy and will not be achieved by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Parks Canada Agency, or any other jurisdiction alone. All Canadians are invited to join in supporting and implementing this strategy for the benefit of the Eastern Meadowlark and Canadian society as a whole.

This recovery strategy will be followed by one or more action plans that will provide information on recovery measures to be taken by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, and other jurisdictions and/or organizations involved in the conservation of the species. Implementation of this strategy is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations.

The recovery strategy sets the strategic direction to arrest or reverse the decline of the species, including identification of critical habitat to the extent possible. It provides all Canadians with information to help take action on species conservation. When critical habitat is identified, either in a recovery strategy or an action plan, SARA requires that critical habitat then be protected.

In the case of critical habitat identified for terrestrial species, including migratory birds, SARA requires that critical habitat identified in a federally protected area^{Footnote 3} be described in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is included in the public registry. A prohibition against destruction of critical habitat under ss. 58(1) will apply 90 days after the description of the critical habitat is published in the Canada Gazette.

For critical habitat located on other federal lands, the competent minister must either make a statement on existing legal protection or make an order so that the prohibition against destruction of critical habitat applies.

If the critical habitat for a migratory bird is not within a federal protected area and is not on federal land, within the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of Canada, the prohibition against destruction can only apply to those portions of the critical habitat that are habitat to which the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 applies as per SARA ss. 58(5.1) and ss. 58(5.2).

For any part of critical habitat located on non-federal lands, if the competent minister forms the opinion that any portion of critical habitat is not protected by provisions in or measures under SARA or other Acts of Parliament, or the laws of the province or territory, SARA requires that the Minister recommend that the Governor in Council make an order to prohibit destruction of critical habitat. The discretion to protect critical habitat on non-federal lands that is not otherwise protected rests with the Governor in Council.

Acknowledgments

This recovery strategy was prepared by Julie McKnight and Kathy St. Laurent (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service [ECCC-CWS] - Atlantic Region) based on a previous draft developed by Tara Imlay (previously Dalhousie University). Advice, expertise and document reviews were provided by a technical working group consisting of the following members:

• Jon McCracken – Birds Canada (retired)
• Ken Tuininga – ECCC-CWS, Ontario Region
• Mike Cadman – ECCC-CWS, Ontario Region
• Kevin Hannah – ECCC-CWS, Ontario Region
• Marc-André Cyr – ECCC-CWS, National Capital Region
• François Shaffer – ECCC-CWS, Quebec Region (retired)
• Audrey Robillard – formerly Province of Quebec, Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Quebec (MAPAQ)
• Gino Lévesque - Province of Quebec, MAPAQ
• Liette Laroche - Province of Quebec, MAPAQ
• Laurie Noël - Province of Quebec, MAPAQ
• Peter Thomas – ECCC-CWS, Atlantic Region
• Maureen Toner – Province of New Brunswick, Natural Resources and Energy Development
• Joe Nocera – University of New Brunswick
• Rosalind Renfrew – formerly Vermont Center for Ecostudies
• Joanne Tuckwell – Parks Canada Agency

We would also like to acknowledge and thank all the organizations and individuals that provided species’ occurrence data from across the species’ range: Birds Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, National Capital Commission, Parks Canada Agency, Department of National Defence, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and the various provincial Conservation Data Centres. A thank you goes to the team with CWS Data Management Operations for creating the critical habitat maps multiple times over. In addition, we would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals and organizations that reviewed and provided constructive comments on draft versions of this document.

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 Eastern Meadowlark is a North American insectivorous and granivorous bird, predominantly feeding on insects during the breeding season and on grains and seeds during other periods of the year. In Canada, it breeds in open grassland habitats including native grasslands and agricultural fields. Eastern Meadowlarks in Canada are largely considered migratory and winter throughout the southeastern United States. The species was designated as threatened by the Committee for the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2011 and was listed as threatened under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in November 2017.

There are unknowns regarding the feasibility of recovery for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada. In keeping with the precautionary principle, this recovery strategy has been prepared as per section 41(1) of SARA, as would be done when recovery is determined to be feasible.

Primary threats identified for the species include annual and perennial non-timber crops (agricultural intensification and conversion; mowing of hayfields during the breeding season) and problematic native species (predation). Other threats considered to have a lower impact on the species are housing and urban areas, commercial and industrial areas, livestock farming and ranching and removing/reducing human maintenance.

The population objective to recover the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada is to stabilize, the Canada-wide population trend within 30 years (by 2051), and thereafter, at a minimum, maintain it. The distribution objective for the Eastern Meadowlark is to maintain the representation of the species in the provinces across the species’ known range in Canada (Figure 1). The short-term (within 10 years) statement for the recovery of the Eastern Meadowlark is to improve the Canada-wide population trend by achieving the population trend targets within each of the Province x Bird Conservation Region (BCR) units specified in Appendix A (Table A1).

Broad strategies aimed at supporting the survival and recovery of the Eastern Meadowlark are presented in section 6.2: Strategic direction for recovery.

The critical habitat that is identified for the Eastern Meadowlark is not sufficient to meet the population and distribution objectives. A schedule of studies has been developed to provide the information necessary to complete the identification of critical habitat.

One or more action plans for the Eastern Meadowlark, in addition to the multi-species action plans that the Parks Canada Agency has developed, will be posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry within five years following the final posting of this recovery strategy.

Recovery feasibility summary

Based on the following four criteria that Environment and Climate Change Canada uses to establish recovery feasibility, there are unknowns regarding the feasibility of recovery of the Eastern Meadowlark. In keeping with the precautionary principle, a recovery strategy has been prepared as per section 41(1) of SARA, as would be done when recovery is determined to be feasible. This recovery strategy addresses the unknowns surrounding the feasibility of recovery.

1. Individuals of the wildlife species that are capable of reproduction are available now or in the foreseeable future to sustain the population or improve its abundance.

Yes. The Eastern Meadowlark is still common in Canada and breeding individuals are currently distributed throughout its Canadian range, as well as in the United States. The Canadian population of the Eastern Meadowlark is estimated to be 680,000 individuals (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020). There are currently adequate numbers of individuals available to sustain the population or improve its abundance.

2. Sufficient suitable habitat is available to support the species or could be made available through habitat management or restoration.

Yes. Eastern Meadowlarks use open habitats, including native grasslands as well as human-modified “surrogate” grasslands such as planted hayfields and pastures. These habitats are currently in decline, largely due to conversion to other land uses (e.g., residential and commercial development) and changes in agricultural practices (e.g., conversion from pasture land or hayfield to field crops). The components and characteristics of suitable breeding habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark are fairly well-understood and it is possible that suitable habitat could be made available through management, restoration or creation.

3. The primary threats to the species or its habitat (including threats outside Canada) can be avoided or mitigated.

Unknown. Many of the threats on the breeding grounds in Canada can be avoided or mitigated through targeted recovery and stewardship actions. As the species predominantly use agricultural lands on private land, there are some unpredictable factors that might influence the ability to mitigate or avoid threats, such as economic considerations of agricultural producers, political will, and market forces driving agricultural land use and practices. In addition, the extent and feasibility of mitigating threats along migration routes or on the United States wintering grounds are unknown at this time.

4. Recovery techniques exist to achieve the population and distribution objectives or can be expected to be developed within a reasonable timeframe.

Unknown. Habitat management and habitat stewardship could be effective recovery techniques for the species on the breeding grounds in Canada though it will be challenging to implement changes to agricultural land use practices on private land that will benefit the species. For example, mitigating losses by delaying the cutting of hayfields is a practical conservation measure that could improve rates of reproductive success towards achieving population objectives. However, the feasibility of implementing such a measure is much more complicated due in part to economic losses incurred by livestock industries and hay/silage producers. This could include reduced hay quality or quantity, and a corresponding reduction in meat/milk production, as well as costs associated with obtaining livestock feed from alternate sources. It is unknown whether threats along migration routes or on the wintering grounds in the United States can be mitigated to the extent that the population and distribution objective can be met.

1. COSEWIC* species assessment information

Date of assessment: May 2011

Common name: Eastern Meadowlark

Scientific name: Sturnella magna

COSEWIC status: Threatened

Reason for designation: This ground-nesting grassland specialist has seen major changes in its population size and breeding range since European settlement. Most of its native prairie habitat had fallen to the plough by the end of the 19^th century. However, these habitat losses were effectively counter-balanced by the provision of large amounts of surrogate grasslands (primarily pastures and hayfields) as a result of the widespread conversion of eastern deciduous forests to agricultural land. The species initially responded with expansions in its breeding range (primarily eastward). Since the mid‑20^th century, however, the amount and quality of surrogate grasslands across its range have declined. Although the species’ population is still relatively large, it has been undergoing persistent rangewide declines. These declines are believed to be driven mostly by ongoing loss and degradation of grassland habitat on both the breeding and wintering grounds, coupled with reduced reproductive success resulting from some agricultural practices.

Canadian occurrence: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia

COSEWIC status history: Designated threatened in May 2011.

* COSEWIC – Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

2. Species status information

The Eastern Meadowlark is listed as Threatened in Canada under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and is listed as Threatened under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act and New Brunswick’s Species at Risk Act. The species is not listed under formal legislation for species at risk in Nova Scotia or Quebec. It is estimated that approximately 2% of the Eastern Meadowlark’s global breeding population occurs in Canada (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020) and approximately 12% of the global breeding range is in Canada.

3. Species information

3.1 Species description

The Eastern Meadowlark is a medium-sized songbird of the Icteridae family that includes blackbirds, orioles, grackles, cowbirds and the Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). It has distinctive bright yellow underparts marked with a black V-shape pattern on the chest. The bill is long and slender, as are the legs. In general, the body feathers have an intricate pattern for concealing birds in dense vegetation. The upper body is patterned with buff, brown and black streaks and bars, and sides, flanks and undertail coverts are white with black streaking. Wings and tail feathers are barred black and brown, except for the white outer tail feathers (Jaster et al. 2020). Female meadowlarks are smaller and less strongly marked than males (Godfrey 1986). Similar in appearance to the Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) which occurs in Canada from British Columbia to Ontario, the Eastern Meadowlark’s moustache stripe is mostly plain white, while it is yellow on the Western Meadowlark. The two species of meadowlark are not easily differentiated in areas where both can occur, particularly during the non-breeding season when the birds are not singing; vocalizations (i.e., songs, calls) are the most reliable means of distinguishing between the two species (Jaster et al. 2020).

3.2 Population and distribution

The global distribution of the Eastern Meadowlark extends from southeastern Canada and northeastern United States in the north, to southcentral and southeastern United States, Central America, and parts of South America in the south (Figure 1).

There are 16 recognized subspecies of the Eastern Meadowlark of which only one, Sturnella magna magna, occurs in Canada (COSEWIC 2011). The distribution of this subspecies includes the Canadian range, as well as the eastern United States from Minnesota to Maine in the north, to Texas and North Carolina in the south (Jaster et al. 2020). Although the species is resident throughout most of its global range, birds from the northern portion of the magna subspecies who breed in Canada (hereby referred to as the Canadian population, or the Canadian breeding population) are mostly migratory (Jaster et al. 2020). Although there are few bird band recoveries to substantiate this, most individuals from the Canadian population likely winter in the southeastern United States (Brewer et al. 2000), where they overlap with the year-round range of resident Eastern Meadowlark subspecies. This overlaps makes it challenging to identify a resident bird from a migratory or overwintering one during that time of year, which is why the overwintering range of Canadian Eastern Meadowlarks in the southern United States is not exactly known. Finally, the western limit of the wintering range of the magna subspecies in the United States is also uncertain, due to the difficulty in visually distinguishing between Eastern and Western meadowlarks during the winter when birds are not singing. From this point on in this document, the use of the term “species” (in reference to Eastern Meadowlark) and Eastern Meadowlark refers to the magna subspecies specifically.

In Canada, the breeding distribution of the Eastern Meadowlark includes southern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and northcentral Nova Scotia (Figure 1). The species is not necessarily present throughout the continuous range depicted in Figure 1 as it is found in pockets where suitable open habitat exists, particularly in the northern parts of the species’ range in Ontario and Quebec.

Breeding was confirmed in Nova Scotia during the first Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas (Erskine 1992), but was not reconfirmed in the second atlas (Stewart et al. 2015), indicating that the species does not breed regularly in this province. As such, breeding in Nova Scotia has not been confirmed in over 25 years. During the winter in southern Ontario, the Eastern Meadowlark is identified as a rare and irregular resident (James 1991). However, due to climate change, a higher proportion of birds may overwinter in Canada; Christmas Bird Count data for Ontario for the 2008-2017 period recorded the species in 9 of 10 years (National Audubon Society 2010).

Figure 1. Global Distribution of the Eastern Meadowlark. Data provided by NatureServe (Ridgely et al. 2003). Note: the area identified as year-round (pink) may also contain individuals from northern areas of the range during migration and winter.

The breeding population of the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) results, was reported in COSEWIC (2011) as 250,000 adults. This estimate was based on the Partners in Flight (PIF) Population Estimates database (Rich et al. 2004, Blancher et al. 2007) which at the time included BBS data up to 1999 in the analyses. More recently, the database was updated to include BBS data up to 2015 and though regional estimates may exist, this database provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date information on North American landbirds. The Canadian breeding population of the Eastern Meadowlark is now estimated to be 680,000 adults (95% confidence interval^{Footnote 4} [CI]: 450,000 to 990,000), of which approximately 82% occur in Ontario, 18% in Quebec with <1% in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020). This apparent increase in population size does not indicate an increasing population trend; rather, the new estimate is a result of numerous changes in methodology including updates and revisions both in the data and model used for the analyses (Will et al. 2020).

In Canada, trend results based on BBS surveys indicate a long-term (1970-2019) decline of 4.2% per year (95% credible limit [CL] -4.6 to -3.8%) and a short-term (2009‑2019) decline of 8.2% per year (CL: -9.8% to -6.8%) (Smith et al. 2020) (Figure 2). The long-term annual change indicates that the population declined by approximately 88% between 1970 and 2019. In the United States, trends are also declining but not as steeply as within Canada. Results based on BBS surveys indicate a long-term (1970-2019) decline of 2.8% per year (CL: -2.9 to -2.6%) and a short-term (2009-2019) decline of 1.8% per year (CL: -2.4% to -0.9%) (Smith et al. 2020). The long-term annual change indicates that the population in the United States declined by approximately 75% between 1970 and 2019.

In Ontario, the probability of observing an Eastern Meadowlark between the first (1981‑1985) and second (2001-2005) breeding bird atlas declined by 13% (Leckie 2007). In Quebec, the species was observed in 23% of squares sampled in the first (1984-1989) atlas, and in 10% of squares sampled in the second (2010-2014) atlas (Robert et al. 2019). The probability of detecting an Eastern Meadowlark declined by 60% between the two atlases (B. Jobin, pers. comm. 2021). In the Maritimes, the species was observed in 2.0% of squares sampled in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the first (1986-1990) atlas, and in 0.8% of squares sampled in the second (2006‑2010) atlas (Stewart et al. 2015). It is important to note that the change in proportion of squares in which a species was observed is not necessarily an indication of an increase or decrease in the population; population trend data is presented in Figure 2.

Of note, for all estimates reported above, is the potential for bias related to changes in breeding phenology as a result of climate change; some data suggests the Eastern Meadowlark may be arriving on the breeding grounds earlier (Wilson 2007). If birds are initiating breeding earlier over time, prior to traditional breeding bird sampling periods, this may negatively bias estimates of abundance and trends.

Figure 2. Breeding Bird Survey long- (1970-2019) and short-term (2009-2019) population trends for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada (135). The lines through the points represent the upper and lower 95% credible limits; longer lines represent more uncertainty in the estimate.

Historical influence of human activity

As their original native prairie habitats were altered or destroyed, grassland species have either adapted by exploiting newly-created agricultural habitats or shifting to other habitat types, or have disappeared (Sample and Mossman 2007). Prior to European settlement, the Eastern Meadowlark was probably most common in tall-grass prairies and northeastern grasslands in Canada and the United States (Askins et al. 2007). In eastern Canada, these habitat types would have existed in relatively small, sparsely scattered pockets, and though the region was mainly forested, Eastern Meadowlarks likely existed in these pockets of suitable habitat (Askins 1999). Areas of open habitat in the east prior to European settlement would have been available as the result of wildfire, wind, disease, beaver (Castor canadensis) activity, flooding and insect damage (Askins et al. 2007, Riley 2013). In addition, Indigenous communities cleared the forests for firewood and other uses, used fire to enhance hunting areas and practiced farming, creating open grassland habitats suitable for the species (Askins 1999, Riley 2013). Following large-scale clearing of the eastern forests for agriculture and settlement following European arrival, Eastern Meadowlarks appear to have undergone a pattern of local increases in abundance and area of occupancy^{Footnote 5} throughout their range (Askins 1999, COSEWIC 2011).

Reconstructing the distribution and abundance of Eastern Meadowlark prior to European settlement would be challenging. Populations have likely declined in areas where suitable native prairie habitat has been lost, and increased (accompanied by shifts in distribution) in areas where activities such as agriculture and forest clearing have increased the availability of agricultural habitat. Even with the dramatic declines observed since the 1970s, it is presumed that Eastern Meadowlarks in Canada were much less common and more scattered in Canada prior to European settlement than they are currently (McCracken et al. 2013).

3.3 Needs of the Eastern Meadowlark

Breeding ground habitat

Breeding ground habitat – general description

Eastern Meadowlarks are breeding birds in Canada and establish multipurpose breeding territories that are used for mating, nesting, foraging and raising young (Jaster et al. 2020). They arrive on the breeding grounds in Canada in early to mid-April. The nesting season^{Footnote 6} for Eastern Meadowlark extends from early-May to the end of July (Rousseu and Drolet 2015). Family groups with fledged young can remain at breeding sites until late-August. The Eastern Meadowlark is considered to be a grassland obligate species; grassland obligate species are exclusively adapted to, and entirely dependent on, grassland habitats and make little or no use of other habitat types (Vickery et al. 1999). Grassland habitats can be described by vegetation association (e.g., grass) as well as by land use (e.g., pasture); in all cases, they are open habitats where the combined coverage of trees and tall shrubs (over 1 m) is less than 60% (Beacon Environmental 2009).

Prior to European settlement, Eastern Meadowlark originally nested in native grassland habitats including prairies, meadows, alvars^{Footnote 7} and savannahs (McCracken et al. 2013). These habitats were maintained by ecological processes such as fire (both natural as well as fires set by Indigenous peoples) and beaver activity in the northeast (Askins et al. 2007). As European settlement progressed, much of these habitats were converted for agricultural uses, while at the same time additional open habitat suitable for the species was being created with the clearing of the forests in the east (COSEWIC 2011). These newly created open habitats mimicked the structure of native prairie habitats, thus acting as “surrogate” habitats for the species and indicating the opportunistic nature of the species’ reliance on habitat structure, rather than particular plant species (Sample and Mossman 1997). “Surrogate” agricultural grasslands include planted hayfields and pastures which generally contain non-native species such as Timothy (Phleum pratense), Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and clover (Trifolium spp.). In Canada, the species now primarily nests in hayfields and pastures (COSEWIC 2011, McCracken et al. 2013). As with native grasslands, periodic disturbance (e.g., mowing, burning or grazing) is often required to maintain these open habitats in a suitable condition (e.g., limiting the encroachment of woody vegetation, maintaining vegetation height and structure).

The Eastern Meadowlark currently breeds in remnant native grasslands such as prairies, savannahs and alvars as well as in agricultural grassland habitats such as hayfields, pastures, idle old fields, weedy meadows, young orchards, golf courses, restored surface mines, grassy roadside verges, herbaceous fencerows and grassy airfields (Peterjohn 1991, McCracken et al. 2013, Jaster et al. 2020). Eastern Meadowlarks are generally absent from woodland, shrubland and row crops, and only occasionally nest in small-grain fields and stubble or fallow fields (Hull 2000 [revised 2002], Leckie 2007, McCracken et al. 2013). Across their Canadian range, Eastern Meadowlarks prefer moderately tall grass (between 25 and 50 cm) with abundant litter^{Footnote 8}, high proportion of grass (>80% preferred, <20% not generally used), moderate forb^{Footnote 9} density, low shrub and woody vegetation cover and little bare ground (Hull 2000 [revised 2002]). Scattered trees, shrubs, telephone poles and fence posts are used as song perches for territory defense and advertisement.

A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) developed for Eastern Meadowlark indicated optimal breeding habitat consisted of dense grasses of moderate height (12.5 to 35 cm), low shrub cover (<5% preferred, >35% not generally used) and low forb cover with adequate perches present (Hull 2000 [revised 2002]). Ideal vegetation height for nesting was found to be 25 to 50 cm while heights of 10 to 30 cm were found to be ideal for loafing (i.e., resting) within breeding habitat.

Across their range, Eastern Meadowlarks preferentially select older hayfields for breeding; older hayfields are characterized by increased litter cover, plant diversity and vegetation patchiness (Zimmerman 1992, Bollinger 1995, McCracken et al. 2013). As fields age, they may become dominated by grass species (and other legumes in some cases) after four to five years, in contrast with younger hayfields which are dominated by seeded Alfalfa (Medicago sativa). However, as fields age they become less productive for livestock forage and are routinely reseeded or rotated to other crop types making them less suitable as breeding habitat (McCracken et al. 2013). Also, without active management or periodic disturbance (e.g., mowing, burning or grazing), invasion by woody vegetation (e.g., shrubs) in some areas can eventually render older fields unsuitable for nesting (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970).

Generally, infrequent mowing (intervals of three to five years) can improve nesting habitat for Eastern Meadowlarks by increasing the herbaceous canopy cover and reducing the encroachment of invasive forbs and woody species (Hays and Farmer 1990). Under some conditions, mowing of fields can result in more grass cover than in fields that are not mowed (Hull 2000 [revised 2002]). However, repeated mowing or hay cutting during the breeding season results in a high rate of juvenile mortality and nest failure (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970, Hull 2000 [revised 2002]).

Eastern Meadowlark response to fire is variable across the range and depends on factors such as site characteristics (e.g., soil and vegetation type), climate and fire characteristics (e.g., frequency and intensity) (Hull 2000 [revised 2002]). Generally, annual burning is not recommended. Depending on habitat type, intervals of two to five years to rejuvenate vegetation may improve nesting habitat, particularly in areas where grazing is absent (Hull 2000 [revised 2002], Powell 2006).

As with fire and mowing, the response to grazing varies across the range, and across habitats and site conditions. Eastern Meadowlarks may respond positively to grazing in grasslands with taller vegetation, but negatively to grazing in grasslands with shorter vegetation (Bock et al. 1993). Generally, the species will tolerate grazing where grass height is maintained at about 10 to 30 cm; grazing that leaves grass height <10 cm discourages nesting and foraging (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970, Skinner 1975, Baker and Guthery 1990).

In general, continued suitability of open grasslands used for breeding by Eastern Meadowlark requires some form of habitat management or disturbance at regular intervals. Eastern Meadowlark response to disturbance varies across the range depending on local environmental conditions in a given region or year, and in all cases requires appropriate timing to be beneficial. Disturbances such as mowing, haying or prescribed fire during the breeding season can be detrimental; mowing or hay cutting during the breeding season results in a nearly 100% loss of nests and recently-fledged young (Bollinger et al. 1990).

Breeding ground habitat – territory size

In a Wisconsin study, territories ranged in size from 1.2 to 6.1 ha with most between 2.8 and 3.2 ha (n is unspecified) (Lanyon 1956) while Wiens (1969) reported an average of 2.3 ha in Wisconsin (n=18). In New York, average territory size was 2.8 ha (n=15) (Saunders 1932).

Breeding ground habitat – nest site description

Nests are built on the ground within breeding habitat in fairly dense vegetation or at the base of grass clumps (Hull 2000 [revised 2002], Jaster et al. 2020). Nests are constructed by using the surrounding vegetation to weave a grass cup; litter is used to construct two side walls and a roof (Jaster et al. 2020). Dead grass stems are therefore an important nesting habitat requirement making most field crops (e.g., wheat, corn) or fallow fields unsuitable for nesting (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970). The general nesting period in Canada is from mid-May to late-July (Rousseu and Drolet 2015) (refer to Birds Canada Nesting Calendar Query Tool for more precise dates by region).

Breeding ground habitat - field size and landscape context

Like most birds, Eastern Meadowlark presence, abundance and productivity is influenced by habitat characteristics (i.e., composition and configuration) at multiple scales (Vickery et al. 1999, Askins et al. 2007). Though some studies have found Eastern Meadowlarks not to be overly sensitive to grassland patch size or to the effects of fragmentation (Bollinger 1995, Winter 1998, Winter and Faaborg 1999), large tracts of grasslands are generally preferred over smaller patches (Herkert 1991, Vickery et al. 1994, O'Leary and Nyberg 2000). Eastern Meadowlarks in Wisconsin were found in pastures with more core area of grassland (i.e., grassland occurring >25 m from an edge of an adjacent habitat type) when the surrounding landscape (at the 200 m scale) had little grassland cover (Renfrew and Ribic 2008). The minimum area required for breeding is estimated at five hectares (Herkert 1994) though smaller grassland patches may be useful if the surrounding landscape (6.4 x 6.4 km scale) contains a greater amount of grassland cover (Horn and Koford 2004).

Breeding ground habitat – food resources

Eastern Meadowlarks feed within their breeding habitat almost entirely while on the ground, obtaining food from the surface and by probing beneath the soil (Jaster et al. 2020). During the breeding season, insects are primarily consumed (74%) with the remainder made up of vegetable matter. Crickets and grasshoppers (Orthoptera) comprised 26% of the diet throughout the year, though this increased to 72% in August (Jaster et al. 2020). In the spring, caterpillars (moth and butterfly - Lepidoptera) and grubs (beetles – Coleoptera) are preferred (Jaster et al. 2020).

Migration and staging grounds habitat

Little information is available on habitat characteristics of migration or staging habitats but they are expected to be similar to wintering habitat, as dietary (see below) and other needs would be expected to be comparable during this season. Hill and Renfrew (2018) found Eastern Meadowlarks predominantly used agricultural grasslands (e.g., hayfields) throughout the migration and overwintering periods. Though not substantiated for Eastern Meadowlarks, some other open habitat bird species show evidence of delayed fall migration (~October), spending a greater proportion of the year (>40%) on the breeding grounds than species of other habitat types (Hill and Renfrew 2018)). The reasons for this are unclear though climate change has been suggested as the driver. Generally, southward migration for Eastern Meadowlark occurs from mid-August to end of November while northward migration occurs from mid-February to the beginning of May (Jaster et al. 2020).

Wintering ground habitat

A key factor in determining the wintering range distribution is temperature; the species is absent from areas where the mean minimum winter temperature is below -12° C (Root 1988). The wintering period extends from December to mid-February. The majority of migrating Eastern Meadowlarks overwinter within the breeding range of resident birds in the United States, though low numbers of Eastern Meadowlarks have been known to overwinter in southern Ontario (Jaster et al. 2020).

Eastern Meadowlarks use open habitats and agricultural grasslands during winter, including cultivated fields and feedlots (Hill and Renfrew 2018); as such, the main winter diet consists of noxious weed seeds and waste grains (Jaster et al. 2020). Wintering habitat may also include shallow marshes (Bent 1958, Jaster et al. 2020).

3.4 Limiting factors

Although Eastern Meadowlarks produce a second clutch in most parts of their range outside of Canada, the shorter breeding season in Canada means the frequency of second clutches is likely to be low (COSEWIC 2011). Studies in Wisconsin and Illinois noted 17-37% of females attempted second clutches (Lanyon 1957, Kershner et al. 2004). This life history characteristic regulates the species’ population growth rate in Canada and hence limits its potential for recovery. Severe winter weather can result in unusually heavy mortality by preventing birds from obtaining food from the snow and ice covered ground (Krutzsch 1950, Jaster et al. 2020). The pattern of delayed fall migration (~October) that has been exhibited in some open habitat birds may increase their vulnerability to severe autumn weather.

4. Threats

The Eastern Meadowlark threat assessment is based on the IUCN-CMP (World Conservation Union–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threats classification system (version 2.0). 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 help understand the nature of the threats are presented in the Description of Threats section.

Threats for the species were assessed within the species’ range in Canada and threats that occur outside of Canada that impact the Canadian population are also included (Table 2). Each threat listed below has been identified as occurring either on the breeding grounds or in non-breeding locations (i.e., during winter or migration), depending on where the primary impacts on the species’ population are thought to occur.

4.1 Threat assessment

^a Impact – The degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of each threat is based on Severity and Scope rating and considers only present and future threats. Threat impact reflects a reduction of a species population or decline/degradation of the area of an ecosystem. The median rate of population reduction or area decline for each combination of scope and severity corresponds to the following classes of threat impact: Very High (75% declines), High (40%), Medium (15%), and Low (3%). Unknown: used when impact cannot be determined (e.g., if values for either scope or severity are unknown); Not Calculated: impact not calculated as threat is outside the assessment timeframe (e.g., timing is insignificant/negligible or low as threat is only considered to be in the past); Negligible: when scope or severity is negligible; Not a Threat: when severity is scored as neutral or potential benefit.

^b Scope – Proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years. Usually measured as a proportion of the species’ population in the area of interest. (Pervasive = 71–100%; Large = 31–70%; Restricted = 11–30%; Small = 1–10%; Negligible <1%).

^c Severity – Within the scope, the level of damage to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within a 10-year or three-generation timeframe. Usually measured as the degree of reduction of the species’ population. (Extreme = 71–100%; Serious = 31–70%; Moderate = 11–30%; Slight = 1–10%; Negligible < 1%; Neutral or Potential Benefit >0%).

^d Timing – High = continuing; Moderate = only in the future (could happen in the short term [<10 years or 3 generations]) or now suspended (could come back in the short term); Low = only in the future (could happen in the long term) or now suspended (could come back in the long term); Insignificant/Negligible = only in the past and unlikely to return, or no direct effect but limiting.

4.2 Description of threats

The overall Canada-wide threat impact for the species is High^{Footnote 10}. The overall threat impact considers the cumulative impacts of multiple threats. The primary threat to Eastern Meadowlark is Annual and perennial non-timber crops (Table 2). Threats are discussed below in decreasing order of Level 1 threat impact.

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 2 - agriculture and aquaculture (high)

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops (high) – breeding and non-breeding grounds

To date, it is estimated that over 80% of native grassland ecosystems in North America have disappeared, including 99% of native tall-grass prairie and savannah habitats in Canada (COSEWIC 2011). For Eastern Meadowlarks, these losses were offset by the large-scale conversion of forested land to pastures and hayfields in the northeast which allowed the species to expand locally and increase its abundance (Cadman et al. 1987, COSEWIC 2011). Relevant on the breeding grounds in Canada, current and ongoing threats driving recent declines appear to be primarily associated with decreasing habitat availability as a result of agricultural intensification (conversion of hayfields and pastures to field crops), as well as reduced reproductive success from certain agricultural practices (COSEWIC 2010, 2011, McCracken et al. 2013).

Agricultural intensification includes trends such as the conversion of existing open habitats (e.g., hayfield and pastures) to field crop monocultures, increased use of pesticides and other agrochemical inputs, increased mechanization and increased rates of mowing or haying (Tews et al. 2013, Hill et al. 2014). Cumulatively and individually, these changes to how agricultural systems are managed have been blamed for the decline in a large suite of grassland birds in Canada, the United States and Europe over the last few decades (Chamberlain et al. 2000, Donald et al. 2001, Benton et al. 2002, Tews et al. 2013, Hill et al. 2014).

Most farmland (85%) in Canada between 1986 and 2011 maintained its wildlife habitat capacity (a general index of suitable habitat for vertebrate species), though 14% has experienced a decrease in capacity (Javorek et al. 2016). Decreases were driven primarily by conversion of pastures and forage to annual crops, coincident to the decline in livestock production since 2006, particularly within the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone (southwestern Ontario extending along the St. Lawrence shoreline to Quebec City) (Javorek et al. 2016). Between 2011 and 2017, there was an overall decline in wildlife habitat capacity in eastern Canada, associated with the expansion of agricultural fields, and again mostly within the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2019). Furthermore, conversion of native grasslands and drainage of wetlands for agricultural purposes continues (Watmough and Schmoll 2007, Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada 2010, Koper et al. 2010, Galatowitsch 2012, Doherty et al. 2018, World Wildlife Fund 2020).

Conversion of hayfields and pasture to field crop monocultures– breeding grounds

Reduction in the availability of breeding habitat is regarded as one of the primary threats for Eastern Meadowlark (COSEWIC 2010, 2011, McCracken et al. 2013). Activities that contribute to the declining trends in breeding habitat availability include not only the conversion of native grassland habitats but also the conversion of existing agricultural grasslands (e.g., hayfields and pastures) to field crops (Drapeau et al. 2019). Available breeding habitat also becomes increasingly fragmented through these activities. Row crops, such as corn and soybean, are not used by the species for breeding because they do not offer the required characteristics of breeding habitat (see section 3.3), though these crop types are important for the economic viability of many farming operations. Similar trends in habitat availability are observed in the species wintering grounds in the southern United States.

Declines in hay and pasture can be partly linked to changes in the livestock industry, particularly the beef and dairy sectors. A decline in the number of beef and dairy farms has been the trend since 2001 (Statistics Canada 2017b). The overall number of cattle in Canada declined strongly between the mid-70s and mid-80s, and again since 2006 (Statistics Canada 2017b). A similar declining trend is seen in Ontario and Quebec since 2006, and a slightly more marked decline around the mid-1970s occurred in Ontario when beef production shifted to western Canada (AAFC 1997). A shift to raising dairy cattle in indoor enclosures has also contributed to the loss of pasture in Quebec (Ruiz and Domon 2005). The breeding population of Eastern Meadowlark in Canada is found primarily in Ontario and Quebec (nearly 100%: Ontario 82%, Quebec 18%, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia <1%) (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020).

Across Canada, the amount of seeded pasture^{Footnote 11} and hay showed an increasing trend, particularly between 1991 and 2006; however, declines are evident in Ontario and Quebec compared to the 1970s (Statistics Canada 2012, 2017a). From 2006 onwards, declines in hay area and pasture across Canada have been observed, coincident with the decrease in the number of cattle as well as through conversion to field crop production (Statistics Canada 2017a). Decreases since 2006 are related to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak (and subsequent regulations), rising costs of feed, stronger Canadian dollar and weakening exports (Statistics Canada 2012). Stronger prices for certain field crops, such as corn and soybeans in the east and canola in the west, drove the changes in land use from beef and dairy production to field crop production (Wang et al. 2002, Statistics Canada 2012). More than 1.3 million hectares of corn for grain was reported in the 2011 Census of Agriculture which is more than double the amount reported in 1971 (Hamel and Dorf 2014). The bulk (98%) of Canadian corn production occurs in Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec (Statistics Canada 2012).

A potential emerging threat to Eastern Meadowlark breeding habitat is the production of biomass for biofuels production. Bioenergy currently accounts for approximately 6% of Canada’s total energy supply (NRCan 2018). Several federal and provincial initiatives and regulations have been implemented to support and grow this industry, driven largely by climate change targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Littlejohns et al. 2018). Agricultural biomass products used in biofuel production in Canada include soy and canola (for biodiesel), and corn and wheat (for ethanol). Increased production of these products will increase pressure to convert Eastern Meadowlark breeding habitat and will add to degradation of habitat through the reduction of field sizes, thereby adding to habitat fragmentation.

Hay-cutting and mowing practices – breeding grounds

Since the 1950s, the intensification and mechanization of agricultural practices has had consequences for the nesting success of Eastern Meadowlark (Askins et al. 2007). Hay‑cutting or mowing during the breeding period results in the destruction of nests and the direct mortality of nest, eggs, young and adult birds. Earlier and more frequent hay‑cutting has become standard practice as hayfields are cut earlier to maximize nutritional content and to facilitate second and third cuttings (Herkert 1997, Nocera et al. 2005, Troy et al. 2005). This exposes active nests to additional pressure and can eliminate any chance of successful nesting or re-nesting attempts. If haying is done prior to when the birds begin breeding, the resulting habitat no longer provides nesting cover suitable for the species. Cutting the fields later in the season and only once allows for some successful breeding but may reduce the success of late nests and re-nesting attempts. However, this practice may not be a viable economic option for a farming operation.

For Bobolink, a similar grassland nesting bird, Bollinger et al. (1990) found 94% mortality rates for young (eggs and nestlings combined) following mowing: 51% directly destroyed, 24% abandoned after mowing, 10% from raking or baling operations and 9% from predation. Tews et al. (2013) estimated that ~667,000 Bobolink young are killed by mechanical disturbance from agricultural practices each year in Canada. Of these 667,000 individuals, ~321,000 were predicted to have fledged successfully in the absence of the disturbance. Similar impacts are expected for Eastern Meadowlark. Spring surface tillage to control weedy plants can also negatively affect Eastern Meadowlark breeding success through loss of nests, young and adults (Rodgers 1983, Tews et al. 2013).

2.2 Wood and pulp plantations (negligible) – breeding grounds

Tree-planting programs within existing grassland habitats contribute to habitat loss and degradation, including habitat fragmentation. In some localized areas of Quebec, tree‑planting programs have occurred where lands considered suboptimal for agriculture have been converted to tree plantations. Treelines and woody cover can have a negative influence on the occurrence of several grassland birds, including Eastern Meadowlark (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970, Sample and Hoffman 1989, Bollinger and Gavin 1992, O'Leary and Nyberg 2000). In addition, proximity of woody cover has been shown to increase the rates of predation and parasitism of tall-grass prairie birds (Johnson and Temple 1990).

2.3 Livestock farming and ranching (low) – breeding grounds

Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the capacity of the vegetation community to recover can impact the quality of grassland bird nesting and foraging habitat (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970). High rates of nest trampling are noted in moderately grazed habitats (Renfrew et al. 2005). Furthermore, reduced vegetation height and density from grazing may increase predator access to the pasture interior (Saab et al. 1995) and regional cowbird abundance and parasitism rates are positively related to the amount of cattle grazing (Patten et al. 2006, Rahmig et al. 2009). Grazing can both contribute to the establishment and spread of non-native invasive species in native and agricultural grassland habitats, as well as can help to control them (Fleischner 1994); some of these non-native invasive species may create habitat that is structurally unsuitable for the species. The Eastern Meadowlark may respond positively to grazing in tall vegetation as grazing can help to maintain attributes of breeding habitat by preventing the encroachment of woody vegetation into grassland habitat (Bock et al. 1993). Though negative impacts may be incurred as a result of livestock management, the species is primarily dependent upon the agricultural grasslands (e.g., hayfields and pastures) that are required to sustain these industries.

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 8 - invasive and problematic species, pathogens and genes (medium-low)

8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants and animals (Unknown); 8.2 Problematic native plants and animals (medium-low) – breeding grounds

Eastern Meadowlarks nest on the ground and their nests are vulnerable to predation by a variety of species, both native and non-native. Known native predators of Eastern Meadowlark include raptors, foxes, coyotes, gulls, crows, snakes, skunks, raccoons and other small mammals; non-native predators include domestic cats and dogs (COSEWIC 2011). Predation rates vary across the North American range of the Eastern Meadowlark, but in some areas, including the Canadian breeding grounds, predation rates can have a significant impact on nest success and fledgling survival (Warren and Anderson 2005, Rahmig et al. 2009). Habitat patch size and the configuration of the surrounding landscape matrix (i.e., fragmentation effects) may affect predation rates (Herkert et al. 2003).

It is difficult to differentiate mortality due to native predator populations that have been influenced by human activities on the landscape (e.g., subsidized predators^{Footnote 12}) from levels of predation that would have occurred naturally within a population. However, all predation by non-native species can be considered additive^{Footnote 13} because the non-native predators would not have been present under natural conditions. Eastern Meadowlarks are associated with working landscapes and human settlements exposing them to predation by both native and non-native predators. While there is no information available that is specific to Eastern Meadowlark, Calvert et al. (2013) found cats alone kill more birds (all species) in Canada than all other threats examined combined; areas of high mortality were associated with areas of high human population and activity (i.e., southern Ontario and Quebec, southwestern British Columbia and the five major prairie cities).

Similar to subsidized native predators, it’s difficult to know whether rates of Brown‑headed Cowbird (a problematic native species) nest parasitism^{Footnote 14} on Eastern Meadowlark nests are above levels that would have occurred naturally. Prior to European settlement, Brown-headed Cowbirds were limited to open grasslands of central North America; they underwent a similar range expansion as Eastern Meadowlark, spreading east in the early 1800s as forests were cleared (Lowther 2020). It’s likely that historically the ranges of these two species overlapped; Eastern Meadowlarks typically show a high rate of cowbird egg rejection and rates of parasitism are low in most areas (Peer et al. 2000). Nest parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds has been noted as a threat to Eastern Meadowlarks in New Brunswick and Ontario (Peck and James 1987) and nest failure due to cowbirds has been noted (COSEWIC 2011).

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 1 - residential and commercial development (low)

Housing and urban areas (low); 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas (Low); 1.3 Tourism and recreation areas (negligible) – breeding grounds

Urban expansion and associated commercial and industrial development has encroached upon a large amount of Canada's best agricultural land and continues to lead to permanent loss of breeding habitat and habitat degradation, including habitat fragmentation. Urban development is a major contributing factor in Canada’s diminishing supply of dependable agricultural land (classes 1 through 3 of the Canada Land Inventory) (Hofmann et al. 2005). In 2001, nearly half of the urban land in Canada was located on formerly dependable agricultural lands (Hofmann et al. 2005).

The largest increases in urban and rural landscapes from 2000 to 2011 occurred in Ontario and Quebec (Statistics Canada 2013). Ontario has the highest concentration of urban land in Canada. More than 10% of the province’s prime productive land was permanently removed by urban growth between 1971 and 2001, representing a nearly 80% increase in the amount of urban land in Ontario (Hofmann et al. 2005). Quebec now has the second largest area of urban land in Canada (Hofmann et al. 2005), and urban sprawl is occurring in part at the expense of Eastern Meadowlark breeding habitat (Jobin et al. 2010). Some development can also create habitat that is suitable for Eastern Meadowlark breeding through the clearing of forested land, or land otherwise unsuitable for the species, and the practice of letting it sit idle for several years before construction. This could offset some of the negative impacts, however, this newly‑created habitat is often only temporarily suitable until development eventually proceeds or the habitat eventually becomes unsuitable, on balance housing and urban development has an overall negative impact.

The continued development of tourism and recreation areas (e.g., golf courses, campgrounds, sports fields) in suitable breeding habitat can also be a source of habitat loss (e.g., direct removal) or degradation (e.g., grass is mown or kept short) for Eastern Meadowlark; however, the species is noted to use some of these types of land use such as unmown areas of golf courses. As such, the impact of this threat is considered to be negligible. While this threat is also contributing to habitat loss on the wintering grounds, it is considered negligible as it is unlikely contributing to population declines; the species uses open areas, cultivated field and feedlots during winter.

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 7 - Natural system modifications (Low)

7.1 Fire and fire suppression (negligible) – breeding grounds

Grasslands in pre-European settlement times were both created and maintained by natural (e.g., lightning) fires and fires used by Indigenous people (Askins 1993, Vickery et al. 2000). Natural wildfires in tall-grass prairies are now rare (Askins et al. 2007) and remnant native grasslands and other grassland habitats continue to be lost through succession and encroachment of woody species in the absence of fires (i.e., as a consequence of deliberate wildlife suppression). While annual burning is generally not recommended, Eastern Meadowlark may respond positively to fires that occur at intervals of two to five years as fires act to rejuvenate vegetation and improve nesting habitat, particularly in areas where grazing is absent (Hull 2000 [revised 2002], Powell 2006). Fire during the breeding season destroys nests, eggs and young.

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications (unknown) – breeding grounds

This threat category is intended to capture indirect effects of ecosystem modifications, such as invasive species impacting the suitability of Eastern Meadowlark habitat or human-caused reductions in their food resources from pesticide use. Direct effects of these threats to the species are captured under their corresponding threat categories (e.g., invasive and problematic species, pathogens and genes – Threat 8 and pollution – Threat 9).

Pesticides can potentially affect grassland birds indirectly through impacts to their food resources, both seeds and insects. The reduction of weed seeds due to herbicide use has been reported in the United Kingdom as well as elimination of host plants important for insect reproduction (Bright et al. 2008). Occupancy of some breeding grassland birds has been shown to correlate with the availability of insect prey (Nocera et al. 2007). As the use of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides over the past decade has declined, because they are known to be highly toxic to birds, the use of neonicotinoids has increased dramatically (Hladik et al. 2014). Insect groups targeted by neonicotinoids are primarily Hemiptera (aphids, whiteflies and planthoppers) and Coleoptera (beetles), though recent studies show that they are also having adverse effect on many non-target invertebrates (Nauen and Denholm 2005, Hallmann et al. 2014). In the Netherlands, neonicotinoid concentrations in surface waters were correlated with the declines in farmland insectivorous birds (Hallmann et al. 2014). They suggested the declines were caused by a reduction of insect prey as a result of insecticide use. In Canada, neonicotinoid pesticides were previously approved for use as seed treatments, soil applications, and foliar sprays on a wide variety of agricultural crops such as oilseeds, grains, corn, soybeans, fruits, vegetables, greenhouse crops (food and ornamental), ornamental plants, and Christmas trees (Health Canada 2014). Within Canada, they are used extensively on canola crops in the Prairies and in corn and soybean growing areas of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec (Health Canada 2014). In response to concerns about pollinator health, Health Canada undertook a re-evaluation of the three mostly widely-used neonicotinoids, which has resulted in cancellation of some uses (e.g., foliar and soil application on certain crops) and additional mitigative measures (e.g., timing restrictions) (Health Canada 2019a, b, c). The Government of Ontario introduced regulations to reduce the number of acres planted with neonicotinoid-treated seeds (Government of Ontario 2021).The indirect effects of pesticides and herbicides have not been studied for Eastern Meadowlark in much detail, and further research is needed.

Herbicides are also known to affect bird populations through changes to breeding habitat. Over an 8-year period in Maine, the incidence of Eastern Meadowlarks was low in grassland habitats where herbicides were used to improve blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) production (Vickery 1993, Vickery et al. 1994). The herbicide used dramatically reduced both grass and forb cover as well as induced changes to the types of vegetation found within sites (Yarborough and Bhowmik 1993, Vickery et al. 1994).

In areas where native grassland habitat still exists, invasive species such as Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), can threaten grassland integrity (e.g., through the modification of fire and soil regimes) and can outcompete native species (Brooks et al. 2004, Jordan et al. 2008, SWA n.d.). In addition, invasive species can also render agricultural grassland habitats unsuitable for the species. For example, buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.), a woody shrub, can be reduce habitat quality and is notoriously difficult to control. However, as Eastern Meadowlarks are predominantly found in agricultural grassland types primarily containing non-native species, this component of the threat is considered to be negligible for the species.

7.4 Removing/reducing human maintenance (low) – breeding grounds

The encroachment of woody vegetation into open habitats due to the abandonment of marginal, non-productive farmland and dairy farms has resulted in declines of native and agricultural grassland breeding habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark (Askins 1993). Agricultural grassland habitats throughout northeastern Canada, previously maintained by activities such as mowing of hayfields and grazing by cattle to support dairy and beef production, are being abandoned and reverting back to forest (Jobin et al. 2014). Such lands are abandoned because they often occur on marginal soils, where opportunities to rotate to other crops are limited by poor drainage, stoniness, shallow soils, low natural fertility, steep slopes, or susceptibility to erosion (J. Bagg, pers. comm. 2011 in McCracken et al. 2013). Costs of maintaining fencing and limited access to water for grazing beef cattle are additional limitations that contribute to land abandonment (J. Bagg, pers. comm. 2011 in McCracken et al. 2013). In the St. Lawrence Lowlands of Quebec the number of dairy farms fell by half between 1971 and 1988 (Jobin et al. 1996). In addition, in the mid-1970s beef production shifted from Ontario to western Canada (AAFC 1997).

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 3 - Energy production and mining (negligible)

3.2 Mining and quarrying (negligible); 3.3 Renewable energy (negligible) – breeding grounds

Native alvar grasslands in Ontario continue to be adversely affected by the creation and expansion of rock quarries (McCracken et al. 2013). Pits and quarries established in existing grassland habitats are additional sources of breeding habitat loss for the species in Ontario as well as habitat degradation, including habitat fragmentation.

Wind energy development can have varying impacts on breeding birds from direct mortality due to collisions with the blades or tower to habitat loss and degradation (e.g., fragmentation) due to construction (Zimmerling et al. 2013) to avoidance or displacement (Hale et al. 2014). Mortality data from wind turbines in Ontario reported very few Eastern Meadowlark mortalities (Anonymous 2012 in McCracken et al. 2013) and no evidence of displacement was observed in Eastern Meadowlarks within 500‑750 m of turbines at a study in Texas (Hale et al. 2014). Within the species Canadian range, Ontario and Quebec have the highest installed wind energy capacity while New Brunswick has the sixth highest (CanWEA 2018).

Solar farms also represent a source of habitat loss for the species, as examples to date have been established in fallow fields and native grassland habitats (e.g., alvars). The combined impact of energy production and mining on Eastern Meadowlarks population levels is considered negligible.

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 4 - transportation and service corridors (negligible)

4.1 Roads and railroads (negligible) – breeding grounds

The construction of roads and railroads results in removal of habitat as well as mortality from collisions. Road construction also contributes to habitat fragmentation. Birds can also be affected by the noise associated with these features. Road mortality has been documented in Canada for the Eastern Meadowlark but is not considered to result in population level declines (Bishop and Brogan 2013). Removal of habitat from these activities is also minimal and limited in scope. The effect of noise is dependent on traffic volume, distance from road and openness of the land; Eastern Meadowlark presence was correlated with increased distance from high-volume roads (>30,000 vehicles per day) but effects on reproductive success were not studied (Forman et al. 2002).

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 5 - biological resource use (negligible)

5.1 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals (negligible) – non-breeding grounds

Eastern Meadowlarks are impacted either directly or incidentally in control programs designed to reduce crop damage. This threat is primarily a concern during migration and on the wintering grounds. For Eastern Meadowlark, their frequent use of rice fields in the southern United States exposes them to avicides used in blackbird control programs in those areas (Denison 2002, Pipas et al. 2002). Meadowlarks were among the species most frequently encountered on rice fields in Louisiana and Texas being baited with the avicide DRC-1339 (Pipas et al. 2002). From tests performed on Western Meadowlarks, 8 out of 9 birds died after they were fed a diet of 2% DRC-1339-treated brown rice mixed at a ratio of 1:25 with untreated rice (Cummings et al. 2002). The lethal dose is expected to be similar for other species in the family Icteridae (Pipas et al. 2002).

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 6 - human intrusions and disturbance (negligible)

6.3 Work and other activities (negligible) – breeding grounds

Eastern Meadowlarks are sensitive to the presence of humans and will often abandon nests when flushed and delay nest visits when human activities, such as biological research, occur nearby (Lanyon 1957). Some literature suggests that Eastern Meadowlarks are extremely sensitive to the presence of humans in their breeding territory and females flushed from the nest during incubation nearly always abort the nesting attempt (Jaster et al. 2020). However, this was not the case for studies performed in Ontario where nests being monitored rarely resulted in abandonment (Nocera pers. comm. 2018). This is considered to be a minor threat to the species (COSEWIC 2011).

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 9 - pollution (unknown)

9.3 Agriculture and forestry effluents (unknown) – breeding and non-breeding grounds

Pesticides, including herbicides and insecticides, can have both direct (e.g., toxicity and mortality) and indirect (e.g., reduction of food resources, changes to habitat) effects on birds. Indirect effects are discussed under the threat category 7.3 Other ecosystem modifications. Declines in grasslands birds in Canada and the United States have been linked to insecticide exposure, particularly the granular form of cholinesterase-inhibiting carbamate and organophosphorus compounds (e.g., carbofuran) used in agriculture (Potts 1986, Mineau et al. 2005, Mineau and Whiteside 2006, Tews et al. 2013 but see Hill et al. 2014). At the height of its popularity, the granular form of carbofuran was conservatively estimated to have caused the mortality of 17 to 91 million birds annually from the Midwest United States corn belt alone (Mineau and Whiteside 2006). From a study conducted in the Canadian Prairies, Western Meadowlarks were found to be highly susceptible to the impacts of these insecticides, where granules are mistakenly ingested as grit or food (Mineau et al. 2005). The granular form of carbofuran has been banned in Canada and for most uses in the United States though the liquid form is not (COSEWIC 2010). The use of granular carbofuran in Latin American countries continues (Mineau et al. 2005, COSEWIC 2011) where it could affect wintering Eastern Meadowlarks.

The species is also exposed to pesticides during the migration and wintering period. Eastern Meadowlarks are loosely gregarious in the non-breeding season and form flocks, sometimes up to 200 individuals, during fall and winter (Jaster et al. 2020). Within the United States, the lethal risk of pesticide exposure is highest in the southeast where pesticide use on crops such as cotton, corn and cranberry is common (Mineau and Whiteside 2006).

IUCN-CMP level 1 threat 11 - climate change and severe weather (unknown)

11.3 Changes in temperature regimes (unknown); 11.4 Changes in precipitation and hydrological regimes (unknown); 11.5 Severe/extreme weather events (unknown) – breeding and non-breeding grounds

Eastern Meadowlarks are sensitive to extreme weather (e.g., ice storms and deep snow cover) and changes in precipitation and hydrological regimes (e.g., droughts) throughout the year. Eastern Meadowlark populations during the non-breeding season are in part regulated by severe weather (e.g., ice storms and heavy snowfall) that prevents birds from reaching food on the ground (Krutzsch 1950, Jaster et al. 2020). Decreases in fecundity and nest success in Oklahoma and Kansas have been associated with severe drought conditions (With et al. 2008). Climate change models predict a higher frequency of droughts and other changes in precipitation patterns in grassland ecosystems that will likely negatively impact the species (Knapp et al. 2002, With et al. 2008).

In addition to direct effects, climate change is predicted to indirectly affect insect populations (Arlettaz et al. 2001). In northeastern regions of the continent, climate change is expected to cause warmer, wetter winters and springs and drier summers (Phillips et al. 2019); changes in mean temperature and the extent and frequency of temperature extremes can have major impacts on insect populations (Harrington et al. 2001). The timing of peak abundances in some insects have also become earlier (Both et al. 2009). This may affect the synchronicity of peak prey densities and breeding (Jones et al. 2009) and therefore chick survival. Eastern Meadowlark are considered to have low vulnerability to climate change under warming scenarios of +1.5 and +22° C, and moderately vulnerable to a warming scenario of +32° C (National Audubon Society n.d.). The species’ North American breeding range is predicted to expand by 3% under a warming scenario of +1.52° C, and contract by 1% and 4% under warming scenarios of +2 and +32° C, respectively (National Audubon Society n.d.). Further research is required to understand the mechanisms driving the possible positive, neutral or negative effects that climate change may have on this species across its range and life cycle.

5. Population and distribution objectives

Recovery is defined as a return to a state in which the risk of extinction for a species is within the normal range of variability it would have had prior to the impact of the human activities that led it to be listed under SARA. The COSEWIC reason for designating the species as threatened was based on declines (i.e., only indicator A2b^{Footnote 15} was met). It is understood that declines in the species population over the long- (1970-2019) and short-term (2009-2019) are related changes to land use practices that converted agricultural grassland types (and to a lesser extent native grasslands) to incompatible land uses (e.g., urban development, roads) or unsuitable habitat types (e.g., row crops, forest), and the direct mortality of individuals, nests and eggs from certain agricultural operations.

Following initial increases related to European settlement, declines in agricultural habitat types were driven by market shifts within the agricultural sector that promoted increased mechanization and conversion of forage crops to cereal and row crops (Herkert 1991, Martin and Gavin 1995, Granfors et al. 1996, Jobin et al. 1996, Corace et al. 2009). The risk of extinction prior to this period can be assumed to be low (i.e., Not at Risk) because the species is thought to have been more widespread and numerous in Canada than it is now, and it is not thought that the species population was undergoing any precipitous declines in Canada at that time (i.e., prior to the result of human activity that led to it being listed under SARA).

Population objective

The population objective to recover the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada is to stabilize the Canada-wide population trend within 30 years (by 2051), and thereafter, at a minimum, maintain a stable trend.

Distribution objective

The distribution objective for Eastern Meadowlark is to maintain the representation of the species in the provinces across the species’ known range in Canada (Figure 1).

Short-term statement towards meeting the population and distribution objectives

The short-term (within 10 years) statement for the recovery of Eastern Meadowlark is to improve the Canada-wide population trend by achieving the population trend targets within each of the Province x Bird Conservation Region (BCR) units specified in Appendix A (Table A1)^{Footnote 16}.

Rationale

Population objective and short-term statement

The population objective addresses the species’ declining population trend, which was the reason for its designation as Threatened in 2011 (COSEWIC 2011). At the time, the species did not meet other criterion assessed by COSEWIC. Achieving a stable population of Eastern Meadowlark in Canada is projected to take up to 30 years, owing to response times (in both habitat and demographic rates in the birds) to stewardship and conservation efforts, and owing to the strength of recent (2009-2019) declines observed for the species in Canada. Together with the current short-term statement and subsequent iterations over the 30-year period, the population objective is consistent with objectives set for the Bobolink in Canada and the United States, a species with similar life history characteristics and facing similar threats. The short-term statement is set out accordingly to support the overarching population objective.

While stewardship and conservation efforts work toward improving the Canadian population trend, the short-term statement (within 10 years) is to slow the population trend decline to less than 30% (in other words, the population will not drop below 70% of 2017^{Footnote 17} levels). This is supported by the population trend targets established for each Province x BCR (Appendix A). The short-term trend targets were established using a tool that was developed for the Full Life Cycle Conservation Plan for Bobolink (Renfrew et al. 2019) that can be adapted and used for other species. The trend-based tool apportions responsibility for reaching the Canadian objective among BCRs and provinces comprising the Eastern Meadowlark's Canadian range; multiple iterations were considered and evaluated for feasibility. Because the recovery of the Eastern Meadowlark is expected to take up to 30 years, the population trend targets should be adjusted to work towards limiting declines over the 30-yr period to less than 15% (in other words, by 2051, the population will represent 85% of 2017 levels).

Provided other population parameters that are assessed by COSEWIC remain stable over the short-term, the species would continue to meet the threshold for Threatened status based on declines after 10 years.

The 10-year time frame for the short-term statement was deemed appropriate to assess population change of the Eastern Meadowlark. This time frame was selected due to the fact that influencing population trends is challenging, takes time, and because COSEWIC species’ assessments occur every 10 years. The criteria for assessment include reviewing population change within 10-year windows and BBS trends are now calculated according to this timeframe. These objectives should be reviewed on a similar basis to develop new short-term targets for each Province x BCR unit that would support achieving the population objective stated here. It is important to note that there are uncertainties regarding achieving the population and distribution objectives because of the challenges posed by reducing the threats to the species and its habitat on both the breeding and wintering grounds.

The basis for the short-term objectives is the provincial portion of each BCR within the species’ range. These geographic units were chosen to ensure representation is maintained while facilitating management and conservation actions that will be implemented on the ground, as both threats and trends vary amongst these units nationally. BCRs are ecologically-distinct regions with similar bird communities, habitat and resource management issues that were developed in order to plan, implement and evaluate conservation actions across the whole of North America. BCRs function as the primary units within which biological planning is undertaken (NABCI n.d.). Note that while COSEWIC lists Nova Scotia as part of the species range, there is no population objective specified because the breeding status of the species in the province is uncertain (i.e., breeding hasn’t been confirmed since the first provincial atlas that ran between 1986-1990).

It is unclear whether stabilizing the population at 85% of 2017 levels within the species known range in Canada represents a viable, self-sustaining population of Eastern Meadowlark. This knowledge gap further highlights the need to re-assess population trends and short-term population objectives on a regular basis (i.e., every ten years or less).

Distribution objective

Eastern Meadowlarks are believed to have existed historically throughout their present-day range, albeit more scattered and at lower abundances (Askins 1999, COSEWIC 2011). Given the nature of human impacts, it is unknown whether the primary threats to the species and its habitat can be mitigated or avoided, and there are also uncertainties about projected impacts such as climate change. While these knowledge gaps are being addressed, it is considered appropriate to maintain the representation of the species in the provinces across its known range in Canada, to the extent possible.

6. Broad strategies and general approaches to meet objectives

6.1 Actions already completed or currently underway

To date, recovery actions for the Eastern Meadowlark and grassland birds in general, have largely been driven by provincial or regional efforts. 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 to recovery outlined in section 6.2; actions completed or underway include:

• an Ontario Recovery Strategy for the Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark was published in May 2013 along with a General Habitat Description in July 2013 and a Government Response Statement (GRS) in December 2015. The GRS is the Government of Ontario’s species-specific policy direction on the protection and recovery of a species at risk (Government of Ontario 2015). It states the following:
  • the Government of Ontario has established targets to slow the current average annual rates of population decline in Ontario to 0% for Eastern Meadowlark by 2036; this is meant to achieve stabilization at a population level of 79,600 birds in Ontario
  • the Government of Ontario aims to establish a grassland stewardship initiative to create, maintain and enhance 30,000 ha of grassland habitat over the next 20 years (beginning in 2016) and report on its success in slowing population declines and progress towards stabilizing population levels in Ontario
• several non-government organizations (e.g., Tallgrass Ontario and the Nature Conservancy of Canada) are involved with the promotion of restoration, rehabilitation and creation of native prairie and savannah habitat
• several Indigenous communities have undertaken habitat protection and restoration projects (e.g., Alderville First Nation and Walpole Island First Nation)
• several federal and provincial government-supported programs are available that can benefit the Eastern Meadowlark, including: Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk, Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk, Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program and Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program
• the Environmental Farm Plan is a voluntary, whole-farm, self-assessment tool available in all ten provinces and Yukon that helps farmers and ranchers identify and build on environmental strengths, as well as mitigate risks on their operations. Delivered at the provincial and territorial level, the program spreads awareness through environmental education, practical and proven beneficial management practices, regulation and cost-sharing incentives
• environment and Climate Change Canada’s Species at Risk Partnerships on Agricultural Lands (SARPAL) initiative is focused on working with the agricultural community to facilitate recovery of species at risk on agricultural lands through voluntary stewardship actions related to critical habitat for species at risk
  • the SARPAL initiative in Ontario provides funding to producers whose actions support healthy farm habitat for the Bobolink which will extend benefits to other grassland birds, such as Eastern Meadowlark.
• the Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program serves as a useful conceptual model for stewardship and restoration of marginal agricultural lands and for the adoption of other beneficial farmland practices
• the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) piloted the ‘Grassland Habitat Farm Incentive Program’ in 2012 and 2013 with support from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
• in Ontario, a roundtable panel for Eastern Meadowlark and Bobolink was formed to provide input into stewardship and management approaches and represents the interests of conservation organizations, agricultural organizations, the wind industry, the aggregate industry, developers, and municipalities
• guidelines that incorporate grassland priorities have been developed for species at risk associated with rehabilitation projects on lands affected by the aggregate industry (Savanta Inc. 2008)
• recent monitoring efforts have occurred or are on-going, documenting species’ occurrences and habitat associations (e.g., Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas, Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas, and Ontario Grassland Bird Survey)
• several resources are available pertaining to beneficial management practices for grassland bird conservation. A subset of these are listed below:
  • Recommendation Guide – Habitat Management Practices for the Protection of Farmland Birds – 2^nd Edition (Lamoureux and Dion 2019)
  • Farming with Grassland Birds: A Guide to Making Your Hay and Pasture Bird Friendly (Kyle and Reid 2016)
  • Managing Hay and Pasture to Benefit Grassland Birds: A Preliminary Guide for Carden Landowners (The Couchiching Conservancy, n.d.)
  • Agricultural Practices That Conserve Grassland Birds (Hyde and Campbell 2012))
  • Hayfield Management and Grassland Bird Conservation (Ochterski, 2006)
  • Managing Habitat for Farmland (Grassland) Birds (Audubon New York, 2009)
  • Management Considerations for Grassland Birds in Northeastern Haylands and Pasturelands (USDA-NRCS, 2010)

6.2 Strategic direction for recovery

^a The Broad Strategy for Recovery categories follow the International Union for Conservation of Nature – Conservation Measures Partnership (IUCN-CMP) Conservation Actions Classification v 2.0 (Threats and Actions Classifications (2016)).

^b ”Priority” reflects the degree to which the approach contributes directly to the recovery of the species or is an essential precursor to an approach that contributes to the recovery of the species.

6.3 Narrative to support the recovery planning table

Recovery planning is mainly directed at strategies to mitigate, cease or avoid threats (e.g., pesticides, predation, incidental mortality), manage habitat (e.g., create, restore and maintain suitable habitat), fill knowledge gaps (e.g., full life-cycle and source-sink dynamics) and foster stewardship with partners and stakeholders (e.g., incentive programs, beneficial management practices). As the species is primarily associated with agricultural habitats on private land, Environment and Climate Change Canada encourages and supports a stewardship-first approach to the recovery of the Eastern Meadowlark.

Habitat loss, habitat degradation and incidental mortality is projected to continue due to threats such as agricultural intensification, agricultural development, urban development, and the encroachment of woody vegetation. The species is associated with habitats managed for the production of livestock or other resources, which is largely private land. The main factors driving habitat availability and quality are related to economic and market forces in the agricultural sector. The cooperation and engagement of agricultural land managers is essential to achieving objectives; stewardship programs and beneficial management practices that allow for both species conservation and farm economic viability are needed.

High priority approaches related to habitat management include restoring habitat and natural processes, creating habitat and maintaining and protecting existing habitat. It is important that the areas within which these activities occur consider local conditions where benefits to the species would be optimized (e.g., areas with high habitat quality or potential, areas with high relative species density). It is also important when considering habitat restoration or creation approaches to select appropriate contexts that balance the need of multiple species and ecosystem types (e.g., restoring old, abandoned fields or creating habitat in brownfields or cropland as opposed to clearing forests or other natural ecosystem types). Additional high priority approaches include developing regionally-appropriate Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) that outline: recommendations to reduce habitat loss and degradation and recommendations to reduce impacts related to the agricultural practices that result in mortality of adults and young and the destruction of nests and eggs; prescribed burning and grazing practices to maintain habitat; and managing abandoned farmland. It should be noted that challenges exist with modifying some agricultural practices due to economic losses that could be incurred, and therefore exploration and support of incentive programs is identified as a high priority recovery approach. It will be necessary to work with provincial governments, Indigenous organizations, individual landowners, municipalities, and others to ensure the adoption of BMPs in habitat management and land use planning. Several provinces have established Environmental Farm Plan programs that could be used to deliver incentive programs and promote the use of BMPs.

Monitoring and surveying are needed in areas not well covered by existing programs to determine the size and distribution of the Eastern Meadowlark population and associated habitat, as well as during migration and wintering to determine migration routes and identify threats outside the breeding season. Developing a full life-cycle population model will allow for a better understanding of the seasonal demographic and environmental processes that limit and regulate the population. The demographic parameters (e.g., survival, reproductive rates, migratory connectivity) that are needed to develop the model will help to inform the population and distribution required to achieve a viable, self-sustaining population of the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada (i.e., assess the appropriateness of the population and distribution objective). As migration and wintering habitats are largely outside of Canada, it will be necessary to foster international partnerships and support the efforts of other jurisdictions in mitigating threats, as this will be a key component to recovery in Canada.

7. Critical habitat

Critical habitat is the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of the species. Section 41(1)(c) of SARA requires that the recovery strategy include an identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, as well as examples of activities that are likely to result in its destruction.

The identification of critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark is based on the following criteria: habitat occupancy and biophysical attributes. The critical habitat identified in this recovery strategy is insufficient to meet the population and distribution objectives. A better understanding of the amount and location of critical habitat required to meet the short-term population trend targets (and ultimately the long-term objectives) is necessary to complete the identification of critical habitat. This information is lacking for both the units that currently have some critical habitat identified (e.g., Ontario BCR 12), as well as the ones that do not have any critical habitat identified (e.g., Quebec BCRs 8 and 14, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia BCR 14). Additionally, information to identify stand-alone staging^{Footnote 18}, migration or overwintering habitats (i.e., not also used for breeding) is also lacking. A schedule of studies (section 7.2) has been developed to provide the information necessary to complete the identification of critical habitat.

7.1 Identification of the species’ critical habitat

Areas containing critical habitat

The areas containing critical habitat are assessed using habitat occupancy. Habitat occupancy is intended to identify, with a reasonable degree of certainty, areas used for breeding by the species. Habitat occupancy can be an appropriate indicator of habitat suitability (Bock and Jones 2004).

Habitat occupancy is based on standardized survey data, documented nest locations and incidental observations from various sources (North American Breeding Bird Survey, provincial breeding bird atlases, academic studies, monitoring programs, eBird, etc.). Confirmed breeding records constitute the strongest indication of use; however, because breeding is both difficult to confirm (e.g., finding the actual nest) and can cause disturbance to nesting birds, other levels of breeding evidence are used (i.e., probable and possible breeding; see Appendix B). In addition to individual occurrence records, relative abundance measures are also used to inform habitat occupancy. The two main sources of data for this species are the BBS and provincial breeding bird atlases. Both of these programs provide relative abundance mapping for their respective survey coverage areas (i.e., Canada for the BBS; Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes for the provincial breeding bird atlases). The areas showing congruence of high breeding evidence and high relative abundance are considered to be occupied by the species for the purpose of critical habitat identification. It is noted, however, that this is a partial identification based on the currently available information and additional critical habitat will be identified in other areas of the species’ range (e.g., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia BCR 14 and Quebec BCR 8 and 14) following completion of the schedule of studies (Table 4).

Habitat occupancy was evaluated at two different scales: nationally and within each Province x BCR unit separately. Occupancy was based on either meeting the national criteria or the regional criteria. The following three sources of occupancy data were used: breeding evidence score (2000-2017; see Appendix B), relative abundance based on BBS (2011-2015) and relative abundance based on atlas data (2001-2014), where available. Assessing occupancy at the regional scale (i.e., Province x BCR) supports achieving the distribution objective, and the short-term statement which aims to meet certain population trend targets within each Province x BCR (see Appendix A), while assessing occupancy at the national scale supports the population objective of stabilizing the national population trend. Critical habitat is identified within 10 x 10 km grid squares that meet the occupancy criteria defined below.

The area containing critical habitat is delineated based on the selection of 10 x 10 km grid squares that meet:

National occupancy criteria

Critical habitat is identified within 10 x 10 km grid squares with:

• breeding evidence score of ≥9 (see Appendix B) between 2000 and 2017, and
• relative abundance of ≥12 birds per route per year between 2011 and 2015 based on BBS data^{Footnote 19}, and
• relative abundance of ≥5 birds per 15 point counts^{Footnote 20} between 2001 and 2014 based on atlas data^{Footnote 21} (where available)

Or,

Regional (Province x BCR) occupancy criteria

Critical habitat is identified within 10 x 10 km grid squares with:

• breeding evidence score ≥9 between 2000 and 2017, and
• region-specific relative abundance values^{Footnote 22} for each Province x BCR based on BBS, and
• region-specific relative abundance values for each Province x BCR based on atlas data

Biophysical attributes of critical habitat

Eastern Meadowlarks establish multipurpose breeding territories that are used for mating, nesting, foraging and raising young (Renfrew et al. 2015). Within the areas identified as containing critical habitat, critical habitat is found wherever the biophysical attributes of breeding habitat described below are found.

The biophysical attributes listed below are found within open habitat types generally described as:

• native grasslands (e.g., tall-grass prairie, alvar grasslands, beaver-created meadows, native pasture, grassland restoration sites and grassy peatlands)
• agricultural (or surrogate) grasslands (e.g., hayfields, seeded pastures, and cultural meadows^{Footnote 23} and abandoned fields^{Footnote 24})

The description of biophysical attributes below is based on published literature (Schroeder and Sousa 1982, Zimmerman 1992, Bollinger 1995, Hull 2000 [revised 2002], Johnson and Igl 2001, COSEWIC 2011). However, variation in these attributes occurs across the species’ range, and seasonally. The description of attributes represent critical habitat characteristics that would typically be observed during the nesting period (early-May to late-July). The biophysical attributes of critical habitat required by the Eastern Meadowlark for breeding include:

• combined coverage of trees and tall shrubs (over 1 m) is less than 25%, and
• dense grass of moderate height (between 10 and 50 cm) with abundant litter (litter depth of up to 15 cm), and
• high proportion of grass cover (>80% preferred, and not <20%), and
• moderate forb density (∼10-15%), and
• low shrub and woody vegetation (≤1 m) cover (<5% preferred, and not >35%), and
• little bare ground (<10%), not including exposed limestone/rock outcrops naturally characteristic of alvars, and
• presence of song perches for territory defense and advertisement (e.g., scattered trees, shrubs, telephone poles and fence posts), and
• where the above list of attributes is present in contiguous patches ≥5 ha in size

Breeding habitats that are rarely or only occasionally used by Eastern Meadowlarks include small-grain crops (e.g., winter wheat, rye, oats, barley) and stubble or fallow fields. These habitat types are not considered to be necessary for the survival or recovery of Eastern Meadowlarks and are not identified as critical habitat. Similarly, row crops, such as corn and soybeans, are not used by the species and are not identified as critical habitat. Unsuitable areas that do not possess any of the attributes required by the Eastern Meadowlark, at any time, are excluded from identification as critical habitat. Examples of these excluded areas include (but are not limited to): running surfaces of existing roads, parking lots and gravel pits, waterbodies, and active aerodrome areas that are, and will continue to be, actively managed to dissuade the Eastern Meadowlark for aviation and public safety purposes.

Critical habitat is identified within 128 – 10 x 10 km grid squares within Canada (Appendix D). An overview map of the areas containing critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark throughout its Canadian range is presented in Figure 3, and detailed maps are included in Appendix E (Figures EA-EG). Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada occurs within the shaded yellow grid squares shown on each map where the critical habitat criteria described in this section are met. Within these grid squares, critical habitat used by the Eastern Meadowlark is dynamic and its location may change annually as affected by the natural and human disturbance mechanisms that create and maintain it. Because of this, Eastern Meadowlarks are not expected to use the exact same locations for breeding year after year, nor is it expected that they will fully saturate available habitat (i.e., more habitat is needed than, for example, 2 ha per breeding pair). Using the precautionary approach, all habitat meeting the biophysical attribute description within occupied grid squares is considered critical habitat. More information on critical habitat to support protection of the species and its habitat may be requested by contacting Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Recovery Planning section at: RecoveryPlanning-Planificationduretablissement@ec.gc.ca.

Figure 3. Overview of the area containing critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada. Critical habitat is represented by the red-outlined 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

7.2 Schedule of studies to identify critical habitat

7.3 Activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat

This subsection of a recovery strategy identifies activities that are likely to cause the destruction of critical habitat and provides information on how these activities impact critical habitat. Destruction of critical habitat is determined on a case-by-case basis. Destruction would result if part of the critical habitat was degraded, either permanently or temporarily, such that it would not serve its function when needed by the species. Destruction may result from single or multiple activities at one point in time or from the cumulative effects of one or more activities over time. Activities described below include those likely to cause destruction of critical habitat for this species; however, destructive activities are not limited to those listed.

Eastern Meadowlarks use native and agricultural grassland habitats to complete their life history functions in Canada. An important component of managing critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada in order to meet the population and distribution objectives will be ensuring there is no further loss of native grasslands, and no net loss of area of agricultural grassland habitats that are required by the species (i.e., within areas identified as critical habitat). The estimated amount of habitat where the biophysical attributes could be present within grid squares for each Province x BCR unit is presented in Appendix F. This amount is estimated based on the Grassland and Pastures/Forages land cover types from the 2019 Annual Crop Inventory (AAFC 2019).

Agricultural grassland habitats used by the Eastern Meadowlark are dynamic and part of a working agricultural landscape. Conversion (temporary or permanent) of existing agricultural grassland habitat (e.g., hayfields) can be replaced or offset within the same or other 10 x 10 km grid squares containing critical habitat in the same Province x BCR unit, ensuring there is no net loss and that the habitat is able to serve its function when required by the species (i.e., habitat is made available prior to the destructive activity). Although an individual or pair may have some fidelity to a particular field over the course of their lifespan, it may not be necessary or feasible (without intense management) for breeding habitat to remain in the same location over time. Activities that result in permanent removal of agricultural grassland habitat may have more effect on the availability of critical habitat than activities that result in a temporary removal of critical habitat; activities that result in a temporary removal of critical habitat have the potential to contribute to the future supply of critical habitat, given proper management.

Periodic disturbance (e.g., mowing, burning or grazing) is often required to maintain open habitats in a suitable condition (e.g., limiting the encroachment of woody vegetation, maintaining vegetation height and structure) and it is recognized that some activities listed in Table 5 can both destroy and promote the biophysical attributes of both native and agricultural grassland habitats.

8. Measuring progress

The performance indicators presented below provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving the population and distribution objectives. Specific progress towards implementing the recovery strategy will be measured against indicators outlined in subsequent action plans.

Population objective

By 2051, a stable^{Footnote 26} Canada-wide population trend is achieved for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada, supporting a population size at 85% of 2017 levels. Thereafter, at a minimum, a stable population trend is maintained.

Distribution objective

The representation of the species in the provinces across the species’ known range in Canada (Figure 1) is maintained.

Short-term statement

By 2031, the Canada-wide population trend for the species is improved by achieving the population trend targets within each Province x Bird Conservation Region (BCR) unit specified in Appendix A (Table A1), supporting a population size at 70% of 2017 levels.

The best long-term dataset for monitoring the population trend of landbirds in Canada is the BBS. BBS data is assessed annually by Environment and Climate Change Canada and will be used to determine the short-term and long-term population trends of breeding Eastern Meadowlarks in Canada. The BBS trends will thus be used for measuring progress towards the population objective and short-term statement. It is recognized that there are short-comings with using the BBS dataset; however, the BBS has the most comprehensive monitoring coverage of the country, as well as a long history stretching back to the late 1960s in some areas of the country. The Eastern Meadowlark’s range in Canada is well-covered by BBS sampling. Population estimates will follow the Partners in Flight (PIF) Population Estimates database and subsequent updates (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2020).

9. Statement on action plans

One or more action plans for the Eastern Meadowlark will be posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry within the five years following the posting of the recovery strategy. This/these will be in addition to the multi-species action plans that have been developed by the Parks Canada Agency that include Eastern Meadowlark.

10. References

AAFC. 1997. Profile of Production Trends and Environmental Issues in Canada's Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Ottawa, ON. 46 pp.

AAFC. 2019. Annual Crop Inventory. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Adams, B. W., G. Ehlert, C. Stone, M. Alexander, D. Lawrence, M. Willoughby, D. Moisey, C. Hincz, A. Burkinshaw, J. Richman, K. France, C. DeMaere, T. Kupsch, T. France, T. Broadbent, L. Blonski, and A. J. Miller. 2016. Rangeland Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and Tame Pasture. AEP. Rangeland Resource Stewardship Section. Edmonton, AB. 124 pp.

Arlettaz, R., P. Christe, A. Lugon, N. Perrin, and P. Vogel. 2001. Food availability dictates the timing of parturition in insectivorous mouse‐eared bats. Oikos 95(1): 105‑111.

Askins, R. A. 1993. Population trends in grassland, shrubland, and forest birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 11: 1-34.

Askins, R. A. 1999. History of grassland birds in eastern North America. Studies in Avian Biology 19: 60-71.

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. Audubon New York, New York. 2 pp.

Baker, D. L. and F. S. Guthery. 1990. Effects of continuous grazing on habitat and density of ground-foraging birds in south Texas. Journal of Range Management 43(1): 2-5.

Beacon Environmental. 2009. Breeding Birds of Open Country Habitat: Description and Challenges (revised draft). Markham, ON. 37 pp.

Bent, A. C. 1958. Life Histories of North American Blackbirds, Orioles, Tanagers and Allies. Smithsonian Institution Press. Dover, NY. 549 pp.

Benton, T. G., D. M. Bryant, L. Cole, and H. Q. P. Crick. 2002. Linking agricultural practice to insect and bird populations: a historical study over three decades. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 673-687.

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.

Blancher, P. J., K. V. Rosenberg, A. O. Panjabi, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, E. H. Dunn, W. Easton, W. C. Hunter, J. A. Iñigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, and T. C. Will. 2007. Guide to the Partners in Flight Population Estimates Database. Version: North American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 5, Partners in Flight Science Committee. 24 pp.

Bock, C. E. and Z. F. Jones. 2004. Avian habitat evaluation: should counting birds count? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2: 403-410.

Bock, C. E., V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 296-309 In D. M. Finch and P. W. Strangel (eds.). Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds, General Technical Report GM-229. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, CO.

Bollinger, E. K. 1995. Successional changes and habitat selection in hayfield bird communities. The Auk 112(3): 720-730.

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.

Bollinger, E. K. and T. A. Gavin. 1992. Eastern Bobolink populations: ecology and conservation in an agricultural landscape. Pages 497-506 In J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington, DC.

Both, C., C. A. Van Turnhout, R. G. Bijlsma, H. Siepel, A. J. Van Strien, and R. P. Foppen. 2009. Avian population consequences of climate change are most severe for long-distance migrants in seasonal habitats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277: 1259-1266.

Brewer, D. A. A., E. J. Woodsworth, B. T. Collins, and E. H. Dunn. 2000. Canadian Atlas of Bird Banding Volume 1: Doves, Cuckoos, and Hummingbirds through Passerines, 1921-1995. Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, ON. 395 pp.

Bright, J. A., A. J. Morris, and R. Winspear. 2008. A Review of Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Birds and Mitigating Land-management Practices. Pesticide Safety Directorate, Bedfordshire, England. 66 pp.

Brooks, M. L., C. M. D'Antonio, D. M. Richardson, J. B. Grace, J. E. Keeley, J. M. DiTomaso, R. J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54(7): 677-688.

Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner (eds.). 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press. Waterloo, ON. 617 pp.

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 and Ecology 8(2): 11.

CanWEA. 2018. Canada'a Current Installed Capacity. Canadian Wind Energy Association, Ottawa, ON. Available: https://canwea.ca/wind-energy/installed-capacity/. [accessed: April 9 2019].

Chamberlain, D. E., R. J. Fuller, R. G. H. Bunce, J. C. Duckworth, and M. Shrubb. 2000. Changes in agriculture of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 771-788.

Corace, R. G., D. J. Flaspohler, and L. M. Shartell. 2009. Geographical patterns in openland cover and hayfield mowing in the Upper Great Lakes region: implications for grassland bird conservation. Landscape Ecology 24: 309-323.

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. vi + 42 pp.

COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna in Canada., Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. x + 40 pp.

Cummings, J. L., D. L. York, K. J. Shively, P. A. Pipas, R. S. Stahl, and J. E. Davis. 2003. Dietary toxicity test for 2% DRC-1339-treated brown rice on nontarget avian species. Pages 79-84 In Management of North American Blackbirds. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Bismarck, ND.

Denison, J. 2003. USA Rice Federation perspectives on the impacts of blackbirds on the rice industry. Page 109 In Management of North Amerian Blackbirds. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Bismarck, ND.

Doherty, K. E., D. W. Howerter, J. H. Devries, and J. Walker. 2018. Prairie Pothole Region of North America. Pages 679-688 In C. M. Finlayson, G. R. Milton, R. C. Prentice, and N. C. Davidson (eds.). The Wetland Book II: Distribution, Description and Conservation. Springer Netherlands.

Donald, P. F., R. E. Green, and M. F. Heath. 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268(1462): 25-29.

Drapeau, P., A. Leduc, B. Jobin, L. Imbeau, and M. Desrochers. 2019. Changes in Habitat and Distribution of Breeding Birds Between the Two Atlases. Pages 35-55 In M. Robert, M.-H. Hachey, D. Lepage, and A. R. Couturier (eds.). Second Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Southern Quebec. Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, Canadian Wildlife Service [Environment and Climate Change Canada] and Bird Studies Canada,. Montreal, QC.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2019. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Wildlife Habitat Capacity on Agricultural Land. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada,. Ottawa, ON. 16 pp.

Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing Limited, Nova Scotia Museum. Halifax, NS. 270 pp.

Federal Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada. 2010. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010 [online]. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. Available: https://biodivcanada.chm-cbd.net/ecosystem-status-trends-2010/canadian-biodiversity-ecosystem-status-and-trends-2010-full-report. [accessed: June 2020].

Fleischner, T. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology 8(3): 629-644.

Forman, R. T., B. Reineking, and A. M. Hersperger. 2002. Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management 29(6): 782-800.

Galatowitsch, S. 2012. Northern Great Plains Wetlands. In D. P. Batzer and A. H. Baldwin (eds.). Wetland Habitats of North America. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.

Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The Birds of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada. Ottawa, ON. 595 pp.

Government of Ontario. 2015. Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark Government Response Statement. Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Peterborough, ON. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/page/bobolink-and-eastern-meadowlark-government-response-statement. [accessed: October 2017].

Government of Ontario. 2021. Neonicotinoid Regulations for Growers. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Peterborough, ON. Available: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/field/news/croptalk/2015/ct-0915a2.htm. [accessed: May 2021].

Granfors, D. A., K. E. Church, and L. M. Smith. 1996. Eastern Meadowlark nesting in rangelands and conservation reserve program fields in Kansas. Journal of Field Ornithology 199(2): 198-204.

Hale, A. M., E. S. Hatchett, J. A. Meyer, and V. J. Bennett. 2014. No evidence of displacement due to wind turbines in grassland birds. The Condor 116(3): 472-483.

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: 341-343.

Hamel, M.-A. and E. Dorf. 2014. Corn: Canada's Third Most Valuable Crop In Canadian Agriculture at a Glance (96-325-X). Statistics Canada. Ottawa, ON. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11913-eng.htm [accessed: October 2017].

Harrington, R., R. A. Fleming, and I. P. Woiwod. 2001. Climate change impacts on insect management and conservation in temperate regions: can they be predicted? Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 233-240.

Hays, R. L. and H. Farmer. 1990. Effects of the CRP on wildlife habitat: emergency haying in the midwest and pine plantings in the southeast. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 55: 30-39.

Health Canada. 2014. Update on Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Bee Health. Health Canada, Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Health Canada. Ottawa, ON. 18 pp.

Health Canada. 2019a. Re-evaluation Decision RVD2019-04, Thiamethoxam and Its Associated End-use Products: Pollinator Re-evaluation. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/reevaluation-decision/2019/thiamethoxam.html. [accessed: June 2020].

Health Canada. 2019b. Re-evaluation Decision RVD2019-05, Clothianidin and Its Associated End-use Products: Pollinator Re-evaluation. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/reevaluation-decision/2019/clothianidin.html. [accessed: June 2020].

Health Canada. 2019c. Re-evaluation Decision RVD2019-06, Imidacloprid and Its Associated End-use Products: Pollinator Re-evaluation. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/reevaluation-decision/2019/imidacloprid.html. [accessed: June 2020].

Herkert, J. R. 1991. Prairie birds of Illinois: population response to two centuries of habitat change. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 34(39): 393-399.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4(3): 461-471.

Herkert, J. R. 1997. Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus population decline in agricultural landscapes in the midwestern USA. Biological Conservation 80: 107-112.

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): 587-594.

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): 1-8.

Hill, J. M. and R. B. Renfrew. 2018. Migratory patterns and connectivity of two North American grassland bird species. Ecology and Evolution 9: 680-692.

Hladik, M. L., D. W. Kolpin, and K. M. Kuivila. 2014. Widespread occurrence of neonicotinoid insecticides in streams in a high corn and soybean producing region, USA. Environmental Pollution 193: 189-196.

Hofmann, N., G. Filoso, and M. Schofield. 2005. The loss of dependable agricultural land in Canada. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin 6(1): 1-16.

Horn, D. J. and R. R. Koford. Could the area-sensitivity of some grassland birds be affected by landscape composition? Pages 109-116 In The North American Prairie Conference. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI.

Hull, S. D. 2000 [revised 2002]. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Eastern Meadowlark. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND. 35 pp.

Hyde, D. and S. Campbell. 2012. Agricultural Practices That Conserve Grassland Birds. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension, Michigan. 21 pp.

James, R. D. 1991. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Ontario. Second Edition. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, ON. 128 pp.

Jaster, L. A., W. E. Jensen, and W. E. Lanyon. 2020. Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), version 1.0. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available: https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.easmea.01. [accessed: August 2020].

Javorek, S. K., M. C. Grant, and S. Fillmore. 2016. Wildlife Habitat. Pages 64-73 In R. L. Clearwater, T. Martin, and T. Hoppe (eds.). Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture, Agri-Environmental Indicator Report Series - Report #4. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Jenks, G. F. 1967. The data model concept in statistical mapping. International Yearbook of Cartography 7: 186-190.

Jobin, B., J.-L. DesGranges, and C. Boutin. 1996. Population trends in selected species of farmland birds in relation to recent developments in agriculture in the St. Lawrence Valley. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 57: 103-116.

Jobin, B., C. Latendresse, A. Baril, C. Maisonneuve, C. Boutin, and D. Côté. 2014. A half-century of landscape dynamics in southern Quebec, Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186: 2215-2229.

Jobin, B., C. Latendresse, M. Grenier, C. Maisonneuve, and A. Sebbane. 2010. Recent landscape change at the ecoregion scale in Southern Quebec (Canada), 1993-2001. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 164: 631-647.

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

Johnson, R. G. and S. A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie birds. The Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 106-111.

Jones, G., D. S. Jacobs, T. H. Kunz, M. R. Willig, and P. A. Racey. 2009. Carpe noctem: the importance of bats as bioindicators. Endangered Species Research 8(1-2): 93-115.

Jordan, N. R., D. L. Larson, and S. C. Huerd. 2008. Soil modification by invasive plants: effects on native and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biological Invasions 10(2): 177-190.

Kershner, E. L., J. W. Walk, and R. E. Warner. 2004. Breeding-season decisions, renesting, and annual fecundity of female Eastern Meadowlarks (Sturnella magna) in Southeastern Illinois. The Auk 121(3): 796-805.

Knapp, A. K., P. A. Fay, J. M. Blair, S. L. Collins, M. D. Smith, J. D. Carlisle, C. W. Harper, B. T. Danner, M. S. Lett, and J. K. McCarron. 2002. Rainfall variability, carbon cycling and plant species diversity in a mesic grassland. Science 298: 2202‑2205.

Koper, N., K. E. Mozel, and D. C. Henderson. 2010. Recent declines in northern tall‑grass prairies and effects of patch structure on community persistence. Biological Conservation 143: 220-229.

Krutzsch, P. H. 1950. Mortality in meadowlarks as a result of severe winter weather. The Wilson Bulletin 62(1): 40.

Kyle, J. and R. Reid. 2016. Farming with Grassland Birds: A Guide to Making Your Hay and Pasture Bird Friendly. Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Ontario. 21 pp.

Lamoureux, S. and C. Dion. 2019. Recommendation Guide – Habitat Management Practices for the Protection of Farmland Birds – 2nd Edition Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, Montreal, QC. 197 pp.

Lanyon, W. E. 1956. Territory in the meadowlarks, genus Sturnella. Ibis 98: 485-489.

Lanyon, W. E. 1957. The comparative biology of the meadowlarks (Sturnella) in Wisconsin. Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club Number 1, Cambridge, MA. 66 pp.

Leckie, S. 2007. Eastern Meadowlark. Pages 590-591 In M. D. Cadman, D. A. Sutherland, G. G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A. R. Couturier (eds.). 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, ON.

Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. L. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and M. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: Fisrt Approximation and Its Application. SCSS Field Guide FG-02 Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, ON. 225 pp.

Littlejohns, J., L. Rehmann, R. Murdy, A. Oo, and S. Neill. 2018. Current state and future prospects for liquid biofuels in Canada. Biofuel Research Journal 17: 759-779.

Lowther, P. E. 2020. Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/bnhcow/cur/distribution. [accessed: June 2020].

Martin, S. G. and T. A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink In The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Available: [accessed: January 2015].

Master, L. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A. Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 64 pp.

McCracken, J. D., R. A. Reid, R. B. Renfrew, B. Frei, J. V. Jalava, A. Cowie, and A. R. Couturier. 2013. Recovery Strategy for the Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) in Ontario. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. viii + 86 pp.

Mineau, P., C. M. Downes, D. A. Kirk, E. Bayne, and M. Csizy. 2005. Patterns of bird species abundance in relation to granular insecticide use in the Canadian prairies. Ecoscience 12: 267-278.

Mineau, P. and M. Whiteside. 2006. Cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides: Lethal risk to birds from insecticide use in the United States - a spatial and temporal analysis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(5): 1214-1222.

NABCI. n.d. Bird Conservation Regions. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, Washington, DC. Available: http://nabci-us.org/resources/bird-conservation-regions/. [accessed: April 4 2018].

National Audubon Society. 2010. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online]. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. Available: http://www.christmasbirdcount.org [accessed: January 2019].

National Audubon Society. n.d. Guide to North American Birds - Eastern Meadowlark. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. Available: https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/eastern-meadowlark. [accessed: August 2021].

NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Explorer [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available: https://explorer.natureserve.org/. [accessed: August 2020].

Nauen, R. and I. Denholm. 2005. Resistence of insect pests to neonicotinoid insecticides: current status and future prospects. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 28: 200-215.

Nocera, J. J., G. Forbes, and G. R. Milton. 2007. Habitat relationships of three grassland breeding bird species: broadscale comparisons and hayfield management implications. Avian Conservation and Ecology-Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 2: 7.

Nocera, J. J., G. J. Parsons, G. R. Milton, and A. H. Fredeen. 2005. Compatibility of delayed cutting regime with bird breeding and hay nutritional quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 107(2-3): 245-253.

NRCan. 2018. Bioenergy Systems. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON. Available: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/renewable-electricity/bioenergy-systems/7311. [accessed: January 9 2019].

O'Leary, C. H. and D. W. Nyberg. 2000. Treelines between fields reduce the density of grassland birds. Natural Areas Journal 20: 243-249.

Ochterski, J. 2006. Hayfield Management and Grassland Bird Conservation. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County, NY. 7 pp.

Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2020. Population Estimates Database. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, CO. Available: https://pif.birdconservancy.org/population-estimates-database/. [accessed: July 2020].

Patten, M. A., E. Shochat, D. L. Reinking, D. H. Wolfe, and S. K. Sherrod. 2006. Habitat edge, land management, and rates of brood parasitism in tallgrass prairie. Ecological Applications 16(2): 687-695.

Peck, G. K. and R. D. James. 1987. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 2: Passerines Edition. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, ON. 387 pp.

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

Peterjohn, B. G. 1991. The birds of Ohio. The Wilson Bulletin 103(1): 157-159.

Phillips, R. P., L. Brandt, P. D. Polly, P. Zollner, M. R. Saunders, K. Clay, L. Iverson, and S. Fei. 2019. An integrated assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on Indiana forests. Climatic Change: 1-15.

Pipas, P. A., J. L. Cummings, J. D. Eisemann, and R. M. Engeman. 2003. Nontarget bird use of DRC-1339 bait sites during operational baiting programs in Louisiana and Texas. Pages 71-78 In Management of North American Blackbirds. National Wildlife Research Center. Bismarck, ND.

Potts, G. R. 1986. The Partridge: Pesticides, Predation and Conservation. Collins Profession and Technical. London, England. 274 pp.

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.

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 23(2): 420‑432.

Renfrew, R. B., K. A. Peters, J. R. Herkert, K. R. VanBeek, and T. Will. 2019. A Full Life Cycle Conservation Plan for Bobolink. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 216 pp.

Renfrew, R. B. and C. A. Ribic. 2008. Multi-scale models of grassland passerine abundance in a fragmented system in Wisconsin. Landscape Ecology 23: 181-193.

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: 618-636.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, J. A. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2004. North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 37 pp.

Ridgely, R. S., T. F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D. K. McNicol, D. W. Mehlman, B. E. Young, and J. R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. Nature Serve, Arlington, VA. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/digital-distribution-maps-birds-western-hemisphere. [accessed: August 20 2015].

Riley, J. L. 2013. The Once and Future Great Lakes Country: An Ecological History. McGill-Queen's University Press. Kingston, ON. 516 pp.

Robert, M., M.-H. Hachey, D. Lepage, and A. R. Couturier (eds.). 2019. Second Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Southern Quebec. Regroupement QuebecOiseaux, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Bird Studies Canada. Quebec, QC. 720 pp.

Rodgers, R. D. 1983. Reducing wildlife losses to tillage in fallow wheat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1): 31-38.

Root, T. 1988. Atlas of Wintering North American Birds - An Analysis of Christmas Bird Count Data. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 336 pp.

Roseberry, J. L. and W. D. Klimstra. 1970. The nesting ecology and reproductive performance of the Eastern Meadowlark. The Wilson Bulletin 82: 243-267.

Rousseu, F. and B. Drolet. 2015. Prediction of the nesting phenology of birds in Canada. Bird Studies Canada. Available: https://www.birdscanada.org/apps/rnest/index.jsp. [accessed: August 2020].

Ruiz, J. and G. Domon. 2005. Les paysages de l'agriculture en mutation. Pages 47-97 In P. Poullaouec-Gonidec, G. Domon, and S. Paquette (eds.). Paysages en perspective. Presses de l’université de Montréal, série « Paysages ». Montréal, QC.

Saab, V. A., C. E. Bock, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North America. Pages 311-353 In T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch (eds.). Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: A Synthesis and Review of Critical Issues. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.

Sample, D. W. and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide for Wisconsin. Publication No. SS-925-97, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 154 pp.

Sample, D. W. and M. J. Mossman. 2007. Two centuries of changes in grassland bird populations and their habitat in Wisconsin. Pages 301-328 In D. M. Waller and T. P. Rooney (eds.). The Vanishing Present: Wisconsin's Changing Lands, Waters and Wildlife. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.

Sample, G. B. and R. M. Hoffman. 1989. Birds of dry-mesic and dry prairies in Wisconsin. Passenger Pigeon 51(2): 195-208.

Sanderson, M. A., S. C. Goslee, and J. B. Cropper. 2005. Pasture assessment in the northeast United States. Forage and Grazinglands Online: doi:10.1094/FG-2005-1031-01-RS.

Saunders, G. B. 1932. A taxonomic revision of the meadowlarks of the genus Sturnella (Vieillot) and the natural history of the Eastern Meadowlark, Sturnella magna (Linnaeus). Ph. D. Thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Schroeder, R. L. and P. J. Sousa. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Eastern Meadowlark. U. S. D. o. t. I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO. 9 pp.

Skinner, R. M. 1975. Grassland use patterns and prairie bird populations in Missouri. Pages 171-180 In M. K. Wali (ed.). Prairie: A Multiple View. University of North Dakota Press. Grand Forks, ND.

Smith, A. C., M.-A. R. Hudson, V. Aponte, and C. M. Francis. 2019. North American Breeding Bird Survey - Canadian Trends Website, Data-version 2017. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, QC. Available: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/breeding-bird-survey-results. [accessed: July 2019].

Smith, A. C., M.-A. R. Hudson, V. Aponte, and C. M. Francis. unpubl. data. North American Breeding Bird Survey - Canadian Trends Website, Data-version 2019. E. a. C. C. Canada. Gatineau, QC.

Statistics Canada. 2012. Snapshot of Canadian Agriculture In Farm and Farm Operator Data (95-640-X). Statistics Canada. Ottawa, ON. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-640-x/2011001/ha-fsa-eng.htm [accessed: November 2017].

Statistics Canada. 2013. Human Activity and the Environment: Measuring Ecosystem Good and Services in Canada In Methodological Guide: Canadian System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (16-509-x). Statistics Canada. Ottawa, ON. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-201-x/16-201-x2013000-eng.htm [accessed: November 2017].

Statistics Canada. 2017a. Table 001-0010: Estimated Areas, Yield, Production and Average Farm Prices of Principal Field Crops, in Metric Units. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON. Available: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=0010010&&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=-1&tabMode=dataTable&csid=. [accessed: May 11, 2017].

Statistics Canada. 2017b. Table 003-0032: Number of Cattle by Class and Farm Type. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON. Available: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=0030032&&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=-1&tabMode=dataTable&csid=. [accessed: May 11, 2017].

Stewart, R. L. M., K. A. Bredin, A. R. Couturier, A. G. Horn, D. Lepage, S. Makepeace, P. D. Taylor, M.-A. Villard, and B. M. Whittam (eds.). 2015. Second Atlas of the Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Natural History Society of Prince Edward Island, Nature New Brunswick, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, Nova Scotia Bird Society, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Sackville, NB. 528 pp.

SWA. n.d. Managing Crested Wheatgrass in Native Grassland. Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Regina, SK.

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.

The Couchiching Conservancy. n.d. Managing Hay and Pasture to Benefit Grassland Birds: A Preliminary Guide for Carden Landowners. The Couchiching Conservancy, Orillia, ON. 7 pp.

Troy, A. R., A. M. Strong, S. C. Bosworth, T. M. Donovan, N. J. Buckley, and M. L. Wilson. 2005. Attitudes of Vermont dairy farmers regarding adoption of management practices for grassland songbirds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 528-538.

USDA-NRCS. 2010. Management Considerations for Grassland Birds in Northeastern Haylands and Pasturelands. Wildlife Insight No. 88, Wildlife Insight, Washington, DC. 7 pp.

Vickery, P. D. 1993. Habitat selection of grassland birds in Maine. Ph. D. University of Maine, Orono, ME.

Vickery, P. D., J. R. Herkert, F. L. Knopf, J. M. Ruth, and C. E. Keller. 2000. Grassland birds: an overview of threats and recommended management strategies. Pages 74-77 In Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process, Proceedings of the Third Partners in Flight Workshop. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Cape May, NJ.

Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter Jr., and S. M. Melvin. 1994. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. Conservation Biology 8(4): 1087-1097.

Vickery, P. D., P. L. Tubaro, J. M. Cardosa da Silva, B. G. Peterjohn, J. R. Herkert, and R. B. Cavalcant. 1999. Conservation of grassland birds in the Western Hemisphere. Pages 2-26 In P. D. Vickery and J. R. Herkert (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of Grassland Birds of the Western Hemisphere. Cooper Ornithological Society. Camarillo, CA.

Wang, H., T. N. McCraig, R. M. DePauw, F. R. Clarke, and J. M. Clarke. 2002. Physiological characteristics of recent Canada western red spring wheat cultivars: yield components and dry matter production. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 82(2): 299‑306.

Warren, K. A. and J. T. Anderson. 2005. Grassland songbird nest-site selection and response to mowing in West Virginia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 285-292.

Watmough, M. D. and M. J. Schmoll. 2007. Environment Canada's Prairie and Northern Region Habitat Monitoring Program Phase II: Recent Trends in the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. Edmonton, AB. 135 pp.

Wiens, J. A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships among grassland birds. Ornithological Monographs 8: 1-93.

Will, T., J. C. Stanton, K. V. Rosenberg, A. O. Panjabi, A. Camfield, A. Shaw, W. E. Thogmartin, and P. J. Blancher. 2020. Handbook to the Partners in Flight Population Estimates Database, Version 3.1. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 6. Partners in Flight Science Committee. 16 pp.

Wilson, W. H. J. 2007. Spring arrival dates of migratory breeding birds in Maine: sensitivity to climate change. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119(4): 665-677.

Winter, M. 1998. Effect of habitat fragmentation on grassland-nesting birds in southwestern Missouri. Ph. D. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Winter, M. and J. Faaborg. 1999. Patterns of area sensitivity in grassland-nesting birds. Conservation Biology 13(6): 1424-1436.

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(12): 3152‑3167.

World Wildlife Fund. 2020. Plowprint Report. World Wildlife Fund, Northern Great Plains Program,, Bozeman, MT 4 pp.

Yarborough, D. E. and P. C. Bhowmik. 1993. Lowbush blueberry-bunchberry competition. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 118(1): 54-62.

Zimmerling, J. R., A. C. Pomeroy, M. V. d'Entremont, and C. M. Francis. 2013. Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 10.

Zimmerman, J. L. 1992. Density-independent factors affecing the avian diversity of the tallgrass prairie community. The Wilson Bulletin 104(1): 85-94.

Appendix A: Short-term population trend targets for Province x BCR units

^a Breeding Bird Survey trend estimates are from the 2007-2017 period (Smith et al. 2019), which was the most recent set of analyses available at the time the objectives were developed.

^b Deviations to the population trend targets can be accommodated within each province provided the overall objective of improving the Canada-wide population trend is maintained.

Appendix B: Breeding evidence score

Breeding evidence score was calculated by assigning a value of 1, 2 or 3 to each occurrence record representing possible, probable or confirmed breeding, respectively, within a breeding season. Occurrence records used spanned the time period from 2000 to 2017 from various sources (North American Breeding Bird Survey, provincial breeding bird atlases, academic studies, monitoring programs, eBird, etc.). Values were summed within each 10 x 10 km atlas grid square to generate a breeding evidence score for each square. Records from the same location and date were removed as duplicates. Only records from the month of June were used to improve the likelihood that observations represented breeding activity. In some cases, dependence among samples was considered; for example, two possible breeding records from the same location, a week or more apart, were able to be assigned as a single probable breeding record through application of the permanent territory (T) code.

For the purposes of evaluating habitat occupancy to support critical habitat identification, a grid square with a breeding evidence score of nine or greater between 2000 and 2017 was used. At its base, a score of nine represents three confirmed breeding records, which was supported by the technical working group as an indication of areas used for breeding over time. A breeding evidence score of nine could also be represented by the following combination of records, as examples:

• nine possible breeding records (9 records x 1)
• four probable breeding records (4 records x 2) and one possible breeding record (1 record x 1)
• two confirmed breeding records (2 records x 3), one probable breeding record (1 record x 2) and one possible breeding record (1 record x 1)
• three confirmed breeding records (3 records x 3)

The level of evidence needed to establish breeding occupancy is based on standards used for the Ontario and Quebec Breeding Bird Atlases (Cadman et al. 1987, Robert et al. 2019) as identified below:

Possible breeding

• species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat (H)
• singing male(s) present, or breeding calls heard, in suitable nesting habitat in breeding season (S)

Probable breeding

• pair observed during the breeding season in suitable nesting habitat (P)
• permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial song on at least two days, a week or more apart (in the same breeding season), at the same place (T)
• courtship or display between a male and a female or two males, including chasing, flight displays, feeding or copulation (D)
• visiting probable nest site (V)
• agitated behaviour or repeated anxiety calls of an adult (A)
• brood patch on adult female or cloacal protuberance on adult male (B)
• nest building or excavation of a nest hole (N)
• at least seven individuals singing or producing other sounds associated with breeding (e.g., calls or drumming), heard during the same visit to a single square in suitable nesting habitat during the species’ breeding season (M)

Confirmed breeding

• adult carrying nest material (CN)
• distraction display or injury feigning (DD)
• used nest or egg shells found (NU)
• recently fledged young, including young incapable of sustained flight (FY)
• Adult leaving or entering nest sites in circumstances indicating occupied nest (AE)
• adult carrying faecal sac (FS)
• adult carrying food for young (CF)
• nest containing eggs or young, or a recently used empty nest (NE)
• nest with young seen or heard (NY)

Appendix C: Regional relative abundance cut-offs

Appendix D: Grid squares containing critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada

* For grid squares that overlap provincial borders, province is assigned to the province with the greater proportion of the square.

Appendix E: Critical habitat maps for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada

Figure E. Indexed overview of the area containing critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Canada (same as Figure 3 but with black index blocks that correspond to the following series of maps). Critical habitat is represented by the red-outlined 10 x 10 km UTM grid square unit(s); critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EA. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 13 in Ontario is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EB. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 13 in Ontario is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EC. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 12 and 13 in Ontario is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure ED. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 12 in Ontario is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EE. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 12 and 13 in Ontario is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EF. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 12 and 13 in Ontario is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EG. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 12 and 13 in Ontario is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EH. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 12 and 13 along the Ontario/Quebec border is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EI. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 12 and 13 along the Ontario/Quebec border is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Figure EJ. Critical habitat for the Eastern Meadowlark in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 13 along the Ontario/Quebec border is represented by the shaded yellow 10 x 10 km UTM grid square units; critical habitat occurs within these units where the biophysical attributes described in section 7.1 are met.

Appendix F: Estimated amount of habitat within Province x BCR Units with critical habitat identified

Appendix G: Effects on the environment and other species

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals^{Footnote 27}. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any component of the environment or any of The Federal Sustainable Development Strategy’s^{Footnote 28} (FSDS) goals and targets.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

Recovery activities that protect large tracts of native and agricultural grassland for the Eastern Meadowlark will benefit the environment in general and are expected to positively affect a number of other species from a variety of taxa requiring similar habitats, including many species at risk (Table G1). However, there could be consequences to those species whose habitat requirements differ from the Eastern Meadowlark (e.g., forest bird species). Therefore, it is important that stewardship and habitat management activities for the Eastern Meadowlark be considered from an ecosystem perspective through the development, with input from responsible jurisdictions, of multi-species plans, ecosystem-based recovery programs or area management plans that take into account the needs of multiple species, including other species at risk, and other biodiversity goals (e.g., increasing forest cover).

Table G1. List of species at risk that are expected to benefit from recovery activities for the Eastern Meadowlark

Common name	Scientific name	COSEWIC status	SARA status
American Badger, jacksoni subspecies	Taxidea taxus jacksoni	Endangered	Endangered
Barn Owl, Eastern population	Tyto alba	Endangered	Endangered
Barn Swallow	Hirundo rustica	Special Concern	Threatened
Bobolink	Dolichonyx oryzivorus	Threatened	Threatened
Climbing Prairie Rose	Rosa setigera	Special Concern	Special Concern
Colicroot	Aletris farinosa	Endangered	Threatened
Common Nighthawk	Chordeiles minor	Special Concern	Threatened
Dense Blazing Star	Liatris spicata	Threatened	Threatened
Eastern Foxsnake, Carolinian population	Pantherophis gloydi	Endangered	Endangered
Eastern Foxsnake, Great Lakes / St. Lawrence population	Pantherophis gloydi	Endangered	Endangered
Eastern Persius Duskywing	Erynnis persius	Endangered	Endangered
Gattinger’s Agalinis	Agalinis gattingeri	Endangered	Endangered
Golden-winged Warbler	Vermivora chrysoptera	Threatened	Threatened
Grasshopper Sparrow, pratensis subspecies	Ammodramus savannarum pratensis	Special Concern	Special Concern
Henslow’s Sparrow	Ammodramus henslowii	Endangered	Endangered
Hill’s Thistle	Cirsium hillii	Threatened	Threatened
Loggerhead Shrike, migrans subspecies	Lanius ludovicianus migrans	Endangered	Endangered
Massasauga, Carolinian population	Sistrurus catenatus	Endangered	Endangered
Massasauga, Great Lakes / St. Lawrence population	Sistrurus catenatus	Threatened	Threatened
Eastern Milksnake	Lampropeltis triangulum	Special Concern	Special Concern
Monarch	Danaus plexippus	Endangered	Special Concern
Northern Bobwhite	Colinus virginianus	Endangered	Endangered
Pink Milkwort	Polygala incarnate	Endangered	Endangered
Red-headed Woodpecker	Melanerpes erythrocephalus	Endangered	Endangered
Rusty-patched Bumble Bee	Bombus affinis	Endangered	Endangered
Short-eared Owl	Asio flammeus	Threatened	Special Concern
Skinner’s Agalinis	Agalinis skinneriana	Endangered	Endangered
Slender Bush-clover	Lespedeza virginica	Endangered	Endangered
Small White Lady’s‑slipper	Cypripedium candidum	Threatened	Endangered
Small-mouthed Salamander	Ambystoma texanum	Endangered	Endangered
Western Silvery Aster	Symphyotrichum sericeum	Threatened	Threatened
White Prairie Gentian	Gentiana alba	Endangered	Endangered
Willowleaf Aster	Symphyotrichum praealtum	Threatened	Threatened